Guest commentary: Executed without due process

Mr. Walid makes some valid points in his article, what should we have done? Should we have indicted him? Should we move in to extract him, if he fails to turn himself in? Should we risk American life by going in to extract him? There are plenty of questions, but what we need are solutions to clear this mess up.

As for how and why al Qaida recruits, that goes back to the hundreds of millions of dollars the Saudi's spend to preach their twisted version of Wahhibi Islam. Wahhibis who follow close the doctrine of Ibn Taymiyyah, a 13th century conservitive Islamic reformer. Taymiyyah believes that all true Muslims have a duty to revolt against authority, that does not uphold correct Muslim doctrine. Taymiyyah is a favorite of the Muslim Brotherhood also.

BY DAWUD WALID

DETROIT FREE PRESS GUEST WRITER
The recent extrajudicial executions of two American citizens in Yemen have set a troubling precedent and seemingly mimic the actions of regimes we have long criticized.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan both advocated wanton violence against civilians, including their own countrymen, which is counter to the teachings of all faiths and values of every civil society. Indeed, I have given sermons and lectures in mosques throughout metro Detroit specifically denouncing the repugnant rhetoric of al-Awlaki while warning youths that he was not a legitimate scholar.

And there is no doubt that al-Awlaki gave inspiration to Nigerian national Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to bring down an airplane over Detroit. As troubling as al-Awlaki’s speech was, however, his targeted killing without due process is problematic.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that no person shall answer for a capital crime without having been indicted by a grand jury to then face the charges levied. Given that al-Awlaki was never indicted or charged with one crime, nor was he on a battlefield actively engaged in combat, it appears that his constitutional rights were violated.

The Obama administration could have at the least indicted him and Khan, and then demanded that they turn themselves in to the nearest U.S. embassy before ordering a hit against them.

The sad irony of these executions without due process is that these American citizens were never charged before being sentenced to death via executive order in which no evidence (because it’s supposedly “secret evidence”) was presented, much less a transparent process, yet a Nigerian citizen who attempted to kill innocent Americans is detained and attending court proceedings in Detroit. If due process is granted to foreign nationals, then it surely should have been granted to citizens.

Our president ran on a platform of re-establishing the rule of law by closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center and ending torture, yet these extrajudicial killings went much further than his predecessor did in flouting the Constitution. Such actions are not only a threat to the spirit of the Constitution, but also jeopardize our national security.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, recently said, regarding al-Awlaki’s and Khan’s executions: “The president wants to spread American values around the world but continues to do great damage to them here at home, appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree.”

Al-Qaida’s recruitment is not based on the false notion that terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. Al-Qaida intermingles perverse interpretations of religion with claims that our nation oppresses and kills people in the developing world while practicing political hypocrisy. In essence, al-Qaida recruits people to commit illegal, illegitimate acts of terror by exploiting potentially legitimate grievances about our nation’s actions.

Pointing out this reality is in no way making al-Qaida’s actions legitimate, nor does it suggest moral equivalency of our nation’s shortcomings with their acts of terrorism. Simply put, such assassinations fit perfectly into the propaganda narrative of those who seek to harm us.

The so-called one good exception to the rule has the potential to open the door to other exceptions, which could send our nation down a dangerous path. I fear the precedent recently set may have started us down this path already.

As a nation, we must demand that all American citizens receive due process under the law, be they bad guys or not. God only knows whose name could be added next if we do not demand this now.

Dawud Walid is executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations — Michigan.

Terry Jones appeals conviction, ban from Dearborn mosque

Dearborn has the defense that they have FREE SPEECH ZONES; according to the US Constitution the FREE SPEECH ZONE in America is sea to shining sea! The Islamic Center of America is off limits and has its own personal guard, the Dearborn P. D.

 

 

From: freep.com

 

 

Terry Jones

BY NIRAJ WARIKOO

DETROIT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

 

The issue of free speech was fiercely debated Thursday in a Detroit courtroom, where a judge said he would decide next month whether it was OK for authorities to have jailed Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones and ordered him to stay away from a local mosque for three years.

Jones of Gainesville, Fla., was convicted in April by a Dearborn jury of being likely to breach the peace because of his plans to protest outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. He was ordered to stay away from the mosque.

Attorneys for Jones appealed the decision, saying it violated his constitutional rights.

On Thursday, Wayne County Circuit Judge Robert Ziolkowski presided over a hearing that featured arguments from Robert Moran, chief of special investigations for the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, and Robert Muise, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based conservative Christian group representing Jones.

Ziolkowski appeared to have mixed thoughts Thursday about what happened to Jones, suggesting at one point the three-year mosque ban was excessive -- but also saying local authorities had legitimate concerns about logistics and security.

Wayne County prosecutors said the day Jones chose to protest -- Good Friday -- and the location would have made it impossible for authorities to control it, endangering the safety of residents and impeding the right to worship. The Islamic Center is next to four churches and there are no sidewalks, making it a challenge for drivers to enter and exit, especially on heavy traffic days.

Getting It Right: Dean of George Mason Law Sets Excellent Example

It is refreshing to see that someone out there in charge of a university, understands what rights are protected under the US Constitution. Hats off to Dean Daniel Polsby. To many times we hush people up when we don't agree with the message they bring. In America, however, we should never hush up a citizen for what another citizen, believes is un-popular speech. Because it is the un-popular speech and the so called hate speech, that are so important to protect. There is no FREEDOM with out CHOICE.


From: thefire.org


by William Creeley


All too often here at FIRE, we find ourselves up to our necks in campus censorship. For example, in just the last few weeks, we've seen a professor threatened by campus police for posting a sci-fi quote and a coalition of student groups silenced by a professor who didn't like their free speech wall. Of course, FIRE fights hard to correct these wrongs. But sometimes the constant stream of rights violations on campus gets a little depressing, to be honest.


So that's why it's a real pleasure to come across a sterling example of how a school should react when confronted with a question about campus speech.


Here's the background, quickly: Recently, two student groups at George Mason University School of Law, the Federalist Society and the Jewish Law Students Association, have taken heat for inviting controversial activist Nonie Darwish to campus for a lecture. Specifically, the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on the school to disinvite Darwish because of her past statements regarding Islam. (Above the Law has more.)


So what happened next? Did GMU cancel the speech, as other institutions have done when faced with calls for disinvitations of unpopular or controversial speakers? Did it impose heavy security fees on the student groups, a sadly common tactic for campus censors looking to silence outside speakers?


No. Instead, GMU School of Law Dean Daniel Polsby got it exactly right. In a statement sent to students and faculty late last week, Polsby issued a stirring defense of free speech on campus.
I'm very pleased to reprint his statement in full:

It appears that there is need to clarify the policy affecting speakers at the law school.
Student organizations are allocated budget by the Student Bar Association in order to allow them, among other things, to bring speakers to the law school.  Neither the law school nor the university can be taken to endorse such speakers or what they say.  Law school administration is not consulted about these invitations, nor should we be.  Sometimes speakers are invited who are known to espouse controversial points of view.  So be it.  So long as they are here, they are free to say whatever is on their mind within the bounds of law.   They cannot be silenced and they will not be.

Just as speakers are free to speak, protesters are free to protest.  They must do so in a place and in a manner that respects the rights of speakers to speak and listeners to listen, and that is in all other ways consistent with the educational mission of the university.  Student organizations which hold contrary points of view have every right to schedule their own programs with their own speakers, and these speakers' rights will be protected in just the same way.

The law school will not exercise editorial control over the words of speakers invited by student organizations, nor will we take responsibility for them, nor will we endorse or condemn them.  There has to be a place in the world where controversial ideas and points of view are aired out and given space.  This is that place.

Daniel D. Polsby
Professor of Law, Dean

FIRE couldn't have said it any better. Every public college administrator in the country should read Dean Polsby's words—and follow his example