International Law Under a Global Caliphate: Think About It

A particularly nasty rape-and-murder case in Texas had nothing to do with the war on terror, until the International Court of Justice (IC) got involved.

Back in 1993, two teenage girls took a shortcut through a park, interrupted a gang initiation, and were then raped and killed: a process that took about an hour. Ernesto Medellin, the gang member who first grabbed one of the girls, and snapped a nylon belt while strangling one of them, is a Mexican national.

He informed police of his status, but was not informed that he could ask the Mexican consulate for help. Medellin didn't find out that he could appeal to the Mexican consulate until after he was sentenced to death.

Now, the International Court of Justice says that the rights of Medellin and 50 others were violated this way. As I understand it, the IC says their convictions should be overturned, and they should be given new trials.

The White House agrees.

What we have we have here is state law, federal law, and international law getting in each other's way. The IC and the White House point to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, or "1963 Vienna Convention" for short. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on the mess today.

I'm inclined to side with states' rights. On the other hand, I can't support the death penalty (It's a Catholic thing: If there's no other way to protect the innocent, the Church accepts executions - but given what can be done these days, it's rare that killing the criminal is the only solution (heavy paraphrase of the Catechism, 2267).)

And, although I think that eventually there will very likely be a global authority that's competent to rule, I don't think we're there yet.

Here's where the war on terror comes in.

A reasonable goal for Al Qaeda and all the other jihadists, from their point of view, is to establish a global caliphate. Then, we'd have their version of the Islamic dream: the entire world run along the lines of Afghanistan under the Taliban.

I suspect that many people would be more passionate about America winning, if they realized that, although the St. Louis Gateway Arch might be sufficiently abstract to survive, the Statue of Liberty would almost certainly join the Twin Towers as a former feature of the New York City skyline.

I'm not just being emotional here: an over-size, unislamic statue - of a woman - symbolizing freedom, of all things? If I had a Talabanoid mindset, that, and the Lincoln Memorial, would be among the first landmarks to go.

The, there are the dress codes that would be imposed. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote. Or drive. And certainly not go outside the home, unless accompanied by a male relative.

International law, under a Wahhabi Islamic caliphate, would enforce standards that I think many Americans would find more offensive than insisting on the re-trail of a convicted rapist.

Adam Yahiye Gadahn: Just Who Is this Guy, and Why Should We Care?

He started out being Adam Pearlman. He's also known as Adam Gadahn, and Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and Azzām al-Amrīk or Azzan al-Amiki or Azzam the American. The variations of his Azzam monikers probably come from issues involved in taking a name written in Arabic (عزام الأمريكك) and trying to write it with the Latin alphabet.

His appearance in another al Qaeda video has brought this California-born jihadist back into the news.

I'm inclined to agree with another blogger, who described him as an "arrogant armchair warrior."

I get the impression that Adam Gadahn isn't so much a leader of men as a nerd for al Qaeda.

Back in the sixties, Adam Gadahn's Jewish father was a bearded, long-haired student newspaper editor at the University of California at Irvine. The man who would become Adam's father was Phil Pearlman at the time. Phil Pearlman changed his surname to Gadahn later, when he converted to Christianity.

Adam Gadahn grew up on his parent's goat farm in southern California, later seeking meaning in death metal music after rejecting his perception of evangelical Christianity’s "apocalyptic ramblings" as "paranoid" and empty.

Eventually, having discovered Islam on the Internet, he showed up at a Garden Grove mosque in 1995 and converted to Islam. The mosque he joined was one of those that had given money when Sheikh "the Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman passed the hat (passed the red toolbox, to be precise), a few years before.

Rahman said that non-violent interpretations of jihad were weak, and that oppressed Muslims needed military support. "If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah," he told the people at that California mosque. That was December, 1992. In February, 1993, the Blind Sheikh and some of his colleagues set off a bomb under one of New York City's Twin Towers.

Jihad would not bring the World Trade Center in New York down until September of 2001, more than 8 years later.

Back to Azzam the American. After rejecting his Garden Grove mosque as being insufficiently Islamic, he joined al Qaeda and moved overseas. Apparently to Pakistan.

He's now serving al Qaeda as a sort of media adviser and spokesman to Americans.

In Adam Gadahan's first video appearance, in 2004, someone off-screen asked him, "You are an American. You have joined a movement waging war on America, and killing large numbers of Americans. Don’t you in any way feel that you are betraying your people and country?"

Azzam the American replied in a very frank and open way. "First of all," he said, "the allegiance and loyalty of a Muslim is to Allah, his messenger, his religion, and his fellow-believers, before anyone and anything else. So if there is a conflict between his religion and his nation and family, then he must choose the religion every time. In fact, to side with the unbelievers against Islam and Muslims is one of the acts that nullify one’s Islamic faith." After recalling that Muhammad had fought his own cousins, Gadahn said, "So some of the early Muslims fought and killed their closest relatives during battle."

After a harsh description of American foreign policy, Azzam the American addressed Americans "No, my former countrymen, you are guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty!" He ended with a warning: "The streets of America shall run red with blood." (Emphasis is mine.)

Adam Gadahn has been accused of treason, and is on the FBI's 'most wanted terrorists' list.

Why should we pay any attention to Adam Gadahn? He's possibly the highest-profile example of 'home-grown' terrorists: People who grow up in what are considered main-stream American households (or goat farms in southern California), convert to Islam and choose the fanatic fringe of that religion.

In addition to the home-grown variety, there are other people who are 2nd and 3rd generation members of Muslim families, who choose to align themselves with organizations dedicated to killing Americans.

It is vitally important to remember that terrorists, people who are dedicated to the destruction of those who do not meet with their approval, are not all 'foreigners.'

Some grew up in America, have American citizenship, and live in America. It is a foolish and deadly mistake to believe that 'Americans' should be shielded from the inconvenience of law enforcement's efforts to protect us.

My information came from a New Yorker article, "Azzam the American," January 22, 2007, by Raffi Khatchadourian, and from a blog, "Adam Gadahn: Myths and Facts," March 4, 2007, by Evan Kohlmann. It was Kohlmann's blog that led me to the New Yorker article.

Another Islamic Voice in the Debate

This isn't helpful, in my opinion.

Congressman Keith Ellison, speaking to a gathering of atheists, said "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists," according to an article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Atheists applaud Ellison's views on Cheney, Libby, 9/11"

So far, so good. The freedom to believe, or not believe, what you want is an important part of the freedom we enjoy in the States.

Congressman Ellison also said something that I don't think is helpful in Islamic/non-Islamic relations.

A direct quote from the Star-Tribune article would, I think, be better than my paraphrase.

"On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: 'It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you.' "
(Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

While Congressman Ellison did a fine job of implying that the U.S. blew up the Twin Towers without actually saying that this was the case, his meaning is quite clear.

I applaud Congressman Ellison's technical skill as a communicator, but believe that his remarks will, in the long run, not help the average non-Muslim see those of his faith in a positive light.

Keith Ellison posts:

• Keith Ellison, Iraqi Sheikhs, and Islam's Image (August 3, 2007)
• This Keith Ellison Story Might Take Off (July 27, 2007)
• Congressman Keith Ellison and Islam (July 22, 2007)
• Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks (July 17, 2007)
• There's a New Loon in Minnesota (July 16, 2007)
• Another Islamic Voice in the Debate (July 16, 2007)

As the first Islamic member of the American Congress, Representative Ellison deserves some attention. There may be more K.E. posts, given his colorful past associations and current talent for getting in the news.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.