Daily Archives: January 11, 2007

Kaufman/Iftikhar Transcript

Charles has the video. I had gone out to get my truck from the train station parking lot where my husband had left it this morning and when I got back this was on TV. I hit the TiVo record button so I could transcribe it. Luckily for me, Charles posted the video as well. I wasn’t able to finish transcribing this yesterday so I did today.

David Asman: The Council on American Islamic Relations, better known as CAIR, that’s the largest Muslim rights group in America and to hear my next guest tell it, it’s the largest terror organization in America as well. He’s Joe Kaufman, Chairman of Americans Against Hate and founder of CAIR Watch. And here to take him on is Arsalan Iftikhar he is national legal director for CAIR. So Mr. Kaufman, make your case.

Kaufman: In 1994 CAIR was created by a front for the terrorist organization Hamas. In fact, if it were not for Mousa Abu Marzouq, number two leader in Hamas today, CAIR would not be in existence. That is why our organization is calling for the United States government to take the initiative and place CAIR on the U.S. State Department list of terrorist organizations. We believe that if the U.S. Government is serious in the war on terrorism they will shut down this organization immediately.

Asman: Mr. Iftikhar, I take it you do not agree.

Iftikhar: Well, not only that but I think that Mr. Kaufman’s group should be called Americans For Hate because there is nothing that Mr. Kaufman has done over the last five years other than hate and being bigoted towards anything Islamic. First of all he speaks so self righteously about the State Department’s terrorism watch list and two of the groups on the State Department terrorism watch list have been praised by Mr. Kaufman and on his web site as well. This is the guy who took issue with a Muslim kid’s summer camp where kids wanted to go swimming because he thought there was some sort of nefarious plot. This guy would think that the next tornado in Oklahoma – would find a way to blame Muslims about it.

Asman: Which organization that is on the terrorist watch list do you say Mr. Kaufman supported?

Iftikhar: Kahane Kach and… Kahane Chai and Kach.

Asman: Okay. Let’s just stop with that and ask Mr. Kaufman. Is that true?

Kaufman: It is absolutely false. In fact a couple of nights ago…

Iftikhar: [interrupting] We have the have the website

Asman: Hold on, hold on. Let’s let him defend himself. Go ahead Mr. Kaufman.

Kaufman: This is entirely false. This is slanderous against me. I have never

Iftikhar: [interrupting] slander means it’s false. Joe, Joe,

Kaufman: had anything in favor of those organizations.

Iftikhar: [interrupting] Joe, we have your website

Asman: Hold on, hold on. One at a time gentlemen. One at a time. Mr. Iftikhar, we’ll give you chance. Wait. Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Kaufman just a second. Now how is it that this information got out? That you, in fact, are supporting two organizations that are on the terrorist watch list?

Kaufman: Because years back, I had a link on my personal website which is no longer in existence to a group that was linked to a group that sounded like one of these organizations but never, in fact, did I ever support these organizations.

Asman: Now hold on, hold on. Mr. Iftikhar, isn’t it true, Mr. Iftikhar isn’t it true that occasionally CAIR has come out and defended organizations that later on have turned out to be either terrorist, directly terrorist related or giving help to help to the terrorists?

Iftikhar: Never. Not even once.

Asman: Never? Not once?

Iftikhar: CAIR was, first of all CAIR was founded in 1994. Hamas wasn’t designated a terrorist organization until January 24th, 1995. Using Mr. Kaufman’s own flawed logic, he would be guilty of being a terrorist too because he had a link on his website that was…

Asman: I understand, but what I’m saying Mr. Iftikhar is didn’t CAIR make that same error in judgment of putting on your website support for Hamas or support for other organizations that had supported Hamas? Or support for other organizations that have supported Hamas?

Iftikhar: No. Go to www.CAIR.com and tell me anywhere after the designation of any of these groups as a terrorist organization where CAIR has taken any stand in support of …

Asman: Mr. Kaufman?

Kaufman: In fact, the executive director of CAIR, Nihad Alwad, who was part of this front for Hamas, The Islamic Association for Palestine, that created CAIR has stated that he supports the Hamas movement. In fact, this organization has not condemned Hamas or Hezb’allah.

Iftikhar: [interrupting] First of all if you’re going to take things out of context… Hold on a second Joe, Joe…

Kaufman: Will you let me speak?

Iftikhar: No, listen. No…

Kaufman: This organization will not condemn Hamas or Hezb’allah as terrorist organizations.

Iftikhar: We issued numerous condemnations including the Passover bombing. Not once have we ever…

Kaufman: Have you issued condemnation of these terrorist organizations?

Asman: Wait a minute Mr. Kaufman, I’ll ask the questions. Go ahead Mr. Iftikhar.

Iftikhar: Listen, this is a one man show who operates out of a P.O. Box and is enjoying his 15 seconds of fame who is nothing more than a….

Asman: All right. Mr. Iftikhar. Let me ask you the question. Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

Iftikhar: Go to the State Department website. They’re designated…

Asman: I’m asking you. Is it a terrorist organization?

Iftikhar: Yes. Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Asman: And Hezb’allah? Is it a terrorist organization?

Iftikhar: Hezb’allah is also a terrorist organization.

Asman: According to you. According to CAIR.

Iftikhar: As designated by the State Department…

Asman: As designated by CAIR…

Kaufman: As designated…

Iftikhar: No. What are you talking? I am saying…

Asman: I know that State Department designates it as terrorist, do you?

Iftikhar: Listen David, if you want to hear an answer then hear the answer.

Kaufman: He will not answer.

Iftikhar: We have condemned Hamas and Hezb’allah. We accept the fact that they’re designated…

Kaufman: You have never condemned…

Asman: Wait a minute, Mr. Kaufman, I can’t hear Mr. Iftikhar. Please be quiet. Mr. Iftikhar, go ahead.

Iftikhar: Mr. Kaufman has never once condemned the organizations that he supported that were on the terrorist watch list.

{crosstalk}

Asman: Mr. Iftikhar, let me just ask one more time. Do you, personally, consider Hamas or Hezb’allah terrorist organizations?

Iftikhar: I personally accept the fact that Hamas and Hezb’allah have been designated as terrorist organizations and, and… let me finish.

Asman: No I can’t because you aren’t answering the question directly. We’ve got to leave it at that. Joe Kaufman…

Iftikhar: I’m not giving the answer that you want to hear…

Asman: No, I’m just asking you simply: Do you think it’s a terrorist organization and you’re not saying yes or no. We’ve got to leave it at that. Arsalan Iftikhar, Joe Kaufman, thank you both. I appreciate it.

Stop the ACLU Blogburst

Indefensible: 10 Ways The ACLU Is Destroying America
by Jay @ 11:56 pm. Filed under ACLU, 1st Amendment, War On Terror, News

I just finished reading Indefensible: 10 Ways The ACLU Is Destroying America by Sam Kastensmidt. I highly recommend it for everyone.

The book covers most of our own top ten reasons to stop the ACLU, however much more extensively. It covers everything the ACLU stands for. From the agenda of silencing the churches and abortion to the sexualization of children…the book covers it in excellent detail.

There have been many great books written on the ACLU. Most focus on the social and religious issues that are under attack. Alan Sears’ book, ACLU Vs. America, focused on mainly on these issues, however it did touch upon how the ACLU attacks our sovereignty. This book, Indefensible, also focuses on the social issues, but I was happy to see that it devoted an entire chapter on how the ACLU is Impeding America’s War On Terror. I’m going to share a few excerpts from sections within that particular chapter.

ACLU Fights Measure To Halt Terrorists’ Funding

Only weeks after the tragedy (911), Congress acted to dismantle the financial infrastructure supporting known terrorist organizations. On October 3, 2001, U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley (OH) introduced the “Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001,” seeking to freeze all accounts directly linked to the “financing of terrorism.”

The need for such legislation was deemed so vital to national security that it passed the U.S. House on a vote of 421-1. Almost the entire Congress recognized that this legislation’s passage was imperative. Still, on the day before the vote was scheduled, the ACLU delivered letters of opposition to all members of Congress.

“We urge you to oppose the ‘Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001,’” the letter began. Why? One portion of the bill made it a federal crime to conceal large amounts of “illegally obtained” cash (over $10,000) while traveling. In a desperate and shameful attempt to justify its stance, the ACLU played the race card. The letter argued, “This provision may impact, disproportionately, people of color and immigrants….[because] these groups of people often have a more difficult time getting access to sources of credit and bank accounts and so use cash transactions more frequently than others do.”

Under the ACLU’s reasoning, impoverished people would be discriminated against by this bill. The likelihood of impoverished minorities carrying around more than $10,000 in cash and concealing it was supposedly a grave concern for the ACLU. Thankfully the ACLU’s efforts to stop this were unsuccessful.

A little more from the book:

Later in the war, the ACLU actually volunteered its legal services to represent suspected terrorists!

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from several alleged “illegal combatants,” including two cases involving U.S. citizens and one case involving 14 foreign “illegal enemy combatants.” The ACLU filed amicus briefs on behalf of the suspected terrorists in each case, arguing that ll “enemy combatants” captured during a time of war should have access to American courtrooms-regardless of their citizenship.

The Pentagon contended that “enemy combatants” should face military tribunals-the standard procedure in all previous international wars. U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, whose wife, Barbara Olson, was killed on September 11, when Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, reminded the Supreme Court Justices that the plaintiffs were requesting a “jurisdiction that is not authorized by Congress, does not arise from the Constitution, and has never been exercised by this Court.”

Though the U.S. Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizen enemy combatants, judicial restraint did not prevent the moder Court from creating this new right out of thin air.

Thankfully this decision was made moot by the passing of the Military Commission Act. However, the ACLU’s war on National Security continues, and giving habeas corpus to non-American citizens is on their New Year Resolution list. It is actually number one on the list, followed by destroying the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and destroying our ability to keep secrets.

Overall the book was well put together and very informative. I highly suggest checking it out.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

mm-5
Featured Links

TagVillage.com
Free Global Shipping!
Affiliate Banner