Another example of the media crying over terror suspect

Criminal lawyers often remark that they don’t want their clients to be tried in the media. The same probably can’t be said for those who represent suspected terrorists or security threats. With no real evidence, much of the media salivates when given the opportunity to defend alleged suspects who are thought to pose a danger, not just to other individuals but to the country as a whole and our way of life.

---

The latest example is that of Khaled Nawaya who was described by a headline in the Globe and Mail as “Hapless immigrant or terrorist threat?” When Paul Bernardo was arrested the media never showed him the same sympathy with a headline “Schoolgirl killer or enterprising cigarette smuggler?” It’s true that Nawaya has not been convicted of anything, nor has it been conclusively proved that he is a terrorist. But Bernardo was just as legally innocent upon his arrest as was Khaled Nawaya. Nawaya, 35, was born in Saudi Arabia, holds Syrian citizenship and has lived in the United States since arriving in that country at the age of 17. He successfully applied to come to Canada as a permanent resident. At least he had no difficulty convincing Canadian authorities that he could support himself if allowed to immigrate to Canada. He intended to find employment in his chosen occupation. Mr. Nawaya is a flight instructor. Nawaya attempted to enter Canada at a land crossing near Vancouver. When border agents searched Nawaya and his vehicle they found the following:

• approximately $800,000 in cash and gold coins
• a ring bearing the insignia of Hezbollah, designated in Canada as a terrorist organization
• a scarf depicting a former U.S. president and a former Israeli prime minister as monkeys
• DVD’s pertaining to 9/11 conspiracy theories

Nawala, has an explanation for all of these. When examined individually, each of the items found might be innocently explained away. But in totality, the fact that the alleged terrorist has an innocent explanation for everything that was found on his person or in his vehicle borders on the absurd. The writers of the Globe and Mail article, Colin Freeze and Jane Armstrong dutifully put forward all of Nawala’s “innocent” explanations for his possession of suspect material. They put the fact that he has not been charged with a crime in a separate paragraph so that it stands out. Of course he hasn’t; Canadian authorities are still investigating as the pair duly notes by saying that the arrest touched off a “flurry of activity” as if the investigation is not really necessary. By putting all of Nawaya’s excuses forward and by resorting to extensive use of his lawyer’s statements, the Globe is trying to make the point that Khaled Nawaya is nothing more than a bumbling, stumbling, hapless immigrant. The treatment of this terror suspect is really no different than that accorded to Nidal Hasan. The day after the Fort Hood shootings, when we knew a lot less about the alleged shooter than we do now, much of the media bent over backwards to come up with reasons why the shooting happened. Hasan was picked on; Hasan didn’t want to be deployed to Afghanistan; Hasan had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder even though he had never been deployed. Every possible reason was canvassed except of course the possibility that Hasan was an Islamic terrorist. In an era of political correctness, much of the mainstream media bends over backwards to avoid the possibility that people like Nawaya and Hasan might actually be Islamic terrorists. There is a clear difference between the way the terrorist suspects and criminal suspects are treated. It terrorism wasn’t so serious, it would laughable.

---