Hmmm What Is One to Do?

[Annie]

via Littlegreenfootballs

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11339_Court_Lets_One_Go

6/10/2004: Court Lets One Go

Criminal courts are failing us in the war against radical Islam, with help from (who else?) the ACLU: Saudi Cleared of Terror Charges in Idaho. Depressing.

Al-Hussayen’s attorneys have argued that he had little to do with the creation of the material posted. And they say the material was protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression and was not designed to raise money or recruit militants.

“It was hard to imagine how they could have convicted on the terrorism charges in light of the First Amendment,” said Jack Van Valkenburgh, director of the Idaho chapter of the ACLU. “What I heard from prosecution were only allegations of constitutionally protected speech, so I’m relieved.”

Prosecutors said he turned Web sites of the Islamic Assembly of North America into an Internet network providing information to foster terrorism, particularly in the Middle East and Chechnya.

They cited religious edicts justifying suicide bombings and an invitation to financially support the militant Palestinian organization Hamas in arguing that Al-Hussayen should be convicted.

Al-Hussayen was acquitted on all three terrorism counts, as well as one count of making a false statement and two counts of visa fraud. Jurors could not reach verdicts on three more false statement counts and five additional visa fraud counts, and a mistrial was declared on those charges.

Amazing. The ACLU is actually defending incitement to murder, raising money for the terror gang Hamas, and supporting the global jihad ... as “constitutionally protected speech.”

posted by Charles at 1:47 PM PST | rss
email this articl

 

[dilloduck]

Without a doubt the Republican Party is higher on thier hit list than terrorism.

 

[Annie]

Terrorism is ON their list? Fool me.

 

[dilloduck]

oooooops good point!

 

[Shazbot]

I knew the constitution allows a person to peaceably oppose something or someone, but since when does it accommodate (sp?) for destructive and even dangerous actions against that thing or person? I mean, I can tell you and write about how much I hate you all I want, but the moment I say I'm gonna hurt you...well now.

-Douglas

 

[dilloduck]

Unforunately the judicial branch is now deciding that question for us. What is hate speech?,what is hate crime?, what is offensive? etc. Got to the power outta these lawyers hands before we are reduced to fricken mush.

 

[menewa]

What about KKK sites and neo-Nazi sites? Both groups advocate violence and have websites and none of them are being charged with terrorism simply for posting some text. There's a big difference between something being posted on a website and committing a crime. It doesn't appear that the guy in Idaho can even be linked to an actual, physical crime.

 

[UsaPride]

Kathianne, this was in Friday's paper here. The very first sentence in the article states:
"Handing the government a stinging defeat in its war on terror, a jury acquitted a Saudi graduate student Thursday of charges he used his computer expertise to help Muslim terrorists raise money and recruit followers."
Okay, first of all "handing the government a stinging defeat in its war on terror", isn't America in the War on Terror, not just the government. And because the website that this guy created was recruiting terrorist and raising money, but he just "created" the site, he's not responsible for whats posted, it's protected under the First Amendment. Well, excuse me?! If there was any type of terrorist activity on here would Jimmynyc be responsible for turning it in, or is he not responsible for whats posted? This is rediculous!!!
This makes me sick!! Another example on how rules can be bent and twisted to protect the guilty!!!

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by menewa
What about KKK sites and neo-Nazi sites? Both groups advocate violence and have websites and none of them are being charged with terrorism simply for posting some text. There's a big difference between something being posted on a website and committing a crime. It doesn't appear that the guy in Idaho can even be linked to an actual, physical crime.

You know, if I start sending threatening letters to the girl across the street, she can bring several different charges against me. Now, since no "actual, physical" crime was committed, she probably would have a hard time getting me in jail for doing this. However, she could have a restraining order put on me, keeping me away from her, and keeping me from contacting her/sending more letters.

As far as I am concerned, those who put up this sort of threatening stuff to the public (internet, flyers, newspaper, whatever it may be), are in essence sending a similar letter to each and every person in the society. In such a case, the society ought to give them a general "restraining order" and send their butts to jail.

Concerning the KKK and Neo-Nazis...I hold them in the same light.

-Douglas