Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Saudi Webmaster Acquitted of Terrorism Charges

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the mud-dragging-done dept.

The Internet 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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP? (-1, Troll)

pchk (257075) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394728)

hey

Re:FP? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394750)

Wow man,your soo coool getting a FP. Can I suckyou

Don't tell this to the PeePers (4, Informative)

setzman (541053) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394748)

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394759)

They'll probably attack the jurors as "liberal elites".

Liberal elites who never heard of the 1st amendment.

That'd be hysterical.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394770)

Figures, coming from a liberal elite!

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (3, Interesting)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394778)

They refer to a lot of disallowed evidence in this "conservative news forum" of theirs. Would anybody care to elaborate on this?

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394787)

Need editors to add this link to article so that those fuckers can get their server melted down.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (3, Informative)

Anenga (529854) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394832)

As oppose to the liberal version of FreePer (although, I'd say it's 10x worse), which is celebrating the death of former President Ronald Reagan [democratic...ground.com] .

Best to just steer clear of the Internet bottom feeders.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394844)

The majority of DU posts about Reagan were not celebrating the fact that a 93 year old with Alzheimer's died. Sorry.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394851)

Don't tell me, your a DUmmie?

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394991)

DUmmie!! LOL!!!!111 ROFLMAO!!!!!!!1111!!11!!!!

:-D :-D :-D

:P :P :P

YOU ARE TEH FUNY!!!!!!!!!!!1111111



lameness filter lameness filter lameness filter

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (2, Insightful)

MST3K (645613) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394915)

While I agree with you that it's a good idea to steer clear of such folks, I'd like to mention that there are non-bottom feeders at both forums. After reading that particular threat at DU, I discovered there were more than a few folks that stated while they disagreed with Reagan, they'd never celebrate his death.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394848)

That site is kinda.. scary.

I have a theory that as a response to the "radical liberalism" of the past decades, and since 9/11, we've seen a growth of "radical conservatives" (like the neocons who have been around a while but only lately have become more "mainstream").

That site is a great example. One guy wrote a story about how WWIII is caused by China joining forces with radical islam and attacking the US. Do people really think that kind of stuff??

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (1)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394894)

They want him dead, regardless of what a jury says. [freerepublic.com]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, he probably wants them dead too.

The first amendment protects both sides of course.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394925)

FUCK FREEPERS

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (1)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394989)

FUCK FREEPERS

Ah, the sound of a philosophy based on peace and love.

What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (4, Interesting)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394896)

Seriously. I got a bit curious a while back. I know that Republicans are strong among religious conservatives and major industry, and Democrats among skilled professionals and academics (the sort of people who are most commonly on the Internet). Possibly as a result, there are a fair number of liberal forums out there.

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? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394924)

Try RightNation [rightnation.us] .

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (5, Informative)

rov4416444 (711470) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394941)

You've got to be kidding me, this is a joke right? The web is seething with Conservative forums. Try Little Green Footballs [littlegreenfootballs.com] for a start. Check out the hundreds of links they have. Try to keep your lunch down. -- If affirmative action means what I'm for, I'm for it. [asshat.org]

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (2, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394965)

The Yahoo! News message boards are full of all sorts of dumb users on all sides. I usually write something there to dissipate a desire to flame.

Re:What's the deal with freerepublic.com? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394986)

Liberal forums are all over the place, but conservative forums are *damned* hard to find.

That's because conservatives just get their instructions from Rush and start ditto-ing. No need for discussion, that's too liberal.

Re:Don't tell this to the PeePers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394952)

I try not to pay attention to the bigots on the far right or the hippies on the far left. They tend to make me espies the human race. With the government and media still trying to terrorize the populace with tales of past and imminent terrorist attacks, we forget sight of one thing: No terrorist body, no anarchy, no thing and no one can destroy life on the scale a large, central government can. America's decimation of the Native Americans, Hitler's Holocaust, Stalin's Purges, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge each took more lives than any terrorist could ever dream of.

go back and forth (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394972)

between free republic and democratic underground sites for a few days. It is the clearest way to see that voting either democrat or republican is just slap wrong. And what is just funny is that neither side there can step back from their partisan jingoism and phony left/right paradigm long enough to look and see it's the pot calling the kettle black, back and forth. Their guys are always saints and the smartest guys in the world and the most honest statesmen, etc, and the other guys are all what's wrong with the universe. It's hysterically funny. If you look close, you can actually see pretty good coverage of all the actual crimes committed by the democrats and republicans, by reading both sites-but both sides deny "their" guys ever do anything wrong,it's all a conspiracy theory or something,etc, and woe is the poster who strays from the herd-poof-blackholed, banned.

Unfortunately, it's NOT funny because you realise both sides in this delusional farce manage to always get their particular slimeball scumbag lying crook in, if not this election, then the next election. And we always seem to have a screwed up crooked government, but they never bingo to the real reason.

If in doubt send the ****** packing... (0, Flamebait)

AWHITEMAN (784936) | more than 10 years ago | (#9395031)

I really don't think the constitution should protect you unless you are a US citizen.

First Ammendment (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394753)

Obviously the right most taken for granted is also the one people understand the least...

Re:First Ammendment (1)

gid13 (620803) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394798)

And, as far as I can tell, the one that is most often attacked by the US government (and others, but then many of them don't actually grant that right, so it is at least less hypocritical, if just as evil).

It's amazing how much jurors do not know (3, Informative)

rkuris (541364) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394867)

The problem with this type of trial is that the jurors are not aware of what they are supposed to be doing. They are supposed to be using their conscience, not "jury instructions".

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.
--

Hi, I'm an American Republican (-1, Flamebait)

BlackTriangle (581416) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394754)

My wet dream is to have a conveyor belt with all the Muslims in the world run past me. As each one comes by, I will slit their throat.

Re:Hi, I'm an American Republican (-1, Flamebait)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394762)

Hi, I'm an American Republican
no, you are a sackless troll

Re:Hi, I'm an American Republican (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394783)

How do you tell the difference?

Re:Hi, I'm an American Republican (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394813)

one intentionally commits racist/sexist/ethnicist/whatever-ist atrocities in the hope of getting some attention on slashdot, while the other intentionally commits them in the real world in the hope that their bank accounts will get fatter.

I'm not sackless (1)

BlackTriangle (581416) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394811)

I'm an American Republican [freerepublic.com] , and Muslims are all guilty until proven innocent.

Oh wait, Muslims are never innocent. Hit the switch, and keep those mud heads coming!

The Consitution.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394755)

The consitution is there to protect the rich and bodies of government - it is only used as a scapegoat when pitted against a matter such as this.

Repeat 5th grade? (5, Insightful)

KRYnosemg33 (709857) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394756)

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
It's this sort of uninformed, unintelligent (lack of) thinking that even allows these 'cases' to reach the courts in the first place.

Can we possibly force potentially a hundred million people to go repeat 5th grade american history?

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394777)

Funny, I don't remember american history in the 5th grade...

-- vranash

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (1)

KRYnosemg33 (709857) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394806)

And you're proud to post this?

Perhaps we need better schools for those hundred million repeating 5th grade too.

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394855)

IIRC, US history isn't heavily taught until high school -- I believe I had mostly state history up until that point.

That was probably the poster's point.

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394785)

You could, but considering 70% of Americans are too dumb to understand the concepts anyway, what good will it do?

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394808)

Maybe more like high school Civics.

There is so much to government that it takes a whole school year to cover just the objective part.

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (1)

setzman (541053) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394840)

There is so much to government that it takes a whole school year to cover just the objective part

I believe Alabama has 1 semester dedicated to government at the high school level. That's probably going to be about the same nationwide.

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394933)

Reeeeeally? It figures.

In case you don't realize, I went to a private high school. It speaks volumes about the state of education in this country. There aren't enough good and willing teachers on the high school level.

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9395000)

Most private schools don't teach science, because they believe the jury is still out on evolution. So you get a choice of a crappy public education or a religious "make believe fairy land" private education. So there are very few winners.

God bless the U.S. of A.!

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (3, Insightful)

michaelangelo (175466) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394859)

The language in the jury instructions was from court decisions involving the 1st amendment. Probably quoted from the Pentagon Papers case.

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 outlaw speech that impeded the war. Perhaps you don't remember the Anti Sedition Act or didn't study it in American history.

Re:Repeat 5th grade? (1)

KRYnosemg33 (709857) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394918)

1st Amendment was not even applicable to the 'government' (assuming you mean federal government) until incorporation in late/late 19th and then early 20th century. Therefore the 1A didn't technically relate to the Anti Sedition Act at the time. *cough*

First Amendment Message? (5, Insightful)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394763)

David Nevin, lead defense attorney for Sami Al-Hussayen, said as he left the courthouse that he thinks Al-Hussayen's acquittal on terrorism charges sends a message.

"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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394810)

I have this crazy observation.....the majority of terrorist attacks have been caused by.....*GASP*....foreign Islamic men! So perhaps we should be watching those poor white grandmas to make sure they don't blow anything up, as it would be too RACIST to use the past as an indicator for the FUTURE and watch foreign Islamic men.

Re:First Amendment Message? (2, Interesting)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394836)

Yup, proved my point. That is precisely the argument that was used to racially profile black men. So how about this reasoning: 100% of deliberate terrorists acts have been committed by humans. So let's use the past as an indicator for the FUTURE and watch all humans.

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 Islamic men exist around the world?

Corrections (1)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394853)

Oops, I meant "casual" not causal, and "probable" not probably.

Re:First Amendment Message? (1)

mandalayx (674042) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394863)

whew. that was a pretty cool, concise argument.

Are you suggesting that instead of targeting the whole set of {EWM,DWB,etc}, what govt ought to do is target a subset?

Aren't there also going to be false positives in that subset?

Re:First Amendment Message? (1)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394876)

I was suggesting that they target probable cause, not free speech, or skin color, or nationality. If they had real evidence against this guy, go for it. But what they had seemed weaker than that.

Re:First Amendment Message? (4, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394922)

After the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI instructed police to be on the look out for the muslim men they assumed were behind it. Luckily, the White Christian ex-Marine who did it was already in custody for speeding.

-B

Does that mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394815)

Islam is the new black?

*ducks*

Re:First Amendment Message? (5, Informative)

mandalayx (674042) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394843)

You're probably right with other parts of the country (NY comes to mind) but these guys in Idaho seem pretty level headed. The US Attorney ends up praising the jurors (i.e. the people) instead of spreading some FUD:
"I think the ladies and gentlemen on the jury did a good job," Moss said. "They were very attentive throughout the trial. I think they studied everything very thoroughly.


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!
On the terrorism charges, Steger said jurors simply found a lack of evidence. "All the evidence that we had was not clear-cut, saying that he was a terrorist, so there had to be a lot of inference, that kind of thing," Steger said.

He added, "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."

Re:First Amendment Message? (2, Insightful)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394864)

I noticed that comment too, actually, so my thoughts were more directed at prosecuters in general and not specifically at this one guy. In fact, in the Mountain West, with their typical distrust of big government, it might well be harder to pick on the little guy.

Witches, Communists and Terrorists (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394872)

It's unfortunate, but I'm beginning to realize that this is a recurring theme in the human condition. Every generation has a group to hate/fear. Hundreds of years ago it was witches. Our parents' generation feared the communists, and now we have the terrorists.

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:Witches, Communists and Terrorists (1)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394895)

Well done. Those who note and remember the cycles of history are less likely to be fooled when the next cycle repeats itself.

Re:First Amendment Message? (3, Interesting)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394898)

The problem can be summed up in two words: Intolerance and Greed. Those two little words can sum up every problem ever encountered in humanity. Unfortunately this world is riddled with people infected with both.

Re:First Amendment Message? (1)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394977)

The problem can be summed up in two words: Intolerance and Greed. Those two little words can sum up every problem ever encountered in humanity. Unfortunately this world is riddled with people infected with both.

Greed, especially.

Just consider all the money spent on tech toys in the USA: MP3 players, gaming systems, cell phones, wireless routers, laptops, etc. Or, other entertainment, like the millions spent on movies or restaurants. People will drop $50 to see Madonna gyrate, yet, will never send even $1 overseas to feed some poor child.

And what about houses close to the Pacific shore? Sure the weather is great, but that money could go to help so many others that are less fortunate.

Even the education establishment is guilty. Colleges charge more and more for their education services. Textbook prices are a scam. And all the while they talk and talk about the importance of education. Yep, it's so important that they think they should gouge the hell out of students and taxpayers. They won't even try to provide this important service for less money. Why? Greed.

Re:First Amendment Message? (1, Insightful)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394916)

I have nothing against Islam, but the reality is that (aside from your crazed lunatic every decade or so), Christians aren't strapping bombs to themselves and their children and sending them into crowds of innocent people to kill them in the name of religion.

Where is the Muslim outrage against these extremists? I don't see it, even from the so-called moderates.

If the KKK (Christian extremists) were lynching people still, you can guarantee you'd have Christians across the country outraged by this and telling everyone.

(P.S. I'm not religious.)

Saudi + Islamic Militant == GUILTY (0, Flamebait)

quarkscat (697644) | more than 10 years ago | (#9395024)

This "webmaster/terrorist" is one of the
cast of thousands that provide aid and
comfort to world Islamic terrorism. It
is a travesty of justice for him to be
found innocent. GWB & Co. have a much
bigger problem in the ME than just Iraq.

The Western economies have been dancing with
the devil ever since oil was discovered and
developed in Saudi Arabia. Providing the House
of Saud with the economic and military might
to control their patch of the Middle Eastern
sandbox has been a gamble that has powered the
devil's work.

This closed theocratic society worships death.
There is no tolerance in the Wahhabist sect for
Western ideals, let alone other schisms of Islam.
Anyone not a Wahhabist is considered an infidel,
worthy only of either conversion or death. They
have raised an army of martyrs who seek the
rewards of an afterlife filled with pleasures
unattainable and antithetical to this lifetime.
The Wahhabist inspiration is the imperial Islam
of the 12th century, which controlled Europe from
the Atlantic south of the Pyrenees, north to the
gates of Vienna, east to the Great Wall of China,
and made the Mediterranean a Moslem sea.

Their control of Mecca and Medina, the heart of
Islam, has been used, along with their vast oil
wealth, to propagate their religious beliefs
throughout the rest of the world. The mosques and
religious schools that they built abroad as "works
of charity" have been used as the training ground
and recruiting centers for their war against
all other religions. It is Wahhabist clerics
that lead these centers, funded by Saudi Arabian
oil money.

The current wave of terrorism within Saudi
Arabia has been directed primarily against
Westerners, and it's largest impact has been
a spike in oil prices (more funding for their terrorists). Saudi victims of these attacks
cannot be considered "collateral damage" in
the Western sense, but martyrs to the cause. Cynical consideration of the Wahhabist culture
of death and empire in assessing these
terrorist acts could draw one to conclude that
it is little more than "good theater", and propaganda meant for the West.

Our leaders would do well to consider the
possibility that al-Queda is little more
than a not-so-secret Wahhabist army, a
Saudi Arabian OSS with plenty of "plausible
deniability" for the gullible West.

Re:First Amendment Message? (1, Flamebait)

mckyj57 (116386) | more than 10 years ago | (#9395025)

> 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...

When over 40% of the world's Muslims support Sharia law (which features the
death penalty for apostasy) it isn't extremism, it is the norm.

Fact: Muslims shun any of themselves who professes doubt in their belief
system, and this shunning is extreme and cruel within a society that is
majority Islamic.

That is an entire religion that is dead-set against individual rights.
It is perverted, and not at the extremes -- at the center.

Linking is free speech! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394768)

I think this speaks for itself... from Sami Omar.com [samiomar.com] :

"Even more tenuous are prosecutors' attempts to establish that Hussayen's websites, which he operated openly under his own name, were conduits to greater evils. If he wasn't guilty, they asked last week, why did some of his pages feature links that led visitors to sites where stomach-turning images of violence against infidels were freely available, including one of a Russian in Chechnya having his throat cut?"

Let's get it straight... linking IS and SHOULD BE protected free speech!

Re:Linking is free speech! (1)

Izago909 (637084) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394826)

Let's get it straight... linking IS and SHOULD BE protected free speech!

The courts say yes... Just like handing out a phamplet that you didn't write yourself.

I can't beleive transmitting electromagnetic waves over copper and then having an electron gun draw it on a monitor is speech!

Re:Linking is free speech! (1)

sjlutz (540312) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394934)

I can't beleive transmitting electromagnetic waves over copper and then having an electron gun draw it on a monitor is speech!

I do hope your joking about that comment. For your information, here's the first amendment: (emphasis mine)

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Kill all Muslims (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394775)

That's the only choice we have. Do it now; don't put it off.

Re:Kill all Muslims (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394907)

or

STFU

Went to school (4, Interesting)

Rodrin (729362) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394776)

I actually went to school with the guy and he didn't seem so bad. Just goes to show what assumptions will get ya.

Re:Went to school (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394824)

I actually went to school with the guy and he didn't seem so bad. Just goes to show what assumptions will get ya.

What was wrong with said assumptions?

Re:Went to school (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394878)

They were false?

Re:Went to school (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394966)

I actually went to school with the guy

You moron. I guess you don't plan to ever work for the government, hold office, or get a security clearance for anything, or work on a security-related computing project.

It also seems like you want to start an FBI file on yourself. Let's see what we have so far:
  1. Chris Coggburn knew terror suspects.
  2. Chris Coggburn knew them well enough to form favorable opinions about them.
  3. Other people who know Chris (e.g., Manda's father) don't like him.

It's not enough to get your arrested, but it's sure enough to get you into the special "anal probe" line at the airport, or delay your clearance to travel, get contracts or work with the government, etc.

A tip: keep this to yourself. I'm just the messenger. I don't approve of the Information Awareness that the government is pursuing. But I'm just telling you how it is.

woooo (-1, Troll)

nabil_IQ (733734) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394792)

take a look at his picture [cnn.net]

and I thought pr0n webmasters were weird looking.

no offense to pr0n webmasters.

Re:woooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394809)

begin sarcasm
Well, that proves that he must be guilty.

Re:woooo (1)

monkeySauce (562927) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394814)

Weird looking?
Seriously, I don't know what you are talking about.

He just looks like a guy with a beard to me. Is that so bad?

Re:woooo (1)

nabil_IQ (733734) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394905)

to me, he looks weird, and I'm a Muslim btw :P ...

Re:woooo (1)

Omega1045 (584264) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394873)

I have known several people with better beards than that - ie- I have know many non-"I am a farking american christian" people. None were terrorists. One liked to fart a lot, but that just does not count.

Re:woooo (1)

Xyrus (755017) | more than 10 years ago | (#9395003)

Oh yes it does! Noxious chemical toxins released into the air in mass quantities is consider a chemical weapon! The WMD have been found! It is in his pants! Get thee to Git-mo infidel pagan anti-american terroist swine! ~X~

The FBI doesn't stand a chance (1)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394812)

unless they can provide a clear money trail that the defendant knew was going to a terrorist organization. The supreme court would throw out anything less. Heck, I've even seen people stupid enough to threaten bodily harm to the president through an AC comment here on slashdot, and =even if cmdrtaco moves to a montana militia retreat, he's under no legal penalty for another person's comments on a public talkspace.

Re:The FBI doesn't stand a chance (1)

Omega1045 (584264) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394903)

The sad thing is these govnt asshats cost this guy a lot of money. Even in the case of a public defender, a person looses a lot of money because they cannot earn like they normally would, and they may have their future earning damaged as well.

Time to revoke the entire nazi, err, I mean patriot act.

Love the CNN link (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394816)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/10/computer.terrori sm.ap/

I believe a better title would be:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/10/first.amendment. still.functional.ap/

Re:Love the CNN link (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394827)

How do you know he didn't terrorize that computer?

Surprised and pleased (3, Insightful)

jnicholson (733344) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394819)

I'm surprised that the jury was able to see through this case. I wonder what were the charges that were dropped?

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.

The sad thing is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394831)

That in the Governments eyes, he's one that 'got away', regardless of whether he really was supporting terrorism or not.

Now they're going to be back to the drawing boards to draft some new bill that shreds what remains of the constitution so that the next time someone is suspected of terrorism, they're gone. Doesn't matter if they're guilty or not.

Correct verdict, but... (3, Insightful)

swinginSwingler (161566) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394834)

I'll die fighting to let him say what he wants. But, don't let him show up at my any of my favorite bars around Ft. Bragg. Anyone who supports "religious edicts justifying suicide bombings" and invites people to "financially support the militant Palestinian organization Hamas" wouldn't last too long there.

Re:Correct verdict, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394857)

So, you can say what you want... But I'll kick your face in if I don't agree.

GO GO GO USA!

Re:Correct verdict, but... (1)

swinginSwingler (161566) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394954)

A few years back I was in Panama City Beach, Fl. Apparently someone took issue that my friends were African American (one of whom is Islamic). We watched as the other partons ended up chasing him out of the restaurant. Take the wrong side of an issue and make stink about it and you may end up on the recieving end of a hard punch.

Re:Correct verdict, but... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394957)

No, it's "You can say what you want, just get out of my face." The First Amendment doesn't say anyting about either getting a free soapbox or being able to force people to listen to you.

Re:Correct verdict, but... (1)

JohnnyComeLately (725958) | more than 10 years ago | (#9395019)

True, but did you read about the growing skinheads in Russia? This is not an exclusive problem in the USA. Actually, we're one of the few nations where the government goes out of its way to promote opposing views and diversity. Ever heard of EEO, EOH, etc? Show me another country (besides Western nations such as UK, Canada) that actively enforce these laws.

That said, it's a different mentality when these dillheads use the rights we die for to kill innocents. Being former military, I agree and understand the parent to this subthread. I may think you're an idiot, but I sacrifice so that you have the freedom. What I DONT stand are cowards who impose THEIR thoughts on others by getting on a schoolbus with children with the sole intention of impaling them with thousands of 2-penny nails and ballbearings. Oppressed, religious, whathaveyou, nothing justifies what these guys do. Hence, this is the reason you don't want to be near his bar. I would be very careful to align their causes with "discrimination" (such as against gays, faith, etc).

Re:Correct verdict, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9395013)

I would really like to see proof linking support to terrorist organizations. The classification of "terrorists" these days is only reserved for a cretin type of people these days... Muslims.

Take for example the guy who was responsible to the Olympic bombings down in Georgia. I never heard anyone call him a terrorist.

the us dept of justice did (1)

swinginSwingler (161566) | more than 10 years ago | (#9395030)

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1998/October/477crm.ht m

Islamic websites. (5, Interesting)

nabil_IQ (733734) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394875)

I sometimes browse around some so called "islamic" webistes to see what they are talking about, some of them are genuinly religious with moderate tone and basically teaching ppl. about Islam or offering services like prayer times and Qura'an lessons and other usefull/intresting stuff.

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. (1)

WildBeast (189336) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394923)

How about KKK then? How about the Nazi groups and so on?

I believe that thanks to such websites, authorities may be able to more easily identify a few individuals.

For some reason, very few Muslims seem to be anti-censorship.

Re:Islamic websites. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394984)

Thanks for speaking out. If more people who
know what Islam truly represents speak out,
more people will understand it, and radicals
will fell less bold. Every small bit helps.
Keep it up! Teach others, and let non-Islamic
people see a voice of reason, intelligence,
and civility.

Re:Islamic websites. (1)

swinginSwingler (161566) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394995)

Islam is a beautiful religon. An mid-east cluture, as I found in Iraq, is warm and inviting. Islamic extremists are no different than Christian ones. (Think David Koresh) They do not represent the large and overwhelming majority of Muslims.

America (3, Interesting)

CaptainTux (658655) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394935)

The death of President Reagan gave me some time and reason to pause and consider our country, my political party, and how both have changed over few years. When you think about it, it's really saddening and scary...

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...

Re:America (5, Informative)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394979)

Dude, are you serious? Did you never hear about the government hunting down "commies" all over the place during the cold war? Or the horrible treatment of the Japaneese americans during WWII? Our country does many great things, and I like it here, but we've been bastards in the past too, and we've done stuff that doesn't even COMPARE to making prisoners make naked piramids, give me a break.

Re:America (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9394992)

Here's an idea, Junior. Why don't you investigate what kind of freedoms the "webmaster" in question advocated. Suicide bombing. Genocide. Mass murder of "infidels" (i.e. gays, lesbians, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, dope smokers, beer drinkers, girls in bikinis, Pat Robertson, Larry Flynt, ...).

Sorry, I'm not ready to commit suicide in the name of some abstract freedom. In cases like this the Natural Law of survival trumps limp dick platitudes. The only difference between this guy and the fascists of the 1930s is that the goose steppers of yore didn't hide their agenda behind the bogus label of "religion".

Why was he deported? (5, Interesting)

mentaldrano (674767) | more than 10 years ago | (#9394958)

According to the CNN article, he faces deportation after his trial, win or lose. His family is already back in Saudi Arabia, and he expects to join them. However, no details as to why he is being deported. He did face several counts of visa fraud, but he was acquitted on those counts! Why is he still being shipped out?

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9395010)

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of foreign students are here legally.

A couple of interesting things... (4, Informative)

Granos (746051) | more than 10 years ago | (#9395032)

First of all, here are a couple of interesting links. The news stories are kind of vague as to the specifics of the charges, so here are the actual indictment [findlaw.com] .
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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?