MUST READ: COURTROOM JIHAD & THE DEFENSE OF "I AM A MUSLIM"

Courtroom Jihad and the Defense of “I am a Muslim”
by Jeffrey Breinholt

When you look into Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman’s eyes, you see nothing. It’s not because of the darkness in his soul, though some may claim that’s the case. Rather, it’s because he’s blind. This physical infirmity led American lawyers to claim that he was incapable of conspiring to wage war on the United States, by orchestrating an audacious plot to simultaneously destroy several New York City landmarks in the 1990s. His lawyers chose to ignore conspiracy law, which permits prosecutors to reach anyone who is party to the illegal agreement. Sheik Rahman was right in the middle of it. If he and his cohorts had succeeded, it is likely that the death count would have exceeded 9/11. They were caught before the killing started, through the help of an undercover informant. Rahman and nine other defendants were convicted.

His defense was not limited to his physical disability. It reached into a bag of tricks Americans sometimes fall for - involving religious freedom During his trial and in his appeal, Sheik Rahman argued that the seditious conspiracy statute violated the First Amendment, in that it unconstitutionally infringed on his free speech and the free exercise of religion. Fortunately, the judge in the case, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, knew better.

Judge Mukasey realized that the evidence justifying Abdel Rahman's conviction for conspiracy and solicitation showed that he was doing more than just preaching, and his speeches were not simply the expression of ideas. For example Abdel Rahman told one of his adherents he "should make up with God ... by turning his rifle's barrel to Egyptian President Mubarak's chest, and kill[ing] him." On another occasion, speaking to an adherent about murdering President Mubarak during his visit to the United States, Abdel Rahman told him, "Depend on God. Carry out this operation. It does not require a fatwa ... You are ready in training, but do it. Go ahead." One of his co-conspirators consulted with Abdel Rahman about the bombing of the United Nations Headquarters, and Abdel Rahman told him, "Yes, it's a must, it's a duty." When Abdel Rahman was asked by another co-conspirator about bombing the United Nations, he counseled against it on the ground that it would be "bad for Muslims," but added that Salem should "find a plan to destroy or to bomb or to ... inflict damage to the American Army."

In the end, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Rahman's claim that his conviction violated his rights under the First Amendment, affirming Judge Mukasey‘s decisions. U.S. v. Rahman,189 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1999)

This was not the first time a Muslim criminal defendant in a American court tried to defend himself through the "I am a Muslim" defense, nor would it be the last. This practice has been going on in various forms non-stop for almost 50 years. The case of the Blind Sheik was merely to most celebrated (and obvious) example.

When it is not so obvious is when it is a problem. Today, we are involved in a battle that requires us to obtain an accurate picture of our enemies, who are the small minority of Islamic fundamentalists who want to destroy us. Muslims who claim that their religion permits them to escape criminal liability are not the main problem, nor are the Islamic leaders who overtly tell us that they will kill our nationals unless they submit to Allah. The real challenge involves detecting Muslims who wear suits, speak English, and smile as they secretly plan to conquer Western civilization and impose Islamic law on the unwilling. I believe that we can spot the product of their efforts in the same way as we can treat Sheik Rahman as an historical threat whose motives were elucidated through the legal system - by reading the case books - though it requires far more subtle analysis.

...



Pertinent Links:

1) Courtroom Jihad and the Defense of “I am a Muslim”