US Muslim to appeal life sentence for inciting jihad (but RW hatespeech?)

[Monkie]

edit:dyslexia
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1529088,00.html

"Defence lawyers said yesterday they would appeal against a life sentence imposed on a Muslim scholar for inciting his followers to fight a jihad against America, in a case that has raised questions about mandatory sentencing guidelines.

Ali al-Timimi, an Iraqi-American cancer researcher who lectured at a mosque in the Virginian suburbs of Washington, declared himself to be "a prisoner of conscience" after the sentence was imposed on Wednesday.

The judge in the case, Leonie Brinkema, conceded the sentence was "very draconian", but said her hands were tied by mandatory congressional sentencing guidelines. She rejected a defence demand to set aside the conviction, and claims that Mr Timimi was protected by the constitution's first amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression.

Much of the evidence came from a meeting in the Washington suburbs in 2001, five days after September 11. At the meeting, a prosecution witness alleged, Mr Timimi said "the time had come for them to go abroad and join the mujahideen engaged in violent jihad in Afghanistan"."

not that i'm claiming this is a nice guy or we should all group hug,but what is this with a life sentence for doing nothing worse than what we hear from the RW constantly as beamed out to millions of people without any repercussions.Ann Coulter's "nuke North-Korea" was the first thing that sprung to mind.
Not wanting to get into the details of the legality of the Afghan war but he seems to have been inciting to go and fight on one side of two armies in a war in another country.Admittedly it was pretty stupid to do that against the army of one of the countries while living there, but he is a citizen..
thoughts?

[Oversea Visitor]

1. Al Qaaqaa

is a terrorist organisation funded by CIA
Some how along the line some moron change the whole issue into a religious thingy.
Now as usual ONE BIG BIG MESS

[bitchkitty]

2. Al Quaaqaa?

Was that a joke? Pronounced ka-ka?

[Oversea Visitor]

4. Was trying to make is sound like

a duck.... quack..... doctor

[MisterP]

22. there actually IS an al-Qaqaa site: it's where 315 tons of high explosive

were stolen from when we invaded Iraq and guarded the oil documents but not the 6,000-year-old museum pieces or the 1,300-year-old Korans.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. How is it that this story appears in the Guardian

and I hear nothing about it in the US press?

I should think Bushco would trumpet this as a great victory for the Patriot Act in the war on Terra.

Maybe because American citizens might have second thoughts about imposing a life sentence for doing nothing more than talking?

[dArKeR]

6. Without thinking about my opinion, I sure second it's published in the UK

and NOT in America! INCREDIBLE!!!!!!

[pop goes the weasel]

5. some big differences

I agree that what Timmi had said was right wing hate speech, but what brought him (and not AC) under scrutiny, was that he

1. was encouraging taking up arms against the US (at that point, it was pretty obvious that supporting the Taliban was the equivalent of supporting Al Quaida--this isn't like the Lindh case)
2. was directly urging specific people to do so
3. and those people can be specifically tied to a personal relationship with him.

If he had made a more vague remark directed at a general public, it might fall under political free speech, but he was actively urging treason. I mean, jeesh, he doesn't even deny it, which is why his lawyers have been so despairing. It's hard to mount a good defense with a client who, charged with incitement to treason, tells the judge that he doesn't recognize the authority of United States law.

From everything I can see, the guy was fairly indicted and got a fair trial. With all the excesses that the government has committed in fighting "terra," I find it refreshing to see an honest attempt at justice and a reasonable verdict.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Judge Roy Moore also said he didn't recognize the

authority of the US over his placement of the 10 commandments monument -- should he have gotten life?

People regularly place their religion on a level higher than their government. That is not a crime, in and of itself. Even if he was advocating treason, if he was himself not taking treasonous action it should not be prosecutable, because he had no authority over those he was talking to, to force their compliance. Anyone listening could simply walk away without repercussion. Unless he was collecting money for terrorists, organizing the logistics for those he talked to for attending training camps, etc., there is little that he actually did. And in this country you should not be prosecuted for talking.

And, if he was actually an accessory to terrorists, what did he do that warrants life in prison?

It scares the hell out of me that we have allowed a two-tier justice system to be established -- one for criminals and one for political enemies. If this had been a criminal prosecution, he might have been charged under RICO, called a criminal mastermind and then gotten maybe 10 or 15 years. But making it a criminal TERRORIST prosecution justifies a life sentence.

This is a part of the same anti-(whatever) hysteria that accompanies every war we've ever fought. And after every war we've regretted the abuses of human rights that we inflicted on the 'other', whether it was the Japanese in WWII, the Germans in WWI, or the rebels in the Civil War.

[pop goes the weasel]

27. if he was directly encouraging

people to take up arms against the US, then he should.

I want the US government to crack down much harder on right-wing subversive groups than it does. Those are the people, not ELF or ALF, who are dangerous and who have actually committed intentional murder in the name of their cause.

The failure of the government to adequately address right-wing Christian terrorism is not an argument for leniency in the case of right-wing Islamic terrorism. It is a failure of justice in the US in general application, but not a failure in the specific case.

[dArKeR]

7. We just had a Republican Representative Peter King say to shoot

Russert and other people. (I heard this also on Franken and I thought he said it was "Senator".)

We had Fox's Gibson tell people to blow up France.

We had O'Reily telling people to put a knife in some moral jouirnalist.

We had Limbaugh say torturing Muslims is a good thing.

This is all I've personally heard from on the Media airwaves.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. I tried to get a discussion of this yesterday, when it did appear in

a US paper.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4098901

I had the same questions, just what did this guy really do that deserves a life sentence?

If it all boils down to an organization being on the 'terrorist list', then I guess if I were to recruit people for PETA or ELF, I could be sentenced to life in prison!

[Monkie]

10. sometimes GD is too hectic for posts to be noticed

i did search LBN and was surprised it hadnt been posted as it was on some US sites.while i probably agree his actions warrant some jailtime i still find it odd he gets life for inciting to fight against a army in war,remember Americans went to fight against Franco's fascists in Spain and there are many other examples.If Americans went to fight a legal war in Afghanistan is it also not legal for others to go fight against a army in that conflict if they follow the geneva convention?Stupid yes,VERY stupid, but i dont see how that makes them anymore monstrous then someone who can drop 1000lbs bombs from a plane.
now that you said ELF,life,recruit,prison,yesterday and 'terrorist list' in the same post on the internets i'm sure you are being tracked as we speak :D

[geek tragedy]

12. It was not legal for Americans to aid the Taliban in a fight against the

United States government and its military.

That's treason, and it's a crime.

Imagine some German-Americans folks gathering in Milwaukee trying to get recruits to go defend "The Fatherland" in 1944.

[High Plains]

13. Did we declare war on Afghanistan by Sept 16, 2001?

If not, how can it be treason?

[geek tragedy]

14. Is there any doubt he was recruiting them to help defend the Taliban

against American soldiers?

I don't see any reasonable doubt on that point, and neither did the jury.

[The Stranger]

19. Apparently there is. Respond to the question in the post presented.

And it may not matter what the jury finds -- if what they find is unsupported, the judge may grant a directed verdict.

[geek tragedy]

20. If his intent was to supply the Taliban with American fighters who

would be killing American soldiers in a theater of combat, then his intent was to commit the crime of treason.

There was no reasonable doubt. The judge didn't find any, and the jury didn't find any.

There doesn't need to be a declaration of war to support a finding of treason.

[The Stranger]

23. Read (and re-read) post No. 13 one more time.

Comment only on that.

[geek tragedy]

24. Read (and reread) the last sentence of post #20.

And do not suppose that you can order me around.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. Treason is not based on declaration of war.

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

However, military code may differ on what constitutes an act of treason.

[geek tragedy]

26. Military code is irrelevant to the charge of treason, which is defined

in the Constitution.

[High Plains]

15. Try a more accurate parallel

Imagine some German-American folks gathering in Milwaukee to get recruits to defend the Fatherland in 1939. Would that have been treason?

[geek tragedy]

16. Try an even more accurate parallel:

Japanese Americans recruiting in the hours following Pearl Harbor.

His action was obviously in response to the 911 attacks. Why would he think the Taliban needed help?

Because they were going to fight the infidels, i.e. Americans.

Again, there's no reasonable doubt that he intended to send them to Afghanistan to fight against the American military.

[Monkie]

17. i didnt think it legal,was wondering if there was a difference

between inciting to attack and inciting to defend,leaving aside the morality of the Taliban or the war on Afghanistan (wouldnt argue for either personally).I could "understand" a german-american moral dilemma and wanting to defend a "home" more than i could understand that same german-american if they wished to attack their other home to use this example.I understand that people with dual nationalities can have moral conflicts that arise from that fact.But this wasnt my main point more an aside and a bit abstract too,i do realise jail is where he belongs for a period of time but i dont think life serves anyones interest.my main point was more is there such a moral difference between inciting to fight a army during a war and the kind of stuff we see and hear all the time in the media from certain people,one deserves life in prison and the other a nice fat paycheck?

[geek tragedy]

18. Legally, there's no difference. Bearing arms against the American

government or military is per se treason, regardless of where it would happen.

Morally, I'm not going to hold this guy in much different regard than Richard Perle.

[geek tragedy]

11. Soliciting treason is most definitely a crime. No tears for traitors.

One is not allowed to recruit for the people shooting at US soldiers in a military conflict.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Differences

Although, I think life in prison is absurd and WAY 'over-the-top,' the speaker was encouraging violence directly. The Ann Coulter example is not a good one, because she has no real authority and was not commanding a group to "nuke N. Korea." Her statement is just ignorant, but still protected speech, even as odious as it was.

A better example would be the Klan. They can give speeches about hating Jews, Blacks, gays, etc. until the cows come home! It is protected speech. However, if during a meeting (on a website), they encourage a violent act (bomb a synagogue, lynch a black, etc.) they have crossed into NON-protected speech. The speaker was not commenting on his ire or hate for the US or the war in Afghanistan, but rather, encouraging violence against others, in this case the military, which could be construed as "treason." Therefore, it was not protected speech.