Eight men went on trial on Monday in Paris for their alleged roles in an armed gang accused of using explosives and the threat of violence to finance Islamic terror operations.
Prosecutors say the gang set up a restaurant and a cybercafe to try and hide their criminal activities — an "elaborate strategy to promote and finance the cause" of terror, the indictment alleges.
The trial, set to continue until Jan. 28, takes place five years after the suspects' arrest in an anti-terror sweep. It is common in France for investigators to work on cases for years before they go to trial.
This is the wording of an Oklahoma Ballot Measure (State Question 755) passed in the November 2, 2010 election by 70% of the popular vote.The measure amends the state constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic law or international law when making a ruling.
State Question 755
This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
Shall the proposal be approved?
For the proposal Yes: __________ Against the proposal No: _________
The summary of the measure reads: A Joint Resolution direction the Secretary of State to refer to the people for their approval or rejection a proposed amendment to Section 1 of Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; creating the Save Our State Amendment; requiring the courts of this state to uphold and adhere to the law as provided in federal and state constitutions, established common law, laws, rules and regulations; prohibiting consideration of certain laws; providing ballot title; and directing filing.
CAIR Fights Oklahoma Anti-Sharia Law, Not Jihadis
November 14, 2010
By Pamela Gellar
Oklahoma City, OK
Oklahoma became the first state to pass a proposition that Sharia-based court decisions and foreign law should be banned, an idea any patriot could love. But on Monday morning a federal judge, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, issued a temporary restraining order blocking Oklahoma’s new state constitutional amendment—that had just been approved by 70% of the vote—which forbids courts to decide cases using Islamic law (Sharia). The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is trying to block the law, and for now they’ve succeeded:
The restraining order will remain in place until another hearing on November 22.
Yet whatever temporary successes Muslim supremacists appear to attain, I believe that the suit and other actions like it are a good thing. The Islamic supremacists are showing their hand and revealing their agenda. The Ground Zero mosque revealed the true face of Islamic supremacists to the American people and unmosqued their real goals, and now, so, too, will the lawsuit being brought by the Hamas-linked, Muslim-Brotherhood front CAIR against the good people of Oklahoma. My colleague, Robert Spencer, an expert on Islam, asks about the Oklahoma Sharia law hearings, “Will Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani be available to testify?”
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is awaiting death by stoning in Iran after being falsely convicted of adultery. That’s Sharia.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, today announced that the “Ground Zero Imam” and his mosque, the Cordoba House/Park51 Project, were served with the class action complaint filed by First Responder Vincent Forras. The complaint alleges that the building of the planned mosque would be a legal nuisance and that the entire project, to be built in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero, is a blatant attempt to inflict emotional distress on the inhabitants of New York City; in effect a form of psychological terrorism.
Both the Imam and the mosque have ties to terrorist interests, and a large donor to the Imam's enterprises gave handsomely to the Holy Land Foundation, a convicted terrorist front group. In addition, during an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live” the Imam refused to say where the money was coming from to build the mosque at Ground Zero. There is other considerable evidence connecting the “Ground Zero Imam” and his mosque to persons and entities associated with terrorism.
When Freedom Watch, plaintiffs’ counsel, sought to have the complaint served personally upon the defendants, including the Imam, servers were prevented from giving it to them. In this regard, plaintiffs sought to serve the Imam after his speech yesterday at the Council for Foreign Relations in New York City.
The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage or SPEECH Act, passed by both the House and Senate and awaiting President Obama’s signature, prevents lawsuits brought against American writers in foreign courts from limiting free speech in America. “It protects authors, journalists, and publishers by preventing U.S. federal courts from acknowledging or enforcing a judgment in a foreign libel suit that goes against the First Amendment... The bill also empowers authors and publishers to clear their names by showing that a foreign judgment is not in line with American law, even when the foreign plaintiff has not tried to enforce the judgment in the United States.”
A bill to protect authors, journalists, and publishers from “libel tourism” recently passed both houses of Congress. The bill, known as the SPEECH Act, prevents lawsuits brought against American writers in foreign courts from limiting free speech in America. The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage or SPEECH Act passed the Senate and House in July.
Libel tourism refers to bringing a defamation lawsuit in a foreign country that is unrelated to the published material and where protection of free speech is weaker than in the United States. The goal is usually to silence or intimidate the journalist or author. Recent defamation lawsuits in the U.K. and Canada brought against American authors spurred legislators to take action.
Director of the American Center for Democracy Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who documents and publishes terrorist organization’s funding sources, has been campaigning for protection from the judgments of foreign courts. After she exposed how Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz funded al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations in her 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It," Mahfouz sued her for libel in London.