Island Dog Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Another reason terrorists should not be tried in the courts. BOISE, Idaho — University of Idaho (search) graduate student Sami Omar Al-Hussayen (search), the bespectacled computer whiz at the center of a confrontation between the First Amendment and the War on Terror (search), was acquitted Thursday of charges he used his Internet skills to foster terrorism. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122375,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyout Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 god....who we let walk around outside that should really be monitored.... why did he not go to the feds if he knew what was on the site he was "maintaining"? ****ing stupid....its not the fact that they should not be tried in the courts...its just that apparentlly they can't prosecute right... otherwize the jury would have at least hit him with something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Island Dog Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 ****ing stupid....its not the fact that they should not be tried in the courts...its just that apparentlly they can't prosecute right...otherwize the jury would have at least hit him with something Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Hawk Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Crappy legal system. You could try Osama here and he would probably get off on a technicality. Same thing could probably happen in a military tribunal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowimnothing Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 His defense maintained that his association with the Web sites was as a Muslim volunteer and computer expert who simply wanted to keep the sites in operation. that's a defense??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoyablue Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Crappy legal system. You could try Osama here and he would probably get off on a technicality. Same thing could probably happen in a military tribunal. You say that technicalities could occur. Sadly, that is exactly the problem. Police these days don't know you need a warrant to arrest people, lawyers can't interpret probable cause etc. However, the alternatives to this situation are even worse. In military tribunals, the public is left unaware with what occurs in these courts. Due process rights could be curtailed without anyone knowing (so there is no protest from the public on this matter). Most importantly is that there is no check on the Government. The jury was created to serve as a check from judges arbitrarely imposing their own ideologies and thoughts into a decision that could impact a person's (who is innocent until proven guilty) life. In a Justice system, there is bound to be some type of inconsistency, but to prioritize expedienc yover what is right is immoral and injust. Almost all Justices in US history of claimed that and it is a fundamental principle that is, though not explicitely outlined in the constitution, can be inferred by the 5th amendment due process clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted June 10, 2004 Veteran Share Posted June 10, 2004 You say that technicalities could occur. Sadly, that is exactly the problem. Police these days don't know you need a warrant to arrest people, lawyers can't interpret probable cause etc. However, the alternatives to this situation are even worse. In military tribunals, the public is left unaware with what occurs in these courts. Due process rights could be curtailed without anyone knowing (so there is no protest from the public on this matter). Most importantly is that there is no check on the Government. The jury was created to serve as a check from judges arbitrarely imposing their own ideologies and thoughts into a decision that could impact a person's (who is innocent until proven guilty) life.In a Justice system, there is bound to be some type of inconsistency, but to prioritize expedienc yover what is right is immoral and injust. Almost all Justices in US history of claimed that and it is a fundamental principle that is, though not explicitely outlined in the constitution, can be inferred by the 5th amendment due process clause. A bit long winded, but when you are right, you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Well, unless they have proof that he was actually plotting something, I don't see what he did wrong anyway. That's not even going around saying you're going to kill someone, that's like passing out notes from someone else that says they're going to kill someone. It's a pretty ****ty thing to do, but at least we know there's some balance to the "Patriot" act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowimnothing Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Well, unless they have proof that he was actually plotting something, I don't see what he did wrong anyway. That's not even going around saying you're going to kill someone, that's like passing out notes from someone else that says they're going to kill someone. It's a pretty ****ty thing to do, but at least we know there's some balance to the "Patriot" act. even if he wasn't plotting something, but he was knowingly facilitating something, that's pretty bad in my opinion. i obviously have no idea what kind of proof they had, just that one article... but if they had something that showed he, say, setup the paypal account for people to donate money to a known terrorist organization, among other things, then, like i said, that's pretty bad. (obviously that example was semi- in jest). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 even if he wasn't plotting something, but he was knowingly facilitating something, that's pretty bad in my opinion.i obviously have no idea what kind of proof they had, just that one article... but if they had something that showed he, say, setup the paypal account for people to donate money to a known terrorist organization, among other things, then, like i said, that's pretty bad. (obviously that example was semi- in jest). Right, it sounds like more than likely he knew who was giving and getting this information, but had no active role in it, such as you said, securing funds or actively connecting members. Without that though, it's only fair that he go free. I'm also wondering why, if the government though this was viable information, they wouldn't have used him to find who was using his webpage. Sounds like he may have been a low end operator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[david] Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 interesting, the fox article isn't actually too specific about why he, as opposed to any one of the raving muslim fanatics you hear about on fox all the time, got picked up. maybe he didn't really do much at all. maybe he just hosted it. none of us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowimnothing Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 none of us know. yeah. need more info... bottom line for right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyout Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 you are legally bound to know what the **** is being put on your servers/whatnot to prevent from being sued and ****ing over other normal customers.. hell if they had a Child Porn site, he probablly would had done nothing about it... yet apparentlly the prosecuters were idiots and never argueed that he knew he was helping terrorist/whatnot because he was the one working on the site/whatnot... replace terrorist with pedofile, and you figure out that a lawyer/few need to be fired for not arguing that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3beanlimit Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Another reason terrorists should not be tried in the courts.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122375,00.html Turn this into anything you like.....You certainly don't know Idaho. It happens to be the second most Conservative state in the Union..........It hangs so far to the right that right wing militias have known to make northern Idaho it's home. This guy was acquitted because the Feds couldn't make a case........You should use some of that right wing agression on Ashcroft...He failed in this case. No pudding and too much talk radio make Jack a dull boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts