Also see Poole’s latest at PJ Media: The Lies Behind #FreeSoltan: No, Mohamed Soltan Is NOT a ‘Humanitarian Activist’
Also see Poole’s latest at PJ Media: The Lies Behind #FreeSoltan: No, Mohamed Soltan Is NOT a ‘Humanitarian Activist’
CJR: The perennial debate over use of qualifiers such as radical, extremist or even fundamentalist to describe Islam is brought up by the intrepid Diana West at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit. Diana West believes that we are in fact abiding by Islamic blasphemy laws when we say “radical” Islam rather then just Islam.
Stephen Coughlin comes at this from a military intelligence perspective which seeks to define just what the Islamic threat doctrine is so that we can “orient on the enemy”. He explains that he chooses to refer to The Reliance of the Traveller shariah manual because it represents the sanctioned views of A Azhar, the OIC and the American Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore it represents the prevailing view of Sunni Islam and can be said to be Islam…not radical Islam. Coughlin then says something very interesting that needs to be highlighted. He refers to the tactic of using qualifiers in order to “bring people along”. In other words, some counter jihadists, especially those who are working in the political arena, choose to use qualifiers in order to soften the message for politically correct ears, including moderate Muslims.
Following Coughlin, David Yerushalmi speaks to the legal issues of trying to reform shariah law with an explanation of Fiqh and what it would take to overturn articles of Islamic jurisprudence developed over thousands of years as Islamic reformers such as Zuhdi Jasser and Egyptian President Al Sissi are advocating.
Debra Burlingame then speaks to the quandry of Moderate Muslims who have no safe place to express their views. Andrew McCarthy and Fred Fleitz believe it is important to reach out to Moderate Muslims and enlist their help.
I think a general consensus was reached that it is not necessary to address what the true Islam is if you can identify as the enemy those Muslims who subscribe to the Islamic Threat Doctrine of Shariah. John Guandolo gets down to law enforcement brass tacks and asserts that we need to start prosecuting those in high positions who are aiding and abetting terrorists. While John Guandolo did not agree that moderate Muslim outreach is producing results, he asserted that counter jihadists do not have to agree on everything in order to work together. I heartily agree.
Watch the debate which goes from 5:03 to about 5:38 in the video. I’ve set the video to begin with Diana West but if for some reason that changes just move the progress bar with your cursor:
Here are some clips of the Summit now available at securefreedom:
Manual instructs police against saying, ‘jihad’, ‘Islamic extremism’
By Adam Kredo:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) rejected and distanced itself from the force’s own an anti-terrorism handbook just a day after it was released, citing the manual’s “adversarial tone.”
The “United Against Terrorism” handbook released last week by the RCMP and two Canadian Muslim groups seeks to combat the rise of radicalism in local Muslim communities and serve as an antidote to the slick extremist propaganda being produced by terror groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS).
However, a day after its official release, the RCMP publicly distanced itself from the handbook and said it would not distribute it to officers.
While it remains unclear what exactly the RCMP objected to, questions have been raised about sections of the handbook that order the police not to use terms such as “Islamic extremism” and tell Muslim community members that they do not need to cooperate with the police.
Other sections of the handbook say that terrorists are not “jihadis” and that “jihad is a noble concept.”
A day after the anti-terror handbook was released with much fanfare in Canada’s Muslim community, the RCMP issued a statement rejecting the publication for its “adversarial tone,” a loaded comment that the police force has declined to explain.
“After a final review of the handbook, the RCMP could not support the adversarial tone set by elements of the booklet and therefore directed RCMP Manitoba not to proceed with this initiative,” the police force said in a statement posted on its website.
The RCMP is keeping mostly silent on the matter and directing questions to the two Muslim organizations behind the handbook, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), and the Islamic Social Services Association (ISSA).
“Any questions regarding the distribution, use or intention of the booklet should be directed to the authors, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, and the Islamic Social Services Association,” the RCMP said in a statement that raised more questions than answers.
One potential issue is that the handbook recommends that “intelligence and law enforcement officials” should “avoid terms such as ‘Islamist terrorism’, ‘Islamicism’, and ‘Islamic extremism’ in favor of more accurate terms such as ‘al Qaeda inspired extremist,’” according to one section of the handbook, which still bears RCMP’s official logo.
Law enforcement officials also should “discontinue any inappropriate information gathering techniques including (but not limited to) showing up at workplaces, intimidating newcomers, questioning individuals religiosity, and discouraging legal representation,” the anti-terror handbook states.
The term “jihad” also is not appropriate to use, according to the handbook, a copy of which was first published by Canada’s CBC News.
“Do not refer to terrorists as ‘jihadis,’ the manual states. “This only emboldens them and gives them a legitimate status in the eyes of the vulnerable. Terrorism is not jihad. Jihad is a noble concept in Islam.”
Read more at Free Beacon
by Mark Durie
September 26, 2014
The past few weeks have been hard ones for Australians, not least for Australian Muslims. Various alleged plots by Islamic State supporters to slaughter Australians has Islam in the news. Even as I write, five out of ten of the “most popular” articles onThe Australian‘s website are about Islamic jihad and national security.
What are ordinary Australians to make of conspiracy theories aired by Muslims on the ABC’s Q&A program, implying that recent police raids were staged as a cynical act to manipulate public opinion? Are Muslims being unfairly victimised by all these security measures?
How are we to evaluate Senator Jacqui Lambie’s claim that sharia law “obviously involves terrorism”? Or the Prime Minister’s decision to mobilise Australian troops against the Islamic State?
What about the Islamic State’s grandiose claim that “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.” Or [Prime Minister Tony] Abbott’s declaration that the balance between freedom and security needs to be adjusted in favour of greater security and less freedom?
Earlier this month, an 18-year-old Melbourne man, Numan Haider, was shot dead by police after he stabbed two officers outside a suburban police station. At the time of writing, news was breaking that authorities believed he intended to behead a police officer and post the photos online.
Prison officers in Goulburn jail have struggled to contain the worst riot in ten years, during which rampaging prisoners were heard to be crying “Allahu Akbar.”
A Christian woman who works in a church close by an Islamic centre has asked her employer to install security measures to protect her and others at the church. Someone else, a convert from Islam to Christianity, reports that his personal sense of being under threat has risen, because he feels that people he knew from his earlier life as a radical Muslim are more likely to be activated to violence after the successes of the Islamic State and their global call to arms. Are such responses reasonable? Or are they Islamophobic?
Many young Muslims have been using the hashtag #NotInMyName on social media. Many are insisting that IS does not speak for them: as Anne Aly put it “This isn’t in my name, this isn’t what Islam is about, I am against it and they don’t have my allegiance, they don’t have my support.” How then can we know the truth about Islam?
What is a Christian response to all this? How can we find our way through these crises: does protecting national security mean we risk losing some part of our soul?
A truly Christian response to the multi-faceted challenge of “Muslims behaving badly” must embrace both truth and love in equal measure.
Truth will acknowledge that the Islamic State ideologues do claim to speak for Islam, and that they justify their actions from the Koran and Muhammad’s example. Truth will acknowledge that IS has recruited tens of thousands of Muslims to fight for their cause, but apparently not a single Christian, Jew or Buddhist. As Brother Rachid, a Moroccan convert to Christianity put it in a widely distributed letter to President Obama “ISIL’s 10,000 members are all Muslims. None of them are from any other religion. They come from different countries and have one common denominator: Islam.”
Truth will recognise that the self-declared “caliph” of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic studies: he is not ignorant of Islam. It will also acknowledge that the very idea of a caliphate – a supra-national Islamic state – is a religious ideal widely shared by many Muslims. However this ideal bodes ill for any non-Muslims who fall under its power.
Truth will accept that there is a price to pay for increased security. Since 9/11 we wait in queues at airports because of the actions of jihadis. As the level of threat increases, it is inevitable that our need for increased security measures will only grow.
Truth will also acknowledge that many Muslims vehemently reject the methods and goals of the Islamic state, and that the #NotInMyName hashtag campaign is genuine and heartfelt. But this begs the question: “What is the real Islam?”
Love on the other hand, will reject stereotyping Muslims or denigrating them with labels of hatred and suspicion. Love will reach out a hand of friendship. It will show grace instead of fear, kindness instead of rejection or indifference. Love demands that we emphatically reject speech which dehumanises Muslims or pins labels on them. It will honour those Muslims who reject the Islamic State’s ideology. Love will find new friends even on the blackest of days.
It can be tempting at times such as this to chose between love and truth. Love without truth can be gullible, opening the door to many threats. I am reminded of a Persian fable. A Fox met a Heron and said “My, what lovely feathers you have, dear Heron. May I have one?” The Heron obliged. The next day they met again. Day after day the Fox’s question was repeated, and day after the day the Heron’s response was the same. One day they met for the last time. The Heron had been plucked bare, so the Fox said “Heron, you look delicious. Now I will eat you. And he did.”
Love without boundaries, at the cost of truth, can wreak incredible havoc on innocent lives. In the end, such love is false, and will prove profoundly unloving. Genuine love does not fear the truth. True love will not deny or obscure the damaging effect of sharia law upon Christians living in Islamic societies, or the atrocities being perpetrated in the name of Islam against Christians and others by the “caliphate”. It will be mindful of the words in Proverbs 24:11-12: “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering towards slaughter. If you say ‘But we knew nothing about this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it.”
On the other hand, truth without love can become merciless, excluding and cruel. Love counts the cost of aggressive argument and rejects rhetoric. It takes pains to understand the other; it seeks to see the world through another’s eyes and to hear words through another’s ears. Love nurtures life-giving relationships. It reaches out to enmity and answers it with grace. It does not jump to conclusions, but is patient and careful. It delights to partner with and nurture truth and does not fear it.
Professor Peter Leahy, former Army Chief and leading defence strategist has warned Australians that we face a war that is “likely to last for the rest of the century”. If he is right, then the troubles we are facing now as a nation are only the beginning, and dealing with the potential horrors ahead will stretch our humanity to its limits.
As Christians we are called to be salt and light in the world. If this means anything, it means staying true to Jesus’ two great statements “the truth shall set you free” and “love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you”. This is no time for circling the wagons and cowering behind them in fear.
This is a time for Australians to reach out to our Muslim neighbours, to show and receive grace. In the present difficulties many Muslims will agree with Melbourne lawyer Shabnum Cassim who stated that “the everyday Muslim just wants to get on with their day.” As a nation the fact that we need to respond realistically to genuine threats to our peace, and seek a true understanding of the religious beliefs that generate these threats, should not deflect us from the everyday task of getting on with our lives together, graciously, inclusively and generously.
Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. His book The Third Choice explains the implications for Christians of living under Islamic rule.
The Department of Justice has announced its new strategy for dealing with the threat of recruitment by the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS). This threat of ISIS recruitment in the Homeland took center stage recently, when Fox News’ Megan Kelly and Greta Van Susteren, highlighted the activities of Egyptian ISIS recruiter at a Minnesota mosque.
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, that strategy will be yet more “community outreach” in an effort to “counter violent extremism.” According to Attorney General Eric Holder:
Today, I am announcing that the Department of Justice is partnering with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center to launch a new series of pilot programs in cities across the nation. These programs will bring together community representatives, public safety officials, religious leaders, and United States Attorneys to improve local engagement; to counter violent extremism; and – ultimately – to build a broad network of community partnerships to keep our nation safe. Under President Obama’s leadership, along with our interagency affiliates, we will work closely with community representatives to develop comprehensive local strategies, to raise awareness about important issues, to share information on best practices, and to expand and improve training in every area of the country.
Time and time again, our government has shown that when it chooses community partners from the Muslim community in the United States, they almost invariably choose those who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This sad fact is bipartisan, evidenced in the Clinton, and Bush Administrations, but made the center piece of all Counterterrorism efforts by the Obama Administration and the Countering Violent Extremism strategy. This is policy announcement appears to be an expansion, a doubling down, on the CVE policy which has already failed dramatically. That said, the focus on an effort to “expand and improve training in every area of the country” is particularly worrisome, as it appears to echo a letter sent to the Obama administration’s counterterrorism czar by Muslim Brotherhood-aligned groups, and their allies, to target federal, state and local law enforcement for “reeducation.” As I noted in a piece at Breitbart News warning of this coming policy extension:
In the letter, the organizations call for an auditing of all intelligence and law enforcement training materials, and mandatory retraining for any federal, state or local law enforcement official who has ever received the training the group finds objectionable. They also seek to extend the training purge to any federal, state or local law enforcement organization which has receives federal money.
This reeducation program, if enacted by the Obama Administration, will represent a final victory for Islamists seeking to control U.S. policy on dealing with the jihadist threats.
You cannot defeat terrorism by running from ISIS into the waiting arms of the Muslim Brotherhood. That has always been the inherent strategic logic in the division of labor between Jihad (conducted by Al Qaeda, and now ISIS), and Dawah (preaching) carried out principly by the Brotherhood. This is shariah’s one-two punch, where the terrorism and violence of ISIS and Al Qaeda represents only the jab. As Sayyid Qutb, the infamous Muslim Brotherhood ideologue remarked,
This movement uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs and it uses physical power and Jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili (ed. ignorant, non-believing) system.”
The Obama Administration strategy for dealing with homegrown recruitment appears to be to send us from the ISIS frying pan into the Ikhwan fire.
Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler:
The New York Post’s Paul Sperry reported Sunday that the media director of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) maybe a former Boston resident named Ahmad Abousamra. Abousamra was an attendee at the same infamous Boston-area mosque that played host to Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Not only that but Abousamra’s father, was a board member at the mosque, according to Sperry.
The Islamic Society of Boston, founded by self-identified Muslim Brother and convicted Al Qaeda financier Abdulrahman Alamoudi featured Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, famous for authorizing the use of Hamas suicide bombings and the killing of American civilians in Iraq, as a trustee. Other terrorist alum from ISB include Tarek Mehenna, a long time friend of Abousamra, and “Lady Al Qaeda” Aafia Siddiqui, whose release ISIS demanded as part of their negotiations over the fate of executed American journalist James Foley.
The ISB mosque was the same one that U.S. Representative from Texas Louie Gohmert questioned then FBI director Robert Mueller over in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, which led Mueller to admit that while he was unaware that the elder Tsarnaev attended the mosque, the FBI had done “outreach” there.
This preference for outreach to, rather than investigation of, groups (and mosques) associated with the Muslim Brotherhood will only worsen if efforts to hamper U.S. government’s use of informants in and around mosques are successful. This campaign, called the Safe Spaces Initiative, is led by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, but has received assistance from a wide variety of Islamic and left-wing organizations, including Human Right’s Watch (HRW). HRW recently launched a major campaign to prohibit the use of informants in tandem to the MPAC effort. The HRW’s poster boy for that campaign was convicted terrorist James Cromitie, who was the center of a terrorist plot given a recent whitewashing by the HBO documentary “The Newburgh Sting.” As CSP has documented elsewhere, Cromitie was a man committed to the doctrine of shariah, who desired to engage in jihad. The fact that defense allegations of entrapment were demolished by a court has not stopped HRW from attempting to re-characterize the case as one of FBI malfeasance. Like the false allegations of illegal surveillance of Muslim suspects, these campaigns seek to use public opinion to force law enforcement and national security officials from engaging in the necessary, and legally authorized, work of protecting the country.
How many Abousamaras, Mehennas, Tsarnaevs, and Siddiquis are out there, who will not be uncovered until it is to late because the hands of law enforcement have been tied to a failed strategy of outreach?
Jul 17 (3 days ago)
The FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO) has several immediate vacancies for full-time computer scientists (CS) working directly with our cyber squads. The positions would be located ONLY at the Northern Virginia Resident Agency in Manassas, Virginia.
WFO’s cyber program is one of the most extensive and advanced within the FBI. WFO CSs work alongside investigators to directly impact critical criminal and national security computer intrusion investigations. Additional background details on the position are available at http://www.fbijobs.gov/cs.
The minimum requirements for this position are:
– Applicant must be a United States citizen
– Applicant must be able to obtain a Top Secret/SCI security clearance
– A bachelor’s degree in computer science
– Or any degree with 30 semester hours in a combination of mathematics, statistics, and computer science. Fifteen of those hours must include differential and integral calculus.
More competitive applicants may have some of the following training/work experience:
– Computer forensics/investigations
– Computer security
– Internetworking (firewalls, gateways, routers, hubs, WANS, etc.)
– Computer networking administration
– Computer programming
– Computer network architecture/design
– Computer technical support
– Operating system administration
– Other high-tech computer experience
The starting GS level will depend heavily on the applicant’s educational and work experience, and can range from GS 7-12.
If interested, please email your resume to FBI-WFO SSA Matthew Braverman,firstname.lastname@example.org, by July 31. If you have already submitted your resume for a CS position via USAJobs and not heard a response, please re-send your resume to SSA Braverman.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretly assembled a terrorist “hands off” list that permitted individuals with terrorist ties unfettered entrance into the United States, according to document released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa).
The existence of a “hands off” list that permitted easy entrance for suspect individuals into the United States has drawn concern from Grassley, who released a cache of internal DHS emails detailing the list’s existence and discussion about permitting an alleged member of the Muslim Brotherhood to enter the United States.
The emails—sent between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—reveal a row over the admittance of one alleged Muslim Brotherhood official tied to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror groups.
While the individual in question is not named in the heavily redacted emails, the Washington Free Beacon has learned that the person referenced is Jamal Badawi, a Canadian Islamist leader who has praised suicide bombing and is close to Hamas and Hezbollah.
Additionally, the emails reveal a larger campaign by DHS and its former head Janet Napolitano to purge internal records of hundreds of terror suspects, including Badawi, who had his records purged in December 2010.
Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon and had reviewed unredacted versions of the emails indicated that many files pertaining to foreign terror suspects may have been purged by DHS. The sources said congressional investigators are currently looking into the matter.
The emails between ICE and CBP that were released by Grassley show confusion as to why Badawi was being permitted entrance into the United States.
“I’m puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, be an associate of [redacted], say that the U.S. is staging car bombings in Iraq and that [it] is ok for men to beat their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-watchlisted,” one official wrote in the May 2012 emails released by Grassley.
“It doesn’t appear that we’ll be successful with denying him entry tomorrow but maybe we could re-evaluate the matter in the future since the decision to de-watchlist him was made 17 months ago,” the email states.
One of the unnamed officials goes on to state: “Based on a review of the statements of the subject, I think it is clear that he [Badawi] meets the definition of endorsing and inciting.”
Grassley, in his initial letter to DHS on the matter, asked that officials explain why Badawi was removed from the terror watch list and to “describe the nature, extent, and reasons for the involvement of the DHS secretary or her staff in the removal of the individual from the watchlist.”
Read more at Free Beacon
The U.S. gov’t is letting Islamist groups and their global propaganda machines determine who has ‘credibility.’
By Ryan Mauro:
Newly declassified documents obtained by the Clarion Project show that personnel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI, or, for the ease of our readers,“National Intel”) were well aware of the work of anti-Islamist Muslim activist Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, acknowledged that he was promoting the right message, but chose instead to favor and work with pro-Islamist groups.
As our previous expose showed, when five members of Congress specifically asked National Intel about their relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhoodentity, National Intel falsely told the congresspersons that it did not use Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and individuals for outreach. However, files show that such a relationship existed.
And while National Intel embraced groups with radical histories, Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam, was shunned. This happened even though one of Jasser’s writings was passed around National Intel as an example of the type of messaging that was needed.
Impact on National Security From Embracing Islamists
When MPAC released its counter-terrorism study, Building Bridges to Strengthen America, National Intel was excited and receptive. Multiple emails were exchanged within National Intel to spread word of it. The office staff was invited to a MPAC briefing about it on April 8, 2010.
Then a two-hour meeting was arranged with MPAC’s Governmental Liaison on November 18, 2010.
Unfortunately, information about the Muslim Brotherhood in MPAC’s study is limited to this idea: “Conservative groups like the Muslim Brotherhood pose long-term strategic threats to violent extremists by siphoning Muslims away from violent radicalism into peaceful political activism.” [emphasis added]
The study also disputes the notion that the Brotherhood acts as a “conveyer belt” leading Islamists to engage in terrorism. Instead, MPAC presents the Brotherhood as a “conveyer belt” leading awayfrom violence. The footnote for the sentence references an article titled, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.”
On October 25, 2011, MPAC announced that Building Bridges was cited in the National Intel’s National Counter-Terrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security policy document, “Countering Violent Extremism: Guidance and Best Practices.” It was the sole non-governmental organization source.
Noticeably, the language used by MPAC study about the Brotherhood is similar to the language used by Clapper in his January 2012 testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
During that testimony, Clapper stated: “Al-Qaeda probably will find it difficult to compete for local support with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that participate in the political process, provide social services and advocate religious values. Non-violent, pro-democracy demonstrations challenge Al-Qaeda’s violent jihadist ideology and might yield increased political power for secular or moderate Islamist parties.”
When reading Clapper’s testimony, it’s easy to see the parallels between his opinion and those of the pro-Brotherhood groups that were advising his office.
MPAC also used its relationship with National Intel to complain about materials that it felt promoted “Islamophobia.”
For example, on July 11, 2012, MPAC’s Young Leaders Government Summit delegates met with National Intel and National Counter-Terrorism Center staff, including Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Stephanie O’Sullivan, National Intel’s Civil Liberties Protection Officer Alexander Joel and Matthew Rice of the National Counter-Terrorism Center Directorate of Strategic Operational Planning.
At that meeting, MPAC’s delegates complained about National Intel’s counter-terrorism policy plan titled, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.”
The section they took issue with reads: “…communities—especially Muslim American communities whose children, families and neighbors are being targeted for recruitment by Al-Qaeda—are often best positioned to take the lead because they know their communities best.”
Virtually anyone reading this would view the statement as being pro-Muslim in nature. It states the factual problem — Al-Qaeda recruitment of Muslims — and says that Muslims are the solution. Further, it assumes that Muslims are also against Al Qaeda.
But for MPAC’s delegates, the mere acknowledgement that Al-Qaeda would like to recruit Muslim-Americans is offensive.
In a follow-up later on July 17, 2012, MPAC again criticized the policy plan because it “assumes that young American Muslims are susceptible to the threat” and that could cause their “marginalization.”
MPAC was also upset with a National Intel calendar that had photos of terrorists on it because it “disproportionately presented terrorists from Muslim majority countries. It also insinuated a problematic message: That only Muslims are terrorists.” The group warned of “unintended consequences” negatively affecting Muslims.
Read more at Clarion Project
The members of Congress – and the American people – have a right to know the truth: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence does have a relationship with domestic organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood – and, it is a truth that needs a formal evaluation and investigation.
By Ryan Mauro:
Newly declassified documents obtained by the Clarion Project show that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) misled members of Congress in 2012 about its involvement with Muslim Brotherhood-linked entities.
Further, the documents show that there were even a number of internal communications within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressing concerns about the Brotherhood links of these entities.
The story of the deception began when the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified to Congress on February 10, 2011 saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is “a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has described Al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.”
In the same hearing, Clapper was asked by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) about the administration’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. He answered, “There have been outreaches to the Muslim community in general, but I guess we’re not aware of any direct outreach to these particular organizations. That is, if you’re speaking domestically.”
FBI Director Mueller then chimed in, saying there is “no relationship with the Brotherhood. Period.” The CIA Director Leon Panetta then agreed, dismissively laughing in the process.
Clapper’s office later issued a clarification, backtracking on his inaccurate statement that the Brotherhood is “secular.”
Just four months later, on June 12, 2012, a 90-minute “Roundtable Discussion” took place at National Intelligence’s headquarters in McLean, Virginia. At the meeting, Clapper met in person with a representative of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Also present were National Counter-Terrorism Center Director Matthew Olson and Alexander Joel, ODNI Civil Liberties Protection Officer.
In 2007, the Justice Department listed ISNA as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and designated them as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial of the history of the U.S. In that trial, the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood front, was found guilty of funding Hamas.
Yet in 2012, the president of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Magid, was invited to meet with the Director of National Intelligence. Unable to attend, he sent a substitute in his place.
The email that went out inviting ISNA’s president (among others) stated that he was chosen because, “We believe you have important insights to share with the Intelligence Community (IC) about how the IC pursues its mandate of providing the most insightful intelligence possible, while simultaneously safeguarding civil liberties and privacy.”
Magid’s replacement was ISNA’s Director of Community Outreach, Mohamed Elsanousi.
Read more at Clarion Project
The Muslim American Society, which federal prosecutors confirm was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America,” is boasting on its new website of how it’s been embraced by the U.S. government and major interfaith groups. This is shocking, especially since the reaction of MAS to Bin Laden’s death was to defend his goal of creating an Islamic state in Afghanistan.
The renovated MAS website emphasizes its work with law enforcement, the federal government, members of Congress, charities and interfaith organizations. Unlike its previous website, it does not try to address questions about its links to the Muslim Brotherhood and beliefs about the Caliphate and sharia in America.
There is little dispute that MAS is a Muslim Brotherhood entity. AChicago Tribune investigation in 2004 confirmed it, as did senior U.S. Muslim Brotherhood operative Abdurrahman Alamoudi after he was convicted on terrorism-related charges. In 2012, he testified, “Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.”
In 2008, federal prosecutors said in a court filing that “MAS was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” The prosecutors also accused MAS and a related organization, theCouncil on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), of being deceptive. They said the groups “omit reference to a shared background that limits their membership to those of a particular political bent, and undercuts their credibility.”
Yet, somehow the MAS is treated well by the U.S. government. Its website claims it has even received taxpayer money by winning a federal grant through the President’s Faith Based Initiative Program.
In January 2010, MAS joined a group of Muslim organizations (including the Islamic Society of North America, another Brotherhood entity) in meeting with Department of Homeland Security officials, including then-Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Read more at Clarion Project
The government is indeed embracing the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda both at home and abroad using your tax dollars:
By Leslie Burt:
In his June 4, 2013 report, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” Patrick Poole asks the question,
Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.
Perhaps the most baffling element to the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach since the 1990s is the steadfast refusal by its supporters to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that testifies to its catastrophic failure. What pathology can explain how prosecutors can identify Muslim leaders and organizations as supporters of terrorism in federal court, and at the same time high-ranking government officials embrace these same leaders and groups as moderates and heatedly defend their inclusion as outreach partners? The answer might only lie in the realm of theology and not psychology.
While it is true that the Muslim Botherhood has, through very effective influence operations, affected U.S. counterterrorism policy we have to remember that it was the U.S. that originally reached out to them starting clear back in the Eisenhower administration. Our intent was to influence them and use them to counterbalance our enemies. However, it has turned out that the Muslim Brotherhood has won the influence game by taking advantage of our ignorance of their true theologically driven agenda. We’ve learned the hard way that they are only moderate while they are politically weak. When empowered, the mask comes off to reveal their true violent extremist nature. The evidence has been there all along for anyone taking the time to examine the history of the Muslim Brotherhood since their formation in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna
In my May 6, 2013 post , Anatomy of a Coverup which I will re-post here, Daniel Greenfield gives what I believe is the definitive answer to Poole’s question. Why are we partnering with terrorists? Do click on the link and read his entire article. It explains a lot.
As the steady drumbeat for a select committee to investigate Benghazi continues, hopefully the drip, drip, drip of new information will edge us closer to examining the whole Middle East foreign policy rationale of the Obama administration. Elections have consequences and foreign policy should be a campaign issue in the coming 2016 presidential elections. But CPAC so far is playing it down:
Could it be the influence of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan? Sign the petition:
We now have whistle blowers set to testify that what happened in Benghazi is very different than what the Obama administration has told us. We also have the proof that the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed. The question being asked now is why did Hillary Clinton and so many top administration officials, including General Petraeus, go to such extraordinary lengths to present a false narrative?
Daniel Greenfield has written a very good explanation of the Obama administration’s foreign policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in his piece, “Obama’s Big Brotherhood Bet” at Front Page that helps answer this question:
In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.
The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.
Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.
Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.
The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.
And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.
As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?
To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.
The Obama administration, with it’s cultural relativist world view, believes that BOTH Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda can be moderated by making a transition to democracy with our help. There has been an Orwellian re-branding of the word terrorism in order to sell this idea to the public as well as a denial of the so called al Qaeda “franchise’s” ideological links to “core” al Qaeda. So when the al Qaeda militia we were partnering with (Feb. 17th Martyrs Brigade) to protect the embassy actually assisted al Qaeda members from Yemen and possibly Egypt to attack and kill our people in Benghazi, they had to cover that up or risk Obama losing the election. Hillary Clinton went to extraordinary measures to change the Benghazi talking points in order to protect her political future as well as Obama’s. As a bonus, she managed to insert the lie of the “offensive” video tape in order to advance the campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam.
Walid Phares: ” These forces were not on the map as a threat to US national security because of a political determination that they were on the right side of history, and they were perceived as in transition to integration.”
Clare Lopez: “The real issue — which is what the CIA, the State Department or anyone in the U.S. government has been doing backing regime change operations across the Middle East and North Africa region in the company of and for the benefit of Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood jihadis — never gets addressed, much less explained by the ARB or anyone else.”
This is an excellent review of Patrick Poole’s important piece published last June,
FrontPage, by Arnold Ahlert on June 5, 2013
As the Obama administration seeks to move beyond a welter of scandals, a new report by investigative journalist Patrick Poole reveals that the frenzy isn’t quite over yet. On top of the IRS’s targeting of conservatives, the DOJ’s seizure of reporters’ phone records and the coverup surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, the White House’s years-long collaboration with supporters of terrorism is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves. Poole’s comprehensive GLORIA Center article, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” details the Obama administration’s extensive relationship with accomplices to terrorism and how these associations have shaped administration policy — and endangered the American public in the process. As Middle East expert Barry Rubin commented on the report, “[Y]ou may think that you know this story — but it is far more extensive than has ever before been revealed.”
The primary question at the heart of Poole’s report is simple:
Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations ‘moderates’ and embraced them as outreach partners?
Many of the individuals under active federal investigation for terrorist activities were simultaneously meeting with government officials to help formulate U.S. policy during the last three administrations. Under the Obama administration, these same Islamist organizations and their leaders have influenced vital policy measures, including a purge of counter-terrorism training that makes it virtually impossible for law enforcement officials “to connect the dots.”
For example, Poole cites the failure of the FBI to carry out an investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the Boston Marathon bombings, despite Russian warnings. He attributes a portion of that failure to
a full scale campaign of political correctness waged inside the bureau and throughout the U.S. government under the Obama administration against any attempt to link jihadi terrorism with anything remotely connected to Islam of any variety.
This regime of “political correctness” (to put it charitably) is no doubt a function of the Obama administration’s choice of Muslim “outreach partners,” which is rife with individuals like Shaykh Kifah Mustapha. The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) extended an invitation to Mustapha to tour its top-secret facility in September 2010, as part of the FBI’s civilian training program, despite the fact that he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. That trial represents the largest terrorist financing case in history. During the trial, an FBI agent testified that Mustapha undertook fundraising efforts for Hamas, glorified the terrorist group, and encouraged the slaughter of Jews. Furthermore, the visit also followed Mustapha’s previous removal as a chaplain for the Illinois State Police, due to media reports of his terrorist activities.
The same reckless discounting of radicalism and terror ties can be found at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where Janet Napolitano appointed Mohamed Elibiary to her Homeland Security Advisory Council in October 2010, despite his honoring Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini at a 2004 conference, and his open support for Islamist godfather Sayyid Qutb. In 2010, Mohamed Majid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was sitting a few feet from Obama at the annual White House Iftar dinner in August, commemorating the Muslim celebration of Ramadan. ISNA was also cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).
The terrorist connections of Muslim aid programs and their financiers have also been scrupulously ignored. The Obama administration continues to fund the Sunni Ittehad Council to combat Pakistani extremism, despite rallies it held celebrating the assassination of a Pakistani governor opposed to the nation’s use of blasphemy laws to punish religious minorities.
Poole also cites the disturbing number of “leaders of American Islamic organizations that partner with the U.S. government” who transition into officials for Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Louay Safi is one such individual. Safi, a former top advisor at the Pentagon, appeared at a 2011 press conference in Istanbul as one the leaders of the Syrian National Council, which seeks to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad and is associated with the Brotherhood. That appearance occurred only weeks after Safi met with top White House officials. Safi was yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. According to Poole, Safi’s status at the Pentagon became an issue following the Fort Hood atrocity, “when 13 members of Congress sent a letter to Defense Secretary Gates complaining that not only was Safi endorsing Muslim chaplains for the Defense Department on behalf of ISNA [a Muslim Brotherhood front], but also teaching classes on the ‘Theology of Islam’ to troops departing for Afghanistan at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss under a subcontract with the Naval Postgraduate School.”
Five other men made a similar transformation. Ghassan Hitto, a Dallas businessman, former director of CAIR’s Texas branch, and a recent board member of the Muslim American Society that the FBI has identified as a North American “arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood, has become “the provision premier of the Syrian resistance.”
Muthanna al-Hanooti is a former CAIR director and a former federal prisoner convicted for doing business with Iraq as part of a plea deal that stemmed from a far more serious indictment accusing him of attempting to influence Congress on behalf of Hussein’s Iraqi Intelligence Service (ISI). He is now regional director for the Detroit chapter of the Muslim Legal Fund of America.
Mahmoud Hussein is the current secretary general of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, recruited while studying at the University of Iowa. He was once president of a now defunct subsidiary of ISNA know as the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), which sponsored several conferences featuring terrorists affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ishaq Farhan, a longtime board member of the Washington-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) now heads the the Islamic Action Front, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm in Jordan.
Ahmed Yousef was the director of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), identified as early as 1993 as Hamas’s “political command” in America. According to the terror group’s charter, they consider themselves a “wing” of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Yousef, who fled the U.S. in 2005 on terror-realted charges, is currently a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, and a senior political adviser to their terrorist leader, Ismail Haniyeh.
Poole notes that, because so many of the Islamic outreach partners affiliated with the government turned out to be fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, the government is making “extraordinary efforts” to ignore that reality. This self-orchestrated denial has led to an incredible policy implemented by the Obama administration, one that was formulated as a result of the FBI’s continued relationship with CAIR, despite its aforementioned status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case.
It began with the purge of hundreds of documents and presentations from counterterrorism manuals, leading to the creation of the FBI’s “Touchstone Document.” That document finally codified the Obama administration’s increasingly despicable approach to terror. It articulates a new policy that ought to enrage every American, even as it will undoubtedly endanger us all (emphasis added):
Training must clearly distinguish between constitutionally protected statements and activities designed to achieve political, social, or other objectives, and violent extremism, which is characterized by the use, threatened use, or advocacy of use of force or violence (when directed at and likely to incite imminent lawless activity) in violation of federal law to further a movement’s social or political ideologies. This distinction includes recognition of the corresponding principle that mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).
In other words, if a terrorist group performs any “advocacy” function, such as building a school or a day care center, the FBI cannot “jump to conclusions” about individuals associated with the group, even if it is also perpetrating mass murder. Thus, as Poole notes, the terror support of this administration’s Muslim outreach partners “is absolved with a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.”
The result? “This is why Mohamed Majid, who just a few years before was treated as a pariah by the Attorney General of the United States after federal prosecutors named his organization as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of terrorism in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, can just a few short years later not only be rehabilitated, but can regularly be found–much as al-Qa’ida fundraiser Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi who preceded him–a frequent visitor to the White House,” writes Poole.
Poole then goes on to reveal a parade of “rehabilitated” terrorists and their organizations that have been, and will continue to be, welcomed into the country by the Obama administration. These include people like Hani Nour Eldin, a known member of the U.S.-designated terrorist group Egyptian al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, who visited the White House in 2012 to demand the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Sudanese war criminal Nafie Ali Nafie, the architect of two genocides in that nation, also got the red carpet treatment, receiving an invitation to the State Department as part of a Sudanese delegation.
Poole further reveals that such monstrous accommodation begets an even more insidious downside. “No sooner had the White House’s new outreach policy been announced, when it became clear that one of the policy outcomes of this relationship was the administration’s enforcement of a blacklist of subject matter experts deemed ‘enemies’ by their Muslim partners,” he writes. Coupled with the “Islamophobic” purge of law enforcement training manuals, the Obama administration began fully embracing this Alice in Wonderland approach to terror, best described as one that allows enemies of the United States to help us decide who our enemies are — and who they aren’t.
Poole uses a quote by Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, to encapsulate the insidiousness of this policy. “I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims…And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic of the evidence–that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s directives; that those directives informed his terrorist subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities–the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award,” McCarthy writes. “Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately blind.”
It is far worse than that. When five members of Congress led by the retiring Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attempted to ascertain the level of Islamic infiltration into the government of the United States, members of both political parties, along with the media, excoriated their efforts to protect the American public. Their ire was further stoked by the group’s inquiry into Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s family, despite the reality that her mother, brother and deceased father are/were members of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate organization, the Muslim Sisterhood. Ironically, given the parameters of the Touchstone Document, it would now likely be irrelevant if Huma Abedin herself belonged to either branch of the organization.
Yet as this extensive investigation by Poole reveals, Bachmann, et al., have not only been vindicated, they may have underestimated the problem. It remains to be seen if Congress, already up to its necks in administration scandals, will be willing to take this one on as well. As the atrocity in Boston indicates, American lives literally depend on it.
Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at email@example.com.
WND: The Obama administration allowed into government agencies Islamic groups and activists tied to the Muslim Brotherhood who now influence U.S. anti-terrorism policies and endanger the nation, charges a newly released book.
In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott document Obama not only aided the rise to power of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East but ushered likeminded extremists into the gates of the White House, with Muslim Brotherhood groups serving on important national security advisory boards.
The book further raises questions about whether the Obama administration exposed national security information to U.S. enemies through Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, who has deep personal and family associations with Islamic extremists and even terrorist organizations, according to Klein and Elliott.
Klein and Elliott warn that while there are various Muslim Brotherhood factions and political branches, each share the goal of establishing a comprehensive Muslim world order by means of a long-term, multiple-stage process, with the end game, the book alleges, being a planet run according to Islamic law.
In the United States, the Brotherhood quietly founded multiple organizations and networks, mostly funded by Persian Gulf states, according to “Impeachable Offenses.”
These groups seek influence by lobbying sympathetic members of Congress and infiltrating organizations aligned with various Palestinian and Islamic causes. Identifying these organizations and exposing the agendas of the activists who run them is often difficult, notes the authors, since the groups repeatedly deny ties to the Brotherhood, especially after the 9/11 attacks.
Muslim Brotherhood in the White House
Speaking in February 2010 at what became a controversial question-and-answer session with Muslim law students at New York University, current CIA director John Brennan announced the Obama administration was working to calibrate policies in the fight against terrorism that ensure Americans are “never” profiled.
At the session, Brennan stated that seeing a percentage of terrorists released by the United States return to terrorism “isn’t that bad,” since the recidivism rate for inmates in the U.S. prison system is higher.
He also criticized parts of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 as a “reaction some people might say was over the top in some areas,” that “in an overabundance of caution, [we] implemented a number of security measures and activities that upon reflection … after the heat of the battle has died down a bit, we say they were excessive.”
While Brennan’s remarks drew scrutiny in the blogosphere and in some conservative media outlets, Klein and Elliott note that perhaps the biggest story remains untold – his controversial speech was arranged by a Muslim Brotherhood-tied group that has deep ties not only with other Brotherhood fronts but to the White House and national security agencies.
Brennan’s NYU session was organized by the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, according to the group’s website. ISNA, whose members asked Brennan scores of questions during the event, stated the meeting was intended to initiate a “dialogue between government officials and Muslim American leaders to explore issues of national security.”
ISNA was founded in 1981 by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students Association, which itself was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. The two groups are still partners.
ISNA is known for its promotion of strict Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S.
Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describes ISNA as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.”
According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation.”
Brennan is not the only Obama official to address the radical ISNA. Klein and Elliott relate that in May 2011, Obama’s then-deputy national security adviser, Denis McDonough, was hosted by an ISNA-affiliated mosque to give a speech touted as part of a White House initiative to reach out to Muslims. McDonough is currently Obama’s chief of staff.
In another of scores of examples cited in “Impeachable Offenses,”in July 2011 Obama’s faith adviser, Eboo Patel, spoke at the main event of a three-day convention held by the Muslim Brotherhood-founded Muslim Students Association.
Patel appeared on a panel alongside Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the notorious founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible coconspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj has defended the convicted WTC bomb plotters and has urged the Islamic takeover of America.
On a day when the Council on American-Relations (CAIR) issued a report accusing its critics of bigotry, a Justice Department investigation reminds the public why CAIR does not merit the public’s trust.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz found a series of incidents in which FBI field offices knowingly engaged in outreach activity with CAIR despite a 2008 policy banning non-investigative cooperation with the Islamist group. Only a summaryof the report has been released publicly. The rest is considered classified, but has been made available to Congress.
The ban on interactions with CAIR, first reported by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, resulted from an FBI investigation into a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas-support network in the United States.
Internal documents seized by the FBI show that CAIR and its founders, Omar Ahmadand Nihad Awad, were a part of that network known as the Palestine Committee. Both men appear on a telephone list of Palestine Committee members (Awad is listed under a pseudonym “Omar Yehya), and CAIR is listed on a meeting agenda listing the committee’s branches.
“[U] ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS,” an FBI official wrote in 2009, “the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”
But several FBI field office agents-in-charge balked at the policy, the Inspector General’s report finds, and the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs repeatedly offered field offices conflicting information. Despite a series of electronic communications explaining the CAIR ban – it does not apply to criminal investigations or civil rights complaints – issued from August-December 2008, and despite a mandatory meeting for Special Agents in Charge (SAC) of field offices, the head of the Los Angeles FBI office told his agents to ignore FBI headquarters.
“[W]e will decide how our relationship is operated and maintained with CAIR barring some additional instruction from FBI Headquarters,” the Los Angeles SAC wrote. “Please instruct your folks at this time that are not to abide by the … [policy] but that their direction in regards to CAIR will come from the LA Field Office front office.”
In a scathing letter to new FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., called the violations “intolerable” and demanded punishment for those responsible, including “separation from the FBI.”