Thursday, November 01, 2007


Bruce Tefft

Victim of legal jihad

Bruce Tefft, Director of CRA's Threat Assessment Center, is being sued by an anonymous New York City Muslim police analyst over personal opinions he expressed on an email group:
A Muslim analyst for the New York City Police Department is suing the city for workplace harassment, alleging he was subject to a regular stream of "anti-Islamic" messages from an e-mail list run by a former adviser who trained detectives in counter-terrorism.

The contracted adviser, retired 21-year CIA veteran Bruce Tefft, is also a defendant in the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan last December.

But Tefft – a founder of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Unit – told WND he believes the analyst, who is not named in court papers, has no case against him. Tefft, noting the suit so far has cost him $50,000 in legal fees, cites First Amendment protections and argues NYPD personnel signed up for his e-mail list at their own will and were completely free to unsubscribe at any time.

He also points out his employer at the time, the private intelligence firm Orion Scientific Systems, covered his entire salary and expenses, effectively donating his services to the NYPD.
Front Page Magazine interviewed Tefft:
FP: So are you optimistic or pessimistic in the West’s ability to confront and defeat its enemy in this terror war? What advice would you give in terms of how the West can best prevail?

Tefft: While the war with Islam is eminently winnable, it is very difficult to be optimistic at this stage when one sees political correctness rampant and the Western leftists supporting Islam (as they supported the National Socialists and Lenin/Stalin in the last century), to the point our leadership (where is Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan when we need them?) is either too frightened or too ignorant to name our enemy.

Islam is basically a regressive ideology, reflecting the evil ambitions of Mohammed, a 6th century brigand. Even if it were to succeed temporarily in bringing a new Dark Age to the world, eventually it will collapse from its own internal inconsistencies and anti-humanistic beliefs. The West has prevailed in the past -- after the Crusades, the recovery of Spain from Muslims in 1492 and defeat of the marauding armies of Islam at the Gates of Vienna in 1529 for more than 500 years, Islam was contained. We need to recall that period, as well as the successful policy of containment from the Cold War, and again contain Islam to its existing borders and block its further spread.

FP: So how does it look like the trial will go? What are your expectations? Is there anyway that our readers can help?

Tefft: The trial is, of course, frivolous -- "legal jihad." It is an effort to shut me up and then shut me down. This is cloaked as an employment issue (which if it was truly, I would not be joined with the NYPD in the law suit since I was neither an employee of NYPD nor an employer of the Muslim. We have a motion to dismiss pending, but if that is rejected then we go to trial on a First Amendment basis.
A legal defense fund for Tefft is here.

Having read the whole interview, I can see how his views on Islam would be offensive to Muslims. But in this country, that's just tough.

Hopefully Tefft's observation about out leadership being too cowardly to name our enemy is about to change:
A divide is emerging on the presidential campaign trail over battling terrorists: how exactly to label the fight. While Democrats tend to talk about terrorism in general, Republicans increasingly pin the threat directly on Islam.

All the major Republican candidates regularly weave some form of the phrase "Islamic extremism" into their stump speeches. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has taken the rhetoric to a new level, running a television advertisement about "this century's nightmare, jihadism."

Democratic candidates generally don't emphasize linking Islam and terrorism. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton talks more of "global terrorism," while Sen. Barack Obama refers to "stateless terrorism."

"In four Democratic debates, not a single Democratic candidate said the word 'Islamic terrorism,'" former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said at a Republican debate. "Now that is taking a political correctness to extremes."
Via Robert Spencer, who comments:
This is not, however, a CAIR press release. CAIR has simply reposted a Wall Street Journal article, "Linking Terror on the Trail: Republicans Point To Islam, Democrats Take Different Tone," by Elizabeth Holmes.

Elizabeth Holmes interviewed me at some length for this article, and I explained to her that the linkage between Islam and terrorism did not come from Republican presidential candidates, but from the terrorists themselves, who consistently point to Islamic teachings to explain and justify their actions. If we refuse to explore this, and to speak about it honestly, we are voluntarily declining to make use of the only key that they themselves have given us to understanding their own motives and goals. And without understanding the motives and goals of an opponent, you cannot defeat him.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?