• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Free Speech?

Questioninggeller

Illuminator
Q
Joined
May 11, 2002
Messages
3,048
Jurors in the trial of a prominent Islamic scholar on Tuesday convicted him on 10 counts of encouraging followers in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.

Jurors in their seventh day of deliberations reached their verdict in the trial Ali al-Timimi. Al-Timimi, 41, showed no visible reaction to the verdict.

U.S. government prosecutors said al-Timini faces a mandatory maximum sentence of life in prison.

Despite government objections, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema freed al Timimi on bond until his sentencing in July.

Prosecutors have said al-Timimi was a respected scholar who enjoyed "rock star" status among his followers and that he used that influence to guide them into a holy war against the United States.

Al-Timimi's lawyers have said he only counseled young Muslims after Sept. 11 that they might be wise to leave the United States because it would become difficult to practice their faith in the United States.

The foundation of the government's case was a Sept. 16, 2001, meeting in which al-Timimi offered an apocalyptic interpretation of the Sept. 11 attacks, which he said heralded the final battle between Muslims and nonbelievers. He said Muslims were obligated to defend the Taliban regime, prosecutors said.

Three people who attended that meeting later traveled to Pakistan and received military training from a group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, with the ultimate goal of using that training on the Taliban's behalf.

No one from the group ever made it to Afghanistan, but at least two group members have admitted their goal was to join the Taliban and that al-Timimi inspired them to do so.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/terror/main690989.shtml

So this guy is looking at possibly "life in prison" for trying to get people to join the Taliban?
 
Encourging people to fight for the Taliban. May I mention that we were at WAR right about then. Helping the enemy is treason. Without knowing more details, I find it difficult to draw conclusions on his actions. If he was merely protesting the war, that is free speech. If he was inciting treason, that is illegal. While it does not violate free speech, it does violate other laws set forth in the Constitution. ( I may be corrected here, but I believe the Constitution had a provision for treason.) I realize this is a sticky wicket, but there are legal definitions to be tangled with.
 
The foundation of the government's case was a Sept. 16, 2001, meeting in which al-Timimi offered an apocalyptic interpretation of the Sept. 11 attacks, which he said heralded the final battle between Muslims and nonbelievers. He said Muslims were obligated to defend the Taliban regime, prosecutors said.
Click to expand...

Coulter on Muslims:

Two days after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Coulter wrote about Muslims: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" (as Media Matters for America has noted). On Hannity & Colmes, Coulter reinforced those sentiments, claiming, as she does in her new book, that they are true "[n]ow more than ever":

ALAN COLMES (co-host of Hannity & Colmes): [R]ight after September 11, you said, and you know where I'm going with this, I'm often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity. You say the same thing Nixon said in 1972: "Now more than ever."

COULTER: Now more than ever.

[...]

COULTER: By Friday of 9/11, we had accomplished point one and point two. Invade their countries, killed their leaders.

[...]

COLMES: Would you like to convert these people all to Christianity?

COULTER: The ones that we haven't killed, yes.

COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?

COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.

[...]

COLMES: But you're talking about a group of extremists who misuse Islam and aren't practicing true Islam. But would you like to convert all of these countries to Christianity. Should they all become Christian nations? Because that's what your ...

COULTER: Yes, that would be terrific.

COLMES: ... remarks suggest.

COULTER: That would be terrific, yes. [FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, 10/4/04]
Source
Click to expand...

Why isn't Ann Coulter prosecuted?
 
Putting aside the fine distinctions between a "war" and a "police action", as I find them to be semantically equivalent, we were at war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government, whose religious leader orchestrated the attacks on 9/11. I would think this may translate to being at war with Afghanistan, but, in essence, it was the group who claimed responsibility that we had problems with. Your average Afghani probably wasn't involved, and, technically, wouldn't be our enemy, but I fear it was they who paid the price. It has always been this way with war, but I do think the technology used limited civilian casualties.

Such as it is, we were at war with a specific group of people. A call to aid those very people could very well be treasonous.

Please notice I did not mention Iraq. That is a war I simply cannot defend. Most of the world was with us in Afghanistan, Denmark included, I believe. (I am willing to be corrected, however.) It was our actions in Iraq that shot us in the foot. I didn't vote for the guy, don't blame me.

As for Ann Coulter, I'm sure she would be, or would have been, prosecuted in Afghanistan during the war. For the same reason, and, from a certain point of view, justly. I do not agree with her viewpoint, for what it's worth, but she does have a right to them.

I realize this is a case of subjective reasoning, but we are talking about the law here. I'm sure there are laws anywhere that defy logic. But they do exist, sometimes for the most emotional of reasons. Allowing an act of treason doesn't seem to make much sense to me. But your definition of treason may vary, which is why we have courts decide. It isn't perfect, but we just haven't found a better way.
 
clarsct said:
we were at war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Timeline:

==================================================

Sept. 13, 2001: Coulter says that all Muslim countries should be invaded, converted to Christian countries and all Muslim leaders should be killed.

Sept. 16, 2001: Al-Timimi makes his speech.

Sept. 20, 2001: Bush declares war on terror. He specifically names the Taliban.

Oct. 7, 2001: The US invades Afghanistan.

==================================================

The US was not at war at the time Al-Timimi made his speech.

Yet, Al-Timimi is prosecuted, while Coulter is not.
 
clarsct said:
Putting aside the fine distinctions between a "war" and a "police action", as I find them to be semantically equivalent, we were at war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government, whose religious leader orchestrated the attacks on 9/11.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Bin Laden wasn't the religious leader of the Taliban government.
 
You see? THIS is what happens when you listen to the US News Media!!!

Argh...I dunno...He was just probably caught in the post-9/11 hysteria. So what was Bin-Laden, anyway..other than damned tight with the Bush family? I had gotten the impression that he was a leader in the organization. Once again, my sources are probably flawed. It just seemed that we were more justified in Afghanistan..Iraq is a freaking blunder of monumental proportions.

I suppose the argument could be made that the information about the Taliban was leaked long before the Bush news conference, and therefore, Al Timimi knew that what he was saying would be treasonous, but that argument sounds weak, even to me. Doesn't mean a lawyer couldn't convict on it with a sympathetic jury. We'll have to see what happens on appeal.

Try to understand, we do TRY, but we are human. That is why we have the appeals court.

*sigh* And I never said Al Timimi didn't have a right to his views. I, in fact, said they were protected free speech, and he wasn't tried on a censorship basis. They probably tried him on a treason charge, which, legally, is a very fine line. Maybe some of the law types could explain it better.
 
clarsct said:
You see? THIS is what happens when you listen to the US News Media!!!

Argh...I dunno...He was just probably caught in the post-9/11 hysteria. So what was Bin-Laden, anyway..other than damned tight with the Bush family? I had gotten the impression that he was a leader in the organization. Once again, my sources are probably flawed. It just seemed that we were more justified in Afghanistan..Iraq is a freaking blunder of monumental proportions.

I suppose the argument could be made that the information about the Taliban was leaked long before the Bush news conference, and therefore, Al Timimi knew that what he was saying would be treasonous, but that argument sounds weak, even to me. Doesn't mean a lawyer couldn't convict on it with a sympathetic jury. We'll have to see what happens on appeal.

Try to understand, we do TRY, but we are human. That is why we have the appeals court.

*sigh* And I never said Al Timimi didn't have a right to his views. I, in fact, said they were protected free speech, and he wasn't tried on a censorship basis. They probably tried him on a treason charge, which, legally, is a very fine line. Maybe some of the law types could explain it better.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could do some legwork yourself, if you want to discuss this?
 
clarsct said:
You see? THIS is what happens when you listen to the US News Media!!!

Argh...I dunno...He was just probably caught in the post-9/11 hysteria. So what was Bin-Laden, anyway..other than damned tight with the Bush family? I had gotten the impression that he was a leader in the organization.

...snip...
Click to expand...

He is (was?) the leader of Al-Qa'ida a terrorist organisation, the Taliban were the "legitimate" government of Afghanistan; they co-operated in a way that was beneficial to both but they weren’t one and the same.
 
clarsct said:
Encourging people to fight for the Taliban. May I mention that we were at WAR right about then.
Click to expand...

We were? When did we declare war?

If he was inciting treason, that is illegal.
Click to expand...

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." —Article III Section 3 Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

How was the Taliban our enemies, given that just a few months earlier our government had given them $10 million in foreign aid? It must be an enemy in order to count as treason under the Constitution.
 
clarsct said:
Such as it is, we were at war with a specific group of people.
Click to expand...

That group of people was not the Taliban.

A call to aid those very people could very well be treasonous.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't, because the Taliban wasn't our enemy. Our government accused the Taliban of aiding bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and that was the pretense used to attack Afghanistan. But this is, at worst, giving aid to someone who's giving aid to the enemy, and the Constitution doesn't recognize any degrees of separation there.

I realize this is a case of subjective reasoning, but we are talking about the law here. I'm sure there are laws anywhere that defy logic.
Click to expand...

www.dumblaws.com

[qoute]But your definition of treason may vary, which is why we have courts decide.[/QUOTE]

That's completely wrong. The only definition of treason that counts in this country is the one in Article III Section 3 Clause 1 of the Constitution.
 
Just spitballing but if he was "encouraging followers in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops. Wouldn't that be conspiracy?
 
shanek said:
How was the Taliban our enemies, given that just a few months earlier our government had given them $10 million in foreign aid?
Click to expand...

Aren't you just a little bit too naive here? The US government has given money to its enemies before.
 
shanek said:
That group of people was not the Taliban.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. The US were at war with the Taliban. Whether it was right to do so is another issue.

shanek said:
No, it wouldn't, because the Taliban wasn't our enemy. Our government accused the Taliban of aiding bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and that was the pretense used to attack Afghanistan. But this is, at worst, giving aid to someone who's giving aid to the enemy, and the Constitution doesn't recognize any degrees of separation there.
Click to expand...

Does it say anything in the constitution what an "enemy" is?

shanek said:
That's completely wrong. The only definition of treason that counts in this country is the one in Article III Section 3 Clause 1 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If you were right, there would never be court decisions on constitutional matters. As it happens, there are.
 
Jurors in the trial of a prominent Islamic scholar on Tuesday convicted him on 10 counts of encouraging followers in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Questioninggeller said:
So this guy is looking at possibly "life in prison" for trying to get people to join the Taliban?
Click to expand...
No, the guy is looking at possibly "life in prison" for sedition.

se·di·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-dshn)
n.
  1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
  2. Insurrection; rebellion.
    [/list=1]
Click to expand...
  1. As a free speech advocate I'm not at all comfortable with putting this guy away. But let's at least be accurate about what is happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom