Over the past several years, the Justice Department has increasingly attempted to criminalize what is clearly protected political speech by prosecuting numerous individuals (Muslims, needless to say) for disseminating political views the government dislikes or considers threatening. The latest episode emerged on Friday, when the FBI announced the arrest and indictment of Jubair Ahmad, a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, charged with “providing material support” to a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT)).
What is the “material support” he allegedly gave? He produced and uploaded a 5-minute video to YouTube featuring photographs of U.S. abuses in Abu Ghraib, video of armored trucks exploding after being hit by IEDs, prayer messages about “jihad” from LeT’s leader, and — according to the FBI’s Affidavit – “a number of terrorist logos.” That, in turn, led the FBI agent who signed the affidavit to assert that ”based on [his] training and experience, it is evident that the video . . . is designed as propaganda to develop support for LeT and to recruit jihadists to LeT.” The FBI also claims Ahmad spoke with the son of an LeT leader about the contents of the video and had attended an LeT camp when he was a teenager in Pakistan. For the act of uploading that single YouTube video (and for denying that he did so when asked by the FBI agents who came to his home to interrogate him), he faces 23 years in prison.
Let’s be very clear about the key point: the Constitution — specifically the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment — prohibits the U.S. Government from punishing someone for the political views they express, even if those views include the advocacy of violence against the U.S. and its leaders. One can dislike this legal fact. One can wish it were different. But it is the clear and unambiguous law, and has been since the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1969 decision inBrandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had publicly threatened violence against political officials in a speech.
In doing so, the Brandenberg Court struck down as unconstitutional an Ohio statute (under which the KKK leader was prosecuted) that made it a crime to “advocate . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.” Such advocacy — please read the part in bold — cannot be a crime because it is protected by the First Amendment. The crux of the Court’s holding: ”the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force“ (emphasis added; for more on the First Amendment law protecting this right to advocate violence, see my discussion here).
To put this less abstractly, and as I’ve noted before, a person has — and should and must have — the absolute free speech right to advocate ideas such as this:
For decades, the U.S. Government has been engaging in violence and otherwise interfering in the Muslim world. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslim men, women and children have died as a result. There is no end in sight to this American assault on the Muslim world and those of its client states. Therefore, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Muslims to engage in violence against Americans as a means of self-defense and to deter further violence against Muslims. That is the only available means for fighting back against the world’s greatest military superpower. The only alternative is continuing passive submission to this onslaught of violence aimed at Muslims.
One may find that idea objectionable or even repellent, but does anyone believe that someone should be prosecuted for writing that paragraph? Anyone who would favor prosecution for that doesn’t understand or believe in the Constitution, as those ideas are pure political speech protected by the First Amendment, every bit as much as: the climate crisis now justifies violent attacks on polluting corporations; or capitalism is so destructive that the use of force in service of a Communist Revolution is compelled; or “if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken” (Brandenberg); or such is the tyranny of the Crown that taking up arms against it is not merely a right but the duty of all American patriots (The American Revolution). The Jerusalem Post justfired one of its columnists, a Jewish leftist who wrote that Palestinian violence against Israel is ”justified” because they have the “right to resist” the occupation; is he guilty of a crime of materially supporting Terrorism? Should Ward Churchill, widely accused of having justified the 9/11 attack (or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who did the same) have been indicted?
Judging from the description of Ahmad’s video in the FBI Affidavit (Ahmad’s YouTube account has been removed), the video in question does not go nearly as far as the clearly protected views referenced in the prior paragraph, as it does not explicitly advocate violence at all; indeed, it appears not to advocate that anyone do anything. Rather, the FBI believes it is evocative of such advocacy (“designed as propaganda to develop support for LeT”), which makes this prosecution even more troubling. Apparently, if you string together video and photographs (or words) in a certain way as to make the DOJ think that you’re implicitly trying to “develop support” for a Terrorist group — based on the political ideas you’re expressing — you risk decades of imprisonment. Is it possible to render the ostensible right of “free speech” more illusory than this?
This case is not an aberration; as indicated, prosecuting Muslims for pure political speech is an increasing weapon of the DOJ. In July, former Obama OLC official Marty Lederman analyzed the indictment of a 22-year-old former Penn State student for — in the FBI’s words – “repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans” by posting comments on a “jihadist” Internet forum including “a comment online that praised the [October, 2010] shootings” at the Pentagon and Marine Corps Museum and ”a number of postings encouraging attacks within the United States.” He also posted links to a bomb-making manual.
Regarding the part of the indictment based on “encouraging violent attacks,” Lederman — who, remember, was an Obama DOJ lawyer until very recently — wrote: it “does not at first glance appear to be different from the sort of advocacy of unlawful conduct that is entitled to substantial First Amendment protection under the Brandenburg line of cases.” As for linking to bomb-making materials, Lederman wrote: ”the First Amendment generally protects the publication of publicly available information, even where there is a chance or a likelihood that one or more readers may put such information to dangerous, unlawful use.” Lederman’s discussion of the law and its applicability to that prosecution contains some caveats (and also raises some other barriers to these kinds of prosecutions), but he is clear that the aspect of the indictment based on the alleged advocacy and encouragement of violence in the name of jihad “would appear to be very vulnerable to a First Amendment challenge.” That’s government-lawyer-ese for: this prosecution is attempting to criminalize free political speech.
Perhaps the most extreme example of this trend is the fact that a Pakistani man in New York was prosecuted and then sentenced to almost six years in prison for doing nothing more than including a Hezbollah news channel in the package of cable channels he offered for sale to consumers in Brooklyn. On some perverse level, though, all of these individuals are lucky that they are being merely prosecuted rather than targeted with due-process-free assassination. As I documented last month, that is what is being done to U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki due — overwhelmingly if not exclusively — to the U.S. Government’s fear of his purely political views.
If the First Amendment was designed to do anything, it was designed to prevent the government from imprisoning people — or killing them — because of the political ideas they promote. Yet that is clearly what the Obama administration is doing with increasing frequency and aggression.
There is one last point that bears emphasis here. Numerous prominent politicians from both political parties — Michael Mukasey, Howard Dean, Wes Clark, Tom Ridge, Ed Rendell, Fran Townsend, Rudy Giuliani, and many others — have not only been enthusiasticaly promoting andadvocating on behalf of a designated terrorist organization (MEK of Iran), but they have been receiving substantial amounts of cash from that Terrorist group as they do so. There is only one list of “designated Terrorist organizations” under the law, and MEK is every bit as much on that list as LeT or Al Qaeda are. Yet you will never, ever see those individuals being indicted by the Obama DOJ for their far more extensive — and paid – involvement with MEK than, for instance, Ahmad has with LeT. That’s because: (1) the criminal law does not apply to politically powerful elites, only to ordinary citizens and residents (indeed, many of those MEK-shilling politicians cheer on broad and harsh application of the “material support” statute when applied to others), and (2) MEK is now devoted to fighting against a government disliked by the U.S. (Iran), so they’ve become (like Saddam Hussein when fighting Iran and bin Laden when fighting the Soviet Union) the Good Terrorists whom the U.S. likes and supports.
Nonetheless, MEK remains on the list of the designated Terrorist groups, and lending them material support — which certainly includes paid shilling for them — is every bit as criminal (at least) as the behavior in the above-discussed indictments. As usual, though, “Terrorism” means nothing other than what the U.S. Government wants it to mean at any given moment. The evisceration of the rule of law evidenced by this disparate treatment is as odious as the First Amendment assault itself.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
He sounds as though he did not do anything wrong-just making a point. We live in paranoid times, they will pass, they always do.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
increasingly attempted to criminalize what is clearly protected political speech by prosecuting numerous individuals (Muslims, needless to say)
Let’s not forget about the KKK, either. They’ve been long victimized by law enforcement for their right to free speech. Unfortunately, they’re not as embraced as other groups so ‘liberals’ turn a blind eye when their rights are infringed.
September 4th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
So tell me how Jihad Watch and Atlas Shruggs stay up when a murderer and bomber quoted thier writings and books as impriation for killing teenagers?
September 4th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Pam gellar, an unindicted co-conspirator of Anders Breivik, only believes in freedom of speech for non-muslims.
September 4th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Greenwald/Danios 2012.
September 4th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Excellent point, Nur Alia. You have the right to agree, not disagree.
September 4th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
So why isn’t Louis Fairyclown in jail for defending the Fort Hood shooting?
September 4th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@ Webdawah:
I’m a huge Glenn Greenwald fan, so that’s a very flattering statement. Thank you.
September 4th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
wait wait wait I am sorry U know I usually agree with articles here but
Your Freedoms end when they step on or inhibit mine. This goes for anyone and everyone including the KKK hatemongers and others. Lets put this another way what would the opinion of people here be If say Pam Geller Uploaded a Youtube video on her blog from THe norway killer calling for killing of muslims…. Are we all take the side of this article because its regarding muslims and free speech.
uploaded a 5-minute video to YouTube featuring photographs of U.S. abuses in Abu Ghraib, video of armored trucks exploding after being hit by IEDs, prayer messages about “jihad” from LeT’s leader, and — according to the FBI’s Affidavit – “a number of terrorist logos.” for denying that he did so when asked by the FBI agents who came to his home to interrogate him), he faces 23 years in prison.
That sounds like Terrorism to me. Heck telling Lies to a federal agent alone a crime which has hard penalties. You really can’t side with this even under free speech because it could get someone hurt or killed also
because The over all big picture if he does go thru with it what ever is reasons are then we all know what will happend Rest of us will be blamed and it will make it more worse for us.
September 4th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Well, if uploading that video to You Tube is terrorism, the FBI is going to need new agents to arrest all those who threaten President Obama on, well, practically every single right-wing blog out there.
September 4th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
he faces 23 years in prison.
Basically, the guy is facing a sentence longer than most convicted murderers will get for, in part, ‘fibbing’ to the FBI for something they had no business asking him about.
The charges should be dismissed assuming this isn’t the usual Glenn Greenwald spin.
September 4th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
^and what about all those who believe in genocide against Muslims? Will the FBI arrest them too? or is it just Thought Police against Muslims only?
September 4th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
I agree with JD. Heck, for our sake I wouldlve contacted him and told him to cease and desist, if he didn’t I would hve to contact proper authorities because innoccent lives might be in danger and we all know exactly who is going to get blamed. WE ARE! So when you see your brother Or Sister in Islam doing wrong advise them and attempt to stop them. Overall I think this guy is just a bonehead. Your a Muslim, your already on thin ice, and he went and made a bonehead move that might cost him 23 years of his life. Years he couldve used to learn about Islam and get a college degree or something.
September 4th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
or is it just Thought Police against Muslims only?
As the article and another poster pointed out, non-Muslims are ‘victimized’ and Muslims are given ‘a pass’ for their speech.
September 4th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
If you don’t like that this type of language is protected under the first amendment, then you need to move to a country where your opinion agrees with a lack of freedom of speech. Say, Saudi Arabia.
(Sorry, I’ve wanted to throw that back in someone’s face for a long, long time…)
September 4th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
^You mean the KKK way back in 1969?? I’m talking about this decade since 9/11 where only Muslims seem to be the easy target.
and what do you mean by the “usual Glenn Greenwald spin”?? Give me one example.
September 4th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
meant to reply to TheScroll
September 4th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
^You mean the KKK way back in 1969?? I’m talking about this decade since 9/11 where only Muslims seem to be the easy target.
I also mean the Klan from the 90′s and 2000′s.
Also, as someone else pointed out, there are also Muslims who say incendiary things, such as Louis Farrakhan who identifies himself as a Muslim, but are not arrested.
September 4th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Well, the Original NOI became a legitimate Muslim Org, but Louis Farrakhan wanted to go solo, so he reconstructed the NOI back to it’s weird, racist form.
September 4th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Telling from his writing style, repeated use of tu quoque and tired old arguments, “TheScrollWheel” is the loon who formerly called himself “JihadBob.” Little Bob was also fond of comparing Muslims to the KKK, though he himself palpably sympathized with the South (in the context of the Civil War). Evident is the fact that he didn’t read the article as he raised “points” already addressed in the article.
As for Louis Farrakhan, his words regarding the Fort Hood shooting were widely condemned by both the political Left and Right. Contrast that to numerous figures that utilize bigoted rhetoric against Muslims (including Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Hugh Fitzgerald, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and so on) but are widely accepted by many segments of Western society and are rewarded with fame and fortune. If someone writes a book calling for Muslims to be put into internment camps, they earn the admiration of millions and those who criticize them are often chastised. There is simply no comparison.
And lol @ those who call Farrakhan a Muslim while conversely labeling ‘ulema who condemn terrorism “heretics.” Truly laughable, hypocritical, and ridiculous. The NOI’s beliefs are often irreconcilable with the religion of Islam as practiced in traditional Muslim societies.
September 4th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Oh Snap! Time to change your name again Scroll. Made a big mistake comparing KKK to Muslims and not knowing the difference between Muslims and Farrakhan’s “Nation of Islam”.
September 4th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
And lol @ those who call Farrakhan a Muslim while conversely labeling ‘ulema who condemn terrorism “heretics.” Truly laughable, hypocritical, and ridiculous. The NOI’s beliefs are often irreconcilable with the religion of Islam as practiced in traditional Muslim societies.
Great comment NassirH. Sick and tired of the loons telling us who are “true” muslims and who is following “true” islam.
September 4th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Agree with solid snake.
I think, the best thing you could do for Islam when you are tired and frustrated with all thats going around, start dawah – invite people to Islam, that not a crime, right?
September 5th, 2011 at 12:26 am
The KKK in the 90′s and 00′s? They were an even bigger joke. For all intents and purposes, the KKK is defunct. In many states they CAN’T get enough people together for a rally. In those where they can, it is usually a few old guys stumbling around in crappy ghost costumes.
But the key difference here is that the KKK back in the middle of the 20th century WAS a criminal conspiracy, and one with considerable political clout in certain parts of the Midwest and South. Plenty of local politicians were involved with the Klan. And, despite what certain rightwing apologists seem to believe, the Klan in it’s heyday was a pro-Democrat institution. During Reconstruction they were actively opposed to Republican candidates (remember, Lincoln was a Republican for crying out loud).
As Nassir said, this isn’t about actual criminal acts at all. It’s about political speech. Muslims who express political views in opposition to the dominant political paradigm run the risk of being censored or worse. Right-wingers who pander to some of the same crowds (and in some cases, provide ACTUAL material support for terrorism, as Peter King and Rudolph Giuliani did) do not. In fact, white (or black) liberals who criticize US foreign policy don’t risk being prosecuted for terrorism either. Only those who are Muslim or (ostensibly) of ‘foreign’ descent.
I believe the same goes for Luis Farrakhan. His Nation of Islam, despite the name, has little to do with Islam at all. It’s a racial ideology based on… well alot of disparate influences. But some of their doctrines definitely fall in the category of shirk, which makes them completely incompatible with Islam, unlike our estranged sister faiths the Bahai, Druze and Sikhs with whom we still share much in common.
SO why hasn’t Farrakhan been prosecuted on trumped up charges of ‘terrorism.’ Well, for one thing, he certainly has better lawyers than any Muslim organization in the US. But more importantly, he still has money and wields a surprising amount of influence on CERTAIN segments of the black population. For all intents and purposes, he is part of the western system, much as he may claim otherwise. He is just another part of the political landscape, odd perhaps, but implicitly accepted by those in power because it preserves the status quo.
Legitimate Muslim groups wielding political influence on any real level in America, however, is not. We’re the new kids on the block. And that means that those in power will always despise us, because they do not want to loose any ground to someone else. New religions, new ethnicties, new niches… these are dangerous to the elites because they challenge their precarious influence.
September 5th, 2011 at 1:07 am
As always, a very good analysis; you are wasted in the comments section and I still want to borrow some of these comments and bash them into articles someday.
“remember, Lincoln was a Republican for crying out loud”
And Winston Churchill was a Liberal!
Both of the above are reasons why I don’t do the whole politics thing, you can’t label people…
September 5th, 2011 at 8:30 am
I always find it ridiculous when armchair jihadists wanna hide behind the US Constitution. If you’re calling for open warfare and killing, don’t be shocked when there’s a legal backlash.
This is more reason why Muslims need to be careful about being swept away by the emotionalism and anger of these extremist groups.
September 5th, 2011 at 10:22 am
And lol @ those who call Farrakhan a Muslim while conversely labeling ‘ulema who condemn terrorism “heretics.” Truly laughable, hypocritical, and ridiculous. The NOI’s beliefs are often irreconcilable with the religion of Islam as practiced in traditional Muslim societies.
Farrakhan considers himself a Muslim which is the point.
Obviously a little common sense goes a long way.
September 5th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Yeah well Hitler also considered him self Christian so now what can we say about Christians following your logic
September 5th, 2011 at 10:27 am
But the key difference here is that the KKK back in the middle of the 20th century WAS a criminal conspiracy,
The key difference is that the Klan’s right to speech and peaceable assembly was restricted by the government.
The WBC people are also another example where their right to assembly is being curbed by the government.
Neither of the above two examples involve Muslims. In both cases, it is Christians who are being persecuted*.
* Bill Riccio is a former neo-Nazi and current member of the Klan who is also a practicing pagan.
September 5th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Yeah well Hitler also considered him self Christian so now what can we say about Christians following your logic
I don’t know, what does it do with what I previously wrote about Farrakhan and free speech?
September 5th, 2011 at 10:37 am
The noi believes that white people were created by an evil scientist named yakoub. How are they muslim?!?!?!
September 5th, 2011 at 11:03 am
“both cases, it is Christians who are being persecuted*”
Are they going to prison for 23 years??
September 5th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Nation of Islam is a religious movement exclusive to American blacks. Islam is a world religion open to anyone. The Prophet Muhammad and the Ahl ul-Bay’t were Arab, Bilal was an Ethiopian, Salman was a Persian, Suhayb was a Greek, Abdullah ibn Salim was a Jew, and Mariam al-Qibtiyya (one of Muhammad’s wives) was an Egyptian… that’s all within the Prophet’s own lifetime! Today everyplace from Albania to Bangladesh is Muslim majority, so Islam is not by any means racially based.
More importantly, Farrakhan’s NoI claims that Wallace Fard Muhammad was the earthly incarnation of God, and that Elijah Muhammad was a Prophet. That’s shirk in Islam. God is unique, and Muhammad is the final Prophet. So shirk AND bid’a. Two of the biggest no-nos in Islam. Like I said, at least the teachings of our sister faiths the Sikhs, Bahai and Druze are more in line with mainstream Islam than NoI’s… well… I can’t think of a tactful way to say it.
As for scroll’s whole ‘white Christians are the victims’ card, are you seriously going to quote a white supremacist who has been CONVICTED on multiple counts? I believe that quote came from when Riccio was defending a KKK leader who was convicted of having sex with underaged children, something you Islamophobes love to accuse our Prophet of. The irony that such practices actually ARE commonplace amongst white supremacist groups is entirely lost on you.
I’m more surprised that you haven’t started pulling out stuff from the Creativity movement, another prominent white supremacist group with a history of criminal activity (both in the United States and abroad), or those retards trying to form their own country in the Pacific Northwest.
As for WBC… they aren’t a church. They are a family who fund their trips around the country by threatening to sue people. It’s an elaborate scam. But I would point out that they have more rights than you or I. Nobody has ever stopped the WBC from protesting because they know they will be threatened with lawsuits. Read up on Fred Phelps… he’s nothing more than a conman. The police chief in Topeka actually used to TALK people into dropping charges against Fred Phelps. Read Addicted to Hate for more on him.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/phelps/bl_phelpsmain.htm
Do you seriously believe any Muslim group would be given the same lisence to get away with even half the stuff he has done?
September 5th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Yep – Loonwatch so true.
What should be added is that there is freedom of speech and it’s defense for Geller, Spencer, and of course, Wilders — but NO freedom of speech for especially those of us who are politically Left, as well as Muslims and other hated groups.
NassirH – so very true:
QUOTE: As for Louis Farrakhan, his words regarding the Fort Hood shooting were widely condemned by both the political Left and Right. Contrast that to numerous figures that utilize bigoted rhetoric against Muslims (including Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Hugh Fitzgerald, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and so on) but are widely accepted by many segments of Western society and are rewarded with fame and fortune. If someone writes a book calling for Muslims to be put into internment camps, they earn the admiration of millions and those who criticize them are often chastised. There is simply no comparison.”
Yes there is NO comparison in the double-standards and hypocrisy. This is also reflected in our counter-terrorism policies, practices and frameworks. Be a pious Muslim or and anti-war Leftists – and you are placed on watchlists and have trouble using airports. As I have said before, we have never heard of Geert Wilders having trouble using airports and airtravel. Yet – Geert Wilders and his ilk promote hate and violence, as we saw in Norway. We promote human rights, freedom for all and peacefully societies. The truth is that those of us on the Left, defenders of human rights, religious freedom and peaceful, tolerance societies are the “threat,” the “danger.”
We not only need to fight back against Islamophobia, acceptance of intolerance, exclusion, discrimination in the name of “security,” and for human rights — we also have to fight back against these double standards and hypocrisy that is aimed at us for fighting back!
We demand our freedom of speech too!
September 5th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Thought crime legislations here we come
September 5th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
23 years…
Seems a bit harsh. Two British men who tried to “incite disorder” on Facebook during the widespread rioting in the UK recently were given 4 years, and even then people here think that was far too much.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/uk-riots-four-years-disorder-facebook
The fact is it was far more likely for someone to have died from the activities of these 2 men than from the YouTube video of this dude. Yet he is facing 23 years in jail whilst they get 4.
September 5th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
“Let’s not forget about the KKK”
Erm, Bob, did you even read the article? Far from forgetting about them, the author included their case as an example to support his argument. In “Brandenburg vs Ohio”, the Supreme Court effectively made it clear that “advocat[ing]…the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” is perfectly legal due to the First Amendment. A KKK leader was able to get away with inciting violence against political leaders due to this.
The point is that this guy was doing pretty much the same but he might go to jail…
September 5th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
I never understood how someone like this goes to jail, but Yousef al-Khattaab (the Revolution Muslim guy) gets to cruise around NYC shouting and making death threats and appearing all over CNN.
Any explanations?
September 5th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
“I never understood how someone like this goes to jail, but Yousef al-Khattaab (the Revolution Muslim guy) gets to cruise around NYC shouting and making death threats and appearing all over CNN.
Any explanations?”
Paid thugs i.e the Cohen (his ex name
) guy! Anjem Choudhary too!
September 5th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
I’m not sure what message is being sent when the “right” of terrorists to incite murder is so aggressively defended.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Anjem Choudhary’s gang is even bigger than Joseph Cohen’s/Yousef al-Khattaab’s RevolutionMuslims gang, I think Anjem has something like 20 followers as opposed to Joseph’s 3 or 4.
On a side note, Joseph al-Cohen once made takfeer of me on IslamicAwakening. I would go find it but I honestly have Iman damaged when I visit that site.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Snoman,
BTW that Anwar al-Awlaki was a prostitute lover here in USA before he became a spokesperson for Islam; another thug!
Jim Kirk who is defending rights of terrorists?
September 5th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
I was really surprised about Anwar al-Awlaki. I do feel he is sincere as opposed to Anjem and Joseph (sounds like a good folk group
) thats why I was surprised to find out that story considering it happened when he was “religious” as opposed to Anjem’s escapades which happened in college before he became the representative of Muslims everywhere
September 5th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Glenn Greenwald is defending the rights of terrorists in this article:
If the First Amendment was designed to do anything, it was designed to prevent the government from imprisoning people — or killing them — because of the political ideas they promote.
For Greenwald, any “political ideas” should be protected even if they outright call for murder and lawlessness.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“I’m not sure what message is being sent when the “right” of terrorists to incite murder is so aggressively defended.”
Go to Jihadwatch or Atlas Shrugs and you’ll find many declaring their love for murdering Muslims. Are they being threatened with 23 years of jail?
What about Spencer and Geller’s partner John Jay?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Jay
He goes a step further and promotes a Breivik-style slaughter of liberals.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
It’s so easy for you guys to just throw words like “terrorists” around. Is there proof that he’s a terrorist? Hating on someone is not considered a “terrorist” otherwise all you bigots would be arrested.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
^replying to Jim Kirk.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
They are not sincere. Anyone that uses Islam as their mouthpiece for violence and have a very non-Islamic past and the drones never seem to locate them, are not the faces of Islam that they are portrayed to be! Good drama but the audience sure seems to fall for it.
September 5th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
The FBI press release:
http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2011/woodbridge-man-charged-with-providing-material-support-to-terrorist-organization
“The affidavit alleges that in September 2010, Jubair produced and uploaded a propaganda video to YouTube on behalf of LeT, after communications with a person named “Talha.” In a subsequent conversation with another person, Jubair identified Talha as Talha Saeed, the son of LeT leader Hafiz Mohammed Saeed. Talha and Jubair allegedly communicated about the images, music and audio that Jubair was to use to make the video.”
Still, 23 years for a video is excessive, even if done in contact with that organization.
September 5th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Is there proof that he’s a terrorist?
You can read the affidavit. He was a member of LeT. Why is Loonwatch defending these people?
September 5th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
They are not sincere. Anyone that uses Islam as their mouthpiece for violence and have a very non-Islamic past and the drones never seem to locate them, are not the faces of Islam that they are portrayed to be!
I agree. Instead of defending the nominal rights of terrorists, I wish Loonwatch would work to distance Islam from Anwar Awlaki’s psychotic ideology.
September 5th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
“I agree. Instead of defending the nominal rights of terrorists, I wish Loonwatch would work to distance Islam from Anwar Awlaki’s psychotic ideology.”
Are you serious? Is this the only article you’ve read on here?
September 6th, 2011 at 3:11 am
Jim, while we may agree on most things here is the thing. This guy got 23 years for his videos, people doing similar stuff (even similar Muslims) have been given free reign and are still free. The question is why?
Frankly, I think that such people *should* be able to spout their crappy stuff, just as we *should* ‘counter spout’ stuff that proves it is a load of baloney. The truth wins hands down ever time.
September 6th, 2011 at 3:35 am
I think we need to ask why people hide away and only speak in darkened rooms . Could it be that truth shines best in the bright light of day ?
September 6th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Are you serious? Is this the only article you’ve read on here?
Glenn Greenwald’s articles are reposted here all the time. The running theme is usually that the US is an oppressive Empire. It plays right into the hands of Al-Qaeda, whether he intends that or not.
September 6th, 2011 at 8:00 am
Jim, while we may agree on most things here is the thing. This guy got 23 years for his videos, people doing similar stuff (even similar Muslims) have been given free reign and are still free. The question is why?
The guy was a card-carrying member of LeT. That is a lot more serious than talking shit on JihadWatch, even though that is also reprehensible.
September 6th, 2011 at 10:10 am
“the FBI launched an investigation after receiving information that Jubair MAY be associated with LeT.”
“The affidavit ALLEGES that in September 2010, Jubair produced and uploaded a propaganda video to YouTube on behalf of LeT”
Notice the key words MAY and ALLEGES. He’s innocent til proven guilty so no, FBI has not considered him a terrorist.
“Glenn Greenwald’s articles are reposted here all the time. The running theme is usually that the US is an oppressive Empire. It plays right into the hands of Al-Qaeda, whether he intends that or not”
Al Q already think of us as “an oppressive Empire”. Glenn Greenwald is simply stating the facts. Islamophobes are the ones playing right into their hands. They want to prove how bigoted/anti-Muslim we Americans are and some of us(Geller, Spencer, etc. etc.) are, sadly, proving their point.
September 6th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Notice the key words MAY and ALLEGES. He’s innocent til proven guilty so no, FBI has not considered him a terrorist.
They are charging him because they have proof. But even after the proof Muslims still don’t accept it, which is why we have iu
Al Q already think of us as “an oppressive Empire”. Glenn Greenwald is simply stating the facts.
Right, and Greenwald is there supporting the “war against Islam” narrative. He never seems to balance his “endless war against Muslims” lie with facts that contradict his anti-government ideology, such as the fact that the United States does a lot of good for Muslims, and the United States is a far better place to be Muslim than so-called “Muslim” countries, despite the nuisance of Islamophobia.
As far as I’m concerned, Greenwald is an apologist for the “war against Islam” lie, and for that reason he is a danger to both Americans and Muslims.
September 6th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Let me finish this sentence: “They are charging him because they have proof. But even after the proof Muslims still don’t accept it, which is why we have naive people who still believe Anwar Awlaki isn’t a terrorist murderer.”
September 6th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Well that is the point Someone people get a slap on the wrist while others get 20 years in prison. Are we applying the justice system to everyone the same way and is one form or terrorism diffrent then another
September 6th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Hey Jim,
The guy is wrong. Anwar Alawlaki is wrong. I and many Muslims would condemn both. This guy is just a bonehead. Alawlaki is a dangerous bonehead. The reality is if the West really was threatened by ‘propagandists, sleeper terrorists’ they wouldn’t be inviting Anjem Choudrey to tour the country and speak on mainstream news or they wouldn’t be letting ‘revolution Muslim’ spew their hatred. the reality is the ‘West’ or at least some Western countries know that the threat of extremist Muslims is overblown so they allow loons such as Choudrey to roam free.
Regarding Greenwald. I am a big fan. Greenwald brings a unique view of politics that you dont get from other sources. He puts himself in the shoes of those who are at the receiving end of the US Military machine. And with many wars, drone strikes,and secret prisons it is no surprise that many people think of the US as an oppressive Empire. What is more surprising is that a huge majority of Muslims and Arabs that I’ve met do not hate Americans, just their foreign policy. In fact people strive to get into America for better educational and economical opportunities despite everything else.
September 6th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Jim
You can’t be a “Good Little German” and follow like a sheep. right is right and wrong is wrong It does not matter who does it or if its your own government or another. You cant have things both ways. Lets put it this way
If a bully slaps a kid around everyday of the school year but one day see him drop his book and help him pick it up because there is a teacher around it does not cancel out or take away from the daily beatings. We are helping people YEs but then We did invade Iraq Afghanistan that has got alot alot of civilians killed.100,000 just in Iraq. We give Israel 5 billion a year plus military access to our stuff which they use on Palestinians. We help Dick-Tators like Moammar and the royal family Saudi Arabia.
also the point from what i get from this article is What i just said above will prob get on me a No FLY LIST or a watch list or something but if Jim Bob from ALaska says the same thing He can do what ever he wants
September 6th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
You couldn’t make it up…
In the Land of the Free, bastion of Capitalism…
we have…
FORDIAN FREEDOM!*
(You can stand up for Freedom, BUT as long as its our corporate version.)
* Terms & Conditions apply.
September 6th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
The guy is wrong. Anwar Alawlaki is wrong. I and many Muslims would condemn both. This guy is just a bonehead. Alawlaki is a dangerous bonehead.
I am happy we agree on this point.
The reality is if the West really was threatened by ‘propagandists, sleeper terrorists’ they wouldn’t be inviting Anjem Choudrey to tour the country and speak on mainstream news or they wouldn’t be letting ‘revolution Muslim’ spew their hatred.
That is an interesting point. No one is silencing Anjem Coudry. That fact seems to belie Greenwald’s claim that the US government is systematically persecuting Muslims for “political” ideas.
What is more surprising is that a huge majority of Muslims and Arabs that I’ve met do not hate Americans, just their foreign policy.
I believe this is true, but many Arabs don’t have an accurate view of the foreign policy anyway. How can they when liberals like Greenwald bash the government no matter what they do?
September 6th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
We are helping people YEs but then We did invade Iraq Afghanistan that has got alot alot of civilians killed.100,000 just in Iraq.
Iraq is a tragedy and a huge mistake. But the 100,000 number is inflated for sure. Don’t forget that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda intentionally target civilians as a war policy, whereas the US puts extra hardships on the troops to avoid civilian casualties.
We give Israel 5 billion a year plus military access to our stuff which they use on Palestinians. We help Dick-Tators like Moammar and the royal family Saudi Arabia.
The fact that the US trades with these countries does not mean the US government is pulling the strings or endorsing their policies. But if the US stopped trading with these countries, then they would demonize the US for withholding from the people. Just like Iraq; when the US traded with Saddam, people accused the US of supporting a dictator, but when the US imposed sanctions, people accused the US of killing civilians. There is a fundamental anti-American bias at work here, thanks to liberal loons like Glenn Greenwald.
September 6th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Jim, I was about to say that you misunderstood the point of this article but then I realised you haven’t:
“For Greenwald, any “political ideas” should be protected even if they outright call for murder and lawlessness”
Pretty much spot-on. That’s his point. However, Greenwald is not endorsing making violent videos but is merely stating the truth that even such extreme behaviour is allowed under the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed a KKK leader to get away with calling for violence against politicians. In doing so, they made it legal to “advocate . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.”.
Like Greenwald says, one has every right to find Jubair’s ideas “objectionable or even repellent” but anyone who wants to prosecute him for that doesn’t “understand or believe” in the Constitution. Why? Well because the First Amendment protects people’s right to hold any political view, even if it encourages or calls for violence. As long as the person does not take any steps to act on that threat, he cannot be arrested for merely saying words.
For the record, I don’t really agree with this — I live in the UK and here such activities are most certainly not allowed. Inciting violence or hatred is illegal. If a non-Muslim burns a Quran, he can get fined. If a Muslim burns a poppy (a symbol of British war heroes), he can get fined. If someone calls for violence against politicians, he can get arrested. You may not like it but your laws apparently give you the right to do all of those things.
Greenwald says the same “Let’s be very clear about the key point: the Constitution — specifically the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment — prohibits the U.S. Government from punishing someone for the political views they express, even if those views include the advocacy of violence against the U.S. and its leaders. One can dislike this legal fact. One can wish it were different. But it is the clear and unambiguous law, and has been since the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1969 decision inBrandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had publicly threatened violence against political officials in a speech”.
He didn’t make the laws, he’s just reminding people that the DOJ is technically not allowed to do this. Bare in mind, this is all based on what the FBI is describing his video to be.
September 6th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Yes Anjam the Token muslim extremist ready to be on Tv and speak for us all Choudary. Why is he not deported yet? He has called for stuff like
“Pope should face execution.”
“May Allah grant Sheikh Usama Martyrdom ”
That all sounds like treats and him a terrorist and terrorist Hummmm lets think about that for a sec…….. Why keep him around in the UK when they have deported people for less what is there to gain? Political money for your agency. Show your doing your job to the public and are needed _____ law. His past is looked into it turns out he was a boozer and a drug user and a gambler and appears the perfect candidate to become another MI5 recruit. And please dont say I am nuts and conspiracy theory .
Read about Craig Monteilh
Farouk al-Aziz, code name Oracle,
or read the MotherJones article “The Informants” here
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/fbi-terrorist-informants
September 6th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Hey Jim,
“That is an interesting point. No one is silencing Anjem Coudry. That fact seems to belie Greenwald’s claim that the US government is systematically persecuting Muslims for “political” ideas.”
That is actually not the point I am trying to make by bringing up Anjem C and others like him. What this tells us is that the US and other Western governments are inconsistent when it comes to ‘propagandists’. When a certain Muslim loon is instrumentally valuable to whatever degree the government thinks he is, they allow him free reign. In the case of Choudry, he is valuable in that he reinforces the stereotype of the evil mooslim, thus making illegal foreign policy easier because the voters are too afraid to question their governments noble efforts to stop the Choudry’s of the world. But when it comes to this guy, he is of no value (and maybe a threat) and thus should be dealt with extremely.
“I believe this is true, but many Arabs don’t have an accurate view of the foreign policy anyway. How can they when liberals like Greenwald bash the government no matter what they do?”
That is actually pretty insulting towards Arabs. I know you probably didnt mean it that way. But the rest of the world is very knowledgeable of US foreign policy especially Arabs and other Muslims. I mean they are the people who are directly affected by US foreign policy. They are the ones experiencing drone strikes, dictators supported by the US, being kidnapped by CIA backed organizations and dropped in Guantanamo or in one of many CIA prisons all over the world. In fact I would like to go further and say that the reality is that many American citizens dont have an accurate view of foreign policy. Not to be insulting but how could you as an American citizen if you relied on the Mainstream media.
September 6th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
The FBI affidavit alleges that Jubair was in contact with LET’s leader son and had training, in earlier years, with LET. So it’s not just the youtube video (that is protected under freedom of speech) that Jubair is accused of.
September 6th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
@Mosizzle
You are right. I do understand the point of the article, but I think Greenwald is wrong. The FBI claims that this particular person joined and was trained by LeT, and then made propaganda videos in support of LeT at their direction. If this is true, then it is clear-cut material support for terrorism and the free speech argument should be invalid.
Greenwald attempts to paint the US government as systematically denying the free speech rights of Muslims and this is simply false. It is a lie that plays into the hands of terrorist propagandists like Anwar Awlaki. Greenwald continues to find specious legal arguments that support enemies of Islam and America, while he cannot find any viable alternative to protect civilians from terrorists. All he does is self-righteously bash the government without providing solutions.
Meanwhile, his exaggerated arguments make it much harder to convince Muslims that America is not at war with Islam (the central claim of Al-Qaeda). So he is not someone who cares about reconciliation between America and the Muslim world. He is only using the issues to advance a liberal agenda (i.e. bash conservatives), much like Horowitz uses the issues to advance a conservative agenda. The only difference is that liberals pretend they are defending Muslims, but they aren’t when their anti-government talking points are indistinguishable from terrorist propaganda.
September 6th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
@solidsnake, very well put. Now am waiting to read how jim responds to your solid inputs
September 6th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
The FBI affidavit alleges that Jubair was in contact with LET’s leader son and had training, in earlier years, with LET. So it’s not just the youtube video (that is protected under freedom of speech) that Jubair is accused of.
That is exactly what I’ve been saying. Greenwald’s point is invalid. He spends his days defending the rights of terrorists, when I wish he would defend the rights of citizens to protect themselves from criminals.
When a certain Muslim loon is instrumentally valuable to whatever degree the government thinks he is, they allow him free reign… But when it comes to this guy, he is of no value (and maybe a threat) and thus should be dealt with extremely.
I think the difference between them is that Anjem talks a lot of shit but he is not operational whereas the LeT guy was actually a card-carrying member of a functioning terrorist group. I don’t think that is evidence of an anti-Muslim conspiracy.
That is actually pretty insulting towards Arabs. I know you probably didnt mean it that way.
Yes, I didn’t mean to insult Arabs (which is why I said “many Arabs” and not just “Arabs”). But I have a hard time believing the politics of Arab countries are based upon enlightened truth when so many still give weight to rank conspiracies like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
My point isn’t to deny the horrors of war and the tragedies endured by people overseas. My point is that there is no US government conspiracy against Muslims. You can criticize policies all day long, and I encourage it. But Greenwald turns everything into an anti-Muslim conspiracy. This helps embolden terrorist recruiters who prey on young, impressionable Muslims, and makes it more difficult for real reconciliation to take place.
The fact here is that Greenwald claims there is a systematic campaign against the free speech of Muslims but this is false. The DOJ is not prosecuting Muslims for political speech, as the example of Anjem clearly shows. The DOJ is prosecuting Muslims who are involved in operational terrorist groups that are murdering their own people in Pakistan, but Greenwald conveniently ignores this fact.
September 6th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Of course this could all be a false flag operation like many else to prove that Muslims are bad!
September 6th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
“Of course this could all be a false flag operation like many else to prove that Muslims are bad!”
Another brain-dead victimizing anti-Western Muslim moron who is unable to admit that there are plenty of Muslims who do a good job of giving Islam a bad image.
AJ do yourself a favor and go on IslamicAwakening since they are keyboard jihadis that you would prefer to passionately defend, who call for attacking the West. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt evidently.
September 7th, 2011 at 12:01 am
Dan
*Yawn*
September 7th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Jim pretty much Greenwald’s baseless arguments out of the water.
You would think after Greenwal’s last extremely poorly researched and argued article on Anwar al-Awlaki supposedly being a moderate prior to the 9/11 attacks, the thread starters on Loonwatch would do some basic fact checking or simply shy away from posting his rag entirely.
September 7th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
* Jim pretty much blew Greenwald’s baseless arguments out of the water.
September 7th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
As far as I’m concerned, Greenwald is an apologist for the “war against Islam” lie, and for that reason he is a danger to both Americans and Muslims.
Jim, I’ll let you in on a little known secret around here; it only becomes a conspiracy theory if it doesn’t tote the party line, comrade.
If Greenwald were a right winger, instead of a Left wingnut, he would be featured daily on this site for his breathlessly stupid articles.
September 7th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
^OH PLEASE! This has nothing to do with politics and you know it! There are facts (Greenwald) and then there are people like you spinning the truth. Nice try but you failed!
September 7th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
“comrade”?
Bob, you do know that Jim is Muslim?
September 7th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
^ You do know the ‘comrade’ quip was a parody of Soviet era propaganda lines?
Oh, never mind.
^OH PLEASE! This has nothing to do with politics and you know it! There are facts (Greenwald) and then there are people like you spinning the truth. Nice try but you failed!
Greenwald said the Muslim in question was having his First Amendment rights violated when the actual facts as pointed out by Jim reveal that he was facing criminal prosecution for being a member of a recognized terrorist group.
If he wasn’t a member of LeT, he could post all the pro-LeT youtube videos to his heart’s content and face no repercussions from the Government.
a) Do you agree, therefore, that the premise of Greenwald’s article is therefore incorrect ?
b) Would you also question why Greenwald is couching his conclusion as ‘oh, the government’s out to get Muslims111!’ as opposed to, ‘oh, if we look at the facts, the government is out to get people who are ‘card carrying’ members of terrorist organizations. And, if we look at all the people the government goes after for being members of terrorist groups, it would be unlikely to find that the government is singling out Muslim members of terrorist groups anymore than they are members of White nationalist/Christian (Hutaree)/Irish/Black nationlist/Latino nationalist, ect, terror groups’ ?
Part a would be bad fact checking. Hardly unusual for wingnuts like Glenn Greenwald. Part b is Greenwald’s spin, probably to give his articles more ‘punch’, which would explain why Glenn Greenwald will never write a similar article about those poor Hutaree members being entrapped by the government, since no one cares about militant Christian extremists, the Far Left especially.
September 9th, 2011 at 2:42 am
How do you get to be a member of LeT Do they issue cards ? Photo ID?
You pay a membership fee ?
September 9th, 2011 at 4:08 am
^lol
September 9th, 2011 at 9:05 am
@Sir David
I’m pretty sure it’s one of those pyramid scheme type of deals. Where u make money of the ones you recruit beneath you. Or it might be one of those memberships that renews automatically because he forgot to change the settings in My Account.
September 9th, 2011 at 9:26 am
The scrollwheel
I care a lot about these Christain extreemists , they all have big guns and want to live somewhere with biblical laws and I am glad I live in a country that has strong gun control laws and believes this is the 21st century not palestine in 100AD
September 9th, 2011 at 10:04 am
@JD:
“Why is he not deported yet?”
Where can they deport Anjem Choudary to? He was born in the UK.
September 9th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Breaking news; two possible Arab suspects planning 9/11 anniversary attacks.
Has anyone ever read this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
September 10th, 2011 at 10:50 am
How do you get to be a member of LeT Do they issue cards ? Photo ID?
You pay a membership fee?
I’m not sure if they issue cards, but it involves combat training in militant camps, pro-suicide bombing indoctrination, and justification of murdering fellow Pakistanis.
September 10th, 2011 at 10:52 am
^and how do you know the accused has done all this??
September 11th, 2011 at 11:32 am
and how do you know the accused has done all this??
The FBI believes they have enough evidence to convict him in court, which means he probably did it.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:17 am
Jim Kirk,
So does CIA or FBI ever do anything wrong?
September 13th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
So does CIA or FBI ever do anything wrong?
Yes but not all the time, perhaps not even most of the time. There is a lot of assumption here that cops are the bad guys. That is very strange, very Chomsky, very anarchist.