Posted on 01/28/2006 11:52:44 AM PST by UnklGene
Mark Steyn: Are We Serious? -
Abu Hamza is the most famous of Britain’s many incendiary imams, a household name thanks to the tabloids’ anointing him as “Hooky” — he lost his hands in a, um, “accident” in Afghanistan a few years back. Currently on trial in London for nine counts of soliciting to murder plus various other charges, he’s retained the services of the eminent Queen’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald opened the case for the defense by arguing, according to the Daily Telegraph, that “Hamza was urging his followers not to murder British people but to fight in holy wars where Muslims were being killed in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Palestine. Asked if he had ever intended to urge or incite murder, Hamza replied: ‘In the context of murder, no. In the context of fighting, yes.’”
Hmm. Hamza wants to see a Caliph installed in Downing Street and to have Muslims “control the whole Earth.”
And, of course, wanting Muslims to control the whole Earth is not against the law, nor, as his counsel argued, is advocating the more robust methods of bringing it about. As the Times of London reported: “Edward Fitzgerald, QC, for the defence, said that Abu Hamza’s interpretation of the Koran was that it imposed an obligation on Muslims to do jihad and fight in the defence of their religion. He said that the Crown case against the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque was ‘simplistic in the extreme.’ He added: ‘It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.’”
Well, it’s ingenious, and who’s to say it won’t work? If the Koran permit, you must acquit. To convict would be multiculturally disrespectful: If the holy book of the religion of peace recommends killing infidels, who are we to judge?
‘Hooky’ has his day Odd Andersen/AFP
In other courtroom news, Nick Griffin, leader of the highly non-multicultural British National party, is also on trial, charged with the crime of “using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred” — and, unlike Hamza, he’s unable to avail himself of the But-I-got-it-straight-from-the-Koran defense. The jury was sternly reminded that its role is not to consider the truth or otherwise of Griffin’s remarks: The criminality thereof is not mitigated by factual accuracy. One of the offending observations is this, made at a meeting in Leeds, a year before the July 7 bombings: “We all know that sooner or later there’s going to be Islamic terrorists letting off bombs in major cities, and it might not be London, it could just as easily be the White Rose Centre” — which is in Leeds. Griffin ventured that the bombers would prove to be asylum seekers or second-generation Pakistanis “living somewhere like Bradford.”
Close enough. Well, closer than MI5 got. Three of the four July 7 bombers were, in fact, second-generation Pakistanis from Leeds — a mere stone’s throw or bomb blast from where Griffin was speaking. Tony Blair has for years been predicting terrorist devastation raining down on Britain, but very shrewdly he usually avoids hazarding too specific a guess at the likely identity of the perpetrators — which is why he’s not on trial and Nick Griffin is.
Go back four years. On September 11, the Bush administration had to choose whether to regard the events of that morning as a matter for law enforcement or an act of war. At one o’clock that afternoon, as the Pentagon still burned and after he’d helped pull the injured from the rubble, Donald Rumsfeld told the president, “This is not a criminal action. This is war.”
That’s still the distinction that matters: Part of the reason John Kerry lost in 2004 and why the Democrats will lose again this November is that they view this business as a law-enforcement matter: all warrants and due process. And, as we see in almost every case that comes up, to fight the jihad in the courtroom means you’ll lose.
Imagine if, during the London Blitz, you’d had Germans with British passports giving speeches advocating the United Kingdom’s incorporation within the Third Reich and demanding the Swastika fly over Buckingham Palace and you had to prosecute them individually and most Nazis were acquitted on technicalities but a few got 18-months-to-two-years. To be sure, one can argue (as many British and Americans do) that the jihad does not pose the same kind of existential threat, but at what point do you cross the line? Three hundred dead in a Tube blast? Six thousand in a skyscraper bombing? Why aren’t the dead of September 11 and July 7 already enough?
There are local factors at play in these court cases and the defendants know them very well. Under onerous British reporting restrictions, I can’t even write about the Hamza case in a Fleet Street paper lest it prejudice his trial. In cases like that of, say, Sami-al Arian or Zac Moussaoui, you’re free to talk about them but the nature of the U.S. justice system means there are years and years between the arrest and even the prospect of justice. Thus, the net effect in both jurisdictions is to limit or defer public awareness of these men’s activities.
A court of law is not meant to be a field of battle, and the enemy should not be upgraded to a defendant. The question is not “Why do they hate us?” but “Why do they despise us?” And putting Abu Hamza in the dock at the Old Bailey is a good example why.
*ping*
Stop Jihad Now!
True.
ping
The great thing about Steyn is that his writing often covers the bases that need covering for the moment.
Others may write great stuff, but I find myself wanting to add extra comments.
It don't get any better than this.
Child rape and "Leb style" activities included but don't insult Islam with a cartoon or we will stone or behead you.
Yep, that pretty much explains it. They think we're fools because most ARE fools. We hand them a weapon and then act surprised when they use it against us.
"Why aren’t the dead of September 11 and July 7 already enough? "
Wow!!
When I debate my liberal friends about whay we are in Iraq, I ask them for what they will sacrifice blood and treasure. I'm adding this phrase.
This can't be stressed enough. War is not a legal exercise. Your enemy is not your enemy for some legal infraction, in fact what he does is likely perfectly legal by his code of conduct, and if his legal advisors are sufficiently sharp, it may even emulate legality under your code.
He is not at war with you because of some legal infraction, he is at war with you because he wants to destroy or subjugate you, and he is prepared to use any means to do it.
War is the state of affairs that exists when law is insufficient to resolve a conflict, war is what exists when your opponent is outside the jurisdiction of your laws, or does not recognize your laws, or is prepared to use your laws to destroy and enslave you.
In the moment you recognize your mortal danger, you must act, you must be prepared to do whatever it takes, and "whatever it takes" means just that, whatever it takes. You aren't going to limit yourself to serving subpoenas on your enemies, you are going to round them up, you are going to deport them, imprison them for as long as seems prudent, you are going to target them and kill them and anyone standing near them, you are going to identify and destroy their supporters, and you are going to do it with as much grace or brute force as you deem necessary.
These guys should not be on trial. They should be in a holding camp, being sweated for information so you can find their pals and get them too.
He had no hand in any of this.
True, but he did turn a blind eye toward it.
Abu isn't also going to finger anyone else or knuckle under pressure brought by such limp-wristed prosecution. (It's a rainy Saturday so forgive me please)
And, once you've goten all the information they have, have them dig a deep hole.
ping
Est steinus impretoruium hamasismasur fingerlesitiumes gregorian whogivesastfuuffs in partre tossorius.
Consider yourself forgiven.
kind regards,
Oh, and three Hail Mary's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.