By Janet Levy, AMERICAN THINKER
Resplendent in her royal blue hijab for an official appearance in Bangladesh on Sunday, Hillary Clinton proclaimed that she was deeply hurt by charges brought forth at a public forum that the United States was biased against Muslims.
“It hurts me so much,” Clinton lamented. “It’s a painful perception to hear about, and I deeply regret that anyone believes that or propagates it.”
Even for a woman who had no trouble during her husband’s tenure as president consorting with the father of modern terrorism, Yasser Arafat and his wife, Suha — recipient of the famous Clinton kiss — it is a remarkable statement. Hillary Clinton voiced no public distress over the findings of the last FBI report on religious hate crimes in the United States, which revealed that the overwhelming majority of hate crimes — 72% — target Jews, compared to just 8.4% for Muslims and 6.4% for Christians. Meanwhile, in the Indian subcontinent, Mrs. Clinton also failed to address the decades of oppression and massacres suffered by the Hindus of Bangladesh at the hands of Muslims and the abject discrimination, extortion, and threats that remain rampant today.
Instead, under the guise freedom of religion, Clinton held a summit last December — the “Istanbul Process” — that actually promotes the global blasphemy law relentlessly pushed for over a decade by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation to combat “defamation of Islam.” Ironically, in the United States, a country with an exemplary record of upholding freedom of religion and little evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination, Clinton chooses to advocate on behalf of Islam.
Clinton is not alone in her deference to Islam. This bending over backwards to appease and accommodate Muslims has been blatantly displayed throughout the recent arraignment of 9/11 terrorists at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (GITMO). What should have been a straightforward presentation of charges was instead a showcase for how we are compromising our rules and values in the face of the Islamic threat.
Defense attorney Cheryl Bormann, sporting a black hijab and abaya in court, audaciously requested that the prosecution’s female paralegals and FBI agents dress with cultural sensitivity for enemy detainee defendants. Perhaps she was unaware that her call for respect is directed toward followers of a doctrine which commands men to beat wives who fail to meet their husbands’ sexual demands, mandates gender apartheid, allows men to enslave infidel women, sanctions female genital mutilation, allows a husband coital relations with his wife up to six hours following her death, demands the stoning of women suspected of adultery, and requires four male witnesses to corroborate a woman’s accusation of rape.
While it is doubtful that Ms. Bormann’s shameful request will be honored, it is astonishing that it would be uttered in the first place and unconscionable that she would display such insensitivity toward members of the court and especially families of victims of the 9/11 attacks who are following the proceedings. An arraignment for terrorist activities that resulted in the mass murder of innocent Americans is certainly not the venue for catering to jihadist demands. By contrast, a captured enemy combatant in a Muslim country would be fortunate to remain alive with all limbs and vital organs intact. Due process and humane treatment wouldn’t even be part of the equation. The five GITMO 9/11 plotters have been housed in a model detention center, afforded all Geneva Conventions rights without fulfilling the required qualifications of military combatants, and are being defended by both military and civilian counsel at U.S. taxpayer expense.
Defiant and disrespectful, the 9/11 plotters refused to answer questions, removed the headphones that were transmitting translations of the arraignment, and provocatively arose from their seats to pray during the proceedings. One defendant mocked the 9/11 atrocity by making a paper plane and placing it on top of a microphone. This was a blatant attempt to sabotage the military commission and stage what appeared to be a well-rehearsed publicity stunt.
In a further show of Islamic appeasement, the court tolerated the indefensible display of the Muslim defendants, including the disruptive prayer break, and failed to mete out appropriate discipline that would normally be conferred in a like situation with non-Muslims. This and the grandstanding of the defense team raise the question: “Where is the equivalent concern and respect for the victims of Islamic terrorism? Why is the focus on how Muslim terrorists are treated, while 9/11 families and traumatized Americans are victimized once again on the taxpayers’ dime?”
Defense attorneys harped on the extreme distress and “torture” suffered by their Muslim terrorist clients to justify their behavior in court. Bormann requested a court order preventing forcible extraction of detainees from their cells if they were unwilling to attend the next hearing. Another defense attorney complained about the strip-searching of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed prior to the arraignment, the denial of terrorist detainee sartorial choices for the court appearance, and the regular review by GITMO prison officials of prisoner correspondence. None of these actions on the part of prison personnel appear unusual, given the circumstances, and wouldn’t normally warrant an extensive court discussion.
Further, that perpetrators of the largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor and their defense attorneys would complain about treatment at GIMTO is beyond arrogant. As I learned during a visit in 2007, GITMO is a model detention facility, where enemy detainees receive balanced meals — six menu choices per meal, with schedules and content modified for holy periods, clothing, and comfort items — prayer mats, skull caps and Korans in their native languages, good medical and dental care the same as what base soldiers receive, generous recreational activities, access to attorneys and a library, and visits from the Red Cross in a secure environment in strict accordance with Geneva Conventions.
Further, GITMO guards receive Muslim and cultural sensitivity training and bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of Muslim detainees, despite constant assaults and threats. Astonishingly, troops at GITMO are not allowed to handle the Koran without donning white gloves; are prohibited, as a show of respect, from walking in front of prisoners’ quarters during the five daily calls to prayer; and must keep halal meat for detainees in a separate freezer from their non-halal provisions to avoid contamination. Also, at a time when the U.S. is cutting defense spending and threatening health care reductions for our troops and veterans, GITMO is completing a brand-new, $750,000 soccer field financed by taxpayer dollars. This level of appeasement is unprecedented and not afforded to any other prison populations.
Also unusual and observed during the arraignment proceedings was that the defense attorneys and their clients seemed oblivious to the gravity of the charges being presented. While they concentrated on spurious charges of torture, it seemed forgotten that GITMO houses jihadists picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Of those released to date by the U.S. government, 27% return to jihadist activities, according to a recent report by the House Armed Services Committee. This is the same sort of jihadist fanaticism that spawned the murder of 30 people, including six U.S. soldiers, after the burning of Korans defaced with seditious messages penned by terrorist prisoners in American military facilities. And the jihadists have also been responsible for a series of suicide bombing attacks in Syria.
Indeed, defense attorneys sought to deflect attention away from the actions that led to their clients’ capture, incarceration, and arraignment and appeared to be obfuscating who the five GITMO defendants actually are. A cursory review of their records is instructive.
-
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the al-Qaeda member who was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. He also confessed to his involvement in the first World Trade Center bombings in 1993, the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and the bombing of the Bali nightclubs, as well as other plots.
Walid Bin Attash reportedly selected and trained the 9/11 hijackers. The former Osama bin Laden bodyguard researched airline schedules and flight simulators and allegedly played a significant role in the 1998 East African embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole.
Ramzi bin al-Shibh worked with Mohammed Atta, who crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, to mastermind the attacks. He also wired money and passed vital information to the hijackers.
Ammar al-Baluchi and Mustafa al-Hawsawi provided funding and logistical support to bring the hijackers into the U.S. Incidentally, Baluchi is married to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, the incarcerated neuroscientist who, when apprehended in possession of recipes for weapons of mass destruction, instructions for shooting down U.S. drones, descriptions of New York landmarks, and two pounds of cyanide, grabbed a rifle and attempted to murder U.S. interpreters in Afghanistan.
At this point, in what was formerly referred to as the Global War on Terror, it should be no surprise that indicted Islamic terrorists would use obfuscation tactics against any charges. This strategy was documented in the al-Qaeda manual discovered during a terror raid in Manchester, England in 2006. In it, a chapter on “Prisons and Detention Centres” encourages terrorists to claim torture and mistreatment while in prison and to resort to hunger strikes. In fact, one passage states, “At the beginning of the trial … the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison.”
We must not forget the words of General Bantz J. Craddock, who, in 2006, explained, “Detainees are held at JTF-Guantanamo because they are dangerous and continue to pose a threat to the U.S. and our allies. They have expressed a commitment to kill Americans and our friends if released. These are not common criminals; they are enemy combatants being detained because they have waged war against our nation and they continue to pose a threat.”
As was evident at the GITMO arraignment, even following capture and indictment, Muslim terrorists continue to wage jihad in the courtroom. Our tolerance for this level of disrespect and disruption of our judicial system is an indictment of American leadership and an example of how we are accommodating Islam in our society. If we bow to Islamic requests and demands in the courtroom, how long until we end up bowing to Islamic supremacy altogether and hand ourselves over, ever so politely, to our sworn enemies?
Curious American states
I am surprised at your logic! The Western Wall is part of the Temple of Solomon, get it? It is a place of worship a la synagogue. Christians, and everyone else, is expected to wear a head-covering. If one goes into a Hindu temple, one is expected to remove one’s shoes, simple logic.
The Gitmo trials are NOT held in a place of worship. It is a court of law.
@ Laurel:
So where would he/she face? if not down, then up north south east or west?
How does one know if he/she is really redeemed until after physical death?
The Greek work translated “covered” in regard to men in 1 Cor 11:4 means “down”…a man should not pray with his head down, a man should turn his face to G-D since he is redeemed and in relationship with his Creator….@ CuriousAmerican:
@ CuriousAmerican:
It’s not my interpretation it’s Jewish Law (Halacha) According to Jewish Law, it is prohibited to enter any place of worship that is not purely monotheistic. This would include weddings, funerals, baby namings, etc. Traditional sources that prohibit entering churches and temples, where what the rabbis considered idol worship is practiced. Those coming from this vantage point cite sources such as: Talmud Avodah Zara 17a as well as Maimonides, the Rashba, the Ritba, Rosh, and Rabbis Moshe Feinstein, Ovadia Yosef and Eliezer Waldenberg. Instead, they encourage that interfaith dialogue and contact be held on neutral ground, and suggest this has the advantage of not trivializing the religious power of other tradition’s religious sites, nor our own.
In Jewish law one is not permitted to visit a place of idolatrous worship, let alone show any deference to it (Rambam/Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishnah tractate Avodah Zarah chapter 1, also quoted by the Shach in Shulchan Aruch Y”D 149). As a result, the answer actually depends on the status of the faith or belief system in question. Religions that worship multiple deities generally fall neatly into the Jewish definition of idolatry. According to many commentators (including Maimonides) the same applies to Christianity. The concept of the trinity, along with the worship of a human being as god, is understood as qualifying the Church as a place of idol worship. However there are those such as the Meiri, that disagree. He maintains that while Christianity is not a correct belief and completely forbidden for a Jew, it is not considered idol worship. Similarly, later commentators offer further consideration of the different denominations of Christianity such as those that do not believe in the trinity. Islam is universally recognized as monotheistic and non-idolatrous, and so entry into a mosque is permitted (though a Jew may not pray the prayers of another religion). It is worth noting that entry into a forbidden house of worship through a side door for purposes that have nothing to do with religious ceremony, such as when a Church is using as a polling station for voting and elections, is permitted. Also, if the faith is no longer in existence, such as the ruins of a religion that is no longer practiced, many permit entry.
Note: Reform and Conservative branches of Judaism do not hold for the most part with orthodox prohibitions but then they practice an un-Jewish Judaism.
Now if you want to discuss insanity:
Moses Nachmanides and The Debate in Barcelona, Spain, 1263
The most famous of all Jewish-Christian disputations was between the apostate Jew Pablo Christiani and Moses Nachmanides (the Ramban).
Nachmanides argued that the central issue separating Christianity and Judaism was not the issue of Jesus’ messiahship, but whether or not Jesus was divine. There was no basis in Judaism, Nachmanides said, for believing in the divinity of the Messiah or, indeed, of any man. To Nachmanides, it seemed most strange “that the Creator of heaven and earth resorted to the womb of a certain Jewess and grew there for nine months and was born as an infant, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed into the hands of his enemies who sentenced him to death and executed him, and that afterwards… he came to life and returned to his original place. The mind of a Jew, or any other person, cannot tolerate this.” Nachmanides told the Spanish monarch, “You have listened all your life to priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this doctrine, and it has settled with you because of that accustomed habit.” Had King James heard these ideas propounded for the first time when he was already an adult, Nachmanides implied, he never would have accepted them.
It tells me that your rabbinical interpretations are insane.
@ Catarin:
Naivete and or ignorance are bliss!
The US State Dept has his own agenda. Take a look at the oilmen who were and probably still are very much involved in the politics of the Dept. It is a state in the state.
The U.S. State Department walks a mine field every day. According to some of you, the State Department should just stay at home or snidely insult and arouse the people with which it is meeting. That’s not what State Departments do. Their goal is to make a breakthrough in relationships with hostile people, in the hope it will lead to progress to peace. Somebody has to do this, don’t they?
@ CuriousAmerican:
Laura:
Like I said, the west is castrated.
A-Jewish Law prohibits Pagans in the Land of Israel. Especially on or near the site of OUR Holy Temple. Where it up to me they would not be allowed in the country no less the Kotel.
B- In any event, it’s our country , our traditions our laws. Non Jews who don’t like it stay away.
C-Jewish Law prohibits any Jew from entering a Christian Church. Mosques are kosher for visiting. That should tell you something.
Why should we care what 1 Cor 11:14 says that’s your issues and we respect your beliefs don’t come and don’t pray here so you won’t disrespect your book and beliefs. Fine with me. I guess the Catholic Church must have missed 1 Cor 11:14 and the meaning you derive from it. I think the Anglican Church clergy and the Episcopal clergy missed out on 1 Cor 11:14, as well.
GW at Western Wall
@ CuriousAmerican:
What does that mean (ethnic Jews?)
.
Who were those mass murdering ethnic Jews? (Besides Moses of course) Pls do list them or to make it easy for you just the top ten to fifteen.
Depends on what YOU define as sin. Go ahead and give us your definition.
No big deal, when we really sin we just sacrifice a Bison unless it’s a little teensy weensy sin then we just ignore it as part of normal human interaction. According to You again, SIN is generic for what? Is mass murder equivalent to telling a little white lie? You are too wrapped up in sin.
I like good vs evil, right from wrong and knowing the difference…! But how do you christians really know what sin is? You believe in mans fall (falling in love) and devils and goblins, demons, great lakes of fire and tribulations. You speak in tongues, play with snakes and I could go on…… You’re going to Teach Jews about sin?
Read again the 2nd commandment, the Jewish second commandment because even here you christians had to play with our commandments: Judaism, unlike Catholicism and Protestantism, considers “I am the L-rd, your G-d” to be the first “commandment.” Catholicism, unlike Judaism and Protestantism, considers coveting property to be separate from coveting a spouse. Protestantism, unlike Judaism and Catholicism, considers the prohibition against idolatry to be separate from the prohibition against worshiping other gods. No two religions agree on a single list.
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/ten-commandments-bible-translations.html
Hillary Clinton will NEVER speak up for women who suffer horribly under extremely cruel, Islamic sharia law. In Pakistan, many women who are VICTIMS of rape are in prison, jailed for being victims of rape. The triumphant male rapists walk free. Just one example of horrendous sharia.
Huma has trained Hilary well. In retrospect, I’m sure if Hilary had won the presidency there would be no difference from O’bama’s policies. They both should be run out of the country for treasonous actions.
Islamists of all stripes are at war against the world while at the same time also claiming to be the victim all over the world. Islamists want it both ways and the dumb Western world let them get it.
Behave! Eichmann was raised Lutheran. Most of Germany at the time was Lutheran/Reformed (Protestant). Foreign Minister, von Ribbentrop was Protestant. Bormann was Lutheran. Goebbels was not exactly a Catholic. He married a Protestant and was excommunicated for it.
There were bad mass murderers in history who were ethnic Jews. I could list them; but my only point is to get you to behave. Do not think that any one group is without sin.
No one is without sin.
Have a happy Mother’s Day.
Laura Said:
Call Captain Kirk, he’ll get you in via Priceline.
I like you, too. Happy Mother’s Day.
@ Laura:
Remember the holocaust and the Cathaloids that perpetrated it. Adolph and his cohorts were good cathaloids and the cathaloids are still unrepentant antisemites.
@ Laura
You are so correct. With volleyball, tennis, golf courses, olympic size swimming pool, masseuses. unfortunately they are all booked up.
@ Andy Lewis:
In fact GITMO is like staying at a resort.
@ CuriousAmerican:
The difference is that muslims NEVER reciprocate our displays of respect for them. And in Israel it is not required to wear a yarmulke by simply being in the country, but only in a synogogue or at the western wall. There is no comparison. And it is beyond absurd for you to make the argument that western Christians equally make concessions to Israel as they do to the muslims. Not even close. And in any case, the article discusses our dhimmitude goes well beyond Hillary wearing the hijab. I’m sick of your crap, curious.
Yeah, right.
Why is this any different than a Christian man wearing a yarmulke at the Western Wall?
When Western Christian politicianss go to the Western Wall, they were a yarmulke, even though
the Bible forbids Christian men to wear heading coverings in places of worship.
1 Cor 11:14 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
GW at Western Wall
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/images/bush@wall_big.jpg
It is not just the Muslims that Western Christians make concessions to.
I do not think that Hilary should have worn a hijab; but then again I do not think GW Bush, a Christian man, should have worn a yarmulke at the Western Wall.
In both cases, if the headgear was deemed mandatory, they should not have gone.
That we are giving respect and deference to the savages who collaborated in the slaughter of nearly 3000 Americans and who continue to openly show disrespect and outright contempt for our system, is the most sickening display of dhimmitude imaginable. As I said yesterday, muslims have no fear of running roughshod over us and spitting on our institutions and values. Not only won’t they face resistence, but our “leaders” will bend over backwards even further to accommodate them. These are the leaders this generation of Americans is cursed with having.
Like I said, the west is castrated.
Is Hillary a Muslim?