Virginia cleric gets life for urging war against USA

[Sean]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...entenced_x.htm

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A prominent Islamic scholar who exhorted his followers after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison. Ali al-Timimi of Fairfax was convicted in April of soliciting others to levy war against the United States, inducing others to aid the Taliban, and inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law. The cleric addressed the court for 10 minutes before his sentencing. "I will not admit guilt nor seek the court's mercy. I do this simply because I am innocent," al-Timimi said. Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg said al-Timimi "hates the United States" and has called for its destruction.

Thoughts? His lawyers are saying this is a violation of free speech. I have to say this guy crossed the line in my opinion.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Sedition I do believe, covers this. Free Speech is fine and dandy, war against the COUNTRY is another thing.

Calling for War against the government btw is supposed to legal..

But yeah, this guy needs to go away, he really means it unlike most attention whores.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Sedition I do believe, covers this. Free Speech is fine and dandy, war against the COUNTRY is another thing. Calling for War against the government btw is supposed to legal.. But yeah, this guy needs to go away, he really means it unlike most attention whores.

Yeah, everyone is for free speech until someone says something they don't like. This sentence is unreasonable considering the fact that none of this guy's rantings incited any of his followers to any illegal action. So much for his "enormous influence" with his paintball playing followers. No one really listens to this old fool, yet our government spins this crap into a "what if" scenario. When the legal system in this country starts dishing out life sentences to people for things they MIGHT do, we are all in trouble.

American citizens are being terrorized all right, but it's being done by our own authorities using the threat of attack to justify all kinds of "terrorist arrests". Weeks after a high-profile FBI break up of an "al qaeda terrorist cell" in Lodi, the actual charges are lying to a federal agent. If this is really a serious crime, there's undoubtedly not a politician in office today that shouldn't also be in jail.

This sentence is totally out of proportion to the actual actions involved, I expect that it will be overturned on appeal.

[ibm]

Quote by: Zeebadee ...expect that it will be overturned on appeal.

doubt it.

[Nono]

It's also federal offcence to threaten the life of a president. If I recall, several members of congress warned Clinton that he might not survive a trip to their constituencies.

At what penitentiaries are those jailbirds to be found?

[rcne]

A life sentence seems a little harsh - oh wait - this is America, that means parole in 10 years. Let me guess - he must be an alum of the Saudi funded Wadi school in Virgina.

A better sentence may be just to sent him on a Southern Baptist retreat for 1 year.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: rcne A better sentence may be just to sent him on a Southern Baptist retreat for 1 year.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment. A fate worse than death.

[rmnunez]

Free speech has never meant completely unrestricted freedom to say anything. Content may be restricted as was seen in 1969 in Brandenberg v. Ohio if the speech "is directed at producing or inciting imminent lawless action" ...and "is likely to produce or incite such action". The question generally concerns the imminence of the lawless action threatened by the inciting speech. The idea is that someone leading a rally or demonstration can't urge his followers to "throw the bums out" as he leads them towards City Hall -if it appears they could actually do this when they got there. They call it the "clear and present danger" test.

[Whodoe!]

Quote by: rmnunez Free speech has never meant completely unrestricted freedom to say anything. Content may be restricted as was seen in 1969 in Brandenberg v. Ohio if the speech "is directed at producing or inciting imminent lawless action" ...and "is likely to produce or incite such action". The question generally concerns the imminence of the lawless action threatened by the inciting speech. The idea is that someone leading a rally or demonstration can't urge his followers to "throw the bums out" as he leads them towards City Hall -if it appears they could actually do this when they got there. They call it the "clear and present danger" test.

Thank you for illustrating this point. It is silly is assume free speech should be used to protect people who would use their influence to incite violence.

[Zeebadee]

Bullshit. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. When you put people in jail for saying something, then it's only a matter of time until the law gets around to finding out you said something it didn't like. This is prior restraint, nothing more. The guy voices an unpopular theme, so he has to be punished.

This "yell fire in a crowded theater" crap is nothing more than a defense attorney's ploy to get us to believe that "freedom of speech" really means "approved freedom of speech". If you yell fire in a crowded theater and there is none, you are responsible for the result, and should be prosecuted. Saying untrue things might be a crime, voicing opinions should never be.

[Whodoe!]

Quote by: Zeebadee Bullshit. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. When you put people in jail for saying something, then it's only a matter of time until the law gets around to finding out you said something it didn't like. This is prior restraint, nothing more. The guy voices an unpopular theme, so he has to be punished. This "yell fire in a crowded theater" crap is nothing more than a defense attorney's ploy to get us to believe that "freedom of speech" really means "approved freedom of speech". If you yell fire in a crowded theater and there is none, you are responsible for the result, and should be prosecuted. Saying untrue things might be a crime, voicing opinions should never be.

So then Charles Manson was protected by free speech until someone got killed? Or was he protected entirely and not guilty of anything since he just talked?

In the example of the theater fire, you say no bad until someone gets hurt? What about making terroristic threats? If someone says, “I am going to beat you to death and then decapitate your dog.” Is that protected until he acts on his stated desire?

What if a girl suggests to her boy that he go kill some people so they can happier together? Is that free speech until the boy kills people?

Finally, do you think there is no crime in inciting a riot?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Whodoe! So then Charles Manson was protected by free speech until someone got killed? Or was he protected entirely and not guilty of anything since he just talked? In the example of the theater fire, you say no bad until someone gets hurt? What about making terroristic threats? If someone says, “I am going to beat you to death and then decapitate your dog.” Is that protected until he acts on his stated desire? What if a girl suggests to her boy that he go kill some people so they can happier together? Is that free speech until the boy kills people? Finally, do you think there is no crime in inciting a riot?

Well, should people go to jail for something that MIGHT happen? If Manson's followers had just stayed home, would he have gone to jail? Someone making a direct threat agaisnt another is not the same thing. Telling someone to go to Afghanistan and fight for the Taliban is not making a direct threat against another person. Is this really worthy of a life sentence, especially if no one actually went? Or is it merely a way to intimidate others to be careful about what they say?

And yes, I don't think it's a crime to incite a riot unless a riot actually occurs.

[Whodoe!]

Thanks for your comments. It is a crime to plan a crime because it helps prevent the crime. If someone playfully yells, “there’s a bomb!” at a concert and dozens of people get trampled to death that is criminal behavior. If no one gets hurt, it is still criminal behavior. I absolutely want to be protected against potential crime because after my death, it is too late.

I think conspiring to harm other people, directly or indirectly, is rightly a criminal offense and free speech has nothing to do with it. It should be a criminal act to plan the violent destruction of your host country (within whatever country you are standing inside at the time).

I suppose if he told someone to go be a cook for the Taliban army maybe that would mitigate his abuse of free speech. Maybe knock a few years off – especially if it were a particularly bad cook who followed his advice.

Did Jim Jones commit a crime when he told his followers to drink poison? Or only after they drank it?

[Zeebadee]

"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."

Like every other amendment, the first is being constantly chipped away at. While you're so worried about the "violent destruction" of our society, you seem to be not at all worried about it's peaceful destruction. Like many others these days, you want to give up some of your freedom for a greater sense of security. I disagree, I am not willing to voluntarily give up the slightest shred of my rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. I'd much rather take my chances with the crooks out on the streets than cede my rights to the crooks in the government.

All this guy did was talk. In addition to telling his followers to drink poison, Jim Jones provided it, so I guess he was guilty of something.

[Tesserakt]

The solution doesn't lie in locking up anyone who says something we don't like. It's in finding out if he's justifitied in what he says.

That may sound difficult, but it's the only way to actually solve a bigger problem. How much extra publicity have his rants gotten because we locked him up? How many more people might be incited to violence because of our solution?

The easy route is simply to say "he hates the United States" as the Assistant Attorney said. The effective way is to take a no bs assessment of what our actions in foreign countries mean.

As long as middle eastern regimes treat their people like garbage we shouldn't be enabling them by purchasing their oil. It's like the sons of an evil 7-11 owner attacking the customers for doing business with their parents.

It's scary when people in our own country are so ignorant that they can be brought to a standing applause over some meaningless jingoistic catch-phrase like "Over There", when the reality of our envolvement in the ME both legit and illigitimate ensure crazed suicide bombers will come "Over Here".

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zeebadee "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." Like every other amendment, the first is being constantly chipped away at. While you're so worried about the "violent destruction" of our society, you seem to be not at all worried about it's peaceful destruction. Like many others these days, you want to give up some of your freedom for a greater sense of security. I disagree, I am not willing to voluntarily give up the slightest shred of my rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. I'd much rather take my chances with the crooks out on the streets than cede my rights to the crooks in the government.

I completely agree. I don't understand how the first amendment can be interpreted any other way. It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law except for ones that protect safety, or ones that prevent people from yelling fire in a crowded theater, or ones that incite riot..."

"Congress shall make NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech."

It quite clearly says no law, meaning none, nada, zip, zilch. Every law that deals with making spoken words illegal is unConstitutional, period. That is what the Constitution says. Don't like it, change it.

[Chalk]

The freedom of speech thing has been on the news over here regarding preachers who make comments that could be interpreted as inciting terrorism- I think there is a debate about whether it's going to be made illegal to say things along those lines in the wake of the London bombing. I can't quote a source as I just caught it on the news (TV) but I don't see how it will help- if you plan on commiting a serious crime, you don't tell everyone beforehand..

[castille]

Conspiracy to commit a crime is still a crime. The man was calling for war against the country he resided in, therefor it should have been conspiracy to commit treason.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: castille Conspiracy to commit a crime is still a crime. The man was calling for war against the country he resided in, therefor it should have been conspiracy to commit treason.

We know that. What we are discussing here is whether "calling for" anything should be a crime.

[castille]

Well Adolf Hitler never killed anyone. He only called for people to kill them.