Five students win terror appeal

Five students win terror appeal

news.bbc.co.uk

The Court of Appeal has quashed the convictions of five young Muslim men jailed over extremist literature.

Freeing the men, the Lord Chief Justice said their conviction for downloading extremist propaganda was unsafe.

An Old Bailey trial convicted the men last year after hearing they had become obsessed with extremist jihadi websites and literature.

In a statement the men said they were overjoyed at being freed and their prosecution should never have happened.

At their trial, they said they had been uniquely prosecuted for what they had read, rather than anything they had done.

In one of the first trials of its kind, Irfan Raja, Awaab Iqbal, Aitzaz Zafar, Usman Malik and Akbar Butt were jailed in 2007 for downloading and sharing extremist terrorism-related material. The men all received sentences of between two and three years.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I think the story speaks for itself. Considering this week UK internet users have been threatened with terminaion of service for downloading pirated material. Here we have students downloading and sharing "terrorism-related" material with no punishment at all.



news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Is information dangerous? Who makes the decision as to what info is dangerous? Terrorist material is a pretty vague term.

If you hadn't guessed, I'm in favor of this decision. You can't arrest someone for possessing information. If they choose to act on it, or if there's any evidence that they chose to act on it is another thing all together.

So if i had information regarding an upcoming terrorist attack, i was freely sharing hate speech and inciting violence, by your reckoning i would be doing nothing wrong? Afterall its up to me if i let innocent people die, right?

Personally i base my laws on morals and its clear these young men have been brainwashed by radical Islam, which in my opinion spreads all of the activities i meantioned at the start of this post. For me this is beyond freedom of speech, as these men are not free, only messenger's of a higher cultural evil.

I realise that these files had no information relating to terrorist attacks however reading the article fully i am under the impression these individuals should at least have their activities monitored. I also ask you to consider that a judge originally convicted these men, surely a high ranking legal official wouldnt just sentence them to three years, for merely looking at some internet pages.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Is information dangerous? Who makes the decision as to what info is dangerous? Terrorist material is a pretty vague term.

If you hadn't guessed, I'm in favor of this decision. You can't arrest someone for possessing information. If they choose to act on it, or if there's any evidence that they chose to act on it is another thing all together.

technically, wouldnt downloading the "Anarchists Cookbook" or the "Terrorists Cookbook" be considered as dangerous material then? I had downloaded both of those when I was still in Middle School, but I guess if it were in 2008, I could be threatened with jail time.

reply to post by Grenade


If it were a plan for an attack it would be a conspiracy to commit a crime. That is not what this material was appartently. Whatever extremist material it was, it had nothing to do with any planned action of violence or anything of the sort. Materials that say "Non islamists should be rid of this world" is extremist, but the people reading it have no made any threat to anyone.

Originally posted by Grenade
So if i had information regarding an upcoming terrorist attack, i was freely sharing hate speech and inciting violence, by your reckoning i would be doing nothing wrong? Afterall its up to me if i let innocent people die, right?


I must have missed that part of the article. Someone has proven (or even said) they had this information on upcoming attacks and were inciting violence? I understood it to say they had downloaded and read information (or propaganda) ... and were probably discussing it possibly even laughing at it .. but since they were Muslim and had the information in their possesion they were arrested, tried AND convicted? Gotta say I'm glad it got overturned.

[edit on 2/13/08 by reblazed]

I find it hard to believe the judge convicted them for simply looking at some information. Please read my previous post point by point before coming to a conclusion on my point of view. Without the actual details on the case no-one is able to judge their motives or actions. I will try and do some research into exactly what thier activities were and then we can have a clearer picture of their crime, if any.

I do however think that to make it to court and prosecuted involves a lot of time and money, obviously various law enforcement official's initially seen this as a crime. Wouldnt the individuals involved have a better idea then we do? Keep an open mind, i think some aspects of radical Islam, teachings and literature should be outlawed. I dont want a dictatorship however i would prefer that to total anarchy.

Originally posted by Grenade
I find it hard to believe the judge convicted them for simply looking at some information.

How often have you been involved with law and the courts. I was a criminal justice major until I dropped college. Ive been in courts and some judges are good judges, but some judges will rule very harshly and led their biases play a HUGE role in how they conduct themselves.

If it were overturned by a higher court, most likely the judge let his bias/prejudice play such a big role that it influenced the jury. It wouldn't be the first time I have seen something like that happen.

Please read my previous post point by point before coming to a conclusion on my point of view. Without the actual details on the case no-one is able to judge their motives or actions.

No we can't. But convictions can't be made on anything less than hard evidence proving they were going to go through with some sort of plot. Circumstancial evidence should not be able to get a conviction. Unfortunately, in lower courts, some times it does if you get a certain judge/jury.

Regardless of what their motives may be, there actions do not directly connect them to a plot or a previously successful terror plot that breaks the law. Therefore, however much we can suspect them of being terrorist minded, there is nothing we can do but watch them. I would strongly recommend they be watched because their is reasonable cause to WATCH them...not convict them. Thats a dangerous precedent.

I will try and do some research into exactly what thier activities were and then we can have a clearer picture of their crime, if any.

We would all greatly appriciate your efforts to do so. Let us know what you find.

I do however think that to make it to court and prosecuted involves a lot of time and money, obviously various law enforcement official's initially seen this as a crime.

Don't assume too much. Yes it costs money, but like I said before, the prejudice of a judge or jury can lead to a poorly ruled upon case. If it was overturned at a higher court, there was most DEFINATELY a good reason for it.

Wouldnt the individuals involved have a better idea then we do?

Yes, but whos to say these people don't have their own grudges or personal biases? Maybe the judge is a closet racist, or some of the jury members know people lost in the war or 9/11. This may skew their objectivity, and it happens often.

Keep an open mind, i think some aspects of radical Islam, teachings and literature should be outlawed. I dont want a dictatorship however i would prefer that to total anarchy.

Too dangerous of a precedent to set. I am all for enforcing the law, so long as the laws are just and follow due process. Outlawing of such things would not follow due process and be unconstitutional. To disregard the constitution is to disregard everything America stands for, and then the terrorists have gained the greatest victory without any effort of their own.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by grimreaper797]

You are correct .. we are each addressing this from differing points of view. You are coming from "they must be guilty of something" and I am coming from "they are innocent of everything" ... the truth is most likely somewhere inbetween. I would truly be interested in knowing what the original case consisted of. Please post it when you find out.

Originally posted by Grenade
So if i had information regarding an upcoming terrorist attack, i was freely sharing hate speech and inciting violence, by your reckoning i would be doing nothing wrong? Afterall its up to me if i let innocent people die, right?

That wasn't the case though was it?

There was no direct information about an upcoming terrorist attack. There was no violence incited from these documents.

you're taking a pretty big leap. Watch out if there's no ground to fall on.

I believe the judge was right to free these students.

Detaining people for reading material sets a VERY horrifying precedent. If these students can be arrested for simply reading text the enemy has posted on the world wide web, then you yourself can most certainly be arrested for wanting to learn who the enemy is.

I myself quite regularly search for Jihadis information online. I have a desire to know who the enemy is, and why they want to do harm to us. As goes the motto, you have to understand your enemy to defeat them.

Do I have plans to become a Jihadis myself? Of course not, that's absurd. But I could be arrested for my simple curiosity under these pretenses.


Arresting people for reading online information runs parallel to what so many fascist regimes have done in the past with book burning.

It starts off with burning anything related to the ideals of nations outside of your own... and quickly spirals into burning the history books, bibles of other religions, journals, and pretty much anything that isn't fascist doctrine.

Of course, you can't burn the internet... but it doesn't take much effort to simply block IP addresses.

[EDIT : Fixed punctuation]

[edit on 13-2-2008 by johnsky]

I was going to try and create a casebook but then realised im no writer, i found the best way to sum up the case in this bbc article :

news.bbc.co.uk...

The material included publications popular among extreme Islamist organisations, encouraging Muslims to fight.

One of the five had also used a computer to superimpose his own face on a montage of the 9/11 hijackers.

The trial heard police found material on their computers downloaded from the internet, and chatroom conversations said to be intended to encourage terrorism or martyrdom.

Among the items found was a film showing atrocities against Muslims around the world, aimed at encouraging martyrdom.

Prosecutors said the men also had a US military guide to terrorism and a suicide bombing manual.

But their lawyers said the law was designed to catch people holding plans for bombs rather than propaganda.

None of the men possessed information suggesting they were plotting a bomb attack, although there had been talk of heading to Pakistan for paramilitary training.

Im actually from the UK and it seems you are basing your opinions on the american legal system, this wasnt some simple shut and close case, biased isnt something considered as far as im aware.

I actually tend to agree with most of what you have both said and appreciate your comments. However, I still feel the spread of radical Islam should be tackled.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, everyone having the same opinion frightens me.

Thank you for contributing to the thread because if anything, it opens up my mind a little - doesn't everything

Ill pick this up tomorrow as its been a long day and need some sleep.

(sorry for spelling and grammar, i do try)

[edit on 13/2/08 by Grenade]