The Purist View of Zazi’s Alleged Tipster … + …

The Purist View of Zazi's Alleged Tipster + …

From Steven Emerson

Accused New York bomb plotter Najibullah Nazi pled not guilty to a conspiracy charge this morning in federal court.

Newsweek's Christopher Dickey has a pretty compelling account of the frantic days leading up to Zazi's initial arrest in a plot tied to Al Qaeda. It includes details of how alleged co-conspirator Ahmad Afzali may have tipped Zazi off that law enforcement was on his tail by calling Zazi's father. Dickey reports:

"The name of the caller is not the one the cops have been using. The top Intelligence Division detective at the meeting steps out of the room to phone his office and check. Yeah, that's Afzali, he says when he comes back in."

What would prompt a law enforcement informant to warn a terror suspect? Views Afzali expressed in an August sermon offer a few insights. The sermon, or khutbah, emphasizes a pure adherence to faith and chastises those who show up at the mosque only during holidays. Failure to practice the faith more consistently could lead Muslims down the path of Jews and Christians who reformed and modified their religious practices, he warns.

Afzali offers his harshest views for Shia Muslims, whom he calls "the kafir of the kafir of the race." Kafir are non-believers, or infidels. The entire sermon can be heard here. Click on the following links to hear the excerpts described.

ON JEWS AND CHRISTIANS:

"Rabbis destroyed Judaism. The Christian monks destroyed Christianity. And we, the Muslims, slowly and gradually are destroying Islam."

ON MUSLIMS WHO ONLY OBSERVE MUSLIM HOLIDAYS:

"Think about what we're doing to the heart of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. Because if he was here present, right here in this masjid or in this locality, what he would say to us? He would tell the sahabahs – Declare jihad on them first."

ON CHRISTIANS:

How can this be possible, after we have one God, or we have three Gods, in the Trinity, the Son, and the Father and the Holy Ghost, the most confused people on the face of this earth."

During Zazi's arraignment, prosecutors made it clear that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercepts would be a part of their case. We should learn more about Afzali's ideology from those tapes.

By IPT News | September 29, 2009 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization. "For The Record – The IPT Blog"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>

The Long Path to Nowhere: Suing State Sponsors of Terrorism

Over the past decade, victims of terrorist attacks have taken to federal courts in an attempt to hold state sponsors of terrorism civilly liable—a practice that has become nothing more than a "meaningless kabuki dance," the chief U.S. District Court judge in Washington writes in a recent opinion. Calling this system of justice a "failed policy," Judge Royce Lamberth called upon Congress and the President to reexamine the laws permitting these suits to consider whether there might be a viable alternative to private litigation.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") allows foreign governments to be sued if they are engaged in acts of terrorism, either directly or through the provision of "material support or resources." When this law was passed, the popular sentiment was that "terrorism victims were going to 'sue the terrorists out of business.'"

A decade later, hundreds of claims representing thousands of victims have been brought against Iran seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the rogue nation's support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizballah. The combined results of these suits have been judgments totaling $9 million. As the court points out, however, these are nothing but pyrrhic victories, with victims seldom – if ever – able to recover their damages.

The court's 191-page opinion is dedicated to laying out the substantive hurdles victims of terrorism face, from the technical application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to more complicated "separation of powers" issues. In the case of Iran, the assets are simply unreachable. Based on a recent estimate, Iranian assets in the United States total $45 million, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the judgments entered against it. As Judge Lambert explained in detailing the problem, courts have tried "with very little success, to locate and attach Iranian government assets in aid of their execution of their civil judgments."

Although the instant opinion dealt solely with the challenges facing victims of terrorism who bring suit under the FSIA, those who file under the Anti-Terrorism Act ("ATA") against individuals who provide "material support or resources" face similar hurdles to enforcing judgments. Just as "the overwhelming majority of successful FSIA plaintiffs with judgments against Iran still have not received the relief," ATA plaintiffs likewise have been denied justice.

In light of these concerns, the court called upon the government, both Congress and the President, to work towards meaningful reform of the FSIA. Although he proposed the creation of an administrative agency-style commission, Judge Lamberth explained that reform should be undertaken by the political branches of government, rather than the courts.

The court properly recognized the need for reform. The current system of justice is simply untenable. As the court warned, "as long as civil litigation is a means by which our political branches choose to redress the harms suffered as a result of terrorism . . . the victims in these cases will continue to be unwitting participants in a meaningless charade."

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply