Portland, Oregon: Prosecutors of would-be jihad mass murderer ask permission to use the word “jihad”

It is astounding, and indicative of just how much the public discourse has degenerated, that this is even an issue. Mohamud used the word “jihad,” but prosecutors have to ask if they can please characterize his motives and goals accurately, at his trial.

“‘Terrorist,’ ‘violent jihad’ among words prosecutors want to use in Portland terrorism trial,” by Nigel Duara for the Associated Press, November 7:

PORTLAND, Ore. “” Prosecutors want to call an Oregon man a terrorist while referring to violent jihad and martyrdom, words his defense attorneys have asked a federal judge to forbid.

Federal prosecutors preparing for the January trial of Mohamed Mohamud said in a motion filed Tuesday that the court should let them use the terms because they accurately characterize Mohamud’s “conduct and the nature of his case.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight notes in the motion that Mohamud himself allegedly used the terms “terrorism” and “jihad” when speaking with undercover agents, though records of such conversations have not yet been made public.

Knight also seeks to refer to Mohamud’s occasional dispatches for the jihadist magazine “Jihad Recollections,” reports that Mohamud’s attorneys say are protected speech done while Mohamud, 21, was a minor.

Mohamud is accused of conspiring with men he believed were Islamic radicals to detonate a car bomb near a 2010 Portland Christmas tree-lighting ceremony. The bomb was a fake provided by the government and the men were undercover agents.

Defense attorneys Steve Sady and Steve Wax argued in a motion that such words will “blur and dilute the specific elements of the offense and distort the facts of the case.”…

Distort the facts? That’s what Sady and Wax are trying to do, not anyone else. But their obfuscation is accepted practice and prescribed wisdom, so they will probably win the day.

Bridge for sale: Judge says Muhammad filmmaker's sentence unrelated to movie
Political prisoner in Obama's U.S.: Muhammad filmmaker gets one year in prison
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Why should Jihad not been mentioned. We all know it is the personal stuggle of each Muslim to become a better person and comply with the peaceloving wishes of Allah. Did not the most perfect of all men say “I have been commanded by Allah to embrace with love the unbelievers, until they all say none has the right to be worshipped but Allah”.

  2. says

    We all have our ideas of who God is and what we think of others who worship differently. I myself think God the Father is the only true God and Jesus is God’s only beloves Son. As for as having to ask permissiom to use the word jihad is ridiculous. The word jihad is just a word like any other word. It is nothing special, just a word that describes the meaning of something. So why not use it with out permission. Here in America we have the 1st amendment right to free speech, to say what is on our mind, to speak freely without fear of retribution. The word jihad is not a bad word like the four letter words that are used for cussing or to offend someone. We are going to far on this thing of political correctness when it comes to offending a group of people when we can’t use or need permission to use a word that is just a word that is used every day by everyone. Now if the word was an offensive word then that may make a difference. But even then to have to ask permission to use a particular word is highly ridiculous. To have to change or watch which words we use or say even in recards to Muslims is ridiculous. No offence but we are taking this Muslim, thing a little to far. As long as the person speaking is not putting down a Muslim then he should be allowed to speak his peace, no permission needed.