An unbelievable story from AP, with thanks to Internet Haganah and Anja:
A member of the group of Portland-area Muslims convicted of conspiring to wage war against the United States won't be subject to additional prison time, despite his refusal to testify in front of a grand jury, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.But U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones also ruled that the time Patrice Lumumba Ford recently served in the Multnomah County jail will not count toward his 18-year prison sentence, imposed in November 2003.
Ford, who was convicted of attempting to join the Taliban in late fall 2001, was subpoenaed in July by a grand jury in Portland. Beyond confirming his name at grand jury proceedings, Ford refused to answer any questions, saying that his religion prohibited him from implicating a fellow Muslim.
"I find his beliefs in good faith," said Jones. "Mr. Ford's beliefs are sincere — he will not be coerced to testify."
Ford has said that he tried to reach Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 to fulfill an Islamic duty to defend fellow Muslims. Ford and other Portland-area Muslims got as far as western China, but visa troubles thwarted their efforts to get to the war zone. The FBI arrested and convicted six members in 2002. The alleged ringleader remained abroad and died in a shootout with U.S. forces on the Afghan border in 2003.
Law schools take note: Attorney-Client Privilege, Spousal Privilege, and, oh yes, this one just in -- Muslim-Muslim Privilege.
Please insert the following in the Pocket Parts or supplements to Casebooks on Evidence:
"No Muslim may be compelled to testify against another Muslim, because in the Muslim belief-system loyalty is owed only to the umma al-islammiya, the Community of Islam, and a loyalty to the Infidel Nation-State is simply impossible, and for that Infidel Nation-State to compel such testimony would violate deeply-held beliefs and cause untellable psychic damage."
Oh, and please remember to insert a little sheet containiing the above in Wigmore on Evidence as well.
C'mon, Common Law, c'mon Statutory Law, c'mon you silly lawyers, get with the New Program, will you. A new day is dawning. And whose side do you want to be on?
Is this a great loss? Doesn't taqiya require they lie anyway in this sort of situation?
Geoff
By the same token, if a Muslim cannot testify against another Muslim, presumably he cannot testify in support of a Muslim - to be even handed there would have to be an assumption that a Muslim's testimony in support of another Muslim would be disregarded as biased.
But this would require logic and consistency, so it won't happen.
Yeah, and let us not forget that this Islamic scumbag also believes in good faith that he is obligated by allah to kill any non-Muslim adults or children, because they will not submit to his religion. So why isn't he free to practice his religion?
Won't be long before law enforcement agencies, frustated by judicial shielding of muslims, will take to taqiyya themselves and start 'planting' evidence against known muslim criminals and jehadis.
Why, I can start with a few simple ways on how to snare jehadis....
He must be a Democrat. A friend of Michael Moore Maybe?
If a non-Muslim refused to testify before a Grand jury hearing in a legal proceeding concerning such a serious matter, he most certianly would be given jail time.
These politically correct judges such as Robert E. Jones are making a mockery of our justice system.
This catering and pandering to the Muslims is appauling and sicking.
The liberal socialist vermin are bent on destroying this country.
...to live outside the law, you must be Muslim..
Then this is an excellent reason why muslims should not be in the military then.
If Muslims wish to live outside the law in the West, they must live outside the West. It's as simple as that.
Son of Infidel, don't be angry with the law. Can you see how the Muslim has opened possibilities for you? Think outside the square. The new rules say if you are a follower of a religion you don't have to do certain things. What is that saying to you? Invent your own religion and claim the same rights as a muslim.
Here's my example. I was in court about 3 weeks ago. In court was a guy wearing a coffee filter. A sign on the door says 'Please remove hats and switch off mobile phones.' This guy wasn't asked to remove his hat.
Last week I went back to the same court and entered wearing a baseball cap. I was asked to remove it. I said it formed part of my religious belief and that I had to leave it on. I was left alone after that.
Use the new rules to suit yourself.
Your grandchildren will wear muslin.
The right to practice religion is certainly limited in a free society. I may be wrong (I'm a Canadian not an American) but I think the specific wording in the U.S. constitution is something like "Congress shall make no law regardinging the establishment..yadda, yadda, religion". This has been misinterpreted and most people (including this learned imbecile judge) think it means that people have unlimited religious freedom. In actuality, one's right to enjoy particular religious practices does not supercede other aspects of the law. Simply put, judges have to stop making things up as they go along!