Recently, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) helped to alert US authorities that Ramy Zamzam and four of his friends from Northern Virginia had gone missing by encouraging the families to bring their information to the FBI after the families told CAIR about the disappearances. (For my initial post on this case, click here.) This has caused some observers to argue that CAIR was responsible for the arrests in Pakistan. For example, Spencer Ackerman writes in the Washington Independent: “Still, a closer look at the new Pakistani arrests still show signs of the durability of American Muslim resistance to radicalization. The arrests wouldn’t have happened, for instance, if a much-maligned American Muslim organization hadn’t put the accused’s worried families in touch with the government.” The “much-maligned American Muslim organization” to which Ackerman is referring is CAIR. To substantiate his claim that CAIR was responsible for the arrests in Pakistan, he quotes the following:
The men, who range in age from 19 to 25, went overseas without telling their families, who grew concerned after a family member called one of them on his cellphone and “the conversation ended abruptly,” said Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The council got the family members in touch with the FBI last week, and the families played the 11-minute English video [that seemed like a martyrdom tape] for agents and Muslim leaders at a lawyer’s office.
The causal chain Ackerman constructs is fairly clear: CAIR encouraged the families of the missing to contact the FBI, US authorities in turn alerted Pakistani officials about the situation, and the Pakistanis subsequently arrested the five men. But is this claim accurate?
The biggest problem with this construction of events is the assumption it makes in crediting US authorities for the arrest in Pakistan. I spoke with a US intelligence source last night who told me that the arrests were related neither to information provided by the US nor to CAIR’s actions. He stated that Pakistani authorities conducted the raid of the house where the men were staying independent of any information provided by the US, as the Pakistanis were trying to arrest Qari Saeed, who is affiliated with Jaish-e-Mohammed. As open source reporting shows, information obtained from the raid on the Americans’ house did in fact lead to Saeed’s arrest.
As I stated in a previous entry, I don’t expect people to take the word of unnamed intelligence officials on faith, so let me provide a few reasons that I think he is correct. First, the arrest was made by local Pakistani police. If Pakistani authorities were conducting the raid at the behest of the US, they probably would have sent a more elite team. Second, initial reporting suggests that the Pakistanis did not know who they had when the arrest was made: this report from the Pakistani press, for example, claims only that a single American was arrested, naming the men as “2 Yemenis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Swedish and 1 US-born Pakistani.” A third and final reason that I credit my source’s depiction of events is the American reaction. There was no FBI team in place when the arrests occurred, and instead one had to be sent over subsequently. If the U.S. knew the arrests were imminent, the team would have been in place beforehand.
For the record, I watched the entire CAIR press conference this past Wednesday, and even CAIR officials didn’t claim to have caused the arrest: it seems to be Ackerman’s own extrapolation. But though CAIR did the right thing in persuading the families to bring their information to the FBI, it is premature — to say the least — to credit them with causing the arrests in Pakistan.
Update, 12:01 p.m.: Spencer Ackerman graciously concedes that there is no evidence to suggest CAIR was responsible for the arrests, while maintaining the broader point of his earlier post, that “‘the durability of American Muslim resistance to radicalization’ endures, even despite the arrests.”
Are you a dedicated reader of FDD's Long War Journal? Has our research benefitted you or your team over the years? Support our independent reporting and analysis today by considering a one-time or monthly donation. Thanks for reading! You can make a tax-deductible donation here.
6 Comments
In fact, CAIR had wanted the men not arrested but quickly repatriated to he US quietly. The Pakistani arrest put a damper on their plans.
If CAIR did drop the dime on the DC Five, wouldn’t Nihad and Dougie have some ‘splaining to do to their HAMAS brothers?
Or is that the point? HAMAS being Iran backed and the Talib, not so much.
OPINION
OF
DIFFERENCES,
R
Don’t you have that backwards? Hamas is the Pal. arm of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and known to be supporting mujahideen in Iran since the start of the coalition attacks.
On the Sunni side of the equation they are all arms of the MB, some are just better armed then others.
On the Persian side of the equation…
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2009/01/the_real_connection_between_ir.php
For my purposes and opinions what they do to each other when they can’t get to me is almost irrelevent.
BOTTOM
LINE,
R
any update on this post forthcoming? CAIR seems to be upping the rhetoric on their role in the arrests according to various CNN reports
Vic: Could you provide a link to the CNN reports to which you’re referring?