Last week I asked a question that I thought everyone should be asking, but that no one was: Why can't they protect Molly Norris? Link here.
If the British government could provide police protection for Salman Rushdie and if the Dutch government could provide protective custody for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, why couldn't the FBI protect Molly Norris?
Why did the FBI decide to erase the identity of a Seattle Weekly cartoonist when other governments had been able to protect people who had much higher profiles?
If Ayaan Hirsi Ali can live freely in the United States, why can't Molly Norris?
I am happy to report that this idea has now moved from the blogosphere to the the media. In an editorial two days ago the Washington Examiner asked the same question and called out the FBI, and, by extension, the Holder Justice Department, for cowering in the face of terrorism. Link here.
The Examiner pointed out that the FBI had fought Ku Klus Klan terrorist threats and had defended Southern newspaper editors vigorously. Why could it not have protected Molly Norris?
And the Examiner also calls out journalists for failing to stand up for Molly Norris. The American Society of News Editors refused its request to offer a statement about her, and, as I have also noted, the pathetically pusillanimous Nicholas Kristof thought that it was a great time for America, or American journalists, to apologize to Islam. My remarks here.
Now let's see how long it takes for the question to be asked of the FBI, the Justice Department, or Robert Gibbs. Molly Norris is not a high profile public figure. Why could the FBI not find a way to protect her short of silencing her?