Students Downloading Jihadist Material Acquitted

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Five UK students who were charged under the UK's 2000 Terrorism Act for possession of jihadist materials were acquitted after the jury found that, while they had downloaded the materials, there was no evidence that they were planning any sort of crime. The Lord Chief Justice was quoted as saying, 'Difficult questions of interpretation have been raised in this case by the attempt by the prosecution to use [this law] for a purpose for which it was not intended.'"

Free speech in the UK?

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

Well at least it's good to see that it's not a complete mudslide..

Re:

[jd (1658)]

The British courts also ruled that a schizophrenic that thought himself the reincarnation of King Arthur saner than the Conservative Home Office. The courts tend to be less political and a lot saner than the politicos. The House of Lords was another organiztion that opposed such nonsense, which is why the Conservatives gutted it and Labour disembowled what was left. It's hard to buy out a group that need no money and own most of the land. It's hard to get them to be entirely sane, but so long as they're edu

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[kamapuaa (555446)]

If you're trying to use history to sound smart and add gravitas to your argument, you shouldn't be so entirely ignorant and incorrect about it. Athens didn't go bankrupt from wars before the Peloponnesian War (which I assume you were referring to), it led an economic league that was at the height of its powers and ruled Mediterranean trade. Wu didn't go bankrupt, perhaps you were thinking of the Shu kingdom but more likely you were talking out of your ass, anyway the country was invaded many years after repeatedly defending itself from invasion, and was clearly the least offensive of the three kingdoms, and probably the most economically successful.

Alexander the Great & Genghis Khan didn't just have delusions of power that poetically "slipped through their fingers"- they each ruled huge, expanding empires at the time of their deaths. Genghis Khan's descendants went on to rule what would become the largest empire ever.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[ddrichardson (869910)]

I don't like to whinge but this is really starting to bug me, there are no British courts. There is English law based on precedent and Scots law [wikipedia.org] based on jurisprudence [wikipedia.org].

It may seem like a semantic difference but it is in fact like saying North American law rather than Canadian and US. It is also important to Scots historically because it is one of the few things that were kept after the act of union with England.

Re:Free speech in the UK?

[Ash Vince (602485)]

The House of Lords was another organiztion that opposed such nonsense, which is why the Conservatives gutted it and Labour disembowled what was left.

Sorry, You seem confused. They are two different entities both called the House of Lords.

The House of Lords in the context or parliament is the non-democratically selected load of old codgers that was gutted by both parties in an attempt to make the British political system more responsive to change.

The House of Lords in the context of Law is the English equivalent of the Supreme Court. The Lords who sit and decide cases in regards to law are only selected from high ranking judges.

They also get to sit in the Parliamentary House of Lords above but this does not work both ways. The Hereditary Peers (land owners who inherited their position in the Parliamentary House of Lords) have never been able to sit as Law Lords unless they also trained to be a barrister then spent their entire life practicing Law first.

The only exception to this when all Lords (not just Law Lords) can decide a case is in the case of impeachment.

Your comment about them owning most of the land implies that you think both bodies to be the same thing, they are not.

The following wikipedia page has some interesting info, pay attention to the section marked Judicial Functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords [wikipedia.org]

Mirror?

[anagama (611277)]

Where's a mirror? I'd like to read ....

hang on, someone's at the door.

Re:Mirror?

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

the government can't catch you as long as you use a foreign-based prox-- brb door

Re:Mirror?

[evanbd (210358)]

Of course, the real place these documents should be available, is Freenet [freenetproject.org]. I haven't yet checked to see if they're available, though, so I can't give you a link.

How novel

[AP2k (991160)]

A judiciary.... adhereing to the spirit of the law. Brilliant!

Re:

[Swampash (1131503)]

Obviously not an American court.

Re:How novel

[AndGodSed (968378)]

For once the crazies lost a case!

Well, they are just students, after all.

[that this is not und (1026860)]

It might seem like flamebait to say this, but people in their student years are always trying different things out. It's hard for older people to take them seriously sometimes, but that's how its always been.

I remember those days, far back in the distance. As a young campus radical, I remember the way the older, more seasoned off-campus radicals would look at us, with our newfound enthusiasm, and willingness to embrace any new idea. No slogan, no campaign is too outlandish when you're young and inexperienced.

Grumpy older people need to give those younger than themselves some slack. Hell, if the world took every angry-young-man at face value, we'd ALL be in jail.

Student or not...

[Etherwalk (681268)]

If I go to a white supremacist web site, that doesn't necessarily mean I endorse their views. Even if I download their materials it doesn't--maybe I just find it disgusting and want to show it to someone who won't believe it's as bad as it is. Maybe I want to study it and figure out something about the psychology of the people involved. The same thing applies to terrorism, and... well, pretty much anything a student reads, or any person reads. *Reading* should not be a crime, with the possible exception of some classified/secret documents... whose classification is beyond the scope of this paragraph. =)

Re:Student or not...

[McDutchie (151611)]

*Reading* should not be a crime,

Obligatory RMS link: The Right to Read [gnu.org]. In many situations, reading is already a crime. Thank you for your attention. Carry on :)

Re:Student or not...

[MightyYar (622222)]

That's the exact rationale I used to download the Paris Hilton sex tapes.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[dindi (78034)]

I agree 100% .... never used a blue/red/black/whatever color phreaking box, still owned the manual because I was interested (would never have worked in Europe anyways). Never was a social democrat, still downloaded Mein Kampf to own it, read it, understand a different point of view. Also owned the terrorists' handbook to obtain interesting information. Do I want to blow stuff up? Well. maybe coke cans in myh backyard, but definetely not US soldiers or the president. Still as a learning person I THINK knowing how to make a bomb, how to shoot a rifle or how to pick a lock might come handy. Hey could even save my life.

Would I download jihadist material? Well, maybe it would not come too much handy, but it is definitely interesting. Hey it could even save your (or others lives).

This is censorship. Wrong censorship. People download stuff available to download. Whatever it is. Video, text file, program ...... just see more of this world. They should explain it why it is wrong, not forbid to see an other point of view at all.

just my 2c .....

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Cassius Corodes (1084513)]

If you had actually read Mein Kampf you would have discovered Hitler wasn't a social democrat but a national socialist.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jeevesbond (1066726)]

still downloaded Mein Kampf to own it, read it, understand a different point of view.

My grandfather was a spy during part of the Second World War. He worked mostly in Spain (was from Argentina, so could speak good Spanish), helping people escape Franco's rule. He smuggled a copy of Mein Kampf home. We've still got it, an original complete with Hitler signature stamp. Doesn't make the bloke a Nazi though, he just wanted to find out what was going through Hitler's demented mind.

The more works like this are swept under the carpet, the less chance we have of understanding the followers of their doctrines. Forcing any sort of extremist material underground just makes it interesting, seems politicians are unaware of the Streisand Effect.

Re:

[Repton (60818)]

Really? How many real terrorists have you seen?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[anagama (611277)]

I saw Bush and Cheney on youtube once. So that makes two for me.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

This is the UK. I have three letters for you, and they don't stand for Individual Retirement Account.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[TubeSteak (669689)]

This is the UK. I have three letters for you, and they don't stand for Individual Retirement Account.

You did your job too well in stamping out terrorism.
Now nobody in the US even thinks "IRA" when terrorism comes up.
Ditto for the Germans, Italians, Greeks, and French.

Not to mention that the current election frenzy is drowning out a lot of other news:
http://news.google.com/news?q=basque+eta [google.com]
(You can see why I left out Spain)

Honestly, you Brits figured out how to deal with terrorism a long time ago and it's only the USA's fear that is driving all these new laws.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Skrynesaver (994435)]

Indeed they did, they addressed the legitimate grievances of the community the terrorists were drawn from. Essentially meeting the demands of the civil rights movement of 1968. This provided a settlement that the more effective members of the IRA could live with and while there remain a number of dissident terrorist groups they essentially a bunch of tossers as opposed to PIRA who were a genuinely capable group.

While it took 30 years for Britain to realise that they could undermine the whole terrorism nonsense by removing the underlying reasons. Of course eliminating the bogeyman by addressing legitimate Arab grievances and addressing other issues constructively might not be in the US's best interests at the moment. Having the second largest oil reserves in the world as a US military base on the other hand might be useful in the medium to long term. Just a question of what the priorities are I guess

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[meringuoid (568297)]

Germans might think about the IRA when terrorism comes up because the RAF had ties to them.

No wonder it took so long to sort out the Provos... the bloody Air Force were secretly on their side all along?

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Mathinker (909784)]

> Typing in "age of suicide bombers" into ...

The point of the reply (which you missed) was that you should rather have typed in "frequency of suicide bombing".

And of all of those not so frequent suicide bombings, exactly one attack has had significant economic impact, and that was 9/11. The efficient way to have prevented 9/11's economic impact would have been to have had locked cockpit doors, not to fantasize that it is possible (and desirable) to make the world into a police state where no one has access to "jihadist materials" (the fantasy being the lack of access, of course).

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[riggah (957124)]

Seriously?

Isn't "terrorist" the new "communist?" It's the new boogey-man word designed to scare everyone into complacency while we cower in our homes and allow things like warrantless wire-tapping to occur.

But I'm getting off topic. America was founded by "terrorists." As was any country who's government was established by any revolution, civil war, or coup; they were all started by a few "terrorists" (with few exceptions, I suppose).

Re:

[Dutch Gun (899105)]

America was founded by "terrorists."

No, America was founded by "rebels". There's a huge difference. Those "rebels" did not use terror to achieve political aims. They used military force, by raising an army in the field, building our own seagoing attack vessels (pretty much was useless, read some history for some amusing / interesting tales), and enlisting the help of foreign nationals (the French).

Americans were criticized for unsportsmanlike conduct, such as specific targeting of officers by sharpshooters. But it's a complete myth that

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[lixee (863589)]

Rebels would be one description. I still believe they terrorized the natives. Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands. The American forefathers, any way you look at it, fit that description.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jdfox (74524)]

The GP poster was making a subtle political point. Of course the founding fathers of the US weren't terrorists. But under the definitions of the present US government, they would indeed be classified as such. Resistance groups fighting uniformed militaries are routinely described as "terrorists" by the US State and Defense Departments, even though the nearly-universally accepted definition of terrorism is the act of using violence or the threat of violence against civilians for political ends.

Louis Freeh, former director of the FBI, declared a wide range of non-violent groups [fbi.gov] to be terrorist threats to the United States, including Reclaim The Streets [wikipedia.org], Carnival Against Capitalism [wikipedia.org], and others. Never mind about the distinction between violence against civilians, and violence against uniformed troops: the FBI has gone on record to declare that Dancing Is Terrorism.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[jdfox (74524)]

>This reads to me that any violent act meant to coerce a populous or government would be considered terrorism. That sounds like a reasonable definition.

I respectfully submit that while your intentions may be the very best in arriving at this concise definition, in practice the terms "violent act" and "coerce" are too ambiguous and subject to political manipulation in the public media to be of use here.

>The colonial rebels did nothing of the sort. They declared their independence from the crown by writing a letter, and Britain responded in force, as they deemed it was their right to do. War was waged, and the colonies were victorious.

It didn't stop at letter writing. The letter writing itself may not have been considered "terrorism" under present definitions, but the armed resistance certainly would have. The Zapatistas [wikipedia.org] in Mexico also wrote letters to the Mexican state declaring their independence, after which they took up arms against the state. The Bush government has declared them to be "terrorists". Would you agree? If the Zapatistas are victorious, and obtain their autonomy, will they no longer be terrorists?

Menachem Begin was a member of the Irgun resistance group [wikipedia.org] in pre-1948 Palestine. But after Israel's statehood was recognised and he signed a peace treaty with a neighboring country, he was granted the Nobel Peace Prize. Was he a terrorist? Did he stop being a terrorist once Israel was granted independence?

The distinction between terrorism and freedom-fighting is not semantics and word games. It's one of the most important political issues of our time, and defies all attempts to wave it away.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[riggah (957124)]

My point is about the way the word is used. The word "communist" was used to induce fear and justify a war economy just the way the word "terrorist" is being used now to justify a war machine and domestic surveillance.

History is written by the victorious; I'm sure similar words were used to describe the founding fathers as they threw tea into a harbor. You're absolutely correct in your definition of both words, but I was simply stating that "terrorist" is the new catch-word that has America rolling over and giving away its civil liberties in the the name of security.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[sumdumass (711423)]

I don't know if it was the word as much as it was historical actions of political entities who claimed to have been communists. Even if we forget all about germany for the sake of godwin's law, we have Russia rolling in to some countries and pretty much making the same posturing threats as what started WW2. Then when you take all forms of democracy out of the picture and watch Stalin's death machine, look to Vietnam and the subsequent killing fields there, North Korea wanting to invade south korea, and all, there was quite a bit to be scared of even knowing that the forms of communism wasn't true communism.

I mean claiming it is a word without meaning is sort of like saying Fuck or bastard are arbitrary words that people all the sudden decided was bad to say on day. There is a history amongst it that gave the bad, scary, and evil stigma to it.

Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists

[aproposofwhat (1019098)]

Nope, that's not true. "Terrorism" is not just a dirty word -- it refers to a very specific tactics to achieve ideological/political goals: violence targeting civilians. America's founders did not do that...

But (with a special nod to your sig) Israel's founders did do that - see Deir Yassin for a shining example.

Nowadays, people seem to forget about the massacres and the bombing of the King David hotel, but at the time the Zionist gangs were routinely (and correctly) referred to as 'terrorist'.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[riggah (957124)]

First off, my point was that both words are simply being used to induce fear; "terrorist" to justify the stripping of civil liberties in the interest of "security", and "communist" as a rationale for nuclear proliferation and a huge military-industrial complex. Both are "boogey-man" words in the sense that they are being used to induce fear and complacency in the American public. I wasn't commenting on the technical, idealogical, or philosophical meaning of either; I was commenting on their use as propaganda in the US to sway public opinion.

Second, if you want to get technical, before the USA became the USA it was a group of British colonies. A few men within those colonies took up arms and committed acts that could be loosely defined as terrorism before the movement became a revolution and the colonies declared independence. The British would've called them terrorists at the time, not revolutionaries. Again, propaganda is far removed from fact.

Your points are all valid and I agree with you, but I think you misconstrued the point I was making (or I wasn't very clear about it). Well... I agree with you for the most part, but I will say that someone like Stalin used Communism as an excuse for Totalitarianism; Communism was ruined as soon as Humans got involved.

Re:Well, they are just students, after all.

[Carewolf (581105)]

I'll give an analogy. Imagine that suddenly, a sect of Christianity began to strike blow up various sites that it deemed were havens for atheists (e.g., liberal "atheist" universities, or something). There'd be a huge outcry against that. However, it's hard to take military action to stop it, because the "Christians" would not be associated with a specific country.

You mean like blowing up abortion clinics and sniping doctors?

Now where is the military action against the stupid red states?

Re:

[Mr. Slippery (47854)]

Reading jihadist materials from the internet is one of the ways that ordinary people become radicals.

"Jihadist" and "internet" are irrelevant. Reading stuff, from Common Sense to Mein Kampf to Letter from Birmingham Jail, is one of the ways that people become radicals - whether radical haters, or radical workers for justice.

Racist skinheads also use online materials to self-radicalize, and I bet that nobody here would be against coming down hard on them.

If "coming down hard" means using the violence

Re:

[martinX (672498)]

Simply downloading and reading is not a crime. I've read Mein Kampf and I'm not a Nazi, I've read the bomb-maker's guide and I don't blow shit up, I saw LOTR and I'm not going on a silly quest. The cops need to look for more than this for a crime.

Better solution

[physicsphairy (720718)]

If you don't want your students to read something, have one of their professors assign it as homework and mention that there will be no grade or quiz.

Better yet, say there *will* be a quiz and then symlink "Jihadist Pamphlet Cliffnotes" to "Partial Differential Equations Vol. I, II, and III" in the google results.

Incendiary Device

[the_other_one (178565)]

I read instructions on how to operate an incendiary device.
I hope they don't arrest me for potentially committing future arson.
I believe the instructions said "close cover strike match".

Soon To Be Illegal In The USA Too..

[nexuspal (720736)]

""Though Saffran says he finds these First Amendment issues "dubious," in a letter to Internet executives he argues that no one has a constitutional right to use private property to facilitate terrorism.
"You have the right," he writes, "and ... the moral obligation to stop them from doing so.""

We have a "moral" obligation to stop our great discoveries in history from being propagated to the masses because some might use it incorrectly(note, this is not yelling fire in a packed theatre)? Please keep in mind, 4 grad students built the bomb (in design) to specifications that current atomic scientist said would actually chain react and detonate, using books that were publically available, but they're scared of information that might enable one to make dynamite? If someone is smart enough and motivated enought to make dynamite, they could do far, far, worse without explosives imo.

Re:link please...

[nexuspal (720736)]

OK, found relavent material...

"By contrast, 18 U.S.C. 231(a)(1) -- like the proposed Feinstein Amendment -- arguably could be characterized as a prohibition on certain forms of speech. Section 231(a)(1) provides that: Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm or explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected function . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/bombmakinginfo.html#IVA [usdoj.gov] "

link here [usdoj.gov] May just be violation of 1st...

Re:link please...

[Eskarel (565631)]

Actually that law doesn't say what you say it does. Note knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed. It's not saying you can't teach someone how to make a bomb, it's not saying you can't learn to make a bomb. It's saying that it's not ok to teach someone who you know is going to use that bomb how to make a bomb.

The reason to know is a bit wishy washy, but it's probably just a catch all for situations where you have a guy who goes into a room full of plans to blow something up claiming he didn't know that's what they were going to do with the bomb.

Personally I think this law is probably pretty much unecessary, as IMO, knowingly providing someone the means to commit an illegal act in this fashion should be covered under "conspiracy to commit _______" offense tree.

It's not illegal to sell a man a gun, but if someone asks you to sell him a gun so he can murder his wife you're treading on dangerous ground if you do it, and five years and a fine is probably pretty lenient.

Actually they were...

[matria (157464)]

This whole thing came up because one of the students left home to join the others; they were intending to go fight in some unspecified foreign country. The student's parents called the police to report him missing when he sneaked out. Investigating his disappearance uncovered the material. But then I read the article yesterday.

Frosted Butts

[TurinPT (1226568)]

Bottle Bomb

Ingredients:

* 20 oz soda bottle (empty and dry on the inside)
* black powder (the more fine the better)
* steady burning long wick (at least 15 seconds delay) Instructions:

o Poke a small hole in the cap of the soda bottle.
o Pour a small amount of black powder into the bottle (just enough to cover the bottom with a thin layer, but totally covered, no empty spots on the bottom).
o Insert wick into the cap about halfway and put a bend in the wick.
Note: Be careful not to break the wick or it will shorten it causing possibly disastrous results.
o Screw the cap on the bottle tightly and set somewhere so that it is standing up.
o Light the fuse and get back about 30 feet. Watch the bottle to light up orange. The second after this happens the bottle blows up.

How it works:
The fuse drops onto the layer of black powder in the bottom of the bottle after it burns through the hole. The wick ignites the powder causing it to burn. This builds up pressure inside the bottle causing it to explode.
I have seen these fly up to 25 feet. You can try experimenting with different size bottles or, try a glass bottle with a metal cap if you have steel balls!!! Note- I'm not sure it has enough pressure to blow a glass bottle apart. It may just act like a rocket engine and flare.


There. Now were all criminals.

Bad summary.

[sim60 (967365)]

They were not aquitted, they had their previous convictions quashed.

They were all originally found guilty, and sentenced to "up to" 3 years each, just for possessing a few dodgy pamphlets and recordings of "extremist sermons".

The appeals court (luckily a Court of Note in the UK, which means this does set a precedent) decided that in order to convict, the prosecution had to show intent to commit terrorist offences. The convictions were quashed because the jury was not told this, and the prosecution evidence would probably not have demonstrated it if they had been.

There's a whole bunch of these 'going equipped' style laws in the UK, where the courts presume to know why you were doing something that, without the intent to commit a crime in the future, would not be illegal.

Re:Excuses, excuses...

[nagora (177841)]

These guys were caught because one of them wrote a "bye, I'm going to fight for Allah" note to his parents. He promised to engage in conventional warfare (as opposed to domestic terrorism).

Well, not to support religious nutters of any persuasion, but if he had written "I'm off to fight for Christ, but only in conventional warfare somewhere Christians are being oppressed and killed" would anybody even bat an eyelid? Even less so: if they'd said they were going to Israel to fight for the preservation of the Jewish homeland?

Probably the best solution would be to put anyone espousing religious ideas into a mental hospital until they get better.

TWW

Re:

[sumdumass (711423)]

Yea, they would care. Especially is they were going to join a side that was hostile to the homeland (the UK).

And 60 years ago, they would have been prosecuted for going to Israel too.

Don't look at this as people going to "work or war" for god, look at it as people going to join the enemy side of a force at war with you.

Re:

[nagora (177841)]

Basically, you're telling me that I have no human right to think any way except your way.

You have the right to be ill. You have the right to refuse treatment. Noisily.

But believing that invisible beings are ordering your life and planning to punish you if you don't do what they want is not something I feel should be treated in the same was as feedom of assembly or speech.

I have to give you credit for saying it in a postmodern world.

Thank you.

TWW

The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance

[Kupfernigk (1190345)]

During the Spanish Civil War, a number of young British men (and Americans) went to fight on the Republican side - the side which, if the war was happening now, would be opposed by the present US Administration. (For the politically illiterate, in the rest of the world Republican usually means left wing - I have often wondered how many of the well meaning Americans who gave money to the Irish Republican Army understood that.) There is a story of a Cambridge student who went to tell his tutor that he was going to Spain. The tutor thought about it for a couple of minutes, then went out and came back with a revolver, which he solemnly handed over. Would they have found themselves on a terrorism charge in 2006?

Nowadays, by most Europeans, those members of the International Brigade are regarded as heroes. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter usually depends on who eventually won whatever the war was. The fact that many members of the International Brigades fought because of an adherence to irrational beliefs like Communism, or because they had split up with their girlfriends, or because they wanted to rebel against their parents, gets lost in the simplifications of history.

Re:

[meringuoid (568297)]

For the politically illiterate, in the rest of the world Republican usually means left wing - I have often wondered how many of the well meaning Americans who gave money to the Irish Republican Army understood that.

If you'll happily donate to right-wing terrorists but baulk at funding left-wing terrorists, how exactly are you 'well-meaning'?