![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||
|
Al-Moayad and Zayed walk watch. Some of the evidence dates from the time before Al-Qaeda was designated a terrorist group, so it is inadmissable, you see. From the New York Times, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
In an important victory for a Yemeni sheik charged with financing terrorism, a federal judge yesterday prevented prosecutors from introducing what they have described as vital evidence during their initial presentation to the jury.The judge in federal court in Brooklyn, Sterling Johnson Jr., ruled that the prosecutors cannot display three items they have said are their only corroboration for secretly recorded conversations in which they say the sheik and an aide plotted to take money for terrorist organizations....
The ruling was important because the items the judge banned were the prosecutors' only way of proving that the defendants' supposed plan to take money for Al Qaeda and Hamas was part of a long-running effort to provide financial support to terrorist organizations.
The sheik, Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, 56, and his aide, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed, 31 are charged with conspiracy and providing financial support for Al Qaeda and Hamas.
The ruling, which created palpable anxiety among the prosecutors, said the prosecutors cannot show jurors an application of a mujahedeen fighter for entry into an Al Qaeda training camp. The prosecutors said the application, found in Afghanistan in 2001, listed Sheik Moayad as the fighter's sponsor.
The ruling also stopped prosecutors from introducing into evidence address books taken from two Muslim fighters in Bosnia in 1996. The prosecutors said the books included entries for Sheik Moayad.
Judge Johnson said that "we don't know what the source" of the Al Qaeda application was and that the address books were from a time too remote from the alleged fund-raising by the sheik in 2003. Judge Johnson said they dated back to before Al Qaeda was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States government.
The third item he banned during the prosecution's initial presentation was a videotape of a wedding in Yemen that the prosecutors said included images of Sheik Moayad cheering about the death of Jews in a Hamas terrorist attack in Israel.
Focusing on a central vulnerability for the prosecutors, Judge Johnson noted that the videotape was taken by the prosecution's main informer, Mohamed Alanssi. Mr. Alanssi drew attention to a history that included bad debts and legal troubles when he set himself on fire outside the White House in November.
After that act, the prosecutors suggested they would not call Mr. Alanssi as a witness. Yesterday, Judge Johnson said the prosecutors could not show the wedding videotape unless Mr. Alanssi testified.
"If the informant wants to come in and testify as to what he saw and observed, I'll allow it," Judge Johnson said from the bench.
Posted by Robert at January 26, 2005 6:19 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
So...since the Muslim Brotherhood is not on the official list of terrorist organizations, then whatever they do is hunky dory? Doesn't count?
Mercy.
Posted by: rb
at January 26, 2005 7:19 AM
What bloody madness?
Who'll hold these loony judges accountable? Suppose this rat goes free and merrily passes funds to murderers, will the esteemed judge lose even a single minute of peaceful sleep over the blood of jihad victims? And the legislators are being dumb in not going overboard about this pressing internal security issue.
Posted by: voletti
at January 26, 2005 7:53 AM
There are lunatics sitting on the bench! What madness, allowing these people free now to operate with impunity.
Posted by: epg
at January 26, 2005 9:37 AM
This guy only serves to prove the point: No matter who appoints them to the office, in the end it is their own thinking that prevails, not the ideaology of the President who appointed them.
In this case, Bush 41. -_-
(but don't think for a moment such reasoning will prevail when Bush 43's guys come up for a vote. The Left will be screaming)
Posted by: Gary
at January 26, 2005 10:16 AM
"Some of the evidence dates from the time before Al-Qaeda was designated a terrorist group, so it is inadmissable"
Why aren't these laws retroactive to the establishment of the terrorist organization? Who's the sock-puppet who drafted this law??
Posted by: Mike
at January 26, 2005 11:59 AM
Another in a long list of activist Judges fighting the war on terror, on the side of terrorists. He should be debenched.
Posted by: Prickzilla
at January 26, 2005 3:23 PM
Every time I read about some judge letting go a virtually-certified Islamic jihadist or Holy warrior (or as I call them mass murderers), the mental image of the tormented ghosts of the half billion or so human beings murdered by Islam over the past 13 centuries staring silently and tragically appears in mind's eye....
Posted by: pythagoras
at January 26, 2005 8:23 PM
OT but there is a new anti-Islamic group called the United British Alliance. This is a non-racist, and inclusive of everyone who is opposed to Islamic fundamentalist group.
There website is www.unitedbritish.org
Posted by: Voltaire
at January 26, 2005 8:48 PM
I have seen the way the Legal System works(or dosn't work)in Australia.We are suppose to have a Criminal Justice System here,But I call it the Criminal Legal System there never is Justice(especially for Victims of crime).My daughter was gang raped by 14 Muslim pigs and we were told not to see it as a hate crime.Only 8 were caught,tried and sentenced.Now we are fighting the Court of Criminal Appeal because a judge threw out evidence.Lets not forget The Law won't protect us,judges won't protect us and the Legal system is corrupt to the core.
Why aren't judges accountable?
Why aren't lawyers accountable?
Why aren't Pollies accountable?
My daughter has suffered for 4 1/2 years and there still is no end in sight,we still have another re-trial to go yet.
I hate Islam and Muslims
at January 27, 2005 2:33 AM


(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)