Comments on: Judge rejects Padilla’s “defensive jihad” theory

By: Michelle Malkin » Breaking: Padilla verdict to be read at 2pm Eastern Update: Guilty, guilty, guilty

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:37:52 +0000

[...] 2:30pm Eastern. We’ll see if any of the jurors are willing to talk, but it seems clear to me that the judge’s decision to allow FBI wiretap evidence was critical–as well as the decision to bar the defense team’s “defensive jihad” propaganda. [...]

By: zyzzyg

zyzzyg — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:08:14 +0000

“A cornerstone of the defense during the nearly three-month trial was the idea that Islamic teaching provides for legitimate “defensive jihad,” which differs from terrorism because it is meant to counter aggression against Muslims and does not threaten innocent people.”

If this issue was raised or alluded to during the trial the prosecutor should have objected to it on the spot.

Waiting to make this point the prosecutor is dancing a little too close to the fire.

By: palani

palani — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:09:16 +0000

A cornerstone of the defense during the nearly three-month trial was the idea that Islamic teaching provides for legitimate “defensive jihad,” which differs from terrorism because it is meant to counter aggression against Muslims and does not threaten innocent people.

Of course, no non-muslim is “innocent”.

By: jimC

jimC — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:19:46 +0000

Thackeragency,

Yes, we have freedom of religion. But all of our rights only go so far. Once they start infringing on others rights, that’s where they end. That’s why one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim the right to free speech.

Jim C

By: jimC

jimC — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:16:08 +0000

In what world did they imagine that it would matter whether or not Islamic law dictated that they do it? America is not governed by Islamic law. To me, this decision seems like a no brainer.

Jim C

By: ThackerAgency

ThackerAgency — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:12:21 +0000

This is where we are going to have Constitutional issues. Freedom of Religion will conflict with human rights and standing laws.

What is going to happen when a ‘hate crime’ against Jews or gay people is committed by a Muslim and the ‘freedom of religion’ defense is used. They may argue that it is a part of their religion to oppress Jews and Gay people who are offensive to their religious beliefs.

Are Rastafarians able to smoke marijuana in their religious ceremonies even though it is against the law?

There are all these muslim apologists downplaying the things that our society is doing to accomodate them (foot baths, no cabs servicing people carrying alcohol, cashiers not ringing up pork, etc, etc, etc).

At some point their religious freedoms will conflict with everyone else’s human rights and freedoms. Something is going to have to give. I’m saying that ‘freedom of religion’ will have to be redefined eventually. The left will talk about ‘civil liberties’, but it all boils down to human rights.

I would love to be a Constitutional lawyer. All of these conflicts are extremely interesting to me. But I can’t stand lawyers.

By: swj719AWG

swj719AWG — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:11:21 +0000

Some time in the 70’s, actually

See: Hanoi Jane

By: wherestherum

wherestherum — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:04:13 +0000

When did trying to overthrow your own country by supporting terrorism stop being considered treason?

By: taylork

taylork — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:33:34 +0000

Don’t worry, I’m sure the ACLU will help him appeal, citing that the judge violated Padilla’s civil rights in deciding that Islamic law can’t be a deciding factor in a jury’s decision

By: geminicontender

geminicontender — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:25:37 +0000

Spencer is correct. Their laws belong in the Middle East. You come here, you follow our rules regardless of religion or politics. Finally a judge who isn’t an activist, just a judge supporting the ideals in our Constitution.

By: walterc

walterc — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:22:46 +0000

Finally a judge that gets it.