Analyst Says Impromptu Obama Decision Twisted Terror Attack Details
Taylor Rose, WND — The Obama administration may be trying to use the al-Qaida terror attacks on U.S. operations in Benghazi, Libya, to advance a growing global movement to protect Islam from criticism, according to one expert.The issue is the “defamation of religions” resolution pending at the United Nations. It was introduced by Islamic nations and coalitions to criminalize any negative reference to Islam or Muslims.
Clare Lopez, a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense, WMD, and counterterrorism, said that after the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, the Obama administration made an impromptu decision to advance the Islamic agenda item it already had endorsed.
“The Obama administration, and especially the Department of State led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are coordinating closely with the [Organization of the Islamic Conference] to achieve implementation of U.N. Human Rights Commission Resolution 16/18, which despite some cosmetic wording changes, remains the vehicle through which the OIC is determined to work toward the criminalization of the criticism of Islam in U.S. law,” she said.
[...] Lopez said the administration’s aim not only is to support the passage of U.N. Resolution 16/18 but to attempt to move Middle East policy in a direction that favors jihadist states.
“Official U. S. policy now is to assist al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadists to overthrow what have been termed ‘unfaithful Arab/Muslim rulers’ who failed to enforce Islamic law (shariah) … and to replace them with jihadist Muslim Brotherhood leadership that has pledged its commitment to re-establishment of the Caliphate and strict implementation of Shariah,” she said.
Lopez said the change in policy is a consequence of infiltration of Islamist operatives in the United States government.
While she said the First Amendment is posing a stumbling block, she believes the OIC and Obama will expand on existing law that possesses broad language allowing for various interpretations.
“One of the tactics they appear to be considering is seeking to expand upon already-existing U.S. law that prohibits ‘imminent incitement to violence’ to impose a so-called ‘test of consequences’ on speech by American citizens,” she said.
She elaborates on the strategy by clarifying that “while currently the law stipulates that the actual content of the speech must include an explicit incitement to violence, the ‘test of consequences’ would instead assign a post ipso facto charge of guilt against someone who neither spoke nor intended ‘imminent violence’ and perhaps spoke only truth – but whose speech was interpreted at some time and place in the world by someone as ‘offensive’ and who then used that entirely subjective feeling of ‘offense’ as an excuse to go out and commit violence.”
[...] Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice has called the U.N. defamation resolution “nothing more than an effort to achieve special protections for Islam – a move to stifle religious speech.”
The Human Rights First organization contends the idea violates fundamental freedom of expression.
Tad Stahnke of Human Rights First said the concept is “unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting ‘defamation of religions,’ as well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression.”
Carl Moeller, chief of Open Doors USA, told WND in an interview that the resolution “is a battle for our basic freedoms.”
“This is Orwellian in its deviousness,” he said. “To use language like the anti-defamation of a religion. It sounds like doublespeak worthy of Orwell’s ’1984′ because of what it really does.”
He said Muslim nations would use it as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians for statements as simple as their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Muslims consider an affront.
He said Muslim nations would use it as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians for statements as simple as their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which Muslims consider an affront.
DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights In House Hearing
U.S. Constitution Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A key supporter of the criminalization effort is Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erodgan, who advocates punishment for those who insult religions or prophets. » Read More
» WND
» Taylor Rose Article Archive
About the Author
Taylor Rose is a Washington, D.C., staff reporter for WND.