Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[Darrell Hougen]

Still, I would characterize the tasering in the video linked above as an isolated incident. The purpose of the police is not to taser innocent people. They probably shouldn't have been in the man's house. They were probably violating police procedure. They may have even broken laws.

Well, it's obvious from the video that the policeman broke laws, he assaulted the man. Further, one can observe the common pattern of police behavior: telling the man he was "resisting" by just sitting there in non-compliance, and using that as a justification to taser. This happens over and over again.

But the way we know that this is not an "isolated incident" is we observe what happens when cases like this go to trial. Sometimes justice is indeed served, but often it is not, and glaringly so. This indicates a systemic problem, not fundamentally with the cops, but with the legal system. The legal system is causing incidents such as this. This is obvious to anyone who has been made a victim and has had to go through the farce themselves. It may not be obvious to people who have been lucky enough to never have this happen to them, and who don't pay attention to what is happening to other people either.

One can observe the farce in cases as mundane as traffic tickets. E.g., in some states, not even a radar gun is needed to "prove" that someone was speeding, the cop can just declare that the motorist seemed to be going fast. In any case, the cop's word is always taken by the courts as being more credible than the citizen. This is a recipe for abuse, and that is precisely what it's causing.

Shayne

The problem may indeed be systemic, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a problem of principle or policy. It could be a problem with people's attitudes, in general. As you say, people are too quick to side with the police. Or, it could be that there is a need for more oversight of the police, but that may be impractical given budgetary constraints.

One thing that occurred to me is to institute something similar to what I recall being accepted judicial practice at the founding of this country --- to allow private citizens to bring criminal prosecutions. My understanding (not having researched it recently) is that private citizens were allowed to charge other citizens with a crime. The practice was discontinued because of abuses --- people bringing frivolous charges to satisfy a grudge. On the other hand, if the DA is reluctant to charge the police with a crime, perhaps ordinary citizens should be allowed to do it. This would only apply to the police and there would have to be some penalty for bringing frivolous charges --- like having to pay court costs.

I'm not oblivious to the problem. In the process of trying to find something else, I stumbled upon an article about police brutality. The abuse went on for decades. The sheriff at the center of it was even prosecuted by the state, but the jury found him not guilty. The system clearly failed. But what can you do if the citizens themselves don't care about justice? At some point, any system of government depends upon the ethics of ordinary citizens.

Darrell

[sjw]

The problem may indeed be systemic, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a problem of principle or policy.

Ever heard of "legal positivism"? I think you should do some research on what ideas are running our "justice" system. And then do some thinking about what ideas *should* run it. Then you will come to a different conclusion.

Shayne

[Darrell Hougen]

... videos ...

All CAIR's videos basically say, "See, Muslims aren't that bad. There are good Muslims. Etc." In other words, they are apologists for Muslims. What I would really like to see is Muslims condemning the violence and condemning the jihadists without saying, "Look, we're good guys." Zuhdi Jasser is the only prominent Muslim that I know of that does that. Here is a link to a recent interview with Jasser.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

The problem may indeed be systemic, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a problem of principle or policy.

Ever heard of "legal positivism"? I think you should do some research on what ideas are running our "justice" system. And then do some thinking about what ideas *should* run it. Then you will come to a different conclusion.

Shayne

I agree that legal positivism is a serious problem. It is eroding the principles upon which this country is founded and it must be combated. But, police beatings aren't directly related to that problem. So, now you've identified a serious problem and I agree with you.

Darrell

[sjw]

I agree that legal positivism is a serious problem. It is eroding the principles upon which this country is founded and it must be combated. But, police beatings aren't directly related to that problem. So, now you've identified a serious problem and I agree with you.

Darrell

Police beatings are directly related to injustice in the courtroom, which is directly related to legal positivism. I'm sorry you can't see the connection, that doesn't mean it's not there to see.

Shayne

[sjw]

I agree that legal positivism is a serious problem. It is eroding the principles upon which this country is founded and it must be combated. But, police beatings aren't directly related to that problem. So, now you've identified a serious problem and I agree with you.

Darrell

Police beatings are directly related to injustice in the courtroom, which is directly related to legal positivism. I'm sorry you can't see the connection, that doesn't mean it's not there to see.

Shayne

I guess I can do a little better holding your hand on this one, but frankly I think it requires a minimal grasp of the facts to see the causal connection: legal positivism -> injustice by those with legal power -> abuse of individuals by those exercising this power. This cause-effect chain must necessarily happen when methods of injustice are adopted systematically in the courtroom, as they indeed are.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Darrel,

You have to look beyond CAIR to find good moderate Muslims. CAIR is more oriented toward social Islam (Sharia) as a long-term goal.

On looking at your other posts on Islam, I see you are looking at the fringes. In order to see the middle, if it actually is the middle you want to see, you have to look at the middle.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

We would be able to impeach him.

How's that for a happy thought?

Michael

Not a chance. Too many democrats in the House to get a Bill of Impeachment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

All CAIR's videos basically say, "See, Muslims aren't that bad. There are good Muslims. Etc." In other words, they are apologists for Muslims. What I would really like to see is Muslims condemning the violence and condemning the jihadists without saying, "Look, we're good guys." Zuhdi Jasser is the only prominent Muslim that I know of that does that. Here is a link to a recent interview with Jasser.

Darrell

Oh please.. If these barbarous acts contradict the teachings of Islam there can be no doubt that Muslims will move to distance themselves from those acts instead of just condemning them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

I admit to only some familiarity with CAIR, but I have seen too many indications of differences between what they say and what they do to be interested in pursuing that particular organization further for enlightenment on the greater Muslim world.

Besides, it's a lobbying firm and I really dislike lobbying firms on principle.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

I admit to only some familiarity with CAIR, but I have seen too many indications of differences between what they say and what they do to be interested in pursuing that particular organization further for enlightenment on the greater Muslim world.

Besides, it's a lobbying firm and I really dislike lobbying firms on principle.

Michael

What differences between what they say and what they do are you referring to Michael??

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

I'd say money laundering, some key members supporting terrorist organizations, corruption and things like that but I'd rather not get into a defend/attack CAIR thing. I've read several things and seen some of their people interviewed. That was enough for me.

But for the record, just Google "Council on American-Islamic Relations" and ignore their offices. You get about a 50/50 split in the results.

I'm sure that all the positive stuff is because they're angels and all the negative stuff is because there's a conspiracy out to get them them.

Right?

Yeah, right.

If you find value in them, go for it.

I don't.

There's too many good Muslim organizations that are credible to deal with those dudes.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

I'd say money laundering, some key members supporting terrorist organizations, corruption and things like that but I'd rather not get into a defend/attack CAIR thing. I've read several things and seen some of their people interviewed. That was enough for me.

Yet CAIR hasn't been charged with a crime. So until such a time that they are indicted for a crime by a court of law, they are innocent. A lot of fear mongering is directed at demonizing them but actually, they are simply an organization that focuses on civil liberties and promoting a better understanding of Islam. Are there people within CAIR, in particular historically that may have not been so good. Yes, but that doesn't mean CAIR is responsible for their actions.

Now if you truly believe that you live in a land where people and organizations are found to be innocent before being proven guilty, then how can you justify holding opinions and asserting that the organization is guilty of crimes that it has not been indicted for nor has had the chance to defend itself against in a court of law? It's hypocrisy.

[Selene]

Adonis:

Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and Operation PUSH have not been indicted, but I would not have anything to do with either of their organizations.

I do not believe that is a good argument.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adam, for the purpose of working to safeguard the civil liberties of Muslims I trust CAIR does a good job. That's about all I trust them with. I think it's really important to ensure that civil liberties are protected and they're the only Muslim group that's effective at doing it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

Hypocrisy? Where?

I have my free choice and I am free to exercise it here in the USA. My own moral judgments are most definitely not subject to a court of law. They are subject to my cognitive and moral compass and no one else's.

I even said if you find value in CAIR, go for it.

So where's the hypocrisy?

And Adam beat me to another thought.

We have organized crime in the USA that has not been indicted (yet). It is not hypocrisy to avoid or avoid recommending these kinds of organizations as paragons of good business practice. In fact, I warn people to stay away from them if good business practice is what they want, as I do CAIR for Islamic-American affairs.

That's a far cry from demanding their imprisonment, which is what they would get if convicted in a court of law. That's not my job. So let's not mix up legal standards with plain old common sense.

They made their reputation. Let them live with it.

I'm sure if they are angels and their critics are devils, it will come out in the end.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

You accuse them of money laundering and supporting terrorism. Those are pretty hefty accusations.

The hypocrisy is that you'd expect people not to assume you're guilty without you being found guilty yet you don't afford the same courtesy to others. That's a bit hypocritical.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

I'm not pointing finger type accusing them as if I were a prosecutor. My words were within the context of watching interviews and reading some things about CAIR (good and bad, as is my habit.). In other words, I have heard others accuse them of such and I have found the few interviews I have seen with key CAIR people to be sleezey and evasive in giving straight answers.

I, also, don't trust politicians in general to do the right thing--basically for the same reasons.

Is that hypocritical? Is it unfair? After all, they haven't been accused in a court of law.

This is not hypocrisy. This is called independent judgment--and there's no way to manipulate it with technicalities. Like me there are many.

Anyway, the Muslims I really like and admire are not concerned with deceiving the public. They think such deception is wrong. I do not include CAIR in that category.

Thus, I stay away from them and, if asked, recommend others to do the same.

Michael

[sjw]

You might be interested in this one Michael:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/09/bizarre-conection-between-son-of.html

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrel,

You have to look beyond CAIR to find good moderate Muslims. CAIR is more oriented toward social Islam (Sharia) as a long-term goal.

On looking at your other posts on Islam, I see you are looking at the fringes. In order to see the middle, if it actually is the middle you want to see, you have to look at the middle.

Michael

Michael,

I don't know which of my posts you looked at, but I was simply responding to Adonis's post in which all of the videos that he posted came from the CAIR website. My point was that CAIR does not seem to be a group objecting to Islamic extremism or violence. Instead, all of its videos appear to be defending Muslims from criticism.

Darrell

[Robert Campbell]

On the theme of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf speaking fluently out of both sides of his mouth, see also this new piece by Ibn Warraq:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246268/one-imam-multiple-messages-ibn-warraq

Robert Campbell

[anthony]

Darrel,

You have to look beyond CAIR to find good moderate Muslims. CAIR is more oriented toward social Islam (Sharia) as a long-term goal.

On looking at your other posts on Islam, I see you are looking at the fringes. In order to see the middle, if it actually is the middle you want to see, you have to look at the middle.

Michael

Michael,

I don't know which of my posts you looked at, but I was simply responding to Adonis's post in which all of the videos that he posted came from the CAIR website. My point was that CAIR does not seem to be a group objecting to Islamic extremism or violence. Instead, all of its videos appear to be defending Muslims from criticism.

Darrell

To balance it a little, I have been very impressed by a first-generation American Muslim named Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum For Democracy.

Anyone know of him?

He is leading a reform movement for separation of "mosque and state", and in general seems highly libertarian.

(Can't supply a link.)

Tony

[Darrell Hougen]

All CAIR's videos basically say, "See, Muslims aren't that bad. There are good Muslims. Etc." In other words, they are apologists for Muslims. What I would really like to see is Muslims condemning the violence and condemning the jihadists without saying, "Look, we're good guys." Zuhdi Jasser is the only prominent Muslim that I know of that does that. Here is a link to a recent interview with Jasser.

Darrell

Oh please.. If these barbarous acts contradict the teachings of Islam there can be no doubt that Muslims will move to distance themselves from those acts instead of just condemning them.

Here is a quote from Jasser's interview:

After 9/11 there was really no sense of ownership of our problems within the Muslim community. All the groups that spoke for American Muslims were of the victimology mindset...

That is exactly what is wrong with the video linked above. No one in the video takes ownership of the problem. I watched it several times. In fact, the speakers say that they, "... condemn anyone of any faith that commits such brutal acts," as if it were a universal problem. They never condemn Muslims for committing such acts in the name of Islam. They never call for an end to jihad or jihadi violence. They never call for separation of mosque and state or pronounce any belief in freedom or individual rights or women's rights.

Of course, it is only possible to do so much in a short video, but CAIR is just a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, so one wouldn't expect to be able to find a video extolling religious freedom. Jasser goes on:

... my family came to this country in the sixties, coming to this nation based in freedom to escape the oppressive influence of both the secular fascists and the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood. I think what Americans do not realize is that CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and all of the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups based in D.C. and pretending to speak for all American Muslims do not show the true diversity of the American Muslim population and are really a skewed product of the Islamist ideas and donors, such as some of the petrodollars that feed them.

This is not to say that I am totally in agreement with Zuhdi Jasser. In my view, it is not simply political Islam that is the problem. Social Islam and its treatment of women is also a serious problem.

My question for you is, why did you choose to link a bunch of CAIR videos? Isn't there a better spokesman for moderate Islam? Why don't you quote Jasser?

Darrell

[Selene]

Tony:

He, Zuhdi Jasser, has been interviewed by Mark Levin several times. Excellent speaker. Rational. Sincere. Smart.

August 23, 2010 Mark speaks with Zuhdi Jasser, President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Mark plays audio from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf saying that America is worst than al Qaeda and that America supports authoritarianism regimes

Adam

[Darrell Hougen]

To balance it a little, I have been very impressed by a first-generation American Muslim named Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum For Democracy.

Anyone know of him?

He is leading a reform movement for separation of "mosque and state", and in general seems highly libertarian.

(Can't supply a link.)

Tony

Hi Tony,

If you had read my earlier post, you would have found that I linked this article about Zuhdi Jasser.

Darrell

Edited September 13, 2010 by Darrell Hougen