Why Can't They Protect Molly Norris?

She isn't as famous as Salman Rushdie. She does not have the public profile of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris has joined their company. She has been targeted for assassination for having violated Sharia law. Links here and here.

As you probably know, Norris came up with the idea for an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" as a way of asserting American first amendment rights. The idea produced a proliferation of drawings of Mohammed around the world.

When the news reached the American-born Islamic cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, now living in Yemen, he responded by issuing a fatwa calling for her to be assassinated.

The FBI took the matter very seriously. So seriously that it put Molly Norris in witness protection, effectively erasing her identity. As the Seattle Weekly reported: "There is no more Molly."

It added that it will no longer run her cartoons. Not only has Norris lost her identity, but she can no longer work.

When Salman Rushdie was targeted by the Ayatollah Khomeini, he was put under police protection. The same happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands. When the Danish cartoonists were threatened, they also received police protection. Some of them suffered attempts on their lives.

None of them suffered the kind of draconian identity erasure that is usually reserved for mob informants.

Rushdie continued to write. Hirsi Ali continued her work. One of the Danish cartoonists was recently honored by Angela Merkel in Germany. Link here.

Moreover, Rushdie and Hirsi Ali could both resettle in the United States, one of the very few places on earth that still respects the rights to free speech.

Now the FBI has decided that that is no longer the case. But why could she not have been put in protective custody? Why should she suffer the ultimate indignity of being completely silenced?

As everyone knows, drawing a picture of the Prophet Mohammed is a capital offense in Islamic Law.

And yet, Molly Norris is not a Muslim. Nor were most of the Danish cartoonists. What does it mean when non-Muslims can be targeted for failing to comply with Islamic Law?

As James Taranto asks, where is President Obama on this issue? Link here. On Obama's watch, an American citizen has been forced to erase her identity becaue an Islamic terrorist has issued a fatwa in Yemen?

Taranto wonders whether Obama will be as vigorous in defense of the free speech rights of Molly Norris as he has of the rights of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build a mosque at Ground Zero.

And what does the Great Conciliator, Imam Rauf, have to say about Molly Norris? Shouldn't he make a public statement telling us whether he thinks that Sharia Law should trump the protections offered by the United States constitution?

On one score, Obama has already expressed an opinion of al-Awlaki. He has targeted him for assassination via predator drone. The Yemeni al Qaeda leader has been linked to the Fort Hood massacre and the Christmas Day underwear bomber.

Surely, al Awlaki is waging war against the United States. We all applaud Obama's good judgment in this case.

All of us except the American Civil Liberties Union, of course. The ACLU has chosen to defend al Awlaki. It has filed suit declaring that he is being deprived of due process of law.

Of course, the ACLU is defending al Awlaki on principle. We are now waiting it to denounce those who are depriving Molly Norris of her free speech rights and her identity.