Debra Burlingame

9/11, Cordoba House, Debra Burlingame, Ground Zero, Imam Rauf, World Trade Center

Planned Ground Zero mosque imam wants sharia law in America

by  • 

The ‘Cordoba Initiative’ has announced plans to build a $100-million plus mosque overlooking Ground Zero at the World Trade Center. Its leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, says it “will serve as the platform to launch a broader vision of Muslim-West harmony and interdependence.” As he has made clear, Rauf supports supplementing our Constitution by making sharia law optional — optional at least for now — for Muslims living here in America. Debra Burlingame and Robert Spencer discussed this last night on-air with Sean Hannity:

View text transcript of video here

Before their sparing any semblance of investigative reporting, the editors at the New York Daily News expressed their support this morning for a Muslim “cultural center” within Ground Zero’s kill zone. Missing from their editorial is an explanation of Rauf repeatedly stating “300 Muslims were killed on 9/11.” To be fair, even they dispute his saying “This is not a mosque.”

“A plan to build a mosque and Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero has unleashed a virulent and un-American wave of religious intolerance. As a fundamental matter of principle, houses of worship are welcome in New York. Whether they be churches, synagogues, temples or mosques, whether they be modest storefronts or soaring cathedrals, they have a home here. Islam included – and even downtown. There is no doubt that many in this country distrust the religion that was twisted malignantly into the force behind 9/11. And some, in blind ignorance, hate. Among those are Mark Williams, the Tea Party leader, who attacked the concept of a mosque near Ground Zero by describing Islam and the Prophet Muhammed in the most repugnant terms. … A new 13-story building, named Cordoba House, would include a mosque, classrooms, a fitness center and pool, as well as a theater. It was modeled after the 92nd St. Y, which has both a community center and prayer space. … In fact, Cordoba House is two blocks away. Had it been closer, the point would be the same: All religions have equal rights.”

The news side of the News might try looking into whether Rauf agrees with their editors. They would soon discover that, to his way of thinking, one religion is more equal than others. Here is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, in his own words, after Christian churches were firebombed and angry protests took place in Malaysia this past January:

“Most recently that anger has surfaced in Malaysia, where 60% of the people are Malays. The High Court’s ruling that Allah is not exclusive to Muslims led to the fire bombing of some churches and protests among Malays, who fear Catholics are trying to manipulate the word to win Malay converts. This should not be. Islam and Christianity are at their roots religions of peace and tolerance. A certain amount of competition will always exist among religions. Good competition is to compete in good works. Bad competition is trying to undermine the other faith. To live harmoniously in that competition requires everyone to understand the consequences of their actions. My message to the Christian community in Malaysia is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative.”

So, regardless of the laws of that land, Imam Rauf believes the minority Christians in Malaysia brought the attacks upon themselves. (Concerning 9/11 and provocation, back in 2001 Rauf told 60 Minutes, “[U.S.] policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”) Rauf ended his advice with an inside glimpse of his “broader vision” for America:

“Our model should be the Prophet Muhammad when he worshipped [sic] in Mecca before Islam had taken hold. He did not pray the noon and afternoon prayers in a loud voice lest that would incite anger of the unbelievers.”

Frankly, we have not read and do not care what Mark Williams allegedly said or wrote; what the News’ problem is with him is their problem, not ours.

What I and many others are opposed to is a sharia-compliant anything — mosque, prayer center, or cultural center — anywhere within sight or sound of where sharia-compliant Muslims destroyed 2,752 people and took away their equal rights forever, including the rights and lives of 22 (non-hijacker) innocent Muslims.

——

Notes —

The original Malaysian title for Imam Rauf’s book was ‘A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Da’wah From the Heart of America Post-9/11’. Robert Spencer explains:

“Da’wah is Islamic proselytizing. And in the Islamic law, da’wah precedes jihad. You call the nonbelievers to Islam. And if they refuse to accept it, then you initiate the jihad against them. But the whole goal of both da’wah and jihad is to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the nonbelievers as a political system, not as a religious one.”

The full Community Board 1 of lower Manhattan will meet at 6 PM on May 25, 2010, at the Three-Legged Dog (a theater group’s headquarters) at 80 Greenwich Street to review and vote on the plans for the ‘Cordoba House.’

9/11, Barack Obama, Debra Burlingame, Eric Holder, Greg Craig, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, KSM, Military Commissions

Disingenuous Durbin; AG Eric Holder helps Senator mislead about KSM death penalty

by  • 

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 conspirators attempted to plead guilty, Army Colonel Steve Henley, the judge presiding over the pretrial hearing, was not sure if the Military Commissions Act allowed him to impose the death penalty. That was the reason KSM withdrew his offer. Henley asked for legal briefs from the parties yet the military commissions were shut down before he could rule and the resulting appeals to the D.C. Circuit could take place. Facts be damned, this has become a Democrat talking point.

During last Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, there was this exchange:

SENATOR RICHARD DURBIN: I want to make it clear that I am not creating or trying to cast any kind of negative impression about military commissions … Is it not true though that under the procedural rules of military commissions there are some limitations compared to Article III courts, for example, when it comes to capital offenses?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Yes. In an Article III court, a person can plead guilty to a capital offense; that is not allowed in a military commission.

DURBIN: There would have to be, in fact, some trial even if they wanted to plead guilty under those circumstances. [slide video to 1 hour 14 minutes]

Beyond disingenuous, former White House Counsel Greg Craig is quoted in the Harvard Law Review from an April 6 interview:

[Craig] also noted that support for military commissions is particularly surprising in light of the fact that they are not allowed to sentence detainees to capital punishment. “If you care about capital punishment for KSM and these individuals, then you would support what Eric Holder recommended.”

The MCA authorizes the death penalty.

As Debra Burlingame points out, Congress could clear up any ambiguity by amending the statute. She adds:

“Why would anyone who supports an Article III capital plea vote against it? The defendant wants to plead guilty. Also, the plea allocution in military court is way, way more extensive than in civilian court. Remember Richard Reid’s famous plea allocution (where the judge famously said, “you’re no warrior”), that took less than an hour. Military court takes days. They get every little last detail on the record. The judge will ask KSM all the kinds of questions that would have formulated the evidence in a full prosecution at trial.”

The Obama administration unsuccessfully tried running this sham past her last year:

“When I was at the DOJ meeting with families last June, [a senior official on the DOJ’s Guantanamo Task Force] tried to tell families that KSM could not be executed with an MCA guilty plea and I called him on that misstatement. I said, wait a minute, that it was an ambiguous statute, the judge asked for briefs, and the case was suspended without an answer, but that Congress could cure the problem. [The senior official] was red-faced, and admitted I was right.”

The MCA says a judge in an military commission can make a finding of guilty without the panel voting:

“Sec. 949i. Pleas of the accused

“(a) Entry of Plea of Not Guilty.–If an accused in a military commission under this chapter after a plea of guilty sets up matter inconsistent with the plea, or if it appears that the accused has entered the plea of guilty through lack of understanding of its meaning and effect, or if the accused fails or refuses to plead, a plea of not guilty shall be entered in the record, and the military commission shall proceed as though the accused had pleaded not guilty.
“(b) Finding of Guilt After Guilty Plea.–With respect to any charge or specification to which a plea of guilty has been made by the accused in a military commission under this chapter and accepted by the military judge, a finding of guilty of the charge or specification may be entered immediately without a vote. The finding shall constitute the finding of the commission unless the plea of guilty is withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence, in which event the proceedings shall continue as though the accused had pleaded not guilty.
…
“Sec. 949m. Number of votes required

“(a) Conviction.–No person may be convicted by a military commission under this chapter of any offense, except as provided in section 949i(b) of this title or by concurrence of two-thirds of the members present at the time the vote is taken.
“(b) Sentences.–
(1) No person may be sentenced by a military commission to suffer death, except insofar as–
“(A) the penalty of death is expressly authorized under this chapter or the law of war for an offense of which the accused has been found guilty;
“(B) trial counsel expressly sought the penalty of death by filing an appropriate notice in advance of trial;
“(C) the accused is convicted of the offense by the concurrence of all the members present at the time the vote is taken; and
“(D) all the members present at the time the vote is taken concur in the sentence of death.

The MCA also says:

“No person may be sentenced to life imprisonment, or to confinement for more than 10 years, by a military commission under this chapter except by the concurrence of three-fourths of the members present at the time the vote is taken.”

It is reasonable to suggest that a judge can accept a guilty plea and impose those sentences without the concurrence by three-fourths of the panel.

It follows that a judge could also impose the death penalty for capital offenses subsequent to a guilty plea; there has been no ruling to the contrary and Holder and Durbin both know it. With no law on the books against their casting “negative impression[s] about military commissions,” they will go on misinforming until the American people vote them out of office (and off C-SPAN). It is punishment enough that Craig has been reduced to misinforming President Obama’s old newspaper.