http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?f=
/stories/20011020/745556.html

'Don't ask for me by name'
by Linda Frum
National Post (Canada)

WASHINGTON - Steven Emerson is giving instructions on how to 
reach his office. He is widely recognized as America's foremost 
independent investigative expert on Islamic terrorism.

According to the former head  of FBI investigations and 
counter-terrorism, Oliver Revell, he is better  informed about 
the activities of terrorists in America than the FBI itself.

Over the telephone, Mr. Emerson makes me promise that I will not 
print anything that might reveal the location of his office, 
nor the size of his staff. He warns when I arrive at the building, 
I must ask for him by suite number only. "Do not," he stresses, 
"ask for me by name, or the police will come and pick you up." 
He requests that I destroy the paper on which I record his precise 
address.

Had this happened before Sept. 11, I might have thought Mr. Emerson 
a tad paranoid. Now I see him as a man who understands what we're up  
against. A former journalist for CNN and U.S. News &World Report, 
and the author of four books on terrorism and the Middle East, 
Mr. Emerson, and his  office, can usually only be accessed by the 
government and intelligence  officials who depend on his data banks.

In fact, Mr. Emerson has understood what we were up against long 
before the rest of us ever did. He's been warning America about 
the threat inside its borders for years. In Jihad in  America, 
a PBS documentary he produced in 1994, Mr. Emerson stood in front 
of the World Trade Center and suggested that the 1993 attempt to 
bring the building down was an unfinished project. In 1997, he
told the Middle East Quarterly: "If anything, the threat is greater 
now than before. The infrastructure now exists  to carry off 20 
simultaneous World Trade Center-type bombings across the United  
States."

On the morning I meet him, the weary-looking 47-year-old  arrives 
for our appointment two hours late. He's gulping coffee from a  
super-slurpee-sized plastic cup. He has scarcely slept since 
Sept. 11. Once shunned by mainstream U.S. media as an extremist 
and a racist, he is now in  constant demand by major U.S. news 
outlets. In the weeks after the attacks, he  has testified before
several Senate and Congressional committees on terrorism and 
government reform. After his interview with me, he will go to a 
meeting in  the White House.

His organization, The Investigative Project, is a  non-profit 
outfit that tracks the activities, statements, and fund-raising 
of Islamic terrorist groups operating in the U.S., as well as 
the mainstream,  tax-exempt, charitable organizations which serve 
as their fronts. I ask him just how many people are involved in 
militant Islamic activities in America?

"How many of the 6 million to 7 million Muslims in America are 
radical? It's a small percentage," he says. "But there's no good 
public opinion poll and there never will be. The same mild-mannered 
people who pay their bills on time also end up becoming terrorists, 
so it's almost impossible to tell. One thing is clear: Wherever 
there is Islamic extremism there's a nexus to the potential of 
violence.

"So, if there are organizations in America which talk about Jihad, 
and praise Hamas and Hezbollah -- and there are 15 to 20 of these 
groups,  and thousands of followers -- you can constitute that as 
a major following. Anybody who subscribes to the tenets of 
militant Islamic fundamentalism is capable of violence.

"What do they want? It runs in varying degrees.  One, they want 
political influence. Two, they want to see the U.S. become a  
Muslim country. Three, they want the U.S. to be sensitive to 
the legitimate  interests of Muslims around the world, which 
they define as support of the Jihad  in Palestine, the Jihad in 
Chechnya, the Jihad in the Philippines, the Jihad in Saudia 
Arabia."

One question that emerges is why is Mr. Emerson's work even 
necessary? Why hasn't the U.S. government done this for itself? 
"The  problem is," he says, "it was illegal for the FBI to 
collect this information.  They can't go into a mosque just 
because someone is yelling 'Death to America!'  The FBI is
prohibited from monitoring activities of extremist groups unless 
a  crime has been committed or can be shown to be imminent.

"I used to  quote an FBI field agent who said that the only 
problem with the 1993 WTC  bombing was that it didn't kill 
enough people. Obviously he did not mean it in a  venal way, 
but he was portraying the level of indifference that really 
plagued the whole law enforcement establishment.

"There are a couple of unsung  heroes in the government who 
definitely tried to wake up the establishment. A  few key 
[prosecutors] would come to us and say: 'Help us. We know there 
are  cells. We know there are problems. We know America is going 
to get hit. But we  can't get this material from the FBI.'
I remember giving briefings to Senators  on a very small matter: 
the absence of Arabic and Farsi speakers in the intelligence 
community. I told them that intelligence matters were incomplete  
because there aren't enough linguistic experts. And [FBI director] 
Louis Freeh shot me down entirely. He said: 'We have the problem 
under control. We don't need any more resources.'" And now the
FBI is recruiting Arabic speakers over the Internet? 
"It shows you the desperation at this point," says  Emerson. 
"But to recruit among the Muslim community is very difficult. 
The organized Muslim leadership has consistently portrayed the 
FBI as the enemy. It has consistently portrayed the conviction of
Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman [for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade 
Centre] as an injustice. It has consistently  portrayed the U.S. 
as engaging in a war on Islam. You have this mentality out there 
that is no different, to a certain extent, than the way Osama 
bin Laden has portrayed the United States."

I suggest to Mr. Emerson it's  difficult to differentiate between 
moderate and extremist Muslims when the  moderates refuse to 
denounce the violence of the extremists.

"When they refuse to denounce it," Emerson replies, "or when 
there are no moderates."

No moderates? It may seem an immoderate suggestion, but Mr. Emerson 
has devoted the last seven years of his life to recording what 
U.S. Islamic leaders say among themselves. For example, Muzammil 
Siddiqui, the former president of  Islamic Society of North 
America and Imam of the Islamic Society of Orange County in 
California, was invited to the Oval office by George W. Bush on 
Sept. 26 so that the President could thank him for his 
participation in the national  day of mourning and remembrance. 
Imam Siddiqui told the President: "The Muslim  community has 
unanimously condemned and deplored the crime committed on 
Sept. 11, 2001. It was a most horrible crime against our nation 
and against humanity."

But a year ago, at a Jerusalem Day rally in Washington, Imam 
Siddiqui had a different message: "We want to awaken the 
conscience of America," he told the crowd. "Because if you 
remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God  will come. 
Please all Americans, do remember that, that Allah is watching  
everyone. If you continue doing injustice, and tolerating 
injustice, the wrath  of God will come."

At a benefit dinner organized by the Muslim American Society 
and the Council on American Islamic Relations among others, 
just two  days before the WTC attacks, U.S. Muslim leader Hamza 
Yusuf told the crowd:  "This country [America] unfortunately has 
a great, great tribulation coming to it. And much of it is 
already here, yet people are too illiterate to read the writing 
on the wall."

"There are moderates among the rank and file,"  explains Mr. 
Emerson. "But the vast majority of Islamic clerics from the 
Middle East, are thoroughly saturated with promoting Islamic 
terrorism. Despite what they might say at their religious 
dinners and dialogues, it's what they say among themselves that
counts. They use the dialogue to get a seat at the  table. "

You'd think the White House would know about the double-talk.
"They don't know about it. Siddiqui is the leader of one of 
the largest Islamic groups in the United States. He talks a 
nice game. Everyone says he's a  nice guy. But the level of 
naivete and denial [among Americans] is nothing short of 
astonishing.

"It's very difficult to get a sense of the dimension of what 
we're up against because of the level of deception. There isn't 
a moderate Islamic leadership. There isn't. And someone has 
got to say it. We deny it at our peril. When the President 
talks about Islam being hijacked, what's really happening is 
that the Muslim extremists have hijacked the leadership."

What can America do?

"It's too soon to talk about restructuring the FBI, which must 
be restructured. But it's not too soon to discuss who is  
welcome in the halls of the White House and the Senate. 
There was a major meeting the other day between 20 Democratic 
Senators and representatives of  militant Islamic groups. It was
just obscene. The Islamic leaders now come crying under 
victimhood status and as being the subject of hate crimes. 
But no one has demanded that the price of coming to the table 
is that they thoroughly repudiate Islamic terrorism."

If you think we're any better off in  Canada, think again. 
In his testimony to the Congressional Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Claims on Jan. 26, 2000, Mr. Emerson presented  
this piece of information courtesy of Ward Elock, the Director 
of CSIS: "With  perhaps the singular exception of the United
States, there are more  international terrorist groups active 
[in Canada] than in any country in the  world."

I explain to Mr. Emerson the presumption among many Canadians  
that the terrorists are only here because of our proximity to 
the United States, that they don't plan to do anything to us. 
Is that too smug?

"Well," he  says, "there was a smugness in the U.S. too which 
was: We know the terrorists are here, but they're not going to 
carry out any attacks here. They're just here  for fund-raising, 
or recruitment, or for political safe-haven, and therefore, 
we don't have to worry about them.

"The attitude of the U.S. government was, well, so long as they 
are killing Jews, or Israelis, or moderate Muslims, that's not 
our problem. They're not out for us. Suddenly we realize they 
are out for us. And shame on us. Because they have been telling 
us, through their actions and through their words that they're 
going to kill us."

Let us  all listen more carefully now.

Copyright © 2001 National Post  Online
National Post Online is a Hollinger / CanWest  Publication.