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.

20 of 909 comments (clear)

  1. First Ammendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously the right most taken for granted is also the one people understand the least...

  2. Repeat 5th grade? by KRYnosemg33 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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
    It's this sort of uninformed, unintelligent (lack of) thinking that even allows these 'cases' to reach the courts in the first place.

    Can we possibly force potentially a hundred million people to go repeat 5th grade american history?

    1. Re:Repeat 5th grade? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >1st Amendment was not even applicable to the 'government' (assuming you mean federal government) until incorporation in late/late 19th and then early 20th century.

      The first five words are "Congress shall make no law". Certainly it was meant to apply to the Federal government.

      You may be thinking of the question of whether Constitutional protections bind state governments. That took the 14th Amendment and a bloody civil war to settle. The question probably never occurred to the Founders, who imagined state governments protecting the liberties of their citizens against Federal encroachment (see the Federalist Papers).

  3. First Amendment Message? by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Insightful
    David Nevin, lead defense attorney for Sami Al-Hussayen, said as he left the courthouse that he thinks Al-Hussayen's acquittal on terrorism charges sends a message.

    "I hope the message is that the First Amendment is important and meaningful in this country, and actions protected by the First Amendment really shouldn't be subject to prosecution," he said. "I think (the prosecution of) this case represented a pushing of the envelope for what will be permissible in the future. I think this case suggests they won't do that in the future - which I think is good for the First Amendment."

    Well, it would be nice if that were the outcome of this case, that people would stop trying to push the First Amendment back. But I suspect the opposite will be the case: They will re-double their efforts to find ways to prosecute anyone they don't like. Prosecuters who lose cases don't usually think, "Hmm...guess I was in the wrong." Instead they think, "Hmm...better work harder to get convictions."

    In America, the big thing used to be DWB: Driving While Black, where you could be pulled over just for having the wrong skin color. In today's America, there are a few who seem to have the idea of EWI: Existing While Islamic. Well, sorry, but Islam is not the problem here, it is extremism. Extremists are the dangeous ones. But hey, let's forget about that and find ways to trash the Constitution, shall we? ...sigh...

    1. Re:First Amendment Message? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI instructed police to be on the look out for the muslim men they assumed were behind it. Luckily, the White Christian ex-Marine who did it was already in custody for speeding.

      -B

    2. Re:First Amendment Message? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Muslim moderates *ARE* obligated to take a stand against extremism. It is *NOT* acceptable to stand quietly while such unacceptable acts are commited. Just as I am obligated to take a stand against the actions of US soldiers (and to take a stand against US policy), Muslims are obligated to take a stand against murder.

      I've seen *numerous* statements made by Islamic groups condemning September 11th. I believe even the Taliban condemned September 11th (though that didn't mean that they were willing to turn over bin Laden).

      Just what exactly are you expecting? I mean, it's not as if Joe Smith, a Christian architect, can stop Christian extremists from killing abortion clinic workers any more than a random Islamic accountant working in Manhattan can stop a bunch of Islamic extremists from attacking targets that *they* hate.

  4. Love the CNN link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/10/computer.terrori sm.ap/

    I believe a better title would be:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/10/first.amendment. still.functional.ap/
  5. Witches, Communists and Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's unfortunate, but I'm beginning to realize that this is a recurring theme in the human condition. Every generation has a group to hate/fear. Hundreds of years ago it was witches. Our parents' generation feared the communists, and now we have the terrorists.

    In each of these cases freedom has always been the first victim. With witches it was the loss of religious freedom. With the communists came the loss of actual freedom for many wrongly imprisoned. Today not only are innocents like Sami Al-Hussayen losing their freedom, but we're all losing a little freedom as we exchange privacy for so-called "protection".

  6. Re:Correct verdict, but... by wwest4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If some reactionary soldier kicks the shit out of some guy for saying something even as repugnant as advocating suicide bombing, he is stomping on the freedoms he's fighting for. That's like building a house and then razing it because you don't like who moved in. There is no freedom of speech if there is still the implied threat of physical retaliation.

    Besides, it's pretty obvious the guy isn't going to evangelize at Ft. Bragg. What's the point... it would be like trying to sell Pax Americana to a mullah and his followers, right?

  7. Which just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That lunatics aren't limited to the left or right of the political spectrum.

  8. Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? by femto · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Apart from the fact you are probably not looking, it is also a matter of numbers and the fact that 'left' and 'right' are relative terms.

    The fact is that the US is one of the more right wing nations. Consequently, even though you think you are left, or central, relative to the rest of the world you are probably quite right wing.

    There are 290 million people in the US. There are 6 billion in the world. Thus chances are a significant portion of the world's population is 'left' of you. Conseqently an American will generally view a collection of the world's population, such as the Internet, as being 'left wing'.

    As an illustration, I've generally considered slashdot to be somewhere between 'right' and 'centre'. I'm an Australian and consider myself to be 'centre' in Australian politics. I gather the majority of American slashdotters consider slashdot to be 'left'.

  9. one question... by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    do they have to stop the 'approved' torture now?

  10. Re:Correct verdict, but... by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go to a soldier bar and start talking that shit and they WILL kill you. It's what they are trained to do. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. Soldiers aren't supposed to stop and think "Oh wait, I'm supposed to be protecting what he says".

    I hope you're trolling.

    What you've said is an affront to decent soldiers everywhere.

    Soldiers aren't trained to be a blood-thirsty mob, lashing out at anyone they disagree with.

    Soldiers are trained to think and act with discipline. They take an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution, and that includes the 1st Amendment.

    Sure, not all soldiers meet this ideal; Abu Ghraib has demonstrated that, as did Lt. Calley at My Lai in 1968.

    But Hugh Thompson, the U.S. Army helicopter pilot who threatened to open fire on the U.S. troops massacring the Vietnamese civilians at My Lai, and Joseph Darby, the U.S. Army soldier who reported the Abu Ghraib atrocities to his superiors -- these are men who show the true measure that soldiers should aspire to.

    Your willingness to let bad soldiers off the hook is pure condescension, arrogating yourself above those you imply are "dumb muscle-bound soldiers who can't be trusted to behave like civilized men." It's pure insult to the many decent men and women who have served and are now serving our country.

  11. Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, every now and then someone comes along and upsets my world view and makes me re-jiggle things until everything fits together again.

    It's not very comfortable, but I suppose it's quite healthy to do so.

    Thank you.

  12. Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? by martinX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a fellow Aussie, I agree. Regardless of what they think they have, the US political scene seems to consist of Right and Further Right.

    Plus the whole Libertarian thing seems really out there.

    My own political position? LeftRightOut :-)

    --
    When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  13. Attention Foreigners.. by humankind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Official Public Notice...

    Attention non-US-citizens

    We know that you have looked to the United States over the years as a benchmark for progress. The innovation and passion of our infant society and government has made great strides in the progression of humankind.

    However, please be advised that this progress has now ceased.

    Don't waste your time being disappointed with the obvious lack of logic, consistency, lawfulness or compassion of our people. It has all but evaporated.

    America has turned into a society of consumers who value materialism over everything else, and as a result, we interpret "truth" according to the tenets which most benefit our quest for validation within our society of consumption.

    Not everyone in our country believes in these ideals, but you wouldn't know that from watching American media.

    So the energy you would expend to call attention to the numerous double standards of the ideals that we supposedly espouse might be best served, if they were recycled into a campaign to overthrow the political parties that are employing the misguided notion that large corporations and media conglamorates have the masses best interests in mind.

  14. Who said anything about the Catholic Church? by mcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're talking about pseudomilitiant extremist Christians in America today, aka the "Christian Right", which is more of a cultural group than a religious bloc. And while there's probably some militant Catholics out there somewhere, they probably don't get to be counted as part of the "Christian Right" club. In fact, that particular movement sometimes seems to hate Catholics even almost as much as they hate us homosexuals.

    No, clearly not all Christians are in with this crowd. And not all Christians are "turning a blind eye" to things like abortion clinic bombings. But within the Christian community a violent minority does exist. And the number of "Christians" that are turning a blind eye, or even to some degree tacitly approving, to the extremists among them is large enough to be rather scary. And the number of Christians who practice their personal religion in a totally healthy, positive and loving way, yet seem to be totally unconcerned that a nontrivial number of people out there are applying the name "Christian" to a religion based essentially around hate, is much larger.

    Basically, if you're trying to protest the painting of all Christians with a wide brush, then yes, you're right, good point. But other than that, I don't see how one Christian minority group disapproving of violent tactics makes the actions of another Christian minority group which does approve of violent tactics any less of a "lynching".

  15. Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? by marsu_k · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What I've always found incredibly amusing is the fact that "the greatest democracy in the world" has effectively two political parties to choose from; both of which, from my non-American perspective, are quite right wing. Neither left wing by any global standards. Remember the Soviet Union? (no, I'm not going to make a bad joke) They were widely criticized for having just one party. The US has it better - by one.

    (please note I'm not advocating the Soviet system, just an observation)

  16. Re:It seems to be part of a general social breakdo by ACNiel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You seem to have lost sight of the fact that being a communist was, is, and should always be legal in this country.

    As it wasn't a crime, people should never have been subjected to the threats, investigations, and persecution the government was promoting.

    I do not agree with communism. I would not go to a rally. I don't care if the person next to me has or not. The "communists" in Hollywood were just disenfranchised. They weren't Soviet spies.

    I would never turn in my neighbor because of something that wasn't, isn't, and shouldn't be a crime.

  17. Re:/. : Lefisist political site by carldot67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Leftist?

    Someone has a severe chip on their choulder here. This isnt about leftism, its about freedom and consistency.

    Back in the eighties when my home town was getting bombed by the I.R.A. I dont remember anyone on US soil being hauled into jail for 18 months on "Terrorist Charges". Why? Because raising money for NorAid wasnt a criminal, terrorist activity. AND NEITHER IS THIS.

    Too often Americans forget their recent history books. May I refer you to McCarthyism. Its right there. Between Klan and Prohibition.

    Capitalism has nothing to do with it. The majority standing by in their comfortable homes and saying nothing while injustice runs riot is the issue here.

    For shame.

    --
    I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.