TrendNew tactics in war on terror -- litigation
Islamic extremists are increasingly using lawsuits to threaten and intimidate civilians across the world; the Danish newspaper Politiken, which published the controversial Danish Mohammed cartoons in 2005, has been hit by a civil lawsuit; a Danish MP was recently forced to plead guilty to hate speech for speaking his mind about Islam; civilians can also use the courts to go after extremists using similar tactics
In a developing trend, Islamic extremists and civilians could increasingly battle one another in the court room.
In a recent Daily Caller op-ed, Daniel Huff, director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum, writes that Islamic extremists have begun to turn to litigation to “intimidate their opponents” and achieve their goals.
After publishing the controversial Mohammed cartoons in 2005, Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten has been the target of Islamic extremists around the world who wish to punish the newspaper for what they perceive as blasphemy.
The cartoons were an effort to promote freedom of expression, but they resulted in an eruption of angry and violent protests across the Middle East. Danish goods were boycotted and in Damascus the Danish embassy was burned down.
On 29 December 2010, Scandinavian authorities arrested five terrorists who were planning to storm the newspaper and kill the staff. This was the fourth attempt in 2010 alone.
Of note is the fact that terrorists have yet to strike against Politiken, which also published the cartoons and is located next door.
Huff believes that Politken has avoided violent physical retribution because it was already the subject of a nonviolent campaign by Islamic extremists in the form of a civil lawsuit.
After terrorists nearly succeeded in murdering Kurt Westergaard, the original artist of the Danish cartoons in 2008, Politken reprinted the cartoons in a defiant move to show solidarity against intimidation from extremists.
A Saudi law firm, representing 94,923 descendants of Mohammed, promptly threatened legal action. Politiken settled out of court and issued an apology for reprinting the cartoons.
In response, Westergaard, said, “In Denmark we play by a set of rules, which we don’t deviate from, and that’s freedom of speech. Politiken is afraid of terror. That’s unfortunate and I fully understand that.”
The editor of Jyllands Posten, similarly upset about Politken’s decision, said that it had failed to fight for freedom of speech and called it a “sad day” for the Danish press.
Islamic extremists have used similar tactics across Europe using their “vague hate speech laws” to prosecute individuals. In December, Danish MP Jesper Langballe pled guilty to violating hate speech laws after making comments on Islam’s poor treatment of women.
According to Danish laws, it does not matter if the statements made were true or false, anyone can be convicted so long as somebody feels offended. He was sentenced to a fine of $1,000 or ten days in jail.
In a similar case, International Free Press Society president Lars Hedegaard will have to appear in court on 24 January for expressing his views on Islam.
The same tactics could also be used by civilians against Islamic extremists to disrupt their operations by forcing them to engage in costly civil lawsuits.
Huff suggests that authorities could “use civil litigation as a complementary strategy in counterterrorism operations, particularly in the U.S.”
In 1994 Congress passed a bill that made it illegal to use force against persons exercising abortion rights and allowed victims to sue for damages. Huff writes that “with only minor modifications, this law could be expanded to cover threats against free speech rights as well.
He points to the trials of two Chicago men, David Headley and Tahawwur Rana, who were arrested for conspiring to attack the Jyllands Posten as an opportunity to initiate simultaneous criminal and civil proceedings. Headley pleaded guilty last March, however Rana goes on trial in February.
Huff argues that if his proposed law were in place, the Jylland Posten’s staff could sue for damages disrupting Rana as he prepares for his criminal trial.
In closing, Huff writes that “a law along these lines would allow victims to go on the offensive against Islamic radicals who terrorize them instead of having to hope authorities continue catching these extremists in time.”
Outside of Huff’s proposed law, it is difficult to determine whether this trend of litigation will become an increasing tactic in counter terrorist operations.
