Slashdot Mirror
Al-Qaeda Hacker Caught
anaesthetica writes "The Washington Post is carrying a story on a young man suspected to be the al-Qaeda hacker 'Irhabi 007'. From the article: 'Celebrated for his computer expertise, Irhabi 007 had propelled the jihadists into a 21st-century offensive through his ability to covertly and securely disseminate manuals of weaponry, videos of insurgent feats such as beheadings and other inflammatory material... The Internet has presented investigators with an extraordinary challenge. But our future security is going to depend increasingly on identifying and catching the shadowy figures who exist primarily in the elusive online world.'"
It says in the writeup he distributed their weapon manuals, was involved in a bomb plot, and had stolen credit card information.
So shut the fuck up and read it before you jump to conclusions.
I was ABOUT to say that. Then I RTFA. The guy did more than just that. He broke into some servers and used them as hosts for the propoganda. Hacker? I don't know. Digital criminal? Surely.
Close. Scarily, the "glorification of terror" is indeed an offence now, though the suspicion is that they wanted to be able to nail people like Abu Hamza, who stood up in the centre of london and praised al-Qaeda.
However, the 90 day extension of the holding powers was stopped by parliament in Blair's first Commons defeat; instead the previous 14-day holding period (without charge) was extended to 28 days, which is still a dangerous piece of legislation for a liberal democracy IMHO.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Is that the new definition of "terrorist" ? Soemone who; covertly and securely distribute inflammatory material ?
No, it's not. Clearly you didn't RTFA.
First of all, this guy was discovered accidentally -- he was arrested for what he was doing offline (allegedly plotting a bombing), not online. Second of all, what this guy did online wasn't merely post "inflammatory material" on various forums. He was actively breaking into servers to covertly host data, like videos and messages. If you go on an online forum today and post "Support the Jihad against the Western infidels!", you can't be arrested (at least in the US; I understand that the laws in the UK may have changed so that it is illegal). If you go and break into someone's server and then put your message there, then you might be in trouble.
In short, this guy isn't being arrested because he was exercising his right to free speech. What he did would have been illegal if the material he was posting had been propaganda supporting Bush's agenda.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
"Irhabi" means terrorist in Arabic. That should be more than enough to put him behind bars.
Judge: So what did this guy do?
Prosecutor: He's a self-proclaimed terrorist.
Judge: Can't argue with that.
Res publica non dominetur
It looks like you are not familiar with what conspiracy is used for in the legal system of the U.S. government. The fact that there are no other charges should make you pause. Here's a clue:
"In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.
Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.
What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:
First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;
Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;
Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and
Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.
An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.
A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part."
Al-Qaeda goes through #2s faster than the Enterprise went through red-shirted ensigns, apparently:1 _200111168.html)
_ 2004031811.html
/ from/RL.5/
Nov. 16, 2001 -- Air strikes in Afghanistan may have killed Mohammed Atef, the No. 2 man in the Al Qaeda terrorist network, Pentagon officials said today.
(http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2001/n1116200
March 18, 2004 - Pakistani officials believe they have the No. 2 man in al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, cornered.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2004/n03182004
September 28, 2005 - Gen. Richard Myers, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that the U.S. military considered Abu Azzam the "No. 2 Al Qaeda operative in Iraq, next to Zarqawi."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9518556/site/newsweek
Spreading this information to would-be terrorists could be _THE_ key to defeating terrorism globally. "If I work hard for the cause... I may get promoted... if I get promoted enough, I might be second only to bin Laden himself... wait a minute..."
Or drawing cartoons.
Your moral relativism is so fucking quaint.
i don't care what happens to him. he picked the wrong side.
You sound awfully like Osama.
He doesn't care what happens to you either. You picked the wrong side.
Well, joke aside, in a list greater than two, removing the second often makes the third the new two.
All in a day's work for Captain Obvious.
It looks like you are not familiar with what conspiracy is used for in the legal system of the U.S. government. The fact that there are no other charges should make you pause. Here's a clue:
Here's a clue for YOU. The guy is a British subject, and was arrested and charged in the United Kingdom.
So why are you quoting US law?
The latest Slashdot meme.