ACLU Upset Over Common Sense Ruling Denying Terror Advocate VISA
Posted on December 20, 2007
“Today’s decision is both legally wrong and deeply unjust. Professor Ramadan – like many other critics of U.S. foreign policy – is being excluded not because of his actions, but because of his ideas. In our view, the government’s stated reason for excluding him is just a pretext,†said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “The court should have subjected the government’s evidence to meaningful scrutiny, but instead it allowed the government to bar Ramadan from the country without any evidence at all. The result of this decision is that foreign scholars will continue to be barred from the United States solely because of their speech. That’s a very sad thing not just for the excluded scholars but for the many U.S. citizens and residents who want to meet with them and hear their views.â€
U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York ruled that Ramadan could be denied entry into the U.S. based on small donations he made between 1998 and 2002 to a Swiss charity that provides aid to Palestinians. Although the organization operates lawfully in Europe to this day, the Bush administration added the group to a blacklist in 2003 because it allegedly provided “material support” to Hamas. Siding with the executive branch, Judge Crotty ruled that material support laws enacted in 2005 should be applied retroactively to donations made before the Swiss charity was blacklisted by the United States and the material support laws were enacted.
Judge Crotty himself admitted that it was a herculean task for Ramadan to definitively prove he was not aware of the Swiss charity’s alleged ties to Hamas, but he nevertheless required such a showing. He writes, “The [material support] statute imposes a heavy burden: it requires Professor Ramadan to prove a negative, and to do so by clear and convincing proof.†In addition, Judge Crotty’s ruling gave extraordinary deference to the government: “Once the consular official has made this decision†to exclude a foreign scholar, he writes, “it is not the Court’s role . . . to second guess the result.â€
I’ve written about this Muslim scholar about fifty times, so I’m just gonna copy and paste what I wrote last time.
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 said 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, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
One Response to “ACLU Upset Over Common Sense Ruling Denying Terror Advocate VISA”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
The purpose of this suit is rather convoluted. It has little to do with terrorists. It is an attempt to secure the Bill of Rights for non-Americans. The effects on the border and security and lawsuits would be enormous. This suit is part of a much larger agenda.