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.'"
Free speech in the UK? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Free speech in the UK? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever conceptual problems you find in how they are selected, the lords has, and does, provide a check on the government, particularl
The Lords are not perfect (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, t
Mirror? (Score:5, Funny)
hang on, someone's at the door.
Re:Mirror? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mirror? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh.
What is this stuff about? (Score:2)
That will sure not improve your personal securit*doorbell rings got to go*
How novel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How novel (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This more or less describes the current situation in the Union of Soviet British Republics.
I got my MP on the similar case when a man was disallowed basic chemistry refresher course for thoughtcrime and he got as far as the Home Office. At that point Lavrentij Pavlovich Straw he
Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That doesn't make me a white-supremacist, just someone who thinks its important to understand your enemies.
Re:Student or not... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's an argument some politicians in the UK either cannot or refuse to understand. I listened to an interview ages ago on BBC Radio 4, can't remember who was being interviewed, but one person was putting forward the idea that we should try to understand why people feel the need to become suicide bombers (post 9/11 btw).
The other person (a Tory politician I think), argued against this by saying that these people were completely irrational, that they could not be understood because their activities were
Re:Student or not... (Score:5, Informative)
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:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 my 2c
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The problem is that it is impossible for the older to know when the kids take the stuff (too) seriously. Kids, OTOH, do not "trust" the elders, and this has always been the same.
Re: (Score:2)
And when it comes to things like government, they *shouldn't* trust the elders because the watchers need to be watched. Not to mention the fact that many politicians are not acting in the best interest of the people which they are supposed to serve even if they aren't being downright hostile to their constituents.
Blindly trusting and following a government, among other things, leads to the erosion of rights - slowly over a period of decades, and it seems that the reali
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? How many real terrorists have you seen?
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Typing in "age of suicide bombers" into google will explain to you pretty quickly the age range of suicide bombers.
So I believe the person whom you were responding too was making a valid observation.
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Funny)
No wonder it took so long to sort out the Provos... the bloody Air Force were secretly on their side all along?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
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 competito
Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Islamofascists are the new Communists (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Basically the Right has only 'won' because it is the more violent and agressive side of politics. But in t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, I believe this is very historically false. Revolution, civil war, and coup are not all necessarily acts of terrorism. Certainly, in the case of the American revolution, it was an open war. It was, if I may use the two terms in the same sentence, a somewhat honorable war in this: the US (not exactly the "US" at that time) declared that they were independent of Britain; Britain sent military force to subdue their "colonies," and the "US" fought back. That's very different from various peoples usually
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I guess I would agree that "terrorism" can be misused/used as propaganda, and I agree about communism as well (IMO, it would never work because of what humans are); however, I think modern day terrorists are a real threat and does justify action... and while people might disagree about exactly what action is necessary, I don't think we should dismiss it as though it were unimportant or not a thread (nor do I personally think that peaceful diplomacy will do a whole lot, simply because of why these particular
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 gov
Re:Well, they are just students, after all. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (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: (Score:3, Informative)
In 1765, the Sons of Libe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
If "coming down hard" means using the violence
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Young campus radicals like your former self formed the Weather Underground, SLA, RAF, and other terrorist groups. These actually did shoot people, rob banks, and blow up buildings. And these were in the tame days of the 70s, when you had to give people bomb instructions by hand, or photocopy.
People seem to have mostly forgotten that this was actually happening. The terrorists of those years get glorified as dissenters because they mingled with people who were pure dissenters. It's a very good strategy for a criminal of that sort to mix up the issue to make law enforcement's job harder.
Reading jihadist materials from the internet is one of the ways that ordinary people become radicals. I'm sure your "information wants to be free" types will be out here defending it, but let's be honest, your average Muhammad isn't going to build his own bomb so he can ride the subway without reading instructions on how to do so. Racist skinheads also use online materials to self-radicalize, and I bet that nobody here would be against coming down hard on them.
The best defense against this is to point out that it is propaganda. The police would have done much better to.. well, you know actually investigate the case. If they couldn't find that the students had a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Information Wants... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better solution (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
I hope they don't arrest me for potentially committing future arson.
I believe the instructions said "close cover strike match".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BRB, door.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
link please... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:link please... (Score:4, Informative)
"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: (Score:2)
Re:link please... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the sentence that sways the arguement in my favor, imo.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they were... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt the UK would let one of their citizens or military members be murdered by another citizen and not care because it happened in some place they didn't control.
Excuses, excuses... (Score:2, Informative)
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). He quoted two passages from the Koran to support his positi
Re:Excuses, excuses... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
What about Darfur? I know lots of people like to label conflicts as "ethnic" in direct contrast to "religious" but I don't see how religion can be so easily separated out from enthnicity unless you mean the word to be synonymous with "racial". The same applies to your argument about Israel.
I'm of the view that freedom of religion (as guaranteed by the UN Convention on Human Rights) means also accepting that others will have
Re: (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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Spanish Civil War - a counterinstance (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you'll happily donate to right-wing terrorists but baulk at funding left-wing terrorists, how exactly are you 'well-meaning'?
I confess (Score:2, Funny)
Frosted Butts (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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 ch
This will only make it worse (Score:2)
The police will whinge that they don't have the powers to get 'dangerous' individuals convicted, and so ask to be will be able to hold people longer, monitor people without warrants, etc...
And because our neo-fascist government wants to be seen as strong, they will do it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Wha's in a name (Score:2)
Data Protection Act - protection of (personal) data
Freedom of Information Act - freedom of information
and so forth. The previous version of anti-terror legislation was called the Prevention of Terrorism Act, so why is it now the Terrorism Act?
Very goodnews for the people (Ironic) (Score:2)
I am quite sure the people of england will be reliefed to know that no mercy ever will be given to their true enemies: pirates and file sharers.
Bad summary. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
So what do we learn from the article? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)