By Janet Levy
….Under the guise of 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?”…
…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?