Perhaps not since Whittaker Chambers accused Alger Hiss of being a Russian mole at a hearing 60 years ago next week has a journalist made more waves from the witness table than the press gallery.
But when controversial reporter/author/blogger/anti-terrorist crusader Steven Emerson testifies today at a hearing on Islamist groups and U.S. foreign aid, the air in the committee room should be crackling.
Muslim groups have already demonstrated outside the office of Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, protesting Emerson's scheduled testimony today.
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have carried on "a public relations campaign to silence Steven Emerson," according to the Counterterrorism Blog, where Emerson is listed as a Contributing Expert.
ISNA sent out an "Urgent Action Alert" to its membership calling for it to lobby Sherman to either provide "balanced, qualified testimony"... [or demand that] "the session be canceled." MPAC sent a similar letter to Sherman and also issued "demands" calling for its membership to lobby for silencing Steven Emerson or for Congress to "cancel or postpone" the hearing.
ISNA charges Emerson with "Islamaphobia" [sic] and "hate mongering," while MPAC charges Steven Emerson with "bigotry."
It's hardly the first time that Emerson's views on Islam have triggered outrage.
His critics, mostly on the left, have long labeled Emerson's allegations about the terrorist ties of Islamic charities in the U.S. as biased, exaggerated and even fabricated.
In 1999, the liberal media watchdog group FAIR (Fairness and Accurancy in Reporting) compiled a long litany of Emerson's alleged transgressions, among them operating "behind the scenes" as an anti-Arab propagandist in league with Israeli intelligence, rather than an independent journalist.
The Israeli whispers have spread for years. gaining currency with every Emerson investigation of Saudi money laundering for al Qaeda to the alleged subversive activities of Islamic groups here.
One day a few years ago, I confronted Emerson, whom I've been friendly with since the early 1980s, about the Israeli rumors. During a chance, sidewalk encounter, I had reason to ask him directly if he were backed by Israeli money or government agency.
He smiled ruefully and shook his head, his face slightly flushed, as I remember it.
"No, not a cent, and I'm so tired of dealing with that," he said.
I told him that at Sunday brunch in the mid-1990s, I'd overheard a man, who sounded like he represented the Israeli airline industry in Washington, enthusing about raising money for Emerson's new Investigative Project on Terrorism (which today is "recognized as the world's most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups," according to its Web site).
Emerson hunched his shoulders. "What can I say?" He shook his head, tired of the subject.
"It's not true."
To be sure, his Web site states, "IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, nor from any governmental agency or political institution."
The penalties for lying about that are serious. And there's no good reason to doubt it.
But in any event, Emerson's views, well represented in his 2002 book, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, continues to find an audience on Capitol Hill, where he is a frequent expert witness.
And a top guy, in the eyes of Rep. Sherman.
"This hearing will go on," Sherman said in a press release Wednesday, rejecting the Muslim groups' demand that he reject Emerson or cancel the session.
And Sherman, who in 2004 charged National Public Radio with "bais against Israel," left little doubt where he was headed.
"We need to make sure that the State Department is not giving U.S. tax dollars to those on the other side in the war on terrorism," he said.
I know there are many in our community so desperate for peace that they want us to sweep under the rug the pro-terrorism positions of some groups. There are groups in the Islamic world truly dedicated to peace, but we should not blind ourselves to the fact that some are not.Now, who could possibly "be so desperate for peace" that they would "sweep under the rug the pro-terrorism positions of some groups"?
I'm guessing Sherman thinks the State Department knows, since the Honorable Dell L. Dailey, its Coordinator for Terrorism, and another department official, are the only government witnesses scheduled to testify.
And who knows? Maybe they'll come up with a terrorist sympathizer, a fellow traveller, or even a secret agent.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Post A Comment