Dhimmitude on a technicality. "'Terrorism' barred at trial of three Yemeni men," by Gary Craig for the Rochester Democrat-Chronicle, August 17 (thanks to T.):
Three Yemeni men once accused of a willingness to support the terrorist-linked Hezbollah organization are now being tried in federal court in a case in which neither terrorism nor Hezbollah are likely to be mentioned.Instead, the trial, expected to last six weeks, is focused on whether the men illegally transferred money overseas.
On trial are Yehia Ali Ahmed Alomari, 28, Mohamed Al Huraibi, 52, and Saleh Mohamed Taher Saeed, 30.
Authorities allege that the three men, caught in a sting operation, agreed to illegally transport more than $100,000 to overseas accounts in the Middle East. Prosecutors have claimed that an undercover agent told the men that Hezbollah would control the money.
U.S. District Judge Charles Siragusa has ruled however that, because the actual criminal charges the men confront are about money-laundering and not terrorist-related, prosecutors cannot mention Hezbollah or terrorism at the trial. The May 2008 indictment of the three men, in fact, makes no mention of terrorism or Hezbollah....
So supporting terrorists and terrorist organizations is now reduced to "money laundering."
Grab your ankles, dhimmi America.
"We are not at war with Islam and we will never be at war with Islam."
Your Muslim POTUS Hussein Obama.
What do you expect?
Coward Country USA! Coward Country USA! Coward Country USA! Cowering lower, and lower, and lower before Hezbollah and Iran, the serial mass-murderers of Americans! Murdering Serb Christians and brutally eradicating Christianity from Kosovo is all this disgraceful nation is good for.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
This is beyond me, unlike some European states the U.S. sees Hezbollah clearly as a terrorist organisation, not like a resistance movement, as if these terrorists had anything in common with the glorious résistance in France against the Nazis.
"U.S. District Judge Charles Siragusa has ruled however that, because the actual criminal charges the men confront are about money-laundering and not terrorist-related, prosecutors cannot mention Hezbollah or terrorism at the trial. The May 2008 indictment of the three men, in fact, makes no mention of terrorism or Hezbollah..."
That's rubbish squared, even if the May 2008 indictment doesn't mention any terrorist related activities and/or Hezbollah, I don't see any reason why these counts shouldn't be added to the indictment. Judge Charles Siragusa is a dhimmi, he's supposed to protect the American people and not to do favours to some terrorists, that is not his job.
"On trial are Yehia Ali Ahmed Alomari, 28, Mohamed Al Huraibi, 52, and Saleh Mohamed Taher Saeed, 30."
Two out of three are "Mohameds". Whould've thunk it?
Dear Ruslan, you're so right, I was enraged like you when NATO attacked the Serbs and stole their Kosovo, a Serbian province full of Serbian heritage and culture and they gave it to... the moon god worshippers. Shame on us!
Defense attorneys have challenged why a key witness, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent central to the investigation, may have destroyed notes of talks with a confidential informant when the ICE policy appears to require the maintenance of such notes.
Similarly, the confidential informant, who has yet to testify, has already been the subject of heated debates away from the jury because the government did not initially provide to the defense records in which the informant was the focus of calls to federal authorities.
Prosecutors say they only discovered the information last week. The informant is a man of Middle Eastern descent who befriended one of the accused as part of the sting.
In those calls to authorities, a neighbor of the informant claimed the man was very "anti-American" yet was saying he helped the federal government with investigations and had access to classified information.
.
Another one bites the dust.....
Just have them repatriated to Yemen, it'll be cheaper.
So the view of the court is that there is no meaningful difference between:
--simple money-laundering for personal profit, and
--money-laundering done specifically to support America's military enemies.
I'm not sure whether this is more dhimmitude or dummy-tude.
Either way it's treasonous.
Judge Siragusa was APPOINTED BY CLINTON!
Enough Said.
"Three Yemeni men once accused of a willingness to support the terrorist-linked Hezbollah organization are now being tried in federal court in a case in which neither terrorism nor Hezbollah are likely to be mentioned."
Of course they won't be mentioned, which is also supported by the tentacles of the Obamapus; you know, since he declared that we are no longer at war with Islam.
Lets see, an undercover agent can testify to their connection to Hezbollah, and yet the judge is giving Hez a pass? ...seems that the wrong men are on trial here! Hmmm.
Again, the obvious question: why were these guys even in this country? How many terrorists are going to be allowed to come into this country before we realise that these guy mean to do us and our friends harm?
I am so tired of not being at war with folks who are at war with us.......
This is insanity. It is like being arrested for money laundering on behalf of the Mafia, but not being permitted to mention the Mafia in the trial. Or being arrested for performing a contract kill, or bribing a judge, or making illegal campaign contributions on behalf of the Mafia and not being able to mention the Mafia at the trial. How is it even possible to conduct a trial without being able to name the principles involved in the crime? Without being able to name names and maping out the complete set of connections, one might as well be talking about the Easter Bunny or Aliens or Elvis.
Someone might wish to take a close look at the record of U.S. District Judge Charles Siragusa (a Clinton appointee http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Charles_Siragusa ) to see if there might be something in the judge's background that would predispose him to take this position.
If only they took it one step further and held a fully Kafkaesque trial where not only the judge, but also the defendants didn’t know what they were there for, but that it must be for some reason because they wouldn’t have been brought to trial unless it was required. Add to this denial of the defendant to meet their accuser, as it is unnecessary for the function of the trial, which in itself is never meant to actually meet a judicial conclusion, but only an endless series of delays, side bars, reconvienances, and re-trials; during which the defendants are required to stay in custody and build their case from scratch with an equally incompetent state appointed lawyer…hopefully an infidel lawyer.
When wine starts turning into water, and police doggies have to wear paw-booties when searching ilsamic property in the US, build an island on the plastic vortex in the middle of the Pacific and call it Siragusaland. Run it like a Kafka nightmare and send all those who would usurp civilization in the name of islam to it, and only let them out when they get near death with a terminal disease so the Saudi Health Care Plan can take care of them. Because they will all get terminal diseases, as they will be fed on the fish that feed on the micro-plastic debris of the island built on the vortex.
In one fell swoop, we can eliminate the global threat created by oil: Oil allowed islam to thrive to the threat level it is today; plastics are made from oil; feed the soldiers of islam plastic and they’ll be sped on to their virgins by the very fabric found in the lands of Mecca.
It’s all a fantasy of course, but anyone can make stuff up, call it a law unto itself, pass judgment on who lives and who dies, kinda like some satanic verses I read recently…
KK,
Excellent post. When do you leave for the Sandbox?
I wish you well! And plese keep us updated and informed towards your status.
I'm going to swim against the stream here...
You can't blame the judge for this one; it's the fault of the prosecutors for not including any terrorism charges in the indictment. Like Eastview said above, it's like being involved in an organised crime trial not not talking about organised crime - except it's like being tried for murder, oh and by the way, it's a contract killing for the mafia.
Sorry, if you're not charging under organised crime laws, then you cannot mention organised crime.
The problem lies in being able to prejudice the jury in a way that is irrelevant to the charge; in this case, since there is no charge of terrorism, there can be no mention of terrorism.
The only way open to the prosecution team is to find new separate charges that somehow relate to terrorism and add those to this trial. It's a long shot because the defense will argue that they will not have had time to prepare for these new charges and defendants must be offered a new trial. Which would mean a mistrial in this instance or (potentially) double jeopardy on a new trial.
Sounds like a prosecutorial clerical error that the defense has jumped on.
Three Yemeni men once accused of a willingness to support the terrorist-linked Hezbollah organization are now being tried in federal court in a case in which neither terrorism nor Hezbollah are likely to be mentioned.
Instead, the trial, expected to last six weeks, is focused on whether the men illegally transferred money overseas.
..................
Orwellian insanity. You'd think these defendants were sending their dear abuela in Mexico some money through an unauthorized bodega, or something--instead of funding *Hizb'allah terrorists*.
It very much reminds me of the situation with the Fairfax Saudi Academy in Virginia, where people opposed to the expansion of a school that teaches hatred of Americans and Jews were legally reduced to nattering on about increased traffic and parking problems.
Oh well.
Money laundering, eh?
Why not cut the Gordian knot and declare the whole of the Ummah, or Muslim Mob, to be the world's oldest and biggest and longest-running Organised Crime Gang Scam/ Cult, equivalent to the Mafia, the Thuggees and the Yakuza and Triads, only worse; and then start applying RICOH (or is it RICO?) left right and centre, up down and sideways.
When did motive become irrelevant to a criminal trial? There's no way this judge would rule that prosecutors couldn't give the jury motive in, say, a simple murder trial.
1. Make sure to trace the contributions back to the donees, interview them to see if they knew where the money was going. I would guess many think that their money was going to do good and finance the affairs of the mosque. I think many would be shocked to think that their money was going for rockets and suicide vests. Finally publicize the scheme so both ordinary non muslims and muslims that do not support terrorism, will know of the dangers associated with Islamic charities and the need to check out who and how the money is spent.
2. Failing that start the "Back to wherever the hell you came from" movement, ala the great Marcus Garvey.