Alaska: Why is anti-Muslim Hater Pamela Geller Allowed in
front of Legislature?
01 April 2011By Juan Cole
I would ask Alaska to keep Pamela, but one more
crazy lady is just too much to wish upon a state.
Pamela "kookoo for Cocoa Puffs" Geller is bragging
that she will be testifying in favor of an anti-Sharia'
bill in Alaska where the Mooslim hordes are
around100-200 strong. Don't-chya-know the Mooslims had
the temerity to open up Alaska's first mosque a few
months ago!!
Pamela writes,
Heads up — I will be testifying in favor of anti-sharia
legislation, HB88 Alaska onWednesday the 30th at 1 PM
AST (that's 2 PM West coast and 5 PM East coast). Tune
in to the live feed at: http://www.alaskalegislature.tv/
Use Of Foreign Law Sponsored by Rep.
Carl Gatto Co-Sponsors: Rep. Bob Lynn,Rep. Wes Keller
Alaskan legislators are not only misguided in their
choice of Geller as a speaker but they are complicit
in her hate because they are essentially giving
validity to a person and her organization (SIOA) that
has been labeled a hate group by the SPLC.
Instead of focusing on real threats to Alaska, like
Global Warming, or Separatists and militants (five of
which were arrested for attempting to kidnap and
murder state troopers), officials are battling the
good old fight against non-existing threats.
Nice way to deflect from real
problems plaguing Alaska!
Right-Wing Media Attacked Muslim Advocates for Giving
Muslims Common Legal Advice
As a Senate subcommittee is poised to begin a hearing
on Muslim civil rights, several right-wing media
outlets are attacking Farhana Khera, a witness at the
hearing and the executive director of the Muslim legal
advocacy group Muslim Advocates, for urging American
Muslims to have an attorney present when speaking to
law enforcement. But this is standard advice given by
many legal rights advocacy groups, including the
American Bar Association and the Naval Legal Service
Office.
Legal Groups Regularly Advise People
To Have An Attorney Present When Speaking To Law
Enforcement…
American Bar Association: It Is "Wise To
Have A Lawyer Present" When Questioned By Law
Enforcement. The ABA's Division for Public
Education provides the following advice:
Is it wise to have a lawyer present
during interrogations?
Yes, even when you are not in custody. It is a
good idea to call the local public defender or a
lawyer in private practice before you talk to the
police. A lawyer, or possibly a public defender,
will be permitted to accompany you to the police
station and be present to protect your interests
during police questioning.
Many people believe that what they say to the
police is not admissible unless written down,
recorded on tape, or said to a prosecutor or judge.
That is not true. To be on the safe side, you should
assume that anything you say to anybody but your
lawyer could be used against you at trial. [AmericanBar.org,
accessed 3/29/11]
ABA: "It Is Generally Sound Advice To
Consult With A Lawyer Before You Agree To Talk To The
Police." From the ABA's Family Legal Guide:
Should I talk to the police if they want
to question me about a criminal investigation?
If you are a witness to a crime, you should share
your knowledge with the police. Without information
from witnesses, police would be unable to solve
crimes and prosecutors would be unable to convict
guilty defendants in court. If, on the other hand,
you played a role in the crime, or you think the
police want to question you as a possible suspect,
you have a right to refuse to talk to the police.
You also have the right to consult with a lawyer
regarding whether you should talk to the police. It
is generally sound advice to consult with a lawyer
before you agree to talk to the police. [American
Bar Association Family Legal Guide, 2004, page
575-576, accessed via Amazon.com]
Naval Legal Service Office "Attorneys
Strongly Encourage Service Members To Seek Legal
Advice" Before Speaking With Law Enforcement.
From the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps'
"Legal Services FAQ":
Q. What rights do I have regarding making
statements and speaking with an attorney?
A. As a military service member,
you have specific rights under Article 31(b) of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and under
the military's version of "Miranda Rights," known as
"Miranda / Tempia Rights."
PLEASE NOTE: If you are
suspected of committing misconduct, then any attempt
to interview you should begin with the investigator
/ questioner telling you that you are suspected of a
specific violation of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice or civilian criminal laws. They must tell
you what the nature of the violation is so that you
may direct your answers specifically to those
allegations.
When interrogated, you should be told the
following:
- You have the right to remain silent;
- Any statement you make may be used against you
in a trial by court-martial (or any court of law);
- You have the right to consult with a lawyer
before any questioning. This lawyer may be a
civilian lawyer retained by you at your own
expense, a military lawyer appointed to act as
your lawyer (for the purposes of assisting you
with the questioning) without cost to you, or
both;
- You have the right to have such retained
civilian lawyer and/or appointed military lawyer
present during this interview; and
- If you decide to answer questions without a
lawyer present, you have the right to stop the
interview at any time. You also have the right to
stop answering questions at any time in order to
obtain a lawyer.
Q. Should I make a statement?
A. This question cannot be
answered without first speaking to an attorney. You
have certain legal rights (listed above) and one of
them is to remain silent. You also have the right to
speak to an attorney prior to making any statements. NLSO [Navy
Legal Services Office] attorneys strongly encourage
service members to seek legal advice prior to making
any official or unofficial, written or oral
statements to command representatives, law
enforcement officials (military or civilian),
investigators and any other person asking questions.
Investigators and command members must advise you of
your rights under Article 31(b) of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) prior to asking you any
questions regarding criminal matters in which you
are a suspect. Especially in situations where your
rights are read or shown to you and you are told in
advance of questioning that you are considered a
suspect, NLSO attorneys strongly encourage you to
exercise those rights and speak to an attorney prior
to making any statement. [JAG.Navy.Mil,
accessed 3/29/11]
ACLU: "If You Are Contacted By The FBI…
Have A Lawyer Present." From an American
Civil Liberties Union fact sheet on "What To Do If
You're Stopped By Police, Immigration Agents or the
FBI":
IF YOU ARE CONTACTED BY THE FBI
If an FBI agent comes to your home or workplace, you
do not have to answer any questions. Tell
the agent you want to speak to a lawyer
first.
If you are asked to meet with FBI agents for an
interview, you have the right to say you do
not want to be interviewed. If you agree to
an interview, have a lawyer present. You do
not have to answer any questions you feel
uncomfortable answering, and can say that you will
only answer questions on a specific topic. [ACLU.org,
accessed 3/29/11]
ACLU: "It Is A Good Idea To Talk To A
Lawyer Before Agreeing To Answer Questions."
From the ACLU pamphlet "Know Your Rights When
Encountering Law Enforcement":
Q: Do I have to answer questions asked by
law enforcement officers?
A: No. You have the constitutional right to
remain silent. In general, you do not have to talk
to law enforcement officers (or anyone else), even
if you do not feel free to walk away from the
officer, you are arrested, or you are in jail. You
cannot be punished for refusing to answer a
question. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer
before agreeing to answer questions. In general,
only a judge can order you to answer questions. [ACLU.org,
accessed 3/29/11]
… But Right-Wing Media
Nonetheless Smeared Khera For Giving That Advice To
Muslims
Investigative Project On Terrorism
Highlights Muslim Advocates' Advice To Have An
Attorney Present When Speaking With Law Enforcement.
From a March 28 article by IPT News, the news
service of Steve Emerson's Investigative Project on
Terrorism:
Another Muslim Advocates message is that Muslims
should never talk to the FBI without an attorney
present. The group's web page includes an alert
advising:
"The FBI is contacting Pakistani, South-Asian
and other Muslim Americans to solicit information
and advice about addressing violent extremism.
Muslim Advocates strongly urges individuals
not to speak with law enforcement officials
without the presence or advice of an attorney."
During the July 2010 Islamic Society of North
America conference, Khan warned Islamic community
leaders about talking with FBI agents, saying the
FBI only wants to use them as "sources" to cause
unspecified "harm."
"And sometimes these community members don't even
think of themselves as a source," Khera said." You
know that they just might think themselves – Well I
have a good relationship with the head of the FBI
office; you know he comes by my office from time to
time and we have tea, or we go to lunch, and he just
talks to me about the community. But what may seem
like an innocuous set of conversations in the FBI's
mind they may be thinking of you as an informant, as
a source. And the repercussions and the harm that
that can cause can be pretty serious."
One example she cites is the case of Imam Ahmed
Afzali, who was deported last July after pleading
guilty to lying to federal agents about his
communication with terrorist suspect Najibullah Zazi.
FBI agents had sought Afzali's help in finding
Zazi, who was being sought as he traveled to New
York in hopes of carrying out a bombing attack on
the subway system. Afzali later called Zazi, alerting
him to the fact law enforcement was after him,
allowing Zazi to evade law enforcement surveillance.
In remarks at last summer's ISNA convention,
Khera asserted that Afzali's plight was the result
of his speaking to the FBI without counsel, rather
than because of his tipping off a wanted terror
suspect. [IPT News, 3/28/11]
Daily Caller Attacked Khera For "Opposition
To Easy Cooperation With Police Forces." From
a March 28 Daily Caller article:
Khera's claim to represent ordinary Muslims,
however, is tainted by her cooperation with Islamist
groups, and by support for Ahmed Afzali, an
Afghan-born New York imam. A court ordered Afzali
expelled last April after he confessed to warning a
suspect terrorist, Najibullah Zazi, of an FBI
investigation into his activities. Zazi, an Afghan
immigrant, pled guilty in February 2010 to preparing
a suicide-bomb attack on civilians in the New York
subway.
Khera entangled herself in the terror case in
June 2010, after the guilty verdicts, when she spoke
at a Chicago convention of Muslims. At the event,
she described the Afzali's tip-off to the suspected
suicide-bomber as "self-policing" by Muslim
community, not as aid for a would-be murderer. "The
imam thinking that he was doing his civic duty,
went, spoke to Zazi and said – Hey, what are you
doing?," according to a transcript of Khera's
remarks provided by the IPT. "Police are you know
asking questions about you, you better not be up to
anything bad." The imam, she said, thought he was
"doing his duty, what he thought was his civic
responsibility, and helping, as so many of our
community members feel like, to help self-police the
community."
Afzali's subsequent expulsion, added
Khera, "is just one example of really frankly the
risks and consequences of engaging with law
enforcement without an attorney." Khera's opposition
to easy cooperation with police forces is matched by
other Islamist groups, which argue that federal,
state and local governments should appoint them as
the conduits through which resident Muslims should
deal with the government and law-enforcement.
In January, for example, CAIR's California branch
posted an image on its website urging Muslims to
"Build A Wall of Resistance. Don't Talk to the FBI."
CAIR was founded by Islamists with ties to the
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is the Gaza-based
affiliate of the brotherhood.
Critics say Islamists' campaign to limit
cooperation with law-enforcement is a part of the
groups' effort to prevent the assimilation of
immigrant and U.S.-born Muslims into secular
American culture. This effort is also illustrated by
pressure on Muslim girls to wear the hijab, which
isolates them from non-Muslim men, the critics say.
[Daily Caller, 3/28/11]
Gaffney: "Troubling" That Khera "Has
Discouraged Muslims From Cooperating With Law
Enforcement." From Frank Gaffney's March 28 Washington
Times column:
Scarcely less troubling are [Sen. Richard]
Durbin's [D-IL] choice of witnesses. They include
"civil rights activist" Farhana Khera, who Mr.
Emerson recounts has discouraged Muslims from
cooperating with law enforcement, and retired
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who is a prominent
participant in interfaith dialogues manipulated by
the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United
States, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
[Washington Times, 3/28/11]
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments