April 2016 – WASHINGTON – Homeland Security: In the trial of Islamic State sympathizers, one plotting to have terrorists cross the Mexican border, lawyers try to prevent mention of terrorism. The U. S. legal system is a weapon of jihad. Gules Ali Omar, 21 years old and accused in Minnesota of seeking ISIS membership, gave members of the Iraq-Syria caliphate information for establishing a means of transporting ISIS operatives from Syria to Mexico, then finally to the American homeland. There they would conduct terrorism operations, according to a document prepared by prosecuting attorneys and filed in court on Wednesday.
The lawyer for one of Omar’s three fellow Somali-American suspects, 22-year-old Abdirahman Yasin Daud, actually argued that specific evidence showing that Daud threatened terrorism within the U. S. homeland, or references to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, ‘would cause the jurors to decide out of fear and contempt alone.’ The logic presumably goes something like this: we can’t mention terrorism when we try terrorists within the U. S., because jurors – like almost all Americans – deplore terrorism. And so a terrorist wouldn’t get a fair trial. Maybe we want to add terrorists to the list of protected groups under federal anti-discrimination law, in addition to race, color, religion, sex, disability status, and soon, no doubt, sexual orientation.
That would mean jurors would be denied hearing audio of these suspects plotting to kill FBI agents, shooting rockets at U. S. planes, and the other carnage they were apparently planning. This is a perfectly illustrative example of why we cannot allow foreign terrorist groups or states to use the American legal system as their playground, assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union and other leftist legal powers. That’s especially true for a federal judiciary with so many appointments from President Obama.
This post was published at UtopiatheCollapse on April 23, 2016.
Follow on Twitter
Recent Comments