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.

Comments

Don't tell this to the PeePers

[setzman]

They want him dead, regardless of what a jury says.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll probably attack the jurors as "liberal elites".

Liberal elites who never heard of the 1st amendment.

That'd be hysterical.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[bersl2]

They refer to a lot of disallowed evidence in this "conservative news forum" of theirs. Would anybody care to elaborate on this?

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[Anenga]

As oppose to the liberal version of FreePer (although, I'd say it's 10x worse), which is celebrating the death of former President Ronald Reagan.

Best to just steer clear of the Internet bottom feeders.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[MST3K]

While I agree with you that it's a good idea to steer clear of such folks, I'd like to mention that there are non-bottom feeders at both forums. After reading that particular threat at DU, I discovered there were more than a few folks that stated while they disagreed with Reagan, they'd never celebrate his death.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[Anonymous Coward]

I try not to pay attention to the bigots on the far right or the hippies on the far left. They tend to make me espies the human race. With the government and media still trying to terrorize the populace with tales of past and imminent terrorist attacks, we forget sight of one thing: No terrorist body, no anarchy, no thing and no one can destroy life on the scale a large, central government can. America's decimation of the Native Americans, Hitler's Holocaust, Stalin's Purges, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge each took more lives than any terrorist could ever dream of.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[Theatetus]

I have a theory that as a response to the "radical liberalism" of the past decades, and since 9/11, we've seen a growth of "radical conservatives"

Eh? "Radical liberalism" of the 1990's? Where were you?

The 90s were a decidedly conservative decade compared to the 70s (consider: Nixon created the EPA & NEA. Clinton slashed the Federal gov't to half the size it was when he took office.) Clinton was forced to the right of Nixon on a lot of things. For that matter, the "center" today is to the right of Goldwater 40 years ago on some issues. We don't notice this because the media are so conservative. There have been radical conservatives since Goldwater and LaRouche; the last real radical liberal we had was Hoffman (though Moore is making some headway now).

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[Chasuk]

Indeed. freerepublic.com is so "free" that shortly after I posted there - a very moderate, reasonable comment, incidentally - my message was "Removed by Moderator" and when I next attempt to post a message, I encountered this:

Your posting privilege has been revoked.

Freerepublic.com - where the moderators are too chickshit to allow their flock to engage in conversation which might meaningfully contradict their biases.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[Chasuk]

I hate to respond to my own post, but I thought I might share the message which earned my banishment from freerepublic.com...

*****

To: Jeff Head
I am sorry...but the Uncle who was sending him money, for him to have been questioned after 911 because he was at the same hotel with some of the terrorists who crashed the Pentagon,

He did receive a stipend, yes. From the link you provided:

While AL-HUSSAYEN was a student in the United States, he received a stipend for living expenses from a foreign source.

I live in Idaho. I read the paper every day, in print and on-line versions, and your claims regarding his Uncle I've read nowhere else.

Here is a link to a message I posted on Slashdot which still sums up how I feel about this affair:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=92296&cid=79 40 297 ...and that is simply how I feel about it and is my opinion. :-)

*****

Pretty threatening and defamatory, wasn't it?

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[Read Icculus]

I knew freep was scary and wrong, but I had no idea that they could be this nuts...

Nice page you have there, Jeff! Here is this map again. I am trying to post it so most are aware of it. The media down plays the fact that thousands of Muslims ARE living in our Country!

Map?

Thousands of Muslims living in "our" country? Thousands?! Where does this guy live? Who doesn't know that millions of Muslims live in this country along with "us"? Just plain shocking.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[Anonymous Coward]

We have actual proof about the many crimes committed by Reagan. Nicaragua, Iran-Contra, El Salvador, Grenada, Iraq, Panama, Chile, Afghanistan... there is no proof about this grad student doing anything illegal. Celebrating death is unseemly, but war criminals don't deserve much sympathy.

The UN was found guilty of supporting the illeagl war and the war crimes that were carried out by the Contras. "The moral equivalents of our founding fathers" according to Reagan.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[qtp]

This is typical of freep.

I had two userIDs booted from the site due to posting evidence contrary to previous post's allegations (from government documents no less) before I realized that their definition of "free" is the freedom to lie, spin, eliminate opposing viewpoints, and hide evidence to the contrary of a revisionist conservative political platform.

At least on the so-called "liberal" sites, a little debate is always welcome, and unpopular viewpoints are moderarated fairly if they are argued appropriately and grounded in fact.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[Anonymous Coward]

which is celebrating the death of former President Ronald Reagan.

And that is surprising how? As a non-US-citizen I remember image of president Reagan during 80s, outside of this country, and he was regarded almost as "highly" as ex-pres Nixon. As right-wing religious nut, third class actor, war mongerer, the guy who'll bring Armageddon to everyone.

In hindsight, he actually was much more talk than action, and that was a Very Good Thing. And probably good reason why he is now highly regarded in US (as opposed to what Bush will be in 20 years). Plus he was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, both as the symbol of US revival (getting US ego back on track), and as "the guy who brought Soviet Union down" (although, just as with economy, it was just long time coming -- not specifically [only] his accomplishment by any measure).

So, maybe he had too bad a rap back then; Bush jr. actually has done many more bad things than Reagan was suspected of doing back then.

In the end, it really is good that Reagan is highly regarded here; outside of US he never was, and isn't, outside of hard-core right-wing politicians group. It's not a coincidence that most commentaries from abroad are from mrs. Thatcher, as she's definitely the only european counterpart... widely loathed, but obviously back then very influential leader.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[UncleFluffy]

Funny how liberals cling to the first admendment, but ignore the rest of the Constitution.

There's a reason it's called an amendment.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[killjoe]

At least we don't kill, imprison or torture people we disagree with.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers

[federal_employee]

Obviosly you've never lived in Idaho. There is no such a thing as a "liberal elite" in Boise Idaho. That's funny.

What you do find in Idaho is a general mistrust of the Federal Government and Attorney Generals. Remember Ruby Ridge.

It was a weak case from the start. Ashcroft was doing a witch hunt. With the case they were presenting anyone who sets up up a website with a forum with a single posting inciting violence could get terrorism charges. And the postings referenced in the indictment that Ashcroft quoted read like book reports. For example "The World's Bravest People" about the Chechen mujahideen warriors, "The True Meaning of Shaheed" about how matrydom is an ultimate honor, "The Objectives and Aims of Jihad", and "The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad".

It was if someone posted a document on the honor and bravery of Samurais and the webmaster being thown in jail.

Here is the indictment.

As a former UI student who worked in the same lab as Sami, I am glad to see that our court systems do work and that he can return to his family. Let's hope that all accused get a day in court instead of indefinite prison terms and assassinations.

First Ammendment

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:First Ammendment

[SpaceLifeForm]

The reason that the 1st Ammendment is the most attacked is because it is the most critical tool that the citizens have to keep the government under control.

Repeat 5th grade?

[KRYnosemg33]

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?

Re:Repeat 5th grade?

[michaelangelo]

The language in the jury instructions was from court decisions involving the 1st amendment. Probably quoted from the Pentagon Papers case.

Once the defense asked for the instruction, the judge probably had no choice but to allow it. I don't think it's all that surprising that the a jury member was not familiar with the language. But I'm favorably impressed that the jury took the language seriously when they deliberated.

In fact the 1st amendment was originally interpreted so that the government could outlaw speech that impeded the war. Perhaps you don't remember the Anti Sedition Act or didn't study it in American history.

Re:Repeat 5th grade?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>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).

Re:Repeat 5th grade?

[Fnkmaster]

You have obviously confused private schools with religious schools. In the rural, right-wing areas of the country, they may be the same, but for most of us on the Coasts and not in the god-forsaken middle-region of this country, private schools are where the best teachers and often the best students can be found. Yes, I suffered through the public school system for quite a few years when my family couldn't afford anything better, but when we finally could, I met far more intelligent and interesting people in one class of 150 students than you'd find in 3 or 4 schools of 3000 public high school students.

Not to say there weren't some very bright people in the public schools I attended - there were. In any case, our public school system is incredibly broken in the US, primarily because it has shifted its focus entire from the best and brightest students to the lowest common denominator. Comparing my mother's descriptions of public high school when she was a kid - when they separated out the pre-college track students, and had a Group A, B and so on down the line grouped by their capabilities - to what I saw, it's clear that our system has fallen apart under the incredibly defective theory that spending 100 times as much on remedial programs as is spent on gifted programs will help this nation produce its next generation of scientists, engineers, doctors, and political and business leaders.

No, my friend, private schools are the places where they can afford to be selective about the students they admit and thereby avoid that utter claptrap. If your kids are dumb, I'm sorry, but keep them the fuck out of my kid's classroom.

First Amendment Message?

[FunWithHeadlines]

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...

Re:First Amendment Message?

[FunWithHeadlines]

Yup, proved my point. That is precisely the argument that was used to racially profile black men. So how about this reasoning: 100% of deliberate terrorists acts have been committed by humans. So let's use the past as an indicator for the FUTURE and watch all humans.

Or we could instead do what law enforcement is supposed to do: Keep an eye on people when there is probably cause, not just because of causal factors or skin color or nationality. Do you have any idea how many perfectly innocent foreign Islamic men exist around the world?

Re:First Amendment Message?

[mandalayx]

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."

Re:First Amendment Message?

[FunWithHeadlines]

I noticed that comment too, actually, so my thoughts were more directed at prosecuters in general and not specifically at this one guy. In fact, in the Mountain West, with their typical distrust of big government, it might well be harder to pick on the little guy.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[macdaddy]

The problem can be summed up in two words: Intolerance and Greed. Those two little words can sum up every problem ever encountered in humanity. Unfortunately this world is riddled with people infected with both.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[Ralph Wiggam]

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

Re:First Amendment Message?

[rice_web]

The Muslim population across the globe has long been oppressed. Of course most of them see nothing wrong.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[GileadGreene]

I highly recommend that you pick up Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" (came out last year) for a truly scary look at what the religious extremists that live in America are up to. And a scary look at how little outrage it appears to generate among the "moderates".

Re:First Amendment Message?

[bricriu]

>> Christians aren't strapping bombs to themselves

Um.... except for Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. Funnily, I don't seem to recall white, Christian BBS operators being rounded up at the time.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[bersl2]

Let's try an experimental viewpoint out:

They're about 600 years, developmentally, behind you guys.

They're right now in the "temper tantrum" stage. The Christians embarked on the Crusades at this point in their development.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[0racle]

I assume you've never heard of Ireland. As far as lynch mobs in America, 'Christians across the country' in general saw nothing wrong with it, after all it was Catholicism that created the basic idea that Blacks were cursed therefore it was ok to do anything to them.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[Tony-A]

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.

Some. From a distance. Almost never from the same social set as the members of the KKK.

It's easy to be morally outraged at them, almost impossible to be morally outraged at us.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Christians in India do use bombs to kill in the name of religion.

Christians in the south use bombs to kill abortion doctors in the name of religion.

Muslim moderates aren't obligated to feel outrage over the extremists, especially not for your benefit.

Most christians in the US, even the non-KKK variety, were never really outraged against lynching. If they say so now, it's generally more of a political thing, rather than the true sentiment.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[donnz]

No sources cited. Don't you just love "FACTS" being presented without any back up.

FACT: Christians torture and kill their prisoners - this torture is extreme and cruel.

Islam has at least as diverse and wide ranging views as any other religion. Islam had their Renaissance centuries before the "West" got in on the act.

Why not try researching your topic - better still - moderators, why not try thinking before your moderate?

Re:First Amendment Message?

[L0rdJedi]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The government is free to excercise freedom of religion just like individuals are. When they make a law respecting a religion, then we'll have a problem. Until that day comes, they've done nothing wrong.

And charging churches with taxes just as any other corporation.

Oh yes, because they make so much money through DONATIONS now don't they. The only difference between religion and government is that religion asks you to donate money. The government MAKES you pay your taxes. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. If you don't donate to your church, oh well, life goes on.

They serve me no purpose but use the country's resources.

You serve me no purpose and you're using valuable air. Please go away or pay more taxes to exist :p

Re:First Amendment Message?

[GileadGreene]

So I'm guessing from this comment that you haven't actually read Krakauer's book, or even have any idea of what its content is. So how about you ditch the knee-jerk reaction and take a minute to understand what the actual issue here is.

Krakauer's book is not about separation of church and state, the ACLU, or freedom of or from religion. It is about what happens when faith gets carried to radical extremes, and its point is that the US has extremists that are as bad or worse than the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Specifically, it explores the roots of a cold-blooded murder (mother and infant daughter) carried out by a pair of fundamentalists from one of America's "fastest growing religions" because "God commanded them to do it", and also takes a look at some of the other disturbing practices (rape, incest, child molestation, and so on) perpetrated in the name of faith. It isn't a condemnation of all faith or all religion, but it does point out the dangers of taking any faith to extremes. The US needs to deal with the problems it has internally with extremists, as well as the problems it faces with external extremists. Most people in the US are apparently not even aware that such internal extremists even exist - "Under the Banner of Heaven" helps to correct that problem. Again, I highly recommend it.

Aside: I don't support the current actions in LA. The crosses are on the seal for historical, not religious reasons, and fit within the context of the rest of the seal. Will they campaign to change the name "Los Angeles" next, because it's "too religious"? I hope not. It's actions like the LA County seal issue that give atheists a bad name.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"Muslim moderates aren't obligated to feel outrage over the extremists, especially not for your benefit."

Right, just like I'm not obligated to feel outrage over the prisoner abuse in Iraq.

Except that I do. Beacause I'm a person who wants to stand by my principles and who opposes torture, even if it is done by US soldiers.

Sorry, but if moderate Muslims are against terrorism, then why *aren't* they outraged. If you aren't outraged, then you are essentially condoning the terrorism.

I don't believe in a black-and-white world. It is perfectly acceptable for others to hate the United States. We have done a lot of things that are not acceptable. I am outraged at what we are doing right now.

But terrorism is unacceptable. Just is it's not OK for the Isrelis to bomb apartments, it's not acceptable for Palestinains to bomb Isreli restaurants. It's not OK for you to kill another human except in extremely limited circumstances (and, yes, I am against capital punishment).

If you cannot take a stand against torture and murder, then what do you stand for? If you cannot feel outraged that your people are killing innocent people, if you cannot feel outraged at the decapitation of an American soldier, then what do you stand for?

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.

Unless, of course, they believe it is acceptable.

Sidenote:

I agree that Christians aren't exactly clean either. Religous extremeists are dangerous whatever their belif system is. Conservative Christians scare me as well - I, for one, believe that religion and politics should stay distinctly seperate.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[Lemmy Caution]

The thing is, of course, that the non-Muslim West apparently wants the moderate Muslims to pipe up only when it's to condemn other Muslims. They certainly provide no real outlet for them to criticize Israel or the US or Europe, but after essentially blacking out any pro-Palestinian perspective from the media, all the Americans disingenously cluck "where are the moderate Muslims? Why aren't they crying out?" Well, where was the moderate Christian and Jewish outcry about the occupation and the activities of the IDF? Is that the only time the western media has room for Muslims - when it's time for them to criticize extremists?

If I were Muslim, I'd say "screw that."

Re:First Amendment Message?

[LinuxGuyFriend]

Because one side is the US army and the US likes to BS the world about freedom, democracy, what's right etc. And the other side is terrorists.

So if people were as outraged about the terrorists as they are about US troops committing torture and so on, would that mean that we expect the terrorist organisations and the US military to be on the same level of morality?

Please note that crime committing US soldiers don't sully the Chritian name as terrorists do to Islam.

US soldiers can pretty much go freely to any country in the world, with a few exceptions. Terrorists on the other hand are hunted down by pretty much all (if not all) countries in the world. As a matter of fact, they tend to be treated with extreme prejudice in Arab coutries.

How many people in the US think the prison abuse in Iraq is no big deal? 30-40%? How many people in Arab countries think it's ok to decapitate a person? Probably much less. Perhaps Muslims don't need be told every minute what's rigt and what's wrong. How about Christian "flocks"?

Re:First Amendment Message?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Christians aren't strapping bombs to themselves

Um.... except for Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. Funnily, I don't seem to recall white, Christian BBS operators being rounded up at the time.

What? The bombing in Oklahoma City didn't have anything to do with religion. Stop modding this moron up.

Oklahoma City was meant to be a wake-up call to a government that was abusing its power. A topic that seems to be the love of many Slashdotters and I'm sure you are familiar with. If McVeigh's bombing had anything at all to do with religion it was a fight for freedom of religion.

Why don't you read McVeigh's public statements regarding his reasoning for the attack.

No, I do not condone violence. No, I do not approve of what McVeigh did. But dammit, get your facts straight. In many ways the Oklahoma City bombing was a fight for what so many of you here claim to fight for as well.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[Lord Kano]

After the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI instructed police to be on the look out for the muslim men they assumed were behind it.

There was rampant media speculation about Muslim involvement, the FBI never made such a claim.

Luckily, the White Christian ex-Marine who did it was already in custody for speeding.

1 for 3. McVeigh was white. He was not a Christian. Remember that "captain of my own soul" business? And he was ex-Army.

LK

Re:First Amendment Message?

[jtev]

Well, we did invade one of the two main countries with predominatly muslim population that isn't an utter hellhole of religious intolerance for it's average man. To bad it seems it takes a megalomaniac terrorist to convince them that culture and relitive civility are good things. Once we properly pacify it, Iraq will make a much better ally than Saudi Arabia ever did. And that's what has them so scared and our gassoline prices going up. Think about it, in the 80s Saddam was our friend against the Iranians. He attacked our lifestyle and ability to defend our country and we turned damned fast on him. The shit the Saudis pull is going to be where we can turn on them before to long. We should work toward energy self-suficency, but until we get there we must have a secure and friendly bridgehead in the mideast. As long as oil is needed for our defense and way of life, we cannot let it be dictated by those who hate us.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[0x0d0a]

They're about 600 years, developmentally, behind you guys.

They're right now in the "temper tantrum" stage. The Christians embarked on the Crusades at this point in their development.

Ah, you mean they invaded Middle Eastern nations with little justification, a good deal of religious and emotional influence, and a lot of money and politics involved?

Sounds absolutely barbaric.

I'm quite glad that all that is hundreds of years behind us.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[0x0d0a]

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.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[killjoe]

Rush limbaugh called for a nuclear strike against whatever country the bombers were from. If I remember correctly he said to turn the country into a parking lot. He was advocating a genocide of unspeakable proportions.

Once he found out it was republican americans he changed his tune. He didn't even call for bombing a state let alone turning the US into a parking lot.

What a fuckwad.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[pcaylor]

after all it was Catholicism that created the basic idea that Blacks were cursed therefore it was ok to do anything to them.

I think you may want to read up on how the various Christian denominations in the US reacted to slavery. The Catholic Church has never advanced the theory that blacks were cursed or that any other race was inferior. Rather the reverse, the Catholic Church grew so large in part because it was willing to send missionaries anywhere.

Far from being supporters of slavery, Catholics were almost as likely to be its victims. Read up on the history of the KKK. While they were predominantly anti-black, they also targeted Jews and Catholics. (There are old racist jokes about the initials KKK standing for derogatory phrases for blacks, Jews, and Catholics.)

As an aside, did you know that Catholicism is growing fastest in Africa, and that a Catholic convert is widely considered to be one of the leading contenders to be the next Pope?

Re:First Amendment Message?

[replicant108]

though that didn't mean that they were willing to turn over bin Laden

Actually, the Taliban were negotiating with the US prior to 9/11 about handing Bin Laden over to a third country:

"ZDF television quoted Kabir Mohabbat, an Afghan-American businessman, as saying he tried to broker a deal between the Americans and the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who were sheltering Bin Laden. He quoted the Taliban foreign minister, Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil, as saying: "You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him." A German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, confirmed to Reuters that he had helped Mohabbat in 1999 to establish initial contact with the Americans. "I was told (by Mohabbat) that the Taliban had certain ideas about handing over Bin Laden, not to the United States but to a third country or to the Court of Justice in The Hague," Brok said."

'Taliban told US they would give up Osama'

Unfortunately, the US decided before 9/11 that they wanted to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban.

US 'planned attack on Taleban'

Re:First Amendment Message?

[fatphil]

Some would say that intolerance is an after-effect of fear, and fear is an after-effect of ignorance.

FP.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[mr100percent]

I believe the FBI did announce they were looking for middle-eastern men, and there were descriptions disseminated. During that manhunt, hate crimes against Muslims shot up, and mosques were burned down. When they caught McVeigh, nobody apologized.

Re:First Amendment Message?

[dasmegabyte]

I say, let's bomb the fuck out of a state. McVeigh was from Kansas, right? Bomb Kansas. Give them a week or so to get everybody out, and then P*CHEW! Bomb Kansas!

It's like if you're at a tough bar and somebody messes with you, start punching yourself in the face. They'll leave you alone, because you're obviously too high strung and crazy to mess with safely.

I guarantee you: it will do more for global perception of our nation and prevention of future terrorism then fucking with the Middle East. Right now, we're just engaging a cycle of retribution. But if we bomb our own country...the whole world will step back. "Shit. We don't want to mess with them. Did you hear about fucking Kansas, my god! Let's more our hateful scapegoating to Canad, instead. They have a nice, laid back society...let's crash a plane into that!"

Went to school

[Rodrin]

I actually went to school with the guy and he didn't seem so bad. Just goes to show what assumptions will get ya.

Love the CNN link

[Anonymous Coward]

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/

Surprised and pleased

[jnicholson]

I'm surprised that the jury was able to see through this case. I wonder what were the charges that were dropped?

Is this a case designed to test the waters to determine who has responsibility for web content? Did they go after the ISP as well?

Will they retry on the remaining charges? What will happen after he's deported? The whole situation is a little bit scary.

Correct verdict, but...

[swinginSwingler]

I'll die fighting to let him say what he wants. But, don't let him show up at my any of my favorite bars around Ft. Bragg. Anyone who supports "religious edicts justifying suicide bombings" and invites people to "financially support the militant Palestinian organization Hamas" wouldn't last too long there.

Re:Correct verdict, but...

[wwest4]

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?

Re:Correct verdict, but...

[orthogonal]

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.

It's amazing how much jurors do not know

[rkuris]

The problem with this type of trial is that the jurors are not aware of what they are supposed to be doing. They are supposed to be using their conscience, not "jury instructions".

Check out this site about jury nullification. The real questions the jury should be answering are: "does the law make sense", not "is it legal or not". The job of deciding whether it is legal or not has already been decided by the prosecution and the judge before they picked a jury.
--

Re:It's amazing how much jurors do not know

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's amazing how much jurors do not know

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

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).

Re:It's amazing how much jurors do not know

[lobsterGun]

Where do you people get this stuff??? The OJ case wasn't about nullification.

It would have been nullification if the jurors had declared afterwards "Yeah, he did it, but the laws against First Degree Murder are wrong or were wrongly applied"

Instead, in the after the trial interviews, the jurors said, "We didn't think he did it."

As an aside...they also said that had they seen the evidence that was excluded at trial that they would have voted to convict. That's the bitch of the OJ trial and what most people can't understand: It wasn't that the jury was too stupid or gullible. It was that the prosecution was out manuvered by the all star squad of Cochran, Bailey, Dershiwitz, and Shapiro.

Re:It's amazing how much jurors do not know

[justins]

The jury is there to decide if the person actually committed the crime in question, not whether the law makes sense.

Bullshit. How do you do that if you can't even figure out what the law means or how it could possibly be applied? I've been on a jury, and I've been there.

It's an interesting phenomenon, too, when you come up against this in real life. Our jury had determined for sure that the defendent was guilty on the first count. The second count was a pretty strangely worded law. It was interesting in that situation to see which people "defaulted" to guilty or not guilty once it was clear that we were not going to get a better interpretation of the law from the judge.

But I don't think any of us viewed this as "jury nullification," which the way it is ordinarily described seems like a (constitutionally protected) form of civil disobedience. We weren't motivated by any sort of moral thing, just by confusion.

Re:It's amazing how much jurors do not know

[panZ]

I wish you were right about deciding whether the law makes sense or not. The libertarian in me would have thrown out both cases I have been a juror for. I'm curious if you've been on a jury and had a different experience from me. Every time I've been in the jury pool or assigned to a case, the judges' direct and clear instructions were to AVOID deciding if the law was good or bad but instead, decide only whether or not the person in question had broken the law. This seems like a direct contradiction to your statement.

Witches, Communists and Terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Islamic websites.

[nabil_IQ]

I sometimes browse around some so called "islamic" webistes to see what they are talking about, some of them are genuinly religious with moderate tone and basically teaching ppl. about Islam or offering services like prayer times and Qura'an lessons and other usefull/intresting stuff.

HOWEVER, recently I've witnessed the influx of HATE sites claiming to be "islamic" sites. The preech hate and praise desruction. I'm all for free speech, but the freedom of a group or indivduals aren't absolute, and it shouldn't infringe or in anyway threaten the freedoms of others. In these sites they are calling for attacks on western intrests everywhere. They cheer for teh killing of westerners and/or Chrstians and calling for more acts like teh ones we saw in Saudi. I think the freedom of speech those ppl. have should be revoked because they very grossly abused.

bare in mind I'm a Muslim, and I'm not flaming Islam or have any hidden agenda.

Re:Islamic websites.

[nabil_IQ]

The bottom line is, extremisim is wrong whatever the subject is.

Re:Islamic websites.

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Can you provide links to any of the hate sites?

Re:Islamic websites.

[nabil_IQ]

I'll have to look for those, I usually go to those through links from otherplaces, will try and find few. One that comes to mind now is http://www.anbaar.com , it's a gathering of anti-americans and Islamic extremists who call to fight the US in Iraq. There are many more that are more generic. Will try and get you a couple. Just not now, I gotta go ZzZzzz.

What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[0x0d0a]

Seriously. I got a bit curious a while back. I know that Republicans are strong among religious conservatives and major industry, and Democrats among skilled professionals and academics (the sort of people who are most commonly on the Internet). Possibly as a result, there are a fair number of liberal forums out there.

So, just out of curiosity, I decided to track down a couple of conservative forums. I was curious as to some conservative viewpoints on a couple things.

And I couldn't *find* any. Liberal forums are all over the place, but conservative forums are *damned* hard to find. Finally, I ran across freerepublic.com and took a look. Freerepublic was the *only* active conservative forum that I ran across, and it seemed to be quite small, incredibly amateurish, with rampant misspellings and grammatical errors, and boasted an absolute horde of *dumb* users. If people made the kind of logic errors they do on freerepublic on kuro5hin, they'd get immediately called out.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try RightNation.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[rov4416444]

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.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[bersl2]

The Yahoo! News message boards are full of all sorts of dumb users on all sides. I usually write something there to dissipate a desire to flame.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal forums are all over the place, but conservative forums are *damned* hard to find.

That's because conservatives just get their instructions from Rush and start ditto-ing. No need for discussion, that's too liberal.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[JosefK]

I think freerepublic.com is where Ann Coulter gets most of her talking points.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[femto]

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'.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[0x0d0a]

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.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[Trepalium]

The google search term you're looking for is 'moonbat'. This is what the extreme right wing supporters call their critics. I don't know of an equivalent term from the liberal camp. I guess calling their critics "Conservatives" is insult enough for them.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[martinX]

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 :-)

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[harlemjoe]

conservative forums/blogs
try oxblog.blogspot.com
or www.andrewsullivan.com
or www.realclearpolitics.com
or www.instapundit.com

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[XbainX]

This whole left and right referencing scheme is very limited. I'm a USian and would call myself a Libertarian if I had to call myself anything at all, and I don't identify with either the "left" or the "right" in my country.

And based on the United States' popular left (Democratic Party) and popular right (Republican Party), I'm really not seeing much (any?!) difference anyway...

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[Azghoul]

Just to point out, there are also a number of other directions one could go, as opposed to "right" and "left".

There is the libertarian angle, which is sort of perpendicular to left and right, simply because the 'average' libertarian buys into some stuff from both major camps.

I, for one, take a "mind your own damn business" approach to government in general. Small government, in the 'normal' view, would be incredibly right-wing, just because of the "pro-business" stance it would appear to indicate. However, I also think most drugs should be legal, abortion should be encouraged, and religion should play no part in legal circles. So plug me in, left or right?

It's depressing that we have to try to jam people into group A or group B, and then demonize the other group. Human nature, I suppose.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[marsu_k]

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)

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[DarkSarin]

Thank you. It's weird when I hear people lumb libertarians with the right--no one favors business less than libertarians (at least as compared to individual rights).

Sad thing is, though, that the left does that at the same the right is calling libertarians leftist. This is the whole problem with a two party system such as we have here in the US--it makes us think in only 1 dimension, when there are really so many more. It's kinda like wearing glasses that makes everything look like a shade of gray--you forget that there's something called blue or red.

I have to agree, there isn't much difference between the left and the right. It is mostly a matter of where they want to spend your tax dollars. The left plans to spend it on social programs and whatnot, and the right on various big projects (defense budget). But they both want to spend it. Only the libertarians are interested in really just not spending it, and therefore lightening the tax burden. A novel concept, but one that would work if federal spending were cut. Yes, that means that schools don't get as much money, but then again, it allows parents to send their children to private schools, which are better than public schools 9 out of 10 times anyway.

Sorry for the rant, but I find it annoying that I should be called politically "right" just because I live in the US. I personally find it very important to judge each political candidate on their personal merits. Take Bush Jr. for instance. He's not the brightest president we've ever had. He's not got a flawless record, but as far as I can tell, he's basically honest. An idiot, perhaps, but an honest one.

Kerry, like Gore, wouldn't know the truth if you hit him with it.

Does that mean I want Bush as President? Not necessarily, but I don't really want any of the other options either. Personally, I will probably find a write in for this years election, or vote non-two-party. Think of it as a protest against people who want you to believe that there is nothing but gray in this world.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[reidbold]

That must be why everyone there is so happy.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[Noah Adler]

Of course, 'left' and 'right' are horribly inadequate terms too. This holds true too for the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal', as demonstrated by one of my favorite recent sayings: 'Bush: he's liberal in all the wrong ways!' (sorry, can't recall whom to credit) Reducing political inclination to a single spectrum is a vast and rather ridiculous oversimplification. As another responder pointed out, there is also an orthogonal issue of 'libertarian-authoritarian' tendencies.

A nice site to check out might be The Political Compass, which nicely illustrates the fundamental issue with projecting everything into a single left-right/liberal-conservative axis. Of course, even two axes probably isn't enough, but it's much closer to an accurate representation. Hope it's at least a little bit enlightening.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[YetAnotherAnonymousC]

I think this is quite simplistic.
When it comes to economic issues, yes the U.S. is certainly far less socialist than most large civilizations. When it comes to social issues, however, I think you will find the U.S. to be quite liberal-left compared to much of the world.
Really.
For many countries if you ask youself "Can I been seen out for a jog on Sunday/Friday/Saturday morning without later being beaten for it?" "Can I wear a goofy outfit and get off with just a few stares rather than being beaten as a fruit/devil worshipper?" "Can women do most/all of the same things men can do in public and the workplace?"

In a very large number of countries (in the carribean, africa, southwest & southeast asia), the answer to these questions are decisevly "no." You may find watered down similarities in parts of other societies like the U.S., but it is the exception rather than the rule. Just because a country tacks elements of government regulation or socialism on to their economy doesn't mean their people are 'left wing.'

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[danharan]

As alex_tibbles pointed out to me:
Or even better(?), check out Political Survey, the open source equivalent, where the methodology is open to all to inspect and criticise.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[dasmegabyte]

What's sick these days is that the powerbase in this country has shifted SO FAR to the right that pundits like Rush and even Bill O'reilly seem downright moderate.

I am a staunch moderate -- I believe that people's most basic needs should be met, active blocks to their success removed, and beyond that everything else is up to them. Thus, I believe in limited regulation, limited welfare, basic government health care and VERY limited support for foreign governments (because after all, we're a big visible target, so keeping nations on our side should be our prime concern. Everything else will take care of itself). For years I was a registered Republican solely to keep Hillary Clinton's care bear government OUT of office. But recently I find myself stuck in the same leftish barrel as Michael Moore and Barbara Friggin' Streisand, merely because I don't think the war in Iraq was necessary, moral or even beneficial in the long run to the people of Iraq. I find my heart bleeding merely because I think it's totally possible to have an American economy that pays a decent wage to American workers. And as a non-Christian outdoorsman with no direct problem with homosexuals getting married or adopting children or renting videos at BlockBuster, I expect demonization as a long haired, tree hugging hippy.

What the hell happened to making money by having good ideas and selling them? What the hell happened to a cheap, efficient government that ran itself without expensive private interests? What happened to creating DECENT JOBS so people didn't have to rely on welfare and unemployment? And what the hell happened to religion being something you BELIEVED IN and practiced, rather than tried to force on someone else? Is the post cold war hangover so bad that we need to throw away everything we've acheived for people's personal agendas?

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com?

[maxpublic]

Ooooh, now you're up shit creek. Haven't you realized yet? Somewhere along the line you've become a libertarian.

I know, I know - I was just as shocked as you are right now, when it happened to me. But once you realize that both the Republicans and Democrats are either insane, power hungry, or whores to whatever special interest will offer them a sop; when you realize that 'issues' are just campaign slogans for them, and seizing power is what it's *really* all about - well, then, at that point you can either accept the toilet that your party's become, or face up to the terrible realization that although you haven't moved an inch in your political leanings, everyone else has...and now, without doing anything at all, you've become a libertarian.

Welcome to the club.

Max

America

[CaptainTux]

The death of President Reagan gave me some time and reason to pause and consider our country, my political party, and how both have changed over few years. When you think about it, it's really saddening and scary...

America *used* to be a shining light for freedom in our world. We used to fight for the rights of oppressed people, fight for freedom of speech, and label anyone who dared try to limit our God given constitutional rights as traitors and deal with them accordingly. Then, in a few days in September 2001, that all changed for some reason.

Now, we label those who want Americans to have unrestricted freedoms as traitors. We lable those who speak their minds and take their liberties seriously "terrorists" and we crucify anyone who doesn't tout whatever party line happens to be in effect at the moment (it really is a moving target).

Cases like Mr. Al-Hussayen, the Iraqi prison abuses, and countless others serve as a sad reminder that this is not the America that many of us grew up in or really want to be a part of. In the Reagen years, they say we felt a sense of national pride. We were proud to be Americans. Now, I think we simply feel a sense of national shame.

Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming President Bush for all of this. I do believe that he is a good man trying to do what he believes is right for his country. But there are others in our government who, for whatever reasons, seem to have set up another of the worlds great evil empires and are weilding that power to go after people like Sami Omar Al-Hussayen.

We wonder why people the world over dispise us as a people. We wonder why people think our government and political system are evil. We wonder why nobody trusts us. I'm sure Mr. Al-Hussayen, many Iraqi citizens, and a few American citizens could give us a lot of reasons why.

It is good news that he was found not guilty. Unfortunately, like another poster here says, this won't end the governments persecution of innocent people. They will simply view him as one that got away, draft legislation to tighten loopholes, take away a few more freedoms, and continue the fight. Man, what a year this 1984 is...

Re:America

[rice_web]

It's like America was a co-dependent nation, always trying to improve the lives of others. With the Soviet Union there, we "knew" what we had to do to be morally "better" than them, but without that pressure, the United States is simply going to correct the lives of others, when indeed their may be no fault.

Principally, I think the United States is a very conflicted nation that is on the way downward as its debt spirals out of control. The exuberance of the American consumer and the plentiful service employment speak badly for a nation that will be taken over educationally. Simply enough, the United States is falling back, but still extending itself like it did during younger days like the fifties. Whereas the United States once could meddle in the affairs of other nations, I simply believe that today it can not. Just like the co-dependent, the United States is trying to fix the lives of others, but is also so strangled by its co-dependency that it acts haphazardly and without direction.

Re:America

[ummcdou4]

That begs the question, during the second world war, would you rather have been Japanese in America, or American in Japan?

Re:America

[tfoss]

No, it may raise the question, but begging the question is completely different. Sorry, this misuse just irks me.

-Ted

Re:America

[Simple-Simmian]

"Many prisoners died after being beaten. Some prisoners were raped. Some were sodomized with broomsticks. Some were smeared with shit and harnessed into a crucified position with ropes and chains. Some were forced to drink the cum from other prisoners and guards."

Hey thats really interesting I would like some proof of Murder, sodomy,and forced cum drinking.
I am calling bull shit actually.
So please give us a link to your Proof. Everyone know about the abuse but the stuff you list is not listed in any reputable news source I visit (BBC, CNN, AFP, Ruters)

Re:America

[humankind]

Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming President Bush for all of this. I do believe that he is a good man trying to do what he believes is right for his country. But there are others in our government who, for whatever reasons, seem to have set up another of the worlds great evil empires and are weilding that power to go after people like Sami Omar Al-Hussayen.

In other words, you don't like the way things have gone down, but you don't want to give anyone credit for the problem?

With all due respect, you're part of the problem. Either you recognize that there is a hierarchy and a chain of command and a sense of responsibility or you dowt. This is a bunch of ambiguous, superfluous astro-turfing on your part. And a completely cowardly, counterproductive wheelbarrow full of horseshit.

You don't want to blame Bush, but does anyone think that if Gore were President half of this crap would have happened?

Re:America

[replicant108]

Here are some links for you to look at:

Murder

Rape

Sodomy

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard of plenty of credible reports of murder, rape and sodomy. I haven't heard of cum-drinking, though I can certainly imagine it. Anyway, mainstream media wouldn't call it cum-drinking (mummy, what's cum?), but use euphemism such as sexual acts, to do things.

Anyway, I noticed that replicant108 didn't actually give links to BBC, CNN, AFP, Reuters. I don't really read CNN while AFP and Reuters are syndicated so that I don't notice them, but here's some BBC and Guardian:

Murder 1
Murder 2

Sodomy 1
Sodomy 2
Sodomy 3
Sodomy 4
Sodomy 5

Rape 1
Rape 2
Rape 3
Rape 4

It is also interesting that the military has successfully censored/surpressed the significantly worse images that Senator Ron Wyden described.

I personally have lost confidence in the military as a whole, hopefully the few decent souls who are brave enough to speak out will prevail, but if I was a soldier, I'd have to think seriously before leaking any material. I couldn't get a Reuters link, but here is a BBC report by Reuters staff stating that they were tortured, even though it is denied by the military. In my not so humble opinion, the institution of the military needs a overhaul. It is fundamentally undemocratic. It restricts the free flow of information (need to know basis), personal liberty (chain of command) and is unjust (military justice - ha). Is the best way to tackle terrorism with the military or would we be better to take a policing approach?

Finally, from the horse's mouth, reports of Sodomy and Rape, the Taguba report itself.

All this reminds me of the quote attributed to Gandhi. When asked what he thought of Western Civilisation, he reply that he thought it was a good idea. Sigh, happy reading.

Why was he deported?

[mentaldrano]

According to the CNN article, he faces deportation after his trial, win or lose. His family is already back in Saudi Arabia, and he expects to join them. However, no details as to why he is being deported. He did face several counts of visa fraud, but he was acquitted on those counts! Why is he still being shipped out?

What kind of legal circus has been set up, when you either spend time in jail or get kicked out of the country? Was he really here illegally, or is the government just deporting him because they know he doesn't have the resources to fight TWO legal battles back to back? Neat way to get rid of the problem, from a Dept of Homeland Security asshat point of view.

Re:Why was he deported?

[TeknoDragon]

That is not quite correct. However charge of visa fraud were based on his participation in the website in question "the Islamic Assembly of North America" and him recieving a stipend (money, hence work) while on a *student* visa.

The "making false statements" are based on affadavits provided with visa applications that he did not work while he was in the US.

There was a hung jury on 8 counts related to his visa fraud charge... so he may still escape deportation. However, since his wife and child already went back to Saudi Arabia it doesn't look like he'll stay.

go back and forth

[Anonymous Coward]

between free republic and democratic underground sites for a few days. It is the clearest way to see that voting either democrat or republican is just slap wrong. And what is just funny is that neither side there can step back from their partisan jingoism and phony left/right paradigm long enough to look and see it's the pot calling the kettle black, back and forth. Their guys are always saints and the smartest guys in the world and the most honest statesmen, etc, and the other guys are all what's wrong with the universe. It's hysterically funny. If you look close, you can actually see pretty good coverage of all the actual crimes committed by the democrats and republicans, by reading both sites-but both sides deny "their" guys ever do anything wrong,it's all a conspiracy theory or something,etc, and woe is the poster who strays from the herd-poof-blackholed, banned.

Unfortunately, it's NOT funny because you realise both sides in this delusional farce manage to always get their particular slimeball scumbag lying crook in, if not this election, then the next election. And we always seem to have a screwed up crooked government, but they never bingo to the real reason.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A couple of interesting things...

[Granos]

First of all, here are a couple of interesting links. The news stories are kind of vague as to the specifics of the charges, so here are the actual indictment.
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.

Free Press's ignorance and MURDEROUS HATEMONGERING

[TeknoDragon]

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.

Re:Free Press's ignorance and MURDEROUS HATEMONGER

[TeknoDragon]

by the way, I am a Washington State University alumnus. When I left Sami was part way through his graduate studies. Proof? I know his graduate studies advisor was Dr. D*****h F*****e.

Please note these opinions are my own. I do not represent anyone else who may have known Sami. When he was arrested it his us like a ton of bricks, and I knew the new McCarthyism was upon us.

Re:Free Press's ignorance and MURDEROUS HATEMONGER

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch out-calling them "hatemongers" might get you a day in court- http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/7981116p-8852 478c.html

I trolled there once with some bad words about RR and they threatened to come beat me up. I think their lawyers might be more effective.

Re:Way OT: Re:First Amendment Message?

[ffsnjb]

Oops, missed a paragraph.

Now, the easy solution to the starving people problem is to introduce a human predator into the environment. I'm thinking some bears or wolves that won't have much else to eat other than starving humans, because the starving humans bred too much and used way too many food resources.

I'm a sick and twisted asshole, I know.:)

We also send them our citizens

[DesignDecision]

I dont know which department is to blame but its happening all over, and since it is not workable through legal route, well...: http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/action/?step=2&it em=10859

Christian Extremists

[lildogie]

> 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?

Which just goes to show...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Which just goes to show...

[M. Baranczak]

Because politics is now a subsidiary of the entertainment business.

Wrong.

[rjh]

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.

Re:Wrong.

[kfg]

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.

Oddly enough, to reverse the trend of the thread, many Islamic churches and church men speak out agaisnt terrorism as well.

The claim was that Christians don't strap bombs to themselves. This is false as pointed out. Your examples have nothing to do with that and the part you "infer" you have made up in your own mind and attack your own mental image. Your counter to the fact that Christians participate in religously motivated terrorism by invoking the Catholic Churches condemnation of such is fatally flawed.

The reasoning is as flawed as blaming all of Islam ( which has many churches that condem terrorism) for the acts of individual Islamics.

KFG

Re:Insightful? You've got to be kidding!

[Cheetahfeathers]

Sorry, you are not correct. Visit fija.org and look around. check out links and historical facts on juries in the US. jurorsrule.com has some great historical quotes and facts, as well. Judges and lawyers have been trying to get rid of juries rights and duties for a long time, making them something that you discribe. I think this is one of the main problems with the US court system.

one question...

[__aahlyu4518]

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

Acquitted, but didn't do him any good.

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

"Al-Hussayen remains in custody on an immigration hold."

That single fact speaks volumes.

America is not alone

[ilyanov]

"Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming President Bush for all of this."
I wailed when George Bush was declared victor. At that point I had decided to stay away from all news till either President Bush was defeated or retired. September changed all that, for about a year I was really behind the President. I was even for the war in Iraq and the war changed everything I felt.

I think this administration has had its pound of flesh. I thought I knew what I was about. Going into the war, I had concluded the war as being just. Now I am not so sure. The President drew first blood, its that bit which is most bothersome. The position that I now hold is that the anxiety about terrorist attackts from Iraq was probably justified but to go to war over one's anxieties is insane. Pre-emption is I think only justified when one is faced with anihilation like Israel was in 1967

None of these sentiments mean that I hate America or Americans. I believe that America is one of the better things that have come history's ways in a long time. Even in the worst of occasions. When you say people, most of these "people" know only the President (plus assorted characters from American TV shows) so when they say they hate America or Americans, most of the time they mean your President. I personally do not hate your President. I think the man has some admirable qualities. But a job is a job, he is President and he has made a mistake which I franky do not think Presidents should make, he went to war for all the wrong reasons. I can say or do what ever I want to since I am just a civilian but Presidents and Prime Ministers do not have that luxury.

Re:Christians kill people too

[Mycroft_VIII]

BZZT. Blowing yourself up is cowardice, not bravery.
Now it they would stick around to be arrested and then try and defend themselves in court by stateing they were preventing murder as many of them believe. Then I might give them a few points for bravery. Not many, Because bravery implies your doing somthing with full knowledge of the possible negative consequences and yet face the danger irregardless. And I don't think anyone who bombs a clinic is that smart.
FWIW My take is that abortion is most likely taking a human life and should be treated with appropriate seriousnes. Treating it as a causual birth controll option of convience is just not good for many reasons.

Mycroft

Now I can see why Bush gets away with it!

[Newer Guy]

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.'

Here's someone serving on a jury who JUST DISCOVERED what the first amendment to the Constitution is all about! People are ignorant! Is it no surprise that Bush and his cronies can use fear to keep uninformed, ignorant people in the dark?

This is how he gets away with taking away our liberties in the name of "protecting" us!

Stomp on dem Libartays

[Mulletproof]

"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."

What??? Are you saying with prison pictures, anti-terrorism bills and customs finger printing that the system still works??!!! Hold me. I feel faint.

His degree

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad he was acquitted. It's bull how the FBI did and still treat people from the islam culture. I go to the University of Idaho and I hope he Sami gets his PhD and I pretty sure most the Student Body feels similar. Its behavior like this that brings us to the same level of the terrorists. Think about the terror we caused for him and his family. I can only offer my deapest appologies to him and his kin on behalf of this country.

Re:Jury Nullification...

[benna]

Henry David Thoreau most certainly would be in favor of jury nulification. In Civil Disobedience he wrote that one has an "obligation ... to do at any time what I think is right."

I'm in shock too

[commodoresloat]

Here's someone serving on a jury who JUST DISCOVERED what the first amendment to the Constitution is all about!

Yeah, I don't know how the lawyers let someone intelligent enough to understand the first amendment survive the jury selection process. Usually they weed out such troublemakers....

Re:I'm in shock too

[grgyle]

Honestly, there is a great deal of insight in 'commodoresloats' comment.

I've sat in the jury selection pool a couple of times and, almost without exception, the people that go to the final jury box are usually midwest, mom 'n' apple pie, 2.4 children, elk's club types. Anyone who displays *any* objectivity or open-mindedness of opinion, knowledge or interest in the law, or displays any "big picture" concern or opinion is guaranteed a "thank you, you may go now" from the legal counsels. Arguably this can be good or bad, but the primary concern of the defense and prosecution when picking jurors is *predictability* of the jurors' eventual viewpoints and opinions.

It seems to be part of a general social breakdown.

[Futurepower(R)]

That's interesting that you say it is a new McCarthyism. I had come to the same conclusion. We are seeing a general social breakdown in the United States. Consider the Enron fraud and the WorldCom fraud and the Tyco fraud, for example. Large companies are self-destructing.

The U.S. government is another example: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

McCarthyism cannot be blamed on McCarthy. He was just one crazy person. There are always crazy people. It was the people who participated and didn't speak up that changed McCarthy from one crazy man to a social movement called McCarthyism.

Scary

[jandersen]

QOTD: 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.'"

Sweet fscking Jesus! This is seriously scary stuff. You Americans are always on about Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights. But it seems to me that what this illustrates more than anything is that the average American simply doesn't know and/or care, when it can come as a surprise, that your constitution gives you these rights. No wonder that the GWB can get away with anything!

Now, to look at this from another angle. You know, when people are starving, all they think about is food, and when they are thirsty, nothing seems more attractive than water. So why are subjects like 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'human rights' so important to Americans?

"...most heinous ongoing crime since the 1940s?"

[Futurepower(R)]

"The guy was complicit in the most heinous ongoing crime since the 1940s..."

What about the U.S. government killing 2,000,000 Vietnamese? Where does that fit in?

What about the fact that the U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since the Second World War: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories. Where does that fit in?

Attention Foreigners..

[humankind]

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.

Re:Attention Foreigners..

[kraut]

> We know that you have looked to the United States over the years as a benchmark for progress.

Attention US-Citizens! No one abroad has been looking to the US as a benchmark for political and social progress since about 1973. Sorry to disappoint you.

Who said anything about the Catholic Church?

[mcc]

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".

Re:oppressed by whom?

[Sique]

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.

Re:"...most heinous ongoing crime since the 1940s?

[1u3hr]

Ok he might have helped ending the cold war by starting an arms race the Soviets couldn't keep up with.

I credit Gorbachev more than Reagan with the transformation of the USSR into post-Communism relatively peacefully. With a more doctrinaire and ruthless leader, like the Kims of North Korea or Castro, a Communist government can hang on indefinitely if they have the will.

Re:I call them tribal systems...

[Sique]

The answer is yes for Germans.

They are called Bundeslaender in Germany. While most of the northern Bundeslaender are of artificial nature (a result of the redrawing of Germany's map after WW II) and were mostly designed to abolish the old prussian state, the southern states follow old, traditional borders. After 1989, when the new german Bundeslaender were restated, there were some local votings which state the local people wanted to belong to, which made the local borders follow old tribal lines.

Thuringia was founded in 534, that is now 1470 years ago, and the current state of Thuringia is quite close to the old tribe territory of the Thuringians long ago. Bavaria even has a quite sophisticated informal system to ensure, that the three different tribes (Bavarians, Frankonians and Suabians) are equally represented in the different institutions.

In Germany we have even a second people, the Sorbs, which have their own central authority. Sorbs speak their own languages (three different ones), which aren't related to German at all (they are slavic languages, related to Polish and Czech), have bilingual street signs and a right to constitute themselves in the constitutions of both Brandenburg and Saxonia, where they live.

The Frisians in the Northwest have similar rights, but they are living not only in Germany, but also in the Netherlands. The danish people in North Germany are a national minority, so called because there is a danish nation (Danmark), but they aren't under danish juristiction. They have the right to be represented in the Landtag (local parliament) of Schleswig-Holstein with at least a representative. For the South Schleswig Electoral Association, their political group, there is no 5% minority block, like for all other political parties.

The main difference between Iraq and Germany at the moment is, that Germany has a working central government, so there is someone actually representing Germany to the world. If I were in Iraq right now, with a weak provisionally council without real executive power, I would also feel better represented by a local leader who I happen to know, and who I may be related to by either a common ancestry or by a common set of believes. It doesn't mean that Iraq is in any way "tribal", it just means that it lacks a central authority that is accepted through the country.

Re:Jury Nullification...

[Gorbag]

Jury nullification also eliminated prohibition (drinking) and may one day releive us of the current unconstitutional form (drugs).

The point behind having jurys is not only to judge the facts of the case (which is the primary duty of the jury), but also to insure that we don't have rampant prosecutors, judges, etc. That we are held to a standard consistent with that a reasonable person finds to be moral (that is, customary) and is in the same social class as ourselves (a peer).

Of course, in the old USA we're all peers - no aristocracies for us! Well, other than actors.

Liberty for non-Muslims only

[Dak RIT]

Here's a quote from the FreeRepublic.com "Conservative News Forum":

"The media down plays the fact that thousands of Muslims ARE living in our Country!" - SheLion

Perhaps nobody has explained to everyone yet that Muslim is not a synonym for terrorist. It's extremely disheartening to see Americans who hold this belief so readily and elicits memories of Japanese concentration camps in America during World War II.

Have we really learned anything from past mistakes?

Re:Liberty for non-Muslims only

[Mike A.]

The quote does, however, imply that there is something worrying about the fact that thousands of Muslims are living in the US, which is religious bigotry however you slice it.

Sweet justice...

[danharan]

He faced up to 15 years for each of three terrorism charges, 25 years on each visa fraud charge and 5 years on each false statement charge.

*Shakes head* So, visa fraud is a greater offense than terrorism?

Re:It seems to be part of a general social breakdo

[ACNiel]

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.

Re:/. : Lefisist political site

[carldot67]

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.

Re:Free Press's ignorance and MURDEROUS HATEMONGER

[the_mad_poster]

I think their lawyers might be more effective.

At what, beating you up?

well

[CiXeL]

part of the reason for that is the more obviously guilty the people sitting on the bench are the more the defense goes through the jurors dumping out all the military, college educated and conservative till they have a nice group of sheep who will buy into their story. ive seen it multiple times already.

Re:Free Press's ignorance and MURDEROUS HATEMONGER

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

It's quite possible. Between those guys and the folks at Democratic Underground, I don't know who would make a better hot-air balloon. Granted, the freepers did actually do some shit in person in Florida back in 2000... imagine that.

Re:It seems to be part of a general social breakdo

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you 100%, btw. I'm getting that out there right away because the next bit is off-the-cuff rambling. :) Maybe it will inspire some thoughts or something.

Of course you wouldn't turn in your neighbor because of something that "wasn't, isn't, and shouldn't" be a crime...but when you add "shouldn't", you are making a personal judgement call. Governments don't like that, they like to believe they are in control. (Managers don't like it either!)

The real question is, when push comes to shove, will you stop/try to stop the rapid dogs of hatred from taking your neighbor away, when they come for him? Will you put your own life/reputation/job/whatever on the line for your friends, or what you feel is the right thing to do?

It's all about personal conviction. I either came off sounding like a true patriot, or a radical terrorist there. Hmm.

(The names of the factions in question, and "what is right" have been deliberately removed as they can apply to pretty much any group of 5 or more people, and pretty much any philosophy).

well this is funny at least

[stgabriel]

this is gloomy stuff. its true that people in this country (the US) confuse patriotism with blind unquestioning faith in what they're sometimes told. what strikes me is that the internet doesnt seem to be helping americans take a look outside their borders. there are plenty of problems that we suffer that have been solved overseas, and plenty of problems that foreign countries have 'deliberately' avoided. This is off topic but i saw an article called 'Israeli Government Seeks Bulldozer Operators With Experience' at brainsnap.com and got a kick out of it. its not serious but i shouldnt have to say that should i?

Re:Nice grouping

[swv3752]

Yes.

Though the communist threat was fictional. Most of the terrorism charges seem to befictional.

The hysteria going on during each seems to be the same.

Right vs Left

[gr8_phk]

Easy there. He's standing upside-down on the bottom of the planet, so his Left is your Right. Be careful when you adjust you world view.

Re:Christians true sentiment?

[cOdEgUru]

I was drinking coffee when I read this and it came out of my nose :). Not a pretty sight especially when you are at work.

Are you finished? Well, Allow me to retort !

This three way race going on in India you talk about, I hope someone can add a catalyst to it, in order to speed it up, so that in a few years we have taken care of 1/6th of the World population magically. Then U.S can invade India and start eating curry/rice with out paying for it (Sorry we dont have much oil).

I am a Christian (albeit not a practising one) from the Southern tip of India, a state where Christians, Muslims and Hindus coexist happily 99% of the time( We have a few skirmishes once in few years and then everything go back to normal).

I am sorry, but I know instances of where there have been sporadic violence between Hindus and Muslims (recently in Gujrat) but I wouldnt term it as religious cleansing! Also, there was violence against Sikhs (Sikh extremism) in the 80s but for the last 15 years there have been practically none.

And for sure, Christians had got licked in a few parts around the country, but the number of Christians killed in the name of religion across the country is probably a handful. And considering we have a Billion people to govern and keep happy, its a miracle more are not being banged up!

And the comment about Christians killing Sikhs, that was pretty funny too.

So my friend, I dont know which part of the world you hail from, but you definitely need to stop reading TBN or whatever other religious network you getting your feed from, cause unless you can get your ass down to India and get some firsthand evidence of the ethnic cleansing you talk about, then we collectively are going to kick your ass back to where your crawled out of!

Re:It seems to be part of a general social breakdo

[Thangodin]

Just a side note on this: there has never been, nor is there ever likely to be, a communist state. Communism was a pipe dream in which, suddenly, everyone would magically overcome their greed and selfishness and contribute as much as they could, taking only what they needed. Apparently all that was needed for this to come about was that you had to overthrow the current system and let the 'communists' take over.

The reality was that communism served as a bullfighter's cape to the dictators that espoused it--it distracted their opponents, and wowed the crowd. By obsessing on communism, McCarthy, Reagan, and all the rest did exactly what Stalin (clever, evil bastard that he was) wanted them to do. They wasted their energies fighting ghosts and ignored the real enemy: Stalinism. The ethics of communism were stolen directly from Christianity via the writings of Feuerbach: to the Russians, who were indoctrinated in communist ideology, the talk of the evils of communism had all the appeal of someone saying that all kittens are ugly and must be strangled. The right wing allowed the Stalinists to define the terms of the debate. But the 'communist' states were simply totalitarian regimes whose character was determined by the reigning despot. Had the Americans attacked the Stalinists on these terms, they would have kicked out their ideological underpinnings, made them a lot less attractive to western intellectuals, and attacked the root of their support amongst the Russian people, who might have gotten fed up with them 20 years before they did.

There is something similar going on here. The pieces are still up in the air, but Bin Laden and his imitators are hacking Islam, turning it into yet another red cape to distract the Bull and thrill the crowd.

And it's working. The Bull is goring everyone but the bullfighter.

It is more dependent on oil than religion

[zogger]

It always pays to remember oil when ever discussing ajny geopolitics. China is much more dependent now on oil/energy supplies than it is on a consumer market backed by pieces of paper that the US market represents to them. They have been smart. If you look at what they have been doing with the dollars exported to them for consumer goods, they have been turning around, taking the same exact dollars, and investing in machine tools, etc, the stuff that builds wealth, all the way to entire factories, plus sucking in western investment money to build even larger manufacturing infrastructure. The major US car companies have all announced recently investments in manufacturing plants there-and not for the export market back to the US, but for their domestic market. And that's just one example of many. Increasingly, the US market is losing importance to them, it won't be needed (soon enough) now that they have a large enough middle class to be "consumers' themselves. It's also one of the primary reasons the federal reserve note has been dropping in world wide trading circles-it's no longer necessary for the rest of the world to trade with the buck being the "reserve" currency. It only came about as the reserve currency from the "petrodollar" phenomenon, combined with the fact we USED to be the planets big dog on exporting manufactured goods.

As to china not hating us, this contradicts their military posture, which regards the US first and foremost as their number one enemy and whom they would be at war with in the future. "Hate" per se has not much to do with it realistically, it's just practicality for them. They NEED the oil, we NEED the oil, the EU NEEDS the oil and the explosively growing (pun intended) islamic "world" NEEDS the oil, but there's only enough for ONE of those planetary subgroups left if you look at the next 1-3 decades and whatpasses for proven reserves. And I am even leaving out India, south america and africa and japan, so you can see it's even worse. A few nations left can be self sufficient, nations like canada in particular, russia, brazil, etc, but most nations are completely dependent on cheap oil, and cheap oil is going away soon. and when you are as large as china, well, you can see the potentialities there.

Right now, the US economy is hanging on by a slim thread that is unraveling, precisely because we gave away our diverse manufacturing advantages we had. We gained that edge when we mostly traded our own products within the 50 states and also produced a lot of our own oil at an extremely cheap cost, both in terms of money and in terms of BTUS needed to get more BTUs. Once that started to slip, in the late 60's, we switched even more to foreign sources of oil, but world wide demand was not as great then either, so we were able to continue. That is not the case now, not even close. And china in particular has a projected demand that is amazing, it is going to be shortly higher than our own, and because we don't supply that much oil, and because they have got about all the machine tools and factories and cheap R&D they need from us already,the era of extremely cheap chinese goods to the US will start to slow down as china will be providing those goods to the places that have the worlds *true* reserve currency, which is bulk oil, and that ain't us. In short, we will pretty soon (a matter of some years to perhaps just one more decade) not really have anything china wants or needs, and our dollars will be worth much less to them. It's taken 3 decades on chinas part and our own globalist traders part to transfer all the wealth producing facilities from here to there, but it's about "done" now, so I expect the economic ramifications to be getting exponentially worse, with the resulting political ramificiations to be even MORE worse.

We should prosecute Ann Coulter

[geomon]

She called for the extermination of 700 million followers of Islam.

That is one hell of a fatwa.

Land of the Hypocritical, Home of the Greedy

[lysium]

America *used* to be a shining light for freedom in our world. We used to fight for the rights of oppressed people

Shining Light? Tell that to the Indians that marched the Trail of Tears. Or the ones that were given smallpox-infected blankets. Or the ones who were just shot and killed outright. Of course, these actions were spoken of in the context of "uplifting the red savages" so the general public saw no problem with this.

No, America has not changed much at all. You are just waking up to the truth.

====--====

Re:Read Your History!

[mr100percent]

That is a myth. Islam was NOT spread by the sword. If you believe that, then tell me why India is 85% Hindu after being ruled by Muslims for centuries? Tell my how Indonesia has the largest number of Muslims in the world, despite a Muslim army never having reached them?

The Qur'an says clearly "Let there be no compulsion in religion." Muslims are forbidden to forcibly convert anyone, and it's considered a big sin to do so. They're even ordered to allow churches and synagogues to be built and allow them to practice their religion freely. They can even eat pork and drink alcohol, while Muslims can't.

Look at Moorish Spain as an example. For 700 years the Muslims ruled, they allowed freedom of religion and trade. It's considered to be the "Golden Age of Judaism" because Jewish people flourished under that rule while the rest suffered throughout Europe. Jewish art and scholarship is said to have peaked in this age. Maimonides, the eminent Talmud scholar, was born and wrote while the Moors ruled. The prosperity ended after the reconquista, when the Spanish Inquisition descended and both Jews and Muslims were persecuted.

Re:Agree and disagree

[SuiteSisterMary]

If part of your religious belief is "non-believers will be consigned to an eternity of damnation," then, no, you can't keep your beliefs to yourself, as by doing so, you are actively consigning people to, well, eternal damnation.

Re:It seems to be part of a general social breakdo

[crucini]

That's really perceptive. But I wonder if the bull's blindness is partly intentional. Our leaders like to have an insidious, terrible threat that justifies national paranoia. Actually, I guess all leaders like that. It seems like Osama and Bush are partners in a way - they both want Osama to be famous, they both want everyone to live in fear of terrorist attacks. They feed off each other.