Students Downloading Jihadist Material Acquitted 318
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.'"
Soon To Be Illegal In The USA Too.. (Score:4, Interesting)
"You have the right," he writes, "and
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:Mirror? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually they were... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's see ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Possession of pamphlets of jihadist material doesn't get you punished for being a terrorist. Check.
Possession of images of nude children does get you punished for being a pedophile. Um
While not endorsing anything, I'd just like to point out that some bogeymen are bigger than the others, and it feels kind of relieving that even after all the fearmongering the 'terrorist' one is still not the champion when it comes to trumping rationality.
Islamofascists are the new Communists (Score:2, Interesting)
No, "violent Islamist" is the new Communist. You were listing apples and chicken wings — Communism is an ideology/aim, terrorism is just a method — there were plenty of Communist terrorists too. Just as Communism in the 20th century, Islamism (not the faith, but the way of life and the society) is realizing, that it is losing to the Western civilization. It can not offer the followers neither the freedoms, nor the economic benefits offered by the competitors. It can not afford an open military conflict either. Terrorism is, pretty much, to fight for those, who must fight.
We will defeat them just as we defeated the "Red Army Faction" [wikipedia.org], the "Shining Path" [wikipedia.org] (Sendero Luminoso) and other Communist terrorists. It will take time — FARC [wikipedia.org] is still alive and kicking, for example, but we'll get there...
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...
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:2, Interesting)
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).
Actually, under the 2000 terrorist act, those rebels would be defined as terrorists as would most governments afaics (especially the labour government here in the UK)
From the appeal decision at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_02_08beaumont.pdf [bbc.co.uk] Terrorism' is defined by section 1 of the 2000 Act as including the use of firearms or explosives that endangers life for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
I demand justice
Re:Free speech in the UK? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Excuses, excuses... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean like blowing up abortion clinics and sniping doctors?
Now where is the military action against the stupid red states?
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Excuses, excuses... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Lord's Resistance Army [wikipedia.org] would disagree with you...as would people like Timothy McVeigh and arguably Seung-Hui Cho.