Saudi Webmaster Acquitted of Terrorism Charges 909
terrymr writes "Saudi Student Sami Omar Al-Hussayen was found not guilty on charges that he 'rendered techical assistance to terrorists' by acting as the webmaster for an Islamic charity. Said one juror: 'The part that surprised me was when I read the First Amendment instructions. I was surprised to learn that people could say whatever they want... providing it would not cause imminent action.'" You might remember our previous coverage of this story. In addition, the AP (via CNN) has more information as well.
First Ammendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat 5th grade? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we possibly force potentially a hundred million people to go repeat 5th grade american history?
First Amendment Message? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I hope the message is that the First Amendment is important and meaningful in this country, and actions protected by the First Amendment really shouldn't be subject to prosecution," he said. "I think (the prosecution of) this case represented a pushing of the envelope for what will be permissible in the future. I think this case suggests they won't do that in the future - which I think is good for the First Amendment."
Well, it would be nice if that were the outcome of this case, that people would stop trying to push the First Amendment back. But I suspect the opposite will be the case: They will re-double their efforts to find ways to prosecute anyone they don't like. Prosecuters who lose cases don't usually think, "Hmm...guess I was in the wrong." Instead they think, "Hmm...better work harder to get convictions."
In America, the big thing used to be DWB: Driving While Black, where you could be pulled over just for having the wrong skin color. In today's America, there are a few who seem to have the idea of EWI: Existing While Islamic. Well, sorry, but Islam is not the problem here, it is extremism. Extremists are the dangeous ones. But hey, let's forget about that and find ways to trash the Constitution, shall we? ...sigh...
Love the CNN link (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe a better title would be:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/10/first.amendmentSurprised and pleased (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this a case designed to test the waters to determine who has responsibility for web content? Did they go after the ISP as well?
Will they retry on the remaining charges? What will happen after he's deported? The whole situation is a little bit scary.
Correct verdict, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Repeat 5th grade? (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the defense asked for the instruction, the judge probably had no choice but to allow it. I don't think it's all that surprising that the a jury member was not familiar with the language. But I'm favorably impressed that the jury took the language seriously when they deliberated.
In fact the 1st amendment was originally interpreted so that the government could outlaw speech that impeded the war. Perhaps you don't remember the Anti Sedition Act or didn't study it in American history.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Insightful)
Witches, Communists and Terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
In each of these cases freedom has always been the first victim. With witches it was the loss of religious freedom. With the communists came the loss of actual freedom for many wrongly imprisoned. Today not only are innocents like Sami Al-Hussayen losing their freedom, but we're all losing a little freedom as we exchange privacy for so-called "protection".
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:1, Insightful)
Where is the Muslim outrage against these extremists? I don't see it, even from the so-called moderates.
If the KKK (Christian extremists) were lynching people still, you can guarantee you'd have Christians across the country outraged by this and telling everyone.
(P.S. I'm not religious.)
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:5, Insightful)
-B
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Went to school (Score:1, Insightful)
You moron. I guess you don't plan to ever work for the government, hold office, or get a security clearance for anything, or work on a security-related computing project.
It also seems like you want to start an FBI file on yourself. Let's see what we have so far:
It's not enough to get your arrested, but it's sure enough to get you into the special "anal probe" line at the airport, or delay your clearance to travel, get contracts or work with the government, etc.
A tip: keep this to yourself. I'm just the messenger. I don't approve of the Information Awareness that the government is pursuing. But I'm just telling you how it is.
go back and forth (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it's NOT funny because you realise both sides in this delusional farce manage to always get their particular slimeball scumbag lying crook in, if not this election, then the next election. And we always seem to have a screwed up crooked government, but they never bingo to the real reason.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Correct verdict, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, it's pretty obvious the guy isn't going to evangelize at Ft. Bragg. What's the point... it would be like trying to sell Pax Americana to a mullah and his followers, right?
Re:America (Score:3, Insightful)
Principally, I think the United States is a very conflicted nation that is on the way downward as its debt spirals out of control. The exuberance of the American consumer and the plentiful service employment speak badly for a nation that will be taken over educationally. Simply enough, the United States is falling back, but still extending itself like it did during younger days like the fifties. Whereas the United States once could meddle in the affairs of other nations, I simply believe that today it can not. Just like the co-dependent, the United States is trying to fix the lives of others, but is also so strangled by its co-dependency that it acts haphazardly and without direction.
Re:America (Score:1, Insightful)
Clearly the jury had no proof. But hey, YOU know better right? Sure.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:2, Insightful)
Um.... except for Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. Funnily, I don't seem to recall white, Christian BBS operators being rounded up at the time.
Christians kill people too (Score:1, Insightful)
If they had the balls to strap explosives to themselves at least they could loose the coward designation.
If you are looking for an example of an extremist christian killing people, start with the white house.
Re:Way OT: Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, the easy solution to the starving people problem is to introduce a human predator into the environment. I'm thinking some bears or wolves that won't have much else to eat other than starving humans, because the starving humans bred too much and used way too many food resources.
I'm a sick and twisted asshole, I know.:)
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some. From a distance. Almost never from the same social set as the members of the KKK.
It's easy to be morally outraged at them, almost impossible to be morally outraged at us.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:4, Insightful)
Christians in the south use bombs to kill abortion doctors in the name of religion.
Muslim moderates aren't obligated to feel outrage over the extremists, especially not for your benefit.
Most christians in the US, even the non-KKK variety, were never really outraged against lynching. If they say so now, it's generally more of a political thing, rather than the true sentiment.
Re:Islamic websites. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:2, Insightful)
The government is free to excercise freedom of religion just like individuals are. When they make a law respecting a religion, then we'll have a problem. Until that day comes, they've done nothing wrong.
And charging churches with taxes just as any other corporation.
Oh yes, because they make so much money through DONATIONS now don't they. The only difference between religion and government is that religion asks you to donate money. The government MAKES you pay your taxes. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. If you don't donate to your church, oh well, life goes on.
They serve me no purpose but use the country's resources.
You serve me no purpose and you're using valuable air. Please go away or pay more taxes to exist
Re:Repeat 5th grade? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first five words are "Congress shall make no law". Certainly it was meant to apply to the Federal government.
You may be thinking of the question of whether Constitutional protections bind state governments. That took the 14th Amendment and a bloody civil war to settle. The question probably never occurred to the Founders, who imagined state governments protecting the liberties of their citizens against Federal encroachment (see the Federalist Papers).
Which just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:1, Insightful)
(Now can someone link to my post claiming Slashdot is celebrating his death? By your twisted and blind logic, they could.)
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh? "Radical liberalism" of the 1990's? Where were you?
The 90s were a decidedly conservative decade compared to the 70s (consider: Nixon created the EPA & NEA. Clinton slashed the Federal gov't to half the size it was when he took office.) Clinton was forced to the right of Nixon on a lot of things. For that matter, the "center" today is to the right of Goldwater 40 years ago on some issues. We don't notice this because the media are so conservative. There have been radical conservatives since Goldwater and LaRouche; the last real radical liberal we had was Hoffman (though Moore is making some headway now).
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were Muslim, I'd say "screw that."
Re:America (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Insightful)
So if people were as outraged about the terrorists as they are about US troops committing torture and so on, would that mean that we expect the terrorist organisations and the US military to be on the same level of morality?
Please note that crime committing US soldiers don't sully the Chritian name as terrorists do to Islam.
US soldiers can pretty much go freely to any country in the world, with a few exceptions. Terrorists on the other hand are hunted down by pretty much all (if not all) countries in the world. As a matter of fact, they tend to be treated with extreme prejudice in Arab coutries.
How many people in the US think the prison abuse in Iraq is no big deal? 30-40%? How many people in Arab countries think it's ok to decapitate a person? Probably much less. Perhaps Muslims don't need be told every minute what's rigt and what's wrong. How about Christian "flocks"?
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:2, Insightful)
Um.... except for Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. Funnily, I don't seem to recall white, Christian BBS operators being rounded up at the time.
What? The bombing in Oklahoma City didn't have anything to do with religion. Stop modding this moron up.
Oklahoma City was meant to be a wake-up call to a government that was abusing its power. A topic that seems to be the love of many Slashdotters and I'm sure you are familiar with. If McVeigh's bombing had anything at all to do with religion it was a fight for freedom of religion.
Why don't you read McVeigh's public statements [digital-exp.com] regarding his reasoning for the attack.
No, I do not condone violence. No, I do not approve of what McVeigh did. But dammit, get your facts straight. In many ways the Oklahoma City bombing was a fight for what so many of you here claim to fight for as well.
Jury Nullification... (Score:2, Insightful)
Jury nullification is the same brand of wingnut "political thinking" that gives us the John Birch Society and Posse Commitatus. Jury nullification is a violation of the oath you swear as a juror. If you want to know how to deal with unjust laws, read Martin Luther King or H. D. Thoreau or even Eldridge Cleaver for the more aggressively oriented. One common thread is that you put yourself personally on the line, and you are prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. Jury nullification does not improve the laws or the rule of law, it subverts it.
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that the US is one of the more right wing nations. Consequently, even though you think you are left, or central, relative to the rest of the world you are probably quite right wing.
There are 290 million people in the US. There are 6 billion in the world. Thus chances are a significant portion of the world's population is 'left' of you. Conseqently an American will generally view a collection of the world's population, such as the Internet, as being 'left wing'.
As an illustration, I've generally considered slashdot to be somewhere between 'right' and 'centre'. I'm an Australian and consider myself to be 'centre' in Australian politics. I gather the majority of American slashdotters consider slashdot to be 'left'.
one question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Acquitted, but didn't do him any good. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Al-Hussayen remains in custody on an immigration hold."
That single fact speaks volumes.
Christians true sentiment? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is surprising to me. Could you provide some evidence in a link?
Christians in the south use bombs to kill abortion doctors in the name of religion.
This is unfortunately true. As a moderate Christian, I am ouraged by the actions of these extremists. Fortunately the full power of the US law enforcement system is used to bring these people to justice.
Muslim moderates aren't obligated to feel outrage over the extremists, especially not for your benefit.
This is a problem. By not being outraged by the activities of the extremists and not assisting in bringing the extremists to justice, the moderates are in fact supporting the activities of the extremists and further hurting the world image of Islam.
Most christians in the US, even the non-KKK variety, were never really outraged against lynching. If they say so now, it's generally more of a political thing, rather than the true sentiment.
I'm not convinced of your qualifications to have knowledge of the true sentiment of most US Christians.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Correct verdict, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're trolling.
What you've said is an affront to decent soldiers everywhere.
Soldiers aren't trained to be a blood-thirsty mob, lashing out at anyone they disagree with.
Soldiers are trained to think and act with discipline. They take an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution, and that includes the 1st Amendment.
Sure, not all soldiers meet this ideal; Abu Ghraib has demonstrated that, as did Lt. Calley at My Lai in 1968.
But Hugh Thompson, the U.S. Army helicopter pilot who threatened to open fire on the U.S. troops massacring the Vietnamese civilians at My Lai, and Joseph Darby, the U.S. Army soldier who reported the Abu Ghraib atrocities to his superiors -- these are men who show the true measure that soldiers should aspire to.
Your willingness to let bad soldiers off the hook is pure condescension, arrogating yourself above those you imply are "dumb muscle-bound soldiers who can't be trusted to behave like civilized men." It's pure insult to the many decent men and women who have served and are now serving our country.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen *numerous* statements made by Islamic groups condemning September 11th. I believe even the Taliban condemned September 11th (though that didn't mean that they were willing to turn over bin Laden).
Just what exactly are you expecting? I mean, it's not as if Joe Smith, a Christian architect, can stop Christian extremists from killing abortion clinic workers any more than a random Islamic accountant working in Manhattan can stop a bunch of Islamic extremists from attacking targets that *they* hate.
Re:Christians kill people too (Score:3, Insightful)
Now it they would stick around to be arrested and then try and defend themselves in court by stateing they were preventing murder as many of them believe. Then I might give them a few points for bravery. Not many, Because bravery implies your doing somthing with full knowledge of the possible negative consequences and yet face the danger irregardless. And I don't think anyone who bombs a clinic is that smart.
FWIW My take is that abortion is most likely taking a human life and should be treated with appropriate seriousnes. Treating it as a causual birth controll option of convience is just not good for many reasons.
Mycroft
I'll blame Bush (Score:1, Insightful)
And it was him who said "you're either with us or against us".
Re:Repeat 5th grade? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to say there weren't some very bright people in the public schools I attended - there were. In any case, our public school system is incredibly broken in the US, primarily because it has shifted its focus entire from the best and brightest students to the lowest common denominator. Comparing my mother's descriptions of public high school when she was a kid - when they separated out the pre-college track students, and had a Group A, B and so on down the line grouped by their capabilities - to what I saw, it's clear that our system has fallen apart under the incredibly defective theory that spending 100 times as much on remedial programs as is spent on gifted programs will help this nation produce its next generation of scientists, engineers, doctors, and political and business leaders.
No, my friend, private schools are the places where they can afford to be selective about the students they admit and thereby avoid that utter claptrap. If your kids are dumb, I'm sorry, but keep them the fuck out of my kid's classroom.
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not very comfortable, but I suppose it's quite healthy to do so.
Thank you.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oddly enough, to reverse the trend of the thread, many Islamic churches and church men speak out agaisnt terrorism as well.
The claim was that Christians don't strap bombs to themselves. This is false as pointed out. Your examples have nothing to do with that and the part you "infer" you have made up in your own mind and attack your own mental image. Your counter to the fact that Christians participate in religously motivated terrorism by invoking the Catholic Churches condemnation of such is fatally flawed.
The reasoning is as flawed as blaming all of Islam ( which has many churches that condem terrorism) for the acts of individual Islamics.
KFG
Re:Which just goes to show... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:4, Insightful)
Your posting privilege has been revoked.
Freerepublic.com - where the moderators are too chickshit to allow their flock to engage in conversation which might meaningfully contradict their biases.
His degree (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Jury Nullification... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus the whole Libertarian thing seems really out there.
My own political position? LeftRightOut
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
try oxblog.blogspot.com
or www.andrewsullivan.com
or www.realclearpolitics.com
or www.instapundit.com
Attention Foreigners.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Attention non-US-citizens
We know that you have looked to the United States over the years as a benchmark for progress. The innovation and passion of our infant society and government has made great strides in the progression of humankind.
However, please be advised that this progress has now ceased.
Don't waste your time being disappointed with the obvious lack of logic, consistency, lawfulness or compassion of our people. It has all but evaporated.
America has turned into a society of consumers who value materialism over everything else, and as a result, we interpret "truth" according to the tenets which most benefit our quest for validation within our society of consumption.
Not everyone in our country believes in these ideals, but you wouldn't know that from watching American media.
So the energy you would expend to call attention to the numerous double standards of the ideals that we supposedly espouse might be best served, if they were recycled into a campaign to overthrow the political parties that are employing the misguided notion that large corporations and media conglamorates have the masses best interests in mind.
Re:America (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, you don't like the way things have gone down, but you don't want to give anyone credit for the problem?
With all due respect, you're part of the problem. Either you recognize that there is a hierarchy and a chain of command and a sense of responsibility or you dowt. This is a bunch of ambiguous, superfluous astro-turfing on your part. And a completely cowardly, counterproductive wheelbarrow full of horseshit.
You don't want to blame Bush, but does anyone think that if Gore were President half of this crap would have happened?
Who said anything about the Catholic Church? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, clearly not all Christians are in with this crowd. And not all Christians are "turning a blind eye" to things like abortion clinic bombings. But within the Christian community a violent minority does exist. And the number of "Christians" that are turning a blind eye, or even to some degree tacitly approving, to the extremists among them is large enough to be rather scary. And the number of Christians who practice their personal religion in a totally healthy, positive and loving way, yet seem to be totally unconcerned that a nontrivial number of people out there are applying the name "Christian" to a religion based essentially around hate, is much larger.
Basically, if you're trying to protest the painting of all Christians with a wide brush, then yes, you're right, good point. But other than that, I don't see how one Christian minority group disapproving of violent tactics makes the actions of another Christian minority group which does approve of violent tactics any less of a "lynching".
Re:Went to school (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me guess this straight: Americans are now prepared to dismiss they own opinions formed of personal experience in favour of opinions suggested to them by the Government? What is wrong with you people?
Re:Islamic websites. (Score:1, Insightful)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticl
Re:Stomp on dem Libartays (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"...most heinous ongoing crime since the 1940s? (Score:3, Insightful)
I credit Gorbachev more than Reagan with the transformation of the USSR into post-Communism relatively peacefully. With a more doctrinaire and ruthless leader, like the Kims of North Korea or Castro, a Communist government can hang on indefinitely if they have the will.
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is the libertarian angle, which is sort of perpendicular to left and right, simply because the 'average' libertarian buys into some stuff from both major camps.
I, for one, take a "mind your own damn business" approach to government in general. Small government, in the 'normal' view, would be incredibly right-wing, just because of the "pro-business" stance it would appear to indicate. However, I also think most drugs should be legal, abortion should be encouraged, and religion should play no part in legal circles. So plug me in, left or right?
It's depressing that we have to try to jam people into group A or group B, and then demonize the other group. Human nature, I suppose.
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:5, Insightful)
(please note I'm not advocating the Soviet system, just an observation)
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad thing is, though, that the left does that at the same the right is calling libertarians leftist. This is the whole problem with a two party system such as we have here in the US--it makes us think in only 1 dimension, when there are really so many more. It's kinda like wearing glasses that makes everything look like a shade of gray--you forget that there's something called blue or red.
I have to agree, there isn't much difference between the left and the right. It is mostly a matter of where they want to spend your tax dollars. The left plans to spend it on social programs and whatnot, and the right on various big projects (defense budget). But they both want to spend it. Only the libertarians are interested in really just not spending it, and therefore lightening the tax burden. A novel concept, but one that would work if federal spending were cut. Yes, that means that schools don't get as much money, but then again, it allows parents to send their children to private schools, which are better than public schools 9 out of 10 times anyway.
Sorry for the rant, but I find it annoying that I should be called politically "right" just because I live in the US. I personally find it very important to judge each political candidate on their personal merits. Take Bush Jr. for instance. He's not the brightest president we've ever had. He's not got a flawless record, but as far as I can tell, he's basically honest. An idiot, perhaps, but an honest one.
Kerry, like Gore, wouldn't know the truth if you hit him with it.
Does that mean I want Bush as President? Not necessarily, but I don't really want any of the other options either. Personally, I will probably find a write in for this years election, or vote non-two-party. Think of it as a protest against people who want you to believe that there is nothing but gray in this world.
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I call them tribal systems... (Score:3, Insightful)
They are called Bundeslaender in Germany. While most of the northern Bundeslaender are of artificial nature (a result of the redrawing of Germany's map after WW II) and were mostly designed to abolish the old prussian state, the southern states follow old, traditional borders. After 1989, when the new german Bundeslaender were restated, there were some local votings which state the local people wanted to belong to, which made the local borders follow old tribal lines.
Thuringia was founded in 534, that is now 1470 years ago, and the current state of Thuringia is quite close to the old tribe territory of the Thuringians long ago. Bavaria even has a quite sophisticated informal system to ensure, that the three different tribes (Bavarians, Frankonians and Suabians) are equally represented in the different institutions.
In Germany we have even a second people, the Sorbs, which have their own central authority. Sorbs speak their own languages (three different ones), which aren't related to German at all (they are slavic languages, related to Polish and Czech), have bilingual street signs and a right to constitute themselves in the constitutions of both Brandenburg and Saxonia, where they live.
The Frisians in the Northwest have similar rights, but they are living not only in Germany, but also in the Netherlands. The danish people in North Germany are a national minority, so called because there is a danish nation (Danmark), but they aren't under danish juristiction. They have the right to be represented in the Landtag (local parliament) of Schleswig-Holstein with at least a representative. For the South Schleswig Electoral Association, their political group, there is no 5% minority block, like for all other political parties.
The main difference between Iraq and Germany at the moment is, that Germany has a working central government, so there is someone actually representing Germany to the world. If I were in Iraq right now, with a weak provisionally council without real executive power, I would also feel better represented by a local leader who I happen to know, and who I may be related to by either a common ancestry or by a common set of believes. It doesn't mean that Iraq is in any way "tribal", it just means that it lacks a central authority that is accepted through the country.
Re:Jury Nullification... (Score:2, Insightful)
The point behind having jurys is not only to judge the facts of the case (which is the primary duty of the jury), but also to insure that we don't have rampant prosecutors, judges, etc. That we are held to a standard consistent with that a reasonable person finds to be moral (that is, customary) and is in the same social class as ourselves (a peer).
Of course, in the old USA we're all peers - no aristocracies for us! Well, other than actors.
Re:Nice grouping (Score:2, Insightful)
So, in a couple decades, we'll discover that Communism never existed? And that the Soviet gulag, China's "Great Leap Forward", and North Korea's murderous regime -- were just old wives tales?
Thank goodness! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to the top of the World Trade Center and overlook the city.
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, 'left' and 'right' are horribly inadequate terms too. This holds true too for the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal', as demonstrated by one of my favorite recent sayings: 'Bush: he's liberal in all the wrong ways!' (sorry, can't recall whom to credit) Reducing political inclination to a single spectrum is a vast and rather ridiculous oversimplification. As another responder pointed out [slashdot.org], there is also an orthogonal issue of 'libertarian-authoritarian' tendencies.
A nice site to check out might be The Political Compass [politicalcompass.org], which nicely illustrates the fundamental issue with projecting everything into a single left-right/liberal-conservative axis. Of course, even two axes probably isn't enough, but it's much closer to an accurate representation. Hope it's at least a little bit enlightening.
Sweet justice... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It seems to be part of a general social breakdo (Score:5, Insightful)
As it wasn't a crime, people should never have been subjected to the threats, investigations, and persecution the government was promoting.
I do not agree with communism. I would not go to a rally. I don't care if the person next to me has or not. The "communists" in Hollywood were just disenfranchised. They weren't Soviet spies.
I would never turn in my neighbor because of something that wasn't, isn't, and shouldn't be a crime.
Re:/. : Lefisist political site (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone has a severe chip on their choulder here. This isnt about leftism, its about freedom and consistency.
Back in the eighties when my home town was getting bombed by the I.R.A. I dont remember anyone on US soil being hauled into jail for 18 months on "Terrorist Charges". Why? Because raising money for NorAid wasnt a criminal, terrorist activity. AND NEITHER IS THIS.
Too often Americans forget their recent history books. May I refer you to McCarthyism. Its right there. Between Klan and Prohibition.
Capitalism has nothing to do with it. The majority standing by in their comfortable homes and saying nothing while injustice runs riot is the issue here.
For shame.
Re:First Ammendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes to economic issues, yes the U.S. is certainly far less socialist than most large civilizations. When it comes to social issues, however, I think you will find the U.S. to be quite liberal-left compared to much of the world.
Really.
For many countries if you ask youself "Can I been seen out for a jog on Sunday/Friday/Saturday morning without later being beaten for it?" "Can I wear a goofy outfit and get off with just a few stares rather than being beaten as a fruit/devil worshipper?" "Can women do most/all of the same things men can do in public and the workplace?"
In a very large number of countries (in the carribean, africa, southwest & southeast asia), the answer to these questions are decisevly "no." You may find watered down similarities in parts of other societies like the U.S., but it is the exception rather than the rule. Just because a country tacks elements of government regulation or socialism on to their economy doesn't mean their people are 'left wing.'
Re:It seems to be part of a general social breakdo (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you wouldn't turn in your neighbor because of something that "wasn't, isn't, and shouldn't" be a crime...but when you add "shouldn't", you are making a personal judgement call. Governments don't like that, they like to believe they are in control. (Managers don't like it either!)
The real question is, when push comes to shove, will you stop/try to stop the rapid dogs of hatred from taking your neighbor away, when they come for him? Will you put your own life/reputation/job/whatever on the line for your friends, or what you feel is the right thing to do?
It's all about personal conviction. I either came off sounding like a true patriot, or a radical terrorist there. Hmm.
(The names of the factions in question, and "what is right" have been deliberately removed as they can apply to pretty much any group of 5 or more people, and pretty much any philosophy).
Re:Nice grouping (Score:3, Insightful)
Though the communist threat was fictional. Most of the terrorism charges seem to befictional.
The hysteria going on during each seems to be the same.
Re:It's amazing how much jurors do not know (Score:4, Insightful)
It would have been nullification if the jurors had declared afterwards "Yeah, he did it, but the laws against First Degree Murder are wrong or were wrongly applied"
Instead, in the after the trial interviews, the jurors said, "We didn't think he did it."
As an aside...they also said that had they seen the evidence that was excluded at trial that they would have voted to convict. That's the bitch of the OJ trial and what most people can't understand: It wasn't that the jury was too stupid or gullible. It was that the prosecution was out manuvered by the all star squad of Cochran, Bailey, Dershiwitz, and Shapiro.
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:2, Insightful)
And that is surprising how? As a non-US-citizen I remember image of president Reagan during 80s, outside of this country, and he was regarded almost as "highly" as ex-pres Nixon. As right-wing religious nut, third class actor, war mongerer, the guy who'll bring Armageddon to everyone.
In hindsight, he actually was much more talk than action, and that was a Very Good Thing. And probably good reason why he is now highly regarded in US (as opposed to what Bush will be in 20 years). Plus he was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, both as the symbol of US revival (getting US ego back on track), and as "the guy who brought Soviet Union down" (although, just as with economy, it was just long time coming -- not specifically [only] his accomplishment by any measure).
So, maybe he had too bad a rap back then; Bush jr. actually has done many more bad things than Reagan was suspected of doing back then.
In the end, it really is good that Reagan is highly regarded here; outside of US he never was, and isn't, outside of hard-core right-wing politicians group. It's not a coincidence that most commentaries from abroad are from mrs. Thatcher, as she's definitely the only european counterpart... widely loathed, but obviously back then very influential leader.
Re:Christians true sentiment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you finished? Well, Allow me to retort !
This three way race going on in India you talk about, I hope someone can add a catalyst to it, in order to speed it up, so that in a few years we have taken care of 1/6th of the World population magically. Then U.S can invade India and start eating curry/rice with out paying for it (Sorry we dont have much oil).
I am a Christian (albeit not a practising one) from the Southern tip of India, a state where Christians, Muslims and Hindus coexist happily 99% of the time( We have a few skirmishes once in few years and then everything go back to normal).
I am sorry, but I know instances of where there have been sporadic violence between Hindus and Muslims (recently in Gujrat) but I wouldnt term it as religious cleansing! Also, there was violence against Sikhs (Sikh extremism) in the 80s but for the last 15 years there have been practically none.
And for sure, Christians had got licked in a few parts around the country, but the number of Christians killed in the name of religion across the country is probably a handful. And considering we have a Billion people to govern and keep happy, its a miracle more are not being banged up!
And the comment about Christians killing Sikhs, that was pretty funny too.
So my friend, I dont know which part of the world you hail from, but you definitely need to stop reading TBN or whatever other religious network you getting your feed from, cause unless you can get your ass down to India and get some firsthand evidence of the ethnic cleansing you talk about, then we collectively are going to kick your ass back to where your crawled out of!
to cross reference with the PeePers sub thread (Score:1, Insightful)
Like all other so called "laws" we have, is is only selectively applied, and you can't tell me the FBI doesn't read free republic, they even have open members of various police agencies there, and various other governmental employees, and a lot more cruise it, some of high level. By any other criteria, the owner of the free republic website-JimRob- should have been arrested and charged long ago, following the same exact criteria that this muslim guy was arrested for, and quite a few of the identifiable posters, including most of the more blatant israel-firsters and radical "christian" zionists. There is NO difference in the theme or intent as regards "speech" between the two sites in a lot of cases.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:1, Insightful)
You are joking right??? Any "militia" group at the time or anyone questioning the large federal government was being investigated by the ATF. The fact that the ATF has never been empowered by congress to have a strike force was what blew Ruby Ridge and WACO.
I don't agree with any of those people. I think that Koresh was a slime and that any kind of white power group is evil, but let's get even handed here. They are just as entitled to give their opinions and thoughts as every knee-jerk liberal in the country. I cannot stand what they do or believe in, but they have just as many rights as the Muslims and Arab nationals. I get so annoyed when I hear all of this about how, well white people are never investigated. That is crap. Instead anyone vaguely conservative gets called names. If you don't agree with someone, you get labelled. On here, you get -1 flamebait. If you don't agree with homosexuality being taught in first grade, you are a "homo-phobe".
If we believe in the First Amendment, that means that EVERYONE gets that freedom. Not just those you like.
""
Re:Which just goes to show... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm in shock too (Score:3, Insightful)
I've sat in the jury selection pool a couple of times and, almost without exception, the people that go to the final jury box are usually midwest, mom 'n' apple pie, 2.4 children, elk's club types. Anyone who displays *any* objectivity or open-mindedness of opinion, knowledge or interest in the law, or displays any "big picture" concern or opinion is guaranteed a "thank you, you may go now" from the legal counsels. Arguably this can be good or bad, but the primary concern of the defense and prosecution when picking jurors is *predictability* of the jurors' eventual viewpoints and opinions.
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:1, Insightful)
From the US Constitution Article III, Section 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
It is more dependent on oil than religion (Score:2, Insightful)
As to china not hating us, this contradicts their military posture, which regards the US first and foremost as their number one enemy and whom they would be at war with in the future. "Hate" per se has not much to do with it realistically, it's just practicality for them. They NEED the oil, we NEED the oil, the EU NEEDS the oil and the explosively growing (pun intended) islamic "world" NEEDS the oil, but there's only enough for ONE of those planetary subgroups left if you look at the next 1-3 decades and whatpasses for proven reserves. And I am even leaving out India, south america and africa and japan, so you can see it's even worse. A few nations left can be self sufficient, nations like canada in particular, russia, brazil, etc, but most nations are completely dependent on cheap oil, and cheap oil is going away soon. and when you are as large as china, well, you can see the potentialities there.
Right now, the US economy is hanging on by a slim thread that is unraveling, precisely because we gave away our diverse manufacturing advantages we had. We gained that edge when we mostly traded our own products within the 50 states and also produced a lot of our own oil at an extremely cheap cost, both in terms of money and in terms of BTUS needed to get more BTUs. Once that started to slip, in the late 60's, we switched even more to foreign sources of oil, but world wide demand was not as great then either, so we were able to continue. That is not the case now, not even close. And china in particular has a projected demand that is amazing, it is going to be shortly higher than our own, and because we don't supply that much oil, and because they have got about all the machine tools and factories and cheap R&D they need from us already,the era of extremely cheap chinese goods to the US will start to slow down as china will be providing those goods to the places that have the worlds *true* reserve currency, which is bulk oil, and that ain't us. In short, we will pretty soon (a matter of some years to perhaps just one more decade) not really have anything china wants or needs, and our dollars will be worth much less to them. It's taken 3 decades on chinas part and our own globalist traders part to transfer all the wealth producing facilities from here to there, but it's about "done" now, so I expect the economic ramifications to be getting exponentially worse, with the resulting political ramificiations to be even MORE worse.
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a staunch moderate -- I believe that people's most basic needs should be met, active blocks to their success removed, and beyond that everything else is up to them. Thus, I believe in limited regulation, limited welfare, basic government health care and VERY limited support for foreign governments (because after all, we're a big visible target, so keeping nations on our side should be our prime concern. Everything else will take care of itself). For years I was a registered Republican solely to keep Hillary Clinton's care bear government OUT of office. But recently I find myself stuck in the same leftish barrel as Michael Moore and Barbara Friggin' Streisand, merely because I don't think the war in Iraq was necessary, moral or even beneficial in the long run to the people of Iraq. I find my heart bleeding merely because I think it's totally possible to have an American economy that pays a decent wage to American workers. And as a non-Christian outdoorsman with no direct problem with homosexuals getting married or adopting children or renting videos at BlockBuster, I expect demonization as a long haired, tree hugging hippy.
What the hell happened to making money by having good ideas and selling them? What the hell happened to a cheap, efficient government that ran itself without expensive private interests? What happened to creating DECENT JOBS so people didn't have to rely on welfare and unemployment? And what the hell happened to religion being something you BELIEVED IN and practiced, rather than tried to force on someone else? Is the post cold war hangover so bad that we need to throw away everything we've acheived for people's personal agendas?
We should prosecute Ann Coulter (Score:3, Insightful)
That is one hell of a fatwa.
Re:I imagine you'll be the first to scream... (Score:1, Insightful)
Land of the Hypocritical, Home of the Greedy (Score:3, Insightful)
Shining Light? Tell that to the Indians that marched the Trail of Tears. Or the ones that were given smallpox-infected blankets. Or the ones who were just shot and killed outright. Of course, these actions were spoken of in the context of "uplifting the red savages" so the general public saw no problem with this.
No, America has not changed much at all. You are just waking up to the truth.
====--====
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how liberals cling to the first admendment, but ignore the rest of the Constitution.
There's a reason it's called an amendment.
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know, I know - I was just as shocked as you are right now, when it happened to me. But once you realize that both the Republicans and Democrats are either insane, power hungry, or whores to whatever special interest will offer them a sop; when you realize that 'issues' are just campaign slogans for them, and seizing power is what it's *really* all about - well, then, at that point you can either accept the toilet that your party's become, or face up to the terrible realization that although you haven't moved an inch in your political leanings, everyone else has...and now, without doing anything at all, you've become a libertarian.
Welcome to the club.
Max
Re:Agree and disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
If part of your religious belief is "non-believers will be consigned to an eternity of damnation," then, no, you can't keep your beliefs to yourself, as by doing so, you are actively consigning people to, well, eternal damnation.
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It seems to be part of a general social breakdo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Liberty for non-Muslims only (Score:2, Insightful)