Shock waves crashed across the nation as news broke about a jihadi training camp discovered in New Mexico. But even more shocking to some was the ruling of the judge following the arrests of five men from the compound.
CNN reported on some of the horrors that had allegedly occurred at the compound, some involving children. One of the most disturbing allegations was a father killing his own child in a religious ritual.
Eleven other children were found on the compound, all severely malnourished, according to authorities.
New Mexico authorities charged “five alleged Muslim extremists” with “11 counts of child abuse.” But Siraj Wahhaj, the father of the murdered 4-year-old boy, Abdul-Ghani Wahhaj, was not charged in his son’s slaying.
Siraj Wahaji’s father, who bears the same name, is “an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case.” He is also currently an imam living in Brooklyn, New York.
Despite the evidence presented in court, Judge Sarah Backus sided with the defense, The Daily Caller reported.
She particular took issue with the faith of the defendants being used as a reason to view them as a threat to the community.
Here’s part of the judge’s order denying the prosecutors’ motion to deny bail to the #NewMexicoCompound adults.
— Ryan Mauro (@ryanmauro) August 14, 2018
Backus explained in her ruling, “The defendants are apparently of the Muslim faith. The Court was asked by the State to make a finding of dangerousness and a finding of no conditions of release could ensure the safety of the community.”
“The State apparently expected the court to take the individuals’ faith into account in making such a determination. The Court has never been asked to take any other person’s faith into account in making a determination of dangerousness.”
Backus then gave her “justification” for her shocking decision. “The Court is not aware of any law that allows the Court to take a person’s faith into consideration in making a dangerousness determination.”
“The state alleges there was a big plan afoot but the state has not shown to my satisfaction by clear and convincing evidence what in fact that plan was.”
Backus then released all five defendants on a $20,000 signature bond.
This decision enabled the men “to avoid paying any money unless they violate their release terms.” A murdered child found on the property, a cache of weapons and 11 emaciated children living in filth was not enough for Backus to believe the men were a threat or should be held until trial.
What does this judge need to see for her to understand the problem of these defendants roaming free? How did she think it was a good idea to not even invoke a financial risk to them to help prevent them from just disappearing to avoid prosecution?
For all the outcry about suffering children making headlines as of late, this ruling seems particularly horrible.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.