Huma Abedin
Much of the controversy over Huma Abedin has to do with the history of her parents and a brother and suspicions that they have supported many elements of Islam that we in the West find most troubling. However, Ms Abedin has her own personal associations which are most troubling. For several years, she was involved with a journal called the Muslim Minority Affairs Journal, which is the publication of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. The institute and the journal have both come under attack from certain quarters charging they are allied with the Muslim Brotherhood. Another figure who is of interest is the institute's founder, Saudi national Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was also involved with the journal during period of several years when Abedin worked there as an assistant editor. Naseef is also the founder of the Rabita Trust, which was designated as a front group for Al Qaida shortly after 9-11. The below report from Free Republic describes the backgrounds of Abedin's parents, brother, as well as Naseef and others.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924323/posts
Here is what Andrew McCarthy says about this association in PJ Media:
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/07/27/huma-abedins-brotherhood-ties-are-not-just-a-family-affair/?singlepage=true
I am still not inclined to accuse Ms. Abedin of any disloyalty to her native United States, but that is not the issue at this point. In order to get any sensitive government job, a thorough background investigation must be conducted. I know because I not only underwent such an investigation when I entered government service with US Customs in 1970, but underwent a subsequent background in the 1980s, when I was the agent-in-charge of DEA's Milan, Italy office. The purpose of the latter investigation was to give me a special clearance to receive information from the CIA. (It was a joke. The CIA never gave me anything other than a couple of pro-forma debriefings at Langley.)
Here is the point. There is no need to show that Ms Abedin is guilty of anything or even has sympathies that would disqualify her for a sensitive position. The very fact of her family associations and connections with Naseef-given his background and associations is enough to disqualify her. Either she was never given a background check, it was an inadequate investigation, or strings were pulled to give her the job in spite of the troubling connections.
One last anecdote; When I was stationed at the DEA Office of Training at the FBI Academy in the 1990s, a basic training recruit was found to be engaged to a Colombian woman whose father was reputed to be a member of a Colombian drug cartel. There was no indication of wrongdoing as to either the recruit or his fiancee. As I was informed, the recruit was called in and told he had to choose between his fiancee and his job.
In the case of Ms Abedin, this is not a matter of innocent until proven guilty or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. She is not being charged with any crime, and I am not saying anything negative about her. It is not a question of some one's rights to hold a job. Nobody has a right to hold any job involving our national security. Simply put, the facts that have come out about her family and Mr Naseef are enough to disqualify Ms Abedin for the position she is occupying. The other story is how did she get it in the first place without all these facts not being discovered-or considered?
And then there was the young lady in New Jersey who found it difficult to get a job, any job at all, or, for that matter, a husband, because her name was Genovese. She was in fact Vito's grand-daughter. Neither she nor her parents were involved in "the family" business, but the name was sufficient to disqualify her.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that a woman named Kitty Genovese was a well-known crime victim was no counter-weight.
When it comes to staffing offices... I recall after 9/11 someone in a DA's office made a remark to an aide about an incident, "Did he have a diaper on his head?" The aide complained about the explicit racism in the remark, and the DA fired him. Courts ruled that the DA had unrestricted discretion to choose his own staff.
Perhaps it works the other way in hiring. "Yes, I knew all this, but I decided she could do the job well and without risk to security."