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.
Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:4, Funny)
Liberal elites who never heard of the 1st amendment.
That'd be hysterical.
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:4, Interesting)
Free Press's ignorance and MURDEROUS HATEMONGERING (Score:5, Informative)
I did not know Sami personally but I was aware of his living conditions. By all appearances he DID NOT import 100's of thousands. IIRC he lived in average to low quality student appartments (like most students) and didn't have any evidences of being outstandingly rich. Even if he imported any serious amount of money it would have to be declared with customs.
Of the Mulslim students I knew of he was not one of the scary ones. There were a few who I met and talked to.
At a time when we had dozens and dozens of Saudi and middle-eastern students fleeing the country Sami stayed. What thanks he got. Trumped up charges (helped setup a website and real audio stream) and got the book thrown at him (still 8 counts of visa fraud & related charges that could get him deported).
The DoJ's case was such a joke. Fabricated evidence like the mistranslations (was it Arab Lybian Project or Arab Library Project?? even the CIA couldn't keep the translation consistent!) clearly showed that the government's case was weak from the start.
Re:Free Press's ignorance and MURDEROUS HATEMONGER (Score:3, Interesting)
I trolled there once with some bad words about RR and they threatened to come beat me up. I think their lawyers might be more effective.
Re:Free Press's ignorance and MURDEROUS HATEMONGER (Score:3, Funny)
I think their lawyers might be more effective.
At what, beating you up?
It seems to be part of a general social breakdown. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's interesting that you say it is a new McCarthyism. I had come to the same conclusion. We are seeing a general social breakdown in the United States. Consider the Enron fraud [enronfraud.com] and the WorldCom fraud [worldcomstockfraud.com] and the Tyco fraud [edgarsnyder.com], for example. Large companies are self-destructing.
The U.S. government is another example: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org]
McCarthyism cannot be blamed on McCarthy. He was just one crazy person. There are always crazy people. It was the people who participated and didn't speak up that changed McCarthy from one crazy man to a social movement called McCarthyism.
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.
"...most heinous ongoing crime since the 1940s?" (Score:5, Interesting)
"The guy was complicit in the most heinous ongoing crime since the 1940s..."
What about the U.S. government killing 2,000,000 Vietnamese? Where does that fit in?
What about the fact that the U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since the Second World War: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories [futurepower.net]. Where does that fit in?
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:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:3, Informative)
Best to just steer clear of the Internet bottom feeders.
Which just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:4, Informative)
The UN was found guilty of supporting the illeagl war and the war crimes that were carried out by the Contras. "The moral equivalents of our founding fathers" according to Reagan.
What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, just out of curiosity, I decided to track down a couple of conservative forums. I was curious as to some conservative viewpoints on a couple things.
And I couldn't *find* any. Liberal forums are all over the place, but conservative forums are *damned* hard to find. Finally, I ran across freerepublic.com and took a look. Freerepublic was the *only* active conservative forum that I ran across, and it seemed to be quite small, incredibly amateurish, with rampant misspellings and grammatical errors, and boasted an absolute horde of *dumb* users. If people made the kind of logic errors they do on freerepublic on kuro5hin, they'd get immediately called out.
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:3, Funny)
That's because conservatives just get their instructions from Rush and start ditto-ing. No need for discussion, that's too liberal.
Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (Score:4, Funny)
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'.
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.
Right vs Left (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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
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. Howev
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)
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
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
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.
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:4, Interesting)
*****
To: Jeff Head
I am sorry...but the Uncle who was sending him money, for him to have been questioned after 911 because he was at the same hotel with some of the terrorists who crashed the Pentagon,
He did receive a stipend, yes. From the link you provided:
While AL-HUSSAYEN was a student in the United States, he received a stipend for living expenses from a foreign source.
I live in Idaho. I read the paper every day, in print and on-line versions, and your claims regarding his Uncle I've read nowhere else.
Here is a link to a message I posted on Slashdot which still sums up how I feel about this affair:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=92296&cid=7
*****
Pretty threatening and defamatory, wasn't it?
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:3, Informative)
I had two userIDs booted from the site due to posting evidence contrary to previous post's allegations (from government documents [nsarchive.org] no less) before I realized that their definition of "free" is the freedom to lie, spin, eliminate opposing viewpoints, and hide evidence to the contrary of a revisionist conservative political platform.
At least on the so-called "liberal" sites [plastic.com], a little debate is always welcome, and unpopular viewpoints are moderarated fairly if they are argued appropri
Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (Score:3, Interesting)
Map? [hostfile.com]
Thousands of Muslims living in "our" country? Thousands?! Where does this guy live? Who doesn't know that millions of Muslims live in this country along with "us"? Just plain shocking.
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 Go
First Ammendment (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how much jurors do not know (Score:3, Informative)
Check out this site about jury nullification [greenmac.com]. The real questions the jury should be answering are: "does the law make sense", not "is it legal or not". The job of deciding whether it is legal or not has already been decided by the prosecution and the judge before they picked a jury.
--
Re:It's amazing how much jurors do not know (Score:5, Informative)
The juror quoted is being instructed to the effect that the free speech is far broader than the juror expected. That is, the judge is informing the jury that the defendant is much harder to convict on these charges than they might have thought. The judge is not telling the jury what the verdict should be, nor is he encouraging them to convict.
This is, in fact, the point of the instructions. The judge is supposedly an expert in fine points of law, while the jurors are not. Thus, you can remind or inform them of those details that matter to the case. If, as you propose, jury nullification were a great thing, in this case ignoring the law in favor of (potential) jury whim would have resulted in a conviction, not an acquittal.
Re:It's amazing how much jurors do not know (Score:5, Informative)
No.
And, no. The jury is there to decide if the person actually committed the crime in question, not whether the law makes sense. While jury nullification is useful for the worst abuses of the legislative process, I would prefer that they generally stick to deciding guilt or innocence.
Remember, the last high-profile use of jury nullification was OJ. It wasn't that they thought that he didn't do it, but that they didn't want riots (a case of the law not making sense, taking into account what could happen).
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:It's amazing how much jurors do not know (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit. How do you do that if you can't even figure out what the law means or how it could possibly be applied? I've been on a jury, and I've been there.
It's an interesting phenomenon, too, when you come up against this in real life. Our jury had determined for sure that the defendent was guilty on the first count. The second count was a pretty strangely worded law. It was interesting in that situation to see which people "defaulted" to guilty or not guilty once it was clear that we were not going to get a better interpretation of the law from the judge.
But I don't think any of us viewed this as "jury nullification," which the way it is ordinarily described seems like a (constitutionally protected) form of civil disobedience. We weren't motivated by any sort of moral thing, just by confusion.
Re:Insightful? You've got to be kidding! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jury Nullification... (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat 5th grade? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we possibly force potentially a hundred million people to go repeat 5th grade american history?
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 out
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).
Re:Repeat 5th grade? (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:5, Informative)
And the jurors, while you can make fun of their lack of knowledge about the law, seemed to take the time to actually understand the law as it is written. Whew, that's a cool concept!
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:First Amendment Message? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or we could instead do what law enforcement is supposed to do: Keep an eye on people when there is probably cause, not just because of causal factors or skin color or nationality. Do you have any idea how many perfectly innocent foreign Is
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:5, Insightful)
-B
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:4, Funny)
Once he found out it was republican americans he changed his tune. He didn't even call for bombing a state let alone turning the US into a parking lot.
What a fuckwad.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:oppressed by whom? (Score:5, Informative)
Ethnic, religious or nationalist conflicts are abundant even in todays oh so civilized western democraties. Think of the Basques in North Spain, the anglo-irish conflict in North Ireland, or the bashing of all things french in the U.S. (and vice versa the official loathing of everything considered american in France.)
The arab world is not much different in this regard. There are ethnic minorities in the mainly arab states (berbers, kurds, turks...), there are different interpretations of Islam (Sunni and Shiia as the most prominent, Ismaelites and other smaller sects). There are non arab islamic states, which get always mixed into the arab soup in western news (Iran for instance is partly persian in the south and turk [asari] in the north, with kurds spread everywhere. So it is not even an arab country at all.) The largest islamic country in the world is not even in the Middle East. Indonesia is located in the Southeast asian archipel.
But to call this a "tribal system" is just an offspring of a theory of an own superiority theory we should abandon as soon as possible, because it doesn't help us in any way. The state of the arabian world is quite similar today to the state of the western world at the begin of the 20th century: Old, dying monarchies, some quite questionable democracies, civil wars either boiling or going on under the surface. The western world managed to kill more than 100 Mio people in the conflicts between 1850 and 1950. Compared with this achievement the arabian world is a place of piece and security.
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.
Thuringi
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Interesting)
Krakauer's book is not about separation of church and state, the ACLU, or freedom of or from religion. It is about what happens when faith gets carried to radical extremes, and its point is that the US has extremists that are as bad or worse than the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're about 600 years, developmentally, behind you guys.
They're right now in the "temper tantrum" stage. The Christians embarked on the Crusades at this point in their development.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:5, Funny)
They're right now in the "temper tantrum" stage. The Christians embarked on the Crusades at this point in their development.
Ah, you mean they invaded Middle Eastern nations with little justification, a good deal of religious and emotional influence, and a lot of money and politics involved?
Sounds absolutely barbaric.
I'm quite glad that all that is hundreds of years behind us.
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Insightful)
Christian Extremists (Score:5, Informative)
> you can guarantee you'd have Christians across the country
> outraged by this and telling everyone.
What makes you think that the lynchings have stopped?
Examples that spring to my mind include Matthew Shepard and the lynchings in the U.S. Navy a few years back.
What about the bombing of abortion clinics?
Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
O'Connor's speech was affirmed by the Vatican and published widely in Catholic newspapers. It even made CNN. So if you think Christian churches are turning a blind eye to Matthew Shepard, abortion violence and other things done ostensibly in God's name, then all that shows is you're not paying attention.
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: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:First Amendment Message? (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, just like I'm not obligated to feel outrage over the prisoner abuse in Iraq.
Except that I do. Beacause I'm a person who wants to stand by my principles and who opposes torture, even if it is done by US soldiers.
Sorry, but if moderate Muslims are against terrorism, then why *aren't* they outraged. If you aren't outraged, then you are essentially condoning the terrorism.
I don't believe in a black-and-white world. It is perfectly acceptable for others to hate the United States. We have done a lot of things that are not acceptable. I am outraged at what we are doing right now.
But terrorism is unacceptable. Just is it's not OK for the Isrelis to bomb apartments, it's not acceptable for Palestinains to bomb Isreli restaurants. It's not OK for you to kill another human except in extremely limited circumstances (and, yes, I am against capital punishment).
If you cannot take a stand against torture and murder, then what do you stand for? If you cannot feel outraged that your people are killing innocent people, if you cannot feel outraged at the decapitation of an American soldier, then what do you stand for?
Muslim moderates *ARE* obligated to take a stand against extremism. It is *NOT* acceptable to stand quietly while such unacceptable acts are commited. Just as I am obligated to take a stand against the actions of US soldiers (and to take a stand against US policy), Muslims are obligated to take a stand against murder.
Unless, of course, they believe it is acceptable.
Sidenote:
I agree that Christians aren't exactly clean either. Religous extremeists are dangerous whatever their belif system is. Conservative Christians scare me as well - I, for one, believe that religion and politics should stay distinctly seperate.
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
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:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the Taliban were negotiating with the US prior to 9/11 about handing Bin Laden over to a third country:
"ZDF television quoted Kabir Mohabbat, an Afghan-American businessman, as saying he tried to broker a deal between the Americans and the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who were sheltering Bin Laden. He quoted the Taliban foreign minister, Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil, as saying: "You can have him whenever the Americans are re
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 mo
Re:First Amendment Message? (Score:3, Informative)
FACT: Christians torture and kill their prisoners - this torture is extreme and cruel. [guardian.co.uk]
Islam has at least as diverse and wide ranging views as any other religion. Islam had their Renaissance centuries before the "West" got in on the act.
Why not try researching your topic - better still - moderators, why not try thinking before your moderate?
Went to school (Score:4, Interesting)
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: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: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.
Islamic websites. (Score:5, Interesting)
HOWEVER, recently I've witnessed the influx of HATE sites claiming to be "islamic" sites. The preech hate and praise desruction. I'm all for free speech, but the freedom of a group or indivduals aren't absolute, and it shouldn't infringe or in anyway threaten the freedoms of others. In these sites they are calling for attacks on western intrests everywhere. They cheer for teh killing of westerners and/or Chrstians and calling for more acts like teh ones we saw in Saudi. I think the freedom of speech those ppl. have should be revoked because they very grossly abused.
bare in mind I'm a Muslim, and I'm not flaming Islam or have any hidden agenda.
Re:Islamic websites. (Score:3, Informative)
America (Score:3, Interesting)
America *used* to be a shining light for freedom in our world. We used to fight for the rights of oppressed people, fight for freedom of speech, and label anyone who dared try to limit our God given constitutional rights as traitors and deal with them accordingly. Then, in a few days in September 2001, that all changed for some reason.
Now, we label those who want Americans to have unrestricted freedoms as traitors. We lable those who speak their minds and take their liberties seriously "terrorists" and we crucify anyone who doesn't tout whatever party line happens to be in effect at the moment (it really is a moving target).
Cases like Mr. Al-Hussayen, the Iraqi prison abuses, and countless others serve as a sad reminder that this is not the America that many of us grew up in or really want to be a part of. In the Reagen years, they say we felt a sense of national pride. We were proud to be Americans. Now, I think we simply feel a sense of national shame.
Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming President Bush for all of this. I do believe that he is a good man trying to do what he believes is right for his country. But there are others in our government who, for whatever reasons, seem to have set up another of the worlds great evil empires and are weilding that power to go after people like Sami Omar Al-Hussayen.
We wonder why people the world over dispise us as a people. We wonder why people think our government and political system are evil. We wonder why nobody trusts us. I'm sure Mr. Al-Hussayen, many Iraqi citizens, and a few American citizens could give us a lot of reasons why.
It is good news that he was found not guilty. Unfortunately, like another poster here says, this won't end the governments persecution of innocent people. They will simply view him as one that got away, draft legislation to tighten loopholes, take away a few more freedoms, and continue the fight. Man, what a year this 1984 is...
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:America (Score:4, Interesting)
-Ted
Re:America (Score:5, Informative)
Murder [go.com]
Rape [villagevoice.com]
Sodomy [newyorker.com]
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 emplo
America is not alone (Score:3, Interesting)
"Don't get me wrong, I am not blaming President Bush for all of this."
I wailed when George Bush was declared victor. At that point I had decided to stay away from all news till either President Bush was defeated or retired. September changed all that, for about a year I was really behind the President. I was even for the war in Iraq and the war changed everything I felt.
I think this administration has had its pound of flesh. I thought I knew what I was about. Going into the war, I had concluded the war
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
Why was he deported? (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of legal circus has been set up, when you either spend time in jail or get kicked out of the country? Was he really here illegally, or is the government just deporting him because they know he doesn't have the resources to fight TWO legal battles back to back? Neat way to get rid of the problem, from a Dept of Homeland Security asshat point of view.
Re:Why was he deported? (Score:4, Informative)
The "making false statements" are based on affadavits provided with visa applications that he did not work while he was in the US.
There was a hung jury on 8 counts related to his visa fraud charge... so he may still escape deportation. However, since his wife and child already went back to Saudi Arabia it doesn't look like he'll stay.
A couple of interesting things... (Score:4, Informative)
The website with the actual mailing list (which is named, along with about 10 others in the above PDF) is here [islamway.com].
The thing about websites, forums, and mailing lists, is that you can never get the true feel from a description designed to make it sound horrible. For all we know, the messages that they read could be considered the trolls of the mailing list. Even if they weren't, Internet forums is still a sticky subject. People say a lot of stupid things, discussions can get heated, people can troll, people can exaggerate their beliefs to get a better response, and sometimes there are just nuts who use the Internet to let our their ideas that no one will listen to in real life. The sites could have been designed to support and recruit terrorists, but you can never really know, and there certainly wasn't enough evidence to point fingers at a moderator of the mailing list.
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.
Stomp on dem Libartays (Score:3, Funny)
What??? Are you saying with prison pictures, anti-terrorism bills and customs finger printing that the system still works??!!! Hold me. I feel faint.
Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Sweet fscking Jesus! This is seriously scary stuff. You Americans are always on about Freedom, Democracy and Human Rights. But it seems to me that what this illustrates more than anything is that the average American simply doesn't know and/or care, when it can come as a surprise, that your constitution gives you these rights. No wonder that the GWB can get away with anything!
Now, to look at this from another angle. You know, when people are starving, all they think about is food, and when they are thirsty, nothing seems more attractive than water. So why are subjects like 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'human rights' so important to Americans?
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.
Liberty for non-Muslims only (Score:5, Interesting)
"The media down plays the fact that thousands of Muslims ARE living in our Country!" - SheLion
Perhaps nobody has explained to everyone yet that Muslim is not a synonym for terrorist. It's extremely disheartening to see Americans who hold this belief so readily and elicits memories of Japanese concentration camps in America during World War II.
Have we really learned anything from past mistakes?
Sweet justice... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm in shock too (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I don't know how the lawyers let someone intelligent enough to understand the first amendment survive the jury selection process. Usually they weed out such troublemakers....
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.