RUTHFULLY YOURS

I’ve been fortunate to have had two professional careers, the first one in the courtroom as a trial lawyer and the second in journalism. I did not need the latter experience, though, to notice the stark difference between these two worlds.

When I prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” (Omar Abdel Rahman) and the jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center and then plotted a simultaneous attack on several New York City landmarks, the organs of government that speak to the public through the media were making like irresponsible journalists. That is, they were eschewing facts and evidence, obsessively peddling a counterfactual narrative, to wit:

There is only one “true” Islam, and it is resolutely peaceful (indeed, being a “religion of peace” is apparently its only identifiable attribute). Therefore, the terrorist acts plotted and committed by a cabal of men who just happened to be Muslim had utterly nothing to do with Islam, notwithstanding the jihadists’ proclamations to the contrary.

By contrast, in the courtroom, criminal allegations cannot be proved absent convincing factual evidence — beyond a reasonable doubt — that unanimously persuades jurors of the suspects’ guilt.

Thus, though we prosecutors were formally part of the government, it was as if we were inhabiting a cocoon insulated from the fictional government narrative. Indeed, the judge repeatedly reminded the jurors of their oath to decide the case solely based on the facts proved and the controlling law, not bias, fear or favor — which was a 1990s way of saying “not narrative.”

The upshot of all this? No matter what “religion of peace” blather was coming out of Main Justice in Washington or the White House press apparatus, in our New York City federal courtroom a short distance from the Twin Towers, we were not only permitted but obliged as government attorneys to prove the truth:

(a) There are mainstream interpretations of Islam that endorse war against non-Muslims to establish Allah’s law (sharia);

(b) these are literalist interpretations that draw directly on Islamic scripture;

(c) the interpretations (Salafism, Wahhabism, Islamic supremacism — collectively, what we hopefully refer to as “radical” Islam) are urged on young Muslims (mostly men) by influential sharia scholars like the Blind Sheikh, whose powerful influence owes solely and only to their mastery of the doctrine;

(d) based on those incitements, these young men are radicalized into jihadism, plotting and committing acts of terrorism.

Those were the facts. Our evidence proved them incontestably. That is the only way we were able to convict jihadists — not only in my prosecution, but in case after terrorism case.

A 22-year-old Bronx, N.Y., resident was arrested Tuesday and accused of sympathizing with Islamic State, part of a continuing effort by the U.S. to catch the terrorist group’s supporters before they travel overseas or commit violence.

Sajmir Alimehmeti was charged by Manhattan federal prosecutors with providing material support to Islamic State and with passport fraud.

He is accused of facilitating the travel of an individual he believed was heading to Syria to fight for Islamic State. He allegedly gave the individual advice, downloaded encrypted apps onto the individual’s phone, helped purchase supplies and accompanied the individual to the airport. That individual turned out to be an undercover law-enforcement agent, one of four used in the case against Mr. Alimehmeti.

A lawyer for Mr. Alimehmeti hasn’t yet been identified.
Since early 2014, more than 80 individuals have been charged by the U.S. on similar allegations related to the terrorist group. They tend to be in their mid-20s.

The use of undercover agents and paid informants to catch Islamic State supporters has sparked criticism from defense lawyers, who say the government is luring young people into committing crimes. Officials say they target dangerous individuals who would have been predisposed to commit a crime and are careful not to entrap a suspect. CONTINUE AT SITE

From economist David Malpass’s statement to the House Financial Services Committee’s subcommittee on monetary policy and trade, May 17:

I think the Fed has been hurting growth and causing income inequality by misallocating capital to bond issuers. By constantly replenishing its giant long-maturity bond portfolio, it biases the credit system in favor of bond issuers at the expense of smaller borrowers, notably the small new businesses that are critical to U.S. dynamism. The Fed should change direction, including downsizing its balance sheet, reducing its $2.4 trillion in bank debt, reducing the interest rate it pays banks, and shortening the maturity of its $4.2 trillion bond portfolio. These steps would increase growth and income, especially for the middle class which has seen an unprecedented decline in real income during the recovery. . . .

Though I’m critical of Fed policy due to its negative impact on growth and median income, I want to make clear that I support the Fed as an institution. The problem is that Fed policies aren’t working. Its concept of its mission has grown way too large and is not sufficiently focused on maintaining a strong and stable dollar. It has created a huge balance sheet and regulatory apparatus that hurt growth, and it is allowing itself to house inappropriate executive branch functions such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.