Jihadis and Democrats

By

Democrats have always tended to advocate a legal approach towards dealing with terrorism.Yet, now we have liberal Democrats striving to apply the most obtuse and absurd reasoning they can (which is offensive on its face) to try to free defendants from prosecution.

The Washington Times notes:

Democratic strategist and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, and the former American Civil Liberties Union president in Massachusetts, Harvey Silvergate, recently joined the attorneys representing two alleged Boston al Qaeda funders. [....]

...the suspects' attorneys also argue that such charitable giving, to support the jihad and mujahideen, is rightfully tax—exempt under U.S. constitutional protection of religious freedom. Moreover, they compare their support of Islam's "holy war" to the Jewish National Fund (JNF) appeals for tax—deductible "donations to finance the purchase of bulletproof vests, helmets and firetrucks in connection with the 2006 Israel—Lebanon conflict."

Equating the supply of bulletproof vests to defend Israeli civilians from Hezbollah's jihad with the funding of weapons and martyrs (holy warriors) for the jihad is preposterous. The JNF does not promote religiosity. Rather, it was incorporated in the United States in 1926 to develop the ancient Jewish homeland and to maintain and encourage the connection of the Jewish people to it. In contrast, Care was established to promote and advance al Qaeda's version of Islam.

A similar odd legal tactic is being used to try to reduce the sentencing for terror lawyer and facilator Lynne Stewart where she is using an  Uncontrolled Emotion Defense to try to wiggle a lesser sentence for aiding and abetting terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.
If Democrats want us to feel confident that we should rely on courts to protect us from terrror, they might consider a halt to relying on loopholes and tricks to fool the court and juries.

Ed Lasky  10 16 06

Democrats have always tended to advocate a legal approach towards dealing with terrorism.Yet, now we have liberal Democrats striving to apply the most obtuse and absurd reasoning they can (which is offensive on its face) to try to free defendants from prosecution.

The Washington Times notes:

Democratic strategist and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, and the former American Civil Liberties Union president in Massachusetts, Harvey Silvergate, recently joined the attorneys representing two alleged Boston al Qaeda funders. [....]

...the suspects' attorneys also argue that such charitable giving, to support the jihad and mujahideen, is rightfully tax—exempt under U.S. constitutional protection of religious freedom. Moreover, they compare their support of Islam's "holy war" to the Jewish National Fund (JNF) appeals for tax—deductible "donations to finance the purchase of bulletproof vests, helmets and firetrucks in connection with the 2006 Israel—Lebanon conflict."

Equating the supply of bulletproof vests to defend Israeli civilians from Hezbollah's jihad with the funding of weapons and martyrs (holy warriors) for the jihad is preposterous. The JNF does not promote religiosity. Rather, it was incorporated in the United States in 1926 to develop the ancient Jewish homeland and to maintain and encourage the connection of the Jewish people to it. In contrast, Care was established to promote and advance al Qaeda's version of Islam.

A similar odd legal tactic is being used to try to reduce the sentencing for terror lawyer and facilator Lynne Stewart where she is using an  Uncontrolled Emotion Defense to try to wiggle a lesser sentence for aiding and abetting terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.
If Democrats want us to feel confident that we should rely on courts to protect us from terrror, they might consider a halt to relying on loopholes and tricks to fool the court and juries.

Ed Lasky  10 16 06