Susan Estrich and the asshats at the ACLU are suing on behalf of a couple of pig-fellating al Qaeda funders under the pretext that asking for money is a “free speech” right protected by the Constitution.
People like this Estrich bitc…

You wrote:

“Again, you’re comparing the Constitutional restriction of the Establishment Clause and a disassociated free speech issue.”

I answer:

You need to read the First Amendment again as your memory seems to be rusty. The First Amendment forbids Congress to favor a religious organization or to prohibit the free exercise thereof.

If anything Congress violated the First Amendment by forbidding the church it’s free expression of its religion through political speech. There is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits a religious organization from messing in politics or the government so my comparison was sound.

You two are the reason we’re losing against terrorists. If you honestly believe that Jihad is peace, there’s no hope for you. You actually want to allow the enemy to use our laws to destroy our country. That’s sad.

Not necessary. There is no constitutional right for my religion or any religion to use violence against Americans or to even advocate the overthrow of the US Government.

I think that the JNF should be shut down as well if donations are paying for military equipment.

Israel is an ally and money going to them is not to wage war on Americans or America. And like the article said… The JNF does not promote religiosity, the vest were to protect civilians(you know…the innocent victims).

I don’t know what law is being used by the prosecution, but they should bear the burden of proving that the defendants knew that a significant portion of the funds were likely to go towards supporting violence.

Again, it’s in the article, from a motion by the defense…
Their motion cites Chapter 9, verse 60 of the Koran, which describes “those entitled to receive zakat.” According to the definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam, “category 7″ of eligible recipients are “volunteers engaged in jihad” for whom the zakat cover “living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons).”

In contrast, Care was established to promote and advance al Qaeda’s version of Islam.

Mr. Azzam was also a key leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.AKA and listed as a “violent Islamic terrorist group”.

According to the FBI affidavit, Care’s publication “Al-Hussam” (the Sword in Arabic) actively advocated for “jihad” or holy war, involving “mujahideen” or Islamic holy warriors. In addition, the affidavit states that Care was “the outgrowth of and successor to the Al-Kifah Refugee Center branch in Boston.” After September 11 the U.S. designated Al-Kifah — Sheikh Abdul Rahman’s outfit in Brooklyn — as a terrorist organization for “its involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”

Court records show Care’s deposited checks with handwritten notes such as: “for jihad only” and “Bosnia Jihad fund” and “Chechen Muslim Fighters.”

And as it rightly points out… Yet even the flightiest prospective juror will surely see that the Constitution offers no protection to any group supporting “holy war” against the United States or its citizens — whether in the name of Islam, or anything else.

Unless you assume that jihad always means violence.

It clearly does it this instance.

Remember, the criminal case itself only refers to “the solicitation and expenditure of funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad terrorism(mujahideen is a terrorist org.).

The solicitation and expenditure of funds to support and promote terrorism is a violation of the Patriot Act. They should consider themselves fortunate, not to be charged with a more serious offense.

I’d agree with Jeff that every defendant deserves competent counsel; and so does that include the defendants in this case.

Personally, I’d rather they were charged with giving material support to terrorists and terrorist orgs.

Hat tip, Stop the ACLU ,Terrorists in trouble? It’s the left to the rescue!Democratic strategist and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, and the former American Civil Liberties Union president in Massachusetts, Harvey Silvergate, re…

lets put aside whether my comparision was accurate or not and get down to the meat of the matter.

Ok. I will do so for the moment, but I won’t retract my statements until you remove the comparison from your post.

Now, you think [tax-exemption for charitable donations to jihad and mujahideen] is something, however “unpopular” that is a noble and worthy thing to defend?

Short answer:
Yes. (see the last paragraph of my “long answer”)

Long answer:

No, I don’t think there should be any religious exemptions to taxation. This seems like an establishment clause issue. Religious exemptions give a bureaucratic organization (typically the IRS) the power to decide what is or isn’t a religious organization.

I don’t have time to support this opinion by citing matters of law, so I don’t expect to convince you of this, but it is my personal opinion.

However, I acknowledge that the current law of the land allows for religious exemptions, so I have no problem with any group attempting to qualify for these exemptions.

Every defendant deserves competent counsel. If they’re found guilty in a fair and legitimate trial then they get what they deserve. If our culture denies them a defence then we’ve failed as a free society.

Your title is “Is Jihad Free Speech”. We’re asking if Jihad is necessarily violence, or if it even applies in this case. Remember, the criminal case itself only refers to “the solicitation and expenditure of funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications.” It explicitly does not prosecute any connection to al-Qaeda or any violent actions. The first 61 words of your post leading into the first quote discuss nothing but mention supporting dissenting dialog and contrasting it with state sponsored religion. Dissenting dialog by admission of the very court case you’re discussing. If the entire post up till the first source cited isn’t the substance then you’re framing posts wrong.

I’d agree with Jeff that every defendant deserves competent counsel; and so does that include the defendants in this case. This case, once again by the word of the case itself only refers to “… the distribution of pro-jihad publications.”

Defending rights usually requires defending monsters. That’s why rights are controversial.

the suspects’ attorneys also argue that such charitable giving, to support the jihad and mujahideen, is rightfully tax-exempt under U.S. constitutional protection of religious freedom.

Now, you think this is something, however “unpopular” that is a noble and worthy thing to defend?

even convicts, muslims, and liberals are presumed innocent.

For the record, when I said “convicts”, I was referring to people convicted of prior crimes. Obviously, when someone is convicted of a crime, they are presumed to be guilty of that crime. However, a prior conviction has little, if any, legal bearing on their presumption of innocence when it comes to future allegations.