Who M. Cherif Bassiouni is:
M. Cherif Bassiouni is a United Nations war crimes expert. He is a Distinguished Research Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago (since 1964) and President of the university's International Human Rights Law Institute (1990-2006; 2007-09). He is also President of the Istituto Superiore Internazionale di Scienze Criminali (International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences) (ISISC) in Siracusa, Italy (since 1988), he was also Dean of ISISC (1976-1988). He was the Secretary General of the International Association of Penal Law (Internationale Association De Droit Penal) (IADP) from 1974-1989, he was the President of the IADP from 1989-2004, and is currently the Honorary President of IADP. He has been a non-resident Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Cairo since 1996, and was a Guest Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. in 1972. He was also a Visiting Professor of Law at New York University Law School in 1971, and was a Fulbright-Hays Professor of International Criminal Law at the University of Freiburg, Germany in 1970. In addition, he is a frequent lecturer at universities in the U.S. and abroad. He is also admitted to the practice of law in Illinois, Washington, D.C., the United States Supreme Court, and the Second, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits and the United States Court of Military Appeals. He is also admitted to practice before the Egyptian Supreme Court. He has handled many international cases on extradition and international cooperation in criminal matters, and coordinated major litigation involving multiple parties, including states, on matters involving international law. In 2007, he was awarded the Hague Prize for International Law for his "distinguished contribution in the field of international law". The winner of the Hague Prize is given the honour of selecting the fundamental principal of law on which the Hague Colloquium will be organized.
The qualifications of practicing law in New York, according to a comment on the
best thread I read today:
Whenever I see a post or story regarding an attorney of the Muslim faith, I am reminded of a paradoxical story concerning constitutional law and the qualifications to practice law here in New York (all other states have similiar rules). The background: a number of organizations and individuals representing a "class" of law students and law graduates challenged the constitutionality of New York's system for screening applicants for admission to the New York Bar. Note that this was the late 1960's and the big concern at the time was Communism, but it is still relevant today. Most noticeable was their issue with two questions the applicant was given on the questionnaire:
"26. (a) Have you ever organized or helped to organize or become a member of any organization or group of persons which, during the period of your membership or association, you knew was advocating or teaching that the government of the United States or any state or any political subdivision thereof should be overthrown or overturned by force, violence or any unlawful means? _____ If your answer is in the affirmative, state the facts below. [401 U.S. 154, 165]
"(b) If your answer to (a) is in the affirmative, did you, during the period of such membership or association, have the specific intent to further the aims of such organization or group of persons to overthrow or overturn the government of the United States or any state or any political subdivision thereof by force, violence or any unlawful means?
"27. (a) Is there any reason why you cannot take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that you will support the constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York? If there is, please explain.
"(b) Can you conscientiously, and do you, affirm that you are, without any mental reservation, loyal to and ready to support the Constitution of the United States?" _______.
The Supreme Court ruled in LAW STUDENTS RESEARCH COUNCIL v. WADMOND, 401 U.S. 154 (1971), that New York's Rule that an applicant furnish proof that he "believes in the form of government of the United States and is loyal to such government," is not constitutionally invalid in light of appellees' construction that the Rule places no burden of proof on the applicant, that the "form of government" and the "government" refer solely to the Constitution, and that "belief" and "loyalty" mean no more than willingness to take the constitutional oath and ability to do so in good faith. Pp. 161-164. They also found that the challenged items on the modified questionnaire are not constitutionally invalid, as one is precisely tailored to conform to this Court's decisions on organizational membership and association, and the other is merely supportive of appellees' task of ascertaining the applicant's good faith in taking the constitutional oath. Pp. 164-166.
To quickly summarize the Supreme Courts ruling and New York's requirements to practice law:
1. You must believe in and be loyal to the form of government of the United State;
2. That form of government refers to the Constitution;
3. You must take an oath to that effect;
4. That oath must be made in good faith;
5. Your good faith may be determined by your organizational membership and associations.
In light of the SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] ruling, one can legitimately ask the question: how is it possible for any Muslim to practice law in the United States? Has any attempt been made to disbar attorneys (especially CAIR's) who have shown a preference for sharia or have associated with or supported any number of Islamic organizations devoted to the destruction of the US and the Constitution?
How to do good to someone who opposes you. Luke 6:35.
Go and read for yourself about
An Exchange with an Islamic Scholar. Robert Spencer is good at what he does.
Honor killinghas come to America. Rifqa, you are in my prayers.