Adeel Mangi Faces Backlash for Ties to Anti-Israel Think Tank
Adeel Abdullah Mangi (Twitter)
Biden judicial nominee Adeel Mangi is already stirring controversy due to his involvement with an anti-Israel think tank. But that’s not all. Now, he’s also drawing the ire of police organizations for his connections to a group that glorifies cop killers as “freedom fighters.”
Five police unions, representing a staggering 280,000 officers, are urging senators to reject Mangi’s nomination for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Their main concern stems from his position on the advisory board of the Alliance of Families for Justice.
The National Sheriffs’ Association, which represents over 3,000 sheriffs nationwide, expressed their deep concern, stating, “The fact that Mr. Mangi aligns himself with an organization advocating for the release of convicted cop-killers is seriously disturbing.” They further added that Mangi’s affiliation with the Alliance raises concerns about potential bias against victims and law enforcement.
The Alliance of Families for Justice has faced criticism for its support of convicted cop killers. Mangi joined the left-wing group in 2019 and is still listed as an advisory board member. In 2021, the Alliance called for the parole of six former black nationalists who were serving life sentences for murdering police officers. The group refers to them as “elder freedom fighters” who were allegedly set up by the FBI.
Kathy Boudin, a member of the terrorist group Weather Underground, served on the Alliance’s board until her death in 2022. Boudin was convicted of murdering two New York police officers during an armored truck robbery in 1981. The Alliance of Families for Justice even established a fellowship in her name last year.
The opposition from police groups could add pressure on swing-state Democrats to vote against Mangi. If confirmed, he would have jurisdiction over federal cases in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Republicans are already against him due to his advisory board position with an anti-Israel think tank that hosted anti-Semites and a convicted terrorist on the anniversary of 9/11.
The conservative Judicial Crisis Network has launched ad campaigns targeting Democratic Senators Bob Casey, Jon Tester, and Sherrod Brown, urging them to vote against Mangi. The White House has accused Republicans of “Islamophobia” for opposing Mangi, who would be the first Muslim to serve on a federal appeals court.
Letters from police groups opposing Mangi’s nomination were released by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, a confirmation vote date has not been set.
The National Association of Police Organizations, representing 241,000 police officers, stated that Mangi’s association with a group that glorifies unrepentant killers is deeply concerning. The New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association, with 32,000 members, believes that Mangi’s leadership and association with the Alliance of Families for Justice would compromise his impartiality in dealing with law enforcement officers.
Mangi has yet to respond to requests for comment regarding his role at the Alliance of Families for Justice, and the group itself has remained silent as well.
What concerns have been raised by pro-Israel organizations regarding Adeel Mangi’s affiliation with the New York University Center for the Study of Law and Security? How does this affiliation raise questions about his ability to make fair judgments on cases involving Israeli interests?
E officers. The group argued that these individuals were “political prisoners” and should be released as a form of social justice. This stance has been met with widespread condemnation, with many viewing it as a glorification of violence against law enforcement.
The police unions are not the only ones voicing their concerns about Mangi’s affiliations. Pro-Israel organizations have also criticized his connection to the anti-Israel think tank, the New York University Center for the Study of Law and Security. This think tank has been accused of promoting anti-Israel rhetoric and supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to put economic pressure on Israel. Critics argue that Mangi’s involvement with this organization raises questions about his impartiality and ability to make fair judgments on cases involving Israeli interests.
The controversy surrounding Adeel Mangi’s associations has brought into focus the issue of judicial nominees and their affiliations with controversial groups. While it is important to respect individuals’ freedom of association, it is also crucial to evaluate the potential impact of these affiliations on their ability to serve impartially and uphold the principles of justice.
The police unions and pro-Israel organizations are not calling for Mangi’s disqualification solely based on his affiliations, but rather on the concern that these affiliations may affect his judgment and impartiality. They argue that a judge should be free from any potential biases that could compromise their ability to make fair and just decisions.
In response to the backlash, Mangi has defended his affiliations, stating that they do not reflect his personal views or beliefs. He has emphasized the importance of judicial neutrality and vowed to uphold the rule of law if confirmed as a judge.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is currently reviewing Mangi’s nomination, and it is essential that they carefully consider the concerns raised by the police unions and pro-Israel organizations. The Senate has a crucial role in confirming judicial nominees who will protect the interests of all Americans and ensure the fair administration of justice.
It is vital for the Senate to thoroughly examine Mangi’s record and determine whether his affiliations raise legitimate concerns about his ability to serve as an impartial and fair judge. While individuals have the right to hold their own beliefs and associations, it is crucial for judges to be free from any potential biases that could undermine the integrity of the judiciary.
The controversy surrounding Adeel Mangi should serve as a reminder of the importance of thorough vetting and evaluation of judicial nominees. The Senate must uphold its duty to ensure that individuals appointed to the bench possess the necessary qualities of impartiality, fairness, and respect for the rule of law.
Now loading...