The Coastal Post - March, 1997

A Political Prisoner In the U.S.: Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman

BY EDWARD W. MILLER

In early 1980 in Cairo, an Egyptian imam, or holy man, quietly moved from mosque to crowded mosque, preaching the tenants of Islam while also condemning the on-going corruption of his government. Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a Ph.D. from Al-Azher University, was denouncing the plundering of Muslim lands in Palestine, as well as President Mubarak's treachery in cooperating with Israel and the U.S. to support repression of both the Palestinian and his own people. The Sheik commanded his followers to stand up against "a military dictator whose prison brimmed with 70,000 of the nation's best sons and daughters" in a regime where ideas were being censored by Egyptian thought police. The sheik also beseeched his people to stop the looting of their country by Western banks and corporations whose profits and way of life both drained the natural resources and morally corrupted the culture of Egyptians.

Sheik Rahman had been jailed by Mubarak for his preachings in the early 1980s, released in 1984 only to be imprisoned again in 1985, 1986 and 1989. At each trial he was acquitted of wrong-doing, and he continued preaching to advocate the values of Islam and protest against government corruption.

When Sheik Rahman decided to travel to this country, Egyptian foreign minister Amar Moussa and U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Robert Pelletreau, connived together to have him arrested under the pretext of "violating immigration laws." The Zionists, including Senator Alphonse D'Amato (D-NY) and Assemblyman Dov Hikind (NY), made it their personal business to reinforce the indictment. Egyptian secret police spy Emad Salem was sent to the U.S. with specific instructions to keep close tabs on his activities. After some months of imprisonment in solitary, this blind and diabetic cleric was finally brought to trail in what was to become one of the most corrupt legal procedures in U.S history.

The sheik's trial was intentionally corrupted at every turn by America's Jewish organizations. Jury selection began on January 9, 1995, at which time the Zionist media began an assault on that learned scholar and his associates. The day before the jury date, The New York Times led the attack with a defaming article by a man named Bernstein. Prior to this, the prosecution had published excerpts from the scholar's 22-year-old Ph.D. dissertation, taking bits and pieces out of context to bias any potential jurors. Even NPR (National Public Radio) joined in the chorus on January 9 with a lengthy news report by columnist and author Judith Miller who claimed the case against the Sheik "was strong."Most Americans were unaware that Judith Miller is a military anti-Muslim writer whose biased reporting on the Mideast for The New York Times and inflammatory book on Muslim countries has received condemnation form scholars and writers the world over.

At the beginning of the trial, the sheik's lawyers had demanded the strongly-biased Zionist Judge, Michael B. Mukasey, recuse himself from the trial. Mukasey refused. (Federal Law, Title 28, Section 455(a) requires a sitting judge to recuse himself from any trail where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.) Mukasey was a committed Zionist, a long-time supporter of Israel. His wife is also a Zionist.

Sheik Rahman was then denied the lawyer of his choice by Judge Mukasey, and when he then asked the court to permit an expert to explain the practices of Islam to an ignorant American jury, he was refused this due process. Eventually, on January 17, 1996, Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman was sentenced by a Jewish judge of strong Zionist leanings to imprisonment for life "plus 65 years." The extra 65 years were added under the court's Count #3: Conspiracy to murder Hosin Mubarak (Egypt's president).

Those 65 years added to the sentence were related to the "conspiracy theory," and the judge's interpretation of conversations Sheik Rahman had had with supposed international terrorists and were largely based on the inflammatory and largely fictitious documentary, Jihad in America, produced by a Zionist Jew, Stephen Emerson, and shown nationwide on PBS. Both the prosecution and the judge employed guilt by association in their judgment. The Sheik was NOT sentenced for implication in the World Trade Center bombing; however, phone calls to the Sheik by Muslim defendants in that case had been presented and even accepted as evidence without the court every providing to the jury translations of those conversations.

The conspiracy theory was supposedly supported by the testimony of Abdo Haggag, an Egyptian, who quoted an unrecorded conversation he allegedly had with the Sheik. He delayed more than a year before reporting it to the police. At the trial, Haggag admitted under oath to having received $100,000 for his testimony, plus another $60,000 for his children.

After receiving his lifetime sentence, this elderly, sick and blind sheik, standing before the Jewish judge, spoke quietly and at length in Arabic. He pointed out the on-going "historical junction" at which "the spiritual power of Islam was confronting the military/material juggernaut of a Zionist White House." Sheik Rahman continued, debunking the prosecution's theory that he heads an international terrorist organization. He emphasized that he was sequestered in a jail in Cairo in the early 1980s at the time the so-called "international terrorist group" was allegedly being formed. Judge Michael Mukasey was visibly irritated by the Sheik's remarks, and interrupted the scholarly cleric repeatedly and rudely, finally remarking that "religion has nothing to do with the case."

Columnist and author Edward C. Coughlin, Jr., noted in an article in New Trends (January/February '96): "Since the days of the 'Star Chamber' proceedings in England, governments have used the conspiracy laws to destroy their political enemies. In an America controlled by the Zionist Gang, a decision was made at the highest level to "get Sheik Rahman... The evidence against the sheik which took nine months to prosecute was purely circumstantial and built on the most dubious kind of foundation. His trial in Zionist-dominated New York City in front of a card-carrying Zionist jurist and in a society swarming with an Islamic-bashing media and pro-Zionist tabloids and news readers, guaranteed his ultimate conviction."

Coughlin continued: "One of the counts in the indictment against the blind sheik...was a rarely-used Civil War seditious conspiracy charge. A key witness against the cleric...was a government informer...a known liar who had demanded one million from the FBI to entrap the sheik and his co-defendants."

Even the highly-prejudiced Washington Post, an establishment mouthpiece, was forced to state in an editorial after the guilty verdict was announced that aspects of the trial worried it." The Post said: "conspiracy trials are troublesome because they enable prosecutors to link a number of people, some of whom are only tangentially connected, to one of the events cited in the indictment, and put everybody on trial together. There are special reasons when the defendants, like Sheik Rahman, already foreign-born, are more likely to be linked in the jurors' minds to the stereotype of an international terrorist." Coughlin adds: "The sheik was unpopular because the Zionist press had already done a hatchet job on him... It is clear that the U.S. government was used by an alien element, the Zionists, to wrongly target him for persecution. Justice demands that his conviction be overturned on appeal."

Not only was the trial of Sheik Abdul Oman Rahman a long and terrible ordeal for this blind, aged cleric, but his imprisonment continues to be deliberately cruel and physically threatening. In the U.S. Federal Prison Hospital in Springfield, Missouri, since October, 1995, he is totally isolated from fellow prisoners. Amnesty International reported that Dr. Rahman, a diabetic, had been subject to deliberate neglect by his guards, who "routinely fail to respond to his legitimate requests for assistance... He has not had his hair or nail cuts, nor has he been provided with a change of clothing for several months." He is not allowed to join in Muslim prayers with other Muslim prisoners, he is deprived of his prayer rug and a clock to determine his praying schedule, has no short-wave radio to hear Arabic news (his only language), and is subject to frequent strip searches combining gratuitous humiliations. Amnesty International points out the U.S. is not meeting its obligation under Articles 7 and 10 of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights: "All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person."

Many Muslims and non-Muslims plus Muslim organizations both in this country and abroad have joined forces to form the Committee to Free Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. The legal aspects of this group are being handled by Ex-Attorney General Ramsey Clark's office. Hopefully, the sheik can be re-tried on appeal, cleared of conspiracy charges and allowed his freedom. The dark stain on our federal judicial system, however, will never fade completely.

(Israel's plan to weaken the power of Islam began at Camp David when Egypt was seduced to split the Arab league. Sadat was murdered for his betrayal. Nassar then led a more independent Egypt until his murder, after which Israel with U.S. help placed a secular, anti-Muslim Mubarak in the presidency. The shiek's imprisonment here is intended to further weaken Islam in Egypt, which explains Zionist interest in his trial.)

er