Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Webmaster Acquitted of Terrorism Charges
terrymr writes "Saudi Student Sami Omar Al-Hussayen was found not guilty on charges that he 'rendered techical assistance to terrorists' by acting as the webmaster for an Islamic charity. Said one juror: 'The part that surprised me was when I read the First Amendment instructions. I was surprised to learn that people could say whatever they want... providing it would not cause imminent action.'" You might remember our previous coverage of this story. In addition, the AP (via CNN) has more information as well.
They want him dead, regardless of what a jury says.
C:\>
Obviously the right most taken for granted is also the one people understand the least...
Can we possibly force potentially a hundred million people to go repeat 5th grade american history?
"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...
I actually went to school with the guy and he didn't seem so bad. Just goes to show what assumptions will get ya.
FuckTheFuckingFuckers.com - Post your th
I believe a better title would be:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/10/first.amendmentIs 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.
"Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
-- Nick Davies
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.
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.
--
Get rid of everything Micro and Soft: Buy Viagra and/or Linux
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".
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.
Won't somebody please think of the Karma!
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.
May we never see th
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...
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The website with the actual mailing list (which is named, along with about 10 others in the above PDF) is here.
The thing about websites, forums, and mailing lists, is that you can never get the true feel from a description designed to make it sound horrible. For all we know, the messages that they read could be considered the trolls of the mailing list. Even if they weren't, Internet forums is still a sticky subject. People say a lot of stupid things, discussions can get heated, people can troll, people can exaggerate their beliefs to get a better response, and sometimes there are just nuts who use the Internet to let our their ideas that no one will listen to in real life. The sites could have been designed to support and recruit terrorists, but you can never really know, and there certainly wasn't enough evidence to point fingers at a moderator of the mailing list.
Uh, most of the stuff I see in tha freeper article is PURE LIBEL.
I did not know Sami personally but I was aware of his living conditions. By all appearances he DID NOT import 100's of thousands. IIRC he lived in average to low quality student appartments (like most students) and didn't have any evidences of being outstandingly rich. Even if he imported any serious amount of money it would have to be declared with customs.
Of the Mulslim students I knew of he was not one of the scary ones. There were a few who I met and talked to.
At a time when we had dozens and dozens of Saudi and middle-eastern students fleeing the country Sami stayed. What thanks he got. Trumped up charges (helped setup a website and real audio stream) and got the book thrown at him (still 8 counts of visa fraud & related charges that could get him deported).
The DoJ's case was such a joke. Fabricated evidence like the mistranslations (was it Arab Lybian Project or Arab Library Project?? even the CIA couldn't keep the translation consistent!) clearly showed that the government's case was weak from the start.
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.
> 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?
That lunatics aren't limited to the left or right of the political spectrum.
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.
do they have to stop the 'approved' torture now?
From the article:
"Al-Hussayen remains in custody on an immigration hold."
That single fact speaks volumes.
"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.
life is all about searching and sorting
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....
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.
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?
"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?
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.
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".
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
"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?
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
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.
Leftist?
Someone has a severe chip on their choulder here. This isnt about leftism, its about freedom and consistency.
Back in the eighties when my home town was getting bombed by the I.R.A. I dont remember anyone on US soil being hauled into jail for 18 months on "Terrorist Charges". Why? Because raising money for NorAid wasnt a criminal, terrorist activity. AND NEITHER IS THIS.
Too often Americans forget their recent history books. May I refer you to McCarthyism. Its right there. Between Klan and Prohibition.
Capitalism has nothing to do with it. The majority standing by in their comfortable homes and saying nothing while injustice runs riot is the issue here.
For shame.
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
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.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
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).
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.
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.