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'?"

14 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. First Amendment? I don't think so by LordNimon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    1. Re:First Amendment? I don't think so by rthille · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    2. Re:First Amendment? I don't think so by xyzzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, but the distinction here is raising money for something LEGAL (running in an election) versus a CRIME (funding a terrorist organization).

    3. Re:First Amendment? I don't think so by Chasuk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I live in Moscow, Idaho, that hotbed of terrorist activity, so I am perhaps a little biased. Still, it all boils down to this:

      Sami was in the United States studying. In his free time (which even students have, despite their sometimes-protestations to the contrary), he registered domains and dispersed funds for several non-profit organizations.

      This made the government mad because Sami was supposed to be in the United States solely for the purpose of pursuing [his] studies. They allowed him to bring dependents into the country, so they knew that part of his time would be spent in tasks not solely concerned with pursuing his studies: being a father and being a husband do require some division of attention.

      Sami got in trouble because some of the webpages for which he was the point of contact (registered in his name or otherwise) would occasionally publish material advocating terrorist acts against the United States. of course, we all know that CmdrTaco is personally responsible for everything that is published on Slashdot, so this is only fair play.

      Still, I am curious. It is possible to register domains and transfer funds from one bank account to the other whilst in Saudi Arabia, right? It certainly was sneaky for near-PHD Sami to come all the way to the United States to perpetrate his evil terrorist deeds. Especially sneaky since he sent for his wife and children to be with him, just so that they would be able to suffer together if things ever went terribly wrong, which they did.

      So, Sami was conspiring to help terrorists organizations, according to our government (a charge which, incidentally, very few here in redneck Moscow, Idaho actually believe). But has he been accused of being a terrorist? What is the distinction between conspiring the help terrorist organizations and being a terrorist?

      Sami might be a terrorist, obviously. Likewise, George W. might have a few brain cells to rub together. I'd wager that the odds for either being true have the same statistical merit.

  2. MOD PARENT UP by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Inciting others to commit a crime and helping to raise funds for terrorists clearly is not within the bounds of the first amendment. Freedom of speech does not extend to all speech, as everyone knows from the too-often used 'fire' in a theatre example.

    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.
  3. US vs. al-Hussayen (pdf) by glassesmonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    18 pages of Grand Jury charges in US v. al-Hussayen(pdf)

  4. News you didn't read by glassesmonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  5. Freedom/Responsibility by GrendelT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Freedom/Responsibility by DreamerFi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are somewhat right, and you make a good point. However, I don't think you go far enough. I mean, we (I'm not american, but dutch right don't really differ all that much where it really counts) can all celibrate how "Free" we all are because we allow others to say things we disagree with, but the real strength of a Free country comes with the resulting discussion. "so you think we suck because of X. How would you do things differen then?" Of course this doesn't work for quite a lot of folks (on both sides of the discussion) because they are too rigidly set in their opinion, but the real freedom lies in the fact that the discussion can take place and make the country as a whole stronger as a result.

      -John

  6. Well that's a whole new kettle of fish. by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Well that's a whole new kettle of fish. by identity0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously, if the websites in question were raising funds for terrorist groups, it would be illegal whether or not they were non-profit or if he was a student.

      However, I don't believe there are restrictions against student visa holders working for a non-profit, so long as they are volunteers, not paid employees. People I know have volunteered for a church play, joined a Linux user's group, and done community service while on student visas, all of which are legal as far as I understand.

      Lying on an immigration form is, of course, illegal - as a matter of fact, that's one of the few things they can revoke naturalized citizenship for.

  7. Re:limits by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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]

  8. *sigh* by eyeball · · Score: 3, Informative
    From some article text:


    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. Hussayen's lawyer, David Nevin, said he believes "there is substantial question about the constitutionality of this charge," contending that operating websites falls within Hussayen's First Amendment rights. Nevin denied that Hussayen has raised money for jihad or posted calls for violence. 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.


    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
  9. Re:First Amendment rights don't trump treason by casuist99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.