“A jihadist with a briefcase can destroy more than a thousand men with guns.”

The war being fought by militant Islam against America and the West is being fought on many fronts. The stereotype — the barely-literate guy in a turban with an AK-47 — is just one part of the threat, and — in some ways — not even the greatest threat.

Abdul the camel-shtupper is the cliche’, the one that most people visualize. He’s dangerous, but strictly small-scale. He’s the type that planned to attack Fort Dix, the type that the Circuit City guy busted. Big splash, little long-lasting effect.

Moving up the continuum, we have the more sophisticated terrorists. These are the ones who cause the real damage. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and the like. These are the patient ones, the ones who have access to real resources and the knowledge and training and skill to use them the most effectively.

They are the tough ones. Abdul is relatively simple. He tends to blow himself up or otherwise eliminate himself. The Osamas, the Khalids — they cause the big body counts.

Luckily, there are ways to deal with them. They got high-powered weaponry? Send in the military. They have state backing? Go after the state that backs them. They shuffle money around? Shut it down and take it away from them. It’s not easy, but it can be done.

And then there are the most dangerous Islamists of all — those that who have studied our ways extensively, They know a great deal about us, our systems, our procedures, our laws, and they use that knowledge to try to destroy us. And most dangerous of all, they tend to do so within the law, so our most potent weapons are off the table.

These legal terrorists are the ones who pose the greatest long-term threat to our way of life. They are the ones who lobby for special laws to “protect” Islam, who send out letters threatening lawsuits, and work to destroy their targets through intimidation and legal bills.

Case in point: CAIR.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (a named but unindicted co-conspirator in at least one terrorist trial) has a staff of lawyers at the ready, primed to go after anyone anywhere who might “defame” or “intimidate” or “threaten” Islam.

For example, the passengers who reported the suspicious behavior of the “Flying Imams.” CAIR’s attorneys aren’t just suing the airline for kicking them off, but the passengers who — in good faith — saw things that troubled them and reported them to the airline. As has been noted, the message here is clear: if you see something suspicious, shut the hell up or expect to spend several years and an assload of money defending yourself in court.

And if you want to have someone talking about what they think of Islam, you might get sued over that, too.

Or if you are just sick and tired of hearing about how wonderful Islam is and want to express your disgust with the “Religion Of Peace,” they’ll get you arrested.

On occasion, I thought that John Edwards and his particular ilk of parasite would cause the most damage to our nation — and they’ve certainly done a number on the health care field. (Compare stats on OB-GYNs in his home state before and after he decided to turn them into his personal cash cow.) Recently, He Who Needs No Linkage pointed out another class of barrister that certainly needs to be considered among the ranks of the vile.

But lawyers like CAIR’s in-house infernal minions and “progressives” who’ve transitioned into traitors like Lynne Stewart… they pose a major threat to us.

We need to find a way to deal with them, in such a way that does not wreck our existing system. The last thing we need is another “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” moment.

The John Doe amendment is a good start. Stiffer penalties for lawyers who violate the law in their clients’ interests would be another. Perhaps a carrot to go with that stick — a reward system for lawyers that report outright criminal conduct by their clients carried out in their presence. (I believe this is already covered by existing laws as exemptions to the lawyer-client privilege, but I have no issue with tossing in some incentive besides “immunity from being sued” if it deprives the enemy of a useful ally.)

Anyone else have any ideas on how to remind our country’s legal eagles that they are Americans first, officers of the court second, and attorneys third?

Wizbang Podcast is up
Obama Wouldn't Use Nukes "In Any Circumstance"