San Francisco Chronicle
Bob Egelko, Staff Writer
Friday, August 15, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO -- Conservative talk show host Michael Savagehas changed his mind and is reluctantly dropping his lawsuit against an Islamic rights group that launched an advertisers' boycott after he attacked Islam and the Quran on the air, his lawyer said Thursday.
A San Francisco federal judge threw out Savage's earlier copyright and racketeering suit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations last month but gave him a chance to file an amended suit by today. In an unusual court filing, attorney Daniel Horowitz, who had earlier promised a new suit that would pass legal muster, said Thursday that Savage has a legitimate case but has decided not to pursue it.
Terror Friendly Group - CAIR - Joins With Leftist Church Groups, Demand Government Censorship
Effort To Strip Official Counter Terror Lexicon Of Most Descriptive Terminology Continues
By WILLIAM MAYER and BEILA RABINOWITZ
August 13, 2008 - San Francisco, CA
Continuing their campaign of intimidation aimed at censoring official dialogue of the terms most useful in describing the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, on August 7, CAIR - an unindicted co-conspirator in the ongoing Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding prosecution - joined with an assortment of nominally Christian and Jewish groups, selecting California GOP Congressman Ed Royce as their newest target.
A letter addressed to Mr. Royce reads in part:
"As a diverse group of Southern California interfaith leaders, intellectuals and activists, we are deeply concerned by your continued use of inflammatory rhetoric linking Islam to terrorism. For example, in your June and July newsletters you stated , "Given the threat from Islamist terrorism facing our country, we need to be acting urgently to protect the United States everyday…"
The communication then goes on to suggest that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist, "Linking any faith to violence or terrorism is not only inaccurate but also casts a negative shadow on the peaceful followers of that faith," an absurd statement, unsupported by fact.
Douglas Farah gives an excellent review yesterday of the domestic fallout from the Mazen Asbahi resignation. From the story reported by Glenn Simpson at the WSJ to the predictable Islamist response of victimology and obfuscation, this cycle has become all too familiar. A prominent Muslim is scrutinized on his ideologies related to political Islam and the ideologies of American Islamist organizations, only to have the American Islamist organizations and their apologists respond with exaggerated claims of Islamophobia and silence on the central question of ideology.
In all that has been written or said about the Asbahi resignation - few Muslims have commented on where the appointee actually stood in reference to the agenda of political Islam and Islamist organizations. Probably because few people know or are willing to address ideology when it's a lot easier to address victimization.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, four princes and other Saudi entities are immune from a lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11 attacks and their families alleging they gave material support to al Qaeda, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.
The ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey dismissing a claim against Saudi Arabia, a Saudi charity, four princes and a Saudi banker of providing material support to al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks.
The victims and their families argued that because the defendants gave money to Muslim charities that in turn gave money to al Qaeda, they should be held responsible for helping to finance the attacks.
The appeals court found that the defendants are protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The court also noted that exceptions to the immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.
(Reporting by Edith Honan, editing by Vicki Allen)