Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Indicts Saudi Student For Website Contents
An anonymous reader writes "A student ( studying for his doctorate) has been charged by the U.S. government for setting up a website, moderating a email list listing it as 'material support' for the terrorist. How fine is the line between First Amendment rights and 'material support'?"
If he really is raising funds, then the First Amendment has nothing to do with this.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
The linked article is very light on details of what exactly he was actually doing.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Of course, the student is innocent until proven guilty [unlike in his native land] and the article was fairly light on facts. But, long story short, if the charges are true, then there is no first amendment issue to consider.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
18 pages of Grand Jury charges in US v. al-Hussayen(pdf)
The nice thing (for governments) is that hardly anyone would know what the messages were about even if we could see them, and anyone translating them differently than the government can just be labeled terrorist.
How can you ever know the truth with these things?
While I recognize the need for privacy rights (my tin foil hat is firmly planted on my head as we speak), I think that the government is probably correct here. Remember when everyone rushed to defend that guy that worked at Intel who was carted off? As it turned out, he had fooled his friends, family, and everyone else, as he was conspiring with and sending money to terrorists.
(However, I still don't agree with how his case was handled... I don't like these secret courts and such at all.)
There are limits to free speech, you know.
If this guy is raising funds for and supporting a war conducted by terrorists. Then by all means, shut him down. Drag his ass into court, not to Guantunamo (sp?) bay.
Free speech is nice, but not when it is used to kill people, or to attempt to kill people or to encourage people to kill people.
Are you now or ever have been a member of a student organization -- Wall Street Journal | May 29, 2003
That's why people in this rural university town were so surprised on Feb. 26, when Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrived before dawn in unmarked vehicles at Mr. Hussayen's home to arrest him. The agents rousted him from bed and took him away in handcuffs. Over the next two days, most members of the campus MSA, which Mr. Hussayen formerly headed, were interrogated about their immigration status, extracurricular activities and views of the U.S...
Homeland Defense is protecting you by getting rid of *dangerous* women and children
The wife [..] says she'll voluntarily leave the United States within 120 days. The decision by Maha Al-Hussayen put an end to the government's attempts to deport her and her children. Al-Hussayen's attorney says she made the decision after she was threatened with jail and several character witnesses became too intimidated to testify on her behalf. She must leave by March 6th.
This guy had a *glowing* GPA in grad school here and here
Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, a Saudi national working on his computer science doctoral degree, quietly moved his student office from the Computer Science Department into the school's engineering isotope lab, apparently without his adviser's knowledge, according to the documents.
Al-Hussayen moved into the engineering lab while he was under surveillance by agents assigned to the Inland Northwest Joint Terrorism Task Force, the documents say. Surveillance teams determined Al-Hussayen primarily used the engineering isotope lab after hours.
And 4 other people you DIDN'T hear about
Is also doesn't describe why he provided 'material support', not simply support. What is the difference of a verb/noun and the same verb/noun with 'material' inserted before it? Is it the same as a 'material threat' or 'material evidence', like meaning there is no support or no evidence? Well, this phrase was very unusual before the present US administration, so I'm sure it is valid. Could someone educate me?
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
With freedom comes responsibility...
With Freedom of Speech comes the responsibility of knowing what NOT to say.
Saying that one wishes death on the president is against the law. So you're not free to say just anything.
In a time of war if you start propogating sensative information, you will be charged with treason and executed. So you're not free to tell people what you want.
You are free within limits. Its like, you're free to drive as fast as you want, just not over a certain limit. You're free to go where you want, so long as you do not trespass. You're free to do what you want, so long as you do not infringe on other people's rights and such.
The whole freedom of speech thing comes becomes paradoxical when you speak out against the US as a whole. I'm all for speaking out against parts of our government, but when you say "The US (as a whole) sucks! and I'm free to say that if I want." Aren't you denouncing the country that gives you such a right? How can it suck then? Sure, you're free to disagree with certain aspects. But when you burn the US flag, aren't you then saying that you reject the US and its rights???
Oh you aren't? So obviously there is something about this country that you find pleasing...
The whole thing about freedom comes back to, you're free to do what you want, as long as you dont cross the line. By aiding those who wish harm on the US, that's breaking the law.
Of course, the media doesn't have time to RTFI(ndictment).
The indictment says this guy was on a student visa and while he was here we was helping Islamic non-for-profits that have ties to terrorist groups. Student visas are for studying, not running websites for non-for-profits.
The charges are all immigration violations which say he lied when he signed this immigration applications. Making false statements to the US is a crime. The government alleges he lied because he knew he his visa wouldn't be approved with accurate statements of his work for these not-for-profits.
My father is a blogger.
Read more
You're next ;)
/. and in the comments is about as terrorist-aiding as information gets. Time for them to run!
Some of the information and suggestions on
Hmm, now that I think of it, the NYTime had better hide too...
n/t
I can't comment about what is in the website, and whatever it is I think may fall under First Amendment. But, isn't he a Saudi ? He is probably not even a citizen of the US? How can he have FA rights?
The Supreme court already has decided where the line between free speech and controllable behavior is, and it comes when you start throwing money around. Raising money for a cause is not totally free speech. This is why we are able to have campaign finance laws.
In case you havn't been paying attention for the last two years, the US has been shutting down groups who raise money for terrorists left and right.
Your first post is rendered irrellevant by the Supreme courts recent decision upholding campaign finance reform. I disagree with the decision, but for the time being, contributing funds to organizations is no longer protected as free speech.
I have a feeling (could be wrong) that the definition of moderating in this article is not the slashdot style, but rather that Hussayen was the operator of the sites/lists.
Sami Omar Hussayen, a doctoral candidate in computer science in a University of Idaho program sponsored by the National Security Agency [WTF??], is accused of creating websites and an e-mail group that disseminated messages from him and two radical clerics in Saudi Arabia that supported violent holy war.
It sounds to me like these sites and email lists did not have the odd errant "appeal" and information on terrorist training, (slashdot analogy GNAA), but rather that those topics were included in the preponderance of the posts/emails
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
The US has supported terrorists organizations.
Members of the Cabinet have given money to terrorists organizations but one guy with a web site is NEWS?
Shouldnt we have put a bullet in the Bush cabinet's resident uncle Tom by now?
He did give the Taliban a big fat check for their
"War on Drugs" in may 2001. Isnt that material aid to terrorists?
The whole Clinton administration as well as republicans was neck deep in arming what the CIA had called in '98 or '99 "the largest and best armed terrorist group in the world"
We can go on like this forever.
Enough. Terrorism as news is right up there with SCO.
derek
Ever wonder why people don't like america ?
Disclaimer: I am not attacking you, or your country, I am voicing an opinion that is not entirely mine but a mixture of many people, rather than modding me down , reply with valid and thought provoking responces. Many of my friends are American , every american person I have met has been a nice/good person.
America driven by fear now spys on/raids arabs living in America just incase they bomb someone.
Americans fear anyone even themselves, their neighbours and their children (metal detectors in schools?).
better watch out this guy criticises america too. oh wait he is American. America is in the middle of a witch hunt. America always seems to be in a witch hunt somewhere tehy have been since the witch hunts. ( and I'm not saying they don't catch the odd "witch") but when they get innocent bystanders well, often the bystanders and their family dislikes the USA as a country and a people (will this man's deported wife and kids love america or hate america for taking away their daddy).
The USA's fear of the reds over in russia (those dang com u nasts) caused the USA/CIA to train Bin Laden. oops now we fear Bin Laden.....
This Nut case (Bin Laden) and hate monger (I have no love for him) is using anti-US sentimint to gather a literal army of american hating terrorists.
So now Bush JR invades Iraq (a Country diametricaly opposed to terrorism, yet their ex-boss didn't like the US) so america invades and kills alot of them an loses american servicemen at an alarming rate. Whoever comes to power in iraq (lets hope he's better than the last US supported leader there) will leave some people there ostracised and Blaming the USA. why did america invade there ? fear ? because Sadam didn't say he condemed the (9/11) bombers. america feared he might attack next... and invaded with no proof. well maybe GWB made some up.
Maybe this is a rant, but maybe america should reach for an olive branch before they reach for their Colt M4s.
as an aside if I was to say (and I'm not) "Drop dead Bush" - is this under america's laws planning regicide ?
If he's being accused of these, then I see no problem.
Sorry, but I don't want to live in a country where people can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater without consequences.
_______
2B1ASK1
Are you under the impression that the bill of rights and constitution does not apply to foreigners in the United States? While deportation is commonly used to solve problems with foreigners breaking laws in the USA, even this process is not without due process. If the government decides not to deport but instead to prosecute, the rights outlined in the bill of rights and constitution extend to the accused. While President Bush has been asserting the power to prosecute foreigners outside the constitution, the power will likely be overturned when cooler heads prevail in Congress and the Supreme Court. Just as we look at Japanese detention camps during WWII with shame, I sincerely hope that one day we look back at the actions of this administration with the same shame. The president isn't God and universal rights are just that: universal.
Don't get me wrong - it's not free speech to raise money to kill us. It's just that equal protection under the law is kind of fundamental in the USA, and we should respect that.
The United States were attacked by militant Muslims. Now some of these militant Muslims are religiously conservative (post-Shah Iran, Taliban), some are nationalistic (Saddam's Iraq), and some feel (rightly or wrongly) that they're oppressed (palestinians, american muslims).
The key to all these disparate groups is this: they are willing to execute innocent people in order to achieve their goals.
Now, I don't pretend that muslims corner the market on Terror. The KKK, Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, the DC Snipers are all motivated by different things, but they're same sick lot, as far as I'm concerned.
I'll tell you right now that if the IRA set off a bomb in Boston, the United States would be so far up Ireland's ass, we could look out its nose.
So, here's an olive branch to anyone who repudiates those kind of tactics. Anyone who doesn't is doomed to 'die by the sword'.
Now quit your whinin'...
you need better material.. that is so passe that it's no longer a threat to /.
The right to free speech is a natural right - it cannot be taken away by any constitution. It can only be silenced with bloodshed. Even then, your speech isn't killed - it is sealed with your blood. It is not an American right - it is a human right that everyone is given by God.
But the right to defend oneself, one's family, property, friends, and country is a natural right as well. Government cannot take it away. Even if they legislate against it, it will still be our right.
I agree: President Bush is not God.
We all agreed to the constitution. The constitution declares him to be the Commander in Chief. In times of war, with a few words, he can revoke the constitution, all the laws, the courts, and anything else he sees as contrary to our nation's needs. It's called "Martial Law". It's the law that we live by on the battle field. Without it, our republic would be crippled in times of national emergency.
This isn't a war like Vietnam or Desert Storm. The battlefield is every home, every building, and every street in the entire world. The terrorists have declared their method of fighting. Now we have to prepare a defense against it. We have to come up with a strategy to defeat it. This is the execution of that strategy: Sieze everyone who has donated even a few dollars to any organization connected in any way to the terrorists. Question them. Hold them in Guantanamo. Interrogate their friends and family.
The guy is now an enemy combatant. Since the terrorists have no uniform and act in secret, we cannot tell who is a terrorist or who is not except by uncovering the web the use one link at a time. He is one of those links.
He doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the local courts or any American court. He is a prisoner of war.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
We don't have equal protection. Money buys protection. The more money you have, the more you can protect yoruself. Just look at all the sports stars that do drugs, the Singers that do drugs and of course, we mustn't forget OJ.
Those without money, just have to use the public defenders and low cost atorneys and prat to whatever deitie(s) they believe in that there atorney is a good one.
So I'm a cynic.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
sorry, but no: foreigners visiting the US are not admitted entry unless they sign several pages of fine print; they are not given time to read the document, nor are they allowed to retain a copy.
i seriously doubt that they get any of the "rights" extended to "citizens".
The premise is that Americans aren't innocent. We supposedly control our government, and our government protects Israel.
We are quite innocent. Being Jewish is not a crime, and protecting a nation from those who would exterminate its people just for being Jewish is not wrong.
and contrary to what Mr. Bush would have us believe they are not 'attacking freedom'
They were. Bin Laden has spoken at length about how bad the U.S. is for being too free, especially when it comes to religious freedom and democracy.
control a government that has allied itself with their most bitter enemy
That is the problem. They need to take a "live and let live" approach to Israel, rather than the "Exterminate the filthy Juden" approach.
and has thereby taken sides in every Israeli/Muslim debate
There is only one just side in a debate in which one side wants to live, and the other wide wants to wipe that side out.
While President Bush has been asserting the power to prosecute foreigners outside the constitution, the power will likely be overturned when cooler heads prevail in Congress and the Supreme Court.
There is no need to overturn this.
Just as we look at Japanese detention camps during WWII with shame, I sincerely hope that one day we look back at the actions of this administration with the same shame.
The Japanese-Americans were imprisoned just for having Japanese ancestry. The imprisonment was quite shameful. The Gitmo terrorists are imprisoned for fighting in terrorist armies. Big difference! To falsely equate Americans of Japanese descent with terrorists dishoners the Japanese-Americans who were imprisoned.
If I understand you correctly: "All Americans should be killed because the US Government supports Israel."
Another absurd quote is "Even the radical Muslims aren't just killing random infidels". It's obvious that you weren't paying attention 28 months back. Didn't you hear? 19 radical Muslims killed almost 3,000 random "infidels". Also, some of them were muslim and not infidel at all.
Apparently Muslims don't have much memory of the relative peace achieved by the Dayton accords. Seems to me that the United States tried very hard to advocate both positions there. "Every Israeli/Muslim debate" indeed.
The Palestinians were very close to achieving a peaceful two-state solution with Israel, and what happened? Arafat welched.
No olive branch for you!
The guy was a student on a student's visa. If he's such a computer guru, I'm sure he was able to find this, and this, and maybe even this.
Gee, that took me 2 minutes. I bet after an hour I could find _all_ the immigration forms I need.
"Boo hoo, I traveled to a country and I broke their laws"
Sorry, I have very little sympathy for someone who says that when they knowingly do something illegal.
Realize that the guy you were responding to is a sort of neo-Nazi, who bases his foreign policy views on finding the most effective way to kill all the Jews.
Please, let's do talk about the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think it proves my point exactly.
If I seem to remember correctly, US and USSR solved the Cuban Missile Crisis by removing each others weapons. That's called diplomacy, where two states, with opposite agendas, find a middle ground that is acceptable. Nobody is happy, but everybody lives.
I direct you to that lesson because you will see the power of negotiating a peaceful settlement. Then I direct you to Begin and Sadat, another painful negotiation where an acceptable middle ground was found.
I assert that if Arafat made good on the final status talks, Palestine would be a state today.
Sadly, militant muslims see compromise as failure. You see the Cuban Missile Crisis as a failure (How dare the americans do that!) and I see it as a success.
If a State kills innocent civilians, then at least its citizenry has the opportunity to change it. I'm perfectly willing to say the CIA should not execute innocent people. In fact, I don't condone killing innocent people anywhere and I work very hard to create a country that doesn't do that.
Do you work as hard to make sure that middle eastern states don't condone executing innocent people? I doubt it, it appears as if you're willing instead to justify and make excuses for their behavior. ("We were attacked first, we're part of a battle that started a long time ago. You never called a truce")
Repeat after me, execution of innocent people is wrong. Do you understand? If you think that your side should execute innocent people, for whatever reason, then you are evil. If you feel the need to make exceptions and rationalize the behavior of people who do these things, then you have a serious moral defect.
Still no olive branch for you!
Yet you still don't repudiate terrorism.
No olive branch for you.
How about: the activities in question happened while this fellow was in the US, not in the Middle East?
Please put your thinking cap on before posting.
SHAME ON YOU!!! There is such a thing as constitutionally protected speech. ANYONE in this country can (indeed, under certain situations they have a requirement to!) reject the U.S. as a whole. The best example I can give is when one burns a United States flag. This is CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH!! It has even been declared so by the Supreme Court! You and your ilk would have this expression ILLEGAL! This makes YOU the terrorists, NOT HIM! People like you frankly scare me. You THINK you know what you are taking about, yet your ignorance of BOTH YOU OWN ANY MY rights precedes you! It's the poorly informed like YOU that the homeland Nazi Dept. are counting on to roll over while they trample MY rights (OUR RIGHTS!) right into the ground!!
And you people wonder why real Americans will make sure you lose the election this year?
Like many Slashdotting libertarians, I was greatly affected by the 9/11 craze that's been sweeping this great land of ours, America. I'm still very much for civil and economic liberties, but we must protect ourselves from the terrorist who could be just around the corner. I hope the government arrests my next-door neighbor next: I think he's kind of shady; and, with a tan, he looks like he could be Middle Eastern if you use your imagination.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
This is not the fault of communism. This is the fault of a dictatorial government with total disdain for the people
Same thing. Communism has turned out to be the most dictatorial form of government.
The same goes for pre-revolutionary France, and a large number of faschist dictatorships. None of these were communist.
And these were, for the most part, less deadly than the communists.
Could it be that the reason they became communist was as a response to the previous tyrannical governments?
Er.... no. Batista's Cuba was corrupt, but prosperous. Nothing to justify it being turned into a Stalinist hellhole. The Chinese Nationalists government that Mao struggled against was relatively enlightened. The Russian Bolsheviks overthrew a democracy.
BTW, the last US presidential election was far from being legal, in case you had not noticed
There was nothing to notice except that the losers (the guy who got fewer votes...you know, the guy who invented the Internet) filed frivolous court briefs and tried to overturn the election. Thankfully, the actual winner got inaugurated, and the legal election stood.
The cops in Idaho can chop off this creep's hands, rightly or wrongly, but another creep will just take his place. In another country where the US doesn't have jurisdiction, but which is indistuingishable on the Internet. The actual terror fighting will go after the subhumans who are organizing and training the people that this jerk was recruiting. That's why repressing expression is foolish - it's practical only to halt the actual bad guys, not those who just communicate about it.
--
make install -not war
Many of the "terrorist organizations" shut down by the federal government have been Islamic charities. It's too bad they don't seem to get a trial to defend the accusation that they're linked to terrorists. I have very little doubt that legitimate do-gooders have been caught in the dragnet.
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton
This says it all:
-----
The indictment represents the first time the government has charged that using the Internet for recruitment, fund-raising, and other purposes constitutes aid under a law that makes it illegal to provide "material support or resources" for terrorist activity
-----
Moderating an email list is "material support or resources".
-----
contending that operating websites falls within Hussayen's First Amendment rights
-----
Freedom of speech doesn't cover supporting criminal terrorist training activities, in paper, print, or website.
If he has people planning or giving calls to arms to commit terrorist acts against any people, groups, etc., then he is very much in the wrong if he doesn't kick them off the list. It's pretty plain and simple. If I walk through the streets with a sign that says I hate blacks, whites, Nintendo owners, or fluffy dogs, that's free speech. If I walk around with a sign that says "There's a bunch of $insert_group_here at Harry's Bar on 5th St., LET's KILL THEM" that is inciting violence, and probably a few other charges.
I think people tend to lose site of that fundamental difference, because of their stance on the matter. The liberal people who are worried about racial profiling and whatnot get so worried about free speech that they don't bother to see whether someone is committing a crime, and the conservatives who are so worried about terrorists that they're probably saran-wrapping their houses just see a threat. Both sides are partially right. Free speech should be protected at all costs, but there's a difference between free speech and plotting terrorist activities.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
"This isn't a war like Vietnam or Desert Storm. The battlefield is every home, every building, and every street in the entire world. "
That statement is patently untrue. In my house, nobody is shooting anybody, nobody is building bombs, nobody is promoting terrorism. We watch too much TV, play guitar, eat junk food, drink beer, and surf the web. We do not engage in, nor do we promote, terrorism. So leave my house out of your trite little PC bullshit phrase of the month. How about your houses, slashdotters? This guy just said you're letting terrorists fight wars in YOUR HOUSE, anybody else going to tell him he's wrong?
How about the White House? That's a building. The war must be there too, according to you, right? Let's see you storm that perimeter. Let's see you tell GWB with a straight face that you honestly truly believe that there's just as great a chance you could find terrorists under his roof as any other, because the battlefield is every house everywhere. That is what you said, right? Can you see how stupid you'd look? How about the tool shed behind the garage at my house? That's a building. It hasn't been occupied by a human being in over ten months, but hell, it's a building. How about the First Baptist Church down the street, that's a building. How about the Pentagon? It's got walls, a roof, and plumbing, sounds like a building to me.
The battlefield is NOT, I repeat NOT every building and street in the entire world. If it is, we have no chance of winning, because our armed forces aren't big enough to occupy every building in the world. And, come to think of it, it means there must be a veritable TON of terrorists, if there's one in every building in the world (I mean, they have to be in every building the world, because every building in the world is the battlefield, so that means there's enemy troops there, right? a battlefield without enemy troops seems kinda anticlimactic) so for the sake of our victory, let's hope you're very wrong (don't worry, you are).
Your statement is also possibly the most un-American and dangerous sentiment being bandied about America today, in the media and elsewhere. If you think the war against terror is going on in my house you're obviously not looking very hard for the real war. The real war isn't that hard to miss (Hint: Saudi Arabia. Hint: We're losing). The FBI saw where the real war was, that's why their field agents predicted and tried to prevent 9/11. The CIA saw the real war, that's why their field agents did the same thing. These warnings were deliberately ignored because (and this is the best-case scenario giving Junior as much benefit of the doubt as I can muster) Junior wanted to take a month-long vacation and because he didn't want to be seen doing any of the things Bill Clinton did (you know, preventing terrorist attacks, making sensible economic and environmental decisions, being acconutable to voters, working cooperatively with the international community). And now you have the balls to tell me that MY house is the battlefield? Chump.
Those who say that my house is the battlefield, I postulate, are those that very much WANT my house to be the battlefield (Ashcroft and his evil minions). Those truly fighting the war, those truly in harm's way, have a pretty good idea where the war is. I find it kind of telling that no US soldier has shown up on my doorstep. Maybe it's because my house isn't the battlefield. See, *they* can figure it out, why can't you? Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Israel, Russia, Indonesia, all are smarter bets for where real terrorists are to be found then my hosue. Maybe that's why the US military is in Iraq and Afghanistan. And not in my house.
Sheesh.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Sami's visa was current at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and it was current when he was arrested. I know this because I'm the human resources contact for the department Sami worked for at one point here at the University of Idaho, and I helped him take care of some visa issues about 6 months before he was arrested. Furthermore, our HR department is incredibly anal and rigid about foreign students' paperwork--we are notified several weeks in advance of any expirations, deadlines, or other issues that may arise. If the slightest thing is out of order with a student's paperwork, I receive a request to pull that student out of the payroll system. There's no way that Sami could have been working for our department or attending school on an expired visa.
For those of you who are wondering, I was helping him deal with the fact that his visa renewal application had not granted for the next academic year. The main reason given for this denial at the time was that he was from Saudi Arabia, and the US was refusing to renew a great many student visas for students from the Middle East, just on general post-9/11 principle. I helped him draft a letter to the Graduate Student Office requesting that he be allowed to finish and defend his dissertation via videoconference from Saudi Arabia, as he would not be able to continue at the University of Idaho in person. Permission was granted.
Sami is a good guy, and a great co-worker. He's getting shafted. I've spent the past year reading bullshit posts like this one, and my distaste for all of the rumor, innuendo, bullshit, and straight-up lying has finally overcome my desire to be professional about the matter.
Sami is my former co-worker, and is a decent, hard-working, and polite guy who also happens to be a caring father and very considerate husband. I know him pretty well through my work here at the University of Idaho, and needless to say, I don't take kindly to your suggestion that his hands should be cut off. You aren't even managing to make a decent ethnic slur--fundamentalist Islam law, or sharia, requires thieves' left hands to be amputated, not both. Examine the facts--not the innuendo, not the hysteria, not the bullshit--and quit with the knee-jerk racism.
There is a difference between free expression and paid sponsorship. The vast lie machine in the White House (and all over Washington, especially on the right half of each house of Congress) is not to be tolerated, nor excused as status quo. When you know they're lying, if you don't speak out, you're complicit. Their lies are killing people every day - and they'll get you, too, eventually. Do you want *your own* blood on your hands?
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing". - (paraphrase) Edmund Burke
--
make install -not war
Actually, the Supreme Court decided that they should just ask the Florida court whether the Florida vote violated Florida law, which the Florida court had said it did. The Florida court, when asked again, changed its mind. Evidence that you have more to learn about the entire fiasco: there was no recount, nor even a first count of *thousands* of ballots. That might be legal, given the arbitrary discretion of the Florida and Supreme courts, but it's not right. We could get into the role of Scalia's son on the Bush election team, or Scalia's threat to resign if a Gore presidency inevitably denied him the Chief Justice job, or Florida Governor Jeb Bush's control of the rules through Florida Secretary of State Harris, the worst Republican lapdog this generation. The whole problem with gaming the system is that it's all legal. I plan on voting, although I'm not certain all our votes will be counted, and I'm sure that some won't.
--
make install -not war
Hitler was fond of dogs, and he was very affectionate and loving with his pets, one of whom was named "Blondie." He was reportedly too dedicated to Germany and improving the world (in *his* opinion) to have children. Since he was nice to the folks he worked with, I am sure he would have been a loving father. Nontheless, many people at the time, and most in retrospect, feel that Hitler was a dangerous and destructive person. Folks who were close to him and survived his fall regret that they didn't confront Hitler about starting wars and killing people because they were different, or didn't fit into his plans.
Source: "Hitler's Secretary" Film Interview with his Secretary.
If he were so dedicated to his family, why would he put them in danger by recruiting for jihad and fomenting destruction? People might seem nice on an individual level; most people seem nice when things are going ok. If he were so dedicated to his family, why'd he do things that can put a family bread-winner in jail? Why are you defending such a person who is actually neglectful of his family, and whom is trying to spread random destruction? You should be saying: 'I thought I knew this guy. He seemed friendly and dedicated to his family. Boy, did he have us all fooled! His poor wife and kid are shamed now to be related to a terrorist, and they lost his income and his involvement in their lives. This guy ruined his family by doing stupid and bad things. What a creep.'