User:Ism schism/sandbox

5th Viscount, Jonathan Herbert Samuel is the current Viscount Samuel. He is the son of Dan Samuel, 4th Viscount Samuel.

Background and comments
In 2004, Rashad Hussain was on a panel discussion on civil rights at a Muslim Students Association conference in Chicago. With him on the panel was Laila Al-Arian, a daughter of Sami Al-Arian, who at the time was the subject of an ongoing terrorism-related prosecution. On March 2, 2006, Al-Arian pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to help the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a "specially designated terrorist" organization, was sentenced to 57 months in prison, and ordered deported following his prison term.

In 2004, while a student at Yale, Hussain attended a Muslim Students Association conference in Chicago and participated in a panel discussion on civil rights. Laila Al-Arian, a daughter of Sami Al-Arian, was also on the panel. During the discussion, Hussain made critical statements about the US terror prosecution of Sami Al-Arian and other terrorism suspects, such as Chaplain James Yee and Brandon Mayfield.[20] According to recordings obtained by Politico in 2010, Hussain referred to the cases as examples of "politically motivated prosecutions." [20] He was careful to say that he was not offering an opinion on whether Al-Arian was guilty of the charges that he was a top leader of the U.S. branch of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a "specially designated terrorist" organization.[20][21] In 2006, Al-Arian pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to help the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was sentenced to 57 months in prison (in other words, time served), and agreed to be deported following his prison term.[21][22]

Opinions differ on whether the recording shows that Hussain using the term "prosecutions," or "persecutions," and whether he said that the prosecutions were "used to squash political dissent," quotations from a 2004 story that Hussain denied making.[23] After the controversy over the statements, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs expressed continued White House confidence in Hussain, noting, "This is an individual that has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur'an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong. And has garnered support from both the left and the right so we obviously have confidence.” The Center for Security Policy credited both Politico and Fox News for having "unraveled the story."

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article
The Politico reported that Hussain's comments: were deleted from a report on the conference that first appeared in the Washington Report on Middle East Affair (WRMEA), a magazine on the region with articles from the Arab and Muslim perspectives. In the current version of the story on the Washington Report’s website, there is no reference to Hussain’s comments, or even that he appeared at the 2004 conference. But earlier, cached versions of the same story do include the comments—initially adding to the mystery of why they were taken out and at whose request. The discrepancy was first noted last Sunday in a story in the web-based Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report

Removal of comments
Originally journalist Shannon Bream of Fox News reported that The White House attributed the "controversial remarks defending al-Arian" to Laila al-Arian. Later, Jake Tapper, the Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News, reported that the "controversy was all the more confusing because the remarks were reported in the WRMEA in 2004, but the editor, Delinda Hanley, later removed the comments from the Web site, though she didn't recall why.

In an email to Politico, Delinda C. Hanley, editor of the WRMEA, wrote that "Laila Al-Arian said the things attributed to Rashad Hussain, and an intern who attended the event and wrote up the article made an error, which was corrected on our Web site by deleting the two quotes in their entirety."

Later, in the April 2010 edition of WRMEA, Hanley wrote: "Four or five years after the above item was published, this writer received a phone call or a phone message, I honestly can’t remember, on a date I can’t recall—we get so many calls I’m lucky if I can remember a conversation a week later!—saying Hussain had been misquoted in Kandil’s article. I don’t remember if it was a misquote or misattribution and, since Kandil had left the magazine years ago, I did not contact her. But I do remember asking our webmaster to remove the quote in question—because this sequence of events was unusual. Normally we publish a correction or objection as a letter to the editor (see, respectively, p. 6 of this issue and the letter from Daniel Pipes on p. 3 of our October 2001 issue). Years after the fact, however, that seemed pointless. Now that oversight has come back to haunt me—and, more importantly, hurt Obama’s envoy pick."

The then-intern who reported Hussain's comments, Shereen Kandil, who currently also works for the Obama administration, stated that she quoted the comments accurately. Kandil told Fox News that she would never confuse the two individuals, and stated that if "I quoted someone, it's because they said it," adding that she no longer works for the magazine and was surprised to learn of the changes." Kandil also told Cybercast News Service that:

"When I worked as a reporter at WRMEA, I understood how important it was to quote the right person, and accurately. I have never mixed my sources and wouldn’t have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila al-Arian. If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you’re saying. They never once contacted me about an ‘error’ they claim I made.’"

At first Hussain "implied that the comments were misreported and that they came from Laila Al-Arian, the daughter of Al-Arian and another panelist at the conference." Hussain later stated that when he "saw the article that attributed comments to me without context, leaving a misimpression, I contacted the publication to raise concerns about it. Eventually, of their own accord, they modified the article.”

Response
In The Washington Post article titled Rashad Hussain, a Muslim and new U.S. envoy, is bridge between two worlds, Hussain is quoted as saying that his "extensive writings on this topic make it clear that I condemn terrorism unequivocally in all its forms. I'd be happy to put that against one sentence from 2004 that I believe was taken out of context." In his May 11, 2010 interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Hussain was asked, "During your studies in law college in University of Yale you have criticize Sami Al-Aryan’s trial and you have considered it represents a kind of politically motivated prosecution. Do you think that the courts in U.S. still suffer from identification of terrorism with the Muslims?" Hussain responded, "You know in that case that I said very clearly on the panel that I wasn’t commenting on any of the specific allegations on him but I was making a comment about the process that was used in that case." Hussain later said in a public statement, that concerning the Al-Arian trial, "The judicial process has now concluded, and I have full faith in its outcome."

Defense
Delinda C. Hanley, editor of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs wrote that; "The appointment of an accomplished lawyer, a respected member of the American Muslim community, and a close and trusted member of Obama’s White House staff was intended to strengthen dialogue with the Muslim world. This did not sit well with numerous right-wing blogs and Web sites, however, whose raison d’être seems to be promoting the clash of civilizations, and fear instead of cooperation. They set in motion a hurtful smear campaign to make the president withdraw the appointment.” According to Hanley, "It’s not only Muslim Americans who should be concerned about attempts to stifle free speech. While the attack on Rashad Hussein might look as though it is aimed at Muslims, in fact the ultimate goal is to prevent all Americans from understanding that Islam, along with Judaism and Christianity, is one of the three monotheistic religions born in the Middle East, and that Muslims are as much a part of the Abrahamic tradition as Christians and Jews."

Marc Lynch, the Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at The George Washington University described the response as a "hit piece" that was: "quickly picked up by the noise machine and disseminated through a range of right wing blogs and websites, migrating seamlessly to Fox News and Politico, and becoming the fodder for another manufactured scandal of the day. Within days, it has become standard to describe Hussain as a 'terrorist sympathizer'... and the hate is flowing. It is no less despicable for being so commonplace. One irony is that Hussain is actually one of those Muslims who has been speaking out against extremism, forcefully and eloquently, and whose role in Muslim engagement was explicitly focused on building alliances with Muslims around the world to marginalize al-Qaeda." Journalist Haniffa Aziz wrote in Rediff that "Right wing US conservatives led by the likes of nationally-syndicated columnist Cal Thomas have launched a vitriolic campaign against Indian American Rashad Hussain. They pilloried President Barack Obama for appointing him as Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference and called for Hussain's ouster, calling him a 'voice of radical Islam.'" M Junaid Levesque-Alam, of the Asia Times wrote that "conservatives have gleefully cooked up charges against Muslims" including Rashad Hussain.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, an American counter-terrorism expert, wrote that "Though I strongly disagree with Rashad's 2004 comment (which he now describes as "ill conceived or not well formulated"), it does not justify the overblown attacks on Rashad: in my experiences with him, I know this kind of intemperate remark as the exception rather than the rule." Journalist Don Rich wrote that Gartenstein-Ross' article is "the best article I have seen about the Rashad Hussain controversy," and that "Rashad Hussain cannot be accused of defending just your garden variety madrassa going never been laid before jihaddist with a born to lose tattoo (movie Heat) on his forehead waiting for the next bus to immolate himself on." Josh Goldberg, a high school debate partner of Hussain's, stated that, "When Rashad joined the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice in 2008, I received the standard background check phone call. And as the interviewer asked me about Rashad, two words stood out – character and integrity." Faheem Al-Hamid, of the Saudi Gazette, wrote that "Hussain was bitterly criticized in the US for critical comments about George Bush administration’s approach to terrorism." Soroor Ahmed, of the Radiance Viewsweekly, stated that "If a scholar of his stature can be dubbed a terrorist for supposedly making a comment in a democratic platform, the fate of others can just be imagined."

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross wrote a defense of Hussain in Long War Journal titled "A Defense of Rashad Hussain." Gartenstein-Ross stated that Hussain's defense of Al-Arian came from his belief as a civil-libertarian, and not from any Islamist ideology.

The Huffington Post described the incident as an example of Islamophobia. Hussain's allies point to a policy paper he wrote for a think tank where he wrote that "terrorism is antithetical to Islam."

Critical response
Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas wrote that, "It is unfortunate that the U.S. Senate is not required to confirm special envoys. Hussain should be asked about his ideology and associations. If he is to represent America, he should represent what America stands for and not a personal ideological or religious agenda that is not just un-American, but anti-American." Author Ben Shapiro said that Hussain's "intent isn't to protect the United States – it's to protect Muslims globally (including radical Muslims) from having to face additional scrutiny at the airports or in the press." Columnist Claudia Rosett wrote in Forbes Magazine that a controversy "is swirling around President Barack Obama's choice of a young American Muslim lawyer, Rashad Hussain, to serve as his special envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Behind this fracas looms the even larger question of whether the U.S. should be sending the OIC any special envoy at all." Morton Klein wrote in Algemeiner that Hussain is an "Islamist apologist" who "once denounced what he called the “politically motivated persecution” of Sami Al-Arian, the Florida professor found to have been illegally funding the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad." Robert Spencer wrote a criticism in Human Events Pamela Geller wrote a critism in the American Thinker.

Steven Emerson, a journalist who writes on national security issues, wrote "It turns out Rashad Hussain, the new White House envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, does remember blasting the Justice Department for "politically motivated prosecutions" during a 2004 panel discussion." Daniel Pipes, an American academic, wrote a critique in The National Review. Journalist Jennifer Rubin wrote two critiques in Commentary Magazine

Aftermath
Hussain later acknowledged that he was accurately quoted in 2004 as calling the treatment of Sami al-Arian as an example of “politically motivated persecutions.” Hussain made the admission after Politico acquired an audio recording of the Muslim Students Association event, and his comments. Hussain stated that he "made statements on that panel that I now recognize were ill-conceived or not well-formulated." Hussain had previously said, through a White House spokesmen, that he could not recall making the statements.

After Hussain's statement, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “We continue to have confidence. This is an individual that has written extensively on why some have used religious devices like the Qur'an to justify this [terrorism] and why that is absolutely wrong. And has garnered support from both the left and the right so we obviously have confidence.”

In the New York Times article, White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S., Congressman Keith Ellison of the Minnesota's 5th congressional district said “Rashad Hussain is about as squeaky clean as you get.” Elliott reported that Congressman Ellison and others "wondered whether the administration would buckle under the pressure and were relieved when the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, defended Mr. Hussain." Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, said “The fact that the president and the administration have appointed Muslims to positions and have stood by them when they’ve been attacked is the best we can hope for."