Why is MPAC attacking
Steve Emerson?
And what does it all
mean for the war on terror?
By
Robert Spencer
The Muslim
Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has identified its chief enemy. At a
conference on “Countering Religious & Political Extremism” held on
December 18 (and later televised on C-Span), it distributed a 48-page
booklet attacking not bin Laden, or Zawahiri, or Zarqawi, but
anti-terrorism expert Steven Emerson. Entitled “Counterproductive
Counterterrorism,” the booklet sought to frame opposition to Emerson as
a national security issue: “In order to enhance the security of our
country, it is necessary to expose the vocal minority of Americans who
continue to exploit the tragedy of September 11 to advance their
pre-existing anti-Muslim agenda.”
For months
now, MPAC has been touting its new “National Anti-Terrorism Campaign”
(NATC), garnering uncritical publicity in the media and even praise from
government officials. The Campaign’s glossy brochure proclaims that
“It is our duty as American Muslims to protect our country and to
contribute to its betterment.” But like the old Whip Inflation Now
campaign of the Ford Administration, the NATC is long on style and short
on substance. It recommends, for example, that “All activities within
the mosque and Islamic centers should be authorized by legitimate,
acknowledged leadership…” That sounds great until one realizes that if
a mosque is involved in terrorist activity, it is most likely with the
complicity of mosque leadership — as per the Naqshbandi Sufi leader
Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani’s 1999 testimony before a State
Department Open Forum that eighty percent of American mosques were
controlled by extremists.[1]
The rest of MPAC’s recommendations are in the same vein, appearing to be
more concerned about misbehavior by non-Muslim law enforcement officials
in mosques than about the possibility of terrorist activity in those
mosques. WIN buttons are one thing, but the consequences of false
advertising by MPAC are much more deadly. Now with the publication of this
new report, MPAC’s counterterrorism agenda seems to boil down to one
substantive point: Steve Emerson, not Islamic terrorism, is the enemy.
It is very
revealing that MPAC would think that Emerson is doing so much damage —
to the security of our country, no less — as to call for such a
response. Emerson’s anti-terror work has won accolades from across the
political spectrum. Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) says that
“Steve Emerson deserves the highest prize — a Pulitzer or whatever it
may be — for investigative journalism.” Richard Clarke, the
controversial former National Security Council Counterterrorism official,
has declared, “I think of Steve as the Paul Revere of terrorism.” He
says that he would always go to hear Emerson speak, because “we’d
always learn things we weren’t hearing from the FBI or CIA, things which
almost always proved to be true.”[2]
Andrew McCarthy, an Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the 1993
World
Trade
Center
bombings, called Emerson “a valuable source of information and
knowledge. And in terms of trying to find places to look for
evidence, he’s a very good person to talk to. He’s got a lot of
insight.”[3]
A.M. Rosenthal, former managing editor of the New
York Times, declared: “Steve Emerson is one of the nation’s best
national security correspondents. His investigative work on radical
Islamic fundamentalism is absolutely critical to this nation’s national
security. There is no one else who has exhibited the same expertise,
courage and determination to tackle this vital issue.”
In
examining MPAC’s charges, MPAC has unwittingly revealed much about
itself; to the extent the
government or media continues the charade of portraying it as a
“moderate” group, it becomes troubling — and not just for Emerson. A
close inspection of MPAC’s charges against Emerson reveals more about
MPAC that it does about Emerson: MPAC has fabricated or spread outright
falsehoods and smears, raising significant questions about what the
organization’s real sentiments are regarding Islamic terrorism.
“Steve
Emerson and his Investigative Project,” asserts MPAC, “are among those
who scapegoat American Muslims, rather than provide constructive
counterterrorism policy.” Yet on none of the forty-eight pages of
“Counterproductive Counterterrorism” is there a single Muslim named
whom Emerson has unfairly scapegoated. MPAC charges that in his work
Emerson tars all Muslims with the terrorist brush, despite the fact that
Emerson himself has repeatedly maintained that most Muslims have nothing
whatsoever to do with terrorism or terrorist groups. In his acclaimed
documentary Jihad in America,
Emerson even asserted that “although the militants may claim to speak on
behalf of all Muslims, Islam as a religion does not condone violence.
The radicals represent only themselves – an extremist and violent
fringe.” But MPAC ignores all that and charges on, claiming that
“whether on television, in newspapers, or magazines, Emerson relies on
his fail-safe methods of increasing fear and suspicion toward American
Muslims.”
For the
record, Emerson’s landmark 1994 documentary revealed and exposed the
existence of Islamic terror cells and leaders in the
United States
with uncanny accuracy. The film alleged an Islamic Jihad cell was
operating in
Tampa
at the
University
of
South Florida
; in 2003, USF Professor Sami Al Arian was indicted in a 50-count
conspiracy as head of the Islamic Jihad in
North America
. Emerson’s film exposed the
existence of Hamas fundraising and terrorist meetings; since 9/11, the
government has initiated prosecutions and asset forfeitures against the
Hamas infrastructure in the
United States
. The film alleged an ongoing post-1993
World
Trade
Center
bombing Jihad conspiracy against US targets; the 9/11 attacks proved him
right. The film alleged that radical Islamic charities were operating in
the
United States
under false tax-deductible cover; since 9/11, the government has initiated
the investigation and closing of various Islamic charities, and the arrest
of their leaders on terrorism-related charges. The film alleged that
behind closed doors, various mosques and Islamic schools were the venues
of extremist exhortations to carry out Jihad against Jews and Christians;
since 9/11, Emerson’s revelations have been confirmed dozens of times.
The film alleged, showing never-before-seen video, that secret terrorist
conferences featuring the top terrorists in the world had been held in the
United States in the late 1980s and early 1990s; since 9/11, FBI and
Justice Department prosecutions have revealed the existence of these
terrorist conferences.
Even though
the mountain of evidence he had when he made the film in 1994 revealed the
extent of the massive clandestine infrastructure of militant Islamic
groups in the
United States
, Emerson repeatedly affirmed in his narration and in on-camera interviews
that militant Islam did not represent the vast majority of Muslims.
Because
Emerson was so deadly accurate in pinpointing the murderous deception of radical
Muslim groups hiding behind veneers of false moderation, these very groups
responded to the film by claiming that Emerson was attacking Islam and
insisting that there was no evidence of any militant Islamic presence in
the
United States
. MPAC joined other “mainstream” Islamic groups (often nothing more
than reconstituted organs of Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the
Council on American Islamic Relations) in denouncing Emerson.
And because
Emerson has been so much more effective since 9/11, behind the scenes and
publicly, working with the government, Congress and the media in exposing
and revealing the Islamic terrorist networks in the United States, MPAC
and other Islamic “civil rights” groups have continued in their
efforts at character assassination.
However, in
attempting to portray Emerson as an anti-Muslim bigot and a fraud, MPAC
circulates outlandish
inaccuracies and demonstrably false information. Since 1994, Emerson has
had to endure an unceasing campaign of slander and false accusations
spread by radical Islamic groups, pro-Islamic writers and self-styled
“reporters” who have done the bidding of these groups,
politically-correct reporters and editorialists, apologists for militant
Islamic groups, extremist left-wing groups and even ultra right-wing
wackos. Because of the Internet, unfortunately, the slanders against
Emerson continue to circulate long after they have been proven false.
MPAC accuses
Emerson of engaging in “anti-Islam and anti-Muslim alarmist rhetoric”
as long ago as the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; they quote him as
saying that the bombing “was done with the intent to inflict as many
casualties as possible…That is a Middle Eastern trait.”
If Emerson had
really pointed the finger at Muslim terrorists, he would have been one of
many commentators to do so in the days after the bombing. Those who
actually did so on national news shows in April 1995 include former
Congressman David McCurdy[4],
former FBI official James Fox[5],
international security expert Larry Johnson[6],
the Washington Post, and the New
York Times.[7]
In fact, FBI officials almost
universally suspected Islamic terrorists in the first 24 hours after the
attack. But even in criticizing Emerson’s comments, MPAC has distorted
what he said. Emerson’s full statement was different:
“This was done with the attempt to inflict as many casualties as
possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait and something that has been
generally not carried out in this soil until we were rudely awakened to in
1993.”[8]
The last part of the sentence, not quoted by MPAC, establishes that
Emerson was talking about the tactics used in the attack, not who carried
it out. If MPAC had wanted to present the truth, they would have seen that
Emerson, following the arrest of the culprits behind the 1995 bombing,
immediately stated that there was no evidence of any
Middle East
connection. Emerson has told me how he dissuaded Newsweek magazine editors on the Friday following
the bombing from doing a story about the connection to Islamic militants,
turning down a $5,000 offer.
Nor does MPAC
quote a contemporaneous interview by Emerson in which he stated that
“there is no specific evidence about which groups are responsible.”[9]
2 3
> Next
|