Is Jihad Free Speech?
Posted on October 16, 2006
God forbid you pray in the name of Jesus before opening up a townhall meeting! That would be, in the eyes of the left, violating the Constitution. But what about supporting jihad against the U.S.? Well, according to some on the left that would be protected as a form of religious free speech and a constitutional right.
Democratic strategist and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, and the former American Civil Liberties Union president in Massachusetts, Harvey Silvergate, recently joined the attorneys representing two alleged Boston al Qaeda funders. [….]
…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. Moreover, they compare their support of Islam’s “holy war” to the Jewish National Fund (JNF) appeals for tax-deductible “donations to finance the purchase of bulletproof vests, helmets and firetrucks in connection with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.”
How far can the Constitution be twisted folks?
Want Dems in charge of Congress next year? Thinking of sitting out this elections because your conservative wish-list was not fulfilled? Thinking of just walking away from the political process? Well it could be a dangerous idea. We know the Dems want to surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda, tear down our most successful defensive monitoring efforts, and supply lawyers to terrorists now in jail. But did anyone think the Dems would find Jihad to be a religous form of free speech and a constitutional right?
Read it all and get out the vote. Vote like your life depends on it.Because it does.
Lambs to the slaughter indeed. Hat tip: American Thinker.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
22 Responses to “Is Jihad Free Speech?”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Great example. Praying at a town hall meeting is a state sponsored event and so there’s no business involving prayer and therefor projecting a preference of a specific religion. A private, charitable entity with religious goals has nothing to do with state sponsorship of a religion and so is obviously constitutionally protected.
The very example you use in your introduction, inflammatory as it may be, is such an obviously bogus comparison that it seems purposefully disingenuous. You don’t like the terrorists, fine; campaign to amend the Constitution to eliminate equal rights for other religions. Unless you’re doing that, though, you can’t pretend that your comparison has any Constitutional or legal meaning at all.
Jimmy, if you think donations to Al Qaeda or other terrorists waging jihad on the U.S. should be tax deductable and protected under the Constitution then you were obviously dropped on your head at an early age.
Wait, before you even start…these donations to “charities” were going to organizations supporting jihad. So…now…refer to my comment above this one.
Hey Jay, if you’re right and there’s proof that the charity is giving money to known, violent terrorist organizations then the charity is breaking existing law. Nuff said. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, free speech, religion or anything else. Your introduction is still a bogus comparison. The issue isn’t whether or not I think it should be alright to finance violence through charity or not. I think that the JNF should be shut down as well if donations are paying for military equipment.
Jimmy,
If I understand correctly, the two organization are charged with a criminal infringement of giving money to al Qaeda, and their defense is that funding jihad is covered by free speech.
If that flies, then why do churches and other non profits loose their tax exempt status for backing political candidates? I know the ACLU seems to be exempt from that law.
Jimmy, just come out and say it. You think donations funneled through terrorist supporting front groups should be tax deductable and those that donate to support terror should be protected under the first amendment as a “religious” right to do so.
Kerwin,
If they’ve been funding violence then they’ll get the jail time coming to them. Religion, or no religion. If it’s unpopular _speech_ then tough, live with it.
Again, you’re comparing the Constitutional restriction of the Establishment Clause and a disassociated free speech issue. Protected as speech or not, these charities don’t try to mix religion and US politics, so that whole line of questioning is a red herring.
Jay,
Hey, to be clear I don’t think ANY religious organization should be tax exempt. As soon as priests start praying to god for rain when a church is on fire instead of calling the fire department, then they can be exempt from taxes. This isn’t about what I want. If “supporting terror” involves financing violence, then no. If “supporting terror” means saying things about the US that piss some Americans off, then yes.
Unfortunately the political landscape and lexicon these days is so polluted that even voicing concerns about current US Foreign policy can get you labelled as a terrorist supporter by some people.
Jay,
Jimmy is right that your comparison townhall prayer is invalid.
The issue as a whole is a lot less clear. 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.
As Jimmy said, we cannot, without being HUGE hypocrites, block donations that go to peaceful external groups that are opposed to us. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying
Unless you assume that jihad always means violence.
What’s wrong with them wanting certain pieces of land back? There are many areas of land in dispute throughout the world. It would only be wrong if the desire led to violence.
If these organizations have done so, it shouldn’t be hard for the prosecution to demonstrate it. If not, these guys should be free. Either way, it’s good for these guys to receive a proper defense, because if the law in question is poorly defined, it wouldn’t be hard to use it violation of the 1st.
Okay, so those in opposition to Jay’s comparison, how about this one:
I’m starting a religion. No, wait, my religion is thousands of years old. It’s been around since ancient Egypt. This religion says that anyone who supports freedom of the press shall be killed. The religion spells out in it’s religious books that true members of my religion must assassinate anyone who claims to be either a Republican or a Democrat. The name of my religion shall be, err… is Anredeanism.
Now, since I an absolutely and totally free to exercise religion at all costs (because that’s in the ACLU’s version of the Constitution), I will ask that people donate to my cause and support me in advancing my religion and towards it’s end goal of eliminating all people who claim to be Republican or Democrat, by violent means, if necessary.
Using the logic the ACLU uses in this post, they will defend me and everyone should be absolutely free to support me in every way possible, including with tax-free donations. Because after all, those who send me money aren’t actually KILLING anyone, right?
That’s the point. It’s not Jay that’s making the comparison, it’s the ACLU that says freedom of religion extends to anyone who wants to support any religion, no matter what that religion is going to do — an exact copy of the example I’ve given.
Ogre,
Your hypothetical religion has nothing to do with Jay’s comparison. A townhall prayer scenario is an establishment clause issue. This situation and your hypothetical religion are free exercise issues. They both related to religion, but they are opposite sides of the coin and cannot be accurately compared in the manner that Jay presented them.
As for your hypothetical religion, Jimmy and I clearly acknowledged that violence does not fall under the free exercise clause and the prosecution should have no trouble gaining convictions if they can demonstrate that the money was going to those that intended to commit acts of violence.
So you agree that the ACLU is wrong in supporting and arguing for this case?
No. As I’ve said many time, I welcome the best possible legal team for any defendant. I don’t believe it is ever wrong for the ACLU or any other similar organization to argue on behalf of its defendants.
But I do, without knowing the details of the law involved, acknowledge that if the prosecution can demonstrate that the funds were knowingly flowing to those who committed acts of violence, the defense should lose.
No Ogre, instead of addressing the substance of my post they had rather beat a strawman by nitpicking my comparision.
With all due respect, Jay, it is not a strawman. We did not put any words in your mouth. You drew a drew a fallacious comparison between a townhall prayer and this case. I understand the emotional value of your comparison, but honestly, it doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny.
Both Jimmy and I acknowledged that if the allegations that these men knowingly sent money to militant groups are accurate, a conviction is understandable and probably appropriate.
We only took issue with the assumption that the allegations are correct. This is America and everyone, even convicts, muslims, and liberals are presumed innocent. The defendants deserve a competent legal team and the ACLU is providing it to them.
If the prosecution follows the proper procedures and demonstrates their case to the necessary extent, no legal defense will be able to prevent a conviction. So I guess I just fail to understand why this country continues to jump on the ACLU every time it defends an unpopular defendant.
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.
Jeff, I have complimented you in emails for being honest in debate here unlike others. I still think you are, but lets put aside whether my comparision was accurate or not and get down to the meat of the matter. What it comes down to is…
Now, you think this is something, however “unpopular” that is a noble and worthy thing to defend?
How is discussing the primary thrust of your post, the constitutional validity of supporting anti-American dialog and its comparison with state sponsored religion, just beating a strawman?
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.
“Now, you think this is something, however “unpopular” that is a noble and worthy thing to defend?”
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.
Ok. I will do so for the moment, but I won’t retract my statements until you remove the comparison from your post.
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.
You don’t like the terrorists, fine; campaign to amend the Constitution to eliminate equal rights for other religions.
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 jihadterrorism(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.
Wow. Jeff and Jimmy, I appreciate your honesty. And I’ll say this, based on your statement, “We’re asking if Jihad is necessarily violence” — even though it will sound inflammatory, it’s not:
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.
Jimmy,
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.