Immaterial Support

Idaho grad student Sami al-Hussayen has been acquited on charges of providing aid to terrorists by running pro-jihad Islamist websites. The jury said it was unable to connect the dots between al-Hussayen's work and direct support for terror groups. Hearteningly, they seem to have recognized that merely verbal support for a cause, however noxious, is protected speech.

Comments

[Shawn Smith]

Although they did realize that "merely verbal support for a cause, however noxious, is protected speech," This link contains a somewhat more troubling message. One of the jurors, John Steger, said that, "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." That tells me that he had the idea that if an idea is objectionable enough (maybe like the nearly-headless Nick headline a few weeks ago), you should be able to lock someone up for it. Thankfully, he appears to have taken the instructions seriously, and is now more aware of American's first amendment rights and responsibilities.

[Rick Barton]

Yes! We are ALL freer for this decision. Also, our government does however directly finance terrorism, albeit state terrorism.

[Rick Barton]

This acquittal ia a great credit to our Republic. Liberty lives on in America despite the efforts of the Feds. These ridiculous charges should never have been brought against Sami al-Hussayen.

The government owes this guy for what they put him thru. Can't he sue for wrongful prosecution or something? The Feds need to be taught a lesson.

[Ken Shultz]

I can't believe we gave him a jury trial! Doesn't the judge realize that we're at war?

[Dave Straub]

I don't know, I don't seem to recall Richard Jewell getting much retribution for his troubles. Precedent has been set.

[Czar]

Good. I think just about every sane person in Idaho (about 95% of us, thank you very much, no matter what the retards in the media like to pretend) was rooting for him.

[Jack]

Ray,

People here are probably more concerned about the behavior of various law enforcement agencies because, by the FBI's own statistics, on US soil an American citizen is more likely to be "justifiably" killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist.

Check the reports on police shootings starting with the 1999 report here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/99cius.htm

And then compare those with murders by explosives (as a proxy for "deaths by terrorism", since the FBI doesn't provide figures on that) under the "Victims by weapon" listing

Using the FBI's numbers, there's an average of 352 justifiable killings annually by law enforcement (since killings that are ruled non-justified are rolled into the regular murder statistics, the real average is probably over 360, but let's use the lower number for your benefit). Meanwhile, there's an average of 34 deaths by explosive.

Now, let's average in the 9/11 deaths (say 3100, since the final total keeps changing) plus the whopping 5 anthrax victims for the 10 year period 1993 to 2003 (which also includes the OKC bombing incidentally): 344.5 annually

In other words, even factoring in the *deadliest terrorist attack of all time* (i.e. a total statistical outlier, which shouldn't be the basis for day-to-day policy decisions), you have about a 2 to 3% greater likelihood of being killed by law enforcement. If you exclude 9/11 and just consider the normal "background level" of terrorism, you're about 10 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement.

And of course there's the further issue that terrorists pose no meaningful threat *at all* to the liberty of the average American. The only entities with the ability to seriously infringe on your personal liberty are the various levels of American government (federal/state/local).

[Ray]

I'm as wary of government meddling as the next sane person but why do so many automatically defend anyone who is against our government?

In letting the whole thing go to a jury trial it seemed to me that they were trying to connect his speech with actual support and not trying to prosecute on speech alone. Causing imminent action can be interpreted a little wider than some might realize.

So it's great that our individual rights have held up under trial and during a war nonetheless, but did a bad guy just go free on a technicality?

Of course the guy is going to be tailed and bugged for the remainder of his life in the US so I'm not really concerned with him. But why is the guy that is against, not only our government but me as an American - because I'm an American, why does he get an automatic pass in the views of so many around here?

[Ray]

Jack,

?an American citizen is more likely to be "justifiably" killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist.?

Keeping in mind of course that the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist on US soil is a statistical zero. This means that I?m more likely to be killed by a snow bird in a Pontiac than either a terrorist or a law officer but I don?t stay up late at night worrying about it.

I have a healthy dose of distrust for our government as I believe any rational person should. However, you and the mainstream of this site have taken this distrust to an extreme measure. In clinical terms it would simply be termed paranoia.

Bureaucracies by their nature will grow until checked from an external source but I do not buy into the dark and sinister outlook that my government is out to get me.

With that in mind, when someone expresses an opinion that I should die because of my citizenship, I automatically hope that we can get something prosecutable on the guy because he is potentially dangerous.

Your view, the view shared by a majority here, is to automatically assume he is innocent and our government is guilty.

The likelihood of my being killed by terrorists being so low (considering their oft stated zeal in killing me and other Americans) is actually a glowing testament to our law enforcement community.

Terrorists are an indirect threat to my liberty if our government were to continue to treat terrorism as strictly a law enforcement issue. Given more slack measures of taking the fight overseas and not allowing domestic law enforcement to do their job, we would have more attacks on our own soil. After a dozen or so substantial terrorists attacks here at home, what do you think would happen to our everyday freedoms? People would be so scared they would be begging to give up a few rights, just keep the terrorists out of their malls and office buildings.

[J]

Ray said: "With that in mind, when someone expresses an opinion that I should die because of my citizenship, I automatically hope that we can get something prosecutable on the guy because he is potentially dangerous."

He didn't say you or anyone else should die because of your citizenship. He helped to maintain a web page, which I believe he said he did as part of some sort of outreach program. The prosecutors were unable to provide convincing evidence that he was in any other way connected to terrorists groups or advocated any sort of violence.

"I do not buy into the dark and sinister outlook that my government is out to get me."

Neither do most people here. But the government doesn't have to have dark and sinister motives for there to be serious negative consequences of their actions.

"In clinical terms it would simply be termed paranoia."

A strong skepticism of government actions is healthy and beneficial to society as a whole, not "paranoia." When anyone has that much power, it's always a good idea to keep a very close eye on them. That doesn't mean ascribing dark and sinister motives to them; it means recognizing that the costs of misuse increase with the amount of power.
On a side note, suggesting that the mainstream of this site (whatever that means; as has been discussed a fair bit lately, there's quite a diverse range of views represented here, including regular posters who would almost surely agree with you) have a clinically recognized mental defect probably isn't the best way to generate productive discussion.

[SR]

Ray wrote: "Your view, the view shared by a majority here, is to automatically assume he is innocent and our government is guilty."

My God, a man presumed innocent until proven guilty?!? What kind of madcap craziness is *that*!?!

[M. Simon]

I assume he is guilty.

The government just hasn't found the evidence.

BTW 9/11 wasn't a statistical event. It was an intentional act. In addition future acts may not be independent of 9/11.

[Gadfly]

I wouldn't call getting locked up and tried before a jury for running a blog a "pass".

[Ray]

gadfly,

No, a pass from you and the regulars here.

Here's the basic pattern:

American citizen engages in hateful rhetoric, calling for my death and this country's demise.

The Feds perk up their ears because this is a very probable lead to those that would actually carry out such violence.

My knee jerk reaction is that they will find something prosecutable on the jerk.

Your knee jerk reaction is to defend the dirtbag, not knowing if he genuinely had any connections to real terrorists or not.

It doesn't matter to you and others around here if such people are genuinely guilty of attempting to bring harm to innocent people.

I'm as leary as anyone of the government in general but the norm around here is a very dark world where our government is out to get us at every turn.

If it were as bad as all that, we wouldn't be free to engage in this discussion right here and you would've never heard of Sami's case. It would have just been dealth with.

[Gus]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

[Rick Barton]

"did a bad guy just go free on a technicality?"

The 1st Amemdement is not a "technicality"!

"This irreconcilable conflict is between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the state."

Ronald Reagan

[thoreau]

I assume he is guilty.

The government just hasn't found the evidence.

So you believe government employees when they tell you "We know this is right, we just can't prove it!" What if the government employees tell you quite confidently that gun control saves lives, but they just can't find the evidence?

[Ray]

The context of my declaring the bulk of posters here paranoid was in stating that any rational person should have a healthy distrust for the government.

But when that distrust becomes so strong that one starts to see evil machinations behind every government action, it becomes paranoia and greatly reduces a person's objective reasoning.

The guy was taking part in the promulgation of ideas that have at their core, the destruction of my country and my death personally.

That in and of itself is not illegal and I never proposed that he should be considered guilty before a trial.

The point that I have already made quite clearly is that I hoped that they would find something prosecutable on the guy. He obviously hates America and favors the destruction of our way of life and all of the people and their inherent rights. That much is inarguable; so, I hoped that they would find something prosecutable on the guy.

The mainstream around here takes the opposite course. Because of their knee jerk anti-establishment attitude, they hoped this guy would get off regardless of prosecutable evidence and hopefully the government would get a black eye in the process.

So this is about your initial response to the case, regardless of guilt or innocence.

The rational mind sees the inherent evil in what this guy is involved with and hopes that they find something prosecutable. This is not the same as wanting the guy locked regardless of what they find i.e. presumed guilty before trial.

The irrational mindset so prevalent around here simply wants the government to lose, regardless of any guilt or innocence.

The high strung emotionalism that causes this irrational paranoia will of course argue against that but the proof already exists; on this thread and so many others.

Anyone reading this thread who is also detached enough to think about what I'm writing can go back and read numerous threads on similar subjects.

The pattern is that of the dark and sinister government forces out to get us. Better that we not even question someone connected to terrorists outreach programs.

[J]

Ray said: ?He obviously hates America and favors the destruction of our way of life and all of the people and their inherent rights. That much is inarguable?

No, actually that?s pretty obviously arguable. From an earlier article from the same newspaper linked here: ?Attorneys countered that Al-Hussayen simply maintained Web sites as a volunteer for IANA, a legitimate Islamic outreach group, and was not responsible for the content. They say much of the content that prosecutors claim supports terrorist groups was composed of news stories "cut and pasted" onto the Web sites ? information that is constitutionally protected speech.? Why is it so inconceivable to you that Al-Hussayen was simply trying to support his local Islamic community by volunteering his computer expertise to a local Islamic outreach group?

It?s not immediately obvious from the IANA (Islamic Assembly of North America) web page what their political views are ? the ?goals,? ?principles,? and ?activites? sections in the introduction contain a lot of vague statements that such introductions often contain. But if you go to the ?conferences? link, you?ll see that this very weekend in Ann Arbor IANA is sponsoring a conference containing such anti-American terrorist propaganda as ?Inspiring Lessons from Contemporary Muslims? (those bastards!), ?Self-worth? (those monsters!), ?Are you a good citizen?? (oh, the humanity!), and ?Diseases of the Heart: Symptoms and Cure? (won?t somebody think of the children?!?). This obviously doesn?t prove that they don?t have any terrorist motives or members, but I don?t know what kind of ?irrational paranoia? would lead someone to conclude that Al-Hussayen ?inarguably? and ?obviously? has it in for America and Americans.

Ray said: ?Because of their knee jerk anti-establishment attitude, they hoped this guy would get off regardless of prosecutable evidence and hopefully the government would get a black eye in the process.?

Except of course that no one here said he should get off regardless of prosecutable evidence. The fact is there was no concrete evidence of a meaningful terrorist connection, and as such people here are justifiably pleased that he was acquitted. And some are also questioning the prosecution itself because the actual evidence for his role in providing aid to terrorists was so lacking. If there was any stronger evidence, the response here would certainly have been different.

Ray said: ?But when that distrust becomes so strong that one starts to see evil machinations behind every government action, it becomes paranoia and greatly reduces a person's objective reasoning.? and ?The pattern is that of the dark and sinister government forces out to get us.?

You know, no matter how many times you repeat this crap it?s not going to become any more true. The majority of people on this page do not think that ?dark and sinister government forces [are] out to get us.?

Ray said: "Anyone reading this thread who is also detached enough to think about what I'm writing can go back and read numerous threads on similar subjects."

And you with your wealth of detached objectivity would probably do well to read this and other threads a little more closely, because you?re really good at ascribing to large numbers of people here views that they never expressed.

[Rick Barton]

Ray:

"Because of their knee jerk anti-establishment attitude..."

It's a pro-Constitution and pro-liberty attitude.

"The irrational mindset so prevalent around here simply wants the government to lose, regardless of any guilt or innocence."

Sometimes I do want the government to lose regardless of any guilt or innocence because the laws are unjust. Victimless crimes, such as drug crimes are examples. There will likely be many more examples. In the future, some will probably be connected to the Patriot Act.

But in this case, the accused was clearly innocent and the acquittal is a victory for the 1st amendment rights of all of us. We should share the news of this case with the world, particularly the Mid-east to show them that our system of constitutional protections has the capacity to check an over stepping government.

And yes, of course we should ridicule the government about this, and apologize for them too. Shame on them. This case should never have been brought.

Better that we not even question someone connected to terrorists outreach programs.

An obvious fallacy. You're saying that because we applaud the government taking what was a well deserved black eye for trying to trample constitutional rights, that we also think that they shouldn't "question someone".

And speaking of terror, our government is more than just "connected to terrorists outreach programs", they are using our tax money to finance terrorists. Albeit, state terrorists.

[thoreau]

I posed this question before and I'll pose it again: My understanding is that the guy maintained a web site that contained a wide variety of material, that only a fraction of the material was odious and anti-American, and that he didn't author any of the odious material.

Suppose that he was white, US-born, and non-Muslim. I wonder how many people would presume that he endorses the odious content, or presume that his ties to terrorists run deeper than what has been revealed thus far.

I'm reminded of a case reported in Salon.com a few years ago. (Yes, yes, I know, people here don't like Salon.com.) A naturalized US citizen from Somalia ran his own business wiring money overseas. After 9/11 the federal government shut down his business based on allegations that terrorists had done transactions with him. Eventually the feds recanted the allegations, but for several months he was barred from doing any financial transactions, which meant that he couldn't find some other job and then cash his paycheck.

Anyway, one might argue (however rightly or wrongly) that the government's mistaken action in the case of the Somali immigrant was regrettable but reasonable. However, it came out that some of the 9/11 hijackers used Western Union to send or receive money. At no point were Western Union executives arrested or barred from doing any business.

At the risk of playing the race card, it is interesting that some actions would get a dark-skinned Muslim in deep trouble, but would be ignored if done by a white non-Muslim. One might make an argument that the feds should react with more caution based on the suspect's background. But I still have to wonder how much suspicion would have fallen on Sami al-Hussayen if his name was Sam Hoosey.

[thoreau]

Clarification: I posed the scenario of a white guy running a web site a few months ago when this story was first reported on H&R, not earlier in this thread.

[garym]

If al-Hussayen had been convicted, the conviction would have established that webmasters are responsible for all content posted through their site. That sounds worth being "paranoid" about.

[daniel]

Really Cool Blog, Thank you for such a wonderful job.
Singapore Singapore 1 Singapore 2 Singapore 3 Singapore 4 Thailand Thailand 1 Thailand 2 Thailand 3 Thailand 4 Japan Japan 1 Japan 2 Japan 3 Japan 4 Hong Kong Hong Kong 1 Hong Kong 2 Hong Kong 3 Malaysia Malaysia 1 Malaysia 2 Malaysia 3 Taiwan Taiwan 1 Taiwan 2
East Asia Hotels East Asia Guide Euro Asia Hotels Come to Asia Hotels plus Tours My Europe Hotels