#Obamagate Raises the Question: Should We Repeal FISA?

Angelo Codevilla says yes. John Guandolo says no.

Jail the Guilty, Repeal FISA, at American Greatness by Angelo Codevilla, February 6, 2018

The House Intelligence Committee’s summary memo of highly classified FBI and Justice Department documents confirms what has been public knowledge for over a year: Some of America’s highest officials used U.S. intelligence’s most intrusive espionage tools to attempt to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and then to cripple Donald Trump politically. Being of one mind with the rest of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, these officials acted symbiotically and seamlessly with them, regardless of any cooperation that may have existed.

The party-in-power’s use of government espionage to thwart the opposition violates the Fourth Amendment and sets a ruinous precedent. Having done so under color of law—specifically, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—makes it a lot worse.

Unfortunately, the summary memo—to say nothing of the Democrats’ and their kept media’s reaction to it—focuses largely on whether the FBI and Justice Department dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s as they obtained a warrant from the FISA court to do the spying. This misrepresents high crimes as merely technical violations. Worse, it risks leaving in place a law under which those in charge of the government may violate the basic tenets of American political life with reasonable hope of impunity.

FISA’s Origins
Prior to FISA, American intelligence agencies had done national security electronic surveillance under the president’s power as commander in chief of the armed forces. The president and his agents were responsible for doing it properly. I was part of the Senate Intelligence Committee staff that drafted FISA in 1978. The legislation was meant to answer complaints from leftists who sued the FBI and the National Security Agency after learning they had been overheard working against the United States during the Vietnam War. They wanted to extend the principle that no one may be surveilled without a court order to Americans in contact with foreigners.

But the main push for FISA, in fact, came from the FBI and NSA. Wishing to preclude further lawsuits, the agencies issued Congress an ultimatum: no more national security wiretaps unless each tap has the approval of a judge (thus absolving them of responsibility). FISA established a court to review warrant applications for national security electronic surveillance, in secret and without contrary argument. It commanded the agencies to observe procedural safeguards for the Americans involved.

I opposed FISA as a Senate staffer. I also argued against the legislation in an American Bar Association debate with Antonin Scalia, who was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School at the time. My view then and now is that the FISA court creates an irresistible temptation to political abuse and that officials would interpret any procedural safeguards accordingly.

The Memo Reveals a Bigger Problem
In what is arguably the key passage of the Nunes memo, the committee states:

Neither the initial application [for surveillance of the Trump campaign] in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier [which was a basis for the application] were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

If that’s true, then the officials who signed the applications—including FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, acting Attorney General Sally Yates, then-acting Attorney General Dana Boente, and then-acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—are guilty of misrepresenting material facts to a federal court. All of them belong in the slammer—for at least a little while.

And at some level, they know this. Hence the public relations campaign to downplay the crime. For example, the New York Times on February 2 quoted David Kris, who served as President Obama’s head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. According to Kris, if the FISA application merely told the court that “Mr. Steele’s research was motivated to undermine Mr. Trump’s campaign,” then “the FISA application would be fine.” Note well what narrow distinction, subject to a wide latitude of interpretation, supposedly separates a high crime from “that’s fine” under the law.

But the FISA court’s procedures and requirements—inherently subject to self-interested interpretation as they are—are of far less importance than the fact that FISA was a big mistake to begin with. The law removed responsibility for the substance of executive judgment from the shoulders of the very people who make such judgments.

Today, Comey, Rosenstein, and others may well believe their own claims that they were merely turning government’s neutral wheels and that the judges would judge. Nonsense. They decided to become partisans in the 2016 presidential campaign because they were as convinced as were countless others of their class that they had the right and the duty to protect America (and their place in it) from unworthy challengers.

Perhaps only their failure to dot the i’s and cross the t’s may make it possible for them to be jailed for their crime. But because their successors may be similarly motivated and more careful, it behooves us to erase doubt about who is responsible for electronic surveillance by repealing FISA.

***

FISA is a Constitutional & Needed Weapon in This War, by John Guandolo, Feb. 4, 2018:

With news full of reports about the fraudulent dossier used to obtain the FISA warrant to intercept communications of Carter Paige and the release of the memo last week, the following is provided to UTT readers to help them understand what it takes to obtain a FISA warrant, that FISA is constitutional, and that FISA is needed for the national security of America.

F.I.S.A. stands for the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, and was legislated by the U.S. Congress in 1978 to ensure American citizens were protected from overzealous government intrusion into their privacy in the name of “national security.”

The FISA Court provides a means for the U.S. government to collect on subjects of sensitive/classified investigations (counterintelligence and terrorism for example) without endangering sources and means of the investigation.

FISA judges are federal judges who have been confirmed by the U.S. Senate and chosen by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Understanding the Threat’s President John Guandolo served as a Supervisor in the Counterterrorism Division at FBI Headquarters during his career in the FBI.  In that capacity, he was the affiant – one who swears to the veracity of an affidavit – in support of numerous FISA warrants.

When an FBI agent in the field needs a FISA warrant, he/she contacts their supervisor at FBI headquarters who acts as the affiant for the warrant.  The two work through the affidavit, sometimes over 100 pages long, until the FBIHQ Supervisor is satisfied the legal standard of Probable Cause is met and the facts are verified.

The FBIHQ supervisor works with a Department of Justice attorney, and the cover sheet for the affidavit must be signed off by a DOJ official.  The affidavit is also reviewed and signed off by the FBI Director or Deputy Director.

It is not unusual for the FBI supervisor and DOJ attorney to meet with the FBI Director over a weekend at his home while the Director reviews the affidavit, asks questions, and is satisfied the affidavit can go to the judge.

Then the FBI supervisor and DOJ attorney sit before the FISA judge who reads the affidavit and asks questions.  When the judge signs the affidavit, the technical process begins to intercept the subject of the investigation.

This entire process is legal, constitutional and an important tool in the national security toolbox for dedicated servants inside the government.

In the current case before us, FBI and Department of Justice leaders put forth an affidavit that – as the memo released last week makes clear – was fraudulent and the FBI knew it.  The dossier from Christopher Steele was fabricated and purchased by Hillary Clinton/DNC, and yet this information was not provided to the FISA judge during the initial application for the FISA warrant nor at any of the three times when the warrant was renewed.

In a vacuum, these actions are violations of federal law.  At a minimum, this is perjury and tampering with a federal election by those involved.

But it is much worse than that.

Robert Mueller’s investigation was predicated on a request for Special Counsel which did not allege any crime.  The FISA warrant for Paige was predicated on lies using a source known by the FBI to lack credibility (Steele).

In reality, these actions – efforts to tamper with a federal election and, now, undermine and overthrow a duly elected President of the United States – constitutes “Sedition.”

***

***

Also see:

Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?

Attkisson on New Strzok-Page Texts: What’s in the 5 Months of Messages We Haven’t Seen?

Grassley-Graham Memo: Dossier Author Christopher Steele Lied to FBI, FBI Didn’t Tell FISA Court

The Other Secret Dossier

Latest FBI Texts: ‘Hillbillys,’ ‘OUR Task,’ Obama ‘Wants to Know Everything’

BREAKING: Senate Homeland Committee drops BIG document dump on FBI’s Hillary email investigation [READ THEM HERE]

Exclusive — Rep. Paul Gosar: Obama’s Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS Scandals All Connected to DOJ, FBI Corruption in Trump Probe

Outraged About The FISA Court? Maybe You Should Think About Who Is Surveilling You

Breaking: All Contacts On Anthony Weiner’s FBI Confiscated Laptop Leak Including Clinton, Soros, Gore (Updated)

US Gov’t: Radical Muslims Approved, Moderates Shunned

Muslim advisorsBy Ryan Mauro:

A 2011 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document released by The Daily Caller advises government agencies against training about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and to shun “Muslim reformers.”

Shockingly, the advisory committee that likely influenced these guidelines includes numerous individuals affiliated with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The document says it is a list of “tips for federal, state and local government and law enforcement officials organizing CVE [Countering Violent Extremism], cultural awareness, counter-radicalization, or counterterrorism training.” It was produced by the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in cooperation with the National Counterterrorism Center.

The DHS suggestions in the document include:

Don’t use training premised on theories with little or no evidence to support them. Examples (from the report “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace”) of unsubstantiated theories include:

a. Many mainstream Muslim organizations have terrorist ties.

b Mainstream Muslim organizations are fronts for Islamic political organizations whose true desire is to establish Sharia law in America. Muslim Americans are using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law.

The “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace” report cited depicts concerns about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood as the fabrications of anti-Muslim bigots. Moreover, it defends the Brotherhood, saying it is a moderate group that wouldn’t use front groups in America.

In reality, solid evidence exists to the contrary – evidence ironically from the federal government’s own determinations as well as documents from the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood itself including a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood explanatory memorandum that explicitly states: “[O]ur work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

The Brotherhood memorandum lists “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”  The list includes “mainstream” Muslim-American groups—the very same groups which appear to have influenced these very same Department of Homeland Security guidelines (see below).

Specifically, the federal government designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas. Federal prosecutors labeled these three mainstream groups as U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities in 2007. In 2009, the designations were upheld by District Court Judge Solis because of “ample” evidence linking them to Hamas.

The Clarion Project has broken numerous stories about other Islamist groups doing exactly what the DHS dismisses in the current training document as “unsubstantiated theories.”

For example, a Pennsylvania-based group, Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International (SIIASI), tells Muslims to engage in “litigation jihad” to advance Sharia law in America.

A California-based group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which issues authoritative fatwas, or religious declarations, said in a 2007 Arabic paper presented at one of its conferences it recommends that Muslims become judges and use deception to implement sharia law to the best of their ability. To call their rulings unsettling would be a gross understatement.

These are important facts but the DHS guidelines would leave law enforcement personnel ignorant of them.

On the topic of “Muslim Reformers,” the DHS document had this to say:

Don’t use trainers who answer primarily to interest groups. For example, trainers who are self-professed “Muslim reformers” may further an interest group agenda instead of delivering generally accepted unbiased information.

This is a chilling reflection of how the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups have succeeded in marginalizing their competitors. (SeeThe Clarion Project.org’s CAIR Lashes Out at Non-Islamist Muslim Group where CAIR labels their competitors as being part of an “Islamophobia” network.)

In fact, the Brotherhood groups have become treasured partners of the Obama Administration, while their opponents have been shut out of the policy process. Radical Islamists with known connections to terrorism have had an open door to the White House, but moderate Muslims are not among the list of invitees.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Senior Cleric for American Muslim Group: Islamic Punishment for Apostasy Is Death

1799416114

Center For Security Policy:

Originally published at Translating Jihad

Dr. Hatem al-Haj, a senior committee member for the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), confirmed in the below fatwa from July 2011 that the Islamic punishment for apostasy is death. A couple of things stand out to me about this fatwa.

First, this fatwa was taken down from AMJA’s website as far back as October 2011, along with other fatwas on the same topic, possibly in response to an article written by my colleague Andrew Bostom exposing the rulings in that same month. (See the fatwa on archive.org, while the link on AMJA’s website is broken.) So either AMJA changed their minds about the penalty for apostasy; or, more likely, they just don’t want non-Muslims seeing what they really think on controversial topics. If that’s the case, then what else are they not telling us?

Second, the question that leads to the fatwa is tellingly not asking what the ruling is on apostasy, but rather how to explain this ruling to others, including non-Muslims. While Dr. al-Haj confirms that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death, he also recommends that when explaining this to others, you should start with the caveat that this is something which should only be carried out in a Muslim country through the court system.

AMJA likes to hide behind that caveat, but at the same time they encourage Muslims in the United States to use the American legal system in order to establish Islamic law (see here and here). So isn’t it fair to assume that Dr. al-Haj and AMJA would like to eventually make death for apostates the law of the land here in the United States as well?

See my translation of Dr. al-Haj’s fatwa below (see the original Arabic on his website):

The Ruling on the Apostate, and How We (Should) Explain It to Others

23 July 2011

Question: In view of the questions which we have been receiving in the Islamic centers these days, we ask you, sirs, to please explain how to respond to these questions, which are about the ruling on the apostate and his punishment.

Answer: Praise be to Allah, and peace be upon the Apostle of Allah.

I think you should begin by explaining that this is one of those things which is entrusted to the judicial systems in Islamic countries, and not to individuals in these countries or any others. Then make clear that the courts will examine these situations and decide them based on several factors.

But the ruling in the shari’a is death for men (who commit apostasy) according to all four (mainstream) schools (of Islamic jurisprudence). It is the same punishment for women according to most of the schools, but according to the Hanafis it is only imprisonment. This is according to the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH):  “Whoever changed his religion, kill him”; and also, “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah’s apostle, except for one of the following three:  a murderer, an adulterer, and one who leaves his religion and separates himself from the community.”

This firm ruling is not the only option for the imam, for he can rule otherwise, if there is benefit (in doing so). The evidence for this is the apostasy of some in the time of the Prophet (PBUH), on whom the ruling was not carried out. For (the Prophet) said the following about those who apostatized from the Muslims and joined the Quraysh:  “Whoever departed from us and went unto them, Allah has banished.”

This is not something that was invented by Islam, but rather the ruling on the apostate is also in the Law of Moses (PBUH). The following is from the Book of Deuteronomy:

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.”

It is well-known that those who worshiped the calf were ordered to be killed. In the Book of Exodus 32:28, it mentioned the killing of 3,000 of the Levites for their apostasy:  “And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.”

In explaining this issue to non-Muslims, you need to be wise and honest. May Allah help you.

Allah Almighty knows best.

Dr. Andrew Bostom: Muslim Leaders Seek Sharia in the US:

 

 

Islamist CounterInsurgency in America – Thinking Like an American Jihadi

20121207_PELOSI_nihad_cairby ALAN  KORNMAN

Our American Jihadi adversaries believe that Allah’s divinely ordained  Islamic governance is best for all mankind and our man made laws, Constitution  and Bill of Rights, are corrupted.

The Jihadi Muslim Brotherhood are winning the hearts and minds of the  American people in a very patient and methodical stratagem of war they call the  “Civilization-Jihadist Process” as outlined in “An  Explanatory Memorandum, On the Strategic Goal For The Group in North  America.”

4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North  America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-JihadistProcess” with all the word means. The Ikhwan  (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of  grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within  and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the  believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over  all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to  this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s  destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the  final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who  chose to slack.

Allah’s Law 3 – U.S. Freedom O

The failed COIN or CounterInsurgency operations are known around military  circles as the Petraeus  Doctrine.  The Petraeus Doctrine’s primary focus is winning the hearts  and minds of our Islamist adversaries.  Yes, I use the world adversaries  because if the Islamists were not adversaries we wouldn’t have to win either  their hearts or their minds.

America may have won the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but never won  the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Afghani people.  The result of those  failures resulted in Nouri al-Maliki’s Iraq becoming a proxy state for  Iran.  In 2014-15, after U.S. forces leave the Afghanistan theatre, I  predict, the Taliban will topple the Karzai government and instill Shariah  Islamiyya or Islamic law across that nation.

President Obama was successful in his vision of removing the colonialist  dictator Hosni Mubarak from his 30 year rule in Egypt.  The Egyptian people  voted in Mohamed Morsi of The Muslim Brotherhood whose stated goal is to destroy  “western civilization from within.”

Recent Successes for Team Jihadi in America

4/24/12 – “The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Tuesday ordered the  entire U.S. military to scour its training material to ensure it doesn’t contain  anti-Islamic content. The order came after the Pentagon suspended a course for  senior officers that was found to contain derogatory material about Islam.” (Wired  Magazine).

June 2, 2009 – DHS designated the shooting  at a military recruiting center in Arkansas by, Abdulhakim Muhammed as a  “drive by shooting” not a terrorist attack on a military facility.

December 2011 –  Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were mystified that the Fort  Hood shooting was classified as “work place violence” by the Dept. Of  Homeland Security(DHS).

The FBI  training manual changed. Nearly 900 pages of training that was considered  offensive to Islam were deleted.  Rep. Gohmert discusses that the FBI  training manual can no longer mention the terms: Islam, Muslim, jihad, enemy,  Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, caliphate, Shariah law. (Source)

9/25/2012 – President Obama said at the UN, “”The future must not belong to  those who slander the prophet of Islam…”

These are examples of American Jihadis winning the hearts and minds of our  policy makers at the highest levels of law enforcement, military, and  government.  The Jihadis have a strong incentive to influence how the  United States Government labels terrorists.  The Jihadis know that if we  (Americans) can not identify the enemy by name we will not be able to defeat  them.

The result of these American Jihadi influence operations is that many of  those most knowledgeable on the Islamic Terrorist Threat Doctrine have been  purged from our government.

The little known U.S. Muslim Engagement Project is the driving force that  brought our Jihadi enemies inside the gate.

U.S.-Muslim  Engagement Project

The main goal of this engagement project is to “elevate  diplomacy as the primary tool for resolving key conflicts involving Muslim  countries” and Muslim groups in the United States.

Inside the beltway policy  heavyweights like Madeline Albright, Richard  Armitage, and Dennis Ross have made this engagement  project the de facto policy guideline for whomever the government  deals with involving Islamist issues domestically.

The result of this ‘engagement project’ is that our government officials are  desperately looking for established Muslim groups in the United States to  partner with.  The objectives of the, U.S. Government / Muslim group,  partnerships is to shrink the base of Islamic extremism through conflict  resolution and dialogue in the U.S.  It’s also reported they found unicorns  in North Korea.

Sounds good on the surface until you find out known American Jihadis like  Ingrid Mattson (ISNA), Dalia Mogahed, and Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul  Rauf are the wolves our government is consulting with on important foreign and  domestic policy matters.

ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) is the number one listed Muslim  Brotherhood affiliate operating in the United States.  This is the same  Muslim Brotherhood who wrote the Civilization-Jihadist Process whose self  professed goal is to destroy Western civilization from within, by our own  hands.

American Jihadis Huddle At Justice Department

On 10/21/2011 Neil  Munro of the Daily Caller reported, “Top Justice Department  officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied  them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals,  additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’  criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.”

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez was at the meeting huddling with  American Jihadis.   Absent were any dissenting voices like devout  Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and experts in the Islamic Threat Doctrine, Frank  Gaffney, Tom Trento, Clare Lopez, and Stephen Coughlin.

The American Jihadis have succeeded in getting cutbacks in anti-terror  funding, purging of FBI training manuals, and targeting FBI trainers they deem  offensive.  It appears  Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez was  listening very closely to his American Jihadi allies and then doing their  bidding.

The Next American Jihadi Military Objective

The one objective the American Jihadis have not successfully implemented is,  any criticism of Islam is labeled racial discrimination and hate speech,  requiring enforcement of Title  VI anti-discrimination laws against anyone who “offends” followers of  Shariah compliant political Islamic doctrine and theology.

If you value your freedom of speech pay close attention to what these  American Jihadis want.  If making public criticism of anything illegal,  does not get you mad at the government, ISNA, CAIR, MPAC, etc…. your silence  is what our adversaries are counting on.

The American Jihadi’s Have Been Busy

On September 25, 2012  Patrick  Poole wrote an article titled, “57 Top U.S. Muslim Groups Demanded  Government-Wide ‘Islamophobia purge’ in a Letter to the White House.”

Below are the American Jihadi’s  2009 demands to John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland  Security.  As of December 2012 our American Jihadi adversaries have  successfully gotten the demands below implemented by our Federal Law Enforcement  Agencies at both the Federal and State levels.

1.     Purge all federal government training  materials of biased materials.

2.     Mandatory re-training program for FBI  agents, Army Officers, all Law Enforcement

3.     Anyone who promoted biased trainers  should be disciplined.

4.     Ensure that bigoted trainers and biased  materials…are not utilized in the future.

Naturally it will be the 57 American Jihadi groups listed in the “letter”  that will determine

What gets Purged

Who gets re-Educated

Who gets re-trained

Who gets fired

What Books Get Banned

and

We 57 American Muslim Groups Will Determine What Is Best For  You

Patrick Poole summed it up nicely by stating, “Purges, blacklists,  re-education, and book banning.  Sounds like a recipe for the a Muslim Khmer Rouge.”

These are the actions of a coordinated Jihadi political/criminal enterprise  whose objective is to weaken our government’s ability to train this generations  and the next generations law enforcement and military tasked with protecting our  countries national security interests.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Family Security  Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional  coordinator of The United  West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His  email is: alan@theunitedwest.org

 

Video:Whose Side is Obama On?

Weasel Zippers:

Meet Hani Nour Eldin, member of the U.S.-designated terrorist organization Gamaa Islamiya and another Obama pal.

GBTV: Shariah, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Threat to America

Frank Gaffney and Gen. Jerry Boykin join Erick Stakelbeck and Glenn Beck on GBTV to discuss the rise of the new caliphate and creeping shariah. Boykin and Gaffney are authors of Shariah: The Threat to America

 

What You Should Know About Shariah Compliant Finance

imagesCAAH0AXQFrom The Center for Security:

Shariah Finance Watch is a project of the Center for Security Policy‘s program to educate the public and policymakers about the dangers of Shariah. For a more in-depth look at Shariah, see Shariah: The Threat to America, a report by 19 top national security practitioners– including the former Director of Central Intelligence, the former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Shariah: The Threat to America is available on paperback and Kindle at Amazon.com.

Below are frequently asked questions about Shariah and Shariah-Compliant Finance, or Islamic Banking.

What is shariah?

Understanding Shariah law is integral to understanding the dangers of Shariah-compliant finance. Shariah law is Islamic law dating back to the 7th century and is today the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan and the law under which the Taliban operates.

Shariah law authorities, some of whom are now being paid handsomely by Barclays, Dow Jones, Standard & Poors, HSBC, Citibank, Merrill Lynch, Deutschebank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Credit Suisse and others have the power to dictate Shariah compliance as deemed by “scholarly consensus” on matters of finance, family, penal law, apostasy, and war. Examples of authoritarian Shariah law include: requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms; beating of disobedient woman and girls; execution of homosexuals; engagement of polygamy and forced child marriages; the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape; honor killings of those, principally women, who have dishonored the family; death to apostate Muslims who chose to leave Islam; inferior status of non-Muslims, and capital punishment for those who “slander Islam.”

What are some of the risks of shariah-compliant finance?

National Security and Financial Risks: Islamists are attempting to impose Shariah Compliant Finance (SCF) on Western institutions to use our own financial strengths against us. The most serious problem with SCF is that it legitimates and institutionalizes Shariah law (i.e., Islamic law), a theo-political- legal doctrine violently opposed to Western values. With $1 -$2 trillion petrodollars annually looking for an investment home, blind exuberance is driving financial institutions to adopt SCF, without even a minimal baseline for legal compliance. This willful blindness, and lack of both transparency and due diligence may cause SCF to be the next sub-prime crisis, but this time with deadly consequences.

Legal Risks: Western financial institutions which adopt SCF may have criminal and civil exposure to claims of aiding and abetting sedition and the material support of terrorism, securities fraud, consumer fraud, racketeering, and antitrust violations, as well as exposure to tort claims for sedition and terrorism, and for the violation of internationally recognized norms of the law of nations.

Terror Financing Mechanism: SCF as monitored by paid Shariah law advisors to U.S. banking institutions must “purify” certain return on investment (ROI) dollars that do not meet Shariah law standards. This money must be donated to Islamic charities – including some that promote Jihad and support suicide bombing. Investment disclosures state that these profits can be as high as 6% of profits of investments. With $800 billion already in SCF assets, the potential for billions of dollars to be siphoned off for terrorism is real. This would be a serious criminal violation of U.S. law.

Consider this example: Shariah Mutual Funds promote themselves as “ethical funds.” To be Shariah-compliant, they donate “tainted” revenues to Shariah-compliant “charities.” A post 9-11 U.S. investor in a Shariah-compliant “ethical investment” is not told that Shariah law also requires imposing Shariah as U.S. law, execution of gays and female apartheid. Is he a victim of consumer fraud? Is this same post 9-11 investor unwittingly funding terror? The government has shut down the three largest Shariah-compliant charities in the U.S. – the Holy Land Foundation, Benevolence International Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation – after proving they funded terrorist organizations.The American taxpayer deserves answers to these questions. The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is meeting directly with members of Congress, U.S. regulatory agencies and Wall Street financial institutions in order to ensure the enforcement of existing U.S. laws on sedition, disclosure, material support of terrorism, and money-laundering. CSP is committed to revealing the civil liability and criminal exposure of Shariah law and Shariah-compliant finance.

How is shariah related to jihad?

The mu’amalat part of shariah mandates as a religious obligation, conducting violent jihad against non-Muslims to establish Islam’s rule worldwide in a form known as the caliphate.

How does shariah finance relate to shariah itself?

Shariah finance is indistinguishable from shariah itself, since its followers consider shariah immutable, indivisible, and mandatory for Muslims to follow in all aspects of life. Muslims are not allowed to pick and choose different aspects of shariah to follow. Anyone that infers that shariah finance is something apart from shariah is simply being dishonest. In fact, the main purpose of shariah finance is to promote shariah.

Where is shariah-compliant finance most prominent?

According to the November 2007 edition of The Banker, Iran dominates the world of shariah-compliant finance. Three of the five largest shariah-compliant financial institutions in the world—including the top two—are Iranian. The amount of shariah-compliant financial assets in institutions in Iran is over twice as large as the amount in financial institutions in the world’s second largest shariah-compliant country, Saudi Arabia.

How does shariah finance threaten Americans?

Shariah finance is a threat to Western values, human rights and US national security. Shariah finance has a political objective: to legitimize shariah in the West. Evidence indicates that shariah-compliant finance provides financial support to extremism and terrorism. Shariah-compliant financial institutions employ shariah scholars, many of whom have been shown to be extremists, even to the point of advocating suicide bombing and jihad against America. Among the decisions these scholars make is the donation of 2.5% or more of annual earnings to Muslim charities. Similar to zakat, earnings from investments that are judged to have been unislamic must be purified through donations to charities as well. Given the extremist tendencies of these scholars and the fact that no fewer than 27 charities have been designated as funding terrorism by the US Treasury Department, this presents a hazard which could obviously threaten US national security.

In sum, shariah finance represents a number of potential threats to the US, including possible financing of terrorism and extremist Islamist organizations and movements, infiltrating our financial markets and legitimizing shariah.

Have shariah-compliant financial institutions been tied to terrorism?

There are a number of well-documented cases in which shariah-compliant financial institutions have participated in the financial support of terrorism. For instance, two shariah-compliant banks registered in the Bahamas, Bank Al-Taqwa and Akida Bank, were, according to the US Treasury Department, shell companies actually run out of Italy and Switzerland, whose only real business was laundering money to terrorists. From 1988 until November 2001 when it was designated a terrorist entity by the US government and the UN, Bank Al-Taqwa transferred tens of millions of dollars to HAMAS, Al Qaeda, the PLO, Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA), the Taliban, Egyptian Gama’a al Islamiya and the Tunisian An-Nahda.

In another case, prominent members of the Saudi royal family were co-investors with Osama Bin Laden in the Sudanese Shamal Islamic Bank while several designated terrorists maintained accounts there.

How have shariah-compliant financial institutions used charities to fund terrorist groups?

Generally, shariah-compliant financial institutions have provided funds to terrorist and extremist groups through Islamic “charities.” The financial institutions donate the money to the charities which then steer the funds to terrorist groups. For example, both Bank Al-Taqwa and Akida Bank used charities in Europe, the Middle East and the US to funnel money to terrorist groups.

Have shariah-compliant financial institutions in the US been tied to terrorism?

Yes. Bait u Mal al Islami (BMI), a shariah-compliant investment company based in Seacaucus, NJ, which promoted itself as an Islamic alternative to conventional investments and solicited funds for real estate development, was called by US federal prosecutors as the “US banker for the Muslim Brotherhood.” In testimony before a US Senate committee, former White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke said that BMI’s financial services were little more than a cover “to conceal terrorist support,” and that its investor list “read like a who’s who of designated terrorists and Islamic extremists.”

BMI worked closely with the Bank Al-Taqwa/Akida Bank network in transferring millions of dollars to terrorist groups through them, while receiving large amounts from well-known donors suspected of funding terrorism. These included the Hamas top leader, Mousa Abu Marzouk, who made a number of investments with BMI. Tellingly, BMI continued to work with Marzouk even after the latter was declared an internationally designated terrorist by the United States government in 1995.

How widespread is the use of Islamic charities to fund terror?

No one in the West knows for sure how widespread the use of Muslim charities for terrorism funding actually is, however, the US Treasury Department has so far designated no fewer than 27 Muslim charities in the US and worldwide as terrorism entities due to their funding of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, HAMAS and others.

We know that there is state sponsorship of terrorism. Is there state sponsorship of shariah finance?

State sponsorship of shariah finance has been ongoing since its inception with the founding of the first shariah-compliant bank in 1975, Islamic Development Bank (IDB). In Iran, which has more shariah-compliant institutions than any other nations, all of the banks are in fact state-run.

Have shariah-compliant financial institutions been tied to weapons of mass destruction?

Yes. Iran’s largest bank, Bank Melli, which was named in the November 2007 edition of The Banker as the largest shariah-compliant bank in the world, has been put under sanctions by both the US government and the European Union for its role in financing Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

How does shariah finance threaten freedom-loving Muslims in the West?

The effect of legitimizing and promoting sharia in the West can already be seen in Western Europe. Promoting shariah incapsulates Muslim communities from mainstream society and even creates enclaves controlled by shariah. Shariah-compliant finance plays a particular role in this because, a devout Muslim living in a Western country in which there are no shariah-compliant banks are allowed to use conventional “infidel” institutions under the sharia doctrine of “extreme necessity.” However, once shariah-compliant institutions do exist, they are religiously obligated to patronize them exclusively. Thus, by allowing the spread of shariah finance in the West and the US, we are pushing Muslims toward shariah.

What can our government do to protect our markets from shariah finance?

There is much that the government can and should do to regulate sharia finance to ensure that it does not result in the promotion of sharia in the US and the financing of terrorism.

Visit the Shariah Finance Watch blog for the latest news on SFC