Now Playing on JYB Films

Anatomy of the Comic Jihad


Movie File Host
YouTube YouTube
Putfile Putfile


Movie File Host
YouTube

The Meaning of Taqiyya







button02b
fpawbn
February 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29  
$1 Shipping for 4 days, only at Overstock.com!
button
Archives

Content Staff
Technical Staff
credit where due
This site is still alive and kicking thanks to the generosity and talents of Alan M. Carroll (aka Annoying Old Guy). Without him, the JYB would still be suffering with Blogger's bad code and long-term archive loss.
Powered by
Hosted By
Anti-Junk: 585 sources banned.

More on the Gitmo lawyers' shady Wahhabist backers

Let's take a break from election stuff for a moment and get back to one of my favorite topics: the Gitmo Lawyers and who's paying for them. Back here I wrote about a liberal advocacy outfit called the Center for Constitutional Rights, which was representing several of the Gitmo detainees (such as Majid Khan) in court. Not only are they representing lawyers, but they are also coordinating all the legal representation for most of the detainees--more than 500 pro-bono lawyers.

The CCR's funding statement revealed an interesting detail, as you'll see at that link. The International Institute for Islamic Thought, the IIIT, was a major donor to the CCR's work. The IIIT was raided in 2002 by Federal agents as part of a terror-funding investigation.

I had cause to revisit that post recently and looked at their donor list again. There are a couple of names on there I missed the first time whose participation bears note, both of them (like the IIIT) giving in the $25000-$49,999 range:

Hisham Altalib: Director of Finance for the IIIT. In the affidavit* for the search of IIIT's premises, Altalib (or Al-Talib) is mentioned by name:

70. Hisham Al-Talib is a director or officer of several Safa Group organizations, including Safa Trust, Inc. and IIIT. Al-Talib was referenced in Al-Alwani’s 1991 letter expressing solidarity with [Sami] Al-Arian.

Jamal Barzinji: Also a VP of the IIIT.

Barzinji is also named in the affidavit:

73. Jamal Barzinji has been the officer or director of numerous Safa Group organizations, including Mar-Jac Poultry, Reston Investments, and Safa Trust. Barzinji was referenced in Al-Alwani’s 1991 letter expressing solidarity with Al-Arian. I believe that Barzinji is not only closely associated with PIJ (as evidenced by ties to Al-Arian, including documents seized in Tampa in 1995 reflecting direct correspondence between Barzinji and Al-Arian), but also with HAMAS. REDACTED xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Barzinji is quite active in politics, having (apparently) hired disgraced Bush administration official (and Grover Norquist/ Jack Abramoff-linked lobbyist) David H. Safavian to lobby on behalf of the imprisoned Malaysian deputy Prime Minister. Originally Safavian's firm had declared they were lobbying for a fellow named Abdurahman Alamoudi. When Alamoudi was convicted of taking money from Libya to attempt an assassination of the Crown prince of Saudi Arabia, the lobbyists said they weren't working for Alamoudi after all and had in fact been hired by Barzinji. (Cue Marlon Brando voice: Now I see it was Barzinji all along...) Barzinji's background was considered sketchy enough for the Washington Post to break out the T-word:
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held up Safavian's nomination for more than a year, in part because of lawmakers' concerns about lobbying work for two men later accused of links to suspected terrorist organizations, according to committee documents.

Anyway, there's a lot more out there about Barzinji that I'll let you google if you like. (Neither Barzinji nor Altalib have been charged with any crime as a result of these investigations.)

It's interesting to me that these guys took this step and put their names and the IIIT on the line. At least two of the major donors, the Tides Foundation and the JEHT Foundation, are described by Discover the Networks as capable of effectively anonymizing contributions to non-profits. Anyone can donate money to one of those groups anonymously and earmark it toward a particular project, like the CCR.

Ah, yes, the point: Up at that first link I quoted a DoD official spoke out on the lawyers representing the Gitmo detainees:

When asked in the radio interview who was paying for the legal representation, Mr. Stimson replied: “It’s not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they’re doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.”
The legal community closed ranks against him, and he lost his job for saying that. They even tried to have him disbarred.

And yet, as I've been pointing out again and again for over a year now, that man was on to something.


_____________________________________
*Affidavit available here, in a long .pdf file. Fascinating stuff, and also relevant to the recent Holy Land Foundation trials. Great table of who's who in the "Safa Group" on page 42-3, which shows how many of those pies Jamal Barzinji and Hisham Al-Talib had their fingers in. (And you know, contributions in the $25-50K range aren't chicken change. Are they that well compensated? I'm in the wrong line of work!) And then there's this tidbit, which may well be innocent, but in the totality of circumstances certainly raises an eyebrow:

24. In June 1998, redacted xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx at IIIT's physical address and its post office box in Herndon revealed the receipt of mail from the El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company, in Khartoum, Sudan. That company’s facility, believed to be producing ingredients used in chemical weapons, was the target of an August 20, 1998 American cruise missile attack that retaliated for the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Tantalizing redaction in original. One more excerpt from that affidavit? Oh, twist my arm:
A Fairfax County Police Department criminal history check revealed that in November 2000, Jamal Barzinji was arrested at [Address redacted by See-Dubya], Herndon, Virginia, and charged with Domestic Abuse and Resisting Arrest.

ADDENDUM: Welcome LGF'ers! Some discussion of this post in the LGF comments suggests that people are reading this and thinking "The Gitmo Lawyers" are being paid by the IIIT. In reality it's much more complicated than that--but let me be clear: all of the 500 lawyers who are coordinated by the Center for Constitutional Rights are themselves legitimately pro-bono and do not get paid for this work. Not that that means they're angels or anything. (The CCR's own staff attorneys, such as Gitanjali Gutierrez, are full-time public interest attorneys, and are therefore their work is subsidized by these contributions.) This post and the post at the first link merely detail how the CCR itself has received somewhere between $75,000 and $149,998 from the (decidedly shady) IIIT and two of its vice presidents.

AS for the pro bono lawyers, there are still interesting aspects to that. The first of which is that in many cases, they come from law firms who have a Middle Eastern state or prince as a major client--in one case, in the trillion dollar 9/11 suit. The second is that the impetus to get the legal industry to join forces behind the Gitmo detainees was itself a Kuwaiti-funded PR campaign.

IF you are interested in this subject, I've posted on it a lot. Put "Gitmo lawyers" in the search bar on the left and you'll get an eyeful.

One more thing: If you're new to the JYB, here's one more cool story I dug up that hasn't made the MSM yet, but should.

UPDATE: Many of the Gitmo lawyers have signed a petition endorsing Barack Obama.

Post to del.icio.us

Posted by SeeDubya on January 28, 2008 5:13 PM
Trackbacks: View (5)Ping
Comments

Anyone but you interested in this? I mean, from a law enforcement perspective? I hope someone is connecting these dots.

Posted by Occasus on January 28, 2008 9:24 PM

Occasus—

No. Nobody links these, either. Although Debra Burlingame did testify about it before Congress (see the very last link, where it says “on to something”).

Other than that, and a few bloggers interested in terror finance generally, this is a dead letter. I’ve bugged the Wash Times about it, too. Problem is it looks more complicated than it is, I think, and there are easier stories out there that won’t get you fired. Hey, Huckabee says Mitt Romney’s a wuss because he takes the skin off his fried chicken! Let’s do that instead.

As for law enforcement, the investigators who raided Herndon—Operation Green Quest—weren’t exactly hailed as heroes for their initiative:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=operation_greenquest

Read down through that until you start to cry. I dunno, maybe they sprung too soon, hard to say. On the other hand, maybe the indictments will come down any day…

I may have spoken too soon. Just got 200 hits from LGF link viewer in 30 minutes. Welcome folks, have a look around!

good job, will be coming back soon for more.….…..

Posted by lilmamzer on January 29, 2008 2:41 PM

See-Dubya, can you please help? The http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/ link is not accessible, at least for me.

Posted by dmh0667-LGF on January 29, 2008 4:13 PM

OK—it’s not coming up for me either. Here’s a link to the google cahce of the text of that page—cut and paste: http://tinyurl.com/yusm8z

Thank you, See-Dubya, there now…

Posted by dmh0667-LGF on January 29, 2008 4:36 PM

Very nice digs here, I linked from LGF and will check back with you again.

Posted by tw111 on January 29, 2008 6:05 PM

After you’ve been disgusted to the max by the shenanigans from the Git’em’ngo’ gang, read Iowahawk’s somewhat related latest for some comic relief.. http://www.iowahawk.typepad.com/

Posted by tw111 on January 29, 2008 6:11 PM

One way to slowly repair this situation is to raise the percent of assets that foundations must pay out each year from 5% to 10%. This would insure that foundations no longer have eternal life. They are able to enjoy this benefit right now because if they can earn more on their investments than they give away in grants, they never run out of money. And with a self-perpetuating board, we have the recipe for never-ending liberal mischief.

Now, boosting the payout would cause foundations to double their grants and it certainly would boosting funding of the causes that foundations love. Since foundations are mostly leftist organizations, it would fund more leftist causes, but only for a few years. The sooner we start, the sooner we will be rid of their social meddling.

Posted by John Harvey on January 29, 2008 6:45 PM

law school, mandatory “professionalism hour”, gitmo lawyer Mark Wilson from the Federal Defenders office in Phila., Tues. Feb 5th. Anything special I should ask?

Posted by terri on January 29, 2008 10:54 PM

Terri—Great! I can think of a dozen things I’d like to ask. Maybe start with one of these two:

1. at least 30 prisoners who have been released from Gitmo have been killed or recaptured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan, assisting and in one case directing the Taliban. First, did you know or work with or represent any of those detainees, and how does that make you feel about your participation in freeing them? Also, since so many of the detainees are now proven liars, why do you (and the mainstream media) continue to consider their accounts of abuse and mistreatment to be credible? Is it because their testimony is the only evidence of mistreatment and abuse?

(Reference, so you won’t have to just say “I, um, read this on a blog”: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/freed-guantanamo-inmates-take-up-arms/2007/07/27/1185339258055.html

2. Many of the lawyers who represent Guantanamo detainees work for firms who represent Middle Eastern states or figureheads—for example, Shearman & Sterling’s lawyers actually received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Kuwaiti government to represent several Kuwaiti clients as well as undertaking a “guerilla PR offensive” to demonize the military’s handling of detainees at Gitmo, and Wilmer Hale is defending a Saudi Prince in a TRILLION-dollar 9-11 suit. Even the Center for Constitutional Rights, which coordinates the 500 pro-bono Gitmo lawyers, has taken thousands of dollars from an Institute and two of its directors which have been raided by the federal government in a terrorism investigation and linked in the Washington Post to terrorism. Would you acknowledge that there are ethical gray areas in this sort of representation, and would you care to elaborate on what you think some of them are?

AND THEN, whichever question you ask, FOLLOW UP:

3. Cully Stimson, who was a U.S. Defense Department Official and lawyer who pointed out that these potential conflicts and undisclosed agendas underlay the Gitmo lawyers’ representation of detainees, and pointed out—accurately, as it’s since emerged—that many of them weren’t pro bono at all but were in fact being paid by a state (in this case, Kuwait). Stimson told the truth about this, and he lost his job for it. Not only did he lose his job but the San Francisco bar association tried to have him disbarred. So my question to you is: should I be pre-emptively disbarred for having called attention to these issues? And since he was telling the truth about something that the public wasn’t aware of, shouldn’t Cully Stimson be hailed as a whistleblower and get his job back?

These might be too confrontational or too long for the setting, terri, so you might need to dial them back a little or condense them. You can see why the ending of the second question is pretty useful, though, since it invites him to discuss similar problems or deny that there’s anything wrong at all with what you’ve just brought up. E-mail me if I can help you with the phrasing, and let me know how it goes.

Also, if you can videotape (or audiotape) his responses, if that’s permitted in the setting , then please try to get that recording to me—or just put it up on YouTube yourself.

Post a comment