The defense says references to jihad and al-Qaeda would be "inflammatory" -- never mind establishing motive.
"US: Don't drop jihad references from charges," from the Associated Press, July 18:
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) - Federal prosecutors say they should not be forced to drop references to al-Qaida and jihad from the indictment of 5 men accused of plotting to attack soldiers on Fort Dix.
Lawyers for the men last month asked a judge to delete such language, saying it was "inflammatory" and was included in earlier court filings to incite prejudice against the defendants.
In a response filed Friday, government lawyers said the terms in question are central to the case, arguing that jihadist principles caused the defendants to undertake the criminal conduct.
The five men were charged in May 2007. An attack was never carried out.
In other court papers filed Friday, the government said the trial should not be moved from Camden. It's scheduled to start in October.
The men, all foreign-born Muslims in their 20s, have spent much of their lives in the Philadelphia area. They are being held in the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia.
They're desperately trying to hide from reality. In Spain a bunch of them were just aquitted. Shameless cowardice and dhimmitude rules EUrabia...
Maybe they should also drop bomb terrorist and any other subject matter they deem not nice from the case to staRT WITH "THE PROSECUTION STATES THESE 5 NICE GUYS ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE JUST WANT TO PICK ON MUSLIMS"
THE HIPOCRISY KINOWS NO BOUNDS LOL.
What will it take for the gov't to take these attacks more seriouly? deport these low lifes for a start.
From the article:
The defendants should have thought about deleting such 'inflammtory' and 'prejudicial' language from their own vocabulary a long time ago.
& &Well, guess what suckers . . .YOU got caught, and IT DOES MATTER!.
False bravado, the consistent shade of piety when separated from the feral pack.
Not to my surprise, the AP report is rather incomplete and nebulous. I have a few questions:
1) Is the defense motion under consideration to include deleting ALL references to "jihad" and "al Qaeda" during the trial?
2) Does this defense motion include the editing of evidentiary items, such as confessions given by the defendants, or recorded phone conversations, so as to prevent the jury from hearing the complete confessions or the entire content of the phone conversations?
3) Does the motion include the redacting of documentary evidence that might bolster the prosecution's case, such as blacking out the "J" or "al-Qaeda" words, or Koranic verse references, any of which might give the jury a clue as to why these men were making their plans?
If the prosecution succeeds in getting the motion denied, bully for them (and us).
If the Court grants even part of the motion and suppresses ANY such words from ANY facet of the trial, we are in much deeper dhimmi trouble than any of us could imagine. This would set a precedent for all future trials that could deliver a crippling blow to our abilities to "bring terrorists to justice" - you know - that's the favorite phrase of the American left for how to deal with our Terrible Problem.
A clear example of the PC idiocy that intrudes into our government thinking and policies, based on the flawed thinking that thinks somehow things will be different if we don't call a spade a spade. Even federal prosecutors recognize the importants of defining the term jihad as they go along in their prosecution of this case. So what if the terrorists are proud of the term Jihad, let it be what is defined as.
Is anyone getting good and sick of this pandering to the "islamic race;" or are our bellies big enough to stoamch more?
My guess is that you better get used to more of such pandering because for one example, there is this:
But you see, the pandering to islam won't stop there. It won't stop with the islamic calenders at the state department paid for by us tax dollars. It won't stop with the inclusion of auxillary shariah courts that augment the US justice system. The pandering won't stop with forcing American students to participate in muslim prayers activities while at public schools.
Remember mohammad atta? He was the murderer that stole a plane, fly it into one of the wtc towers and murdered 3000 Ameican civilians.
That murderer was correct, his action was an opening salvo in the islamic war against the west.
What atta never would have guessed perhaps, is how many supporters and allies he would have in the coming years, within the western governments themselves; officials who would take his baby step to force islam on the rest of us, and run with it.
Then again, perhaps he did know?
In any case, when eith BO Mccain take over the oval office, don't be too surprised at how the appetite for pandering to the "islamic race" escalates.
Watch with shame, as the elected leaders smile and pat each other on the back hailing a new day in America -- then weep!
The freedoms that your parents and great-grand parents purchase for you with their blood are being given away to strange hands that seek nothing more than your demise.
How big is your belly for such loathsome fare?
Wake me when the revolution is over...
The flaw is with the jury...A 'fully informed' jury will already know that these jihadi's did it for Allah, and their own ticket to 72 ice cream stores in Paradise. Education of the western masses is what is needed to be done and is being done. Jury selection will be difficult in these cases because nearly everyone, soon, will know and understand jihad. Our hero's in this respect, are Spencer, Hugh, Walid Shoeblat, Hersi Ali, Sultan, Emerson,
and many others...the point is, that list is growing. It is extending out to 'ordinary moms and dads'. These are the people who comprise a jury.
These are also the people who talk about it over coffee at the local donut shop. 'Jihad is always on my mind', is not a song 'owned' by Islam, kufirs can hum it also...especially in court...
No jihad, no motive, not guilty. Next case.
I wonder if the defense lawyers cited in their brief the latest DHS memo prohibiting the use of the term "jihad" by DHS personel. It would be quite difficult for the U.S. Attorneys to explain how one arm of the U.S. Government (DHS) sees harm in the use of such terms, and prohibits their usage, while another (DOJ) sees it as essential.
This defense motion represents two things seriously wrong with this 'War on Terror'. The first is that we cannot name the enemy, with the enemy using our legal system to make the claim that we should not be able to name it, either. The second, and most obvious, is that we cannot fight a religious war inside our courts. Clinton tried that, and it failed miserably. Just as it will fail again. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.