---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Middle East Forum <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:26 AM
Subject: Huff in The Daily Caller: "The latest terrorist tactic: litigation"
To: [email protected]


   [image: Middle East Forum][image: Middle East Forum]<http://www.meforum.org>
[image: Promoting American Interests]
  [image: Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Middle-East-Forum/76783091854>
 [image:
Twitter] <http://twitter.com/meforum>   [image:
RSS]<http://www.meforum.org/rss.xml>  [image:
Join Mailing List] <http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php>

*Follow the Middle East Forum*
  MEF Home <http://www.meforum.org>   |    Research &
Writings<http://www.meforum.org/docs>
   |   Middle East Quarterly <http://www.meforum.org/meq/>   |   MEF @
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Middle-East-Forum/76783091854>
   |   MEF @ Twitter <http://twitter.com/meforum>   |
Donate<https://www.meforum.org/participation/>
Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber
area<http://www.meforum.org/list_edit.php>,
and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in
future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area.
The latest terrorist tactic: litigation

* by Daniel Huff
The Daily 
Caller<http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/11/the-latest-terrorist-tactic-litigation/>
January 11, 2011*

*http://www.meforum.org/2817/terrorist-tactic-litigation*
  Send <http://www.meforum.org/article_send.php?id=2817>
RSS<http://www.meforum.org/rss.xml> Share:
[image: 
Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meforum.org%2F2817%2Fterrorist-tactic-litigation>
[image:
Twitter]<http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meforum.org%2F2817%2Fterrorist-tactic-litigation&service=bit.ly&source=meforum>
[image:
Google 
Buzz]<http://www.google.com/buzz/post?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meforum.org%2F2817%2Fterrorist-tactic-litigation>
[image:
Digg]<http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meforum.org%2F2817%2Fterrorist-tactic-litigation&title=The+latest+terrorist+tactic%3A+litigation&bodytext=On+December+29%2C+Scandinavian+authorities+arrested+five+terrorists+planning+an+attack+in+Denmark.+Almost+as+interesting+as+what+they+targeted+is+what+they+spared+and+the+lessons+it+holds+for+future+counterterrorism+efforts.+The+plot+was+to+storm+the...>
[image:
del.icio.us]<http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meforum.org%2F2817%2Fterrorist-tactic-litigation&title=The+latest+terrorist+tactic%3A+litigation&notes=On+December+29%2C+Scandinavian+authorities+arrested+five+terrorists+planning+an+attack+in+Denmark.+Almost+as+interesting+as+what+they+targeted+is+what+they+spared+and+the+lessons+it+holds+for+future+counterterrorism+efforts.+The+plot+was+to+storm+the...>
<http://www.meforum.org/facebook_like.php?ref_id=2817&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meforum.org%2F2817%2Fterrorist-tactic-litigation>
Be
the first of your friends to like this.

On December 29, Scandinavian authorities
arrested<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/29/denmark-arrests-terror-plot>five
terrorists planning an attack in Denmark. Almost as interesting as
what
they targeted is what they spared and the lessons it holds for future
counterterrorism efforts.

The plot was to storm the Copenhagen newsroom of *Jyllands Posten* and
murder its staff. It was the
fourth<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576049431521312142.html>attempt
this year by Islamic extremists to punish the newspaper that
published the Mohammed cartoons. But the terrorists are guilty of selective
prosecution. They have yet to strike *Politiken*, which also published the
cartoons, even though its offices are literally next
door<http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Police+arrest+five+planning+Danish+terror+attack/4036450/story.html>
.

It is logical that *Jyllands* is the principal target because it sparked the
controversy. It was *Jylland's* editor, Flemming Rose, who originally
commissioned the cartoons in 2005. A Danish comedian had told interviewers
he would publicly urinate on the Bible, but would not dare do the same to
the Koran. Rose's
message<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html>was
that Islam should be treated equally, not specially.

Nevertheless, there is a second reason *Politiken* is not a target. It
already surrendered, vanquished by the nonviolent instrument of a civil
lawsuit.

In 2008, extremists nearly murdered Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the
original cartoons. In response, *Politiken* reprinted the cartoons as part
of a unified stand against intimidation of the press. The defiance didn't
last. A Saudi law firm claiming to represent 94,923 descendants of Mohammed
threatened it with legal action and the paper caved. On February 26, 2010,
it effectively 
apologized<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/26/danish-cartoons-muhammad-politiken-apology>for
defending free speech.

This is a textbook illustration of how litigation has become a complementary
and sometimes superior strategy for Islamic extremists who traditionally
relied on physical violence alone to intimidate their opponents.

In Europe especially, their cause is aided by vague hate speech laws that
make it all too easy to punish legitimate discourse on Islam. Last month, a
Danish Member of Parliament pleaded
guilty<http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/12/the-scandal-of-danish-justice/http:/www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/12/the-scandal-of-danish-justice/>to
violating hate speech laws with comments he made on Islam's treatment
of
women. He had agreed to forgo parliamentary immunity in order to fight the
charges on the merits only to discover that truth is no defense. On January
24, another Danish politician, International Free Press Society president
Lars Hedegaard, will stand trial for
similarly<http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/09/4087/>speaking
his mind. He also faces a potentially costly libel suit. There were
reports<http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6194419/the-jihad-of-the-word-erupts-in-denmark-yet-again.thtml>last
summer that Denmark's hate speech laws would be reformed to prevent
abuse, but this has yet to happen.

In the meantime, authorities can borrow from the extremists and use civil
litigation as a complementary strategy in counterterrorism operations,
particularly in the US.

Forcing terrorists to fight simultaneous criminal and civil proceedings
would make it difficult for them to focus their defense resources
effectively. This has been the
experience<http://www.maglaw.com/publications/data/00090/_res/id=sa_File1/07010050006Morvillo.pdf>in
white-collar cases when the Justice Department and a regulatory agency
pursue parallel investigations against a target company.

While criminal defendants can get court-appointed lawyers, civil defendants
pay out of pocket and the plaintiff's burden of proof is typically lower. In
addition, the broader scope of discovery in civil cases may
produce<http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/Archives/July98/7-98a3.htm>information
otherwise unavailable to prosecutors. Finally, parallel lawsuits
can pin terrorists between remaining mum in the civil suit and likely
losing, or fighting back and
forfeiting<http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042ae7a/873520673f8e1d71852573b5004e44ba%21OpenDocument&Highlight=0,*>their
right to "plead the Fifth" in the criminal case. Defendants might
dodge these difficulties by delaying the civil proceedings, but courts do
not always permit that.

This plan presupposes a clear basis for civil suits. In 1994, Congress
passed <http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/FACE_act.html> a
bill making it illegal to use force against persons exercising abortion
rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. With only minor
modifications, this law could be
expanded<http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/27/opinion/la-oe-ali-threats-20100927>to
cover threats against free speech rights as well.

For example, officials are investigating whether the recent plot is
connected to the 2009 arrest of two Chicago
men<http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2010/pr0114_01.pdf>for
conspiring to attack
*Jyllands Posten*. According to the
indictment<http://www.scribd.com/doc/25240964/Tahawwur-Hussain-Rana-documents>,
Tahawwur Rana and David Headley gained access to *Jylland's* offices on the
pretext of purchasing advertising for their immigration services company.
Once inside, they conducted videotape surveillance of the premises which
they provided to co-conspirators in Pakistan who recommended using a truck
bomb.

Headley pleaded guilty in March, but Rana goes on trial in
February<http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/06/valentines-day-trial-for-accused-terrorist/>.
Were the proposed law on the books now, *Jylland's* staff could sue for
damages using information from the indictment and guilty plea. This would be
particularly disruptive to Rana as he tries to focus on preparing for his
criminal trial.

More broadly, a law along these lines would allow victims to go on the
offensive against Islamic radicals who terrorize them instead of having to
hope authorities continue catching these extremists in time.

*Daniel Huff is Director of the Legal
Project<http://www.legal-project.org/>at the Middle East Forum and a
former counsel to the Senate Judiciary
Committee.*

*Related Topics:*  Daniel Huff
<http://www.meforum.org/author/Daniel+Huff> *This
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral
whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of
publication, and original URL.*

You are subscribed to this list as *[email protected]*.
To edit your subscription options, or to *unsubscribe*, go to
http://www.meforum.org/list_edit.php
To *subscribe* to the MEF mailing lists, go to
http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php

*The Middle East Forum* <http://www.meforum.org>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"humanrights movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.

Reply via email to