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.'"

Comments

Free speech in the UK?

[Brian Gordon]

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

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[jd]

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.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[kamapuaa]

If you're trying to use history to sound smart and add gravitas to your argument, you shouldn't be so entirely ignorant and incorrect about it. Athens didn't go bankrupt from wars before the Peloponnesian War (which I assume you were referring to), it led an economic league that was at the height of its powers and ruled Mediterranean trade. Wu didn't go bankrupt, perhaps you were thinking of the Shu kingdom but more likely you were talking out of your ass, anyway the country was invaded many years after repeatedly defending itself from invasion, and was clearly the least offensive of the three kingdoms, and probably the most economically successful.

Alexander the Great & Genghis Khan didn't just have delusions of power that poetically "slipped through their fingers"- they each ruled huge, expanding empires at the time of their deaths. Genghis Khan's descendants went on to rule what would become the largest empire ever.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I was the only one in the UK who realised that, for a system to work, you need balancing pressures, and a hereditary Lords is an ideal unbribable chamber. All politicians are easily corrupted, and paying them more only makes them greedier.

The best way to fight corruption is to grant substantial political power to a bunch of people with absolutely no qualifications, but who aren't politicians? It's amazing more people in the UK don't subscribe to that.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[ddrichardson]

I don't like to whinge but this is really starting to bug me, there are no British courts. There is English law based on precedent and Scots law based on jurisprudence.

It may seem like a semantic difference but it is in fact like saying North American law rather than Canadian and US. It is also important to Scots historically because it is one of the few things that were kept after the act of union with England.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Paul Jakma]

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).

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Ash Vince]

The House of Lords was another organiztion that opposed such nonsense, which is why the Conservatives gutted it and Labour disembowled what was left. Sorry, You seem confused. They are two different entities both called the House of Lords.

The House of Lords in the context or parliament is the non-democratically selected load of old codgers that was gutted by both parties in an attempt to make the British political system more responsive to change.

The House of Lords in the context of Law is the English equivalent of the Supreme Court. The Lords who sit and decide cases in regards to law are only selected from high ranking judges.

They also get to sit in the Parliamentary House of Lords above but this does not work both ways. The Hereditary Peers (land owners who inherited their position in the Parliamentary House of Lords) have never been able to sit as Law Lords unless they also trained to be a barrister then spent their entire life practicing Law first.

The only exception to this when all Lords (not just Law Lords) can decide a case is in the case of impeachment.

Your comment about them owning most of the land implies that you think both bodies to be the same thing, they are not.

The following wikipedia page has some interesting info, pay attention to the section marked Judicial Functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

Mirror?

[anagama]

Where's a mirror? I'd like to read ....

hang on, someone's at the door.

Re:Mirror?

[Brian Gordon]

the government can't catch you as long as you use a foreign-based prox-- brb door

Re:Mirror?

[evanbd]

Of course, the real place these documents should be available, is Freenet. I haven't yet checked to see if they're available, though, so I can't give you a link.

How novel

[AP2k]

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

Re:How novel

[Swampash]

Obviously not an American court.

Re:How novel

[AndGodSed]

For once the crazies lost a case!

Re:How novel

[mdwh2]

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"...

Well, they are just students, after all.

[that this is not und]

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.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Repton]

Really? How many real terrorists have you seen?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[anagama]

I saw Bush and Cheney on youtube once. So that makes two for me.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Marful]

They've != I've

Typing in "age of suicide bombers" into google will explain to you pretty quickly the age range of suicide bombers.

So I believe the person whom you were responding too was making a valid observation.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dindi]

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 .....

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[FooAtWFU]

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

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Cassius Corodes]

If you had actually read Mein Kampf you would have discovered Hitler wasn't a social democrat but a national socialist.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[riggah]

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).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[martinX]

Simply downloading and reading is not a crime. I've read Mein Kampf and I'm not a Nazi, I've read the bomb-maker's guide and I don't blow shit up, I saw LOTR and I'm not going on a silly quest. The cops need to look for more than this for a crime.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[CannonballHead]

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.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Mathinker]

> 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).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Dutch Gun]

America was founded by "terrorists." No, America was founded by "rebels". There's a huge difference. Those "rebels" did not use terror to achieve political aims. They used military force, by raising an army in the field, building our own seagoing attack vessels (pretty much was useless, read some history for some amusing / interesting tales), and enlisting the help of foreign nationals (the French).

Americans were criticized for unsportsmanlike conduct, such as specific targeting of officers by sharpshooters. But it's a complete myth that we fought the British mostly by small skirmishes. The simple fact was, it was a large standing army, fought in traditional fashion, that eventually defeated the British (with the help of a Naval blockade). George Washington led this army from the front lines, and it's a miracle he was never even touched by a bullet or cannon fire.

I know that America-bashing is all the rage these days, but to casually equate the folks who founded the US with modern terrorism is such a ridiculous notion, I really don't even know where to begin except to recommend you educate yourself. Yes, it's foolish to believe that the founding fathers were somehow infallible, or not without faults, but all in all, they were a remarkable group of people who are worth learning about with an open mind.

I've got no qualms about making sure hard-won liberties are not easily surrendered, but leave our "rebel" ancestors out of this.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[riggah]

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.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jeevesbond]

still downloaded Mein Kampf to own it, read it, understand a different point of view.

My grandfather was a spy during part of the Second World War. He worked mostly in Spain (was from Argentina, so could speak good Spanish), helping people escape Franco's rule. He smuggled a copy of Mein Kampf home. We've still got it, an original complete with Hitler signature stamp. Doesn't make the bloke a Nazi though, he just wanted to find out what was going through Hitler's demented mind.

The more works like this are swept under the carpet, the less chance we have of understanding the followers of their doctrines. Forcing any sort of extremist material underground just makes it interesting, seems politicians are unaware of the Streisand Effect.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[lixee]

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.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[mSparks43]

No, America was founded by "rebels". There's a huge difference. Those "rebels" did not use terror to achieve political aims. They used military force, by raising an army in the field, building our own seagoing attack vessels (pretty much was useless, read some history for some amusing / interesting tales), and enlisting the help of foreign nationals (the French).

Actually, under the 2000 terrorist act, those rebels would be defined as terrorists as would most governments afaics (especially the labour government here in the UK)

From the appeal decision at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_02_08beaumont.pdf Terrorism' is defined by section 1 of the 2000 Act as including the use of firearms or explosives that endangers life for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

I demand justice

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jdfox]

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.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[meringuoid]

Germans might think about the IRA when terrorism comes up because the RAF had ties to them.

No wonder it took so long to sort out the Provos... the bloody Air Force were secretly on their side all along?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Skrynesaver]

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

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Carewolf]

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.

You mean like blowing up abortion clinics and sniping doctors?

Now where is the military action against the stupid red states?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jdfox]

>This reads to me that any violent act meant to coerce a populous or government would be considered terrorism. That sounds like a reasonable definition.

I respectfully submit that while your intentions may be the very best in arriving at this concise definition, in practice the terms "violent act" and "coerce" are too ambiguous and subject to political manipulation in the public media to be of use here.

>The colonial rebels did nothing of the sort. They declared their independence from the crown by writing a letter, and Britain responded in force, as they deemed it was their right to do. War was waged, and the colonies were victorious.

It didn't stop at letter writing. The letter writing itself may not have been considered "terrorism" under present definitions, but the armed resistance certainly would have. The Zapatistas in Mexico also wrote letters to the Mexican state declaring their independence, after which they took up arms against the state. The Bush government has declared them to be "terrorists". Would you agree? If the Zapatistas are victorious, and obtain their autonomy, will they no longer be terrorists?

Menachem Begin was a member of the Irgun resistance group in pre-1948 Palestine. But after Israel's statehood was recognised and he signed a peace treaty with a neighboring country, he was granted the Nobel Peace Prize. Was he a terrorist? Did he stop being a terrorist once Israel was granted independence?

The distinction between terrorism and freedom-fighting is not semantics and word games. It's one of the most important political issues of our time, and defies all attempts to wave it away.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Loads - I live in ireland - practically every really old person you met while growing up would tell you about their adventures taking potshots at the british b4 they left (even ones that wern't even born at the time or had fought for the brits - these terrorist are a tricky bunch). So for me even to this day the word terrorist conjours up images of slightly senile old men, half cut on guiness smelling like they need their colostomy bag changed - a dangerous bunch indeed!!

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[KDR_11k]

The point was to demonstrate the shock value. This whole discussion is about the shock value of the word "terrorist".

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Ioldanach]

The American Revolution was not a resistance group. It was a regular army, fighting a war of independence, and adhered to the period's conventions of honorable warfare. So no, they would not be viewed as terrorist threats by today's laws. (snip) ... That sounds like a reasonable definition. The colonial rebels did nothing of the sort. They declared their independence from the crown by writing a letter, and Britain responded in force, as they deemed it was their right to do. (snip)

In 1765, the Sons of Liberty were formed in response to the Stamp Act, they threatened violence upon anyone selling the stamps. (The stamps were designations that the appropriate tax had been paid on the article.) "In Boston, the Sons of Liberty burned the records of the vice-admiralty court and looted the elegant home of the chief justice, Thomas Hutchinson." - wikipedia (yes, its not a great authoritative source, but its handy and these aren't facts in dispute.)

In 1767, the Boston Massacre, a major incident where British soldiers fired upon civilians, was instigated by the civilians first mobbing and pelting the soldiers with debris.

In 1772, American patriots burned a British warship.

In 1773, a group of men dumped £10,000 worth of tea in to the harbor in the Boston Tea Party.

In 1774, in response to the passing of several British acts (The Intolerable Acts), the First Continental Congress called for the formation of militias.

In 1775, when the British sent a regiment to seize a stockpile of the growing insurgencies arms, a skirmish erupted resulting in 273 British casualties. The insurgents laid seige to Boston and eventually the British were forced to evacuate the city.

In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was issued.

Now, I've made sure to cast the revolutionaries in a poor light, here, because that's the sort of news the British would be receiving back in London. It wasn't until after the battle of Concord and Lexington in 1775 that the Continental Army would formally be created.

So, terrorists or not?

Information Wants...

[tshetter]

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

Better solution

[physicsphairy]

If you don't want your students to read something, have one of their professors assign it as homework and mention that there will be no grade or quiz.

Better yet, say there *will* be a quiz and then symlink "Jihadist Pamphlet Cliffnotes" to "Partial Differential Equations Vol. I, II, and III" in the google results.

Incendiary Device

[the_other_one]

I read instructions on how to operate an incendiary device.
I hope they don't arrest me for potentially committing future arson.
I believe the instructions said "close cover strike match".

Student or not...

[Etherwalk]

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. =)

Re:Student or not...

[Romwell]

Just wanted to let you know that you used Proof by Outside the scope. I could have proven you wrong using Proof by Promiscuity, but I want to keep my geek license.

Re:Student or not...

[lionheart1327]

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.

Re:Student or not...

[MightyYar]

That's the exact rationale I used to download the Paris Hilton sex tapes.

Re:Student or not...

[McDutchie]

*Reading* should not be a crime,

Obligatory RMS link: The Right to Read. In many situations, reading is already a crime. Thank you for your attention. Carry on :)

Re:Student or not...

[KDR_11k]

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.

Soon To Be Illegal In The USA Too..

[nexuspal]

""Though Saffran says he finds these First Amendment issues "dubious," in a letter to Internet executives he argues that no one has a constitutional right to use private property to facilitate terrorism.
"You have the right," he writes, "and ... the moral obligation to stop them from doing so.""

We have a "moral" obligation to stop our great discoveries in history from being propagated to the masses because some might use it incorrectly(note, this is not yelling fire in a packed theatre)? Please keep in mind, 4 grad students built the bomb (in design) to specifications that current atomic scientist said would actually chain react and detonate, using books that were publically available, but they're scared of information that might enable one to make dynamite? If someone is smart enough and motivated enought to make dynamite, they could do far, far, worse without explosives imo.

Actually they were...

[matria]

This whole thing came up because one of the students left home to join the others; they were intending to go fight in some unspecified foreign country. The student's parents called the police to report him missing when he sneaked out. Investigating his disappearance uncovered the material. But then I read the article yesterday.

Excuses, excuses...

[Kenrod]

I'm very sad to see so many people here making excuses for these young men's jihadist tendencies. Equating the perps extremist religious motives with the Western notion of youthful experimentation or benign curiosity is insulting to everyone, even the jihadis.

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). He quoted two passages from the Koran to support his position:

Surah al-baqarah 2:216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not.

And:

Surah at-tawbah 9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The letter is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_02_08_rajaletter1.pdf

I hope all of you defenders of freedom get that.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

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

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora]

Basically, you're telling me that I have no human right to think any way except your way.

You have the right to be ill. You have the right to refuse treatment. Noisily.

But believing that invisible beings are ordering your life and planning to punish you if you don't do what they want is not something I feel should be treated in the same was as feedom of assembly or speech.

I have to give you credit for saying it in a postmodern world.

Thank you.

TWW

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[mr100percent]

"Christians aren't trying to militarily solve the issue of religious oppression."

The Lord's Resistance Army would disagree with you...as would people like Timothy McVeigh and arguably Seung-Hui Cho.

I confess

[Tablizer]

I smashed into a building in Flight Simulator(tm). Please, go easy on the water-boarding, I'm allergic to water.

Frosted Butts

[TurinPT]

Bottle Bomb

Ingredients:

* 20 oz soda bottle (empty and dry on the inside)
* black powder (the more fine the better)
* steady burning long wick (at least 15 seconds delay) Instructions:

o Poke a small hole in the cap of the soda bottle.
o Pour a small amount of black powder into the bottle (just enough to cover the bottom with a thin layer, but totally covered, no empty spots on the bottom).
o Insert wick into the cap about halfway and put a bend in the wick.
Note: Be careful not to break the wick or it will shorten it causing possibly disastrous results.
o Screw the cap on the bottle tightly and set somewhere so that it is standing up.
o Light the fuse and get back about 30 feet. Watch the bottle to light up orange. The second after this happens the bottle blows up.

How it works:
The fuse drops onto the layer of black powder in the bottom of the bottle after it burns through the hole. The wick ignites the powder causing it to burn. This builds up pressure inside the bottle causing it to explode.
I have seen these fly up to 25 feet. You can try experimenting with different size bottles or, try a glass bottle with a metal cap if you have steel balls!!! Note- I'm not sure it has enough pressure to blow a glass bottle apart. It may just act like a rocket engine and flare.


There. Now were all criminals.

Let's see ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Possession of images of people who have been killed doesn't get you punished for being a murderer. Check.
Possession of pamphlets of jihadist material doesn't get you punished for being a terrorist. Check.
Possession of images of nude children does get you punished for being a pedophile. Um ... check?

While not endorsing anything, I'd just like to point out that some bogeymen are bigger than the others, and it feels kind of relieving that even after all the fearmongering the 'terrorist' one is still not the champion when it comes to trumping rationality.

Re:link please...

[nexuspal]

OK, found relavent material...

"By contrast, 18 U.S.C. 231(a)(1) -- like the proposed Feinstein Amendment -- arguably could be characterized as a prohibition on certain forms of speech. Section 231(a)(1) provides that: Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/bombmakinginfo.html#IVA "

link here May just be violation of 1st...

Islamofascists are the new Communists

[mi]

Isn't "terrorist" the new "communist?"

No, "violent Islamist" is the new Communist. You were listing apples and chicken wings — Communism is an ideology/aim, terrorism is just a method — there were plenty of Communist terrorists too. Just as Communism in the 20th century, Islamism (not the faith, but the way of life and the society) is realizing, that it is losing to the Western civilization. It can not offer the followers neither the freedoms, nor the economic benefits offered by the competitors. It can not afford an open military conflict either. Terrorism is, pretty much, to fight for those, who must fight.

We will defeat them just as we defeated the "Red Army Faction", the "Shining Path" (Sendero Luminoso) and other Communist terrorists. It will take time — FARC is still alive and kicking, for example, but we'll get there...

America was founded by "terrorists."

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...

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[riggah]

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.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[riggah]

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.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[aproposofwhat]

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'.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[EasyTarget]

If you think that the british troops/sailors were not civilians, you need to look up the words 'conscript' and 'press-gang'. Please use your freedom to investigate the revisionist agenda about the war of independence you were indoctrinated with in school (you know.. the place where you are required to 'pledge allegiance'). Plenty of civilians who were loyal to his majesty got very thoroughly terrorised.

Basically the Right has only 'won' because it is the more violent and agressive side of politics. But in the end we'll all lose as it consumes the planet, then us, and finally itself.

Eventually there will be Murcdoc, Cheeney and the rest of them sitting in their 'arc' (ISS or the new Luxury South-Pole base) thinking they have 'won'. But then they'll find that one of them has been hoarding the remaining cans of beans and ammo. And eventually there will be one. Greed will have finally produced the ultimate Winner.

Re:link please...

[Eskarel]

Actually that law doesn't say what you say it does. Note knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed. It's not saying you can't teach someone how to make a bomb, it's not saying you can't learn to make a bomb. It's saying that it's not ok to teach someone who you know is going to use that bomb how to make a bomb.

The reason to know is a bit wishy washy, but it's probably just a catch all for situations where you have a guy who goes into a room full of plans to blow something up claiming he didn't know that's what they were going to do with the bomb.

Personally I think this law is probably pretty much unecessary, as IMO, knowingly providing someone the means to commit an illegal act in this fashion should be covered under "conspiracy to commit _______" offense tree.

It's not illegal to sell a man a gun, but if someone asks you to sell him a gun so he can murder his wife you're treading on dangerous ground if you do it, and five years and a fine is probably pretty lenient.

The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance

[Kupfernigk]

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.

Re:The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance

[meringuoid]

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'?

Bad summary.

[sim60]

They were not aquitted, they had their previous convictions quashed.

They were all originally found guilty, and sentenced to "up to" 3 years each, just for possessing a few dodgy pamphlets and recordings of "extremist sermons".

The appeals court (luckily a Court of Note in the UK, which means this does set a precedent) decided that in order to convict, the prosecution had to show intent to commit terrorist offences. The convictions were quashed because the jury was not told this, and the prosecution evidence would probably not have demonstrated it if they had been.

There's a whole bunch of these 'going equipped' style laws in the UK, where the courts presume to know why you were doing something that, without the intent to commit a crime in the future, would not be illegal.

So what do we learn from the article?

[fluch]

Never leave a note to your parents if you want to go fighting abroad... ...but I have to catch a plane to Afganistan ... see ya later, guys!

The Lords are not perfect

[jd]

Maggie is believed to have sold peerages just as much as Blair ever did, and certainly made as many (or more) political appointees in order to have a House of Lords that was more manipulable. Nonetheless, the basic concept is sound (two Houses maintained by independent methods and drawn from independent pools, to avoid degeneracy in any one pool poisoning the other) and has generally been better than systems in which the Houses are not much more than a single entity distinguished only by label.

Actually, there might be something to be said for dividing the peerage system and House of Lords into two distinct Houses, such that one represented the economically powerful - the latterday Barons - and the other represented the intellectually powerful - a "purist" meritocratic House.

Another thing I like is that Lords and the Royal Family have no vote in elections. At least, they're not supposed to have one. They pay taxes and have representation, but their representation is in the form of the second House, not in the makeup of the first. In the same way that the Commons aren't supposed to have influence over who is in the Lords, the Lords aren't supposed to have influence over who is in the Commons. Along those same lines, the Lords cannot "impeach" anyone in the House of Commons, or vice versa.

It's not a flawless system, it has evolved through thousands of years of experimentation and theorizing, but it has evolved into something very close to what is likely to be the best intermediate/compromise form of democratic Governance, as described by Plato.

Plato imagined a democracy might avoid degenerating into what is dictatorship by anything other than name by a two-fold approach. He rationalized that although democracy is a powerful tool, people are easily manipulated and can be swayed into folly by a good enough talker, that this was a fixable problem - you just needed good enough education and good enough dissemination of information - but that this would take time. You needed an imperfect, temporary workaround where you had a hybrid democracy/meritocracy, where (in principle) the flaws in each of these systems is negated - or at least held in check - by the strengths of the other. Once the population is strong enough and smart enough, then you don't need the workaround.

The English system is a thousand miles from Plato's idealized intermediate system, but if it works better than solutions even further away, we should learn what we can from it, not junk it as "old-fashioned".