2 Anaheim men found guilty of trying to help the Islamic State

Here's where the first amendments meets it's demise and you will probably be cheering it on.

There's a big issue with precrime and arresting people for potential future crimes and how we look at freedom of speech. Of course they will use the word "terror" and not Islamic terror in order to broaden the spectrum and target any and all groups who oppose the establishment.

OC Register

“These convictions are a message to those who aim to travel to take up arms with (the Islamic State) and to those who support them: The FBI and our partners are determined to thwart your efforts,” said Deirdre Fike, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, in a statement.

I agree, do not support ISIS.

Pal Lengyel-Leahu, Elhuzayel’s attorney, argued that the Islamic State wasn’t designated a terrorist organization at the time of his client’s arrest. The attorney indicated after the verdict that he plans to bring that argument up again on appeal.

“A snap verdict means they really didn’t grapple with the issues as we presented them,” Lengyel-Leahu said of the jurors.

Kate Corrigan, Badawi’s attorney, blamed her client’s legal trouble on Elhuzayel, whom she described as a liar.

“This case, if nothing else, should be a clear signal for our young people not to communicate anything online they couldn’t stand by in a courtroom,” Corrigan added. “If you can’t deliver on what you say, don’t say it.”

Of course any potential ISIS wannabe is a dirtbag who deserves the worst we have to offer however this is still America. Do we sacrifice our values for the illusion of security or do we throw everything out of the window because of alleged ties and things said on social media?

I know this is tough conversation to have but it may be necessary.

What do you think did they do the right thing or is our judicial branch a rogue element?

a reply to: onequestion

My biggest problem is that I think we are being manipulated to give up incremental freedom all in the name of 'security'. I know there really are bad people out there that may deserve what they get, but if we give up on our basic principles of liberty then what difference does it make if we are protected from the terrorists?

I would prefer dealing with bombings and shootings over giving up our rights. Freedom is more important to me than security.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: onequestion

I would prefer dealing with bombings and shootings over giving up our rights. Freedom is more important to me than security.

fantastic logic!
clean up afterwards no matter if the shooter, like in orlando, has no connection or ties to a terrorist group, declares loyalty to said terrorist group, via a desk operator for emergency services, in america, then shout at islam, while not understanding it should be wahhabi in the case of daesh.
its unfortunate that troglodytes get a vote.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: onequestion

My biggest problem is that I think we are being manipulated to give up incremental freedom all in the name of 'security'. I know there really are bad people out there that may deserve what they get, but if we give up on our basic principles of liberty then what difference does it make if we are protected from the terrorists?

I would prefer dealing with bombings and shootings over giving up our rights. Freedom is more important to me than security.

I'm with you Metallicus!

a reply to: onequestion

I believe it is ridiculous that offering material aid to states and organisations considered terrorist is considered criminal, when supporting terror groups is part of the intelligence agencies playbook, and that no one in the government or the intelligence services has ever been charged with the same thing, despite having offered massive material and financial aid to terror groups over the years.