Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Webmaster Acquitted of Terrorism Charges
terrymr writes "Saudi Student Sami Omar Al-Hussayen was found not guilty on charges that he 'rendered techical assistance to terrorists' by acting as the webmaster for an Islamic charity. Said one juror: 'The part that surprised me was when I read the First Amendment instructions. I was surprised to learn that people could say whatever they want... providing it would not cause imminent action.'" You might remember our previous coverage of this story. In addition, the AP (via CNN) has more information as well.
They want him dead, regardless of what a jury says.
C:\>
And the jurors, while you can make fun of their lack of knowledge about the law, seemed to take the time to actually understand the law as it is written. Whew, that's a cool concept!
Try RightNation.
You've got to be kidding me, this is a joke right? The web is seething with Conservative forums. Try Little Green Footballs for a start. Check out the hundreds of links they have. Try to keep your lunch down. -- If affirmative action means what I'm for, I'm for it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The website with the actual mailing list (which is named, along with about 10 others in the above PDF) is here.
The thing about websites, forums, and mailing lists, is that you can never get the true feel from a description designed to make it sound horrible. For all we know, the messages that they read could be considered the trolls of the mailing list. Even if they weren't, Internet forums is still a sticky subject. People say a lot of stupid things, discussions can get heated, people can troll, people can exaggerate their beliefs to get a better response, and sometimes there are just nuts who use the Internet to let our their ideas that no one will listen to in real life. The sites could have been designed to support and recruit terrorists, but you can never really know, and there certainly wasn't enough evidence to point fingers at a moderator of the mailing list.
Uh, most of the stuff I see in tha freeper article is PURE LIBEL.
I did not know Sami personally but I was aware of his living conditions. By all appearances he DID NOT import 100's of thousands. IIRC he lived in average to low quality student appartments (like most students) and didn't have any evidences of being outstandingly rich. Even if he imported any serious amount of money it would have to be declared with customs.
Of the Mulslim students I knew of he was not one of the scary ones. There were a few who I met and talked to.
At a time when we had dozens and dozens of Saudi and middle-eastern students fleeing the country Sami stayed. What thanks he got. Trumped up charges (helped setup a website and real audio stream) and got the book thrown at him (still 8 counts of visa fraud & related charges that could get him deported).
The DoJ's case was such a joke. Fabricated evidence like the mistranslations (was it Arab Lybian Project or Arab Library Project?? even the CIA couldn't keep the translation consistent!) clearly showed that the government's case was weak from the start.
Perhaps you should read the article.
The juror quoted is being instructed to the effect that the free speech is far broader than the juror expected. That is, the judge is informing the jury that the defendant is much harder to convict on these charges than they might have thought. The judge is not telling the jury what the verdict should be, nor is he encouraging them to convict.
This is, in fact, the point of the instructions. The judge is supposedly an expert in fine points of law, while the jurors are not. Thus, you can remind or inform them of those details that matter to the case. If, as you propose, jury nullification were a great thing, in this case ignoring the law in favor of (potential) jury whim would have resulted in a conviction, not an acquittal.
No.
No.
And, no. The jury is there to decide if the person actually committed the crime in question, not whether the law makes sense. While jury nullification is useful for the worst abuses of the legislative process, I would prefer that they generally stick to deciding guilt or innocence.
Remember, the last high-profile use of jury nullification was OJ. It wasn't that they thought that he didn't do it, but that they didn't want riots (a case of the law not making sense, taking into account what could happen).
> If the KKK (Christian extremists) were lynching people still,
> you can guarantee you'd have Christians across the country
> outraged by this and telling everyone.
What makes you think that the lynchings have stopped?
Examples that spring to my mind include Matthew Shepard and the lynchings in the U.S. Navy a few years back.
What about the bombing of abortion clinics?
O'Connor's speech was affirmed by the Vatican and published widely in Catholic newspapers. It even made CNN. So if you think Christian churches are turning a blind eye to Matthew Shepard, abortion violence and other things done ostensibly in God's name, then all that shows is you're not paying attention.
This is simply wrong. When North America was inhabited by tribes, and Europe was a patchwork of single tribal and feudal micro states each fighting each other, the Arab world was interconnected with a common language, a common administration system and a common law. Far away from the "tribal structure" you are thinking of. Of course there were different states, and they waged war against each other. Just like the Europeans fighted each other (and did it until recently, and the Kosovo is still at a civil war), and the U.S. was in a long standing feud with Mexico.
Ethnic, religious or nationalist conflicts are abundant even in todays oh so civilized western democraties. Think of the Basques in North Spain, the anglo-irish conflict in North Ireland, or the bashing of all things french in the U.S. (and vice versa the official loathing of everything considered american in France.)
The arab world is not much different in this regard. There are ethnic minorities in the mainly arab states (berbers, kurds, turks...), there are different interpretations of Islam (Sunni and Shiia as the most prominent, Ismaelites and other smaller sects). There are non arab islamic states, which get always mixed into the arab soup in western news (Iran for instance is partly persian in the south and turk [asari] in the north, with kurds spread everywhere. So it is not even an arab country at all.) The largest islamic country in the world is not even in the Middle East. Indonesia is located in the Southeast asian archipel.
But to call this a "tribal system" is just an offspring of a theory of an own superiority theory we should abandon as soon as possible, because it doesn't help us in any way. The state of the arabian world is quite similar today to the state of the western world at the begin of the 20th century: Old, dying monarchies, some quite questionable democracies, civil wars either boiling or going on under the surface. The western world managed to kill more than 100 Mio people in the conflicts between 1850 and 1950. Compared with this achievement the arabian world is a place of piece and security.
Here are some links for you to look at:
Murder
Rape
Sodomy