Man Who Downloaded Bomb Recipes Jailed For 2 Years 741
chrb writes "Asim Kauser, a 25-year-old British man, has been jailed for two years and three months for downloading recipes on how to make bombs and the toxin ricin. Police discovered the materials on a USB stick Asim's father gave to them following a burglary at the Kauser family home. Asim pled guilty and claimed that he only downloaded the materials because he was curious. A North West Counter-Terrorism Unit spokesman said, 'I also want to stress that this case is not about policing people's freedom to browse the Internet. The materials that were downloaded were not stumbled upon by chance — these had to be searched for and contained very dangerous information that could have led to an explosive device being built.'"
Science text books (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
I would point out that England has long had it be illegal to engage in communications that are preliminary to serious crimes. There's no implicit assumption in the British legal system that communications are harmless.
2 Years seems a bit drastic, when a month or two would have been better for preventing polarization. As an American, of course, I find this antithetical to my values, but I don't have as much of a stake in British law.
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? - *No for intent* (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Science text books (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? (Score:2, Informative)
Six of one, half a dozen of the other though. Maybe somewhat Minority Report-ish, but what if he actually WAS planning on trying to make a bomb? Why should we wait until this person has actually killed potentially hundreds of people with a bomb or some similar device or act before acting against him?
I have no reason to doubt that the following, taken from the article:
"However, when it was examined it contained recipes on how to make explosive devices and poisons, anti-interrogation techniques and details on how to kill efficiently.
A further examination of the stick revealed a letter, addressed to an unknown recipient, in which the author - again anonymous but referring to himself as a 24-year-old man - seeks spiritual guidance and says he has prepared himself physically and financially for jihad."
is true, due to what the police have said. The article also quite clearly states that there is plenty of evidence that this person was planning on USING this information, not just "being curious."
This will likely get modded as flamebait and/or I'll be told I'm some sort of communist against free speech, but the simple fact is that if they were able to prove in a court of law that this person was actively looking for this information - you don't go actively looking for such information, and keep a shopping list of the sorts of things that you could use to commit such an act at hand unless you're either working in a particularly specialised field or actually looking to commit some sort of atrocity.
Misleading summary (Score:4, Informative)
According to TFA, the man wasn't convicted just for downloading bomb and toxin recipes. There was also a letter where he said he had prepared himself for Jihad, and a shopping list with prices on items such as AK-47s, grenade launchers, ammunition and so on.
Of course, that's the prosecution's version, so it may still be biased, but one shouldn't pretend he was convicted just for downloading information off the Internet.
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
possession of knowledge is not and should not be a crime.
Yes it is. [legislation.gov.uk] Whether it should continue to be a crime or not is up to the people of the UK.
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? (Score:2, Informative)
But there's the crux - where's the evidence this is preliminary to a serious crime? Where is there anything which strongly indicates *intent* to build a bomb or commit a crime.
Why don't you RTFA?
"A further examination of the stick revealed a letter, addressed to an unknown recipient, in which the author - again anonymous but referring to himself as a 24-year-old man - seeks spiritual guidance and says he has prepared himself physically and financially for jihad."
That is clear intent.
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? - *No for intent* (Score:2, Informative)
Prepared for jihad. That's your argument.
It demonstrates intent.
If I wrote a letter that said I am prepared financially and spiritually for violence and had a shopping list containing weapons. Should I be arrested?
If the violence was of a terrorist nature, and you also had information or materials that would help you to do thise things, then under British law, yes.
If I have a erection and tell a friend, "Man, I'd really like to rape that chick." Should I be arrested?
That's not terrorism, so certainly not under the same law, no. There may be some other law you break though.
The question isn't whether terrorism should be illegal, it's whether unclear and unsubstantiated intent is illegal. Were the plans for when and where he would strike?
No, just a letter saying he was ready if called.
The text of the letter wasn't in the article so we don't know that. But the suggestion is he was seeking spiritual guidance,and was planning an attack himself, not offering to join someone else's plot.
As much as I detest violence and (insert all bad things here), I vehemently oppose others controlling what I'm allowed to think.
There's a difference between thinking something should be opposed and planning a terrorist attack on it. I defend your right to think. I don't defend your right to plan a terrorist attack. If it stays in your head it's still in the realm of fantasy. By the time you've downloaded plans for explosives, ricin, price lists for military weapons, and sent messages to people telling them you are prepared, it's safest to assume you're way past the fantasy stage.
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? - *No for intent* (Score:4, Informative)
In the UK merely thinking about terrorism is a crime. Of course they can't read your mind so there has to be some evidence such as writings or internet searches, but showing any semi-serious interest in Islamic terrorism is actually against the law. It is also illegal not to report people you suspect of being terrorists.
People actually go to prison for thought crime here.
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:where do I turn myself in (Score:4, Informative)
This story is not news, because UK is not a free country. The United States has a constitution (a real one) with protections for liberties (real liberties). The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's pretty good; its enforcement isn't perfect; but it's pretty good.
UK, on the other hand, does not have a constitution, despite their claims to have an "unwritten" one. Yeah, uh, unwritten constitutions, like God and unicorns, can't be proven to exist. And here you are, putting people in jail for learning, which is literally not figuratively thought-crime.
Also, UK is a theocratic monarchy, so it's not even a democracy, and so it's frankly surprising when Britons have any freedom at all.
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry but as long as you make the changes slowly enough, people just get used to them... for the love of gawd, they were using human beings as kindling in Germany, and the majority of the German Jews never left, because they couldn't imagine it going that wrong.
Re:Arrested for knowledge? WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Just to raise a finer point, Russia (and most other post-Soviet states) still have internal passports, and still require citizens to produce them on demand (else they can be detained "for identification"). It's actually illegal for a citizen older than 14 to not have a passport, and should you lose it, you're required to immediately report that to authorities - or at least my own Russian internal passport has verbiage to that effect.
We don't have propiska [wikipedia.org] anymore, but in practice they've simply renamed it to "registration". Enforcement is much more lacking than it was before, so a lot of people - especially those working in Moscow - ignore it, because the requirements often make it very difficult or impossible to get, and any undesired police attention is usually solely to solicit a bribe.
Re:Ah yes, 'dangerous information' (Score:5, Informative)
Oh well, gotta remember that the UK has no real free speech rights codified into law.. for what that's worth..
Please don't conflate a real shitty law with a fictitious old canard.
The UK has the Human Rights Act, of which article 10 guarantees free speech. Before this, rights to free speech were part of common law dating back centuries.
If you mean "the UK has no absolute free speech rights" you are correct. Try making threats against the President's life to see if you have absolute free speech rights.
But this case has nothing to do with free speech. He was convicted under section 58 of the Terrorism Act [legislation.gov.uk], which proscribes "collect[ing] or mak[ing] a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Bullshit, of course (a tube map is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism), but not a free speech issue.
People convicted in similar cases have been acquitted on appeal where the prosecution cannot show that the defendant intended to commit a specific act of terrorism. Wannabe terrorists, IOW. Doubtless this goofball will be acquitted on appeal too, but that won't be so widely reported, and if it is, the government have an excuse to pass more draconian 'anti-terrorist' laws.
Don't miss the fact that this legislation predates 9/11.