Tue 8 Feb 2005
John O’Brien of the Post-Standard has brought an inaccuracy in my reporting of this case to my attention. I have said that the case started out as a terrorist investigation and that the government and media made much of this fact. It is more accurate to say that when this case was first brought to the attention of the public, it was presented as a case with links to terrorism.
On the day of Dr. Dhafir’s arrest in February 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft told the press that “supporters of terrorism” had been apprehended. And in August, just before the trial was about to begin, Governor Pataki talked of the case having “links to terrorism”. (For more information on the case see the section: “Dhafir by others”.)
John O’Brien did not think my correction was good enough and you can see the continued correspondence here.
See here for a chronology of items about the case.
February 9th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
John O’Brien has been intent on whitewashing the prejudice of this case and covering up for the prosecution’s extraordinary display of racism. He didn’t correct you, but you were slightly wrong: the case wasn’t actually about “terrorism,” it was about racism. Terrorism was being used as a ruse to cover (and justify) hatred and fear of Islam, just like now all this fraud crap is being used as a ruse to cover what a botch job the feds did in this case (starting with picking a decent Muslim to target for persecution).
Our publication, The NewStandard, did the only real journalism I have seen on this case — public interest journalism with the goal of holding the government accountable for abuses committed against its citizens, conducted by investigative reporter, Madeleine Baran. I don’t think you have linked to any of our content in your “Dhafir By Others” section except one that was plagiarized by another website (MetroLand.net). These should help clear up the terrorism/racism questions readers may have:
The Terrorism Case that Wasn’t
As ‘Help the Needy’ Trial Nears, Case Further Politicizes’