November 1, 2013
The pro-Palestinian website Electronic Intifada recently provided a grand example of historic revisionism and the cherry-picking of information to cast CAIR – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – as the victim of a baseless “blacklisting” by the FBI.
The FBI’s 2008 decision to cut off non-investigative interaction with CAIR is based on “tenuous” and “flimsy” evidence tying CAIR to a terror-support network in America,writes Charlotte Silver. In an interesting twist, Silver links to court exhibits and other documents posted on the Investigative Project on Terrorism website for background.
By showing she knows how to find the material, Silver betrays her method of mentioning only those documents which advance her argument, while ignoring damning facts which destroy the entire piece.
A thick paper trail places CAIR and its two key founders in a Hamas-support network operating in the United States. The founders’ previous venture was another branch of that network, one which published Hamas communiques and which a federal judge found was in sync with Hamas terrorists.
But that’s not why the FBI issued a policy in 2008 ordering agents and field offices not to engage with CAIR, Silver writes in her lead sentence:
“Based on flimsy evidence, the FBI has sabotaged efforts to be on good terms with Muslim communities in the US by accusing the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of being linked to a ‘terrorist organization.’”
So not trusting CAIR due to its known ties to Hamas means sabotaging relations with all Muslim Americans? Talk about flimsy and tenuous.
Gauging the true depth of CAIR’s support among Muslim Americans is difficult – it failed to file the 990 tax returns required of non-profits from 2008-2010, and the reports that have been released offer no membership figures. The Washington Times reported in 2007 that CAIR had 1,700 members. A 2011 Gallup poll found that less than 12 percent of American Muslims felt CAIR represents their interests.
How you get from there to the Silver’s claim that the FBI policy on CAIR sabotaging good relations with “Muslim communities in the US” is a mystery.
Silver’s article appears to be a reaction to a Justice Department Inspector General’s September report on violations of the FBI policy banning most interaction with CAIR and its officials. The policy itself should have been examined, Silver writes. She citesa letter from the American Civil Liberties Union, which also casts the policy as part of “an untoward public campaign to vilify CAIR.”
Both the ACLU and Silver emphasize that CAIR has not been charged with any crimes. That’s true. But the issue is not whether CAIR officials should be in prison, or should be free to operate. Rather, it is whether CAIR is an appropriate outreach partner deserving the prestige that comes with access to senior FBI officials.
Just as we would hope that the FBI would shun a corporation found engaging in misleading and fraudulent activity, the Bureau looked at the evidence gathered by its own agents and determined that CAIR no longer could be seen as “appropriate liaison partner” due to unresolved questions “whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS.”
Contrary to Silver’s dismissive assessment, that evidence for that conclusion was clear and compelling. It came from the horse’s mouth.
Internal documents seized by the FBI in the course of an investigation into the Dallas-based Holy Land Foundation show that the Muslim Brotherhood created a network of organizations in America to help Hamas politically and financially. It was called the Palestine Committee.
There is much more