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.

17 of 909 comments (clear)

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

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

  2. Repeat 5th grade? by KRYnosemg33 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The part that surprised me was when I read the First Amendment instructions. I was surprised to learn that people could say whatever they want... providing it would not cause imminent action
    It's this sort of uninformed, unintelligent (lack of) thinking that even allows these 'cases' to reach the courts in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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


      And the jurors, while you can make fun of their lack of knowledge about the law, seemed to take the time to actually understand the law as it is written. Whew, that's a cool concept!
      On the terrorism charges, Steger said jurors simply found a lack of evidence. "All the evidence that we had was not clear-cut, saying that he was a terrorist, so there had to be a lot of inference, that kind of thing," Steger said.

      He added, "The part that surprised me was when I read the First Amendment instructions. I was surprised to learn that people could say whatever they want ... providing it would not cause imminent action."
    2. Re:First Amendment Message? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

  4. Witches, Communists and Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

  5. Islamic websites. by nabil_IQ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
  6. Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? by rov4416444 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You've got to be kidding me, this is a joke right? The web is seething with Conservative forums. Try Little Green Footballs for a start. Check out the hundreds of links they have. Try to keep your lunch down. -- If affirmative action means what I'm for, I'm for it.

  7. Why was he deported? by mentaldrano · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

    Perhaps you should read the article.

    The juror quoted is being instructed to the effect that the free speech is far broader than the juror expected. That is, the judge is informing the jury that the defendant is much harder to convict on these charges than they might have thought. The judge is not telling the jury what the verdict should be, nor is he encouraging them to convict.

    This is, in fact, the point of the instructions. The judge is supposedly an expert in fine points of law, while the jurors are not. Thus, you can remind or inform them of those details that matter to the case. If, as you propose, jury nullification were a great thing, in this case ignoring the law in favor of (potential) jury whim would have resulted in a conviction, not an acquittal.

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

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

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

    O'Connor's speech was affirmed by the Vatican and published widely in Catholic newspapers. It even made CNN. So if you think Christian churches are turning a blind eye to Matthew Shepard, abortion violence and other things done ostensibly in God's name, then all that shows is you're not paying attention.
  12. Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? by femto · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Apart from the fact you are probably not looking, it is also a matter of numbers and the fact that 'left' and 'right' are relative terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you.

  14. "...most heinous ongoing crime since the 1940s?" by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Interesting


    "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?

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

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

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

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

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