“Free Speech Loses” in a US Court

Court Observer: “Free Speech Loses” in a US Court

From Court Observer

Hello,

The attached article outlines a violation of a defendant’s free speech for the sake of “civil rights” regarding Islamic centers. I would appreciate if you would publish/publicize the attached article. All info is accurate, I was present at all hearings. if “court observer” isn’t a good pseudonym, you can publish it by “xxxx xxxxxxxx” or “anonymous”.

………………………………………………..

The following article outlines how the US justice system abused its power to give an unreasonably harsh sentence for an act that was barely, if at all, a crime. They ruined a young man’s life with a 12-month prison sentence, another 12 months of supervised release and a fine. All this for actions that are questionable in criminality. Even if the defendant’s action was a violation of the law, the list of mitigating factors (see bullet list in part 2) in favor of a lighter sentence is substantial.

The story is available on, among other news outlets, the Washington Post.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/maryland/md-man-sentenced-for-threats-t.html

The defendant received the maximum sentence for a political statement, not a criminal act. The case is: US vs. Sobolevsky, case number 10-20062-DGB, conducted in Federal Court of Urbana IL, on November 2010. David Bernthal was the presiding magistrate judge. The defendant was charged with Title 18, Statute 247(a)(2) of the Federal law code:

From the US House website:

http://uscode.house.gov/

Title 18, Statute 247(a)(2):

(a)(2) Whoever intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).

(d) a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Background

In early 2008, the defendant visited CIMIC—an Islamic center in Champaign, IL. What he saw prompted him to research the religion. Apparently, the defendant concluded that Islam was substantially intolerant, violent, and generally unpleasant. He continued to visit the group’s sermons out of curiosity. He tried to engage CIMIC’s leader(s) in a legitimate, if uncomfortable, debate that centered on Islam’s doctrinal intolerance. He saw it odd that CIMIC preached and followed an aggressive and exclusivist religion while simultaneously advocating for “civil rights” and “tolerance” in the outside community. The defendant was concerned to the point of contacting the local FBI office about what he thought was CIMIC’s jihadist sympathies.

I’d like to emphasize this:

The defendant took the initiative to contact law enforcement about the Islamic group’s apparent jihadist sympathies.

In spring of 2008, the defendant, against his better judgment, fired off some nasty emails. For that, he got the maximum penalty: 12 months incarceration, a fine, and 12 months of supervised release.

The defendant was unjustly punished out of proportion to the crime (if it was a crime at all). The government twisted the law to “make an example” out of someone who did not deserve it. I was present at the hearings, so I can attest to what happened during the proceedings.

1. The Charge

Use or attempt to use force was not proven. This is a central point since the statute focuses on “intentional obstruction.” There was no attempt to obstruct by force. There were no arguments or evidence that the defendant intended or threatened any forceful action.

There was no testimony or evidence that the Islamic center was closed as a result of the email. Nobody was ever physically obstructed. The plea and sentencing hearings failed to show any temporary or lasting harm to CIMIC or its members over the 2.5 years this investigation has gone on.

The prosecutor injected opinion and bias into a “statements of facts” in her argument. It was an absurdity to accuse the defendant of “terrorism” as the prosecutor and the judge proceeded to do. In fact, it was precisely the defendant’s awareness of Islam’s undeniable connection to jihadi terrorism that prompted the defendant to act in good intent, if admittedly poor manners.

The defendant was not given a chance to respond to the prosecutor’s creative extrapolations of harmful intent and general character smearing. I feel that the defendant should have had the last word in this hearing.

2. Judge Bernthal’s Conduct

Bernthal ignored mitigating factors that would seem to lessen the defendant’s sentence. These include:
That this was a first-time offense. Maximum penalties are typically imposed on unrepentant repeat offenders.

The defendant’s cooperation with investigating agents.

The fact that the defendant was released with no arrest, detention or travel restrictions for over 2.5 years.

The defendant’s productive employment, volunteering record, and positive professional/personal character references before and after the incident.

The defendant’s acceptance of responsibility and explicit apology in all court appearances.

The fact that the defendant contacted law enforcement with his legitimate concern about extremist sympathies by CIMIC members. The defendant saw questionable sermons and informed the authorities accordingly.

The judge twisted statements that were political, but within domain of protected speech. The defendant was not judged by any concrete actions, but by his views and beliefs. Bernthal’s decision was not based on any consideration of the defendant’s history, character or cooperation in the case. This makes a mockery of “justice” or “fair judgment.”

The presiding judge took a political statement (“do whatever it takes”) and, despite no evidence of force or intent to use force, gave the maximum punishment. Absurdly, Judge Bernthal equated emailed politically-incorrect statements and opinions to “acts of terror.”

Whatever his thoughts and motives in setting an unreasonably harsh sentence, Judge Bernthal’s conduct casts serious doubt on his capacity to carry out his job responsibilities.

3. Concluding thoughts

People like Wafa Sultan, Robert Spencer and many others have an explicitly bad opinion of Islam. Such perspectives are clearly “discriminatory” against a particular faith. They openly speak, and write about, the evils of Islam in no uncertain terms. They are not persecuted; in fact, they often are awarded for their “defense of freedom.” Moreso, many activists of all stripes regularly receive threats far harsher than what the defendant said. For example, Robert Spencer regularly receives death threats that he publishes on his website, jihadwatch.com. To my knowledge, few if any of those threats by Muslims are investigated or prosecuted.

The US justice system is often unfair and political. It has little credibility, and the “US v Sobolevsky” case is another unfortunate testament to this fact.

The defendant is “guilty” of bad word choice. Even if this is a crime, it is not one that rationally deserves the maximum sentence.

In this case, Judge Bernthal went against the core spirit and purpose of discretion allowed to judges. I shudder to think of future defendants facing Bernthal’s draconian “reasonable judgment.” Yes, the sentence was technically within the law. Nevertheless, “the law” needs an ethical foundation and a constant reminder that the punishment should match, not exceed, the severity of the crime.

To allow Bernthal this blatant abuse of power, excused by technicalities, puts a serious dent in the credibility of the US justice system. Judge Bernthal should be removed from the bench for his malicious abuse of sentencing discretion.

Sincerely,

A concerned court observer

Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam

Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam

By ; Ali Sina  and Reproduced  here.

I have always maintained that “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron. We have two kinds of Muslims: Terrorist Muslims and ignorant Muslims. The former are those who know Islam well and live by its dictum. The latter have no clue about their religion and have an idealized image of Islam that has no basis in fact.

Mr. Tarek Fatah’s editorial published in the National Post on March 12, 2010 confirms my view. Fatah attended a debate between Dr. Wafa Sultan, the courageous ex-Muslim woman that shook the Arab world when in an Aljazeera televised debate she pointed out that the problem with the Muslim world is Islam, and Dr. Daniel Pipes, a scholar of Islamic history and the director of the Middle East Forum.

In this debate Pipes argued that Islam is not essentially an intolerant religion and that there have been instances when Jews who were persecuted in Christian countries had sought refuge in Muslim lands. Sultan disagreed and reminded her audience that Muhammad had raided several Jewish tribes who lived in Arabia, massacred their unarmed men and allowed his marauding band to rape their women, while always reserving the prettiest for himself.

Upon hearing these comments, Fatah was “traumatized”. “Even a hardened secular Muslim such as myself was deeply hurt by what I heard that evening,” wrote Fatah.

While acknowledging the validity of Sultan’s criticism of Islam, Fatah repined that “instead of using her newfound fame to challenge the established theocracies and corrupt kingdoms of the Middle East, Sultan veered off the deep end and could not resist the temptation of becoming the poster child of Islam haters, joining their ranks with the fervour of a convert.”

Why should Sultan challenge the established theocracies and corrupt kingdoms when these are the rotten fruits of the poisonous tree of Islam? As a medical doctor she is trained to look at the cause of the disease and not the symptoms.

Fatah accused Sultan of fear mongering and telling to a predominantly Jewish audience, that Muhammad was a Jew killer. He wrote “Wafa Sultan delivered an astonishing account of how the Prophet had slaughtered Jews and then raped the wife of the defeated Jewish tribe.”

Astonishing account? These accounts were reported by early Muslim historians. If Fatah is astonished it is because he, like most Muslims, has not read the history of Islam. Few Muslims care to investigate their religion. The references to Muhammad’s raids, rapes and lootings can also be found in the Quran. Muslims chant the Quran for thawab (reward), but they don’t study it and often don’t understand what they read.

The hatred of the Jews is in the Quran. The first sura of this book is a prayer where Muslims supplicate to Allah, “Show us the straight path. The path of those whom Thou hast favored; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.”

Muslims agree that “those whom Allah has favored,” are Muslims, “those who earn Allah’s anger,” and “those who go astray” are Jews, and Christians, respectively.

Jews are stereotyped as greedy in all Muslim countries. This is due to quranic verse that says Jews “cling to life more eagerly than any other people. …every one of them would love to live a thousand years,” but they will burn I hell. (2:96)

Many verses of the Quran portray the Jews as evil doers, wicked, transgressors, prophet killers, and despised by God. Because Muhammad hated the Jews, Muslims will always hate the Jews. This hatred is inseparable from Islam.

Fatah continued, “I left the synagogue deeply disturbed. In the fight against Islamofascism, Wafa Sultan’s hatred of Islam was cultivating the very forces she claims to be exposing. When a questioner asked her ‘What is the solution?’ she just shrugged her shoulders. Perhaps the answer she had in mind was too outrageous even by her own standards: Force Muslims to convert or die.”

Sultan has all the reasons to hate Islam. Former Muslims hate Islam because we hate discrimination against women, violence against non-Muslims, dictatorship and imposition of faith that characterizes the true Islam, and because we know the damage that his overgrown cult has done to our people, our culture and our countries. We don’t shrug our shoulders when asked for the solution. Obviously this “hardened secular Muslim” was so traumatized that he could no longer hear what Wafa Sultan was saying.

Former Muslims propose telling the truth as the solution. We believe that truth can set us free. Former Muslims do not advocate violence and hate against our own kin, brothers, sisters, parents, and loved ones. We strive for their freedom and their right to know the truth. We oppose censorship and political correctness that have enslaved the truth. Truth can hurt our feelings, but lies will kill us.

I do not dispute with Dr. Pipes’ historic account that sometimes Jews who were persecuted by Christians sought refuge among Muslims. However, I respectfully disagree with him when he presents this as evidence of the tolerance of Islam.

Islam is not tolerant because Muhammad was not tolerant. This does not mean all Muslims are intolerant. There have been many Islamic rulers who were tolerant, but they went against the canons of Islam, as many do today. That is why the jihadists  who follow the true Islam are attacking these Muslim rulers.

Unlike the crusaders who wanted to convert everyone to Christianity, the jihadists don’t want to convert everyone to Islam. They want to establish the Caliphate and dominate the world. In an Islamic state, ruled under the Sharia, non-Muslims, particularly the people of the Book, (Jews and Christians) are protected, as long as “they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Q: 9:29).

This is no different from Nazism. Hitler did not want everyone to become Arians, nor did he want to exterminate all mankind. He wanted to dominate the world.

By drawing a distinction between Islamic terrorists and “moderate” Muslims Dr. Pipes is treading a dangerous path. One is either a Muslim, therefore emulates Muhammad and is a terrorist, or he is not a Muslim. Moderate Muslim makes as much sense as moderate Nazi. A Muslim who does not practice Islam or believes Islam means peace is not a moderate Muslim, but a wishy-washy Muslim or an ignorant Muslim.

Lies always come back to haunt us. It is this myth that allows Glenn Beck to malign Geert Wilders and call him a “fascist,” or Jacqui Smith and other British officials to bar him from entering the U.K. There are countless good people who are harassed, prosecuted and called racists because of this myth.

I respectfully urge Dr. Pipes to stop promoting the myth of moderate Islam. I also cordially invite him to a written debate on this topic. Getting to the bottom of this matter goes beyond academic interest. This myth is endangering the lives of the critics of Islam and is violating their right to free speech. Good people are called islamophobe, bigot, racist and fascist because the world prefers politically correct untruths to the inconvenient truth. It is thanks to this myth that telling the truth has become the new hate speech.

Mr. Tarek Fatah proves my point that there is no such thing as moderate Muslim. He calls himself hardened secular, but fractures when he hears a historic truth about his prophet. So much for his hardness! When he says, “Wafa Sultan’s hatred of Islam was cultivating the very forces she claims to be exposing,” he is talking about himself. Many honest Muslims prefer not to hide their heads in the sand; they face the truth and deal with it in a rational way.

I would like to remind the readers that virtually all Muslim terrorists come from a secular background. At one point they were just as “liberal” as Mr. Fatah is today until something happened in their lives and they turned to their faith.

Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.

It is time to put an end to the charade of “moderate Islam.” There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists – moderate, they are not.

P.S.

A copy of this article was sent to the National Post. Since they published Mr. Fatah’s attack on Dr. Sultan, I hope they would publish this response to him. However, if they refuse to publish it I won’t be offended. Most westerners have no problem shadowboxing the “political Islam,” as if dealing with an entity different from Islam, but they shun the critics of Muhammad and Islam itself. This mighty task is left on the shoulders of former Muslims like the corageous Wafa Sultan and a few heroic souls like Geert Wilders.