Andrew Whitehead, a former
serviceman with the U.S. Navy has a website named Anti-CAIR on which
Whitehead accused CAIR of partially funding terrorist organizations.
CAIR routinely tries to intimidate the likes of Whitehead in the
hope of stifling any criticisms and/or allegations made against it.
On March 31, 2004 CAIR filed a
lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead in the Virginia Beach Circuit Court
demanding $1 million in damages from Whitehead for what it called
“libelous defamation.” The lawsuit, scheduled to
begin in the summer of 2006 was dismissed in April 2006.
Last Thursday, April 12, 2007,
the Philadelphia/South Jersey chapter of the Republican Jewish
Coalition (RJC) under the leadership of Regional Director Scott
Figelstein, hosted a program with Reed Rubinstein, Esq. of the
Washington, DC-based law firm of Greenberg Taurig. The
RJC serves as a liaison between the Jewish community and Republican
decision makers.
Reed Rubinstein, with the
backing of his law firm, provided pro-bono counsel for Andrew Whitehead
in the CAIR v. Whitehead lawsuit. Rubinstein is
credited with defeating the defamation suit “by an Islamic extremist
group against the U.S. Navy enlisted man.”
On January 6, 2004, CAIR
attorney Jeremiah A. Denton III of Virginia Beach, VA sent Whitehead a
personal and confidential letter in which he cited the alleged
defamatory paragraphs on Whitehead’s Anti-CAIR website. He
concluded his letter with, “Notwithstanding my recommendation, in lieu
of a lawsuit CAIR has asked me to give you the opportunity to
voluntarily cease and desist the publication of defamatory statements
about CAIR on your website and elsewhere. If you
persist in the publication of defamatory remarks about CAIR, or if you
elect to publish this personal and confidential letter to any person, a
suit will be filed forthwith.”
The “false and defamatory”
statements irking CAIR officials made by Whitehead were: CAIR is a
“terrorist front organization that is partially funded by terrorists”;
CAIR is an “organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to
overthrow the constitutional government in the U.S”; and, “Why
oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic
terrorists…CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in
the U.S…In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic
terrorist-supporting countries.”
Whitehead, not easily
intimidated, responded by filing over 300 separate interrogatories,
requests of documents and requests for admission. CAIR
then filed an amended “motion for judgement” dropping the allegations
regarding CAIR’s ties to Hamas and terror were false and defamatory,
some discovery answers, and a motion for protective order.
Whitehead then filed a motion to compel, seeking a court order
obligating CAIR to answer his information requests.
In court, CAIR was asked to
admit that “Hamas murdered innocent civilians” to which it replied:
“Objection, calls for legal conclusion…” Questioned
as to whether CAIR has had “one or more communications with Abu Musa
Marzook?” The Plaintiff’s reply was, “To be subject to Plaintiff’s
motion for Protective Order…”, restricting the response to Whitehead’s
counsel.
Called to confirm Article Seven
of the Hamas Charter which states that “the Hamas has been looking
forward to implementing Allah’s promise whatever time it might take.
The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: The time will not come
until Muslims will fight the Jews, until the Jews hide behind rocks and
trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come
on and kill him!” CAIR again refused to respond
by stating: “CAIR objects because the Hamas Charter speaks for itself
and because the Plainiff is without means to obtain current, accurate,
and reliable copy of the Hamas Charter.”
Shortly before the court hearing on the motion to compel the case settled. There was no apology, and no retraction. The “false and defamatory” allegations remain posted on Whitehead’s website. CAIR simply did not wish to supply the requested documents.
Rubinstein learned a great deal
about CAIR while preparing for the trial. According
to Rubinstein CAIR “is not a domestic grassroots organization in the
usual sense of the term.” It is, instead, a “top
down” group. CAIR, Rubinstein said “was formed by
Hamas supporters, apparently as part of an integrated anti-Israel and
anti-Jewish strategy.” In addition, Rubinstein
observed that, “CAIR is dedicated to spreading Islam in the U.S. and
that it is an evangelical organization whose activities are funded by
foreign Arabs.”
Steven Emerson, a former CNN
reporter who produced “Jihad in America, a PBS documentary on Islamic
groups in America, said in a testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Terrorism, in February 1998 that he has “found links
between CAIR and the radical Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.”
Emerson added, “Pretending to be a civil rights group, CAIR is
representative of the new transformation of militant Islamic groups.”
Emerson indicated that “CAIR was formed not by Muslim religious
leaders throughout the country, but as an offshoot of the Islamic
Association of Palestine.”
Why did CAIR drop its lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead? Apparently it feared exposure that would reveal its leaders connections to terrorist groups like Hamas. If that is the case, namely, CAIR’s fear of exposure, why has the media been silent on this matter? Rubinstein explained, “CAIR is protected by the mainstream media,” which he said, “has studiously ignored a decade of evidence, and has, instead, adopted a ‘see no evil, speak no evil’ stance.”
Although CAIR is legal
under the constitution, it is important to remember that the Communist
party and the neo-Nazi parties in America were legal too. The
activities of these organizations, including CAIR, however, is not
necessarily sanctioned by the constitution, especially since CAIR
represents a “profoundly anti-Semitic and anti-Christian ideology, and
relies for its existence and activities on foreign Arab money.”
As Rubinstein has put it, “In another time (before the onset of
a PC culture), activities such as those CAIR is involved in, would have
been labeled as subversive.”