January 6, 2010, - 12:23 pm

Pops Mutallab Goes to Detroit, But Won’t Pay For Son’s Lawyer

By Debbie Schlussel

Early last week, I told you about Northwest Flight 253 Islamic terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s lawyer, federal public defender and The Joker lookalike Miriam Siefer, who forged documents, impersonated a federal judge, and should be serving time, not representing terrorists.


Pops Mutallab Stands By

As US Taxpayers Fund Son’s Lawyer, The Joker a/k/a Miriam Siefer

I also noted that Abdulmutallab’s father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, a wealthy former bank CEO and Nigerian minister, is not paying for his son’s defense.  Instead, U.S. taxpayers are getting soaked with the cost of this wealthy kid’s legal defense.  Some readers and e-mailers argued that his father turned him in to the U.S. Embassy and wants nothing to do with him, so that’s the reason he won’t pay for his son’s lawyer and American taxpayers are footing the bill.

But that’s not the case.  In fact, while he denounced his son’s terrorist attack, Pops Mutallab is making the trip to Detroit, this week, for his son’s Friday detention hearing.  He’s doing this to show his support for his son.  Well, how about showing support for his attempted victims and U.S. taxpayers, by paying for his son’s lawyer, instead of forcing Americans to pay for his dirty trickster lawyer?

Americans should not be paying for the legal defense of the Islamic Richie Rich, the “poor little rich kid,” whose family can afford all the accoutrements of the good life and an international trip to D-Mecca a/k/a Detroit.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

17 Responses

Debbie, agreed. Between you and me, this is all rigged. And with Miriam Sefer representing him on the one side and pan-Islamist US prosecutors like Jonathon Tukel on the other side, the outcome isn’t going to be good. Only question if this will turn into another al-Koubriti. The biggest joke? The US State Department finally got around to revoking Umar Abdulmuttalab’s visa, a visa it should have never issued to him in the first place.

NormanF on January 6, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Why isn’t this guy being treated as an enemy combatant? We should get as much information as we can from him and if necessary he should be waterboarded (I would gladly volunteer to pour the water).

    Instead we give him a lawyer who promptly shoves a cork in his mouth.

    I_AM_ME on January 6, 2010 at 12:57 pm

I agree that this should be an issue for a military tribunal- give the miscreant a military defense lawyer, conduct the trial according to UCMJ rules- it’s faster, less expensive, and definitely wont be dragged out with hystrionics or the crap of a public trial to get the left leaning media up in arms to sensationalize, politicze, and turn into a media circus.

This whole notion about terror becoming a criminal matter rather than a military one is totally ridiculous, pandering to whacky ideas of political correctness and is just another example of not sending a strong, non ambivilent message to those who want us dead.

Mistress_Dee on January 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm

Why don’t we train him to drive an old Pinto or perhaps a Vega full of explosives into an Al Quaeda camp somewhere?

The irony alone should kill lots of them.

The Terrorist's Advocate on January 6, 2010 at 2:50 pm

One would hope his father is there to convince his son to turn state’s evidence.

luagha on January 6, 2010 at 3:41 pm

He is not being treated as an enemy combatant because he was not captured on a foreign battlefield fighting U.S. soldiers. The only premise for treating him as an enemy combatant is that he is a Muslim foreign national. Domestic non-Muslim terrorists like the atheists Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski (just to name a few, we have actually had quite a few domestic terrorists) were treated in a similar way. For that matter, so was the Muslim foreign national Richard Reid. By the way, though Johnny Walker Lindh, the American Taliban from suburban California, was actually captured fighting American troops in Afghanistan, if I recall though he received a military trial, he was never classified as an enemy combatant or charged with treason.

So, the idea that this fellow would have been charged as an enemy combatant and given a military tribunal or sent to Guantanamo had a liberal Democrat not been president is, while appealing, ultimately false. His case is identical to that of Richard Reid, who under the Bush administration was tried and convicted of terrorism in civilian federal court and is now serving 3 consecutive life sentences in a super maximum security prison. I expect that this Mutallab will receive the same fate, however I would hope that the government has the good sense not to send him to the same facility that Richard Reid is housed in for obvious reasons. Then again, we are catching so many Muslim terrorists these days that we may be running out of separate facilities to house them in.

Incidentally, Schlussel’s demands that his father hire a private lawyer is just baiting, part of her agenda to promote the idea that a hostile stance must be taken against all Muslims solely because of their religion (a thoroughly hypocritical stance for someone who is a zealous opponent of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism). While lots of people are justifiably praising Mutallab’s father for turning in his son, denouncing terror and jihadism (precisely what conservatives claim to want from moderate Muslims) Schlussel immediately hopped on this angle so she can keep peddling the “the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim” theme, which not only justifies her position of ending immigration from Muslims (unconstitutional), profiling Arabs (unconstitutional and ineffective, as many Arabs are not Muslim and many Muslims are not Arab) and most important using unrestrained military tactics against Muslim people and nations as often as humanly possible, starting with the Arab/Muslim population in Israel.

After all, what if Mutallab had hired a private lawyer for his son? Schlussel – as you all know – would be the first to denounce whatever lawyer takes the case as a PC, anti-American leftist jihad enabler out to destroy America and the west, and claim that no one with an ounce of respect for himself, the profession, or America would take the case. Then, Schlussel would go on to claim that this is part of some conspiracy by this wealthy Muslim Nigerian to subvert our justice system and reduce confidence in and undermine our way of life. She would then go on to proclaim that another O.J. Simpson type trial – and likely acquittal, light sentence, or breach of national security – would be in the works thanks to the nefarious doings of a jury drawn from the mostly black and highly Muslim demographics of the Detroit area, and of the Obama justice department.

This is precisely what Schlussel would say, you all know it, which makes her demand that Mutallab hire a private lawyer for his son a canard. Because Mutallab is a Muslim, there is nothing that he could do short of renounce his religion that would please Schlussel, because acknowledging that there are Muslims capable of acting in a decent, civilized manner runs contrary her agenda, which is to make every Muslim on the globe a potential target of one of our MOAB or daisy-cutter “smart bombs.” What Schlussel wants to see is Mutallab and his whole family thrown into jail, even if only for LENGTHY interrogation purposes, along with his son. She just can’t come up with a justification for it. At least, not yet. But give her time!

Gerald on January 6, 2010 at 4:17 pm

Gerald – You would have to increase your knowledge a lot just to qualify as stupid.

The original precedent for treating someone as an enemy combatant was during World War 2. Nazis were captured on American soil (i.e. NOT foreign) and they were not fighting American soldiers. The courts allowed for them to be treated as enemy combatants. As for Richard Reid, he should have been treated as an enemy combatant the whole time. That Bush was wrong doesn’t make Obama right.

Your being against immigration bans on Muslims simply makes you in favor of turning the US into one big “Shariastan” as Eurabia (oops I mean Europe) is now. I hope you like FGM being performed on your neighbors and possibly your daughters. While there are moderate Muslims there is no such thing as moderate Islam. PERIOD!!!

Do you really think profiling is ineffective? What characteristics do all those who in the last couple of years have tried to attack us through our transportation system have in common? Please show me one Irish grandmother who stuffed her girdle with a bomb. I take it you would prefer the long lines and harassing people who simply want to practice good hygiene at their destinations without having to pay more.

As for the conclusions Debbie might draw, she has shown actual facts from previous terrorist trials where panderers to Islam have allowed terrorists to go free even after their convictions followed by attempts to prosecute those who originally prosecuted the terrorists.

As for everything else you have stated, including items I have not addressed, you really ought to read what Debbie has written. She is highly credible and cites verifiable facts. You might learn something. After all, using a phrase Debbie herself often uses, Reading is Fundamental (RIF).

I_AM_ME on January 6, 2010 at 4:51 pm

Gerald is misnaming himself. He should be calling himself ‘US Government hack” or
“Muslim terrorist hack” or both.

Pretty narrow definition of enemy combatant. Restrict the definition as much as possible so he can be tried in US Courts; the double benefit of appeasing our terrorist enemies and supporting the trial lawyers, i.e. Gerald’s buddies; maybe he’s one himself.

Gerald cannot think logically. How in the world does asking these terrorists to pay their own legal fees constitute an argument that ‘the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim’? Oh, I get it. There is a chain of hypothetical events; Debbie would then do this, Debbie would then do that, etc., etc. This chain of compounding, even if the premises were valid, weakens through compounding, just like 1/2 times 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/16. For each “Debbie would” that has a probability less than 1, the end result decreases just like the arithmetic example above. Where does she call for unrestrained military tactics against all Muslims? etc. etc. The smears on this post are wrong and slanderous, and have the aim of trying to place Debbie beyond the bounds of reasonable debate. If you can’t do it legitimately, then make up past positions, and make up future positions. Do it all in one post.

Gerald treats as fact that Debbie has ‘peddled’ the ‘only good Muslim is a dead Muslim’ theme. Just like his liberal and terrorist buddies though, this assertion is of course unsupported.

And the little sop to reality, he shouldn’t be placed in the same facility as Reid, presumably to give the false impression that Gerald is really concerned with the general welfare of this country. A red herring for sure.

And what if Mutallab hired his own lawyer? First, a few more “Debbie woulds”. Second, Debbie probably would criticize any creep that defending this scumbag (and who knows, maybe Gerald is looking for work), but at least she wouldn’t be able to say that the taxpayers are paying for it.

If not a member of CAIR, maybe Gerald is a Government provacateur, with the aim of setting an atmosphere where conservatives would be treated as criminals. The slanderous charge that Debbie wants to kill them with daisy cutters.

The comparison with Richard Reid? One verdict doesn’t guarantee a similar one next time. Reid showed no remorse. What if Abdulmutallab fakes remorse, gets off, and then commits more terrorist crimes like his fanatic buddies? And do two wrongs make a right? If someone else is tried in court does that make it right for this creep?

And where does Debbie say that this is only happening because a liberal Democrat is in power and it wouldn’t be happening otherwise? Another chain of arguments built on false premises.

Little Al on January 6, 2010 at 6:22 pm

clarification; the paragraph in my prior post should read:

If not a member of CAIR, maybe Gerald is a Government provacateur, with the aim of setting an atmosphere where conservatives would be treated as criminals. The slanderous charge that Debbie wants to kill Muslims with daisy cutters.

And of course, jury nullification is indeed a problem. The comparison with O.J. Simpson does have validity. A very good reason why Abdulmutallab shouldn’t be tried in the courts.

It’s too bad Gerald isn’t as upset with the terrorist attacks against us as he is with Debbie.

Little Al on January 6, 2010 at 6:27 pm

And as for comparing Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski with Abdulmutallab, there is of course a difference. Apart from lack of citizenship, the more important difference is that Abdulmutallab is part of an international conspiracy against civilized values, and as such, is a soldier in an international army trying to overturn our civilization. The other isolated terrorists such as McVeigh, horrendous as their actions were, did not have the broader aim of trying to overturn our civilization.

Little Al on January 6, 2010 at 6:47 pm


“And what if Mutallab hired his own lawyer? First, a few more “Debbie woulds”. Second, Debbie probably would criticize any creep that defending this scumbag (and who knows, maybe Gerald is looking for work), but at least she wouldn’t be able to say that the taxpayers are paying for it.”

Thank you for proving everything that I said. Look, this Mutallab is going to get a trial whether you like it or not, which means he is going to have a lawyer whether you like it or not. Right now, you criticize Mutallab for allowing a public defender to represent his son. But were Mutallab to hire a lawyer, you would criticize him for trying to use some high-priced Johnny Cochran type to get him off. Just admit it, it is a no-win scenario for Mutallab’s father that Schlussel has constructed in order to try to divert attention from the fact that Mutallab’s father has acted honorably, from reporting him to the U.S. embassy (an act that some Muslims would kill him on the spot for) and stating that he personally failed Mutallab as a father. What Schlussel really doesn’t want you to know is that Mutallab’s father stated that his son began practicing a form of Islam that “he doesn’t know or recognize as legitimate Islam”, that his son called it “the true Islam” and that his son cut off all ties between him and his family, including his father, because he regarded his father’s Islam as being false and not legitimate because his father’s Islam does not embrace jihad. So in order to avoid talking about that, Schlussel contrives this diversion over her Mutallab’s government appointed lawyer, again knowing full well that were he to hire his own lawyer, she would attack him for trying to get his son off. Either way, Schlussel is going to depict Mutallab’s father as a creep. Either he is a creep because of his accepting a government appointed lawyer, or he is a creep for hiring a Johnny Cochran or William Ayers. Why is Schlussel insistent on depicting Mutallab’s father as a creep? BECAUSE HE IS MUSLIM. Plain and simple.


That is why profiling won’t work, because there are too many groups to successfully profile. In general terms, you can only effectively profile a race or ethnic group. You CANNOT profile a religion. You can profile Arab “charities” to see if they are funneling money to Hamas, blacks for street crime, eastern Europeans for organized crime, Asians for sex trafficking, but it is impossible to give extra scrutiny to ALL those groups when they are trying to board airplanes. Geesh. What are you going to do? Make every person traveling to America declare their religion first? Ban travel from all countries with a large Muslim population (which is a great deal of the world, including a lot of Asian and European countries)? And make all Muslim citizens of America carry special ID cards or badges like Iran is proposing to do to Jews?

Also, it is illegal to discriminate by religion with immigration policy or anything else. It’s the law, period. If it was possible to keep certain religious groups out, do you honestly think that we would have allowed Jews and Catholics to come here? The only LEGAL thing that we could do to stop Muslims from coming here is to impose a general ban on immigration. Which, incidentally, I support, along with a fence along the Mexican border (and if need be the Canadian one as well).

Gerald on January 6, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    [Gerald – I_AM_ME:

    “And what if Mutallab hired his own lawyer? First, a few more “Debbie woulds”. Second, Debbie probably would criticize any creep that defending this scumbag (and who knows, maybe Gerald is looking for work), but at least she wouldn’t be able to say that the taxpayers are paying for it.”

    Thank you for proving everything that I said …]

    Actually I ought to thank you for proving what I wrote when I wrote this:

    “Gerald – You would have to increase your knowledge a lot just to qualify as stupid.”. Who else but a mental midget would need to make up with something I never wrote, claim I wrote it (i.e. LIE) and then criticize it. You know that if you stuck to the facts and comments people actually made you would be trounced.

    To be honest I don’t care if he eventually gets a lawyer and a civilian trial as long as he gets the punishment his actions earned him and National Security does not have to be jeopardized in order to do it. However, he should be made an enemy combatant first so we can find out what he knows even if we must waterboard him to get that information.

    As for your continued nonsensical argument against profiling, he meets enough of the terrorist profile that profiling would have caught him. Stop raising red herring arguments. You are disagreeing with all the experts who actually know what they are talking about.

    It is also not illegal to discriminate against religion when it comes to immigration. For years Jews (and I believe Catholics) WERE discriminated against when it came to immigration. What court overturned that?

    Later on, Jews from the former Soviet Union were discriminated FOR, which by definition and logic means that members of other religions were discriminated AGAINST. This was legal. Your adding the word “PERIOD” to a false and ridiculous assertion does not make your assertion not false and not ridiculous!

    For your own sake, STFU – Stop while you only look like 90% of a total ass.

    I_AM_ME on January 6, 2010 at 8:47 pm

This won’t take much space as Gerald’s new “arguments” are so weak. More ‘debbiewoulds’. Why not argue against what she specifically said, not what you think she might say?

Arguing about gradations of Muslims is like arguing against gradations of Commies. They all hated us & wanted to destroy our society. Whether we are talking about Arab Islamic terrorists, African Islamic terrorists, Asian Islamic terrorists, they all want to destroy us.

As far as I remember, Debbie has spoken out against illegal, i.e. i-l-l-e-g-a-l Muslim immigration. That is not discrimination against a religion, although any level-headed person would agree that Islamic immigrants really need to be thoroughly, and I mean thoroughly screened before they’re let in. If Gerald really wanted to preserve Western civilization he would acknowledge that most Muslims in the West are against Western values, and quite a few support terrorism.

is that true of any other religion? Back when Columbia supported Western civilization (except of course by maintaining a Jewish quota), a great Jewish professor said that intelligence is the ability to make distinctions. That means, among other things, distinctions among religions.

Little Al on January 6, 2010 at 8:09 pm

So profiling is ineffective? Well, even if we limited it to Arabs, we’d get a lot of the terrorists; but we can expand it to countries that harbor terrorists, and Western Europeans with national origins from those countries. We are at war; this is kind of like the argument against missile defense with these numbskulls saying (falsely) that a good defense wouldn’t stop all missiles. So does that mean we should stop none of them? Come to think of it, the Democrats are trying to dismantle the small amount of missile defense that Bush started.

Little Al on January 6, 2010 at 8:13 pm

“….should be serving time, not representing terrorists.”

Well, at least she fits right in with her defendant. Maybe they can blow each other up over lunch some day?

yonason on January 7, 2010 at 3:39 pm

You’re 100% correct. Thank you.

john john on January 7, 2010 at 3:41 pm

I believe dady called the embassy to warn that his son was planning to commit terrorism—and no one could search him? Gerald, you are full of what Norman Mailer would refer to as “shit.”

Occam's Tool on June 14, 2011 at 12:22 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field