A new lawsuit filed against the Ground Zero mosque project in New York and its supporters alleges the project would be another stage in the jihad by radical Islam against the United States and would impose “terror” on “the people of New York.”
The case was filed today by Vincent Forras, representing himself, a “first responder” who was injured during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks just a block away from the proposed mosque site.
Working with the case is Larry Klayman, president of Freedom Watch USA.
The action, not the first filed over the proposal, alleges the project would be a “nuisance” and would result in “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Klayman, in a separate commentary also published today, noted President Obama’s endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque plan and said that has hurt the American Muslim community.
Klayman plans a news conference about the legal undertaking Friday morning at 10 a.m. Eastern at Liberty Park near New York’s Ground Zero site, where nearly 3,000 Americans died at the hands of Islamic radicals in 2001.
The filing alleges that those behind the mosque project are “front persons and in charge of operations for interests tied to terrorism.”
Among the defendants named are the Muslim imam pushing the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, Cordoba House/Park 51, Cordoba Initiative and Soho Properties.
“On information and belief, defendants Feisal and Cordoba House are believers in radical Islam and its jihad against America,” the filing stated.
It said the Islamic Society of North America, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood “have ties and affiliations with the defendants.”
It also alleges that while Feisal’s book is called “What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America” in English, it is called “A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11” in Arabic.
It also alleges Feisal has stated, “United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened” on 9/11.
It is known, the claim states, “that al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations like to and do return to the ‘scene’ of prior terror attacks, to show that they can continue their campaign with impunity, thereby instilling greater terror and severe emotional distress on the populace. That is why the World Trade Center was attacked more than once and why assets and persons at Ground Zero are likely to be attacked again.”
“It is also why the Ground Zero mosque [supporters] want to put an Islamic center specifically at that location – in order to show the world that ‘they’ can do it again … and to perpetrate continuing and heightened psychological terror on the victims,” the case says.
The mosque project would be a “nuisance” and a “terror risk” and the discussion about it already has produced “illness” in the lead plaintiff, the case said, including “intense migraines, back pains, neck pains” and other symptoms.
Klayman reported the case, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, also requests class action status. It was filed in the Supreme Court of New York in Manhattan.
He said the lawsuit rests not upon an attack on Islam but rather “on harsh and compelling national security realities.”
“Even President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have been forced to concede that terrorists are prone to again attack the people of New York City at Ground Zero, and that reality and the public outcry it engendered forced them to move the planned trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad in the federal court from … Manhattan earlier this year,” Klayman explained.
“Planning repeated attacks and fomenting terror – such is the twisted, sick and sad modus operandi of al-Qaida, Hamas and other terrorist groups, who already have attacked Ground Zero twice at the World Trade Center, the Lincoln Tunnel and other places in the area. To attack again and again is the nature of terrorist strategy, and the Ground Zero Mosque and its imam have well-documented ties to known terrorist groups,” he said.
“This case is a strong case and while not directed at Islam, is specifically focused upon the terrorist connected imam and the Ground Zero mosque that threatens New York City,” said Klayman.
The ACLJ today said Rauf’s statements about building the mosque are “insensitive and divisive.”
Rauf had suggested that the “national security” was at risk if the mosque was not built.
“By interjecting the claim that our national security is at risk if the mosque is not built at that site is not only offensive to the 9/11 victims’ families and friends, but to an overwhelming majority of Americans who don’t want the mosque built at Ground Zero,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the organization.
“By denying the fact that the site, where part of the landing gear of one of the hijacked planes crashed through the roof of the building, is sacred and hallowed ground clearly shows he does not have the best interest of the families and friends of 9/11 victims at heart. The imam continues to miss the point – Americans are tolerant, but Americans understand this is not the place to build a mosque,” he said.
The case pending in the New York State Supreme Court alleges that the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously and “contrary to decades of administration precedent” when it rejected landmark status for the building.
That designation would have prevented the mosque project from going forward.