Posted on 07/09/2005 6:49:50 PM PDT by chet_in_ny
In a recent criminal trial in Virginia, the prosecutor told the jury that the defendant couldn't be trusted to tell the truth, that he would lie to their faces -- all because of his religious beliefs.
ADVERTISEMENT The defendant, an American citizen accused of supporting terrorism, was convicted. The religion in question, of course, was Islam.
Now, the Virginia attorney representing Ali Al-Timimi is pushing for a new trial, saying that prosecutors secured the guilty verdict by appealing to religious bigotry against Muslims.
The case illustrates the difficulty in prosecuting suspected terrorists who subscribe to a form of militant Islam, without airing tenets of the religion itself before a jury. And it raises the question of how far is too far when it comes to using a defendant's religious beliefs as evidence of criminal intent. The issue will likely continue to confront judges as more cases against accused terrorists come to trial.
Timimi's lawyer, Edward MacMahon Jr., is seeking to overturn Timimi's conviction, citing prosecutorial misconduct and the prejudicial impact of statements he says portrayed Islam as a violent religion. One specific objection: that Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg instructed the jury in his closing argument that Timimi, a devout Muslim, would lie to jurors because the jurors were "kafir" -- or nonbelievers.
(Excerpt) Read more at biz.yahoo.com ...
Now, that's something worth doing!
That loud KLUNKing sound you just heard was my jaw, bouncing off the floor.
Exactly damn right. If the truth be grounds for a mistrial, then working within the system is impossible.
My favorite was:
MacMahon adds, "The effect of it, and the exact reason the government does it, is that the defendant has to defend himself against an aura of criminality that is unrelated to the actual events of the case."
As if hell bent world domination based on one's religious beliefs is not related to the motive of the crime.
Unbelieveable.
Prosecutor: Do you always lie?
Defendant: yes.
Defense Attorney: Objection.
Prosecutor: Let me rephrase the question--do you ever tell the truth?
Defendant: No.
Don't disagree.
...the use of expert witnesses to school jurors in the history of Islam, much like a prosecutor might use an expert witness to provide background on the Mafia in an organized-crime case.
The phrase that comes to mind is: "If the shoe fits."
I'm surprised, though, that the word taqiyya, which is the specific Islamic doctrine that permits a Muslim to lie to the infidel, apparently wasn't mentioned.
Self reference problem internal logical contradictions!
I wondered if anyone would catch it.
This article presents a good argument for prosecuting all terrorism-related cases through military tribunals.
How exactly is a Muslim defendant/witness sworn-in in the US anyway? What oath do they speak? Not that they wouldn't lie anyway (takkiya), but I'm morbidly curious.
Yes, Mr. McMahon you seem to get it. Now please sit down and STFU.
The truth hurts.
If we can't use the courts to stop terrorists, the only alternative will be for citizens to do it themselves in the streets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.