Tag Archives: Justice Department

Weekend Open Thread: Zimmerman, Race Relations, Media

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been and we — I believe continue to be in too many ways essentially a nation of cowards,”   

Eric Holder    02-18-2009   

Told to Department of Justice employees at an event  celebrating Black History Month.

———————————————————————————————–

OK, Eric let’s discus the state of racial relations in this country since you and your boss started healing us.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury (FOTM), I’d like to throw a few things out and see what you guys think. 

First this Zimm/Martin Trial is really getting under my skin. I do not know what happened, but it seems it does not matter to a certain segment of society who have threatened to riot and murder win, lose or draw. How di you feel about that?

I would really like to reach out to some of our silent readers on this. Especially if you happen to be black. Please help me understand the mentality/hatred of Zimmerman (now called a “white Hispanic” by CNN) and of all “whites”.

Also how has the media slanted all this. How badly have they played the racial angle?

What about people like Sharpton and Jackson? If people are hurt/killed, should they not be held responsible?

Eric Holder, where are you on this? Freeing more Black Panthers?

Speaking of which don’t you think it might/should be against the law to hand out “Wanted” posters on Zimmerman like the New Black Panthers did?

Last but not least, do you think our great Unifier (“If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon”) should maybe make some kind of statement calling for calm?

These are just some random thoughts to get things going. What else is bugging ya about the whole mess?

Feel free to have a good ole RANT!!!. Just keep it somewhat clean.

Have fun, shred someone, and just be nice to each other. Woe be any troll who stumbles upon here by intent or accident. We will smush you, you are forewarned.

Have a lovely weekend.  

~Steve~

Benghazi, I.R.S. And Now For Your Viewing Pleasure, Scandal # 3: The A.P.

well it seems our justice dept. run by none other THAN that rock star eric holder had decided to hijack about 20 phone lines belonging to ap. in April and may of 2012.      kind of funny now that ap has been the target the media is up in arms. For years while justice and the admin have abused the american public it seemed they could care less, Well anyway if this is what it takes to shine the light on the vermin so be it. Benghazi, i.r.s., a.p.               seems like 3 strikes YOU’RE out in the ole ball game.

holder

Politicians versus press: Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference on Tuesday to address the story that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months worth of journalists phone records

—————————————————————————————————-

Eric Holder points finger at his DEPUTY who secretly obtained journalist’s phone records as Obama is forced to say he has ‘confidence’ in the Attorney General

  • Justice Department obtained records listing incoming and outgoing calls and duration of calls for more than 20 telephone lines used by journalists
  • Lines included the main number used by reporters in the House of Reps press gallery and general AP numbers in Washington and New York
  • Stems from AP article talking reporting a thwarted terror attack
  • Attorney General Eric Holder said he had recused himself from the investigation into the leak to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest
  • Said that his deputy made the decision to obtain the records

By ASSOCIATED PRESS and DAILY MAIL REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 13:40 EST, 14 May 2013 | UPDATED: 17:55 EST, 14 May 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder went on the defensive on Tuesday explaining why the Justice Department secretly obtained two months worth of reporters’ telephone records in an ‘unprecedented’ search for a confidential source.

‘This was a very serious leak and a very, very serious leak,’ Holder said at a press conference explaining the department’s actions which have been criticized for going against the constitutional right to a free press.

Holder said that he recused himself from the making the controversial decision to subpoena the phone records of Associated Press journalists, saying that it was made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

He said that he was ‘confident that the people involved in this … followed all applicable Department of Justice regulations’ even though he claimed not to actually know the details of the decision-making process as a result of his recusal.

President Obama was forced to follow Holder’s press conference with the release of a statement saying that the incident does not shake his faith in his close friend and the country’s top legal adviser.    (Whoopsie)

‘The president has confidence in the attorney general,’ press secretary Jay Carney said.

The controversy came when the Associated Press reported that two months worth of reporters’ telephone records without their knowledge, obtaining a wide breadth of records that had nothing to do with the leak of information that they were concerned about. 

The Justice Department has spoken in the past about how they were upset over the leak of information about a foiled al Qaeda plot where the terrorist group planned to detonate a bomb on a plane bound for the United States.

‘I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks I’ve ever seen,’ Holder said.

It put the American people at risk. That’s not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk.’

That isn’t enough to satisfy critics, as top Republicans are already calling for Holder’s resignation over the incident.

Because Attorney General Holder has so egregiously violated the public trust, the president should ask for his immediate resignation,’ Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said. 

‘If President Obama does not, the message will be unmistakable: The President of the United States believes his administration is above the Constitution and does not respect the role of a free press.’

The records listed journalists’ incoming and outgoing calls, as well as the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Connecticut, and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.

News of the probe into one of the largest news organizations in the world immediately sparked outrage among Republicans on Capitol Hill.

‘The First Amendment is first for a reason,’ Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, told MailOnline

‘If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.’

A spokesman for Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the move is representative of a broader ‘pattern of intimidation.’

‘Whether it is secretly targeting patriotic Americans participating in the electoral progress or reporters exercising their First Amendment rights, these new revelations suggest a pattern of intimidation by the Obama Administration,’ Doug Heye said.

The American Civil Liberties Union was equally critical. 

( You Know you screwed up if even the ACLU is on your butt.) :D

‘Obtaining a broad range of telephone records in order to ferret out a government leaker is an unacceptable abuse of power,’ said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. ‘Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources.’

AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation.

He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,’ Pruitt wrote in a letter of protest to  Holder. 

‘These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s news gathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.’

The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot.

The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al Qaeda plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP’s source, which he denied. 

He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an ‘unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.’

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual and largely unprecedented.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt’s letter and attorneys for the AP.

The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

~Steve~

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324501/Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-defends-deputys-decision-secretly-obtain-journalists-phone-records-saying-searching-leak.html#ixzz2TMlgvGVJ

The Tyranny of the Disabled

Via  myway.com (emphasis mine):

Hotels, rec centers try to slow pool access regs

Apr 18, 3:38 AM (ET)

By RUSS BYNUM

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) – Owners and managers of swimming pools at hotels, city recreation centers and public parks are scrambling to install mechanical chair lifts to comply with new federal requirements that all public pools be accessible to disabled swimmers.

Some hotels fear the cost of the equipment or fines for noncompliance could put them out of business, and an industry lobbyist says others may close their pools this summer if they can’t upgrade in time, though the government can offer more time to those having trouble paying for it. Swimmers with disabilities say the changes are overdue.

“I couldn’t get into the pool without it,” said Karen Kitchen of Savannah, who has multiple sclerosis and relies on a poolside chair lift at the Chatham County Aquatic Center for her physical therapy workouts up to four times a week.

Adding to the problem is a backlog of orders created by the rush to meet a May deadline. Harry Spirides ordered lifts last month for the hotel he owns on Georgia’s largest public beach and was told they should arrive in late April. He expects to pay $12,000 for the lifts at the Ocean Plaza Beach Resort on Tybee Island.

“Our supplier is backed up with orders,” said Spirides. “Everybody’s rushing to comply; everybody wants to comply. But when you have tens of thousands of swimming pools that have to be retrofitted with these lifts, it takes time.”

Changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act in 2010 say pools must be upgraded with chair lifts, essentially mini cranes that move wheelchair users into the water. The initial deadline was March 16, but confusion over the details and pool owners’ insistence for more time caused the Justice Department to give them until May 21.

The law doesn’t affect private clubs or pools owned by neighborhood associations that aren’t open to the public.

It’s a massive and expensive undertaking. The Association of Pool and Spa Professionals says its research shows that between 235,000 and 310,000 pools require the upgrade. Manufacturers estimate the lifts run $3,500 to $6,500, and installation can double those costs. Altogether, owners could face combined costs exceeding $1 billion.

[...]

The Justice Department now says chair lifts must be bolted down. That declaration came as most hotels were buying portable lifts that don’t require expensive installation and can be wheeled into storage until a guest needs them, said Kevin Maher of the American Hotels and Lodging Association.

The group argues that fixed chair lifts pose a risk to children who are tempted to play on them. Maher, the association’s vice president for government relations, said hoteliers fear their insurance rates could increase.

The association is urging the Justice Department to reconsider portable lifts and extend the deadline. Without more time, Maher said, some hotels may close their pools this summer rather than risk lawsuits or fines.

You will find the rest of the article at this link.

I have no issue with making reasonable accommodations for the disabled, but these requirements are so over-the-top they defy common sense.

If you show up at your favorite hotel this summer, do not be surprised to find the pool closed, and be prepared to shell out more money for your stay if it is open.

Hotels are not going to eat the cost of the lifts and their probably increased insurance costs – they will pass them along to their guests.

-Dave 

(h/t: boortz.com)

Is Sheriff Joe Getting Too Close To The Truth About Obama?

Government plans to sue Arizona sheriff for targeting Latinos

 
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio talks to the media about the Department of Justice's investigative findings accusing the Maricopa Sheriff's Office of racial profiling and a pattern of discrimination at the Sheriff's office in Phoenix, Arizona December 15, 2011. REUTERS/Laura Segall

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio talks to the media about the Department of Justice’s investigative findings accusing the Maricopa Sheriff’s Office of racial profiling and a pattern of discrimination at the Sheriff’s office in Phoenix, Arizona December 15, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Laura Segall

 

By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON | Tue Apr 3, 2012 6:20pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The sheriff’s high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.

The administration’s Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department’s demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.

“We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith,” Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio’s team demanded that a meeting slated for Wednesday include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.

“MCSO’s refusal to engage in good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action,” Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the “failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes” by Arpaio’s office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio’s force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

“To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!” Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio’s force has been under investigation by federal authorities since 2008 during the Bush administration. Obama’s Justice Department spent months fighting for access to documents and to some of his deputies. Arpaio was interviewed twice during the probe.

(Additional reporting by David Schwartz in Phoenix; Editing by Anthony Boadle)

Can you say ‘Wag the Dog’?

Tom in NC

Sharp Increase in Government Seizures of Citizen Assets

More creeping Big-Brother State.

John R. Emshwiller and Gary Fields of the Wall St. Journal report, August 22, 2011, that asset seizures by the federal government is one the rise, including the assets of those who are innocent of any crime.

FORFEIT

James Leito (WSJ photo)

New York businessman James Lieto is a victim. An armored-car firm hired by Lieto to carry money for his check-cashing company got ensnared in a FBI probe. Agents seized about $19 million—including $392,000 of Lieto’s money—from vaults belonging to the armored-car firm’s parent company.

Under the law, an innocent third party generally can’t seek an asset’s return until the underlying criminal case is resolved, which can take time. Further, an innocent party’s money is returnable if it’s clearly separate from the fraud. Lieto’s two sealed and marked bank bags with the $392,000 qualified, his attorney, argued in court filings.

The government countered that the crooks’ operation, which included the armored-car service, routinely commingled customers’ money. Thus, everyone had to get in line as fraud victims, but fraud victims might get about 25 cents or less on the dollar.

In this case, two men eventually pleaded guilty and the government agreed to return Lieto’s money back in full.

Lieto is but one among thousands of Americans in recent decades who have had a jarring introduction to the federal system of asset seizure. Some 400 federal statutes—a near-doubling, by one count, since the 1990s—empower the government to take assets from convicted criminals as well as people never charged with a crime.

Last year, forfeiture programs confiscated homes, cars, boats and cash in more than 15,000 cases. The total take topped $2.5 billion, more than doubling in five years, Justice Department statistics show.

The expansion of forfeiture powers is part of a broader growth in recent decades of the federal justice system that has seen hundreds of new criminal laws passed. Some critics have dubbed the pattern as the overcriminalization of American life. The forfeiture system has opponents across the political spectrum, including representatives of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union on the left and the Heritage Foundation on the right. They argue it represents a widening threat to innocent people.

Supporters however say there are adequate protections for the innocent, and describe the laws as a powerful tool for returning money to crime victims. An example is the Bernie Madoff case. The government has recovered for eventual distribution to victims more than $650 million from imprisoned swindler Madoff and others who received money from his scheme. Federal officials are in the process of recovering over $6.5 billion more from the Madoff fraud.

Last year, federal authorities say, some $293 million of forfeiture proceeds were returned to crime victims nationally, nearly double the amount in 2009. The Justice Department filed about 90,000 criminal cases last year. There were forfeiture actions in a total of about 3,700 criminal cases, double the number of five years earlier.

[FORFEIT_p1]

Top federal officials are also pushing for greater use of civil-forfeiture proceedings, in which assets can be taken without criminal charges being filed against the owner. In a civil forfeiture, the asset itself—not the owner of the asset—is technically the defendant. In such a case, the government must show by a preponderance of evidence that the property was connected to illegal activity. In a criminal forfeiture, the government must first win a conviction against an individual, where the burden of proof is higher.

New Jersey businessman Raul Stio is an example. Last October, the Internal Revenue Service, suspicious of Stio’s bank deposits, seized more than $157,000 from his account, but Stio hasn’t been charged with any crime. In a court filing in his pending civil case, the Justice Department alleges that Stio’s deposits were structured to illegally avoid an anti-money-laundering rule that requires a cash transaction of more than $10,000 to be reported to federal authorities. Stio had made 21 deposits over a four-month period, each $10,000 or less. Stio’s attorney says his client was simply saving to buy a house and there was no attempt to evade the law. The deposits merely reflected the amount of cash his client’s businesses, a security firm and bar, had produced.

In fiscal year 2010, there were more than 11,000 noncriminal forfeiture cases, according to available federal statistics. That figure has held fairly steady the past five years.

It’s tough to know how many innocent parties may be improperly pulled into the forfeiture system. Last year, claimants challenged more than 1,800 civil-forfeiture actions in federal court, Justice Department figures show.

FORFEIT_jmp

There is also a profit incentive for cash-strapped federal, state, and local governments.

Under a 1984 federal law, state and local law-enforcement agencies that work with Uncle Sam on seizures get to keep up to 80% of the proceeds. Last year, under this “equitable-sharing” program, the federal government paid out more than $500 million, up about 75% from a decade ago.

The payments give authorities an “improper profit incentive” to seize assets, says Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm in Arlington, Va. It’s a particular concern amid current state and local government budget problems, he contends.

Seeming abuses occasionally emerge. In 2008, federal Judge Joseph Bataillon ordered the return of $20,000 taken from a man during a traffic stop in Douglas County, Neb. Judge Battaillon quoted from a recording of the seizure, in which a sheriff’s deputy complained about the man’s attitude and suggested “we take his money and, um, count it as a drug seizure.” The judge’s order said the case produced “overwhelming evidence” that the funds were clean.

A particular problem is the lack of access to lawyers of poor people. Jorge Jaramillo, a construction worker, says he couldn’t afford a lawyer after more than $16,000 was seized from him last year in a traffic stop. “I had all of $20 left,” he says. Jaramillo wasn’t charged with a crime.

The Justice Department argued the money was related to drug dealing, pointing to air fresheners in the car, which could mask the smell of drugs, and a fast-food bag containing cigar tobacco, which the filing said was often a sign that the cigar wrapper had been used to smoke marijuana. A police dog had signaled that the cash carried residue of illegal drugs. Such “dog sniffs” are a common but controversial feature in forfeitures.

The government eventually agreed to return Jaramillo’s money, with interest.

~Eowyn

Whites in Obama’s America Feel More Discriminated Than Blacks

White Obama

In 2008, Obama was touted as the “post-racial” presidential candidate whose candidacy, at once, was symbolic of a new post-racial tolerant America as well as the promise that, as President, he would further heal this country’s historical racial divide.

Like the rest of Obama’s “Hope & Change” rhetoric, that too turned out to be a chimera.

According to an article in the UK’s The Telegraph, May 25, 2011, a new study by professors at Harvard Business School and Tufts university finds that white Americans now feel more discriminated against than blacks.

The study polled roughly 200 white people and 200 black people drawn at random from a national census and asked them to rate racist attitudes against blacks and whites in each decade from 1950 to 2000.

Both groups felt racism against black people was substantial in the 1950s and both groups agreed the situation had markedly improved.

However, white respondents to the survey indicated that racism is now on the rise against white people. 11% of respondents even gave anti-white racism a maximum rating of 10 points.

Little wonder, given the reflexive demonization of Obama’s critics as racists, not to mention the refusal of Obama’s Justice Department to prosecute the New Black Panthers (NBP) for voter intimidation. In 2008, NBP showed up in Philadelphia voting places dressed in black paramilitary uniforms and carrying billy clubs.

Historians in the future, after the hypnotic fog has lifted, will conclude that Obama’s presidency actually set back racial relations in America — by decades.

~Eowyn

Federal Court Hearing Today on Wikileaks Investigation Methods

A hearing is set Tuesday in a courthouse in Alexandria, VA which will determine how far the Justice Department can go in its efforts to investigate Wikileaks activists.

CNet reported February 8 on freshly unsealed documents related to the case. The DOJ wants the authority to access Twitter accounts of those suspected to have been involved in the State Department leaks. While the persons under investigation are not American citizens, information stored by an American company could be fair game for federal investigators.

Prosecutors had sent a request to Twitter in December. Initially it was sent in secret, but somehow the suspects found out and asked Twitter to confirm. Attorneys for the activists pushed back, questioning if Twitter could be forced to comply and wanting more of the process to be carried out in public.

Current law allows prosecutors to access online information as long as it is specifically helpful to a criminal case. The DOJ argues that Twitter accounts of the suspects provide “relevant and material” clues as to whether they conspired with Julian Assange. It is not known if the suspects will deny involvement or if they simply think Twitter should be off limits; thus far they haven’t said much to reporters.

The hearing will decide how much prosecutors should disclose and whether Twitter accounts are relevant enough to be searched.

-Candance

3 Mainstream US Muslim Groups Support Terror

Why does CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations – an entity that the FBI says is a front for the terrorist group Hamas — continue to have the ear of the Obama administration and of the MSM?

~Eowyn

The Hamas wing of the "Religion of Peace"

Cut Ties To Terror

Investors Business Daily Editorial

November 26,2010

Islamofascism: Now that a federal judge has unsealed evidence showing the three most prominent Muslim groups in America support terror, Washington must cut all ties with them.

U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis has ruled there is “ample evidence” to support the Justice Department’s decision to blacklist the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror trial.

He refused requests to strike their names from the list.

At the trial, which ended in guilty verdicts on all 108 counts, FBI agents testified that ISNA, NAIT and CAIR are fronts for the federally designated terrorist group Hamas, which has murdered countless Israelis and at least 17 Americans.

Indianapolis-based ISNA controls most of the Islamic centers and schools in the country through its NAIT subsidiary — a Saudi-funded trust that holds title to radical mosques, including the notorious 9/11 mosque in D.C. CAIR, headquartered within three blocks of the U.S. Capitol, is the nation’s largest Muslim-rights group. The trio for years have maintained they are “moderate” nonprofits that condemn terrorism.

However, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with Hamas,” Solis said in his 20-page ruling, written in July 2009 and unsealed just last Friday.

Solis noted that investigators have traced “hundreds of thousands of dollars” from ISNA and NAIT bank accounts to Hamas suicide bombers and their families in Gaza and the West Bank. He said CAIR also took part “in a conspiracy to support Hamas.” Phone lists and other documents introduced by the government reveal CAIR and its founding chairman Omar Ahmad have operated as key members of Hamas’ U.S. wing, known as the “Palestine Committee,” according to the ruling.

FBI wiretaps and agent testimony also placed both Ahmad and CAIR’s acting executive director — Nihad Awad — at a secret meeting held last decade with Hamas leaders in Philadelphia. In a hotel room, participants hatched a scheme to disguise payments to Hamas suicide bombers and their families as charity. ISNA also was mentioned at the meeting.

You might ask, so what? Well, the radicals in this country aren’t the fringe; they represent the Muslim establishment.

Outrageously, these dangerous fronts, cloaked as they are in religious garb, still enjoy charitable tax status. The IRS exempts their funding, much of which comes from the Middle East. And they are still free to lobby Congress, Homeland Security and the TSA against airport profiling and other anti-terror measures. Yet none are even registered as lobbyists, let alone foreign agents.

Although the FBI has severed ties with CAIR, other government agencies have not. For instance, CAIR continues to select Muslim guests to speak and pray in Congress. CAIR chief Awad even prayed alongside Anwar Awlaki, now a fugitive al-Qaida cleric.

The FBI, meanwhile, still does outreach with ISNA. And the White House has solicited the group for resumes. Many Muslims tied to ISNA have been hired for sensitive positions within the government.

A handful of senators — including Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. — have called for a governmentwide ban on these groups, a move that seems long overdue, given the new court evidence. At a minimum, the IRS should revoke their tax-exempt status.

It’s a scandal such enemy collaborators continue to enjoy government entree and recognition in a time of war.