An American Muslim Journal

Latest U.S. Supreme Court ruling on First Amendment may help UC Irvine students

Dear DA Tony Rackauckas:

It's time to drop the ill-conceived criminal charges against the student protesters from the University of California-Irvine.  Your prosecution is a waste of taxpayers' money for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the unconstitutionality of it.

Did you read the latest U.S. Supreme Court case on the First Amendment?  It's titled Snyder v. Phelps and the majority of the Supreme Court comes down squarely in support of First Amendment rights.  You should read it.  You can find it here.

The facts in Snyder v. Phelps are different from those of the student protesters at UC Irvine, but the analysis of First Amendment speech and when it is protected helps better understand exactly why your prosecution, even if it succeeds at the trial court, will ultimately falter and fail (much to the chagrin of Orange County taxpayers who will eventually foot the bill for the constitutional challenges).

The words spoken by the student protesters on the campus of UC-Irvine were clearly the most highly protected speech.  the Irvine 11's speech dealt with public policy matters of the United States vis-a-vis international relations with Israel and the Palestinians.  The speech was at UC-Irvine and that's a public university.  Here's what the Supremes had to say about such speech in the context of the Westboro Church (but equally applicable here):

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989).

I'm not sure it can be anymore clear.  Speech of a public concern in a public space gets "special protection" and cannot be restricted because it upset others at the event.

You should not be allowed to take this case to a jury.  Unless things are really slow in Orange County, I'm going to assume that some pressure was brought to bear upon your office to bring charges against these folks.  I'm very concerned that any jury you impanel for this trial might find it difficult to disassociate their political views which may differ from those of the students with the facts and law to be applied. Again, the Snyder v. Phelps opinion addresses this issue:

In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some- times unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270).

In other words, the students will not only not get a fair trial, the entire system becomes complicit in an unlawful suppression of protected speech.  That's not good.  And yet again, the Snyder v. Phelps opinion:

Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted).

The best course of action is to dismiss the charges with prejudice.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen who isn't an Con Law Expert but Does Read

_____________________________

Click here for another blog post on this topic (pre-Snyder v. Phelps)

 

 

Christian Tucker Carlson believes in death penalty for dog fighting...

According to ESPN.com news, Tucker Carlson, the once bow tie wearing and ever conservative pundit, told Sean Hannity that Michael Vick should have been given the death penalty for his dog fighting conviction.

ESPN.com reported Tucker Carlson's comment as follows:

"I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances.  But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that."

He "fervently" believes in second chances but Vick should have been put to death?  Huh?  And what does Christianity have to do with capital punishment for killing animals?  Is that in the Bible?

Capital punishment is usually reserved for treason and capital murder (which involves the killing of another person).  Mr. Carlson wants to extend capital punishment to killing animals too?

I'd love to hear his argument in support of this expansion of capital punishment.  And I wonder if any of the mistakes he's made (I'm not saying he has - he said so himself) would warrant an expansion of capital punishment as well?

Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah: Slow police investigation, withheld autopsy report fuel further speculation

Delaying the investigation of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah's death at the hands of the FBI in October 2009 in Dearborn, Michigan is not the way to handle an already very contentious stand-off between the FBI and the American Muslim community.  The Dearborn police department and the Wayne County Medical Examiner need to move their process along and quickly report on their joint findings into the shooting death of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah.

The allegations that he was shot over 18 times, that he was handcuffed as he lay bleeding while an FBI dog was flown away for medical treatment by helicopter, and that he was shot while he lay on the ground all suggest an excessive use of force by the FBI.  These allegations also suggest a poorly planned execution of an arrest warrant and a questionable use of tactics (using a dog as part of the arrest warrant execution).

Dearborn-- The Wayne County medical examiner's refusal to release its autopsy report on Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah is fueling concerns in the Muslim community about a possible cover-up of facts surrounding his death, a community leader said Monday...

The county Medical Examiner's Office denied a Nov. 2 request The Detroit News filed for Abdullah's medical examiner report, saying it was not complete...

Dennis Niemiec, a spokesman for the county, confirmed Monday that the report is completed but is being withheld at the request of Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad, who does not want the report released until his department completes its investigation. The county will seek more information from Haddad about how the release of the report would hamper his investigation, Niemiec said...

via The Detroit News

This latest disturbing news comes on the heels of an earlier effort at thwarting the free flow of public information in the form of an exorbitant fee (over $1000) being charged by the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office in order to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request for Imam Abdullah's autopsy report.  Frankly, all of this is absurd.

The circumstances surrounding Imam Abdullah's shooting death, including the questionable affidavit in support of the arrest warrant (which chronicled a long list of fiery but protected speech by Imam Abdullah which ultimately bore little relevance to the underlying legal basis for the arrest warrant), make the spectre of an extrajudicial killing linger in the minds of American Muslims and those familiar with the sordid relationship between the FBI and the American Muslim community (as well as with the African American community).

Covering up the excesses of federal agents (if that is in fact the case) will not help.  The truth will come out sooner or later.  In the mean time the circumstances surrounding Imam Abdullah's shooting death are questionable enough to make reasonable people very skeptical of any delays by the authorities and serve to exacerbate suspicions about the heavy-handed tactics of the FBI when it comes to dealing with American Muslims.

Domestic radicalization and FBI-American Muslim Relations: What is the best strategy?

Should the 5 young American Muslims picked up in Pakistan be charged with any crimes in the United States?

"Charging them and throwing them in jail is not the solution," said Nihad Awad, national head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which approached the FBI on behalf of the families. "The government has to show some appreciation for the actions of the parents and the community. That will encourage other families to come forward."

The men, ages 18 to 24, traveled overseas just after Thanksgiving without telling their families and were arrested near Lahore on Dec. 8. A Pakistani court this week ordered them held for up to 10 more days of interrogation, but officials say their likely return to the United States could take months. Pakistani officials say the men were in touch with a Taliban recruiter and were aiming to join up with al-Qaeda and battle U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

No one has been charged, and the men's friends and spiritual advisers say they never saw any sign of radical beliefs or activities.

Federal prosecutors in Alexandria, where any criminal case would probably be brought, declined to comment. But law enforcement sources say prosecutors are likely to consider charges that include providing material support to terrorist organizations. Prosecutors face complexities that include whether the men's reported admissions to Pakistani authorities are admissible in a U.S. court and whether any statements were coerced.

Via the Washington Post

Did these 5 guys actually commit any crimes by the time they were apprehended?  What is to be gained by not charging them?  Does a greater prospect of domestic radicalization portend an even more strained relationship between American Muslims and the FBI?

There is an argument for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to be lenient with these 5 young men.  There is a lot to be gained for restraining the full force of the law and instead trading leniency for a more concrete and collaborative strategy that brings together the American Muslim community and the FBI in order to curtail future radicalization within the American Muslim community and to also accelerate the weeding out of those violent extremists who now dwell amongst us.  Also, these men may be good candidates for de-programming or de-radicalization.  With that de-programming comes the opportunity to learn a great deal about what caused them to snap in the first place.

Some of the questions I would like answered include: (1) How did these 5 young men conceal their hatred for America so well?  (2) Was the radicalization an acute event with some particular event causing these young men to snap?  (3)  What kind of religious environment did they have in their home?  and (4)  What kind of involvement did they have in their mosque and how did they view that involvement (were they using the mosque as a cover or did they in fact seek and receive spiritual guidance there)?  These are some of the questions I would like to have answered, because I think answers to these questions will be helpful in understanding the thinking of these young men.

If Holder decides to prosecute them aggressively with the severest possible charges, then we run the risk of these men becoming recalcitrant and opting to use the criminal prosecution as a soapbox for their ideas.  The recent prosecution (and conviction) of Ehsanul Islam Sadequee in Atlanta, GA for terrorism related charges is an example of just such a situation.  Sadequee, a 23 year old U.S. citizen, opted to defend himself, and in so doing, he seems to have squandered his opportunity to defend himself in exchange for sermonizing and speech-making on Islam.

On the other hand, being lenient could send the wrong message to other would be hirabis.  Being lenient on these 5 young men may suggest to other would be violent extremists in our midst to continue with their schemes and plots with greater impugnity.

The one factor that may (should) tip the scale in favor of leniency is the fact that the families actively sought the help of the FBI.  That is precisely the kind of cooperation the FBI wants.  The American Muslim community in the DC area is no stranger to the sordid history of the FBI with American Muslims but they recognized that the FBI is a valuable resources in protecting American Muslims as well as the broader community and in the interest of protecting these 5 young American Muslims, the families reached out.  Thankfully, and possibly as a direct result of this early outreach, these 5 young men were scooped up in Pakistan before they could harm anyone (including themselves).

Sooner or later we will reckon with the fact that we cannot alienate and marginalize American Muslims and still expect to garner this community's support in rooting out extremism within the American Muslim community.  Partnering with the American Muslim community is the only way, short of shredding our Constitution, to combat home-grown hirabah.  This is an opportunity to begin mending fences and building some trust between the American Muslim community and the FBI.