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'?"

Comments

First Amendment? I don't think so

[LordNimon]

conspiring to help terrorist organizations wage jihad by using the Internet to raise funds

If he really is raising funds, then the First Amendment has nothing to do with this.

Re:First Amendment? I don't think so

[rthille]

Really? A lot of election fund raising laws hinge on First Amendment protections. If I can raise money to take over the governement of the United States and install a whole new congress and president, why can't I raise money for other causes I believe in? Note, I haven't investigated the charges, and the article is light on details, but the person being charged denies the raising of funds, and the article goes on to say:

Hussayen is accused of moderating an Arabic-language e-mail group that posted instructions on how to train at a terrorist camp and issued an "urgent appeal" to Muslims in the military last February to provide information for use in selecting terror targets.

So, if I moderate on Slashdot, and someone posts such an 'urgent appeal' does that make me liable? I suppose I'd moderate such a post as 'offtopic' anyway, but maybe it should be 'flamebate'? Does that make me a terrorist? Also, another reply to this post compares this free speach to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. Huh? How is an website an 'automatic stimulus to panic'? Way too many people are willing to broden the Government's powers and tighten the protections given by the constitiution. I think we've got a responsibility to ensure those protections are kept as broad as possible.

Re:limits

[BrookHarty]

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.

Hate to play devils advocate, but if its ok to talk about war, its ok to talk about hate speech, there is no difference. Unless you are giving direct orders, with times, dates with specific plans of attack, it should be free speech. Telling people to support a cause, even if it is bloody should be free speech. When you tell people they can't support a cause by using hate crime/terrorism laws, its censorship and a tool to enforce political and moral values.

And reading the charges in the indictment, it basically says he ran the IANA (Islamic Assembly of North America) and a bunch of sites and even some net radio stations. One of his sites a webblog, someone posted instructions about suicides by bombing aircraft, he owns the site, this means hes the ring leader. And since there are large number of payments (over 3 million dollars) to members of IANA by supporting countries, Cairo, Egypt, Montreal, Canada, Riyadh, Saudia Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan, that further supports hes a terrorist. And he didnt list IANA on his VISA applications for school, so he must have lied. (He only listed ACM & IEEE)

Sounds like the fed's are regularly reading the weblogs to check for such action. 1 post from someone doesn't make IANA a terrorist group. But I suspect the person who did the post, did it from outside America. (If not, wouldnt Homeland security go after the poster?)

I think this guy is fucked, with so little fall guys these days, this looks like a win for homeland security. "We Got another one!". And top it off, hes not an American, so he has no free speech rights.

But I'm playing office chair politics, I dont have any more facts that whats in the indictment, which doesn't read all that above board for the USA. They only listed 1 post about terrorism, and its from someone else.

BTW, Glad I'm an American and I can still post abo

Z)FX($@#-
[NO CARRIER]

Re:First Amendment rights don't trump treason

[casuist99]

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.