Drop Term 'Jihad' in Charges -Accused Jihadis

[Calanen]

US: Don't drop jihad references from charges

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) - Federal prosecutors say they should not be forced to drop references to al-Qaida and jihad from the indictment of 5 men accused of plotting to attack soldiers on Fort Dix.

Lawyers for the men last month asked a judge to delete such language, saying it was "inflammatory" and was included in earlier court filings to incite prejudice against the defendants.

In a response filed Friday, government lawyers said the terms in question are central to the case, arguing that jihadist principles caused the defendants to undertake the criminal conduct.

The five men were charged in May 2007. An attack was never carried out.
In other court papers filed Friday, the government said the trial should not be moved from Camden. It's scheduled to start in October.

The men, all foreign-born Muslims in their 20s, have spent much of their lives in the Philadelphia area. They are being held in the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.wfmj.com/Global/story.asp?S=8700600

[Calanen]

Heaven forbid we might 'offend' the people accused of trying to blow up Fort Dix. We really need to be more culturally sensitive when we present indictments.

[Invisigoth]

Heaven forbid we might 'offend' the people accused of trying to blow up Fort Dix. We really need to be more culturally sensitive when we present indictments.

The point the defense is making is not about offending people but about the charges establishing prejudice against the defendants before they are convicted, based on that whole innocent till proven guilty ****.

[Calanen]

The point the defense is making is not about offending people but about the charges establishing prejudice against the defendants before they are convicted, based on that whole innocent till proven guilty ****.

That's one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Prejudice against the defendants when they are being charged with an offence, by saying in the complaint why they themselves said they were committing the offence? How is the US going to introduce that evidence then if you take it out of the complaint? And wont the evidence of them all talking about jihad for the governments case be more prejudicial than having it in the indictment?

The whole idea of providing evidence to match the complaint is to convict them. The reason they did this was because of a jihad, that is relevant to motive and the evidence to be introdced by the United States, and is a particular of the charge.

Here's the complaint:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/DukaDritanComplaint.pdf

This motion better get denied, if it doesnt, it will get denied on appeal but it might have to go all the way upstairs.

[Invisigoth]

That's one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Prejudice against the defendants when they are being charged with an offence, by saying in the complaint why they themselves said they were committing the offence? How is the US going to introduce that evidence then if you take it out of the complaint? And wont the evidence of them all talking about jihad for the governments case be more prejudicial than having it in the indictment?

The whole idea of providing evidence to match the complaint is to convict them. The reason they did this was because of a jihad, that is relevant to motive and the evidence to be introdced by the United States, and is a particular of the charge.

Here's the complaint:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/pdffiles/DukaDritanComplaint.pdf

This motion better get denied, if it doesnt, it will get denied on appeal but it might have to go all the way upstairs.

Might very well be possible but that's not what you wrote before, that's the reason I pointed that out. :)

[Calanen]

Might very well be possible but that's not what you wrote before, that's the reason I pointed that out. :)

Well the article only says this:


Lawyers for the men last month asked a judge to delete such language, saying it was "inflammatory" and was included in earlier court filings to incite prejudice against the defendants.

which seems to suggest that it is offensive. I have not seen their motion, I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Col.O'neill]

yes lets not call a spade a spade??? wtf? I cant stand these human rights types always defending ridiculous crap such as this!