The lawyer team for the defense is trying a new line of defense for Jihadis.
Basically - "It's not my clients fault your honor.
You see...he's an idiot."
"In one section of footage, played before a hushed court, Mr Altman said Khawaja could be seen picking up severed heads from the back of a flatbed truck and saying: Heads. Kuffar (non-Muslims). Disgusting.
Khawaja, who has close ties to "executioner" Jihadi John, faked his own death to sneak back into the UK and is now facing years behind bars."
$1:
His lawyer's defense? Stupidity.
In his defence Henry Blaxland QC said the jihadi poster boy had a low IQ - the lowest 12% of the population.
So what does that actually mean?
The UK IQ average is 100. Henry doesn't specify his client's IQ, but it's probably in the low 80s. But that doesn't mean much since a number of Muslim countries have average IQ scores around that.
Assuming that our friend here is Pakistani, the IQ average there is 84. Even if he scored an 81, he's not that much of an outlier. (I've seen a claim that the Pakistani UK IQ average is 86 (specifically 85.62.) Not sure if it's a valid source.)
Now IQ, its measurement standards and validity, are complicated issues that I have no interest in getting into. (Personally I don't believe it's a comprehensive meaningful measurement of intelligence.) But in this case, we have a lawyer attempting to make use of it as a defense for a terrorist when that's just the average number for someone from his background.
If having an IQ in the 80s is exculpatory, then how do you convict a Pakistani terrorist of anything?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreen ... st-defense