Muslim sharia mothers
British muslim sharia mothers Samantha Lewthwaite and Mishal Husain - and Michael Adebolajo, the British born muslim son of a Christian mother
Friends and neighbors said Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, the muslim mother of the muslim Boston marathon bombers, became increasingly radicalized in her islamic beliefs during her time in the US and continues to defend her muslim terrorist sons in public interviews, claiming that they were framed by the FBI.
If intent is criminalized then repent can not be used as a defense
Muslim UK terrorist's mother Majida Sarwar: My son is not a terrorist.
However, a note he had left her said he had gone to do jihad and fight the 'enemies of Allah' i.e. the "infidels" "kuffars" etc.
Yusuf Sarwar and his pal Mohammed Ahmed admitted in court to planning terrorist acts.
Judge Topolski: "In each of their cases their persistent commitment to terrorist activity, demonstrated over a significant period of time, their willingness to prepare for and travel abroad, receive training and cross into Syria to fight, leads me to believe they are sufficiently dangerous to pass an extended sentence."
Over 200,000 people have died in Syria since March 2011. Majida Sarwar's son spent a considerable time there with al-Qaeda's Nusra faction. What did he do during this time? And isn't it criminal enough to join a muslim terrorist organization?! Does the mother support al-Qaeda/Nusra?
Klevius: If intent is criminalized then repent can not be used as a defense. A criminal act may take the form of affirmative conduct or an omission to act, such as, for example, withholding information from the police - perhaps even just encouraging such an act. Doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice is an offense under the common law of England and Wales. This offense is also sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". This muslim terrorist mother seems dangerously close to ticking most of the boxes.
Since April/May 2010:
753 people have been arrested for terrorism-related offenses. 212 have been charged and 148 have been successfully prosecuted;
138 people are behind bars serving sentences for terrorism-related offenses;
13 people, including Abu Hamza, have been extradited after being accused or convicted of terrorism-related offenses;
The Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit has secured the removal of 65,000 items from the Internet that encouraged or glorified acts of terrorism. More than 46,000 of these have been removed since December, 2013. At present, content relating to Islamic State, Syria and Iraq represents around 70 per cent of the Unit’s caseload;
The Home Secretary has excluded 61 people on national security grounds and 72 people because their presence would not have been conducive to the public good;
She also has revoked the British citizenship of 27 people because their activities were not conducive to the public good; and
74 organizations are at present proscribed by the UK government because they are engaged in or support terrorism.
Almost all of these terrorist acts are based on islam - the worst ideological crime ever against humanity throughout 1400 years!
Islam is the ideology behind most and worst torture!
Is this muslim terrorist Khalid Mohammed more lovable just because he was tortured?
Torture in Jordan - the most "moderate" muslim Arab state
The case of Abu Qatada
Adam Coogle, a Middle East and North Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch: The reasons the courts gave to support the legality of the confession, in both 1999 and 2014, were chiefly that the medical report performed on al-Khamaiseh following his detention in 1998 did not reveal injuries or bodily harm, and that it was given directly to the State Security Court (SSC) military prosecutor rather than officers of Jordan’s intelligence agency – the General Intelligence Directorate (GID), whom al-Khamaiseh accused of torturing him before he confessed.
These arguments are far from convincing. Human Rights Watch has documented the close relationship between the SSC military prosecutor and the GID – the former maintained an office inside the main GID headquarters at the time, and former detainees have told Human Rights Watch that officers move them back and forth between GID interrogators and prosecutors until the desired confession is obtained. Detainees also say that only doctors assigned to the GID performed their medical examinations, and they were refused independent medical exams while in detention. Judges in the Abu Qatada trial did not address these concerns, which were also shared by the European Court of Human Rights, in their verdict.
The State Security Court appears to have violated key procedural safeguards found in Jordan’s treaty with the UK, which stipulates that if there is “a real risk” that a statement was obtained through torture, it cannot not be admitted as trial evidence unless the prosecutor first proves “beyond any doubt” that it was not coerced. During Abu Qatada’s trial judges did not ask the military prosecutor to prove the legality of al-Khamaiseh’s confession prior to presenting it to the court, but rather accepted it into the record without question and ruled on its admissibility only at the end of the trial.
Perhaps most telling, the verdict states that al-Khamaiseh’s confession could not be disallowed, because previous 1999 rulings of the SSC and an appeals court had rendered its admissibility res judicata – a previously-decided matter that cannot be raised again in court. This seems to suggest that to the court, the UK-Jordan treaty has no impact whatsoever on what evidence was admitted in Abu Qatada’s case.
Ultimately, Abu Qatada was found not guilty because al-Khamaiseh’s confession was not supported by other statements or evidence, as required by Jordanian law. But the fact that the confession was admitted as evidence at all shows just how worthless the treaty really was. It’s clear that “diplomatic assurances” from countries with poor records on torture aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
Torture in Saudi Arabia neglected by ECHR in Jones v. United Kingdom
By mixing up state responsibility with official immunity despite Draft Article 58’s clear warning not to do so the ECHR reached the conclusion that torture is an “official act” entitled to state immunity.