Slashdot Mirror


Students Downloading Jihadist Material Acquitted

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Five UK students who were charged under the UK's 2000 Terrorism Act for possession of jihadist materials were acquitted after the jury found that, while they had downloaded the materials, there was no evidence that they were planning any sort of crime. The Lord Chief Justice was quoted as saying, 'Difficult questions of interpretation have been raised in this case by the attempt by the prosecution to use [this law] for a purpose for which it was not intended.'"

33 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Free speech in the UK? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well at least it's good to see that it's not a complete mudslide..

    1. Re:Free speech in the UK? by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The British courts also ruled that a schizophrenic that thought himself the reincarnation of King Arthur saner than the Conservative Home Office. The courts tend to be less political and a lot saner than the politicos. The House of Lords was another organiztion that opposed such nonsense, which is why the Conservatives gutted it and Labour disembowled what was left. It's hard to buy out a group that need no money and own most of the land. It's hard to get them to be entirely sane, but so long as they're educated, it's a useful group to have as a transient mechanism until society has matured and that group's function is to bring society into maturation. The problem society has to face is that it isn't maturing. If it was, it wouldn't be repeating history. Athens and Wu went bankrupt from wars and got invaded in turn. Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan found their delusions of power run out through their fingers in their later years, and their deaths caused catastrophic collapses of what could meaningfully be called epic proportions. The systems are probably fine, but a car is fine... if you've the maturity to drive one.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Free speech in the UK? by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the life peers *do* tend to be qualified. They got there, in theory, by being eminent enough for some government to appoint them (unfortunately it seems new Labour has been "selling" life peerages). At least some lords *must* be eminent enough to be Chief Justices of the english and/or scottish bars, for the Lords acts as the court of last resort in the United Kingdom.

      Whatever conceptual problems you find in how they are selected, the lords has, and does, provide a check on the government, particularly with regard to more authoritarian power-grabs. However, the lords can not obstruct indefinitely. They are, to my admittedly not terribly-well-informed eye, much more effective than similarly empowered upper-houses in other countries where the appointments to those houses are instead political, e.g. the Seanad in Ireland.

      Where the lords is quite prepared to block OTT legislation in the UK, the Seanad rarely rises above being a comfy talking shop for pensioned politicos and some others, no doubt mindful that to act against the popular wisdom of the day could cost them at the next election. In other words, a near useless upper-house (AFAICT).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  2. How novel by AP2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A judiciary.... adhereing to the spirit of the law. Brilliant!

    1. Re:How novel by Swampash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously not an American court.

    2. Re:How novel by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My impression of it is that the law required there to be evidence of terrorist intent, so they were following not just the spirit, but the actual wording of the law itself, and the original prosecution wrongly interpreted the law more broadly.

      Had the Government simply criminalised simple possession alone (as it wants to do with some other things it doesn't like, e.g., pr0n), then chances are they wouldn't have been acquitted. In fact it wouldn't surprise me that it sees this case as a "loophole" that needs to be closed in order to "fight terrorism"...

  3. Well, they are just students, after all. by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It might seem like flamebait to say this, but people in their student years are always trying different things out. It's hard for older people to take them seriously sometimes, but that's how its always been.

    I remember those days, far back in the distance. As a young campus radical, I remember the way the older, more seasoned off-campus radicals would look at us, with our newfound enthusiasm, and willingness to embrace any new idea. No slogan, no campaign is too outlandish when you're young and inexperienced.

    Grumpy older people need to give those younger than themselves some slack. Hell, if the world took every angry-young-man at face value, we'd ALL be in jail.

    1. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by Repton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? How many real terrorists have you seen?

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    2. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by dindi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree 100% .... never used a blue/red/black/whatever color phreaking box, still owned the manual because I was interested (would never have worked in Europe anyways). Never was a social democrat, still downloaded Mein Kampf to own it, read it, understand a different point of view. Also owned the terrorists' handbook to obtain interesting information. Do I want to blow stuff up? Well. maybe coke cans in myh backyard, but definetely not US soldiers or the president. Still as a learning person I THINK knowing how to make a bomb, how to shoot a rifle or how to pick a lock might come handy. Hey could even save my life.

      Would I download jihadist material? Well, maybe it would not come too much handy, but it is definitely interesting. Hey it could even save your (or others lives).

      This is censorship. Wrong censorship. People download stuff available to download. Whatever it is. Video, text file, program ...... just see more of this world. They should explain it why it is wrong, not forbid to see an other point of view at all.

      just my 2c .....

    3. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the UK. I have three letters for you, and they don't stand for Individual Retirement Account.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    4. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by riggah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously?

      Isn't "terrorist" the new "communist?" It's the new boogey-man word designed to scare everyone into complacency while we cower in our homes and allow things like warrantless wire-tapping to occur.

      But I'm getting off topic. America was founded by "terrorists." As was any country who's government was established by any revolution, civil war, or coup; they were all started by a few "terrorists" (with few exceptions, I suppose).

    5. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reading jihadist materials from the internet is one of the ways that ordinary people become radicals.

      "Jihadist" and "internet" are irrelevant. Reading stuff, from Common Sense to Mein Kampf to Letter from Birmingham Jail, is one of the ways that people become radicals - whether radical haters, or radical workers for justice.

      Racist skinheads also use online materials to self-radicalize, and I bet that nobody here would be against coming down hard on them.

      If "coming down hard" means using the violence of government censorship in a futile attempt to prevent other violence, I'd be against it.

      They apparently were frustrated by the mosque's elders, who forbid the discussion of politics in the mosque.

      Let's see here: certain discussions are forbidden. People therefore have them underground, in a context of ignorance. Violence results. Your example argues for frank and open discussion, not for censorship.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, I believe this is very historically false. Revolution, civil war, and coup are not all necessarily acts of terrorism. Certainly, in the case of the American revolution, it was an open war. It was, if I may use the two terms in the same sentence, a somewhat honorable war in this: the US (not exactly the "US" at that time) declared that they were independent of Britain; Britain sent military force to subdue their "colonies," and the "US" fought back. That's very different from various peoples usually adhering to a certain religious idea (radical Islam, for example) simply trying to create fear and destruction because they oppose what another country stands for.

      "Terrorist" is the new "Nazi." Except even the Nazis at least somewhat openly declared war, and were associated with a nation. The problem with modern-day terrorists is that they come from an ideological view without officially being tied to a country; if all these terrorists that blow up various western civilizations (yes, they have it out for western civilization and non-Muslims, not just the US or Britain) were really officially the Iran National Army, I doubt Iran would last very long. However, whether or not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is unofficially or secretly helping terrorists is a lot harder to figure out.

      I'll give an analogy. Imagine that suddenly, a sect of Christianity began to strike blow up various sites that it deemed were havens for atheists (e.g., liberal "atheist" universities, or something). There'd be a huge outcry against that. However, it's hard to take military action to stop it, because the "Christians" would not be associated with a specific country.

      Another example. Let's say that a variety of Americans began bombing all sorts Eastern civilizations, various places. Terrorism, basically, but this time Western going for the East. That'd be a big deal, and it'd be hard to fight against.

      There's the problem. How do you stop independent (seemingly, at any rate, it's hard to tell) citizens from acts of terrorism? In the case of Islamic terrorists, should we go after countries that apparently knowingly harbor/support them? Reverse the tables; if American citizens were randomly blowing up Islamic sites, would you support forcing the US to do something about it?

      Frankly, I think there's a big double standard. It's one thing for a country to declare war and officially fight; it's another to try to maintain an official peace while letting its citizens (without much apparent concern for it, if not actually supporting the activity) commit acts of terrorism from a purely ideological and religious standpoint.

      One last note... I'm not sure communism is a "boogey-man" word. Tell some Korean or Vietnamese people that communism is really just a boogey-man. You might find the ones that actually know what communism is, stands for, and does of a differing opinion than, say, Americans who really know nothing about suppression, persecution, etc.

      IMO, no matter how bad you think ANY US president was, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't particularly have wanted to be a citizen under Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, or Hussein. We even still have the freedom to criticize presidents. Without getting killed.

    7. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Typing in "age of suicide bombers" into ...

      The point of the reply (which you missed) was that you should rather have typed in "frequency of suicide bombing".

      And of all of those not so frequent suicide bombings, exactly one attack has had significant economic impact, and that was 9/11. The efficient way to have prevented 9/11's economic impact would have been to have had locked cockpit doors, not to fantasize that it is possible (and desirable) to make the world into a police state where no one has access to "jihadist materials" (the fantasy being the lack of access, of course).

    8. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by riggah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First off, my point was that both words are simply being used to induce fear; "terrorist" to justify the stripping of civil liberties in the interest of "security", and "communist" as a rationale for nuclear proliferation and a huge military-industrial complex. Both are "boogey-man" words in the sense that they are being used to induce fear and complacency in the American public. I wasn't commenting on the technical, idealogical, or philosophical meaning of either; I was commenting on their use as propaganda in the US to sway public opinion.

      Second, if you want to get technical, before the USA became the USA it was a group of British colonies. A few men within those colonies took up arms and committed acts that could be loosely defined as terrorism before the movement became a revolution and the colonies declared independence. The British would've called them terrorists at the time, not revolutionaries. Again, propaganda is far removed from fact.

      Your points are all valid and I agree with you, but I think you misconstrued the point I was making (or I wasn't very clear about it). Well... I agree with you for the most part, but I will say that someone like Stalin used Communism as an excuse for Totalitarianism; Communism was ruined as soon as Humans got involved.

    9. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the UK. I have three letters for you, and they don't stand for Individual Retirement Account. You did your job too well in stamping out terrorism.
      Now nobody in the US even thinks "IRA" when terrorism comes up.
      Ditto for the Germans, Italians, Greeks, and French.

      Not to mention that the current election frenzy is drowning out a lot of other news:
      http://news.google.com/news?q=basque+eta
      (You can see why I left out Spain)

      Honestly, you Brits figured out how to deal with terrorism a long time ago and it's only the USA's fear that is driving all these new laws.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    10. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by lixee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rebels would be one description. I still believe they terrorized the natives. Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. The American forefathers, any way you look at it, fit that description.

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    11. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by jdfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The GP poster was making a subtle political point. Of course the founding fathers of the US weren't terrorists. But under the definitions of the present US government, they would indeed be classified as such. Resistance groups fighting uniformed militaries are routinely described as "terrorists" by the US State and Defense Departments, even though the nearly-universally accepted definition of terrorism is the act of using violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political ends.

      Louis Freeh, former director of the FBI, declared a wide range of non-violent groups to be terrorist threats to the United States, including Reclaim The Streets, Carnival Against Capitalism, and others. Never mind about the distinction between violence against civilians, and violence against uniformed troops: the FBI has gone on record to declare that Dancing Is Terrorism.

    12. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by Skrynesaver · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Indeed they did, they addressed the legitimate grievances of the community the terrorists were drawn from. Essentially meeting the demands of the civil rights movement of 1968. This provided a settlement that the more effective members of the IRA could live with and while there remain a number of dissident terrorist groups they essentially a bunch of tossers as opposed to PIRA who were a genuinely capable group.

      While it took 30 years for Britain to realise that they could undermine the whole terrorism nonsense by removing the underlying reasons. Of course eliminating the bogeyman by addressing legitimate Arab grievances and addressing other issues constructively might not be in the US's best interests at the moment. Having the second largest oil reserves in the world as a US military base on the other hand might be useful in the medium to long term. Just a question of what the priorities are I guess

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    13. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Shouldn't this be modded insightful rather than funny?

    14. Re:Well, they are just students, after all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A small factual correction: The 1774-version of my family were textile merchants and mill owners in Brockton Mass. One night four 'rebels' invited the family to become rebels, leave now, or die in the fire that was about to start.

      The family chose to load up and head to Canada as Loyalists. But that was a long time ago.

      Inviting someone to change political orientation or die isn't what one could call enlightened use of power. Ask around in Kenya if you want some background on how effective a machete can be as an attitude adjuster in a more contemporary setting.

      Rebel or Terrorist depends on who wins. The winner always gets to write the history.

  4. Information Wants... by tshetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Information wants to be Free. You cant stop people from knowing. You cant stop people from teaching.

  5. Student or not... by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I go to a white supremacist web site, that doesn't necessarily mean I endorse their views. Even if I download their materials it doesn't--maybe I just find it disgusting and want to show it to someone who won't believe it's as bad as it is. Maybe I want to study it and figure out something about the psychology of the people involved. The same thing applies to terrorism, and... well, pretty much anything a student reads, or any person reads. *Reading* should not be a crime, with the possible exception of some classified/secret documents... whose classification is beyond the scope of this paragraph. =)

    1. Re:Student or not... by lionheart1327 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. I'm Jewish and I've gone to sites to read Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries.
      That doesn't make me a white-supremacist, just someone who thinks its important to understand your enemies.

    2. Re:Student or not... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe he was just afraid of the answer, maybe he just wanted to make sure everyone just sees them as pure Hollywood-esque evildoers rather than people with their own reasons.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  6. Re:Excuses, excuses... by nagora · · Score: 5, Insightful
    These guys were caught because one of them wrote a "bye, I'm going to fight for Allah" note to his parents. He promised to engage in conventional warfare (as opposed to domestic terrorism).

    Well, not to support religious nutters of any persuasion, but if he had written "I'm off to fight for Christ, but only in conventional warfare somewhere Christians are being oppressed and killed" would anybody even bat an eyelid? Even less so: if they'd said they were going to Israel to fight for the preservation of the Jewish homeland?

    Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas into a mental hospital until they get better.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  7. Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists by riggah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My point is about the way the word is used. The word "communist" was used to induce fear and justify a war economy just the way the word "terrorist" is being used now to justify a war machine and domestic surveillance.

    History is written by the victorious; I'm sure similar words were used to describe the founding fathers as they threw tea into a harbor. You're absolutely correct in your definition of both words, but I was simply stating that "terrorist" is the new catch-word that has America rolling over and giving away its civil liberties in the the name of security.

  8. Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know if it was the word as much as it was historical actions of political entities who claimed to have been communists. Even if we forget all about germany for the sake of godwin's law, we have Russia rolling in to some countries and pretty much making the same posturing threats as what started WW2. Then when you take all forms of democracy out of the picture and watch Stalin's death machine, look to Vietnam and the subsequent killing fields there, North Korea wanting to invade south korea, and all, there was quite a bit to be scared of even knowing that the forms of communism wasn't true communism.

    I mean claiming it is a word without meaning is sort of like saying Fuck or bastard are arbitrary words that people all the sudden decided was bad to say on day. There is a history amongst it that gave the bad, scary, and evil stigma to it.

  9. Re:Excuses, excuses... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yea, they would care. Especially is they were going to join a side that was hostile to the homeland (the UK).

    And 60 years ago, they would have been prosecuted for going to Israel too.

    Don't look at this as people going to "work or war" for god, look at it as people going to join the enemy side of a force at war with you.

  10. Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists by riggah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't believe I claimed it was a word without meaning. I know I was scared as hell as a child when I hid under a desk during air raid drills in elementary school because "the communists were going to drop bombs on us." The analogy was simply that while the words may have legitimate meaning (and a justifiable cause for concern), they also give our own extremists fodder to use for things like the Patriot Act and foreign occupations without much opposition from the general public. That is the goal of those catch-words as propaganda. The populace hands over its civil liberties because anyone could be a terrorist; a populace in fear is an easily controllable one. I'm not saying that Terrorism isn't a problem, nor am I saying that Radical Islam (capitalized for a reason) isn't a problem, nor am I saying that brutal, totalitarian regimes under the flag of Communism weren't (and aren't) a problem.

  11. The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    During the Spanish Civil War, a number of young British men (and Americans) went to fight on the Republican side - the side which, if the war was happening now, would be opposed by the present US Administration. (For the politically illiterate, in the rest of the world Republican usually means left wing - I have often wondered how many of the well meaning Americans who gave money to the Irish Republican Army understood that.) There is a story of a Cambridge student who went to tell his tutor that he was going to Spain. The tutor thought about it for a couple of minutes, then went out and came back with a revolver, which he solemnly handed over. Would they have found themselves on a terrorism charge in 2006?

    Nowadays, by most Europeans, those members of the International Brigade are regarded as heroes. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter usually depends on who eventually won whatever the war was. The fact that many members of the International Brigades fought because of an adherence to irrational beliefs like Communism, or because they had split up with their girlfriends, or because they wanted to rebel against their parents, gets lost in the simplifications of history.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      For the politically illiterate, in the rest of the world Republican usually means left wing - I have often wondered how many of the well meaning Americans who gave money to the Irish Republican Army understood that.

      If you'll happily donate to right-wing terrorists but baulk at funding left-wing terrorists, how exactly are you 'well-meaning'?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  12. Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists by aproposofwhat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope, that's not true. "Terrorism" is not just a dirty word -- it refers to a very specific tactics to achieve ideological/political goals: violence targeting civilians. America's founders did not do that...

    But (with a special nod to your sig) Israel's founders did do that - see Deir Yassin for a shining example.

    Nowadays, people seem to forget about the massacres and the bombing of the King David hotel, but at the time the Zionist gangs were routinely (and correctly) referred to as 'terrorist'.

    --
    One swallow does not a fellatrix make