logo
November 10, 2005

ACLU attacks DHS for Excluding Jihad Scholar

"The U.S. government is withholding documents that could show whether immigration laws have been used to bar foreign scholars from entering the country for ideological reasons, the American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday," the AP reports. "The ACLU, the American Association of University Professors and the PEN American Center planned to file a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan on Thursday seeking release of the documents . . . The ACLU said it believed the statute was used to revoke the visa of leading Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan in August 2004 days before he was to begin teaching at the University of Notre Dame, in Notre Dame, Ind." At the time Ramadan's visa was revoked, Daniel Pipes posted an extensive list of reasons why he wasn't simply an innocent Muslim scholar.

  • 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 Garzón) 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.

"Ramadan denies all ties to terrorism, but the pattern is clear. As Lee Smith writes in The American Prospect, he is a cold-blooded Islamist whose 'cry of death to the West is a quieter and gentler jihad, but it's still jihad,'" notes Pipes.

Comments

Leave it to the ACLU to be on the side of the bad guy. Why in the world would they want to allow this guy into the country? All the evidence supports he is not coming here for peaceful reasons. I cna not beleive peopel continue to donate to this rogue anti American instituion. One day they will takr it to far and they will pay the price.

Posted by: Weary Citizen on November 10, 2005 12:31 PM

Let him go live and do his (questionable) work in the homes and neighborhoods of ACLU members.

Posted by: Born American on November 10, 2005 12:44 PM

If the ACLU in it's total lack of wisdom and common sense is determined to open us up to this $hit they'd better be the first one's blown up or someone may do it for them? I guess they's rather be dead than non-PC?

I never did hear anything more on Sen. Tancredos' request for the ACLU to defend an AMERICAN who wouldn't stand for the Mexican anthem?

What ever happened to that one, I wonder?

Posted by: cicerores on November 10, 2005 01:28 PM

ACLU is a subversive bunch of communist lawyers, that are out to destroy America and everything America is about. Its pretty damn scary that people STILL dont realize how dangerous the ACLU is. Find out what a communist is and who started the ACLU, then if you get scared, you learned something. If you dont get scared, it means your probably liberal, a communist or its hard for you to comprehend anything. If you add liberal and communist together, you get a Democrat.

Posted by: Shane on November 10, 2005 02:00 PM

The Alliance of Communists for Legal Upheaval are at it again...

Why hasn't this organization been outlawed?

Posted by: takn on November 10, 2005 11:04 PM

I accept that the ACLU is dedicated to destroying traditional American values. They are entitled to their opinion, too, I guess. Facilitating foreign values, cultures and religions is an effective way to do that. What I don't understand is what these foreign cultures offer that is so much more to their liking.
Anyway, what 'right' are they claiming was violated by not allowing someone to emigrate? Does this imply that all foreigners have the 'right' to come here? If an Ideology of praising holy war on America is NOT a disqualifying factor, than what would be?
I am not asking rhetorically. Ralph? Human Being? Any light to shed here? I am not implying that you agree with them, or my take on the ACLU, I just would like other opinions.

Posted by: Bill Dexter on November 11, 2005 07:43 AM

while all of u so called educated americans take the podium and spew about the massive problem of saturating our fine country (past tense of course)
and what to do about all the illegals coming and taking american jobs and complaining about the financial drain on ur economy and sending all those retired, bored out of their mind red necks to patrol the border with bats and guns...........u fine ppl are not seeing the complete picture: first of all it is in someones financial interests to have all of those low wage ppl here(guess who?)
if the ruling authorities (the government) didnt want them here then they would do something about it.but the truth is big business andlittle business are the ones whose financial picture benefits from these low wage low maintenance and high output workers. why can they break the law by employing them with no repercussions or consequences??????????????
if all u loud mouths really want to do something about the very serious problem of illegal immigration, take ur bats to ur congressmans office and demand that he get off of his well fed posterior( fat ass) and do his job!
thats all for now :o)

Posted by: frank on November 12, 2005 11:49 AM

hey shane i see that u think u know the ingredients of a democrat(NOT) but do u know the ingredients of a republican......i didnt think so
self proclaiming christian conservative or in other word a republican+elected to office=oppresive dictator

Posted by: frank on November 12, 2005 12:01 PM