Posted on 06/11/2007 11:07:10 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Meaning of 'jihad' focus of Fla. trial
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago
Defense attorneys in the Jose Padilla terrorism support trial are going to great lengths to suggest to jurors that jihad is not necessarily Muslim holy war and that mujahedeen could just as easily be freedom fighters as terrorists.
The meaning of words, especially Arabic words, is center stage as federal prosecutors play hours of FBI telephone intercepts involving Padilla and two other defendants charged with participating in an Islamic extremist support network.
Padilla, 36, is a U.S. citizen who was held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant before he was added to the Miami terror support case in late 2005. U.S. officials initially accused Padilla in 2002 of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" for al-Qaida in a major city, but those allegations are not part of Miami case.
The legal battle about definitions goes to the heart of the defense argument that what Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi were doing from 1994 to 2001 was not supporting terrorism, but providing humanitarian aid to oppressed and persecuted Muslims worldwide.
Prosecutors, however, must show the trio were involved in violence — that the "jihad" they were fighting involved killing and armed struggle. Defense attorneys won one legal skirmish last week when U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke agreed to limit an FBI agent's testimony to references about "jihad" but not "violent jihad."
"That's the term the government has to prove (beyond) a reasonable doubt," said Hassoun attorney Jeanne Baker.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
When is a jihad not a jihad? Depends on the meaning of “is”...
If the prosecution spins this correctly, it could be a fatal blow for the defense. How?
(1) Show that the defense considers there to be one type of jihad, namely just "jihad," not "violent jihad."
(2) Show that at least SOME jihad is violent.
(3) And then, since there is just one type of jihad, as established by the defense, all jihad is violent jihad.
I know, it's a stretch, but if they (libs, defense attorneys, etc.) want to keep arguing that "violent jihad" does not exist apart from "jihad," it behoves us to show that the olny alternative is that all jihad is violent.
bookmark
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.