The incompetence began when al-Marri was facing trial for fraud in 2003 in Peoria. There’s no doubt that he was guilty, and would have been found guilty. But the Bush Administration wanted al-Marri to reveal information about al-Qaeda. So they decided to name him an "enemy combatant" in order to have full control over him and perhaps use their "enhanced interrogation" techniques. In fact, the Bush Administration was so anxious to have al-Marri as an "enemy combatant" that they agreed to drop the fraud charges "with prejudice," meaning that he could never be charged with them again. Reports indicate that the Bush Administration never got any worthwhile information from al-Marri; the "enemy combatant" designation was an utter failure.

This was the first major error of the Bush Administration. If al-Marri had been convicted on fraud, the years he spent in prison for that would not be deducted from his 15-year sentence. In essence, by naming al-Marri an "enemy combatant," the Bush Administration ended up reducing his time in prison.

The second major mistake of the Bush Administration was the torture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. By torturing Mohammed rather than using normal interrogation techniques, the Bush Administration made all of the evidence he provided inadmissable in any court. If the more reliable and effective interrogation techniques that reject torture had been used, prosecutors would have been able to tie al-Marri directly to terrorism.

The problem for prosecutors today is that al-Marri had never been an operational terrorist, and although he was an al-Qaeda agent, he was sent as a sleeper agent to the US to coordinate al-Qaeda’s follow-up operatives arriving after 9-11, operatives who never arrived due to the global crackdown on al-Qaeda. Without Mohammed’s evidence and without the fraud evidence that the Bush Administration had tainted and dismissed with prejudice, prosecutors were in a very difficult position to prove that al-Marri had done anything illegal.

That’s why they felt forced to agree to a relatively short 15-year sentence, which may be further reduced by the time spent as an "enemy combatant." Once again, we’re all paying the price for the failures of the Bush Administration.

Below is an article I wrote last month for the Indy, the alternative newspaper in Normal, Illinois, about 50 miles from Peoria where the al-Marri trial was going to take place. It’s an update of an article I originally wrote in 2003.

The Terrorist from Central Illinois
By John K. Wilson

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri has spent the last five years in indefinite executive detention in the U.S. Naval Consolidated brig in Charleston, South Carolina as an "enemy combatant." That’s a long way from Peoria, where al-Marri came with his wife and five children on Sept. 10, 2001 to enroll as a graduate student in computer science at Bradley University (which he had attended as an undergraduate two decades ago).

But al-Marri will soon be back in Peoria. Last week, a federal grand jury in Peoria indicted Al-Marri on terrorism charges. The Obama Administration, anxious to reverse the Bush Administration policies and avoid an almost certain defeat in the Supreme Court, has decided to try al-Marri in the regular court system.

Back in 2003, the Indy reported on al-Marri’s complicated story, and it is important to re-visit how we got to this point, and how badly the Bush Administration bungled the al-Marri case. While the government portrays al-Marri as a key al-Qaeda figure in America, he is also the center of a fight over whether civil liberties will be sacrificed to fight the "war on terrorism." On June 23, 2003, George W. Bush designated al-Marri as the third "enemy combatant" in America, depriving him of all legal rights.

While evidence of al-Marri’s involvement in illegal and perhaps terrorist activities has steadily accumulated, so too did the fact that the government is violating his constitutional rights with little justification. The Bush Administration’s efforts to deny al-Marri his rights have done nothing to protect America from terrorism, and its mishandling of the al-Marri case could eventually allow him to go free.

When the FBI first questioned al-Marri, at his apartment in West Peoria on Oct. 2, 2001, it was based on a police stop where al-Marri was found to have a briefcase full of cash (Al-Marri reportedly received over $13,000 in cash from Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, the financier who bankrolled the September 11th attacks).

A tip from a US Cellular salesman worried about al-Marri’s cell phone calls to the Middle East may also have led to a deeper investigation. Because his enrollment forms at Bradley had listed two different birthdates, the FBI paid a visit to al-Marri. FBI agents continued to investigate al-Marri, and on Dec. 11, 2001, visited his home again. They say al-Marri gave them permission to search his apartment and his laptop.
On al-Marri’s laptop, FBI computer experts found files with more than 1,750 credit card numbers, along with bookmarked websites about computer hacking, credit card fraud, buying hazardous chemicals, and making fake driver’s licenses. Al-Marri’s computer also included proxy software used to conceal identity on the internet, and hacker programs used to gather information about other people’s computers.

Al-Marri’s laptop also indicated his support of bin Laden, including an Arabic prayer that "Neither the U.S. nor anyone living in it will dream of security/safety before we live it in Palestine and before the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed," and that God should "protect" and "guard" Usama bin Laden. The laptop also included audio files of lectures by bin Laden, lectures advising how to train in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, photos of the 9-11 attacks and of prisoners held in Kabul, and a note in Arabic declaring: "Neither the U.S. nor anyone living in it will dream of security/safety before we live it in Palestine and before the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed."

On Dec. 12, al-Marri returned to the FBI offices, but this time he asked for a lawyer, and refused to take a polygraph test. Agents confronted him with a list of 36 expired credit cards numbers on two sheets of paper in his laptop’s carrying case, a list that included the owners’ names and expiration dates. Al-Marri claimed that the handwriting on the sheets wasn’t his, and said he knew nothing about them. On orders from the New York City offices, federal agents arrested al-Marri that afternoon as a "material witness." After a few weeks in the Peoria County Jail, al-Marri was flown to New York and put in the Special Housing Unit at the Metropolitan Correctional Center.

On Dec. 14, 2001, FBI agents got a search warrant for al-Marri’s apartment, and found an almanac with business cards used to mark pages showing U.S. dams, reservoirs, waterways and railroads. They also found an Arabic prayer calling for the defeat of the "villainous" Christians and Jews in Palestine, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Chechnya.

The Credit Card Scheme

On Jan. 28, 2002, al-Marri was arrested and charged with unauthorized possession of "more than 15" access devices — the credit-card numbers — with the intent to defraud. He was indicted on the charge Feb. 6, 2002. After al-Marri and his attorneys decided that Manhattan was a bad place for a terrorism suspect to go on trial, they asked for the venue to be moved back to central Illinois, where the alleged crimes had taken place, so the government dropped the charges in New York and re-filed them in Peoria.

In the summer of 2000, al-Marri came to central Illinois and created a fake company, AAA Carpets, in room 209 at the Time Out Motel in Macomb, Il., using the name Abdullakareem A. Almuslam. Western Illinois University student Matt Stiles, who hooked up a high-speed internet connection for al-Marri, told the Chicago Tribune, "He said it was very important that he have fast Internet service." According to Stiles, "All I know is he sat around and was on the Internet all day."

Al-Marri used a false name and stolen Social Security number to open accounts at three banks in Macomb, and opened a credit card processing account. Using stolen credit card numbers, al-Marri processed fake transactions, and then moved the money out before the credit card companies and banks figured out the fraud.

Although al-Marri denied the allegations, the evidence against him seemed overwhelming. Six of the stolen credit card numbers used by "Almuslam" were later found on al-Marri’s laptop. A witness in Macomb picked al-Marri out of a photo line-up as the man calling himself "Almuslam." Fingerprints on the "Almuslam" bank documents in Macomb matched al-Marri. Airline records show that an Ali S. al-Marri took a flight from Saudi Arabia to Frankfurt and then O’Hare on May 25-26, 2000.

The summer "Almuslam" was in Macomb, he made a call to a travel agency, arranging for a flight by a man named Ali al-Marri, who took a flight from Peoria to Chicago and then New York on Aug. 18, 2000, and then returned the next day, missing the connection to Peoria. Al-Marri soon left the country, and flew from Frankfurt back to Saudi Arabia on Aug. 21, 2000.

But the Macomb evidence proves that al-Marri was a criminal, not
necessarily a terrorist. In January 2003, federal prosecutor Michael McGovern told a judge that al-Marri had used credit card fraud to provide "material support" to al-Qaeda, but no evidence of this has ever been publicly produced.

The Al-Qaeda Phone Number

In addition to the fraud charges, al-Marri was also charged with two counts of lying to federal agents. The government accused al-Marri of falsely denying that he called a phone in the United Arab Emirates, and of falsely claiming that he hadn’t been in the country in 2000 when the credit card fraud was perpetrated.

On four occasions in 2001, al-Marri tried (unsuccessfully) to call a number in United Arab Emirates using public pay phones in Illinois. On Sept. 23, a call was made from a store in Peoria near his apartment, using a phone card that was also used on al-Marri’s cell phone on Sept. 27 and his home phone on Oct. 24. On Oct. 14, the same number was called around 2am using the same phone card from a gas station in Springfield; around the same time, al-Marri’s cell phone was used near Springfield. On Nov. 4, the number was called twice from pay phones in Chicago, using a second phone card; that same phone card was used three days later from al-Marri’s home phone.

The FBI was suspicious of the phone number because it was used on Sept. 3, 2001 by Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh to transfer money to Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker" for the 9-11 attacks. The phone number was also listed by al-Qaeda financier, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi (arrested in Pakistan on March 1, 2003 along with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed). Al-Hawsawi, who is accused of sending money to the 9-11 hijackers, listed the number on a withdrawal slip from a United Arab Emirates (UAE) bank.
The number was also called by 9-11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, who listed the phone number when he sent a Fed Ex package to the UAE on Sept. 4, 2001. The 9-11 hijackers returned leftover money to the account opened by al-Hawsawi shortly before the attacks. The phone number was also used in the transfer of money to Ramzi Muhammad Abdullah bin al-Shibh, whom American officials believe was intended to be another 9-11 hijacker. But when questioned by the FBI about it, al-Marri denied calling the phone number or knowing al-Hawsawi. On Dec. 23, 2002, al-Marri was charged with making false statements to the FBI denying that he called the number.

The Enemy Combatant

While al-Marri was awaiting his trial, the US got a lucky break in capturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the global leader of al-Qaeda operations, on March 1, 2003. Under torture (including waterboarding), Mohammed revealed some information about the al-Qaeda network, and named al-Marri as "the point of contact for AQ operatives arriving in the US for September 11 follow-up operations." Newsweek claimed that Mohammed described al-Marri as "the perfect sleeper agent because he has studied in the United States, had no criminal record and had a family with whom he could travel."

But one Newsweek reporter admitted to a Peoria Journal-Star columnist there wasn’t evidence of contact with other al-Qaeda operatives. "That’s the mystery here," reporter Daniel Klaidman said. "If he was the main contact, we probably would’ve seen more evidence of him talking to others." Because some of the information linking al-Marri to terrorism was acquired using torture, it’s unreliable and cannot be allowed in a court of law.

According to the government, al-Marri trained at al-Qaeda’s al Farooq camp in Afghanistan, including training in chemical weapons, and pledged service to Osama bin Laden, offering himself for a "martyrdom" mission. Some detainees reportedly identified al-Marri as being at the al-Farooq camp, and said that he offered to die for al-Qaeda. With this additional information, the Bush Administration decided to name al-Marri an enemy combatant–even though he was arrested on American soil, and has never been accused of carrying out any acts of violence.

Bush’s June 23, 2003 order declared that "al-Marri engaged in conduct that constituted hostile and war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism," and he "represents a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States." The order claimed that the enemy combatant designation was "necessary to prevent him from aiding al-Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States or its armed forces, other government personnel, or citizens."

The Defense Department said al-Marri’s status was changed ‘‘due to recent credible information provided by other detainees in the war on terrorism. Enemy combatant status may be used to describe an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, has become a member of or associated himself with hostile enemy forces, thereby attaining the status of a belligerent.’’

This doesn’t describe al-Marri at all, even if the worst accusations against him are true. First of all, there is no declared war with al-Qaeda, because al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, not an enemy nation. Second, al-Marri’s alleged membership in the group is tenuous at best. Third, al-Marri was never a belligerent of any kind. A statement from Human Rights Watch charged, "The United States cannot declare a criminal suspect, including a suspected member of al-Qaida, an enemy combatant, except where there has been direct participation in an international armed conflict."

Jan Paul Miller, federal prosecutor for central Illinois, filed to dismiss the criminal case without prejudice--meaning that the government could later reinstate the charges. And the judge seemed willing to support that ruling, but wanted to give defense attorneys time to prepare a response. However, the government was under orders to get al-Marri into military custody immediately, and rather than have a few hours delay for a response by al-Marri’s attorneys, they agreed to dismiss the charges with prejudice, which means al-Marri can never be prosecuted for his acts of credit card fraud and lying. This critical decision may come back to haunt the government now that al-Marri’s enemy combatant status is overturned.

The fact that al-Marri was already in jail awaiting trial on fraud charges made the sudden rush by the Bush Administration even more puzzling. Alice Fisher, deputy assistant attorney general, told the media, "We are confident we would have prevailed," but dropped the charges in order to help fight terrorism. Fisher has admitted that investigators do not believe that al-Marri was "specifically tasked" to plot a chemical or biological attack in the United States. Instead, Newsweek reports that government officials believe al-Marri was assigned to hack into the computer systems of U.S. banks. Al-Marri also frequently visited websites on the production of hydrogen cyanide, a lethal gas that al-Qaeda plotted to use in America. Given al-Marri’s suspected role, why was it necessary to shift the case to military tribunals, which cannot rule on the dismissed charges of fraud and lying?

According to an ABC News report, al-Marri was made an "enemy combatant" because "the government does not want senior al-Qaeda leaders testifying about classified information in open court." Yet this explanation is not plausible, since the fraud charges against al-Marri wouldn’t have required any classified information. Classified information might come out only if terrorism charges are filed against him, but it’s doubtful that evidence acquired more than five years ago would seriously undermine the war on terror.

Putting the Pressure on al-Marri

The real reason for "enemy combatant" status was revealed anonymously to journalists. United Press International reported that a Justice Department official said "that the actual reason for the change in status was to pressure him to cooperate." According to the anonymous official, "If the guy says ‘Even if you give me 30 years in jail, I’ll never help you.’ Then you can always threaten him with indefinite custody incommunicado from his family or attorneys." Attorney General John Ashcroft declared, "An individual with that kind of situation is an individual who might know a lot about what could happen, might know the names of individuals, information being so key to intelligence and prevention."

On May 7, 2003, federal prosecutor David Kelley, according to al-Marri’s attorney, threatened al-Marri that if he continued a plea of innocence, "the circumstances of his confinement, which were already severe, would be further aggravated." For years, al-Marri was kept in solitary confinement.

Even if al-Marri didn’t confess under this "pressure," the government hoped that making al-Marri an "enemy combatant" might give a lesson to al-Qaeda supporters who were reluctant to cooperate. CNN reported that "senior FBI official" said the al-Marri case had implications for other terrorism suspects: "If I were in their shoes, I’d take a message from this."

Frank Dunham, a defense attorney representing Zacarias Moussaoui and Yassir Hamdi, called this a significant admission: "In front of appeals courts, they have argued that enemy combatant status prevents the horror of having corporals and sergeants having to follow Miranda warnings and chain-evidence requirements. They have also argued for the national security implications of allowing it. But never a frank admission that it offers them more leverage in plea bargains and cooperation."

When Constitutional rights are abandoned solely for the sake of intimidating prisoners, it indicates a serious threat to civil liberties. As Emily Tynes of the ACLU observes, "The Department of Justice’s treatment of al-Marri reads like a case study in abuse of power." Tynes notes, "He will be held in a military brig indefinitely, without opportunity for trial, without the opportunity for counsel, without access to the outside world or even, necessarily, sunshine. He now has no rights. He now has no privileges. He is persona non grata."

Unfortunately, few people were concerned about the violations of civil liberties in the al-Marri case. Then-Congressman Ray LaHood (now a member of Obama’s cabinet) told WGLT about the al-Marri case at the time: "I guarantee you, if these folks get lawyers, they will have their day in court." LaHood claimed, "I don’t see too many crocodile tears being spread around this country for these people. I guarantee you, there’s enough civil liberties groups to look after their interests." LaHood may have been unaware of the fact that an "enemy combatant" is denied the constitutional right to a lawyer.

Former judge Andrew Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst at Fox News, noted in the Los Angeles Times about the al-Marri case, "We have tried the likes of Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson, Al Capone and O.J. Simpson, Tokyo Rose and the Rosenbergs. So who is an enemy combatant? Not John Walker Lindh, who fought alongside the Taliban. Not Zacarias Moussaoui, who the government says helped plan the 9/11 attacks. Not Lyman Faris, who allegedly plotted to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. The Constitution protected their rights. Who is an enemy combatant? Today, it can be anyone the president wants. And that is terrifying."

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Al-Marri’s case was the first time any president has ever stopped a judicial process by declaring someone an "enemy combatant." The fraud and lying charges against al-Marri could have carried penalties of five to 30 years in prison, with fines of up to $1 million on each count. Clearly, there was no immediate danger that al-Marri would be released to organize terrorist activities if not for the "enemy combatant" designation. To the contrary, al-Marri could have been kept in prison for years on fraud and lying charges, and by the time he was scheduled for release, terrorism charges could be filed without any danger to national security. Because the government did not file any terrorism charges against him, al-Marri would have no right to call any witnesses with potentially sensitive information. The public information already released in indictments was more than sufficient to convict al-Marri.

By refusing to respect civil liberties, the Bush Administration could have ended up allowing an al-Qaeda agent to get away with his crimes. Many experts felt that the Obama Administration might release al-Marri and send him back to his home country, Qatar. But with his skills in computer fraud, Al-Marri can pose a threat to America from anywhere in the world.

Most important of all, the Bush Administration has put the Bill of Rights at risk by treating it so cavalierly as an inconvenience to be dismissed whenever it suits the "war on terror." Ali al-Marri is not an innocent man. But until he is granted his rights and his day in court, we will all see our civil liberties reduced. The only way the terrorists can ultimately win is to lead us to reject the freedoms considered fundamental to our democracy.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

Here's a little lesson in technology for de Russy and Kline. When you Google "college and university courses in community organizing" without quotation marks you get 23 million results, including a handful of actual courses. Almost all of the 23 million responses include various references, anywhere on the internet, to a college, a university, courses, a community, or organizing. The precise number of responses tells you absolutely nothing about anything.

If you actually Google "college and university courses in community organizing" utilizing quotation marks you get two responses. One is to Kline's statement, and the other is to de Russy's comment on it (there are also 30 duplicate references on Free Republic to their claims).

The most disappointing thing to me about this Google search is that there isn't a vast conspiracy out there in higher education to teach people the kind of skills that most Americans desired to have in a president. A New York Times article reports a growing interest in the subject among students. Although colleges routinely have entire majors devoted to vapid fields such as public relations that serve corporate America, you'll look in vain for any majors in community organizing. After all, there aren't a lot of wealthy community organizers out there to fund these programs.

That's what really needs to change. We need colleges to meet this demand for community organizing, and give it the serious academic attention it deserves. And perhaps someday, there will be courses and majors in community organizing across the country.

When that happens, de Russy and Kline can cry out with pride that they discovered the problem before it ever existed.

Crossposted on CollegeFreedom and DailyKos.

According to Martin,

Anyone is welcome to register and attend. But please, if you want to express a theory, bring some rational, tangible evidence to support your claims about Mr. Obama. Those of you who know me know I am committed to only working with accurate information and, as we lawyers say, "reasonable inferences drawn from the available facts or available documentation." Pie-in-the-sky will not fly.

This is one of the truly hilarious claims. The nutcases who think Barack Obama was born in Kenya and secretly smuggled into Hawaii will only accept "rational, tangible evidence." You gotta love it when Andy Martin tells you that you’re too crazy.

As I note in my book about Obama, Martin is a right-wing, anti-Semitic crackpot and was the original source for the "madrassa" myth about Obama attending an Islamic school in Indonesia. Martin is an unending source of smears.

Martin, who is running for the U.S. Senate in 2010, has named himself the head of The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama, which is roughly 999,900 lunatics shy of that goal right now. Martin claims to be a "Professor of Law (Adj.)," although it’s not clear if any law school is actually employing him (let’s hope it’s just another one of his infamous lies).

So what’s on the agenda for this conference?

Andy Martin’s "Frank Marshall Davis theory," an analysis of Barack Obama's parentage that has the hard left in a quandary.

Hmm, I thought I was in a quandary, and I couldn’t figure out why. This must be the reason!

The birth certificate controversy: why does it matter?
(Andy’s hint: When Obama was viewed as invincible, the mainstream media did not want to ask questions about his past. Now that Obama is increasingly being seen as shell shocked and pockmarked, more and more people will demand answers to questions about who Obama "really is."

Thanks for the hint, Andy! Otherwise, I would have answered, "Because it shows why Andy Martin is a lunatic."

Other suggestions or solutions for seeking access the birth certificate or college records (e.g. alumni pressure?)

Of course, there’s nothing of any significance in Obama’s college records (or anyone else’s, for that matter). Nor could alumni pressure help them out, since it’s illegal to release information from college records. I’ve never quite figured out what they could possibly think is hidden in Obama’s college records.

I came across news of the conference via an email from Alan Keyes’ Renew America. Keyes, by the way, is continuing his crusade to have Obama removed from the presidency based on the loony theory that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. WorldNetDaily published an "exclusive" article a few days ago explaining that Keyes in California is suing the "secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office." Wow, I bet President Obama is pretty worried that they won’t count the electoral votes in California’s that he needs to become president.

Andy Martin reports,

Media are welcome, but we would suggest you let us know in advance. We will be providing twitter.com updates during the conference (twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA).

I don’t twitter, but I’d almost consider starting to read tweets just to get ahold of those fine updates. And alas, I can’t be in DC for this fine conference, but I certainly encourage others to sign up to attend the conference as media and report on the event.

Some people may wonder, "Shouldn’t we just ignore these crackpots?" Well, there are many good reasons not to. First, these nuts are damn hilarious. Second, these nuts have serious influence on right-wing talk radio. Third, these nuts expose the dark, loony underbelly of the conservative movement for what it really is. So, as far as I’m concerned, we should do everything we can to promote this conference and interview every psycho in attendance for eternal YouTube fame.

Crossposted on DailyKos.

As I note in my book, Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies, the Cardinal Newman Society is a right-wing Catholic group (actually, it's a guy named Patrick Reilly and a few of his right-wing friends) that, often successfully, lobbies Catholic colleges to censor liberal views (needless to say, it's never called for banning conservative supporters of the death penalty from speaking on campuses, even though they violate Catholic doctrine).

The group even attacks conservatives. Quincy University commencement speaker (and well-known conservative radio legend) Paul Harvey withdrew in 2003 after the group’s criticism of his pro-choice beliefs. Reilly called upon Catholic University of America in 2006 to ban politician Bob Casey from speaking on campus. Although Casey is a Catholic who opposes abortion rights, Reilly proclaimed that "Bob Casey has no business delivering a lecture on public morality" because Casey does not want to ban contraceptives.

The Cardinal Newman Society demands that all Catholic colleges impose an unprecedented regime of censorship; in 2005, the Society presented a list of 18 professors at Catholic Colleges that the group believes should be fired because these professors took a position on the Terri Schiavo case contrary to that of the Vatican. These attacks have had a strong influence on Catholic Colleges, and administrators fear being the next target of the group.

Perhaps the most dramatic case of the Cardinal Newman Society’s attack on academic freedom came at the University of St. Francis in Chicago in spring 2004. Dr. Nancy Snyderman was dis-invited from giving the commencement address four days before graduation after a campaign against her by the Cardinal Newman Society. A surgeon, author and former ABC medical correspondent (she's now featured on NBC Nightly News), Snyderman, who is personally opposed to abortion, had mentioned in a medical report on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Oct. 30, 1997 that some doctors recommend "selective reduction" via abortion for a woman pregnant with septuplets because of the high risk in having seven babies. A letter to Snyderman from the university read, "The university recently received information ... containing comments by you on the topic of abortion, and these comments appear to be contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. As a Catholic university, we have no choice but to rescind our invitation." When a journalist and doctor is banned from a campus for accurate reporting on abortion issues, it indicates how far the repression of freedom at Catholic colleges has gone.

In 2005 the St. Elizabeth College of Nursing in New York invited Rep. Sherwood Boehert as commencement speaker. But under pressure from local bishop James Moynihan and the Cardinal Newman Society, St. Elizabeth’s president, Sister Marianne Monahan, banned Boehert from speaking.

Another form of retaliation used by the Cardinal Newman Society is to remove institutions from official designation as Catholic colleges, hurting their recruiting and fundraising. In 2003, the Cardinal Newman Society was able to pressure to have Marist College removed from the list after Eliot Spitzer was allowed to speak at its graduation. In 2005, Marymount Manhattan College was similarly de-recognized after it allowed Hillary Clinton to speak. This kind of intimidation forces colleges that wish to remain Catholic to censor the speakers allowed on their campus on the orders of a right-wing splinter faction.

But the group, although adept at getting publicity, is far outside the Catholic mainstream. The Association of Catholic College and Universities denounced the Cardinal Newman Society for making accusations that are "distorted, inaccurate and in some cases simply untrue."

Thanks to Reilly, Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues" is the most frequently banned play in America. The Cardinal Newman Society has taken credit for "a marked decline in planned performances of the Monologues" at Catholic colleges. In recent years, the play has been banned at the University of Portland, Iona College, the College of New Rochelle, Loras College, Rivier College, Xavier University (Ohio), Catholic University of America, Providence College, Loyola University of New Orleans, Emmanuel College, St. Ambrose University, St. John’s University, St. Joseph’s College (Indiana), Wheeling Jesuit University, Alverno College, College of Saint Mary (Nebraska), Edgewood College, Fontbonne University, Loyola Marymount University, Marquette University, the University of St. Francis, and several other institutions. Censorship has discouraged students from trying to organize performances at many other colleges.

It's time for Catholics and anyone concerned about academic freedom and free speech in this country to speak up and say that the Cardinal Newman Society is wrong. There shouldn't be repression of different views at Catholic colleges. And Notre Dame should be proud that Barack Obama has chosen to honor its campus by giving the commencement address.

Crossposted at DailyKos and CollegeFreedom.