Orwellian Nightmare | February 23, 2010 | 41 comments

Are Arizona Muslims to be Excluded from Capital Punishment?

source: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201195.php

Image
2hellnwait
Pleading "Muslim" Now Legitimate Defense Against the Death Penalty?

A lawyer in Arizona says prosecutors should not seek the death penalty in a case where a Muslim man murdered his own daughter in an honor killing .... because he's a Muslim??

Are you sh*ting me????

The decision not to seek the death penalty comes after Almaleki’s attorney, Billy Little, a public defender, asked a judge to take special precautions to ensure the County Attorney’s Office wouldn’t wrongly seek the death penalty because Almaleki is a Muslim....

“An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs,” Little wrote, referring to County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Christian faith.

So, instead of wrongly seeking the death penalty because he's Muslim, as Misha puts it: Instead, the court is going to wrongly take the death penalty off the table

So, since a great number of Muslims around the world think there is a vast conspiracy against them, any time a Muslim is accused of something in US courts we can't prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law because .... this might feed into Muslim paranoia?

* * * * * * * *
My gawd America, just drop your trousers so Islam can f**k you over, after all they are the superior culture, right?
. . . the County Attorney’s Office wouldn’t wrongly seek the death penalty because Almaleki is a Muslim. . .
Ri-ight! Because Muslims don’t believe in the death penalty. Well - unless you’re gay, or commit apostasy, or possess drugs, or get raped, or aren’t Muslim, or eat delicious pork products while using pages of the Koran as napkins, or reprint a freaking cartoon. . . etc, etc.
  1. groups:
    Orwellian Nightmare
  2. tags:
    Legal,  New,  Religions
  3.     
    |

41 comments // Are Arizona Muslims to be Excluded from Capital Punishment?

  • echoz
    • 0
      echoz  
    • Image

    • What's clear is that enough Muslims chronically (despicably) disregard other life simply because it offends their own self-prescribed narrow and inherently-limited views to a perceived pettier god they'd pretend to serve in "holier" angst--it's rather their own blinding rashness evilly misglorified and amplified to self-blinding hates that bring on such "all be damned" stupidities. Frankly, if this Muslim god were only a pile of bullshit, it would be a grateful improvement, but it is not...it is rather a cunning counterfeit created to deceive Many that God doesn't know how to reveal Himself clearly enough to Mankind to keep us from killing. However, in Christianity, we are taught to suffer as He suffered--full-knowing He won't stay his hand forever--though we too are tempted when our own "sensibilities" are so "clearly" agitated. But where they take matters into their own hands, The Lord sits up to Quicken us in His piercing eyes: "Vengeance IS Mine." Yes, He knows who to give that cup to, even in our struggles, because He knows better How to deal with the age-old problem of good and evil than we even blindly pretend to. Paul says we see things only dimly now, but when He comes all will be explicitly clear. He says when we pass by the liar who deceived the nations, we'll say, "Was THIS the thing that didst weaken the nations???" =D =D =D hehehe

      But the message that we would care be fair to even ingrate Muslims is of course Virtuous and Worthy of our Godlier pause, but throwing pearls before writhing swine is not the same calling to Virtue or Merciful Truth. It is written:

      "Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved on the day [of] the Lord ..." --1 Corinthians 5:5

      I believe this man is already in capable hands. Perhaps staying execution, he may be found to be living a crueler fate than hanging or electrocution. The hardcore might find he looks too cute too often in Huggies diapers to resist, or what-have-you... Perhaps he should be afraid for his own life than his mere death, and ask Mercy from the Living God because He is FULL OF MERCY!!! and because allah will sleep to his cries as any laughing demon would, even while he learns how much greater his "ungodlier" sin will prove...this poor man...Satan comes to each of us as an "angel of light" and he is THEE lying mfer of all time. He'll tell you you can catch a ride on the proverbial A-Train to "allah" and then push you into that oncoming train before you even get the chance to figure out his lie. I would love rather to see that Demon SOB in the Lord's "loving" much Holy clutches honestly, than this "used" deceived and obviously discarded man.

      he killed his daughter...*sigh* but perchance the Lord may yet have mercy on him where political expediency denies him any recourse but a "meaningful" death on either side. Fine choices, right? Arrangements with the devil "of darker light" rarely work out, ending in tears... "Be careful that the light in you , is not darkness, for how great that darkness will be!" --the words of our Living God do not fall to the ground void.

      http://oneyearbibleimages.com/jeremiah7_5.jpg

    • 2 years ago
  • Ihatethemall
    • -1
      Ihatethemall  

    • Fry him, inject him, hang him, put him up against a wall, hell waterboard him to death. and let his ATTY be next for even suggesting such a ridiculous defense.

    • 2 years ago
  • echoz
    • 0
      echoz  
    • Ihatethemall:

      we should warm up and practice with you first. ;D I'd like to lead that self-righteous "vengeful" effort to my heart's content too ;) I surely would, if anyone would just promise me 20 virgins with the promise I could break that fuqn finger off and stuff it in your ass just for a proper ring measurement. A sweeter gift for you...ihatethemall...one for 'them' all, and all for 'us' one??? ;D i thought you'd be fuqtup enough to think so.

    • 2 years ago
  • irie_ojo
    • 0
      irie_ojo  

    • RETARDED just like everything else. why be politically correct.....kill him. fuck torture than kill him...he killed his own daughter in an "honor killing". religion makes no difference if you murder someone....eye for an eye. just to clarify i believe its fucked up to torture to further an agenda as our govt has. but this guy is fucked up how do you kill your own daughter and then try to get spared.

    • 2 years ago
  • dozegotcha
    • 0
      dozegotcha  

    • F that bullshit....The man killed his own daughter over what, because the man claims she had become too westernized. Fuk this piece of shit, no religion should give you immunity for family manslaughter.

    • 2 years ago
  • MizPiz
    • 0
      MizPiz  

    • This is bullshit! Not that I'm for the death penalty, but I don't think belonging to a specific religion should change a sentence.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  

    • In many Muslim nations, the punishment for converting to Christianity is death. Likewise, drug-related crimes are punishable by death. And even handing out Bibles can be punished by...you guessed it...DEATH.

      It is therefore illogical to assume that Muslims are somehow averse to the death penalty. so the issue simply becomes one of the "sensitivity" of Muslims tothe notion that a Muslim is being executed by a Christian (or Jew). I notice that does not seem to deter Israel.

      It strikes me that this might be considered a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the XIV Ammendment...

      "The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states. However, it grants equal protection, not equal rights, and applies only to states, not to the federal government.

      More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning."

      Now, as I understand it, this clause should prevent a state from granting unequal rights to one group over others. Imagine if a state said "we won't execute whites, but we will blacks." The Equal Protection clause could be used theoretically to strike down that law.

      There are two things that occur to me. First, this is not a law, but an attempt to arrive at an "understanding" or "agreement". So I'm not sure how we would defend against it. I'm sure a good lawyer could figure that out. Perhaps since this clause does NOT apply to the federal gov't but only the states, if Honor Killings was included in a federal statute, he could be tried for a federal crime and executed.

      Secondly, the insidious way of getting around that would be for the state to ban all executions, so that ALL citizens would be "equally protected".

      Without any doubt, this is yet again an example of how the nation foolishly bends over backwards for Muslims, even Muslim murderers. The implications are gastly.

      If the logic is that, as a Muslim, an honor killing is part of his "cultural" or "religious" beliefs and that killing him for the crime would somehow violate his religious beliefs, then how can you prosecute him at all?

      Extrapolate further: if a Muslim commits an act of terrorism because of his religious beliefs, then again, the state could not execute that terrorist.

      It would then fall on the Feds to prosecute him for a federal crime and execute him.

      As a Libertarian, I believe states have the right to make their own laws and they would be within their rights to ban all executions if they felt that was in keeping with their constituents' beliefs. But giving extra protections to one group, to the detriment of others, would be unconstitutional.

      So the solution as I see it would be to pass a federal law making honor killings a federal offense punishable by death.

    • 2 years ago
  • csmonut
    • 0
      csmonut  
    • curtisreed:

      There are times when a prosecutor will not ask for the max. sentence, for the mere fact they may not get it and a lesser sentence than what they want to see would be imposed.
      If they ask for the max. and the jury does not award it, the judge will be less likely to impose a life without parole sentence.
      In this way, they can ask for life without parole, and are more likely to get that sentence.
      Although I have no idea, and the article did not state, what the prosecuting attorney would ask for.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • csmonut:

      yes, you are right, that is a consideration that the PAs make.

      What makes this different is that the PA seems to be saying "let's agree to never execute a Muslim for an honor killing".

      NOT because they won't be able to prosecute, but more out of cultural sensitivity.

      sort of...we need to understand that in their culture, it would have been dishonorable to NOT shoot his daughters for dating white boys.

    • 2 years ago
  • jimmysemens
  • curtisreed
    • +1
      curtisreed  
    • jimmysemens:

      yeah, right?! you just couldn't make this shit up!

      yesterday we discussed a court case where a judge by the name of Jordan issued a restraining order against a Christian man so that he could not take his daughter to church, because his Jewish ex-wife didn't like it.

      The irony was that the Judge's last name, Jordan, refers to the river Jordan, and means "River of Judgement".

      God has a wicked sense of humor.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • jimmysemens:

      "homunculus". new word for me. funny that the word sounds like the opposite of the meaning, as it kind of echos the word "humongous".

      good word, though. I'll have to figure out how to use it three times today at work without getting taken to HR.

    • 2 years ago
  • jimmysemens
  • Progresshiv
  • curtisreed
  • Progresshiv
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • Progresshiv:

      no, there wasn't any insight in either of your posts. and just because you learned how to use your video doesn't mean that you should use it for pointless posts like these.

      i used to read your responses, but I won't waste my time on your self-serving and shallow videos. obviously you took more time to form and express your opinions when you wrote them than you do now with your video.

    • 2 years ago
  • cmd80
    • 0
      cmd80  
    • curtisreed:

      Wow
      You think you could've been any ruder while responding to this guy's video?

      I'm just sayin
      I know you probably don't care about my opinion (or his for that matter)
      I'm just wondering why you thought it was necessary to call this man out on making a video that you thought was "pointless"

    • 2 years ago
  • Progresshiv
  • echoz
    • 0
      echoz  
    • curtisreed:

      curtisreed, I dare say, your shallower disregard of one of the most important questions, however "entertainingly" ;) proposed, shows rather well who's wasting our fuqn time to read comments that more truly lack any insight whatsoever. Consider, formally, if you will:

      When will killing stop in the name of God? Your answer may be that any answer will be futile, but if there's anything more than nihilism you may offer, then I might consider your own comments to be at least somewhat "insightful".

      Progresshiv, you are an esteemed gentlemen and a better example for us to follow, and I particularly include myself in that group. Thank you for at least attempting to "beg" the questions nobody wants to ask for such "open-minded" and "loftier" attitude...I think that's at least part of the reason why we're in the mess we're STILL in...Word to you, curtisreed.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • cmd80:

      good question. Progresshiv had, for a long time, taken the time to post reasonably intelligent, thought provoking comments. I didn't agree with many of them, but I respected his insight. Then he recently decided to post those videos and all the intelligence was replaced with goofy and sarcastic pablum.

      I'd like for Progresshiv to take the time to make his videos, but also ahve the respect for the people on the site to actually share his insight and not just waste our time with a drooling drawling redneck routine talking into a PC video camera.

      Go Saints, by the way.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • echoz:

      shallower disregard for not bothering to answer an idiotic video?

      It is absolute nonsense to equate the execution of a murderer with "killing in the name of God". There are multiple themes there and yes, it is rather pointless to argue them.

      The primary issue in this article was that we should not give a special privilege to one ethnic group that the others don't have. Progresshiv's response, as dumb as it seems to me, is simply a mocking attempt to point out that if we can't execute the Muslim, that won't be fair to all the other ethnic groups that we can execute, so the only fair thing to do would be stop executing prisoners, as if that is the most reasonable solution and golly, wouldn't that bother all the nuts who believe in executions.

      He proved he is a shiv for the progressives, and he shared his opinion in a goofy way without providing any insight. He may as well have said "we shouldn't execute nobody."

    • 2 years ago
  • echoz
    • 0
      echoz  
    • curtisreed:

      "shallower disregard for not bothering to answer an idiotic video?" it still is shallower disregard imho Mr Reed ;) and so much for 'not bothering? lol :)~

      "...we need to understand that in their culture, it would have been dishonorable to NOT shoot his daughters for dating white boys." =) hence what I got out of Pro'shiv's comment putting the question in the obvious terms of 'killing in the name of God' which you were gracious enough to misapply for disinformation or confusion in the following statement:

      "It is absolute nonsense to equate the execution of a murderer with "killing in the name of God"...

      "killing in the name of God" as attributable to legalized execution was not asserted by me. though Pro'shiv correctly asks what you may rather substitute for "God" in that sentence =P

      to be clear, "killing in the name of God" of course refers to the idea perhaps it was this man's misapplied "faith" as well ;) that is responsible rather for "killing in the name of God."

      We can have quite radical "faith" too...in our own laws, don't we? ;) Especially when it may self-righteously kill too, if that profound fact yet somehow still eludes you. There's progresshiv's challenge to us for understanding that I take with me: what should our "faith" really be? It is sobering whatever ultimate conclusion you think 'shiv draws for you. I say he leaves it open for debate. ;) And it is no sin nor heresy. We should think. Not simply react..

      Guilty as he is..."the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God" scriptures say as well. So what Pro'shiv may believe we shouldn't kill at all...*shrug* That's his faith. But they are not "pointless" questions because you have different answers you'd rather entertain that may point to merely grosser legalisms that mask our very own potential prejudices... Let's be wary.

      Law is Mind Without Reason--Aristotle said. We just have to make sure we have the right ones that do not compromise better attempts to Wisdom.

      I take progresshiv as more cautionary than legalistically indoctrinating, which may be your "forte" apparently? ;) jk...

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • echoz:

      I'm not religious, so my support for execution of a criminal is NOT in any way "killing in the name of God". Killing one's daughters to "restore honor" is NOT killing in the name of God, as that is NOT a Koranic teaching, it is instead a cultural value that is more likely tied back to the old traditions long before Islam. Muslims themselves have stated that so I take them at their word on that point. However, it does seem common in societies that happen to be Muslim, ie Persian and Arab cultures.

      So my point was that the issue of executing a murderer is NOT tied to "killing in the name of God", and that is an overly simplistic, even childish, attempt to belittle the individuals who do believe that certain criminals should receive the death penalty for their crimes.

      BTW, according to some Biblical scholars who speak Hebrew and understand the meaning of the word as it appeared in the Old Testament, a more accurate translation of the Biblical verse "thou shalt not kill" is "thou shalt not MURDER". There is a clear difference between killing an innocent, which is murder, and killing in defence of one's own life, safety, etc.

    • 2 years ago
  • cmd80
  • echoz
    • 0
      echoz  
    • curtisreed:

      "Killing one's daughters to "restore honor" is NOT killing in the name of God..." In our minds that's truth, of course, but hadn't you also stated that we should have some cultural sensitivity for how this man thinks too, however foreign? Well, I agreed with you then as much as I'd agree with you now... there's no good solution if they lie to themselves just to hate us :(

      and thank you for the biblical scholarship curtis ;) I'll gladly quote you on that :) thank you.

    • 2 years ago
  • lj111
  • CarolineS
    • +2
      CarolineS  

    • Unbelievable, to be honest, i am in no way racist, i love multi culturalism, but a religion that murders their own daughters for stupid reasons such as talking to other boys and calls them 'honour killings' well there's nothing honorable than that, it's sick, disgusting and backwards, like most religions

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • CarolineS:

      as I have heard it, and I don't know if it's true, the Honor Killing practice is really not a part of Islamic teachings, it's a very ancient practice that predates Islam. But as it happens to be found so closely associated with Muslim cultures, I'm not sure the distinction is very valuable.

      Do keep in mind that we have had our own version of that. It used to be here in the USA, that a gambler who accused another gambler of cheating was insulting the honor of the first and that could result in a fight to the death. Our Western "gentlemen" have fought duels to the death for other offenses of honor as well. And women have been known to kill themselves in the past when they were "dishonored" and got pregnant out of wedlock.

      Yes, it's barbaric, but we have our own versions of the practice.

    • 2 years ago
  • cmd80
  • ahiguy
    • +1
      ahiguy  
    • cmd80:

      It actually is a picture of a attorney representing a gitmo detainee, and it was a courtroom ploy... yes - really!
      Why is it here?.. it does grab your attention, yeah?

    • 2 years ago
  • cmd80
    • 0
      cmd80  
    • ahiguy:

      yes, it does grab my attention
      in a WTF kind of way

      but if it is a picture of a lawyer representing a gitmo detainee
      then I'm even more confused about what the picture has to do with the story

    • 2 years ago
  • ahiguy
  • csmonut
    • 0
      csmonut  

    • I found the article the link refers to. While the prosecutor's office has said that religion or race had nothing to do with the decision to not seek the death penalty, that can be questioned.
      However, they should be taken at their word, for now. it is not unusual for a prosecuting attorney to decide not to seek a certain penalty for a given crime.
      That said....
      The law should apply to all. If allowances are made for Muslims, what is going to happen when a Catholic or a Jew comes up to trial? Do the courts make concessions for them?
      If a jury wants to take religion or religious traditions into account, it is the jury's decision.
      It should never be taken off the table by the prosecuting attorney, if they feel they have the evidence to get the conviction.
      And....I am against the death penalty for anyone.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • csmonut:

      take the case of the murder by Scott Roeder of Dr. Tiller. If the same standard is applied, then if he killed Tiller out of religious conviction, oops, can't apply the death penalty.

      but that standard WON'T be applied, he can be fried, because he Christian. Muslims--as usual--get a pass.

      Who says terror doesn't work? They have so many people so scared they are bending over backward not to hurt or offend them.

    • 2 years ago
  • Kylsport
    • 0
      Kylsport  

    • Shariah law does not apply hear. If you want enforced Shariah law, go to Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan, or England, but keep it out of the US.

    • 2 years ago
  • ahiguy
    • 0
      ahiguy  

    • MFT, would you have the same sentiments if it was that the other young woman that he also ran down was your daughter? Keep in mind that killing an innocent companion (incidentally) was of no consequence to this jackal- - he is a dog that should be 'put down' imho.

    • 2 years ago
  • MotherForTruth
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • MotherForTruth:

      hey, I like and respect you, but I think our main problem today is that 1) we don't execute enough evil people, and 2) we don't do it publicly.

      I'm all for public hangings in the city square. Bring the students to witness what happens when you rape, murder, steal. It's only a deterrant when it happens often and swiftly and can be witnessed by all.

      This is why there is so little crime in Muslim nations. They take law enforcement VERY seriously.

      There are some things I think we can learn from the Muslims. this is one of them. The most aggregious crimes should receive the most serious punishment and everyone should watch it. Gruesome, yes. But it will save other people's lives.

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  

    • Race, creed, religion and sexuality shouldnt matter. All people are equal under law and should therefore be subject to the same punishment. Its too bad juries are anything but impartial.

    • 2 years ago
  • eden49
more from Orwellian Nightmare:
from the community

top videos