Slashdot Mirror


UK Academics Arrested For Researching al-Qaida

D Afifi writes "Two political researchers at the University of Nottingham, in the UK, have been arrested under the Terrorism Act for downloading Al-Qaida material from a US government website. The material was to be used for research in terrorist tactics. There has been a huge public outcry, with university staff planning a march to demonstrate against the attack on academic freedom. Yet, one of the students, an Algerian, is still held in custody under immigration charges and is being fast-tracked for deportation."

150 of 681 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise... by amrik98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The UK is the country furthest along the road to 1984.

    1. Re:No surprise... by Laukei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every day I read comments online about the UK going to hell via 1984... and every day I find new evidence to back up these claims.

      It's an awful state of affairs when academics are being prosecuted under terror legislation.

      I've lost all faith in the the UK and US governments since 9/11.

      ~Rob

    2. Re:No surprise... by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Surely you mean Airstrip One.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:No surprise... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From TFA:

      "...Yezza, who is Algerian, was immediately rearrested on unrelated immigration charges and now faces deportation..."
      Just wanted to clarify why he's being deported. The brits' reaction to the downloading of the document was a bit extreme, but if ya want to live in a country then ya gotta play by their(sometimes idiotic) rules.
    4. Re:No surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Cultural enemies"? What kind of BS is that?

      Maybe in the central US we get a different class of immigrants than those Britain deals with -- but the folks I meet here are smart, hard-working, well-educated, practical people more interested in good lives for themselves and their families than ideology from back home.

    5. Re:No surprise... by Laukei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Prior to 9/11 I was < 12. Everyone's pretty optimistic when they're that young.

      ~Rob

    6. Re:No surprise... by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want to be idiotic and keep voting people into office that support this kind of nonsense, then ya gotta play by their rules..

    7. Re:No surprise... by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure. I wouldn't say I had any notion of having faith in the government when I was 12 though.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:No surprise... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to be idiotic and live in a country whose citizens are idiotic and keep voting idiots into their congress, then ya gotta play by their rules. As for those of us who were born in the US(or UK), there are other places to move. I'm thinking Canada or the Netherlands if the US dosen't get its shit together in the next few years.

    9. Re:No surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe in the central US we get a different class of immigrants than those Britain deals with -- but the folks I meet here are smart, hard-working, well-educated, practical people more interested in good lives for themselves and their families than ideology from back home.


      This isn't Kansas we're talking about


      It's not just the class of immigrant, it's the fact that US culture is far more assimilationist. The fact is that in the UK, there are a large number of angry muslim men, and there are muslim preachers (or have been before they were arrested) who openly preach the message of terrorism.


      Maybe this was a false alarm (maybe it wasn't), but don't you think there would be many people in the US who would be happy if Mohammed Atta had of been arrested on similar charges. Well no, of course, they wouldn't know what had been prevented and instead would be righteously discussing what a terrible infringement of free speech poor Mr Atta had been subjected to.



    10. Re:No surprise... by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now you know why public schools in the USA fill the children's heads with all that patriotic bulloni about how benevolent the government is and make the founding fathers look like saints, so the kids don't realize what dirty rotten scoundrels the government is until they are 40 years old.

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    11. Re:No surprise... by wellingj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder if they blame Blair or Bush for their calamity... Both complaints are plausible...

    12. Re:No surprise... by mikesd81 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You get taken away to some non-existent place for questioning.

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    13. Re:No surprise... by Jim+in+Buffalo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, absolutely. I just realized last year on my 40th birthday what dirty rotten scoundrels the governments are. Totally ruined my party.

      --
      This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
    14. Re:No surprise... by carlzum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find the UK legislation scarier than in the US. I like to believe that the US government would be deterred by significant public opposition, and that they're only getting away with it until a public backlash catches up. But the UK government has been successfully rolling out surveillance laws and cases like this against popular opinion.

    15. Re:No surprise... by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Informative
      Kansas or not, I'm pretty certain you didn't bother to read the article. From the material presented, this is a pretty obvious case of abuse of power. I'm posting from the States, but I'm certainly not ill-informed on these matters.

      From the second paragraph of TFA:

      Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research, Rizwaan Sabir, 22, was held for nearly a week under the Terrorism Act, accused of downloading the materials for illegal use. The student had obtained a copy of the al-Qaida training manual from a US government website for his research into terrorist tactics. Please read the source material and comment afterward. If your opinion differs, please provide relevant citations supporting your position.
    16. Re:No surprise... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Cultural enemies"? What kind of BS is that?

      Maybe in the central US we get a different class of immigrants than those Britain deals with -- but the folks I meet here are smart, hard-working, well-educated, practical people more interested in good lives for themselves and their families than ideology from back home. That's because US immigration policy is more rational. You can get into the US if you have a job offer. UK immigration is a mess. It's very hard to get in legally if you have a job offer. If you enter illegally you're unlikely to get caught. If do get caught you can 'claim asylum'. But asylum seekers can't legally work. So you end up with lots of illegals and lots of unemployed asylum seekers living on benefits. Sweden is even worse - asylum seekers can easily spend their whole lives on benefits and benefits are much more generous.

      So the net result is that in the UK and Sweden you have lots of people who are essentially disconnected from society. In that sort of environment it's not surprising that some of them fall for the lie that Britain would be better under Shariah law.

      Some UK muslims were actually captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban and they told the British soldiers who caught them that they would go back to the UK and claim benefits.

      But people that are willing to use violence to replace liberal democracy with a far harsher system are 'cultural enemies'. Back in World War II British citizens who even made propaganda broadcasts for the Nazis were executed for treason. Certainly I think people who are willing to use or even threaten to use force to overthrow democracy are traitors.

      But I'd change the immigration system too to try to attract more pro Western immigrants.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:No surprise... by Tuoqui · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wont care anymore?

      Hell I dont care anymore now... The only real thing you can do to stop the terrorists is to stop being afraid. 9/11 happened *1* time and in *1* place... The odds of you dying in a terrorist attack are infinitesimally small... You'd have a better shot at winning the lottery.

      The only thing you can do is be smart and sensible about security.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    18. Re:No surprise... by fugue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, what if I don't want to live in a country? What choice do I have? Who has the right to tell me I must live in some country, or choose where they're going to send me when I don't live in it? I pretty much have to live in Antarctica.

      That is simply not reasonable. When countries form a cover of all the reasonably habitable land, then people who seek personal freedom have nowhere to go. There is no more freedom. This has led to my own working definition of overpopulation.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    19. Re:No surprise... by nickrout · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From TFA:

      "...Yezza, who is Algerian, was immediately rearrested on unrelated immigration charges and now faces deportation..." Just wanted to clarify why he's being deported. The brits' reaction to the downloading of the document was a bit extreme, but if ya want to live in a country then ya gotta play by their(sometimes idiotic) rules. So he was an illegal immigrant working or researching openly in a university and living in the UK for 13 years? If so why did they only arrest him when he downloaded his research material? Too much co-incidence here I am afraid.
    20. Re:No surprise... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because US immigration policy is more rational.

      True, but you don't often hear that.

      You can get into the US if you have a job offer.

      Or just walk across the border.

    21. Re:No surprise... by twostix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is *exactly* what happened last year here in Australia.

      Mohammed Haneef, an Indian doctor in Queensland was arrested by the federal government over the most idiotically flimsy link to the airport attacks in the UK one could imagine.

      Well, it quickly became was pretty clear they had nothing on him. In fact the government had so little on him that they purposefully and carefully fabricated, spun and lied to the press about what they did have on him. It all began to unravel and the truth came out thanks to his lawyer and a healthy grain of salt taken with the obvious rubbish the government was dishing out, so what do they do? Try cancel his visa on "Character Grounds" so that they can deport him before it gets to the courts and people find out how ruthless, and quite frankly evil that that particular government was being. Fortunately the courts saw through their bullshit and gave him back his Visa.

      The government eventually dropped all charges, being that it had all been shown to be an obvious and complete farce.

      The immigration line is bullshit, ALL immigrants in western countries can be deported for any reason what-so-ever if the respective Depts of Immi get told to get rid of them.

      Mark my words this bloke's being deported because it's going to be an embarrassment to the government. It's the easiest way for them to get rid of him.

      The worst thing is so many fools buy it hook, line and sinker. just like they did here with Haneef, there was plenty of people left looking like idiots when it came out what the government really was up to. Four months later that government (that had been in power for 12 years) was swept out of power in the biggest loss of power by a government in this countries history. It was that sort of dishonest, ruthless behaviour that caused it.

      Hopefully the UK will be next.

    22. Re:No surprise... by morari · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ...Really?

      What sort of things does Sweden accept asylum for?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    23. Re:No surprise... by linhares · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because US immigration policy is more rational. You can get into the US if you have a job offer. I love your deep sense of sarcasm! US immigration is pathetic at best; people getting visas through a lottery for god's sake. And employers are not even bothering to get the best people anymore, because on April fool's day, when applications for work visas start; the full year's quota is filled. As Lexington puts it: Congress is doing its best to lose the global talent war.
    24. Re:No surprise... by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's an awful state of affairs when academics are being prosecuted under terror legislation.

      Please RTFA. They were arrested under terror legislation, then the charges were dropped. They aren't being prosecuted under terror legislation.

      However, it looks like during the investigation, the police discovered that one of them was an illegal immigrant. He is being deported for this.

      Now he may or may not be here illegally, and he should definitely get the chance to defend himself before being deported, but please get your facts straight. Nobody is being prosecuted under terror legislation.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    25. Re:No surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kansas or not, I'm pretty certain you didn't bother to read the article.

      I did.

      From the material presented, this is a pretty obvious case of abuse of power.

      Please re-read my comment, I'm working on the presumption that it was a false alarm, I mention paranthetically that it may not have been. Nothing in the quote you cite (nor anything mentioned elsewhere in the article) pursuades me either way. Specifically ...

      Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research.

      I'm reminded of the surprise and discomfort of Prof Fulton (an historian specialising in the history of facsism) when he became aware that the student he'd accepted to do a masters thesis on the organisational methods of the NSDAP was none other than Jim Saleem. Moral of the story, interest in researching a subject does not conclusively indicate that a student is uninvolved in the subject being researched.

      More pursuasive is the fact that they let Rizwaan go.

      That being said, this was a power made for abuse, arresting people without charge and holding them for 6 days is an outrage. So is blowing people up on the bus to work. This question is not an unproblematic. I'm not actually supporting what was done. I'm just trying to slow people down a bit and get them to think before they get on their high horses and deal with this as if the academic and individual rights was the only side of the equation. ie. I'm being the devil's advocate (which is why I'm posting AC, this is not actually my personal position.

      The last paragraph was really in the way of a Gedankenexperiment. It's possible the German police could have arrested Atta on something as slight as suspicious personal associations (which there were), or dangerous reading materials. And we would be here ponitificating about the evil Germans falling back into their old ways. Tell me we wouldn't.

      Please read the source material and comment afterward. If your opinion differs, please provide relevant citations supporting your position.

      Don't be such a prat! I'm allowed draw a different conclusion from you on the basis of the same text. I obviously read more carefully and don't make presumptions as freely as you. You had as little basis for assuming that I had not read the article, as you have for presuming Rizwaan's innocence.

    26. Re:No surprise... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No they weren't, people survived in the towers.

      Since when did invading countries and wasting money = making you any safer?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    27. Re:No surprise... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what you mean we should go back to WWI, where the 1st troops deployed were to iraq to look after the ,you guessed it, oil?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    28. Re:No surprise... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Informative

      You think that's bad, they raided some guys house in the middle of the night, shot the guy and then when they didn't find any evidence, they tried pinning some child porn charges on him. I dont know what happened after that the press lost interest.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    29. Re:No surprise... by digitrev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the alternative is to live in a society where personal freedoms are trampled, the power of the ruling class runs unchecked, and fear is cultivated to keep the masses down, then yeah, I'd rather sit back and wait. Fortunately, it's not binary, but a continuum. Let's move a bit more toward the more reasonable response of gathering intelligence and preparing a world class emergency response team, as well as diplomacy and tact.

      But since you're just beating the straw out of that poor man, I suppose you don't really care what I have to say.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    30. Re:No surprise... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the Ringworld series

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teela_Brown

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    31. Re:No surprise... by Tuoqui · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When was the last time Homeland Security Advisory System had a day that was listed as Green or Blue?... I'll give you a hint, theres never been a day that ends in Y that's seen either of those two.

      I never said taking action was foolish... Just taking action that is disproportionate to the real threat is foolish... After all you wouldn't call the SWAT team to take down someone who's late on their parking tickets now would you? Why does ever tom dick and harry need to take off their shoes when going through airport security because one idiot thought 'hey I'll try to light my shoes on fire and blow up the plane'...

      Honestly, sit back and wait for it... Its not like they're gonna steal more planes and run them into buildings. The whole 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me' will prevent that... Besides passengers are now more apt to fight back with hijackers nowadays than they were before 9/11... which is one good thing that came out of all of that.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    32. Re:No surprise... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Actually Sweden might grant you asylum without you asking for it

      http://www.thelocal.se/7726/20070627/

      The episode started when she applied for an emergency loan via the US Embassy. When informed that it might take some time for a loan to be arranged, she says she was referred to Swedish social services. There, she was informed she was not entitled to Swedish state assistance.

      Dharmarajah says she was collected from the social services office by police officers.

      "The police took me to the police station, allowed me to call some of my friends in the US, and then took me to a refugee camp in Märsta," she tells The Local.

      The police officers then took Dharmarajah's passport.

      "They explained to me that I was an asylum case, and that asylum cases can't keep their passports."

      "It's crazy," she says. "I never wanted asylum in this country. I don't want to live here; I don't want to work here." Or look at this. An American Marxist granted asylum in Sweden who predictably now hates the place

      http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1999-February/014125.html

      Today in Sweden we are talking about 15% of the population that do
      not have a job. Over 500,000 people are directly unemployed or are
      in some sort of job education program. However that figure does not
      give a true picture of reality. In fact in many of the larger cities
      80% (!) of the non-Swede population do not have jobs. In fact
      non-Swedes, procentually, are the overwhelming majority of unemployed,
      those on welfare, or in job training.

      When I came here in 1972 Sweden was at the peak of its development.
      I received a humanitarian asylum in Sweden because of my opposition
      to the war in Vietnam. On the upside this guy seems more likely to whine on the Marxism listserv lists than mug anyone but what about these guys

      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4620167c-c3c9-11dc-b083-0000779fd2ac.html

      In Herrgarden, kids from diverse backgrounds do mix. But at schools composed almost wholly of migrants, they find it hard to feel an attachment with wider society. "My passport says I'm Svensk, but in the apartment, no," says Lulli's Turkish pal Nihad. "In Herrgarden, if someone has a problem, we help him. The Swedes, they are very cold. They shake hands. We kiss. Not like gays, like brothers." Anyone that says this is clearly an arsehole.

      Fuelled by resentment against native Swedes, some go into town on a Friday or Saturday night to indulge in a little light mugging of what they call "the Svens". The police think only about 150 youths are involved. At least these youngsters speak Swedish. I'd advise you to fly there and make up some story about the CIA/DHS/FBI torturing you because you oppose the Iraq war and criticised Bush. You'll get an apartment in Herrgarden, benefits and free Swedish classes in no time. Complain that you're being discriminated against in Herrgarden because you are the only white/non Muslim there and they'll move you somewhere better, surrounded by civilised but painfully naive blond people.

      In your extensive free time, head out to bars and tell the women you're a refugee from the US. Read up on how the Swedish media portrays the US and just feed the same stories back to them. They all speak perfect English. You'll get a Swedish girlfriend too! Of course, you're leaching off fundamentally decent and generous people, but don't let that put you off.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    33. Re:No surprise... by zetarcos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Since when did invading countries and wasting money = making you any safer?" For me it was 6 June 1944.

    34. Re:No surprise... by damburger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh please, the idea that the UK is a hairs breadth from going Sharia is utter bullshit put out by the right-wing media to scare people.

      The actual threat in this country comes from the far right whose rhetoric you are mouthing. The BNP, with financial support from certain people in America, managed to basically double their share of the vote each time over the past few elections. The Daily Wail and other such trash papers have got about 60% percentage of the British public believing in key BNP policy points.

      Our main threat is not from angry young Muslims who wouldn't know an explosive device from a gas canister. The threat is from white youths who attack racial minorities converting that undirected anger into support of a fascist regime.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    35. Re:No surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't even need to use the stress = reduced life expectancy, just add up all the hours people have wasted waiting in line at airports because of the TSA gangstaz.

      With ~2000 people dead on 9/11, assuming they all had at least another 50 years of life to go, that's 100,000 hours of life killed that day.
      Assuming 600 million passengers each year, each of them averaging 10 extra minutes wasted due to TSA policies, that's 100,000,000 hours of life wasted each year for the last 7 years.

      100,000 hours of life lost to terrorism on 9/11
      700,000,000 hours of life lost to the government, in airports alone, since then.

    36. Re:No surprise... by arivanov · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's because US immigration policy is more rational.

      True, but you don't often hear that. You do not often hear that because it is more rational only when compared to the UK.

      You can get into the US if you have a job offer.

      Or just walk across the border. The uk situation on this is not not what everyone else in this thread claims.

      First of all, till last year uneducated national minorities were imported in nearly unlimited quantities "for the needs" of the catering industry. Their lobby group is putting a mighty scream now, but frankly I do not see why anyone besides the cook in an ethnic restaurant needs to belong to the restaurant ethnicity.

      Second, the situation with qualified labour is not as difficult as people claim. Sorting out a work permit or work permit transfer for qualified personnel is trivial. The problem is not the government throwing spanners in the works. The problem is that the average british HR department does not give a flying f***. A testament to this are companies like Unisys (or Nortel in the late 90-es). They have done the effort to organise their supply chain to hire highly qualified people from Eastern Europe, Russia, etc and they have whole departments consisting mostly of foreigners. It is also not a question of "cheap labour". They are quite often payed more than a brit in the same position.

      As far as the assylum seekers they are a minority. The majority till recently were the ethnic catering and "through relative" imports.
      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    37. Re:No surprise... by Anzya · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, visits to Antarctica is also restricted so if you want to live there you would need get a permit from the UN (I belive it is)
      I think your best bet is to build a raft and sail out into the middle of the atlantic...

      --
      "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
    38. Re:No surprise... by jsgf · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's because US immigration policy is more rational. You can get into the US if you have a job offer. UK immigration is a mess. Uh, US immigration is an absolute, complete, utter, total mess. It's a disaster. No, a job offer is not even slightly sufficient to "get into" the US. You might be able to get in for a while on an H1-B visa, but that's hardly residency. For me, getting residency took 4 *years* while being sponsored by an employer and having no particular difficulties.

      It's very hard to get in legally if you have a job offer. I've got friends in the UK who managed to get UK residency fairly easily. A points-based system is much saner than the US's "arbitrary collection of rules" system.
    39. Re:No surprise... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not aware of any other group with similiar goals

      Well, that's all right then. No, of course there have never been any problems with terrorism in the UK before the eeeeevil Muslims came.

    40. Re:No surprise... by unitron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Mexicans that cross the border basically want to be Americans.

      Are you sure that it isn't just that they basically want to be non-starving?

      I really do suspect that most of them, if they could be just as well off (money, safety and a future for their kids, etc.) back home, would be outta here like a shot.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    41. Re:No surprise... by Das+Modell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh please, the idea that the UK is a hairs breadth from going Sharia is utter bullshit put out by the right-wing media to scare people.

      It's not like it's going to happen any day now, but it's Britain's future. It's the future of many European countries. Societies consists of people, so what do you think is going to happen when the majority of the population consists of people who think Sharia law is a jolly good idea? This is only a matter of time due to immigration and birth rates. There are already many "no-go" zones in Europe that are off limits, or at the very least unfriendly, to white people. Here's just one example from Denmark, and here's another from Britain.

      The actual threat in this country comes from the far right whose rhetoric you are mouthing. The BNP, with financial support from certain people in America, managed to basically double their share of the vote each time over the past few elections. The Daily Wail and other such trash papers have got about 60% percentage of the British public believing in key BNP policy points.

      The only reason parties like the BNP can gain power is because they're the only ones willing to do anything. People have no alternatives. Of course, if it wasn't for Britain's suicidal policy of "multiculturalism," this problem would not even exist.

      Our main threat is not from angry young Muslims who wouldn't know an explosive device from a gas canister.

      Yes, it is very fortunate that Muslim terrorists have no yet struck in Britain. But seriously, it's not terrorism that's the real problem. Terrorism is a non-issue compared to some of the other problems that Britain is facing.

      The threat is from white youths who attack racial minorities converting that undirected anger into support of a fascist regime.

      It's possible that white people attacking racial minorities (well, minorities for now) will become an issue in the future, but the only reason it will happen is because people will be given no choice. Their government has sold them down the river, and aside from voting for parties like the BNP they have no legal means of resistance. The cultural, religious and racial segregation enforced by Muslims inevitable and unavoidably results in violence and instability. Possibly even civil war.
    42. Re:No surprise... by tomatensaft · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You think that's bad, they raided some guys house in the middle of the night, shot the guy and then when they didn't find any evidence, they tried pinning some child porn charges on him. I dont know what happened after that the press was told to shut up. There, fixed it for you!
    43. Re:No surprise... by Omestes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I live in Phoenix, which is a major illegal immigration hub.

      I'm pretty neutral on the issue (which is REALLY rare here), though.

      Yeah, but I suspect most Mexicans who enter the US illegally will assimilate quite fast.

      There are parts of my town that look exactly like Mexico, whole stretches with nary a sign in English, with mariachi and polka music blaring, and not a single business does business in English. This doesn't seem like assimilation to me. In the colleges here we have a sanctioned club (MeCHA) based on retaking the original Mexican territories back, based on the claim of "La Raza" ("The Race"). 1 in 10 cars here have Aztec imagery on them. None of these point towards a desire to assimilation.

      Unlike previous waves of American immigrants, they don't want to be American, they just want a living wage, while keeping their culture. Its more Balkanization than assimilation. During the last Mexican elections, illegal immigrants in the U.S. were allowed to vote in their homelands elections, and voted for a candidate whose platform was based on building a highway that dead-ended at the American border.

      A minority of them are willing to learn English to the point of actually doing so.

      Even if we offered the path to citizenship, they still wouldn't want to be culturally American. Sure, they would finally have to pay for services such as education and healthcare (and other tax-based services), but they still would want to be Mexican first, and American in income.

      The problem with border security has nothing to do with Mexicans though. Its more along the lines of; "if a poor latino can walk across the border with his family undetected, what keeps a a clever terrorist from doing so with 100 pounds of explosives?"

      To avoid the flamebate mod, I have nothing much against illegal immigrants, as long as they are forced to pay taxes, and live by the greater societies standards. I feel damn sorry for them, actually, since I know I'd rather not be in Mexico. My border policy would be turning them back, and handing them a book on Che Guevara (and the history of the American revolution), and a M16 with a box of ammo.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    44. Re:No surprise... by PinkyDead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...and quite frankly evil that that particular government was being. Not that I disagree with you, but I'm reminded of the Birmingham 6/Guilford 4 cases in the UK. 'evil' is probably quite a strong word, 'weak' might be a better one. As in unable to find the moral backbone to stand up in your 'political' job and say that fighting terrorism is not an easy thing to do (in fact basically impossible).

      In these cases, and probably in your cited one, the innocents were condemned to appease the clamouring masses, rather than to serve any form of justice. And when such individuals make weak judgements initially, it is hardly surprising that they make even weaker ones when pressed further. 'Rock and a Hard Place' as it were.

      Political democracy is at fault here, in that the 'masses' are generally as guilty of such ignorance as the politicians - not that I'd change it, but it is important that 'the system' can correct itself, as it seems to have done in the Australian cases.
      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    45. Re:No surprise... by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds exactly like assimilation to me. After all, you're saying they're behaving exactly the same as the Italians, the Polish, the Irish, and every other previous group of immigrants who came to America behaved when they arrived. They all wanted to keep their culture, too. And they all did, in fact. "Assimilation" into to America has never meant not keeping your culture, it's always been making your culture a part of America. It's also always been the case that the first generation never really fully plugs into things like language -- wasn't too long ago where you had to speak to your friend Tony's dad through him unless you knew Italian. And so on. I don't doubt all the things you said are true, the only false statement is the part where you say "Unlike previous waves of American immigrants" rather than "Exactly like all the previous waves of American immigrants".

      As for your border policy, I think that kinda sucks. Border policy should be pretty simple: is this guy a known criminal? If so, deny entry or arrest and extradite him. If not, let him go to whichever side of the fence he wants, because the government has no right to restrict the liberty of any person barring criminal behavior. What bizarre value system gives government to right to dictate the movements of supposedly free people? Doesn't make any sense to me.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    46. Re:No surprise... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Funny

      We were talking about a group that wishes to completely transform the country culturally, religiously and racially.

      I'd rather have the Muslims than the Daily Mail readers.

    47. Re:No surprise... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But yes, I guess it's important to blame everyone equally so nobody's feelings are hurt.

      This tripped my sarcasm detector; apologies if it was meant to be serious. Blaming everybody is exactly the problem - it ignores the fact that violent, extremist Muslims are a tiny minority of the Muslim population. Terrorists may be Muslim in most cases, but it does not follow that all Muslims are terrorists.

      Yes, but that doesn't mean they are truly British, or loyal to the country.

      Many indigenous Britons are not loyal to the United Kingdom as a single entity, myself included, but I'll admit that that's not quite the same thing once you consider the UK as a union of four nations.

    48. Re:No surprise... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats mostly nonsense. Of course the UK is a long long way from turning into a Sharia state but there are an increasing number of people living here who think Sharia law would be a good thing. Thanks to the failed attempts at multiculturism which have simply increased the cultural gaps between various groups of people living here there are some areas which are, beyond any doubt at all, producing English born Muslim terrorists. The fact that in the main they are far more incompetent than the IRA ever was tends to suggest they are much less organised than some people might have us believe but it doesn't negate the fact that there is some reason they believe the things they do and they are determined enough to do something about it, no matter how badly they manage to do it.

      I think you will find there are very few racist attacks by white people in the UK now, it seems to me that most people now have been brought up living and working with black and asian people for so long that this sort of racial tension is largely a thing of the past. The main problem we have to deal with are the pockets of society who do not subscribe to or have little interaction with mainstream British culture and now that the spectre of multiculturalism is being well and truly put to the sword there is a good chance this can be addressed through simply initiatives such as making sure everyone here can speak English and taking away the props we have provided which have worked to ensure people didn't have to take part in mainstream British culture if they didn't want to.

    49. Re:No surprise... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's already precedent for the transformation of culture and religion (taking the two as one and the same at the time) through the use of violence within the UK.

    50. Re:No surprise... by zmooc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do not go to the Netherlands! We have the highest number of wiretaps per capita of all countries worldwide, cartoonists get arrested over their cartoons, last year thousands of innocent people - including minors - were arrested for not carrying ID, possession of potato-knives (is that an english word?) and chocolate cigarettes are prohibited, using open wifi connections is prohibited, multiple journalists were taken hostage by the government recently in an attempt to get them to disclose their sources, we have a huge history of putting innocent people in jail and have about the lowest percentage of solved crimes in the EU, some neighboorhoods even have a curfew, privacy is now something purely conceptual and political parties structurally break their election-promises. Oh and our army has transformed from doing our defense to being mercenaries for GW Bush' personal oil-goals.

      The Netherlands used to be pretty much on the top of the freedom-list, but we've left that list long ago... I don't have that many facts about Canada at hand, but I believe it's not much better over there. And about the UK - I take a trip there (ok, ok, Scotland it is:-)) every now and then; I sense a lot more freedom over there, a lot less tensions between ethnical groups, police that don't act like they're Cartman "respect my authority" and so on.

      So, in short, the UK may appear to be idiotic, but in essence they're a lot less idiotic than for example the Dutch are.

      Greetings from the Netherlands.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    51. Re:No surprise... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Informative
      Try asking the white people in Oldham, Bury, Blackburn, Bradford or any other ghettoised British town where Muslims get a better deal than the indigenous population what they believe is the problem - the answer may not be what you would like to hear.

      The BNP is actually to the left of New Labour (or Neues Arbeit as I prefer to call them) on many issues, including the war in Iraq and the adventure in Afghanistan, and would not be the 'far right' regime that you fear.

      I don't read the Mail, or the Sun, or the Express - in fact I'm an Independent reader, but I see the problems caused by the second generation Muslim underclass in our towns and cities as the most important issue to resolve if we are to continue to have a free and independent Britain.

      It's not the threat of Sharia that worries me - it's the real possibility of more summers of Asian youths rioting in the streets of Oldham because they think this country owes them a living.

      As the song from Phoenix Nights goes - Send the buggers back.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    52. Re:No surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do not often hear that because it is more rational only when compared to the UK. No, that's not true. Most of mainland Europe (western part - Spain, France, Netherlands, Germany?) have or have had immigration policies comparable to Englands', though I'm not sure to what extent.

      For the netherlands, immigration policy is basically determined by the sanctimonious stance that we have a moral responsibility towards everyone that enters our country, regardless of their means, intentions or mindset. Like in England, we have (cases of) deported succesful (working) immigrants because they once entered illegally, and we usually keep the ones that have no job, no skills and no mastery of our language, because it would be "inhumane" to send them back. Our most prominent failures:

      - deporting a 17-year old Bosnian girl two months before her college finals, who had been here 7 years - she lost her asylum status because Bosnia was declared non-hostile after the war was ended. She was planning on attending university after graduation.
      - deporting an entire Turkish family after being here for 15 years. The father was a succesful grocer, and the children didn't even speak Turkish (they grew up in Amsterdam). But it was decided that since they came here illegally, they had no right to be here.

      Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a dutchman. It's been happening more and more lately...
    53. Re:No surprise... by Das+Modell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, when you talk about how an entirely group of people feels as if they all feel the same way, you're obviously talking out your ass and know it.

      They're called generalizations. Generally speaking, Muslims do not believe in peaceful co-existence with other religions.

      But just to let you know, as someone who's spent a lot of time talking to a lot of people from a lot of different religions, the substantial majority of Muslims I know do feel the way you say they don't, and a substantial number of Westerners I've spoken to don't feel the way you say they do.

      Let me guess: you believe your limited personal experiences can accurately describe the entire world, and you believe information is only valid when it's acquired through direct personal experience? I'm also going to guess that if I said "some Muslims robbed me, ergo most Muslims are robbers" you would disregard it as a stupid generalization, even though it's exactly the same thing.

      Thanks to the Internet and other forms of modern communication, there's an infinite amount of information available to anyone who wants it. That's what my views are based on. If you simply rely on direct personal experience, you'll know nothing, because the world is too big for that (unless you have a very, very substantial amount of experience). Even if you read the news on a daily basis, you'll still have only a superficial grasp on all the things that Muslims say and do, which is why it would be a better idea to read sites that specialize in the subject (analogy: if you want to know what's going on in the Half-Life community, it's better to read Planet Half-Life rather than a generic gaming site). That's what I do.

      Simply put, your pool of information is too small to be worth anything.
    54. Re:No surprise... by MrMickS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A far greater threat to the UK is from the left wing totalitarian minded government that is using the threat of trouble to clamp down on personal liberty in the name of security.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    55. Re:No surprise... by zmooc · · Score: 2, Funny

      First of all, smoking weed is not legal in the Netherlands, they just don't bother to arrest you for it. Second of all, I structurally fail to smoke enough weed to blur the police state. And believe me, I try like noone else...

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    56. Re:No surprise... by dwater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Assuming you mean Normandy, I don't think you can claim you were invading France, since it was an "Allied" invasion, and the French were on our side (though that's somewhat debatable, perhaps, at least politically).

      --
      Max.
    57. Re:No surprise... by jesterzog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What choice do I have? Who has the right to tell me I must live in some country, or choose where they're going to send me when I don't live in it? I pretty much have to live in Antarctica.

      I think you're close to right, although this Iranian guy now sells kebabs after settling on the island of Spitsbergen when his immigration attempts into Norway failed. Not quite lawless but it doesn't require residency permits, which I guess makes it easier for people to move there if they want to.

    58. Re:No surprise... by XchristX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are parts of my town that look exactly like Mexico, whole stretches with nary a sign in English, with mariachi and polka music blaring, and not a single business does business in English. In the latter half of the 19th century, the Irish started fleeing the potato famine and settling in New York. Parts of the city became like Dublin ghettoes .Whole stretches with "nary a sign" (AN IRISH PHRASE, oh the irony!) in English, with lewd drunkards step-dancing to raucous violins (and "confessing" their sins away in Church the next day). How is that any different from this? We're looking at a common thing among first-generation immigrants, eventually, they all assimilate, as have the Irish,

      In the colleges here we have a sanctioned club (MeCHA) based on retaking the original Mexican territories back, based on the claim of "La Raza" ("The Race"). 1 in 10 cars here have Aztec imagery on them. None of these point towards a desire to assimilation. Anyone who believes that a few chicano ethno-extremists (like the ones you mention above) point to some systematic resistance to assimilation has had a paleoconservative blowjob affecting their brain functions. Too many stupid leftists are buying into the racist fascist crap of Pat Buchanan and his Paleoconservative Neo-Nazi propaganda.

      Unlike previous waves of American immigrants, they don't want to be American, they just want a living wage, while keeping their culture. Its more Balkanization than assimilation. This is complete nonsense. The culture of Hispanic immigrants is already a unique thing, incorporating BOTH Hispanic and conventional American norms to a syncretic mix that is radically different from Mexico. It's not Balkanization at all. I've BEEN to the Balkans, and people are blowing each other up there. No Hispanics are blowing anything or anyone up here, nor will they.

      A minority of them are willing to learn English to the point of actually doing so. In the past, there were neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York, that were Yiddish only, German only, Hebrew only, Italian only, Russian only. When Maronite Christians from Lebanon started fleeing the Islamofascists and settling in the US, many of them were Arabic speakers only at first (most spoke French too, though). Eventually, all of those linguistic enclaves syncretized with the broader American culture, each contributing to the other. The same thing will happen here. The same thing is ALREADY happening here. How many Spanishisms do we use in American English already, mi amigo? American English is peppered with Irish, German, and Yiddish words already. Adding a few Spanishisms won't kill us unless you believe in some fascist ideas of "linguistic purity", in which case I suggest a trip to the library to study the history of the English language (Or even the Spanish language for that matter, which was liberally "Arabized" during the Andalusian period in Spain).

      would be turning them back, and handing them a book on Che Guevara (and the history of the American revolution), and a M16 with a box of ammo. Are you crazy, or a leftist (same thing)? A large bulk of Hispanics came to the US to FLEE that sort of horror, and you want to send them back into it? This is not the 18th century you know!

      There is no culture war with Hispanics in the US except in the collective imagination of the far-left/old-right alliance. Most of the issues (crime, poverty, welfare etc) are class-conflict issues that have nothing to do with culture. This is in sharp contrast to Moslem immigrants in Europe, where a clear Kulturkampf exists. last time I checked, Mexican immigrants don't engage in forced female circumcisions. honor killings, imam-sanctioned gang-rapes, mass-riots and supremacist terrorism. There was a 1 million strong Hispanic pro-immigration rally in the US just a few years ago, and not one drop of blood was spilled. Compare that with throngs of fanatic Moslems burning down France in the wake of the Mohamed cartoons...
      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    59. Re:No surprise... by weierstrass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please reference the above quote "all unbelievers are less than the filthiest of animals" to a chapter (sura) in a common English translation of the Qu'ran.

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    60. Re:No surprise... by cozziewozzie · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's because US immigration policy is more rational. You can get into the US if you have a job offer. UK immigration is a mess. It's very hard to get in legally if you have a job offer. If you enter illegally you're unlikely to get caught. If do get caught you can 'claim asylum'. But asylum seekers can't legally work. So you end up with lots of illegals and lots of unemployed asylum seekers living on benefits. Sweden is even worse - asylum seekers can easily spend their whole lives on benefits and benefits are much more generous.


      Several of my family members ended up in Sweden as refugees. Been through the refugee camps, had to go to school again before they were allowed to work, all while facing discrimination from many people they met (not ALL people, and not the majority, but it's still a factor).

      You have been reading too much anti-immigrant propaganda, I'm afraid. Evil foreigners living off benefits, plotting the downfall of the Western civilisation, etc. The life of an asylum seeker is pathetic, they fear deportation on a daily basis, get just enough to subsist on, aren't allowed to work, and face discrimination everywhere.

      Go visit one of these refugee camps or camps for asylum seeker, and ask them how they live.
    61. Re:No surprise... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here it is in 3 common english translations :

      http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.055

      Here are the (primary) rules specified for interpreting said statement. They are quite clear :

      http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.007

      Needless to say the 8:55 statement is not allegorical (check for yourself and compare, for example, with the later chapters). So the verse is "of fundamental meaning" "clear" and "decisive". In any interpretation it is forbidden to go seek "hidden meanings", nor is any indirection allowed.

      Here is one of the official "guides" for interpreting said statement. It, again, does not lack in clarity :

      http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20426

      "Allah states here that the worst moving creatures on the face of the earth are those who disbelieve, who do not embrace the faith, and break promises whenever they make a covenant, even when they vow to keep them," ...

      (this is later further elaborated to mean that peace treaties between muslims and non-muslims have exactly 1 purpose : deception of the non-muslims, allowing the muslims to become militarily stronger, with the further stipulation that regardless of any treaty, every 10 years there must be at least 1 attack, no matter what it may cost the muslims. There can never be peace. Only temporary (max 10 years) cessation of hostilities)

      ("islam" means "opression" in the military sense, meaning it is enforced, not voluntary, so that it has stuff like this is hardly surprising, generally "submission" is taken as a translation, but it does not refer to the speaker (that would be istaslam if it is militarily enforced, or astaslam if it is done freely), but to a third party, nor does it mean peace (which is salaam). It means actively making others submit (by the practice of "hisbah" for example), not submitting yourself, like in Christianity)

    62. Re:No surprise... by damburger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The BNP are the only ones willing to 'do anything'? If by 'do anything' you mean turn Britain into a fascist state, then yes. They advocate ethnic cleansing and military expansionism - including the insane policy of reclaiming the Republic of Ireland by force.

      Your comments regarding the BNP betray your far right sympathies. You are one of the many fascist scum rotting this country from the inside as you worship Enoch Powell's ghost and long to return to our blood-stained imperial past. You, not the immigrants, will destroy this country.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    63. Re:No surprise... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "It's not just the class of immigrant, it's the fact that US culture is far more assimilationist. The fact is that in the UK, there are a large number of angry muslim men, and there are muslim preachers (or have been before they were arrested) who openly preach the message of terrorism."

      I've been reading articles that hypothesize that in a few decades, that much of Europe as we know it...culture, etc, will pretty much cease to exist. With the low birthrate of 'native' peoples, like in the UK...countered with the higher birthrate of the muslim population over there....they will be overrun soon. The new voting block of muslims will put them in more and more power democratically. I have to imagine that all the CCTV would be a useful tool in enforcing the rule of the koran...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    64. Re:No surprise... by damburger · · Score: 2

      I am a white person, and I have lived in what you would derisively describe as 'ghettos'. You may consider yourself sophisticated for reading the Independent, but your apologetics for a party that advocates ethnic cleansing, gives Nazi salutes when they think the cameras aren't looking, and has almost as many convictions for violent assault as it has members.

      You support the BNP, ergo you are a fascist. Foreign readers should not take my word for it. The Internet has plentiful information on this little band of brownshirts. It saddens me how much support they have, not only from street thugs but now from the chattering classes posting on Slashdot.

      If the day ever comes when your Aryan chums in the BNP take power in this country it will be the day I assemble my first IED. They shall not fucking pass.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    65. Re:No surprise... by damburger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Islamization? Muslims are a tiny proportion of our population and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Immigration is going down not up.

      Your blind hatred of non-whites sickens me, and your lack of knowledge about the reality of Britain amuses me.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    66. Re:No surprise... by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who wouldn't be when much of the population consists of vitriolic nativists who call you a "cultural enemy" and consider you dangerous simply because of where you're from...

      But immigrants are demonstratively dangerous to British culture, by the fact that they're resisting assimilation. That's the point: the immigrants have no right to be angry because they should have realized they'd be expected to assimilate, rather than import their old culture. If they wanted to remain in a traditional Muslim community, they should have stayed home!

      And that goes for all immigrants, everywhere: Muslims in Britain should become [culturally] British, Mexicans in the U.S. should become American (or more precisely "USian," but that's not really a word), Americans in China should become Chinese (disregarding the fact that relatively few Americans immigrate), etc. Expecting the incumbent culture to accommodate you, as a newcomer, is disgustingly arrogant!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    67. Re:No surprise... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

      After all, you're saying they're behaving exactly the same as the Italians, the Polish, the Irish, and every other previous group of immigrants who came to America behaved when they arrived. They all wanted to keep their culture, too. And they all did, in fact. "Assimilation" into to America has never meant not keeping your culture, it's always been making your culture a part of America.

      That's true, but you also have to realize it all depends on proportion. The children of those immigrants had to learn to speak English because no single immigrant ethnic group was dominant over the others or the incumbent population. With the current situation, however, there are so many Mexican immigrants that there's a real danger that huge swaths of the country could become predominantly Mexican, which is bad because then they'd never assimilate and we'd have the same sort of problems as Quebec or Yugoslavia.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    68. Re:No surprise... by pjabardo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Muslims do not believe in co-existence with other religions. What an accurate statement! There are no maronites christians in Lebanon. Neither Greek orthodox nor Armenians. Every major Muslim city had sizeable jewish communities (at least until the founding of Israel). Hell, there are even Jews in Iran! Edward Said was of Christian family and so was George Habash and he was a terrorist. Middle Age Spain was a haven for European Jews. They were expelled by Christians. Were did they go? Most of them to northern Africa. Some important Christian families in Lebanon and Palestine are descendents of the Crusaders, they even have frenchy names! Talk about diversity! And I'm not including other places such as Indonesia.

      I am not saying that there were no problems and eventual persecution but over the centuries these countries were "liberal" enough that all these minorities continued to exist and even flourished. Where else can you find such a diversity of cultures living together for so long? Multiculturalism is something very new for western civilization.

      Suicide bombings did not exist until the 1980's. Terrorism in arab countries was no different from terrorism in other places until 1980. And it was not restricted to Muslims. In Lebanon there were even a few Christian suicide bombers.

      So what is wrong? Did islam suddenly change? Or your statement might be wrong? It is interesting that the more the west pokes on arab countries, the worse things get. In palestine trouble began with massive European Jewish immigration in early 20th century under British rule. Suicide bombings began with Israeli invasion of Lebanon and US support of some factions in the civil war.

      It is obvious that these countries have issues but western involvement certainly has responsibilities. But one thing is certain: Islamic rule co-existed every sort ethnic and religious faith for a 1000 years. Don't mistake recent behavior of a few people with a the attitudes of a civilization.

    69. Re:No surprise... by Beetle+B. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Moral of the story, interest in researching a subject does not conclusively indicate that a student is uninvolved in the subject being researched. Nor does it imply the other way.

      Here in the US, some years ago, a Middle Eastern student was arrested and charged with supporting terrorism primarily because he had a lot of material (none of which was illegal) that worried some folks. During the trial, a number of experts testified for the prosecution regarding how the materials are often used in preparing for terrorism. On cross examination, the attorney for the defense asked, "How much of the claimed material do you yourself possess?". Answer? Pretty much all of it - and posted on the researcher's Web site - obvious, as he was researching it! Followup question: "So why are you not on trial?".

      The case fell apart and the defendant was acquitted. They didn't have any evidence he was planning anything or in touch with any terrorists. Just the material he possessed.
      --
      Beetle B.
    70. Re:No surprise... by why-is-it · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Generally speaking, Muslims do not believe in peaceful co-existence with other religions.

      And you would know this how?

      Generally speaking, it is far easier to appeal to your own authority and make unsubstantiated generalizations than to engage in any intelligent discourse...

      there's an infinite amount of information available to anyone who wants it. That's what my views are based on.

      Since when did ignorance become a valid point of view? I must have missed that memo...

      Simply put, your pool of information is too small to be worth anything.

      Pot, kettle, black...

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    71. Re:No surprise... by pjabardo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let me understand this correctly. You say that the majority behave one way and my pool of information is too small? I guess you must be a master mind reader sucking the wishes and pathologies of millons of Muslims every where. I read somewhere on this topic that there are 2 million Muslims on England (or UK). Let's assume the majority means 1 million. If they behave like you say they are awfully quiet and well behaved. Maybe they are just waiting for the right moment. But that doesn't sound much like the behavior of raging religious fanatics to me. Maybe they are just scared of British police.

      You obviously have no sense of proportions. And you should study logic. It is not that difficult.

    72. Re:No surprise... by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...the only false statement is the part where you say "Unlike previous waves of American immigrants" rather than "Exactly like all the previous waves of American immigrants".
      No, the parent post was correct. Two of the guys in my office are 3rd generation Americans; their great-grandparents were German immigrants. Both of them, growing up in different states, tell the same story: their grandparents learned to speak English because their great-grandparents beat the crap out of them if they heard them speaking German at home. The U.S.A. was their homeland now, and they would learn to be American. This wasn't something that resident Americans forced upon my coworkers' great-grandparents -- it was a choice they made willingly. I don't see that with illegal immigrants in the U.S.

      I don't know if it's a difference in attitude or a difference in opportunity. I suspect that, being illegal immigrants and therefore fearing being discovered and deported, they might be considerably less inclined to send their kids to English-speaking schools or mingle with natural-born citizens, but I don't know that for a fact.

      As for your border policy, I think that kinda sucks.
      Why? What is wrong with telling someone, "look, it's your country...fight for it!" Every freedom in the world exists because someone somewhere decided it was a freedom worth fighting for.

      What bizarre value system gives government to right to dictate the movements of supposedly free people?
      Ummm...what planet are you from? Every country in the world restricts the liberty of free people who want to cross it. That is one of the essential functions of government -- to protect its borders. If I am a citizen of the U.S.A. (and I am), then it is only by the graces of Canada or Mexico or any other country of the world that I have permission to enter their country. Why should the U.S. border be any different? It shouldn't be unduly difficult to cross the border if, as you say, the person isn't a known criminal, but a government should by all means take reasonable steps to protect its borders.
      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  2. More types of "Illegal Data" by corsec67 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sweet, now there are even more kinds of "illegal data" out there.

    Under-age porn, "terrorist" material, DRM removing software, MAFIAA products, etc...

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  3. they need to spread fear... by crazybit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in order to control the masses.

    Fear is a common tactic used since the begging of civilization to manipulate people.

    - Zeus will destroy you all!
    - The devil will come for you and burn you for all eternity!
    - Terrorists! omg! seek shelter at once!

    --
    - Human knowledge belongs to the world
    1. Re:they need to spread fear... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot the other motivator, greed. Boom-boom and bling-bling.

    2. Re:they need to spread fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And also proof that you're more likely to be struck by lightning then die in a terrorist attack. And do you remember who it is who throws lightning bolts?

      That's right, Zeus.

    3. Re:they need to spread fear... by MrMickS · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm old enough to live through the IRA terror campaigns in the UK. I worked in Manchester when they blew up the Arndale Centre there. The most authorative response by the government at that point was to remove waste bins so as to remove one possible drop point for bombs.

      We were told repeatedly at the time that to change the way that we did things, to impose draconian measures, would be counter productive in that it would be seen as a success by the terrorists. The best thing that we could do would be to look out for anything suspicious but carry on our normal lives much the same as before.

      What has changed? The IRA were a credible threat, carried out multiple attacks, but we didn't need huge changes in daily life or restrictions to freedom, to deal with them. Why do we need them now?

      "Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Any reports to the contrary are mistaken." - George Orwell, 1984.

      Substitute 'The West' and 'Al Qaeda' and you have today's situation. The 'War on Terror' whilst a real, but insignificant threat, is as useful to the UK government as the war in 1984. It allows them to engender a climate of fear and get people to accept restrictions on liberties that would not otherwise be tolerated.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    4. Re:they need to spread fear... by Weedlekin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "What has changed? The IRA were a credible threat, carried out multiple attacks, but we didn't need huge changes in daily life or restrictions to freedom, to deal with them"

      What's changed is that the generation who remembered WWII weren't mostly dead or too old to care when the main IRA bombing campaigns were taking place, and they were (a) extremely difficult to intimidate because both they and their parents (the WWI generation) had experienced far worse things; and (b) extremely sensitive to anything that was too authoritarian because there were two living generations who'd paid an extremely high price to keep it out of their country.

      And because most of those in the three main political parties in both houses also came from those two generations, they were likewise extremely suspicious of anyone who proposed authoritarian laws, so it would have been very difficult for anybody to get such things through parliament irrespective of whether they happened to be in government at the time.

      "Why do we need them now?"

      They aren't needed, but they're still passed by politicians and tolerated by the public (many of whom seem to welcome them) because people who haven't had to fight and die for their freedoms don't venerate them in the same way as those who paid the cost of preserving them against authoritarian regimes who wanted to take them away by force.

      "The 'War on Terror' whilst a real, but insignificant threat, is as useful to the UK government as the war in 1984."

      The difference of course being that George Orwell was writing in the 1940s, and therefore wasn't incapable of imagining that the British would turn into a bunch of whining pussies, so Eastasia was presented by the authoritarian government as being a gigantic power, not a few hundred loosely associated religious fanatics who killed far less people in all their operations combined than Britain lost on a single morning at The Somme in 1916.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  4. Spread it around? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone have a link to the material in question? (Is it in English?)

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Spread it around? by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

      Short version:

      1. To go to heaven you must be martyr
      2. To be martyr you must blow yourself up
      Handy hint for 2: Make sure to kill many infadel when blowing yourself up.
      General hint: If you have attempted 2 and are reading this, you failed. Do not go to heaven. Do not collect 200 denar.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:Spread it around? by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Funny

      No sorry, could only find it in British.
      That was just Corny.. err.. Cornish!
      For the millionth time, it's courny!
      Wouldn't it be maize-y?
    3. Re:Spread it around? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dear Mr Neoform,

      Thank you for reporting a dangerous terrorist to DHS. Unfortunately we are not allowed to torture US citizens at this point due to recent court cases and Presidential order [REDACTED]. Please waterboard yourself and post any information you find out out using the form at the site. By waterboarding yourself you consent to being waterboarded under Presidential orders [REDACTED], [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].
      God Bless America,

      autoresponder@dhs.gov

      Please note that if you received this document in pdf form, attempting to read classified information by highlighting sections marked [REDACTED] and pasting them into a text editor is high treason under Presidential order [REDACTED] and is punishable by [REDACTED] or if after June 1st 2007 is treason under Presidential order [REDACTED] and is punishable by [REDACTED]. If you are not a US citizen, you may additionally by guilty of [REDACTED].

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Spread it around? by neoform · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The page says parts were removed since the government doesn't want to help teach terrorism.

      This is basically the PG version of it.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    5. Re:Spread it around? by gnuman99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then don't travel to US or through US via plane or you'll end up in Gitmo or worse. And RCMP may "find" some extra info on you to make sure that happens.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

      True story.

    6. Re:Spread it around? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just read that does that mean the po...

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    7. Re:Spread it around? by Calydor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wouldn't that be more like, "Do not go to heaven. Do not collect 72 virgins."?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  5. There is NOTHING wrong with this by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All this means is ...... WTF????

    Information hosted on a US government website? That is forbidden material? Entrapment anyone? How about err... uhhh... holy fuck!

    So the UK government noticed this material being downloaded and never looked at where it came from? WTF? Is the US Government now hosting terrorism inciting materials for the internets?

    This, I truly hope, leaves buckets full of egg and chicken shit on the faces of some government employee types.

    1. Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Exactly. I understand that there were some monks in not too distant history that have given you a golden example of how to go first; quiet, flame-boyant, interesting. Let me just get my camera first....

      I'm guessing that Mr AC doesn't remember that other 'terrorist' attack in the US. Down in Oklahoma? Memory getting better? There is very little reason to think that a Muslim is more likely than a white to create an act of great violence inside the US borders... school shootings anyone? Kent state? There are lots of examples. My how the black man cheered when the DC snipers turned out to be black... their first notable serial mass murderer. Up till then, all mass murderers were expected to be white.

      How many Muslims are in the world?

      The Muslim population in 2006 is 1610.42 million. from http://www.islamicpopulation.com/world_general.html That's 1.6 BILLION or so Muslims.

      Of that, 25 or so have attacked US citizens. Lets be generous and say 50 have attacked western countries. That amounts to... uhmmmm about 3.1047801194719389972802126153426e-6 percent of the Muslim population seems to be hell bent on knocking down buildings. The rest are trying to survive where they are. That, by the way, is a huge bunch of non-violent Muslims. Racial profiling does seem to make sense on face value, but dig a bit deeper and you find that the risk of violence from not invading privacy and personal rights is smaller than ... say... getting hit by a fucking bus.

      I don't care if you are afraid of shadows, diminishing MY rights because of your irrational fears is still wrong, will always be wrong, and always has been WRONG.

      Thanks for playing
    2. Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this by mikesd81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nformation hosted on a US government website? That is forbidden material? Entrapment anyone? How about err... uhhh... holy fuck!


      Well considering they're in the UK and getting it off a US site, entrapment would probably be a far stretch.
      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    3. Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Funny
      "3.1047801194719389972802126153426e-6 percent"

      Holy crap, have you never heard of significant digits?!?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    4. Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this by baeksu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Strangely enough... we don't see similar numbers of attacks from Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Quakers, Amish, Jews, Zoroastrians or even Atheists.

      No, those groups seem to prefer acts of genocide accomplished with organized armies. Much more civil, clearly. And much more peaceful, too. Oh, how much those savage Muslims have yet to learn.

      If you'd really like to count... I'd take a look at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ a site that actually has a running count of the number of terror attacks world wide since 9/11... as of the writing of this post we are at 11,140.

      And how do we define a terror attack? Is it when you cluster bomb urban areas? Is it dropping nuclear bombs? Supporting brutal paramilitaries? Blockading food and medicine transports?

      In fact, why only count terror attacks? Surely all violent attacks should be tallied to see which religion produces most violence in this world.

      What do you reckon the results would look like then?

      --
      Gnome: A never ending quest to make unix friendly to people who don't want unix and excruciating for those that do.
    5. Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this by YttriumOxide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an atheist, I am a little disturbed how you said:

      or even Atheists.

      Is this supposed to imply you'd EXPECT such behaviour from those of us with no belief in a higher power?! Or even consider it to be more likely?

      Atheists are, in general, far LESS likely to tend towards extreme terrorist acts than religious people, for the simple fact that we are pretty well convinced that when we die it's GAME OVER - no afterlife - NOTHING is worth dying for. Plus of course, we are in general a more intelligent bunch (on the average... there are smart religious people, and dumb atheists, but averaged out, we're smarter) and fully realise that any kind of behaviour like this is pretty likely to get us killed, even if it's not a suicide attack specifically.

      Oh that that's right... those damn Catholics... no wait...

      You weren't in Northern Ireland a decade or two back were you?

      only the members of Islam can do that for them by changing the way they preach and practice their faith as a group.

      I consider most religions to be very dangerous things that can lead people to doing horrible things, but I don't consider Islam to be any more dangerous than Christianity. The religious texts are very similar (in fact, a lot of the religious texts are the same) and the standard teachings of peace and love are also identical. If you go to an average Islamic religious service, you'll hear exactly the same things being preached to the people there as if you went to an average Christian one. You could cherry pick and find an extremist Islamic teacher, and the same could be done for Christianity.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    6. Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this by sydneyfong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you simply aren't paying attention to world events. In the past ten years how many terrorist attacks have been instigated by religions other than islam? I can't think of any, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one or two. In the past ten years how many times have there been islamic terrorist attacks? More than 10,000. I've heard rumors that W takes commands directly from God.

      No, they aren't similar. I don't remember the christian bible telling you to kill non-believers, rape their wives, and enslave their children, but this is in the koran. There is no room for "peace and love" for people of other faiths in islam. I'm sure somebody more familiar with the Christian bible could prove you wrong.
      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    7. Re:There is NOTHING wrong with this by YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oddly, I see this argument all the time from religious folk, but have never met another atheist that would agree with this. This really seems to be the "religious person's view of the atheist mind" rather than the actual "atheist mind".

      I am an atheist, and I don't want to die. The fact that there's no "judgement" doesn't comfort me in the least! I fully intend to live as long as I possibly can, and have as happy a life as I can during that time.

      I believe the argument about there being no "judgement" allowing an atheist to do whatever he wants (including be very evil) fails to account for the fact that there's also no GOOD REASON to be very evil. Religious folk can say, "I did it because my deity commanded it" or similar. Atheists don't have that. So, the only reason to do bad things is to gain power. And most of us are clever enough to realise that this generally doesn't work. (note: MOST, not all - there have been some pretty nasty atheists in history, but that's because they're nasty PEOPLE, not because they're atheists)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  6. Here is proof they are not terrorists: by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They were reading material from a US government website. These are the same idiot agencies who attacked Iraq to "get rid of Weapons of Mass Destruction". Clearly if anyone is less able to produce proper intelligence and material - it's these gaffs.

    It's like reading an article on how to improve your country's economy written by George Bush.

    No offense to any American's reading btw - it's the agencies I have no respect for.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    1. Re:Here is proof they are not terrorists: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They were reading material from a US government website.

      Well, we (the U.S.) did invade a foreign country, kill their leader and throw it into violent chaos. Sounds like terrorism to me. Maybe those UK folks are onto something.

  7. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.. by brxndxn · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean.. Information doesn't kill people; people kill people!!! It's what you do with the information that counts!

    I got curious once and looked up how to make a hydrogen bomb. Does that make me a terrorist? NO. Because I only use my hydrogen bomb for personal self-defense!

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:Guns don't kill people; people kill people.. by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My mother was Princeton class of 1977. Back in those days it wasn't exactly 'common knowledge' with 'easy access' how to make nuclear weapons.

      One of her good friends who was, I believe, reading for Physics, did his senior thesis on how to make a nuclear weapon. I also believe, though I'm not clear as its been a while since she told me this story, that the fellow in question was not exactly American.

      His thesis brought him to the interest of some of the old-line type of "terrorist" organizations like the PFLP. *THAT* brought him to the attention of the FBI and he was arrested and interrogated.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    2. Re:Guns don't kill people; people kill people.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nuclear power is based on two balanced forces - a nuclear chain reaction to release neutrons that continue the reaction, and cooling rods that absorb neutrons slowing the reaction. Turning that into a bomb isn't hard - take out the cooling rods and bunch the material together. BOOM. That information is in any decent advanced physics textbook and has been for 40 years.

      Toady you can get it for free on the internet instead of paying $200 for a textbook. Anyone who can get the exotic materials and refine them could have bought the textbook any time since the end of WWII. The information being on the internet does not increase the risk of someone building a nuclear bomb.

  8. Immigrant. by hlt32 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are 2 issues here that I can tell.

    #1 Arrest under Terrorism act for having al-Qaida-related material.

    #2 Immigration charges and subsequent deportation.

    The two are related insofar as discovering 1 resulted in 2.

    #2, the illegal immigration, *should* result in deportation - he is perfectly able to make a claim on humanitarian grounds or claim asylum. The fact remains that illegal immigrants should be deported.

    #1 should be approached as:

    a) person found with dodgy material
    b) person was investigated
    c) things happen

    Now, the main objection is vs c). he was engaging in legitimate academic research (you COULD argue he is a terrorist and this is a clever coverup, but I wont go there ;) ) therefore should not be treated as a terrorist.

    The fact that "An illegal immigrate faces deportation" is no surprise and should not impact your judgement here.

    This probably comes acros as a bit confused - its been a long day. :p

    --
    à_à
    1. Re:Immigrant. by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact remains that illegal immigrants should be deported.

      Oh, that's a fact, is it? So you happened to be born on a particular patch of soil and have never had a run-in with oppressive government -- luck of the draw, right? Your great-great grandfathers had the honor and the foresight to carve up the entire globe into completely arbitrary empires, and now you're happy to sit there in your Aeron chair with your computers and your big-screen TVs and your Internets and pat yourself on the back about it? "Sorry about where you were born, olde chappe, but you'd best to hie back there forthwith, wot!" Never mind the fact that the direct fallout of colonialism can be seen in the oppressive governments and violent chaos now evident in much of the developing world -- as long as they don't try to climb over "our" fence, you're OK with it, I guess?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Immigrant. by tftp · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The fact that "An illegal immigrate faces deportation" is no surprise and should not impact your judgement here

      The problem is that the guy is "Facing Imminent Deportation Without Hearing" and that's the real issue here. Looks like the police just wants him swept under the rug. As reported, he has a visa, but there are questions: due to confusion over his visa documentation, charged with offences relating to his immigration status. He sought legal advice and representation regarding these matters whilst in custody. On Friday 23rd May, the Home Office informed his solicitor that he was being removed on Sunday 1st June and Hicham was moved to an immigration detention centre. Now, is it reasonable to deport someone (who lived in the country for 13 years) within only 7 days, without proper court hearings, presentation of witnesses, debates about the applicable law? The Home Office just wants him out, and with him being out there will be no hearings, and no inconvenient truth will come out. But until his status is investigated, and his lawyers can speak for him and argue his status, we can not say that he is legal or illegal immigrant. That is to be determined, and the fight is for his right to be heard in court, and his status determined by the judge - not by a bureaucrat.

    3. Re:Immigrant. by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      We have visas, and green cards for a reason.

      And what is that reason? Seriously, have you ever had to carry a Green Card? Because I have. For years I was told that anytime I left the country I could be denied entry for just about any reason, owing to the fact that I was really only allowed to stay here at the pleasure of Uncle Sam. Then I had to spend thousands of dollars and be fingerprinted, photographed, investigated, and grilled by examiners before I could become a U.S. citizen. What did you ever have to do to earn the right to come and go as you please, or to vote? What makes you better than me?

      The whole business is nonsense. And when you hear firsthand stories of people whose families were broken up by ridiculous immigration policies enforced by xenophobic zealots in the name of "patriotism," or "protecting our jobs," or "failure to learn our language," or whatever the excuse is this week, the situation starts to look considerably less cut-and-dried than you make it out to be.

      True, there are "perfectly legal" ways to get into a country, just like there are "perfectly legal" was to buy a Ferrari, or run for President. That doesn't mean those options are open to everybody. Plus, the mere fact that this guy is pursuing an advanced degree at university should be proof enough that the "stealing our jobs" excuse doesn't apply in this case. Your kneejerk obeisance to immigration policy on the mere basis that "it's policy, ergo we follow it" is just another way of distracting attention from your own need to protect your position of privilege.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:Immigrant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that "An illegal immigrate faces deportation" is no surprise and should not impact your judgement here. Actually, it does. The PTBs are passing so many stupid laws that it's nearly impossible to not foul one of them. This gives them a reason (excuse) to go on fishing expeditions through your entire life to dig up whatever dirt that they can on you.

    5. Re:Immigrant. by dakameleon · · Score: 2, Informative

      He was a student. He probably just let his student visa expire. No biggie, and no reason to put him on a fast track deportation schedule. RTFA:

      Sabir was arrested on May 14 after the document was found by a university staff member on an administrator's computer. The administrator, Hisham Yezza, an acquaintance of Sabir, had been asked by the student to print the 1,500-page document because Sabir could not afford the printing fees. ... They were released uncharged six days later but Yezza, who is Algerian, was immediately rearrested on unrelated immigration charges and now faces deportation. Yezza, the administrator, has been re-arrested. The student, Sabir, was let go after charges were dropped. Sabir is presumably a British citizen, otherwise he would have been on a boat out too.
      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    6. Re:Immigrant. by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a lot of places student and working visas are subject to a wide range of conditions. If the same thing happened in Australia for example the person could be found to have failed the "character requirements" by being the subject of a police investigation and could then be immediately deported even if nothing unfavourable is found in the course of the investigation. It is likely that the UK has something similar in place.

  9. s/freedom/security/g by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You shall lose both, and deserve neither.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  10. Another line a long line of insults by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fear drives so much in the form of bad governmental behavior. I feel for my British friends, as they must feel for Americans. Blair and Bush (now Brown), leading their countries down the path to an oil war-- not terrorism-- oil. Not religious self-righteousness-- war for oil and to destabilize governments not marching in-step with them.

    The quotations of American and British patriots that warn that liberty at the cost of security is folly are now sadly worn out. My British friends have less hope because they believe that Tory and Labor, just like Democrats and Republicans, are largely the same. This is a dangerous time in the world for people not to believe in the integrity and veracity of their governments; more is at stake in interdependency than ever before. I hope, no pray, they listen to their constituents.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    1. Re:Another line a long line of insults by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh yes, a war for oil. And how great has that worked out? Considering that oil is at record highs, I don't think that it was a "war for oil" because had it been a "war for oil" we would have more oil. There is no evidence it was a "war for oil". It was a war based on bad intelligence and widespread panic in the months following 9/11. As for it being a war on oil, give your baseless theories a rest and take off the tin-foil hat.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Another line a long line of insults by jfruhlinger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh yes, a war for oil. And how great has that worked out? Considering that oil is at record highs, I don't think that it was a "war for oil" because had it been a "war for oil" we would have more oil.

      Hey, they didn't say it was a competently planned war for oil.

    3. Re:Another line a long line of insults by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's just as baseless as global warming. If Bush's pipe dreams (there not being any other intelligence supporting his actions, and he had hardly any plans at all, let alone support from the international community or the UN), it had to be for oil. Bush is an oil man. His father was an oil man. His brother was in real estate (remember the S&L crises in TX in the '80s??).

      It was about oil. No tin foil hat. Oil. It wasn't about Saddam. He had a fat mouth that got him lynched. Yes, he was a murderous SOB but then there are loads of them around and we don't do even a fraction of them justice.

      And the plan backfired. A commodities market has grasped the weakness of the currency and the high demand, and they now are poised to raise oil until it's at the blood-letting levels, where they'll back off and ride the profits until 'something happens' to deflate the market. In the interim, the economies of the middle east, Venezuela, and Mexico (although Mexico can't capitalize assets to reduce their bleeding) are pretty much glowing with petro-currencies, largely worthless dollars.

      If we were going to halt terrorism, we should have targeted the perps in the 9/11 fiasco, and dealt with them. We have not, only serving as poster boy enemies for recruiters of psycho-jihadis. And the rest of Islam looks at us, like the rest of the world, like we must be insane. Indeed our gutless leadership is just that. It takes guts to admit you're wrong, and they'll never do it. This while deficit spending is far out of control, the Fed inflates the currency instead of forcing banks/derivative holders to take a bath, and the average Joe and his grandchildren go broke.

      Oddly, we don't have cameras watching our every move, and have at least a modicum of academic freedom, contrasting with the poor researchers in TFA in the UK.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:Another line a long line of insults by Jewfro_Macabbi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The plan is going absolutely wonderful - if you are a shareholder in an oil company...

    5. Re:Another line a long line of insults by bledri · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is no evidence it was a "war for oil".

      OK, I'll bite. Here is the 1998 letter sent to President Clinton urging the removal of Saddam Hussein. Check out the second paragraph:

      Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

      Three years before 9/11 occurred Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were pushing to topple Saddam Hussein to protect the oil supply. WMDs are mentioned, but the primary context is stability in the Middle East and access to oil.

      So yes, bad intelligence played a part. If there wasn't oil involved, I doubt the US would have used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Do you really think these guys care about "our moderate Arab allies" and Israel?

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    6. Re:Another line a long line of insults by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would seem that there is truth to what you say. Defending the war seems to have come to awful ends for UK researchers, I'd say.

      In the UK and in the EU, the price of fuel is far higher. Still, mass transportation and dealing with the high price is assuaged by decades of astute planning. Instead, we in the US have been spending money on airports without thought to what might happen if air travel wasn't quite as cost-effective sometime in the future. And we've built endless strip malls designed around people with cheap fuel to burn to get to them, rather then neighborhood-focused, easily/cheaply accessible shops.

      Oil was bound to skyrocket at some point, but in the US, our preparation for such disasters is very poor; look at Katrina and how the fabric of a vibrant economy went to hell in just six hours, lasting until who knows when?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    7. Re:Another line a long line of insults by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Precisely. It's not a "war for oil" for America. It's a "war for oil" for a bunch of sh*tf*ck millionaires and billionaires who benefit from asset-stripping Iraq using the American public purse (and blood). I'm honestly confounded why the American people are putting up with this.

    8. Re:Another line a long line of insults by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually yes, it was a war for oil, but not in the way you think that statement means. The price of oil (per barrel) is not determined by how much there is, it's determined by the commodities market. When you purchase a barrel of crude oil you don't drive down to the local Home Depot and load it up in your truck, you send a broker to the commodities exchange and you purchase a future not as yet produced barrel. The price is based on speculation. The brokers speculate how much oil we might have tomorrow based on the ease of getting at it today. Those that can supply oil tell us how much we might have and people bid (like an auction) to get some of that supply. Since the US launched it's war, the Middle East has become FAR MORE UNSTABLE THAN IT WAS causing the future availability of barrels of crude oil to be in question. The questioning of whether or not it will be available makes that "barrel of oil tomorrow" worth far more because "tomorrow" it may be very hard indeed to buy one for the day after. This is making oil suppliers and oil companies RECORD NEVER BEFORE SEEN PROFITS.

      Yes, a war for oil, but if you believe that meant "a war so that we could have more oil" then you are deluded.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
  11. Terror by conureman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I RTFA I realized that this looks like standard jobsworth cops at large and could happen any day here in the U.S. Too much responsibility too little brains.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  12. Re:The Pete Townsend defense, eh? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Information should never be illegal unless it is a matter of (real) national security. Terrorist tactics are not a matter of national security, therefore the information should not be illegal. With the suppression of information comes the suppression of our freedoms. Read 1984 and see how close we are to becoming a similar society. In all dictatorships, it was first the information that was "dangerous to the state" then it became "dangerous to the state's morals" until all you can get is government propaganda.

    Knowing terrorist tactics neither makes you a threat nor makes you a terrorist.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  13. More like "Brazil" by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1984 assumes the government is competent and really out to get everyone. In reality its more like the movie Brazil. Everyone mindlessly doing their job without any critical thought. Watching Brazil and comparing it to current events is truly horrifying.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:More like "Brazil" by kalirion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Everyone mindlessly doing their job without any critical thought.

      "There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do."

      --Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

  14. Got another! by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research, Rizwaan Sabir, 22, was held for nearly a week under the Terrorism Act, accused of downloading the materials for illegal use. The story speaks for itself.
    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  15. University admin by tzhuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No one else seems to have covered this angle, so I'll bring it up. WTF is wrong with the University of Nottingham? I cannot believe a supposed institution of higher learning would sell its scholars down the river like that. This whole thing flies in the face of what a University is suppose to stand for. Perhaps I'm just naive.

    1. Re:University admin by eggnoglatte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not if they act privately without consulting their superiors.

  16. Re:The Pete Townsend defense, eh? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Further, I'm be curious to know his field of study, wherein "terrorist tactics" is a relevant component of his schooling. Is it really that hard to come up with something? Just off the top of my head: keeping the government honest. If we aren't at least somewhat familiar with what tactics terrorists are likely to use, then we have no way of knowing if the government is a) implementing effective measures to prevent terrorist attacks, or b) going too far. And I'm sure there are other possible reasons as well.
    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  17. Fucking ridiculous by moxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    BUt now maybe people who think there is nothing to worry about with this fascism creep that has been going on in thUK and the US wull start to wake up.

    You can view video clips of Tony Blair and CIA officials basically stating that Al Qaeda doesn't exist on You Tube (IIRC from the BBC originally).

    http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

    Maybe they are trying to stop people from researching this stuff.

  18. BBC by pablomme · · Score: 5, Informative
    Some may prefer reading the BBC article, which for one doesn't misspell 'al-Qaeda'.

    Two details should be considered before judging the situation and blaming random people:
    • The document was found in a computer by university staff, it was not intercepted by the police
    • It was the University that requested police action

    This is a gross mistake anyway, but it's a quite a bit less 1984-ish than one might think from the summary.
    --
    The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
    1. Re:BBC by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two details should be considered before judging the situation and blaming random people:
      • The document was found in a computer by university staff, it was not intercepted by the police
      • It was the University that requested police action

      This is a gross mistake anyway, but it's a quite a bit less 1984-ish than one might think from the summary. I disagree. It's an essential of any police state to get a good piece of the populace involved in helping you suppress the population. This was as true of the fictional state in 1984 as it has been of all real-world police states, it's just that in 1984 they had more technological help than is usual.

      The fact that university staff was behind it is worse than if it were just the police. If the government is evil but the populace is pure then you have hope. If the populace is complicit in the evil then it becomes vastly harder to get rid of it.
      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  19. Similar incident on tv show numb3rs. by nonsensical · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds very similar to a recent episode of numb3rs (not the greatest show in the world, but better than average). Charlie's colleague was arrested for working on genetically modified foods and sending the results to Pakistan where it could save people from famine. The government considered it bio-terrorism research material.

    I have little doubt that this episode was inspired by the whole national security climate which silences research all the time.

  20. Re:The Pete Townsend defense, eh? by wongn · · Score: 2, Informative

    In TFA, the student was researching (broadly) Islamic Politics. Which seems reasonable enough; it's regrettably a large part of perceived western views on Islamic politics. Additionally, it wasn't the student who originally downloaded the material who is now being threatened with deportation. Hisham Yezza was asked to print the document in question, and there's no evidence that he even read it.

  21. What is the definition of terrorist anyway by jasonmanley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By my estimates there are many government and other activities which could be considered 'terrorist' by some definitions of the word. Back in South Africa Nelson Mandela was considered a 'terrorist'. So how do we define 'terrorism' without implicating the so-called 'good guys'?

    --
    http://projectleader.wordpress.com
    1. Re:What is the definition of terrorist anyway by smchris · · Score: 3, Informative

      Still is a terrorist here I believe. I saw on TV the other week that the U.S. government is working on that so Mandela can accept an award this summer. But then a CATHOLIC college in St. Paul, Minnesota took back its invitation to ARCHBISHOP Desmond Tutu to speak last year because he was too "controversial". That's what it's like in the U.S. today.

      (A month later that college received the largest single individual donation of any college in state history. Evil has it's rewards.)

  22. except there is still a problem by nguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just wanted to clarify why he's being deported. The brits' reaction to the downloading of the document was a bit extreme, but if ya want to live in a country then ya gotta play by their(sometimes idiotic) rules

    But there is something fundamentally wrong with the government if you're an academic and visiting a web site brings you to the attention of the immigration departmnet in the first place.

    1. Re:except there is still a problem by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait so just looking at a website on terrorism can get me arrested?
      Well its a good thing they cant lock me up for a month without proving i did anything wrong?
      Oh well at least there's no chance that they'll just turn blind eye while i go for a vacation on the Cuban cost?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    2. Re:except there is still a problem by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until you know EXACTLY what he was downloading I don't think you are in a position to say that.

      Actually, he is, and he's right, and you're wrong. It's truly frighting how many people think government investigation of "thought crimes" is a good idea.

      There IS something fundamentally wrong with a government if how it treats you is AT ALL based on what you're reading. The fact that the government even knows what you're reading is fundamentally wrong. And I don't have to know a flying frak about what you're reading to be in a position to say that.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  23. An alternative approach to change? by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it is pretty obvious that the government decision and policy makers are useless without the people to execute their orders.

    Why aren't we actively protesting to those people? These people are responsible for their actions and are responsible for acting on their own conscience. It's easy to show that various campaigns to influence government policy and direction even in small degrees.

    How possible might it be to influence the arms and legs of bad government to refuse to act against its conscience?

  24. Tagged by Gewalt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tagged: 1984 (of course)

    --
    Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
  25. Mr. Atta by CustomDesigned · · Score: 4, Insightful

    was studying passenger jets, not Al Qaida literature. The real terrorists plotting a crime have already been recruited, and don't need to read any more Al Qaida stuff. Arresting someone for reading Al Qaida stuff is at best a "pre-crime": they might be converted and decide to commit crimes in the future so we have to stop them now. More likely, this is another case of panicked stupidity causing the innocent to suffer.

    1. Re:Mr. Atta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      was studying passenger jets, not Al Qaida literature.

      Actually he was studying Urban Planning (I wasn't referring to his taking flying lessons). The point being that merely being a student at a European university doesn't automatically remove all suspicion LEO might hold.

      The real terrorists plotting a crime have already been recruited, and don't need to read any more Al Qaida stuff.

      I don't think fact bears you out here actually. The 7/7 attacks notwithstanding, many of the attacks and foiled attacks have been fairly amateurish (thankfully!). These guys really could benefit from some quality info on how to kill en masse.

      Arresting someone for reading Al Qaida stuff is at best a "pre-crime"

      Well no, not if possession of the material is itself an offence. A crime (in addition to what the common law says is a crime) is whatever Parliament decides is a crime. Now you and I might agree that it ought not to be a crime merely to possess literature, but that is another question.

      they might be converted and decide to commit crimes in the future

      Or they might already have it in mind before seeking out said literature, who knows?

      More likely, this is another case of panicked stupidity causing the innocent to suffer.

      As I noted above, they didn't find enough to charge him, so more than likely you are right. At the very least we should presume his innocence. Or maybe they thought sending him back to Algeria would sort the problem.

    2. Re:Mr. Atta by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You know...with laws like this...I'm much more afraid of the damage my govt. will do to me than what a terrorist will do.

      The govt. will more likely affect my normal every day life....the odds of getting hit by a terrorist attack are much lower.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  26. due process? by globaljustin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From TFA:

    rearrested on unrelated immigration charges

    Just wanted to clarify that the UK still has due process. Being *charged* with an immigration crime is not the same as being guilty of said crime. Your reaction to the arrest was a bit extreme, but if ya want to have free speech then ya gotta put up with reactionary (sometimes total bullshit) posts on message boards.
    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  27. Re:CSo3k by jasonmanley · · Score: 2, Funny

    To quote David Letterman, when interviewing Bill O'Reilly ... "I'm not smart enough to debate you, but I have a feeling that 90% of everything you say is crap"

    --
    http://projectleader.wordpress.com
  28. Sounds like Baldrick has a cunning plan... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, let me get this straight. In order to uphold peace, freedom, civilization and whatnot, we clamp down hard on the academics. So far, so familiar. Now, just for the masterstroke, We focus out little witch hunt on pro-UK moderates, from middle eastern cultural and ethnic backgrounds, with an academic interest in terrorism. Y'know, because it isn't like those sorts of people might prove useful or anything? WTF. Cracking down on academic researchers under some sort of all-encompassing "state's power to do whatever, to whomever" act is bad enough; but not even doing it pragmatically? If 10 Downing Street were to enter the twilight zone, would anybody notice?

    1. Re:Sounds like Baldrick has a cunning plan... by Spad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If 10 Downing Street were to enter the twilight zone... If?
  29. Re:George Orwell: 1984 full text by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Funny

    Careful reading the link from the UK, I hear you can get arrested and/or deported for reading certain websites over there.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  30. what are you doing reading this slashdot news? by neonsignal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In some jurisdictions you'd be put on a list just for reading this post on slashdot.

    Come to think of it, imagine what they'd do to you if you actually bothered to type a response and pressed sub...

  31. Yes there is by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It has long been a convention of warfare that explicitly targeting civilian populations violates the rules of warfare... in fact such a deliberate act is even considered a war crime... why then is it acceptable to drop bombs on a civilian center? Historically it's been done to eliminate targets of interest that the opposition has located there (weapon stockpiles, factories, etc). Do note that hiding behind civilians is also considered a war crime.


    First of all, that's a bit convenient a definition.

    But the fact is, the western world too has a long and funny history of targetting civilians explicitly. The terror bombings of WW2 (started, duly noted by Germany, but continued by the Allies just as well) were probably the best example, though more recent examples do exist. The theory was explictly to kill enough civilians, as to (A) cause a huge morale drop and make them beg their government for peace, and (B) cripple the economy by killing enough of the workforrce.

    The industrial cities of Germany for example have not been colateral damage in trying to bomb the factories, they have been the targets themselves. That was the actual target: bombing the city and terrorizing the population. (But again, so did Germany with UK cities, so I'm not trying to make it sound like only one side was doing it.)

    The whole doctrine and technique of firebombing them didn't even work against factories. How it worked was dropping a big bomb with an otherwise thin shell, so the blast would blow the shingles off house roofs, followed by lots of little fire bombs that would then fall in the house and set it ablaze. The houses of civilians were _the_ target.

    Against factories that particular mix had little to no effect. Against troops or military targets that mix would have been outright stupid, and noone used it for that.

    Again, the whole doctrine was to kill as many civilians as your can, and scare the seven shades of shit out of the survivors. That's a terror tactic by any other name.

    Want another example: the USA has actively researched biological warfare and had stockpiles of nasty germs until the 70's. I do believe that the doctrine wasn't to drop them just on enemy troops.

    The west only gave up on that shit, when we finally figured out that nukes are enough of a deterrent anyway, and killing 3% of a city's population with modified Brucellosis is peanuts compared to nuking it. And again, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction isn't about nuking enemy troops. If you look at any country with nukes, right as we write this, the nukes are aimed at the (potential) enemies' civilian cities. The threat is, very much, "if you dare attack us, we'll wipe out your population and turn your country into a radioactive wasteland."

    The neutron bomb was developed for the explicit reason of killing or injuring as many humans as possible, while causing as little damage as possible to everything else. It's not a bomb you'd use to disable a military factory, it's a bomb which would kill its workers (and the whole city nearby) and at most blow the windows off that factory.

    Etc.

    So, you know, freakin' _please_. I'm even willing to swallow _some_ "us vs them" dehumanizing arguments, but "we wouldn't ever target civilians" is so much bullshit it could fertilize a few acres.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  32. Mod this fucking idiot down by hassanchop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, what if I don't want to live in a country?


    Yo renounce your citizenship you clown, it happens all the time.

    When countries form a cover of all the reasonably habitable land, then people who seek personal freedom have nowhere to go.


    Oh please shut the fuck up. You don't want "personal freedom" as it really exists, because if you did you could just move to one of the many near lawless locations ALL OVER THE FUCKING WORLD where you could have all the freedom you like.

    But that's REAL freedom, i.e., the unsafe, unclean, unruly, uncivilized kind. The kind of freedom people talk about wanting until they have it.

    You want the safe, clean, happy freedom that so many people idealize, without appreciating that it's artificial and never lasts.

    Long story short, move to Africa. You can get "freedom" out the ass, just don't be a crybaby when you realize the true cost.
  33. Ummmm by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is your definition of "freedom" is unworkable. If you feel you only have freedom when you can do whatever you want, well then you can never be free. The reason is that if we let you do whatever you want, we are going to be infringing on someone else's freedom. You see situations like that in dictatorships, like say North Korea. Kim Jong-il has essentially total personal freedom. He can do whatever he wants. However, the price his country pays is that they are all extremely oppressed for that. While the one man may be free, the rest of them aren't.

    So, in actual free nations, we have to work towards a balance of freedoms. You have to make sure that one person's freedoms don't infringe on another person's freedoms. That way everyone can be free to do pretty much what they want, and not have to worry about others forcing their will on them.

    If you can't accept that kind of freedom, well, then you are a very selfish individual.