Terrorism and the First Amendment

Saudi billionaire banker Khalid Salim Ben Mahfouz successfully sued in the London court system Israeli-American Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld for libel over her book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It," which was written, published, and distributed in the United States. The British judge, when he learned that ex-CIA Director James Woosley was involved in the production of the book, imposed a $225,000 fine, an obligation to apologize to Bin Mahfouz, and required that Dr. Ehrenfeld assure that no more of her books would be sold in Britain. The books that were bought in London, were purchased over the internet, and this judgment makes the American responsible for transactions on the Web.
Since Dr. Ehrenfeld could not afford to appear or defend herself in the London court, she appealed the decision to the New York Court of Appeals. This court ruled that it does not have the authority to protect American citizens on U.S. soil from suits filed in foreign countries.
In response to this situation, the bi-partisan "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" ( S.6687/A.9652), was introduced two weeks ago in the New York Assembly and Senate by Assembly Members, Rory Lancman (D) and Senator Dean Skelos (R). This bill would protect New York authors and journalists who expose terrorism and terror funding from libel lawsuits filed in foreign courts. The law would declare such suits unenforceable in New York unless the law in the foreign country provides the same free speech protection that is guaranteed by the First Amendment in the United States.
British courts have been the system of choice for the over forty such suits that have been filed since 9/11 because they posit that an author is guilty and must prove innocence. This is a nearly impossible task, particularly from long distance.

There is a call for the U.S. Congress to legislate a national response to this threat to the First Amendment, because it involves terrorists and their backers using western legal processes to create the same effect their own governments normally apply to any sort of defiance or protest. (www.standupamericausa.com) This brings up some questions about the role of our legal system and the protections our laws should afford in the War on Terror.
1. Given that several of our Supreme Court Justices believe international legal systems should inform the decisions they render on U.S. law, what would their opinions and recommendations be concerning a legal response to these suits.
2. Does this attempt to punish American citizens with the legal systems of other countries pose a significant obstacle to the prosecution of the war and the tactics used to do so?
3. Does this situation have anything to tell us about the possible chaos that could develop if Guantanamo is closed and anyone picked up off any battle field is required to be charged and prosecuted in the U.S. Court system, according to the Democrat Party platform?
3. How do these suits affect non-fiction about Islamists and the War on Terror?
4. How does this impact on the decision by Republicans not to join the World Court, which is a policy opposed by the Left. Do we want George W. Bush hauled into court in the Hague and tried for war crimes and is that the plan of the Democrats.
Just thinking!