Tuesday, July 13, 2010
IN THE COMMENTS on the article, SIOA Mosque Manifesto: All Mosques are Not Created Equal, A Handy Guide to Fighting the Muslim Brotherhood, several people added insights into the legality of Islam.
The first to comment is Pastorius, who runs the Infidel Bloggers Alliance.
The post says: Most mosques in America are Saudi-funded and stocked with Islamic supremacist Saudi literature. Ask mosque leaders, if they aren't forthcoming about the sources of their funding, what they have to hide. Call for funding transparency. And if they admit to Saudi funding ...
The RICO Act says: Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
Here are the crimes that are listed under RICO:
Under the law, racketeering activity means:
* Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
* Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
* Embezzlement of union funds;
* Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
* Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
* Money laundering and related offenses;
* Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
* Acts of terrorism.
More on RICO:
Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged civil lawsuit cases or for criminal charges. In these instances charges can be brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement. Further, charges can also be brought against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
If the Saudi-funding can be shown to consistently come through the same channels, and if money-laundering, acts of terrorism, and/or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country can be shown to be supported by that Saudi-funding, then RICO statutes would apply.
RICO statutes can be used to bring down the entire structure of a criminal organization.
Therefore, if this Saudi-funding supported a group of Mosques, and they were found to be involved in the commission these certain crimes, then RICO could bring down all the Mosques associated with that criminal activity.
There must be ordinances against proselytizing violence, incitement of violence on the local lawbooks. If they're reading the Koran, they're promoting violence. That is illegal in any municipality. If they're promoting Sharia, they're promoting slavery and violating usury laws and discrimination laws, also illegal.
Also a SCOTUS definition of just what a "religion" is is coming to a head. A religion cannot use that status to violate other laws. In the SCOTUS precedent cases, the definition of "religion" revolves around BELIEF, which are solely self-imposed. Islam imposes its system laws on believers and others whether they are willing or not (even killing them). This does NOT fit in with SCOTUS precedent as to what defines a "religion".
Religion is a deeply-held set of personal beliefs. Nobody has a problem with that, UNTIL it overlaps with given laws.
The Ballard case involved the conviction of organizers of the I Am movement on grounds that they defrauded people by falsely representing that their members had supernatural powers to heal people with incurable illnesses. The Supreme Court held that the jury, in determining the line between the free exercise of religion and the punishable offense of obtaining property under False Pretenses, should not decide whether the claims of the I Am members were actually true, only whether the members honestly believed them to be true, thus qualifying the group as a religion under the Supreme Court's broad definition. This did not deny them the ability to exercise their beliefs, but it did not protect them from stealing the money of others under laws governing fraud.
So by precedent, a muslim could "believe" til the cows come home he has the right to screw an 8 year old because Mo did, but if he tries it he will not be protected. Nor will Imams who "believe" in jihad in promoting it be protected from laws against incitement of violence.
Vancouver Canuck said...
Re: Pastorius's first post and definition of the RICO laws:
"dealing in obscene matter" - would not the antisemitic garbage and other hate 'literature' distributed at mosques not qualify under this definition?