Robert Spencer ("Jihad Watch") Issue

I had a disturbing e-mail exchange with Robert Spencer after he appeared on CA Live the other day (Feb 28). Right at the top of the show, he asserted that the war against muslim terrorism is being “completely obscured” by (among other entities) law enforcement.

Being a 27 year veteran of law enforcement (who also happens to be assigned as my agency’s counter terrorism liaison), I took exception to his comment, and I e-mailed him and said that I hoped he was referring to policy-makers, (and not the cops on the street fighting the good fight every day).

What I got back from him truly shocked me. He replied by saying …“Sorry you took offense, but as they say, ‘If the shoe fits…’ and if it doesn’t, no offense should be taken.” He then went on to describe how policy makers have done things to water down the war on terror-which was my point EXACTLY. The problem is the policy makers in D.C.-not the people actually fighting the fight every day. The fact that he refused to make that distinction-even after reading my objection to it- told me everything I needed to know about this guy.

It did not help that he used most generic terms to describe numbers of local cops and FBI offices that have “followed suit.” He offers no proof or actual numbers. However, if it were true, and we are given policies and laws that we are bound to follow, what other choice do we have??? Does he think we should work outside the law (which would undoubtedly lead to indictments and removal from law enforcement)??? Again, the problems lie in the policies being imposed upon those of us doing the job every day. Some of us are not bound by the same policies and continue to fight the good fight, but Spencer refuses to make those distinctions.

The reason this is important is that law enforcement is under constant attack by the liberal media, Hollywood, and countless others, and they have managed to turn a large segment of the American people against us. We should not be subject to the same attack by someone who is supposed to be on the same side. His “And if it doesn’t, no offense should be taken” remark was dismissive and insulting!

I have to admit, I responded in a less than charitable way by saying he only wanted to sell more books by “besmirching dedicated warriors and creating scandal” (i.e. HE is the ONLY one fighting this fight and everyone else has laid down), and for that, I take responsibility.

I was disturbed by his response because if he is going to make such assertions and denigrate those of us that have sworn to protect our fellow citizens-and have laid down our lives to that end-then I think he should have gone a little further than “If the shoe fits” and maybe he could’ve admitted that his remark was a little too broad?

After reading my response to his “if the shoe fits” e-mail, he asked me to “please kindly never, ever write” to him “under any circumstances.” Of course, I will honor that request, mainly because he has proven to be incapable of receiving any feedback or to being challenged in any way without trying to belittle and condescend but it is also obvious that it would be a lesson in futility.

I really hope that CA Live looks a little more closely at this guy before having him back on.

I don’t see much connection here to non catholic religions.

Also, your post seems a little defensive. The Zomo and the milicja didn’t make the policy either. Maybe there are deeper reasons why police work isn’t respected (assuming what you say is true) than “the media”.

Looks like you both had a bad day. I can sympathize, but posting this here might not make things any better. Let it go! It’s not like Pope Francis excommunicated you or something. :slight_smile:

The connection to the non catholic religions is he was on the radio show talking about the Islamic religion.

And, are you REALLY comparing American law enforcement with Communist thugs?? The policies I wrote about were ones RESTRICTING the actions of law enforcement-ones that American law enforcement COMPLY with since they are the rules and laws imposed by lawfully elected officials and do not shock the conscience. Your comparison is mystifying.

If there are “deeper reasons” than the on-going, systematic vilification of the police in America by the liberal media and Hollywood, I’d like to hear it. One only has to watch a broadcast of one of those media outlets to see what I am referencing. And it’s not just me. Look into what Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has to say about just this topic.

You know what? You are absolutely right. We both did have a bad day, and I should probably let it go. I just wanted to see if anyone else has had any dealings with him or info. I won’t beat a dead horse with this one.

thank-you for your service in law enforcement because it is truly appreciated. I generally think that when Robert Spencer is talking about law enforcement policies, he isn’t talking about dedicated people like yourself protecting all of us with your own life. He is usually talking about higher ups and the policies which seem to sweep watching Islamic terrorists under the rug. The Fort Hood murders are a good example and that guy should have never been given such access to vulnerable military personal and his radical Islamic views were well known to his superiors. With the kind of work he does, he is often attacked even by Christians and Catholics and his research and message doesn’t fit the political correctness which gives Islam a pass. That is why he probably came off as defensive along with your defensiveness and it sadly escalated. He also has death threats on his life and has to have a body guard with him. I don’t think answering if the shoe fits is the best but I know that all of us are human. I’m not sure if you have read any of his books, but they are well researched and while he is accussed of being a demogog, they are not. Again, thank-you for your service to your fellow citizens.

I appreciate very much your take on this, and I thank you for the kind words. I could not agree with you more about Ft. Hood. It infuriates me that this act of terror was classified as “workplace violence.” And you make a point that few have made which is, why was he given that much access?

I have read Mr. Spencer’s works and I thought he had a pretty good grasp on the issue, which is why I gave him the opportunity to clarify his remarks. He obviously has great sources as well because I see much of what I read in daily intel briefs appear in his writings (nothing that would constitute a breach of privileged info). And as you indicated, the “if the shoe fits” comment really seemed out of character for someone who one would assume is on the same side of law enforcement.

However, that last point speaks to a larger issue and that is how law enforcement has been denigrated in the last few years. It really has become a problem in that it has eroded trust in us and made our job of protecting the American public even more difficult. It serves as a source of frustration because here we are trying to help, and the public thinks we’re like Denzel Washington in “Training Day.” All I wanted from Mr. Spencer was acknowledgement that his remark could have been a little more measured and perhaps he could have made that distinction between the policy makers and those of us on the streets every day.

As I wrote earlier, I share the blame in this thing escalating and I wish Mr. Spencer nothing but the greatest success because if he succeeds in opening more eyes to the threat, it is to America’s benefit. I have worked dignitary protection details for other authors and government officials who have been the subject of death threats due to their stances on Islamic terrorism, so I certainly can sympathize with him. I see what they go through.

I want to thank you for your response. This is exactly why I posted this thread. I was hoping for honest, level-headed discussion on this situation and responses like yours are what make this all worth the time and effort. Take care and god bless.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit