Al-Arian Walk Watch: the prosecution is trying to convince us that his motives don't matter, and that what he believes about jihad and related things doesn't either. Of course, they wouldn't even attempt this were it not for the PC mantras about the Religion of Peace that still dominate the media and government. From the Tampa Tribune, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
However, prosecutors on Thursday filed a series of four motions asking U.S. District Judge James Moody to prohibit the defense from asserting political claims or injecting into the trial issues of war and peace in the Middle East. The motions all sought to bar the defense from proceeding under different legal theories that amounted to possible justifications for the violent actions of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or explanations for the defendants' motives.``This trial is not the appropriate forum for conducting a referendum on international law, the legality and morality of the existence and boundaries of Israel, or the plight of ethnic Palestinians,'' prosecutors wrote. ``To open the doors to a debate about the merits of extraneous political and religious issues would only serve to divert the jury's attention from the only relevant issue in the case, which is the defendants' innocence or guilt of the charged offenses.''
The specific charges are providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, racketeering and conspiracy. Prosecutors, through the motions filed Thursday, are apparently trying to limit the defendants to evidence relating to whether they did what was alleged in the indictment.
``Allowing the defendants to present evidence, and argue to the jury, the merits of their beliefs about the conflict would only serve to inflame and politicize the trial, while directly embroiling the court in a complex, intractable and unnecessary political debate,'' the prosecutors wrote.
Among the motions was one asking the judge to bar the defense from arguing that they or the organization were ``lawful combatants'' in the conflict in the Middle East and, therefore, not subject to criminal convictions.
In that motion, the government asserted that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is not covered by the protections provided by international treaties, such as the Geneva Convention, partly because it is not a recognized government and its members do not abide by international law governing combat.
The prosecution also argued in its motion that Israeli actions don't matter in the trial. ``It is irrelevant to the determination of lawful combatant status whether the actions of the combatants are philosophically, morally or ethically justified or noble.''
In a direct shot at Al-Arian's claims to be a peaceful human rights advocate, prosecutors wrote, ``Persons who covertly support or manage a violent terrorist organization, while masquerading as scholars and civilians or purporting to direct a humanitarian charity, are not entitled to the special protections afforded to lawful combatants under international law.''
Of course, they wouldn't even attempt this were it not for the PC mantras about the Religion of Peace that still dominate the media and government.
Vedddddy interesting.
Of course, they wouldn't even attempt this were it not for the PC mantras about the Religion of Peace that still dominate the media and government.
Vedddddy interesting.
Of course, they wouldn't even attempt this were it not for the PC mantras about the Religion of Peace that still dominate the media and government./I>
Vedddddy interesting.
Dammit to hell... sorry about that. Too bad the comments can't be taken back.
To try to make it up to my fellow jihad resisters, let me give you this good news. USF is my Alma Mater, and last year I was talking to a faculty member of USF. I asked him whither Al Aryan... he told me that the prevailing consensus on campus is that IF he beats his rap, he will at least be deported.
Hopefully, hopefully, hopefully, the case against him is fool-proof--and given the fact that some evidence was "accidentally" shredded, I do mean "fool". The allegedly have 50 counts against him, all based of wiretapped telephone conversations.
Please, if there is a God, see to it that Al-Aryan faces justice.
Actually, Mr. Spencer, it is the prosecution that is trying to convince us that his motives don't matter.
Witness their very interesting statement:
"It is irrelevant to the determination of lawful combatant status whether the actions of the combatants are philosophically, morally or ethically justified or noble."
The article uses this quote in reference to Israeli's who are apparently "lawful combatants". In other words, Israeli soldiers are lawful combatants irregardless of whether they are morally or ethically justified whereas Palestinian fighters are unlawful combatants regardless of whether their cause is morally or ethically justified.
oh yeah thats it, or maybe its because arabs like to strap bombs to themselves in the name of allah, and have a perpensity to cut of peoples heads while chanting allah akbar.
Shurki,
"Irregardless" isn't a word.
You almost have it right though: moral and ethical justifications don't matter in the determination of "lawful combatant" status, REGARDless of nationality.
Essentially, an army is required to fight reasonably open battles and not hide among the civilian population. The Palestinian terrorists (I could have called them "fighters", but I'm afraid your score on that card is all played out, Shurki, since you refuse to abandon diatribe) don't measure up on this score. They deliberately target civilians (unlike, I might add, the Americans) and they hide among the civilian population. And in your examples, don't differentiate between the individuals (i.e. the Israeli soldiers) and the "cause" (which you use to justify the Palestinian terrorists).
Geoff
Psst Ramaz! Hey bro, you can tell me man, when did you convert to Islam?
Shukri,
Quite so -- as was always reflected in the headline. I have made the correction.
Thanks
Robert Spencer
Shukri posts: "The article uses this quote in reference to Israeli's who are apparently "lawful combatants". In other words, Israeli soldiers are lawful combatants irregardless of whether they are morally or ethically justified whereas Palestinian fighters are unlawful combatants regardless of whether their cause is morally or ethically justified."
The Geneva Conventions (GC) are set up to protect soldiers, not "fighters", and the definition of legal combatants is made explicitly clear. The protections guaranteed under the GC covers soldiers in uniform who carry their weapons openly and abide by the rules of war as set forth in the GC. A HAMAS suicide bomber, in civilian clothing, with a hidden explosives belt attacking civilian non-combatants is neither a soldier nor a legal combatant, and is not entitled to the protections under the Geneva Conventions.
Ramaz-
What America has always supported is UN efforts to establish both a Jewish and Arab/Muslim state in Palestine. Just because the United States has not supported Arab attempts to annihilate Israel does not mean it "supports Israel over Palestine".
Your slanderous accusation that America's policy regarding an accommodation of the conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Muslims in Palestine is both ignorant and baseless. If anyone is guilty of bigotry it is the Arabs, for refusing to peacefully co-exist with Jews, seeking the destruction of the Jewish state, and seeking to impose the abomination of Dhimmitude upon its people.
"Al-Arian Walk Watch: the prosecution is trying to convince us that his motives don't matter, and that what he believes about jihad and related things doesn't either"
Robert, Why didn't you post this on Dhimmi Watch?
Kemaste,
Come to think of it, you're probably right.
Best
RS
Oops - the final paragraph in my last post should have read (addressed to Ramaz):
"Your slanderous accusation regarding America's policy of accommodating the conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Muslims in Palestine is both ignorant and baseless. If anyone is guilty of bigotry it is the Arabs, for refusing to peacefully co-exist with Jews, seeking the destruction of the Jewish state, and seeking to impose the abomination of Dhimmitude upon its people."
I'll get this English thing down one of these days.
The Geneva Convention is a treaty among nations and the treaty applies to those nations that have signed the treaty such as the US. No terrorist organization is entitled to protection under the Geneva convention since none have ever signed the treaty.Even if Al Qaeda or Islamic Jihad had signed the treaty they would forfeit any protection under the Geneva conventions because they violate the laws of war. Islamic terrorists do not wear uniforms or carry their weapons openly to identify themselves as combatants.They also deliberately attack civilians and have murdered captives. Islamic terrorists are unlawful combatants and are not entitled to be treated as honorable warriors.
``Allowing the defendants to present evidence, and argue to the jury, the merits of their beliefs about the conflict would only serve to inflame and politicize the trial, while directly embroiling the court in a complex, intractable and unnecessary political debate,'' the prosecutors wrote.
WELL THIS COULD BE A GOOD THING IF THEY WANT TO ARGURE ABOUT MULSUM BELIEFS MAKE SURE YOU POINT TO THE HATEING OF ALL WHO ARE NON-MULSUMS IN THE QU-RAN AND EVEN SOME MULSUMS WHO WANT PEACE THIS WILL TURN A LOT OF HEADS!!
WHY IS THIS IN THE COURTS HE PLEDED GUILTY!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH,WISDOM,SIGHT, AND COUAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
"Goes to motive, your honor!" How many times have we heard that courtroom line in film and on tv. Of course his beliefs must be included. To allow his motives to be brought into the courtroom would hold Islam up to public scrutiny and disrepute. Will the Federal prosecutors have the courage to pull this off??? Look out for reports of bombings on the eleven o'clock news!