Gone are the days in 1998 when I was gleeful about him -the Honorable Mayor of New York City. Rudy Giuliani had agreed to write the prologue (foreword) to my book published in 2000. Its title was: "Government Ethics and Law Enforcement." With me as co-editors were two colleagues in the legal profession: Kevin Ford, Esq., and Mark Davies, Esq.
But in these chaotic times of Trump, Rudy has been appointed the President's personal lawyer, espousing anti-ethics to match his anti-law. The Giuliani of today feels no shame when he publicly says: "The Truth Is Not the Truth."
Yet as a former prosecutor, Giuliani should know that the truth is a quality of being accurate or honest or sincere or loyal. It is conformity to fact or actuality. It is a statement proven to be or accepted as true. It is fidelity to an original or standard. It is veracity or verity.
Mr. Giuliani should know that "truth" is the bedrock of an oath to "tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, so Help Me God." From there begins the law of evidence. Even the Muslim community of 1440 years ago adhered to that standard as their ABC in litigation. The Second Enlightened Caliph, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab decreed that "The burden of evidence is shouldered by the plaintiff."
Rudy: Can you still read? If yes, then check what the following masters have said. Charles Seymour declared: "We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences." And Thomas H. Huxley advised that "veracity is the heart of morality." And James Harvey Robinson referred to the term "verity" as applying to an enduring or repeatedly demonstrated truth. His very words were: "beliefs that were accepted as eternal verities."
So, Rudy, your unconvincing narrative is an undisputed chican cry. For it is a deceptive subterfuge. Playing with words -your "truth is not truth" is intended to convey that there is no accepted standard. If so, then your own oath of office was nothing but fake. So must has been Trump's oath upon inaugurating him as President of these United States in January 2017.
You, Sir, have affirmed in your prologue to my book on "Government Ethics" the following: "Corruption and unethical behavior prevent any government from efficiently and effectively serving the needs of its citizens. In addition, corruption undermines respect for the rule of law and for the democratic process that are the very core of our system of government. Controlling this evil successfully is a constant challenge for any government."
These are the first sentences you wrote for my book published by Praeger in the year 2000. It is a book which I saw fit to dedicate to "the City of New York." But that was the Giuliani whom I fully respected at that time.
And when my city was attacked by the criminal gang of Al-Qaeda, I saw fit to work on yet another book entitled "Perspectives on 9/11," published in 2004 and dedicated to my beloved institution in Brooklyn -"St. Francis College."
I truly pity your fall from what you were to what you are now -a hot-air bag, a mouth piece for a declining presidency of a Liar-in-Chief, called Donald J. Trump. Your boss, by fact-checkers, has lied more than four-thousand times, since occupying the Oval Office.
The guidelines for both of you, Liar and Enabler, have been "the destruction of the Administrative State." A non-principle laid down by a fascist called Steven Bannon, who recently said in Europe: "When they call you a racist, wear it with pride" (or something to that effect). What pride can any rational human being find in demeaning others because of the color of their skin?
As a Bannonite, you Rudy attacked John Brennan, former Director of the CIA, now a professor at the venerable Fordham University School of Law. For when Brennan said that the Muslim spectacle of Hajj to Mecca was a captivating scene, you, Giuliani called for bringing charges against Brennan for endangering by that praise "national security!!"
Really, Rudy!! Truthfully speaking, your and Trump's anti-Islamism is the very essence of threatening America's national security. Your words, Rudy, are what the remnants of ISIS are waiting for. They are the oxygen which is prolonging the life of jihadism beyond their shelf-life.
And that is the Truth, so Help Me God!!
And why mix religion with politics, Mr. Lawyer Giuliani? Religion is about faith, and politics are about power!! Faith is in the heart; politics are in the mind. One is belief in the invisible; the other is an advocacy for the material. The mix is combustible as we learnt from the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.
You have plunged head-on mixing the Muslim pilgrimage with American national security. Only crazies can see any rationality in such a cocktail. Only you and Trump and Bannon Inc. can mix that cocktail during your "Happy Hour." Reason why Trump, on Monday, August 27 urged the evangelical Christian leaders to break federal law and openly support him from the pulpit.
Commented the New York Times of August 31, 2018 on that hallucination by saying: "Truth, fantasy and deceit slosh together with Mr. Trump." That was under the title: "After Mr. Trump, the Deluge?"
Friday, August 31, 2018
The Genius of the Prophet Muhammad: From the Desert, Laying the Foundation of A Mighty Muslim Nation
This is not about Islam. It is about the art of nation-construction from zero nation in the 7th century to 1.7 Billions in the 21st century. It is the genius of Muhammad in constructing this mighty edifice with tools which our world of today sorely needs to employ.
It began with Muhammad, at the age of 40 (611 CE) advocating in Mecca that God is one. That one-ness of God directly resonated with both the Jews and Christians in Arabia. Triumphing over the many idols which the Arab tribes worshiped in Mecca during their pilgrimage season. A master ideological stroke which caused the Meccans to pursue, in bitter hostility, the new Prophet.
Yet, a cornerstone has been laid. The first adherent was a woman, Khdeejah, Muhammad's wife and employer; the poor and meek in the Meccan lording tribe of Quraish, flocked to Islam. It made them even as slaves equal to their masters. Another anathema to the proud tribal lords of the desert.
So potent weapons were employed: secrecy, selective conversion from idolatry to Islam. And immigration, first to Ethiopia, later to the Arabian city of Yathrib -a Jewish city northeast of Mecca.
The secrecy was a self-preservation stratagem. The conversion from multiple deities to one God was through persuasion: "Why worship what your own hands have created?" And why immigration to Ethiopia? That is where Christianity found in the Quranic description of Christ as "the word of God" a reflection of its own belief. Then the move to Yathrib was by invitation of the few converts to Islam. It was their means of saving the troubled peace which characterized the forever war between two tribal antagonists: Al-Aus and Al-Khazraj.
The move (immigration/Hijrah) from Mecca to Medina marked the beginnings of the Muslim "State" -in fact "nation." The date was September 20, 622 (and Muhammad was 51 years old). Not surprisingly, it marked the beginning of the Muslim (Hejira) calendar -now at 1439 years. Two pillars sustained the incipient nation: The construction of a mosque, as a town hall and a school, (where Muhammad is now buried), and the communal sharing of property between the immigrants (Al-Muhajeroon) and the Ansar (supporters), meaning the Yathrib Muslim population.
A bridge was thus constructed in Medina (Yathrib) across tribal chasms, the haves and the have-nots economically, and the Muslim-Jewish relationships memorialized in a pact of peace, though later it did not endure. Tawheed (the One-ness of God) permeating the two Semitic faiths) was ideologically sound, but communally an instigator of competition between Judaism and Islam.
Topping Muhammad's priorities was the equalizing between Arabs and non-Arabs (such as the Persians who were Yemen rulers); between men and women in terms of licensing women's ownership of property, and of enfranchising them as regards participation in Muhammad's councils. Women were even encouraged to quiz Muhammad publicly as regards his decisions. Their litmus test was to ask the Prophet: "Is your decision based on personal opinion or an inspiration from God?" If it was an opinion on which the participants in that "Town hall in the Desert" disagreed, Muhammad changed course.
In fact the first person who pledged allegiance to Muhammad was a woman (Afra Bint Obeid Ibn Thaalabah). The Quran, considered Muhammad's only miracle, made such allegiance (Baiaa) to Muhammad an allegiance to God himself. "Surely, those who swear allegiance to you swear allegiance to God; the hand of God is over their hands." The Quran, (Chapter 48/Verse 10).
What were the terms of that allegiance to Islam: No idolatry, as emphasis on the one-ness of God; no theft; no adultery; not infanticide (as the Arabs used to bury their infant daughters to avoid shaming them); truthfulness; and no contravening the word of God (the Quran). Piety, not ethnic or tribal roots, was the yardstick by which all humans were evaluated. "Surely, the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most pious of you." (The Quran, Chapter 49, Verse 13).
Closely tied to the Muslim dogma as preached by Muhammad was humanity as one universal cooperative. It became a cardinal call for friendly relations among all nations, across ethnicities, languages, and time zones.
That revolutionary concept is today inscribed on a mural adorning a wall at the UN Headquarters in New York. It is a gift from Morocco which quotes from the Quran the following verses "O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes, that you may know one another." (Chapter 49, Verse 13).
The new nation was no longer held together by family lineage, but by a faith that regulated their lives flexibly, under the ethos of justice for all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The only difference between the two categories was that non-Muslim were made to pay a defense tax because of their exemption from defense services.
Calling them Zimmis is not an apartheid practice. Contrary to western orientalist depiction, "zimma" in Arabic means "a security guarantee." It is also the sum total of all obligations to which a person commits. It is akin to a treaty obligation. Its violation is not due to the faith, but due to the faithless practice of those who scorn human rights.
What bound this new nation together was an Islamic jurisprudence based on a tripod of principles and rules: The Quran, non-changeable in text, but amenable to interpretation (the science of Tafseer); the Sunna of Muhammad, that is what the Prophet has said and done, but also amenable to authentication since it was not written during the Prophet's life-time; and "wisdom" (Hekmah), the resort to common sense in utilizing the other two bases for resolving a dispute or settling an issue.
Within those parameters, the new community functioned, quarrelled, reconciled, and spread outward. All within the broad concept of Islam, meaning the submission to God's will. While unity was stressed, communities were led by consensus (ijmaa) not throughout all Muslim regions, but within the community of scholars of each region. Unity was in the ultimate purpose, not in sectoral decisions.
The Quran exalted unity as "harmony," taking into account the divergence of cultures, systems of governance, and changing circumstances. In praise of harmony the Quran stated: "God is the One who united their hearts; had you (Muhammad) expended all the riches of the earth, you could not have united their hearts together." (Chapter 8; Verse 63).
War, for the new nation, was restricted only to self-defense of territory (homeland) and faith. It is not exportable, nor is it waged beyond national borders. And must be proportional. A far far cry from the criminal ideology of jihadism which advocated the primacy of Islam and conversion to it by the sword - "There is no compulsion in religion" (The Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 256). Diplomacy to end wars and achieve peace was decreed. "But if they incline to peace, then incline to it." (The Quran, Chapter 8, Verse 61). Prisoners of war are to be safely repatriated and exchanged, and an annual war-free month (Muharram) was set aside.
Insurrection (Fitna) was regarded as a catastrophe, represented by the total breakdown of law and order. Unjust rulers should be removed provided that such efforts should not lead to ascertained mayhem. In all cases, injustice which violates the liberty and human rights of the community or the individual shall always be a violation of God's decrees.
The Quran calls the unjust "an evildoer," who has no excuse whatsoever. "On the Day (of Judgment) when the excuses of the evildoers shall avail them nothing; they shall have the curse and the evil abode." (The Quran; Chapter 40; Verse 52).
When Muhammad died at the age of 63, the edifice of the Muslim Nation, having arisen from a Zero Nation in Arabia, evolved into a global Muslim entity existing in every corner of the earth.
Though divided and at times at war with one another and also within (Syria, Yemen, and Libya), it has kept the faith as spread by its great founder. Muhammad. The Prophet did not even name a successor; refused during his lifetime to have his sayings written, and left no heir to claim a hereditary mantle.
Today's pilgrimage of over 2 million to Mecca is a testimony of that enduring phenomenon which is still vastly misunderstood in many parts of the world. Though Islamophobia has now morphed into anti-Islamism, the plain fact is that those aberrations are hurtful primarily to those who espouse them. For they are the unwitting auxiliaries of groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the like.
Muhammad died on June 8, 632 at the age of 63. His first successor as "The First Enlightened Caliph," Abu-Bakr, gave the eulogy to a stunned Muslim community. In it, he pointed out the knob of the Prophet's enduring legacy. "To the Believers, stay on the path of Justice."
The pilgrimage to Mecca earlier this month numbered over 2 millions. With a global waiting list estimated to stretch out for 583 years in the future. Pillorying it by an ignoramus and an ethical thug like Rudy Giuliani proves his racism. For that pilgrimage instituted by Muhammad, as an optional manifestation of a faith of tolerance, raises the ubiquitous flag of inclusiveness.
The Prophet Muhammad was chased away from his birthplace, Mecca, by vicious tribal campaigners who preferred to worship idols over the belief in the One God. It was therefore axiomatic that his return victorious from Medina to Mecca, was initially thought to signal a blood path for his tormentors. Again Muhammad's genius asserted itself. He told the fearful Meccan throngs: "From now on, you are released from your past!! (Al-Tolaqa)".
That was the historic exercise by Muhammad's power of pardon. No Nuremberg trials. No Tokyo trials. The victor of 1439 years ago did not write history, as it is the practice of our times. He caused history to be engraved about him.
Thus, Abdel-Rahman Azzam, the first Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, titled his book about Muhammad: "The Hero of Heroes!!"
It began with Muhammad, at the age of 40 (611 CE) advocating in Mecca that God is one. That one-ness of God directly resonated with both the Jews and Christians in Arabia. Triumphing over the many idols which the Arab tribes worshiped in Mecca during their pilgrimage season. A master ideological stroke which caused the Meccans to pursue, in bitter hostility, the new Prophet.
Yet, a cornerstone has been laid. The first adherent was a woman, Khdeejah, Muhammad's wife and employer; the poor and meek in the Meccan lording tribe of Quraish, flocked to Islam. It made them even as slaves equal to their masters. Another anathema to the proud tribal lords of the desert.
So potent weapons were employed: secrecy, selective conversion from idolatry to Islam. And immigration, first to Ethiopia, later to the Arabian city of Yathrib -a Jewish city northeast of Mecca.
The secrecy was a self-preservation stratagem. The conversion from multiple deities to one God was through persuasion: "Why worship what your own hands have created?" And why immigration to Ethiopia? That is where Christianity found in the Quranic description of Christ as "the word of God" a reflection of its own belief. Then the move to Yathrib was by invitation of the few converts to Islam. It was their means of saving the troubled peace which characterized the forever war between two tribal antagonists: Al-Aus and Al-Khazraj.
The move (immigration/Hijrah) from Mecca to Medina marked the beginnings of the Muslim "State" -in fact "nation." The date was September 20, 622 (and Muhammad was 51 years old). Not surprisingly, it marked the beginning of the Muslim (Hejira) calendar -now at 1439 years. Two pillars sustained the incipient nation: The construction of a mosque, as a town hall and a school, (where Muhammad is now buried), and the communal sharing of property between the immigrants (Al-Muhajeroon) and the Ansar (supporters), meaning the Yathrib Muslim population.
A bridge was thus constructed in Medina (Yathrib) across tribal chasms, the haves and the have-nots economically, and the Muslim-Jewish relationships memorialized in a pact of peace, though later it did not endure. Tawheed (the One-ness of God) permeating the two Semitic faiths) was ideologically sound, but communally an instigator of competition between Judaism and Islam.
Topping Muhammad's priorities was the equalizing between Arabs and non-Arabs (such as the Persians who were Yemen rulers); between men and women in terms of licensing women's ownership of property, and of enfranchising them as regards participation in Muhammad's councils. Women were even encouraged to quiz Muhammad publicly as regards his decisions. Their litmus test was to ask the Prophet: "Is your decision based on personal opinion or an inspiration from God?" If it was an opinion on which the participants in that "Town hall in the Desert" disagreed, Muhammad changed course.
In fact the first person who pledged allegiance to Muhammad was a woman (Afra Bint Obeid Ibn Thaalabah). The Quran, considered Muhammad's only miracle, made such allegiance (Baiaa) to Muhammad an allegiance to God himself. "Surely, those who swear allegiance to you swear allegiance to God; the hand of God is over their hands." The Quran, (Chapter 48/Verse 10).
What were the terms of that allegiance to Islam: No idolatry, as emphasis on the one-ness of God; no theft; no adultery; not infanticide (as the Arabs used to bury their infant daughters to avoid shaming them); truthfulness; and no contravening the word of God (the Quran). Piety, not ethnic or tribal roots, was the yardstick by which all humans were evaluated. "Surely, the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most pious of you." (The Quran, Chapter 49, Verse 13).
Closely tied to the Muslim dogma as preached by Muhammad was humanity as one universal cooperative. It became a cardinal call for friendly relations among all nations, across ethnicities, languages, and time zones.
That revolutionary concept is today inscribed on a mural adorning a wall at the UN Headquarters in New York. It is a gift from Morocco which quotes from the Quran the following verses "O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes, that you may know one another." (Chapter 49, Verse 13).
The new nation was no longer held together by family lineage, but by a faith that regulated their lives flexibly, under the ethos of justice for all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The only difference between the two categories was that non-Muslim were made to pay a defense tax because of their exemption from defense services.
Calling them Zimmis is not an apartheid practice. Contrary to western orientalist depiction, "zimma" in Arabic means "a security guarantee." It is also the sum total of all obligations to which a person commits. It is akin to a treaty obligation. Its violation is not due to the faith, but due to the faithless practice of those who scorn human rights.
What bound this new nation together was an Islamic jurisprudence based on a tripod of principles and rules: The Quran, non-changeable in text, but amenable to interpretation (the science of Tafseer); the Sunna of Muhammad, that is what the Prophet has said and done, but also amenable to authentication since it was not written during the Prophet's life-time; and "wisdom" (Hekmah), the resort to common sense in utilizing the other two bases for resolving a dispute or settling an issue.
Within those parameters, the new community functioned, quarrelled, reconciled, and spread outward. All within the broad concept of Islam, meaning the submission to God's will. While unity was stressed, communities were led by consensus (ijmaa) not throughout all Muslim regions, but within the community of scholars of each region. Unity was in the ultimate purpose, not in sectoral decisions.
The Quran exalted unity as "harmony," taking into account the divergence of cultures, systems of governance, and changing circumstances. In praise of harmony the Quran stated: "God is the One who united their hearts; had you (Muhammad) expended all the riches of the earth, you could not have united their hearts together." (Chapter 8; Verse 63).
War, for the new nation, was restricted only to self-defense of territory (homeland) and faith. It is not exportable, nor is it waged beyond national borders. And must be proportional. A far far cry from the criminal ideology of jihadism which advocated the primacy of Islam and conversion to it by the sword - "There is no compulsion in religion" (The Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 256). Diplomacy to end wars and achieve peace was decreed. "But if they incline to peace, then incline to it." (The Quran, Chapter 8, Verse 61). Prisoners of war are to be safely repatriated and exchanged, and an annual war-free month (Muharram) was set aside.
Insurrection (Fitna) was regarded as a catastrophe, represented by the total breakdown of law and order. Unjust rulers should be removed provided that such efforts should not lead to ascertained mayhem. In all cases, injustice which violates the liberty and human rights of the community or the individual shall always be a violation of God's decrees.
The Quran calls the unjust "an evildoer," who has no excuse whatsoever. "On the Day (of Judgment) when the excuses of the evildoers shall avail them nothing; they shall have the curse and the evil abode." (The Quran; Chapter 40; Verse 52).
When Muhammad died at the age of 63, the edifice of the Muslim Nation, having arisen from a Zero Nation in Arabia, evolved into a global Muslim entity existing in every corner of the earth.
Though divided and at times at war with one another and also within (Syria, Yemen, and Libya), it has kept the faith as spread by its great founder. Muhammad. The Prophet did not even name a successor; refused during his lifetime to have his sayings written, and left no heir to claim a hereditary mantle.
Today's pilgrimage of over 2 million to Mecca is a testimony of that enduring phenomenon which is still vastly misunderstood in many parts of the world. Though Islamophobia has now morphed into anti-Islamism, the plain fact is that those aberrations are hurtful primarily to those who espouse them. For they are the unwitting auxiliaries of groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the like.
Muhammad died on June 8, 632 at the age of 63. His first successor as "The First Enlightened Caliph," Abu-Bakr, gave the eulogy to a stunned Muslim community. In it, he pointed out the knob of the Prophet's enduring legacy. "To the Believers, stay on the path of Justice."
The pilgrimage to Mecca earlier this month numbered over 2 millions. With a global waiting list estimated to stretch out for 583 years in the future. Pillorying it by an ignoramus and an ethical thug like Rudy Giuliani proves his racism. For that pilgrimage instituted by Muhammad, as an optional manifestation of a faith of tolerance, raises the ubiquitous flag of inclusiveness.
The Prophet Muhammad was chased away from his birthplace, Mecca, by vicious tribal campaigners who preferred to worship idols over the belief in the One God. It was therefore axiomatic that his return victorious from Medina to Mecca, was initially thought to signal a blood path for his tormentors. Again Muhammad's genius asserted itself. He told the fearful Meccan throngs: "From now on, you are released from your past!! (Al-Tolaqa)".
That was the historic exercise by Muhammad's power of pardon. No Nuremberg trials. No Tokyo trials. The victor of 1439 years ago did not write history, as it is the practice of our times. He caused history to be engraved about him.
Thus, Abdel-Rahman Azzam, the first Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, titled his book about Muhammad: "The Hero of Heroes!!"
Friday, August 17, 2018
Mr. Attorney General Sessions: Why Did You Deport Due Process - The Pillar of Justice?
You, Mr. Sessions, are the premier law enforcer of these United States. You have been vilified by President Trump publicly and repeatedly. Though you are his appointee as Attorney General. You were the first US Senator to endorse that man for the presidency. Though from all indications prior to the elections, Trump was proven unfit for that position.
You, Jeff Sessions, have smilingly worn Trump's prop -a white hat declaring MAGA - "Make American Great Again." That mantra is patently false.
Yet, in Alabama, your home state, Mr. Sessions, you were previously rejected for the position of judge. This was no problem for Donald Trump, the former real estate so-called "mogul" whose bankruptcy filings varied in number from 3 to 4.
The man, Trump, for whom "The Art of the Deal" was written, giving him the false aura of a successful deal-maker, saw in you, Jeff Sessions, a good deal. He needed you as an early supporter, and you needed him for a cabinet job.
So in the position of the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), what did you do over the past 18 months of the turbulent presidency of Trump, to make "America Great Again?" Why "Again," when the U.S. has been great, including under the Obama presidency, until the Trump's presidency?
If I am, as per the prior paragraph, rather polemical, it is for a reason -to impeach you, Mr. Attorney General, as a credible upholder of the law in America. You probably have read the US Constitution. Its preamble begins by: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..." But your Department of Justice, Mr. Sessions, has abandoned that constitutional commitment. How?
Through sabotaging the Rule of Law by using the Department of Justice as an instrument to do away with judicial independence, particularly in the area of immigration.
Case in point: The news of August 4, 2018, that: "The Justice Department replaced a Philadelphia immigration judge (Steven Morley) who had asked for more legal information in a deportation case, inserting a new justice who quickly ordered the defendant (a Guatemalan) removed from the United States."
Judge Morley was presiding over the case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum, who came from Guatemala to the US as an unaccompanied minor at the tender age of 17. Morley, in observation of due process, had asked for briefs to be filed on whether the defendant, who failed to appear in court, had been properly notified of the hearing.
That was Judge Morley's downfall. As law students in America, we have learnt in classes after classes in "civil procedure," that "service of process," meaning the proper notification to a party of the legal dispute of the obligation to appear in court at a certain time, as a vital requirement to satisfy "due process." It is even so in Yemen when I was retained by the World Bank in the year 2000 to prepare a study on legal and judicial reform.
In Yemen, I asked about the status of "service of process." I was told that in tribal areas there are no addresses, and there are no easy means of transportation to deliver papers in mountainous regions.
My recommendation to the Yemeni Department of Justice, under former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, was drawn from my childhood experience in rural and desert areas in eastern Egypt in the 1930's and 1940's: Use bicycles or donkeys as means of transport, and rely for address verification, on the village elders.
It worked, in Yemen, and was later reported in my co-edited book entitled "Government Ethics and Law Enforcement (2000)." Conclusion: Judge Morley of Philadelphia, in requesting more information before reaching a fair judgment, was doing his job through satisfying an essential aspect of "justice for all," which is met through the application of due process.
That, for Sessions and his Department of Justice, was not the way of making America great again. To Sessions and Trump, law is an inconvenience that, like under all authoritarian regimes, should be dispensed with. Because it stands in the way of the emerging dictatorship in the United States of America.
And where is the observance of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution which includes "... in order to ... establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves, and our posterity ...?"
And where, Mr. Attorney General Sessions, is the observance of another "inconvenience" -the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution? For, in part, it reads: "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The words "any person" make no distinction between resident and alien.
The contrived order of removal of defendant Reynaldo Castro-Tum, is the crystallization of the deportation by the Sessions Department of Justice, of due process itself. So Judge Morley had to be removed from his cases, and Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Deepali Nadkami was dispatched to the Philadelphia Immigration Court. To do what? To conduct a single hearing, resulting in the defendant's removal from the US "without further inquiry."
So this is the new order of the USA. That new order stands for obstruction of the operation of due process, through judicial independence, via respect for the Rule of Law and the separation of powers.
This is the genesis of Trump's repeated rants about the investigations into his campaign's possible collusion with Russia to promote him to the highest office in America. Trump's preferred attack on those investigations, from which Sessions had no choice but to recuse himself, is represented by Trump depicting them as "witch hunt."
Such non-recognition of a lawful process is in fact a non-recognition of law itself. As a body of enacted or customary rules recognized by a community as binding, law is non-recognizable by the Trump administration in several ways. Among these are:
You, Jeff Sessions, have smilingly worn Trump's prop -a white hat declaring MAGA - "Make American Great Again." That mantra is patently false.
Yet, in Alabama, your home state, Mr. Sessions, you were previously rejected for the position of judge. This was no problem for Donald Trump, the former real estate so-called "mogul" whose bankruptcy filings varied in number from 3 to 4.
The man, Trump, for whom "The Art of the Deal" was written, giving him the false aura of a successful deal-maker, saw in you, Jeff Sessions, a good deal. He needed you as an early supporter, and you needed him for a cabinet job.
So in the position of the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), what did you do over the past 18 months of the turbulent presidency of Trump, to make "America Great Again?" Why "Again," when the U.S. has been great, including under the Obama presidency, until the Trump's presidency?
If I am, as per the prior paragraph, rather polemical, it is for a reason -to impeach you, Mr. Attorney General, as a credible upholder of the law in America. You probably have read the US Constitution. Its preamble begins by: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..." But your Department of Justice, Mr. Sessions, has abandoned that constitutional commitment. How?
Through sabotaging the Rule of Law by using the Department of Justice as an instrument to do away with judicial independence, particularly in the area of immigration.
Case in point: The news of August 4, 2018, that: "The Justice Department replaced a Philadelphia immigration judge (Steven Morley) who had asked for more legal information in a deportation case, inserting a new justice who quickly ordered the defendant (a Guatemalan) removed from the United States."
Judge Morley was presiding over the case of Reynaldo Castro-Tum, who came from Guatemala to the US as an unaccompanied minor at the tender age of 17. Morley, in observation of due process, had asked for briefs to be filed on whether the defendant, who failed to appear in court, had been properly notified of the hearing.
That was Judge Morley's downfall. As law students in America, we have learnt in classes after classes in "civil procedure," that "service of process," meaning the proper notification to a party of the legal dispute of the obligation to appear in court at a certain time, as a vital requirement to satisfy "due process." It is even so in Yemen when I was retained by the World Bank in the year 2000 to prepare a study on legal and judicial reform.
In Yemen, I asked about the status of "service of process." I was told that in tribal areas there are no addresses, and there are no easy means of transportation to deliver papers in mountainous regions.
My recommendation to the Yemeni Department of Justice, under former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, was drawn from my childhood experience in rural and desert areas in eastern Egypt in the 1930's and 1940's: Use bicycles or donkeys as means of transport, and rely for address verification, on the village elders.
It worked, in Yemen, and was later reported in my co-edited book entitled "Government Ethics and Law Enforcement (2000)." Conclusion: Judge Morley of Philadelphia, in requesting more information before reaching a fair judgment, was doing his job through satisfying an essential aspect of "justice for all," which is met through the application of due process.
That, for Sessions and his Department of Justice, was not the way of making America great again. To Sessions and Trump, law is an inconvenience that, like under all authoritarian regimes, should be dispensed with. Because it stands in the way of the emerging dictatorship in the United States of America.
And where is the observance of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution which includes "... in order to ... establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves, and our posterity ...?"
And where, Mr. Attorney General Sessions, is the observance of another "inconvenience" -the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution? For, in part, it reads: "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The words "any person" make no distinction between resident and alien.
The contrived order of removal of defendant Reynaldo Castro-Tum, is the crystallization of the deportation by the Sessions Department of Justice, of due process itself. So Judge Morley had to be removed from his cases, and Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Deepali Nadkami was dispatched to the Philadelphia Immigration Court. To do what? To conduct a single hearing, resulting in the defendant's removal from the US "without further inquiry."
So this is the new order of the USA. That new order stands for obstruction of the operation of due process, through judicial independence, via respect for the Rule of Law and the separation of powers.
This is the genesis of Trump's repeated rants about the investigations into his campaign's possible collusion with Russia to promote him to the highest office in America. Trump's preferred attack on those investigations, from which Sessions had no choice but to recuse himself, is represented by Trump depicting them as "witch hunt."
Such non-recognition of a lawful process is in fact a non-recognition of law itself. As a body of enacted or customary rules recognized by a community as binding, law is non-recognizable by the Trump administration in several ways. Among these are:
- The conflation (fusing) of law and religion. The evidence: the Muslim Travel Ban. Unconstitutional under the First Amendment which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
- The recent declaration by Sessions of the New Religious Liberty. An obfuscation of terms as it reflects the evangelical approach to governance. Here the Bible is regarded as a governance road map. Precisely the sordid concepts advocated by ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood;
- The erosion of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 through gradual restriction of the equality of races in America before the law. This is reflected in the gerrymander whereby the voting blacks are either disenfranchised or burdened by distancing them from voting stations;
- The packing of the Supreme Court by conservative justices. Gorsuch, a Trump nominee, was confirmed as replacement of Scalia through changing of the Senate rules of super-majority needed for such confirmations. Obama's nominee, Judge Mark Garland was denied even the courtesy of a Senate hearing;
- Now another conservative ogre by the name of Brett Kavanaugh is nominated. His written record shows that he advocates that no criminal or civil indictments or charges, nor can there be any investigation instituted against a sitting president of the US. Exactly tailored to delegitimize the Mueller (special counsel) investigation of the possible obstruction of justice by Trump; and
- The attacks by Trump against the media as "enemy of the people." Such attacks have been decried even by the UN in early August. Reason: leading to possible violence due to muzzling (imposition of silence) of free expression.
The blow-back against such rogue siege against law and fairness in Trump's America is happening.
- In the case of replacing the Philadelphia immigration judge, a letter of protest was signed by 15 retired judges. They stated: "As a democracy, we expect our judges to reach results based on what is just, even where such results are not aligned with the desired outcomes of politicians."
- That July 30 letter condemns what it describes as "interference with judicial independence." It added: "Important due process safeguards are required in deportation proceedings." This is because the consequences can be life or death.
- The mid-term elections (November 2018) may result in the Democratic party ending the Republican party's majority in the House of Representatives. It is called the "Blue Wave" (Democratic majority). In essence, the Blue Wave if successful, would almost guarantee the drafting of impeachment articles against a President who is now considered by the liberal media as "unwell."
- A Democratic majority House of Representatives may plunge after this November in espousing a Trump impeachment.
Hope springs eternal. Deportation by the Justice Department of "due process" must have consequences. We could sense the panic of the American Firsters (meaning NYET to the "Browning of America").
Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter addressed the issue of due process in a way that would shame Attorney General Sessions. The Honorable Justice declared that due process "must be respected in periods of calm and in periods of trouble. It protects aliens as well as citizens." America of today is going through a period of trouble, epitomized by publicists like Ann Coulter.
Characters like Trump, Sessions and Coulter try to concoct an affirmative story -national security. They are blind to a simple fact. Credibility depends on proving accuracy. No accuracy, no credibility.
The dictionary defines a "coulter" as an iron blade. But even iron blades could be blunted. But such blunting can be done through upholding the Rule of Law.
Friday, August 3, 2018
When Journalism Becomes a Tool For American Imperialism
Very ironic. The America of Trump is in full retreat globally, while its journalism becomes the tool for nefarious imperialism. The case in point: A full throated article in The New York Times of July 29, 2018 entitled "The White House and the Strongman," by David Kirkpatrick. It is on Egypt where the writer was a correspondent for that paper whose motto is "All The News That Is Fit To Print."
So the news that is fit to print is now based on the egregious claim that the Muslim Brotherhood, under Morsi, was illegally sacked by El-Sisi in July 2013. On the fifth anniversary of Egypt's liberation from the fascist Islamic rule, resulting from an uprising by 35 million Egyptians on June 30, 2013, is denigrated as a coup. The Brotherhood, now officially declared in Egypt as a terrorist organization, is lionized by The New York Times as the victim of a brutal coup.
The writer claims that the presidency of Morsi (2012-2013) was a democratically-established order. Then he contrasts it to the presidency of El-Sisi as a usurper putschist regime. Such a contrast is the equivalent of saying that the Nazi regime symbolized democracy, which was overturned by the dictatorial regimes of England and France.
Fitzpatrick cites many sources whose voices support the punishment of Egypt as a collapser of democratic rule in the Middle East. Thus the Muslim Brotherhood has been lent a voice which defies not only the facts, but the very notion of sovereignty in Egypt, as in elsewhere. That sovereignty flows from the people, and is immune from the imperialist impulses fully reflected in The New York Times.
What are the facts? The Brotherhood was given the incredible chance of eligibility to compete for the presidency, after the fall of Mubarak. That opportunity was offered by the SCAF (Supreme Council of the Armed Forces), the interim government (2011-2012) after the January 25 Revolution.
The armed forces, which held Egypt together from January 25, 2011 until the electoral victory of the Brotherhood, were the very guarantors of that democratic transfer of power.
Morsi, who was not the first choice by the Brotherhood for president, won; his opponent, General Shafik, lost. The margin of victory was 1.5% of the popular vote.
Now a president of 103 million Egyptians (one-third of the Arab world) was sworn in, no less than 4 times, was chosen before the 2013 Constitution was even drafted. Speaking of putting the cart before the horse.
Thus began, not a regime for all Egyptians, but one bent on using Egypt as a launching pad for a mythical Islamic Caliphate. The Brotherhood's Supreme Guide said "Hell with Egypt" (Toz Fi Misr); the secular and Coptic voices were banished from the Constituent Assembly which drafted an Islamic constitution; the burning of Coptic churches became common; the Shii community was terrorized; and the Pyramids, and the Sphinx were called "un-Islamic monuments of idolatry." Tourism, (20% of Egypt's national revenue) evaporated
Between the completion of the drafting of the Islamic Constitution and the vote on it in a plebiscite, were only 24 precious hours. No real attempt was made to supervise that plebiscite, as the judiciary was intimidated. The Supreme Constitutional Court was besieged by Brotherhood thugs; and Morsi, whose mentors and manipulators were the members of the Guidance Bureau, declared himself in November 2012, to be above the law.
Hamas in Gaza was given a free reign in Sinai; Qatar and Turkey and Pakistan became models to be copied; Brotherhood's military were being organized as a parallel army; Ethiopian, a Christian country, was threatened by war over its construction of a dam over a tributary of the Nile within its territories; Al-Azhar was attacked by male and female thugs; text books were revised to suit the Brotherhood's interpretation of "Islam Uber Alles" (Islam is the only true faith; all other creeds unworthy).
The Brotherhoodization of Egypt for one full year (2012-2013) generated the corrective Revolution of June 30, 2013. Once more the armed forces, through General El-Sisi, then Defense Minister, tried together with Egyptian liberal leaders to negotiate a new beginning with Morsi -a new Plebiscite. Even President Obama counseled Morsi "History is waiting for you." But to no avail.
From June 30 to July 3, 2013, the fate of a secular and inclusive Egypt hung in the balance. The military leadership was keen on an inclusive Egypt, with the Brotherhood as a component. But the Brotherhood clung to its fiction of "Shariyah" (legitimacy) -a mantra whose falsity was proven by the abuse of democracy for the sake of "an Islamic Emirate" in Egypt.
Fitzpatrick, who was an eye witness in Cairo to these events, now, in his present article in The New York Times, makes a false claim when he asserts that "on July 3, 2013, General Sisi announced Mr. Morsi's removal." The collective wisdom of the Egyptian leadership, responding to the massive popular demand for a secular Egypt, is now abbreviated by that author to a coup against a democratically-elected Brotherhood.
It is noteworthy that the Islamic constitution had no provision for a scripted method for the removal of an errant president. In that void, the popular will stepped in to fill that space.
Another strange switch in that imperialist-like intervention in Egyptian internal affairs by an American journalist: It behooves Fitzpatrick to compare between how El-Sisi came to power twice (in 2014 and in 2018) to how Trump came to power in the US in 2017. The Egyptian president came through an internationally-supervised elections on the basis of the secular Constitution of 2014. Trump came to power through, the intervention of a foreign adversary, Russia, and is now calling the US Constitution "archaic."
The definition of "archaic" is primitive, no longer in common use. As to the definition of "democracy," it has so far never found a common definition. Even Kirkpatrick in his pro-Muslim Brotherhood prediction, has failed to provide us with the rationale of what he means by "The White House and the Strongman."
So the news that is fit to print is now based on the egregious claim that the Muslim Brotherhood, under Morsi, was illegally sacked by El-Sisi in July 2013. On the fifth anniversary of Egypt's liberation from the fascist Islamic rule, resulting from an uprising by 35 million Egyptians on June 30, 2013, is denigrated as a coup. The Brotherhood, now officially declared in Egypt as a terrorist organization, is lionized by The New York Times as the victim of a brutal coup.
The writer claims that the presidency of Morsi (2012-2013) was a democratically-established order. Then he contrasts it to the presidency of El-Sisi as a usurper putschist regime. Such a contrast is the equivalent of saying that the Nazi regime symbolized democracy, which was overturned by the dictatorial regimes of England and France.
Fitzpatrick cites many sources whose voices support the punishment of Egypt as a collapser of democratic rule in the Middle East. Thus the Muslim Brotherhood has been lent a voice which defies not only the facts, but the very notion of sovereignty in Egypt, as in elsewhere. That sovereignty flows from the people, and is immune from the imperialist impulses fully reflected in The New York Times.
What are the facts? The Brotherhood was given the incredible chance of eligibility to compete for the presidency, after the fall of Mubarak. That opportunity was offered by the SCAF (Supreme Council of the Armed Forces), the interim government (2011-2012) after the January 25 Revolution.
The armed forces, which held Egypt together from January 25, 2011 until the electoral victory of the Brotherhood, were the very guarantors of that democratic transfer of power.
Morsi, who was not the first choice by the Brotherhood for president, won; his opponent, General Shafik, lost. The margin of victory was 1.5% of the popular vote.
Now a president of 103 million Egyptians (one-third of the Arab world) was sworn in, no less than 4 times, was chosen before the 2013 Constitution was even drafted. Speaking of putting the cart before the horse.
Thus began, not a regime for all Egyptians, but one bent on using Egypt as a launching pad for a mythical Islamic Caliphate. The Brotherhood's Supreme Guide said "Hell with Egypt" (Toz Fi Misr); the secular and Coptic voices were banished from the Constituent Assembly which drafted an Islamic constitution; the burning of Coptic churches became common; the Shii community was terrorized; and the Pyramids, and the Sphinx were called "un-Islamic monuments of idolatry." Tourism, (20% of Egypt's national revenue) evaporated
Between the completion of the drafting of the Islamic Constitution and the vote on it in a plebiscite, were only 24 precious hours. No real attempt was made to supervise that plebiscite, as the judiciary was intimidated. The Supreme Constitutional Court was besieged by Brotherhood thugs; and Morsi, whose mentors and manipulators were the members of the Guidance Bureau, declared himself in November 2012, to be above the law.
Hamas in Gaza was given a free reign in Sinai; Qatar and Turkey and Pakistan became models to be copied; Brotherhood's military were being organized as a parallel army; Ethiopian, a Christian country, was threatened by war over its construction of a dam over a tributary of the Nile within its territories; Al-Azhar was attacked by male and female thugs; text books were revised to suit the Brotherhood's interpretation of "Islam Uber Alles" (Islam is the only true faith; all other creeds unworthy).
The Brotherhoodization of Egypt for one full year (2012-2013) generated the corrective Revolution of June 30, 2013. Once more the armed forces, through General El-Sisi, then Defense Minister, tried together with Egyptian liberal leaders to negotiate a new beginning with Morsi -a new Plebiscite. Even President Obama counseled Morsi "History is waiting for you." But to no avail.
From June 30 to July 3, 2013, the fate of a secular and inclusive Egypt hung in the balance. The military leadership was keen on an inclusive Egypt, with the Brotherhood as a component. But the Brotherhood clung to its fiction of "Shariyah" (legitimacy) -a mantra whose falsity was proven by the abuse of democracy for the sake of "an Islamic Emirate" in Egypt.
Fitzpatrick, who was an eye witness in Cairo to these events, now, in his present article in The New York Times, makes a false claim when he asserts that "on July 3, 2013, General Sisi announced Mr. Morsi's removal." The collective wisdom of the Egyptian leadership, responding to the massive popular demand for a secular Egypt, is now abbreviated by that author to a coup against a democratically-elected Brotherhood.
It is noteworthy that the Islamic constitution had no provision for a scripted method for the removal of an errant president. In that void, the popular will stepped in to fill that space.
Another strange switch in that imperialist-like intervention in Egyptian internal affairs by an American journalist: It behooves Fitzpatrick to compare between how El-Sisi came to power twice (in 2014 and in 2018) to how Trump came to power in the US in 2017. The Egyptian president came through an internationally-supervised elections on the basis of the secular Constitution of 2014. Trump came to power through, the intervention of a foreign adversary, Russia, and is now calling the US Constitution "archaic."
The definition of "archaic" is primitive, no longer in common use. As to the definition of "democracy," it has so far never found a common definition. Even Kirkpatrick in his pro-Muslim Brotherhood prediction, has failed to provide us with the rationale of what he means by "The White House and the Strongman."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)