Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Saudi Webmaster Acquitted of Terrorism Charges

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the mud-dragging-done dept.

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.

5 of 909 comments (clear)

  1. Re:First Amendment Message? by mandalayx · · Score: 5, Informative
    You're probably right with other parts of the country (NY comes to mind) but these guys in Idaho seem pretty level headed. The US Attorney ends up praising the jurors (i.e. the people) instead of spreading some FUD:
    "I think the ladies and gentlemen on the jury did a good job," Moss said. "They were very attentive throughout the trial. I think they studied everything very thoroughly.


    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!
    On the terrorism charges, Steger said jurors simply found a lack of evidence. "All the evidence that we had was not clear-cut, saying that he was a terrorist, so there had to be a lot of inference, that kind of thing," Steger said.

    He added, "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."
  2. Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? by rov4416444 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Re:It's amazing how much jurors do not know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Wrong. by rjh · · Score: 5, Informative
    What about the bombing of abortion clinics?
    The Catholic Church is, as a whole, one of the most fanatically anti-abortion institutions out there... and it is equally fanatically anti-violence-against-abortionists. After the assassination of an abortionist, Cardinal O'Connor had this to say:
    "If anyone out there is considering killing an abortionist, let him kill me first!"
    Seems to me that, contrary to what you're implying, the Catholic Church has spoken out at very high levels against violence to abortion providers.

    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.