ACLU Continue Fight for Terror Advocate Visa
Posted on October 26, 2007
The fight for terror advocating “intellectual scholar” to obtain a Visa to speak propaganda in the U.S. continues for the ACLU.
The American Civil Liberties Union appeared before a federal district court today to challenge the government’s exclusion from the U.S. of renowned Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan. The group charged that Ramadan, a leading European academic whose work addresses critical issues including Muslim identity and the role of Islam in democratic societies, has been banned due to his political viewpoints.
“The government is barring Professor Ramadan not because of his actions but because of his ideas,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, who argued the case today. “The ideological exclusion of scholars like Tariq Ramadan impoverishes political and academic debate inside the United States and violates the First Amendment rights of those who seek to meet with foreign scholars, hear their views, and engage them in debate. Ideological exclusion is a form of censorship and it should not be tolerated in a country committed to democratic values.”
The government originally revoked Ramadan’s visa in 2004 based upon on the so-called “ideological exclusion” provision of the Patriot Act. This prevented Ramadan from taking up a tenured teaching post at the University of Notre Dame.
Much more blather at the link above from the ACLU. While the ACLU claim this man does not endorse terror, there has been a change of tune from when they first started this fight. Before, they that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to exclude a prominent Muslim scholar or anyone else from the United States on the grounds that they may have endorsed or espoused terrorism. Of course, as a sovereign nation, the United States has the right to bar anyone for any reason entry to our country. Advocating Islamic terrorism is probably at the top of the list of good reasons.
Regardless, as it has been pointed out here before, The ACLU’s saccharine description of this terror-loving enemy is a dirty ACLU whitewash. Ramadan is not simply a “prominent scholar.†His connections to international terrorists and love for radical Islam are deep, documented and generational (Good ol’ granddad was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood).
Let’s clear this up once and for all — there are no such things as “First Amendment rights†for foreigners not even on our soil. The ACLU is proving once again to be cultural cannibals, feasting off our own laws for the purpose of destroying the same. Imagine that — overseas terrorism advocates have a “First Amendment right†to come and go to and from our country at any time…and we have no say as to whether or not that happens. We can’t stop them because, after all, they have opinions. Doesn’t matter what they are, just having opinions entitles you a pass over our border. I suppose we couldn’t screen known jihadists with opinions with any extra scrutiny either. The ACLU would call that racial profiling and we can’t have that. I guess they’d slap Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment claims against us for good measure.
Daniel Pipes has all kinds of good info linking this guy to terror support. Here, here, and here are just a few.
He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the “future of Islam.”
Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.
Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had “routine contacts” with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzon) in 1999.
Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.
Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is “any certain proof” that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as “interventions,” minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.
And here are other reasons, dug up by Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer doing work for some of the 9/11 families, as reported in Le Parisien:Intelligence agencies suspect that Mr. Ramadan (along with his brother Hani) coordinated a meeting at the Hotel Penta in Geneva for Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of Al-Qaeda, and Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, now in a Minnesota prison.
Mr. Ramadan’s address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism
I think we have plenty of professors here in America that get to speak their anti-American propaganda without importing another one. The ACLU’s attempt to paint this as some kind of civil rights denial is ridiculous. America should be thanking the government for keeping this professor with questionable ties to radical Islam from getting a Visa.
His Grandpa founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. His Daddy was prominent in that organization and actually expelled from Egypt for his Muslim Brotherhood activities. He would really LOVE to spread Islam and institute sharia law globally by simply breeding their way in, like leaven in dough.
So most naturally, the ACLU wants to try and overturn the US Governments decision to not allow this guy back into our country. We first kicked him out in 2004.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Border Control/Homeland Security, Church And State, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “ACLU Continue Fight for Terror Advocate Visa”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I have other fish to fry, so I won’t address the merits of the case, but one statement caught my eye.
Yes, the nation of USA has the right “to bar anyone for any reason”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the government of USA does. Remember, the “grand experiment” that this country represents isn’t that of a representative government. That’s been done many times throughout history. No, the novel thing is that we have a constitution that restricts the federal government to a subset of the authority it would otherwise have.
Thank you Jeff for addressing an important topic that others seem to be ignoring. Also, thank you for acknowledging the truth of the comment you take alms with. Of course, the comment was made in an aspect despiting the should or should not. Since you are not addressing that…I just want to point out that this re-inforces the argument that the ACLU has no argument on a rights issue.