Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Internet United States Your Rights Online

U.S. Indicts Saudi Student For Website Contents 125

Posted by timothy from the is-it-fire-in-a-crowded-theater dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A student ( studying for his doctorate) has been charged by the U.S. government for setting up a website, moderating a email list listing it as 'material support' for the terrorist. How fine is the line between First Amendment rights and 'material support'?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Indicts Saudi Student For Website Contents More

U.S. Indicts Saudi Student For Website Contents

Comments Filter:

  • First Amendment? I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @01:47PM (#7938600)
    conspiring to help terrorist organizations wage jihad by using the Internet to raise funds

    If he really is raising funds, then the First Amendment has nothing to do with this.

    • MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Acidic_Diarrhea ( 641390 )
      Inciting others to commit a crime and helping to raise funds for terrorists clearly is not within the bounds of the first amendment. Freedom of speech does not extend to all speech, as everyone knows from the too-often used 'fire' in a theatre example.

      Of course, the student is innocent until proven guilty [unlike in his native land] and the article was fairly light on facts. But, long story short, if the charges are true, then there is no first amendment issue to consider.

      • Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > as everyone knows from the too-often used 'fire' in a theatre example.

        Actually, most people don't understand this example at all. It was used as a weak analogy for banning people from giving communist speeches.
      • Even if he was funding terrorist, looks like they are going to nail him for visa violations. Sounds an awfully similar to how they nailed Al Capone for 'tax evasion' rather than any of the things people thought... I doubt they will touch anything that would even bring first amendment issues into play.
    • Really? A lot of election fund raising laws hinge on First Amendment protections. If I can raise money to take over the governement of the United States and install a whole new congress and president, why can't I raise money for other causes I believe in? Note, I haven't investigated the charges, and the article is light on details, but the person being charged denies the raising of funds, and the article goes on to say:
      Hussayen is accused of moderating an Arabic-language e-mail group that posted instructions on how to train at a terrorist camp and issued an "urgent appeal" to Muslims in the military last February to provide information for use in selecting terror targets.
      So, if I moderate on Slashdot, and someone posts such an 'urgent appeal' does that make me liable? I suppose I'd moderate such a post as 'offtopic' anyway, but maybe it should be 'flamebate'? Does that make me a terrorist? Also, another reply to this post compares this free speach to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. Huh? How is an website an 'automatic stimulus to panic'? Way too many people are willing to broden the Government's powers and tighten the protections given by the constitiution. I think we've got a responsibility to ensure those protections are kept as broad as possible.
      • Your first post is rendered irrellevant by the Supreme courts recent decision upholding campaign finance reform. I disagree with the decision, but for the time being, contributing funds to organizations is no longer protected as free speech.
        I have a feeling (could be wrong) that the definition of moderating in this article is not the slashdot style, but rather that Hussayen was the operator of the sites/lists.
        Sami Omar Hussayen, a doctoral candidate in computer science in a University of Idaho program spo

      • Re:First Amendment? I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)

        by xyzzy ( 10685 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @03:31PM (#7939397) Homepage
        Right, but the distinction here is raising money for something LEGAL (running in an election) versus a CRIME (funding a terrorist organization).
        • Look at the white house - is there a difference any more?
          • There is a difference between free expression and paid sponsorship. The vast lie machine in the White House (and all over Washington, especially on the right half of each house of Congress) is not to be tolerated, nor excused as status quo. When you know they're lying, if you don't speak out, you're complicit. Their lies are killing people every day - and they'll get you, too, eventually. Do you want *your own* blood on your hands?

            "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing"
        • That should be the distinction, but for at least 40 years the IRA have been openly raising funds in the US to finance terrorism in N. Ireland and mainland UK. A number of US presidents, probably all of them in that period, have promised to their British counterparts that it would be stopped, but in reality no attempt whatsoever was made to do anything about it. The US government, for a long period of time, connived with terrorists who were targeting an allegedly friendly nation.

          One may ask why the IRA activ

          • As a point of order, it has only been since 1996 that raising $ for organizations on the FTO list has been illegal. And the "Real IRA" (the runt of the old IRA) is now on that list.

            As to your axe-to-grind regarding the election: people seem to lose sight of the fact that Bush won the election because of our brain-dead electoral college system. The election was completely legal and by the book. The nation fell victim to the fact that one state (Florida) was able to fsck it up it for all of us. Remindin
          • Actually, both parties in the last election took their case to the Supreme Court. Bush won, Gore lost. The issues in front of the court involved how the votes were counted (the infamous hanging/pregnant chads, etc...). The court ruled, the recount proceeded according to their ruling, and Bush won. Perfectly legal. You might not like the outcome, but there was no coup. If it was illegal, and the Bush team had subverted the rule of law, then whey would they allow another election in 2004? Do you plan on votin
            • Actually, the Supreme Court decided that they should just ask the Florida court whether the Florida vote violated Florida law, which the Florida court had said it did. The Florida court, when asked again, changed its mind. Evidence that you have more to learn about the entire fiasco: there was no recount, nor even a first count of *thousands* of ballots. That might be legal, given the arbitrary discretion of the Florida and Supreme courts, but it's not right. We could get into the role of Scalia's son on th
      • "If I can raise money to take over the governement of the United States and install a whole new congress and president"

        It depends on how you go about this - if your rhetoric suggests/supports the "violent overthrow" of the government, then that isn't protected by anything - Do not pass GO, go directly to Jail!

        From my reading - the young man is initially being held on visa violations, and these charges have just been added. He is innocent until proven guilty - so let's see if the government can make the c
      • You can't touch policitians when they take money from ...

        but this is someone who is helping kill others.
    • I live in Moscow, Idaho, that hotbed of terrorist activity, so I am perhaps a little biased. Still, it all boils down to this:

      Sami was in the United States studying. In his free time (which even students have, despite their sometimes-protestations to the contrary), he registered domains and dispersed funds for several non-profit organizations.

      This made the government mad because Sami was supposed to be in the United States solely for the purpose of pursuing [his] studies. They allowed him to bring depen
      • So it's a total coincidence that Sami is Saudi, coming from the birthplace of Wahabbism? Like it was a coincidence that all of the hijackers for Al Qaida were muslim males?

        Okay, If the US government starts accusing random people of this type of crime, I will cry foul. This article does not contain enough information for me to doubt the Feds' motives.
        • So it's a total coincidence that Sami is Saudi, coming from the birthplace of Wahabbism? Like it was a coincidence that all of the hijackers for Al Qaida were muslim males?

          Okay, If the US government starts accusing random people of this type of crime, I will cry foul. This article does not contain enough information for me to doubt the Feds' motives.

          So, it's enough that he's a member of a "suspicious" demographic? Well, then, let's just lock up all Arab males to improve U.S. security; after all, my c
    • This thread is upsetting! As of 12:18 AM on Jan 11 E.S.T. there are 45 comments. On a topic this controversial, there should be hundreds, if not thousands. The Patriot act, and the whole 1984 atmosphere we are living under have made us afraid to speak our minds. Freedom of speech was good while it lasted, but it's gone.
      • There is plenty of free speech going on at this website every day, a lot of it is critical of the U.S. government and likely being posted by U.S. citizens. If freedom of speech no longer existed, the FBI would have shut this site down, along with most of the Internet, long ago. I know, government conspiracies are fun and all, but there just isn't one in this story.
      • welcome to seventeen-ninety-something; for those of you who don't get the reference, thats when the United States had the Alien and Sedition acts. Oh well, November 2, 2004 will be a day for you to remember if you really feel this way...
      • As of 12:18 AM on Jan 11 E.S.T. there are 45 comments. On a topic this controversial, there should be hundreds, if not thousands.

        It's really hard to say much on so little info. Somebody was charged with a crime... One of the questions which arises is whether what he's accused of doing would have classified as a crime without the law (i.e. was he giving people pointers on how to blow up US soldiers, and the money to buy the bombs), or is he the fall guy for some racist INS dude ("moderating" the website

    • Um, if he's raising funds, according to SCOTUS, it couldn't have more to do with the first amendment. Money equals speech now, remember?

  • Details? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Nasarius ( 593729 )
    The linked article is very light on details of what exactly he was actually doing.
    • Is also doesn't describe why he provided 'material support', not simply support. What is the difference of a verb/noun and the same verb/noun with 'material' inserted before it? Is it the same as a 'material threat' or 'material evidence', like meaning there is no support or no evidence? Well, this phrase was very unusual before the present US administration, so I'm sure it is valid. Could someone educate me?

  • US vs. al-Hussayen (pdf) (Score:5, Informative)

    by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) * on Saturday January 10, 2004 @01:51PM (#7938633) Homepage Journal
    18 pages of Grand Jury charges in US v. al-Hussayen(pdf) [findlaw.com]

    • Well that's a whole new kettle of fish. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Big Sean O ( 317186 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @02:16PM (#7938818)
      Of course, the media doesn't have time to RTFI(ndictment).

      The indictment says this guy was on a student visa and while he was here we was helping Islamic non-for-profits that have ties to terrorist groups. Student visas are for studying, not running websites for non-for-profits.

      The charges are all immigration violations which say he lied when he signed this immigration applications. Making false statements to the US is a crime. The government alleges he lied because he knew he his visa wouldn't be approved with accurate statements of his work for these not-for-profits.

      • Re:Well that's a whole new kettle of fish. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by identity0 ( 77976 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @04:54PM (#7939983) Journal
        Obviously, if the websites in question were raising funds for terrorist groups, it would be illegal whether or not they were non-profit or if he was a student.

        However, I don't believe there are restrictions against student visa holders working for a non-profit, so long as they are volunteers, not paid employees. People I know have volunteered for a church play, joined a Linux user's group, and done community service while on student visas, all of which are legal as far as I understand.

        Lying on an immigration form is, of course, illegal - as a matter of fact, that's one of the few things they can revoke naturalized citizenship for.
      • This was a GREAT post - it's too bad you have the SUV nonsense as a SIG pointing at an article by Ariana "The private jet I flew here on was going there anyway!" Huffington.
    • Charges I see noteworthy:

      1) They claim that it is this huge crime to do /anything/ other than "study" here in the states (they put much emphasis on the words i will come here "solely for the purpose of pursuing a full course of study" ...) I disagree with to this extent: If he was doing pathetic, grade-wise, yes, then he made false accusations by saying his sole purpose was to come here to study. But if he has passed his classes, & actually moving on into higher education, there should be /nothing/
      • They claim that it is this huge crime to do /anything/ other than "study" here in the states (they put much emphasis on the words i will come here "solely for the purpose of pursuing a full course of study" ...) I disagree with to this extent

        Are you allowed to work on a student visa? I didn't think you were, but then I might be wrong.
        • ( http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Xl9R83G12O0J : www.usavisanow.com/usimmigrationf-1visainfo.htm+am erica+Are+you+allowed+to+work+on+a+student+visa%3F &hl=en&ie=UTF-8 )
          Working and the F-1 Visa

          On Campus Employment - An F-1 student may work up to 20 hours per week while school is in full session and full time during vacations.
          Curricular Practical Training - These are co-op training programs and internships. You must be participating in a work study program that is part of a regular course of s

  • language (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Wonda ( 457426 )
    The nice thing (for governments) is that hardly anyone would know what the messages were about even if we could see them, and anyone translating them differently than the government can just be labeled terrorist.

    How can you ever know the truth with these things?
  • While I recognize the need for privacy rights (my tin foil hat is firmly planted on my head as we speak), I think that the government is probably correct here. Remember when everyone rushed to defend that guy that worked at Intel who was carted off? As it turned out, he had fooled his friends, family, and everyone else, as he was conspiring with and sending money to terrorists.

    (However, I still don't agree with how his case was handled... I don't like these secret courts and such at all.)

  • limits (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Councilor Hart ( 673770 )
    There are limits to free speech, you know.
    If this guy is raising funds for and supporting a war conducted by terrorists. Then by all means, shut him down. Drag his ass into court, not to Guantunamo (sp?) bay.
    Free speech is nice, but not when it is used to kill people, or to attempt to kill people or to encourage people to kill people.

    • Re:limits (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @03:11PM (#7939245) Journal
      Free speech is nice, but not when it is used to kill people, or to attempt to kill people or to encourage people to kill people.

      Hate to play devils advocate, but if its ok to talk about war, its ok to talk about hate speech, there is no difference. Unless you are giving direct orders, with times, dates with specific plans of attack, it should be free speech. Telling people to support a cause, even if it is bloody should be free speech. When you tell people they can't support a cause by using hate crime/terrorism laws, its censorship and a tool to enforce political and moral values.

      And reading the charges in the indictment, it basically says he ran the IANA (Islamic Assembly of North America) and a bunch of sites and even some net radio stations. One of his sites a webblog, someone posted instructions about suicides by bombing aircraft, he owns the site, this means hes the ring leader. And since there are large number of payments (over 3 million dollars) to members of IANA by supporting countries, Cairo, Egypt, Montreal, Canada, Riyadh, Saudia Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan, that further supports hes a terrorist. And he didnt list IANA on his VISA applications for school, so he must have lied. (He only listed ACM & IEEE)

      Sounds like the fed's are regularly reading the weblogs to check for such action. 1 post from someone doesn't make IANA a terrorist group. But I suspect the person who did the post, did it from outside America. (If not, wouldnt Homeland security go after the poster?)

      I think this guy is fucked, with so little fall guys these days, this looks like a win for homeland security. "We Got another one!". And top it off, hes not an American, so he has no free speech rights.

      But I'm playing office chair politics, I dont have any more facts that whats in the indictment, which doesn't read all that above board for the USA. They only listed 1 post about terrorism, and its from someone else.

      BTW, Glad I'm an American and I can still post abo

      Z)FX($@#-
      [NO CARRIER]
      • In the constitution it never says that the rights are given to citizens, but to any person within the geographical boundaries of the country.

        I would quote but it would require me to quote every instance of the word people. *shrug*

        Whether or not our best friends in the Bush machine will recognise this is another story.
        • More to the point, the Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights. It recognizes inalienable rights, endowed to each person by their creator, and enjoins the government from abridging those rights.

          The rights have always been there (philosophically speaking). The Constitution merely acknowledges and protects them (unless you get your name put on somebody's list).
          • I dunno about this one. The constitution recognizes some rights that "shall not be violated". It doesn't say inalienable rights, that is the DoI. And the DoI doesn't say that there are inalienable rights endowed by a creator, it says that we believe there are inalienable rights ("we hold these truths") and we wish to create a government based upon our common beliefs.
            • What is an inalienable right, apart from one that shall not be violated?

              Of course, we don't really believe in the Constitution anymore. Presumption of innocence and habeas corpus is so 1840's.

              *grumble*

      • And top it off, hes not an American, so he has no free speech rights.

        He's in the US, so he's protected by the Constitution. I'm not sure how you missed that.

        • I don't think so. From Maher Arar's statement to the press:

          "Then some police came and searched my bags and copied my Canadian passport. I was getting worried, and I asked what was going on, and they would not answer. I asked to make a phone call, and they would not let me.

          Then a team of people came and told me they wanted to ask me some questions. One man was from the FBI, and another was from the New York Police Department. I was scared and did not know what was going on. I told them I wanted a lawyer.
    • There are limits to free speech, you know

      Exactly, You can't yell "FIRE!!" in crowded theaters becuase it will lead to lots of pushing and shoving with the biting and the kicking. Funding Terrorists is the same deal, just on a larger scale.

  • News you didn't read (Score:5, Informative)

    by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) * on Saturday January 10, 2004 @02:02PM (#7938722) Homepage Journal
    Are you now or ever have been a member of a student organization -- Wall Street Journal | May 29, 2003
    That's why people in this rural university town were so surprised on Feb. 26, when Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrived before dawn in unmarked vehicles at Mr. Hussayen's home to arrest him. The agents rousted him from bed and took him away in handcuffs. Over the next two days, most members of the campus MSA, which Mr. Hussayen formerly headed, were interrogated about their immigration status, extracurricular activities and views of the U.S...

    Homeland Defense is protecting you by getting rid of [209.157.64.200] *dangerous* women and children
    The wife [..] says she'll voluntarily leave the United States within 120 days. The decision by Maha Al-Hussayen put an end to the government's attempts to deport her and her children. Al-Hussayen's attorney says she made the decision after she was threatened with jail and several character witnesses became too intimidated to testify on her behalf. She must leave by March 6th.

    This guy had a *glowing* GPA in grad school here [hootinan.com] and here [nwsource.com]
    Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, a Saudi national working on his computer science doctoral degree, quietly moved his student office from the Computer Science Department into the school's engineering isotope lab, apparently without his adviser's knowledge, according to the documents.
    Al-Hussayen moved into the engineering lab while he was under surveillance by agents assigned to the Inland Northwest Joint Terrorism Task Force, the documents say. Surveillance teams determined Al-Hussayen primarily used the engineering isotope lab after hours.

    And 4 other people you DIDN'T hear about [washingtonpost.com]

  • Freedom/Responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GrendelT ( 252901 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @02:10PM (#7938771) Homepage
    With freedom comes responsibility...
    With Freedom of Speech comes the responsibility of knowing what NOT to say.

    Saying that one wishes death on the president is against the law. So you're not free to say just anything.
    In a time of war if you start propogating sensative information, you will be charged with treason and executed. So you're not free to tell people what you want.

    You are free within limits. Its like, you're free to drive as fast as you want, just not over a certain limit. You're free to go where you want, so long as you do not trespass. You're free to do what you want, so long as you do not infringe on other people's rights and such.

    The whole freedom of speech thing comes becomes paradoxical when you speak out against the US as a whole. I'm all for speaking out against parts of our government, but when you say "The US (as a whole) sucks! and I'm free to say that if I want." Aren't you denouncing the country that gives you such a right? How can it suck then? Sure, you're free to disagree with certain aspects. But when you burn the US flag, aren't you then saying that you reject the US and its rights???
    Oh you aren't? So obviously there is something about this country that you find pleasing...

    The whole thing about freedom comes back to, you're free to do what you want, as long as you dont cross the line. By aiding those who wish harm on the US, that's breaking the law.
    • I'm all for speaking out against parts of our government, but when you say "The US (as a whole) sucks! and I'm free to say that if I want." Aren't you denouncing the country that gives you such a right?

      Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it ? [snpp.com]

    • Re:Freedom/Responsibility (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DreamerFi ( 78710 ) <.moc.ruetnis. .ta. .nhoj.> on Saturday January 10, 2004 @03:55PM (#7939570) Homepage
      You are somewhat right, and you make a good point. However, I don't think you go far enough. I mean, we (I'm not american, but dutch right don't really differ all that much where it really counts) can all celibrate how "Free" we all are because we allow others to say things we disagree with, but the real strength of a Free country comes with the resulting discussion. "so you think we suck because of X. How would you do things differen then?" Of course this doesn't work for quite a lot of folks (on both sides of the discussion) because they are too rigidly set in their opinion, but the real freedom lies in the fact that the discussion can take place and make the country as a whole stronger as a result.

      -John
    • And who's to set those limits?
    • Saying that one wishes death on the president is against the law.
      What?! If I thought it would be really great if Mr. Bush had a heart attack tomorrow, I couldn't say so? Uh...maybe in YOUR country, but I live in the U.S.

    • Re:Freedom/Responsibility (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Saying that one wishes death on the president is against the law."

      This is just rubbish. I can say I wish death on the president. I can say I wish someone would kill the president. I can even say that I wish I had the guts to kill the president. All perfectly legally, just like I can say all of those things about you.

      What I can't say is "I'm going to kill the president", unless of course you put it in quotes like I just did, because then you are only mentioning the phrase and not using it :)

      The president
    • but when you say "The US (as a whole) sucks! and I'm free to say that if I want." Aren't you denouncing the country that gives you such a right?

      Yep. But you are quite entitled to do so. It may even not be hypocritical. Freedom of speech is not a right granted by the government, or the country. Freedom of speech is an inherent right, not one that is granted to you. Any government has to remove that right. Their constitutional inability to do so is a small mitigating factor is they actually want to
    • SHAME ON YOU!!! There is such a thing as constitutionally protected speech. ANYONE in this country can (indeed, under certain situations they have a requirement to!) reject the U.S. as a whole. The best example I can give is when one burns a United States flag. This is CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH!! It has even been declared so by the Supreme Court! You and your ilk would have this expression ILLEGAL! This makes YOU the terrorists, NOT HIM! People like you frankly scare me. You THINK you know wh
    • The whole freedom of speech thing comes becomes paradoxical when you speak out against the US as a whole

      Freedom of speech is acknowledged in the constitution specifically for the purpose of speaking out against the government.

      The framers of the constitution were members of sovereign states who advocated giving limited power to a federal government.

      The bill of rights simply states certain rights that we are not willing to give up for the convenience of a centralized government. These rights protect t
  • Sami Omar al-Hussayen was in the U.S. on an expired visa at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and is believed to have ties to close associates of Osama bin Laden. He is accused of doing computer work that would be used "to recruit and to raise funds for violent holy war, or jihad, in Israel, Chechnya and elsewhere, which have involved destruction of property, kidnapping, maiming and murder."

    Read more [worldnetdaily.com]

    • Sami's visa was current at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and it was current when he was arrested. I know this because I'm the human resources contact for the department Sami worked for at one point here at the University of Idaho, and I helped him take care of some visa issues about 6 months before he was arrested. Furthermore, our HR department is incredibly anal and rigid about foreign students' paperwork--we are notified several weeks in advance of any expirations, deadlines, or other issues that may a
  • You're next ;)

    Some of the information and suggestions on /. and in the comments is about as terrorist-aiding as information gets. Time for them to run!

    Hmm, now that I think of it, the NYTime had better hide too...

  • campaign finance reform (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Goldsmith ( 561202 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @02:43PM (#7938963)
    The Supreme court already has decided where the line between free speech and controllable behavior is, and it comes when you start throwing money around. Raising money for a cause is not totally free speech. This is why we are able to have campaign finance laws.

    In case you havn't been paying attention for the last two years, the US has been shutting down groups who raise money for terrorists left and right.

  • How to Win friends and Influence people (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ever wonder why people don't like america ?

    Disclaimer: I am not attacking you, or your country, I am voicing an opinion that is not entirely mine but a mixture of many people, rather than modding me down , reply with valid and thought provoking responces. Many of my friends are American , every american person I have met has been a nice/good person.

    America driven by fear now spys on/raids arabs living in America just incase they bomb someone.

    Americans fear anyone even themselves, their neighbours and t
    • America driven by fear now spys on/raids arabs living in America just incase they bomb someone.

      If the arabs hadn't hijacked aircraft and used them to kill thousands of people, that wouldn't be the case. I've always been opposed to prejudice, but I've become prejudiced since 9/11. Muslims are not reasonable, and talking to them doesn't work. They started a war. Now they are whining about the results.

      I'm also not in favor of invading other countries without good reason, which is what we did in Iraq.

  • *sigh* (Score:4, Informative)

    by eyeball ( 17206 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @04:26PM (#7939809) Journal
    From some article text:


    The indictment represents the first time the government has charged that using the Internet for recruitment, fund-raising, and other purposes constitutes aid under a law that makes it illegal to provide "material support or resources" for terrorist activity. Hussayen's lawyer, David Nevin, said he believes "there is substantial question about the constitutionality of this charge," contending that operating websites falls within Hussayen's First Amendment rights. Nevin denied that Hussayen has raised money for jihad or posted calls for violence. Hussayen is accused of moderating an Arabic-language e-mail group that posted instructions on how to train at a terrorist camp and issued an "urgent appeal" to Muslims in the military last February to provide information for use in selecting terror targets.


    If he's being accused of these, then I see no problem.

    Sorry, but I don't want to live in a country where people can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater without consequences.

    • Re:*sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)

      by elendel ( 229983 )
      *sigh*

      From the article text from your post:

      The indictment represents the first time the government has charged that using the Internet for recruitment, fund-raising, and other purposes constitutes aid under a law that makes it illegal to provide "material support or resources" for terrorist activity. Hussayen's lawyer, David Nevin, said he believes "there is substantial question about the constitutionality of this charge," contending that operating websites falls within Hussayen's First Amendment rig

  • Like many Slashdotting libertarians, I was greatly affected by the 9/11 craze that's been sweeping this great land of ours, America. I'm still very much for civil and economic liberties, but we must protect ourselves from the terrorist who could be just around the corner. I hope the government arrests my next-door neighbor next: I think he's kind of shady; and, with a tan, he looks like he could be Middle Eastern if you use your imagination.

  • The cops in Idaho can chop off this creep's hands, rightly or wrongly, but another creep will just take his place. In another country where the US doesn't have jurisdiction, but which is indistuingishable on the Internet. The actual terror fighting will go after the subhumans who are organizing and training the people that this jerk was recruiting. That's why repressing expression is foolish - it's practical only to halt the actual bad guys, not those who just communicate about it.
    • Sami is my former co-worker, and is a decent, hard-working, and polite guy who also happens to be a caring father and very considerate husband. I know him pretty well through my work here at the University of Idaho, and needless to say, I don't take kindly to your suggestion that his hands should be cut off. You aren't even managing to make a decent ethnic slur--fundamentalist Islam law, or sharia, requires thieves' left hands to be amputated, not both. Examine the facts--not the innuendo, not the hyster
      • Pietra, I don't know what your own background is, but it's irrelevant to your confusion about my comments. Islam is not a "race", but a religion, a belief. Anyone, regardless of their family, can be muslim, and anyone can adhere to Sharia, muslim or not - it's a learned behavior. So even if I were commenting on the barbarity of some Sharia "justice", my comments would be irrelevant to "racism", and no ethnic slur. When we refer to Ghandi's "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", are we slurring Ha
  • Many of the "terrorist organizations" shut down by the federal government have been Islamic charities. It's too bad they don't seem to get a trial to defend the accusation that they're linked to terrorists. I have very little doubt that legitimate do-gooders have been caught in the dragnet.
  • If he is moderating an e-mail list regarding Islamic non-profit organizations, and has people posting opinions about the US, no matter how radical, he is in the right. That's what free speech is all about.

    If he has people planning or giving calls to arms to commit terrorist acts against any people, groups, etc., then he is very much in the wrong if he doesn't kick them off the list. It's pretty plain and simple. If I walk through the streets with a sign that says I hate blacks, whites, Nintendo owners,

Slashdot Top Deals

This is now. Later is later.

Close