Unbelievable (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050426/ap_on_re_us/terror_paintball)

The man's been sentanced to mandatory life imprisonment, for speech.

What the hell is the matter for our country?

It can happen here...

I can't tell what he was charged with. Treason? I'd sure like more information than what's in the article. I'll look more when I get home.

<a href=http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718>Fighting words</a>. Your freedom of speech ends when you try to directly incite violence. (This is, I guess, what he would be charged with -- inciting a riot or disturbance, or something similar.)

directly incite violence means, "Shoot him, now". Not "You should rise up against the US government".

There has to be a clear and imminent threat and danger.

Five days after Sept. 11, al-Timimi addressed a small group of his followers in a secret meeting and warned that the attacks were a harbinger of a final apocalyptic battle between Muslims and non-believers. He said they were required as Muslims to defend the Taliban from a looming U.S. invasion, according to the government.Sounds to me like an incitement of violence. With a sprinkling of treason for good measure.

Treason requires an overt act. Otherwise its sedition.

And incitement of violence, as I've said, requires imminent danger. The very basis of the 1st amendment is that you can speak against our government.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in Aidon 'defending' an Arab Muslim?

Hey, I may want to put a bullet in his head, personally, but my personal beliefs should have zero impact on his rights as a US citizen.

if you are using speect to incite violence, it is not protected under free speech. speaking against the government is different then inciting violence against it.


for example the woman who thinks she is hiring a hitman to murder her husband but is really talking to an undercover cop--she should not be prosecuted either? because she is protected under free speech?

There has to be a clear and imminent threat and danger .

heck no imminent danger--she is talking to a cop so therefore the hit would never go down.

try yelling fire in a theatre sometime---your "free speech" arguement will not win here either.

Heck all Osama himself has done is talk--he himself did not fly into the trade center. should we dismiss charges against him because he was only talking and has "freedom of speech"

If I organize a group and have meetings every thursday and tell them they need to go out and lynch someone from a certain religous group, nationality, race or sexual orientation, am I protected under "freedom of speech" after all there is no "imminent threat and danger" I have no idea when they actually will go out and lynch someone.

so it is ok to incite violence as long as it is not imminent?

if you are using speect to incite violence, it is not protected under free speech. speaking against the government is different then inciting violence against it.

Wow, then I guess Rage Against the Machine, and NWA, and Snoop Dogg, etc., should all go to jail. Oh wait, that's right, they are protected by...free speech.


for example the woman who thinks she is hiring a hitman to murder her husband but is really talking to an undercover cop--she should not be prosecuted either? because she is protected under free speech?

That's a conspiracy charge for planning to kill a specific person. If you can't see the difference between that and the suggestion that people should go to another country and defend it against the US, or even the suggestion that people should rise up against the US, then you are undeserving of the protections our Constitution is supposed to afford us.


try yelling fire in a theatre sometime---your "free speech" arguement will not win here either.

This is not analogous to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example.

Heck all Osama himself has done is talk--he himself did not fly into the trade center. should we dismiss charges against him because he was only talking and has "freedom of speech"

Osama has done more than just talk...but that is immaterial, he is not a US citizen.

If I organize a group and have meetings every thursday and tell them they need to go out and lynch someone from a certain religous group, nationality, race or sexual orientation, am I protected under "freedom of speech" after all there is no "imminent threat and danger" I have no idea when they actually will go out and lynch someone.

Yes, actually. You are protected, or should be. Of course, that isn't what this case was about. This was about a man suggesting to others that they should go to afghanistan and defend the Taliban against invasion.

If the US was planning an attack on Israel, I'd sure as hell be telling American Jews they should go to Israel and help defend her.

so it is ok to incite violence as long as it is not imminent?

Yes. Yes, and Yes. Our founding fathers spent alot of time inciting violence against the Crown...

Yes, actually. You are protected, or should be.

Yes. Yes, and Yes. Our founding fathers spent alot of time inciting violence against the Crown...You are not protected if you encourage people to participate in acts of violence. Check out how the government has cracked down on various neo-nazi leaders.

Our founding fathers resorted to violence after their political attempts at government reform failed. They wanted political change and resorted to violence to do so. There is a difference despite your attempts at playing with semantics.

You are not protected if you encourage people to participate in acts of violence. Check out how the government has cracked down on various neo-nazi leaders.

If they did so by putting them in jail because they preached...then our nation is in big trouble.

Our founding fathers resorted to violence after their political attempts at government reform failed. They wanted political change and resorted to violence to do so. There is a difference despite your attempts at playing with semantics.

I don't agree with this bastard. I, personally, would like to see him killed. That doesn't mean he doesn't have the right, as do we all, to speak his mind. If his mind is that right thinking muslims should go defend Afghanistan against US invaders...he has that right.

Just because we happen to believe in the cause our forefathers, and not this man's doesn't make his right to speak any less valid.

More than anything else, our nation is founded on the rights of its citizenry to speak their mind. To advocate change. To challenge the Government. Just because we find the topic reprehensible doesn't make it any less protected.

Urging people to acts contrary to the Government is not inciting violence...indeed, I would go so far as to say that inciting people to violent acts against the Government, should in and of itself be protected. We are a nation founded on revolution, and the Fathers attempted to cement the rights necessary for the People to rebel again.

I think it's a slippery slope, personally. I haven't been able to find out much about Mr. Ali al-Timimi other than the generic items listed on that website. The biggest question comes down to exactly what he told those "small group of people" after the 2001 attacks. The "He said they were required as Muslims to defend the Taliban from a looming U.S. invasion, according to the government" phrase in the article is very vague.

If Ali told the people in that meeting to go seek out the Taliban in order to coordinate further attacks against the US, then by all means it sounds like he's guilty of Seditious conspiracy, and Advocating overthrow of Government at the very least. Both of which are very illegal and have been illegal for quite some time.

After 9/11, talking in a way that advocates destroying the US is much like yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Before 9/11 people could say anything but after 9/11 certain groups who advocate violence against the US are taken seriously.

UBL advocated exactly what he did on multiple occasions. Why would such talk not get taken seriously again or do you want more Americans killed?

Other types of radical speech is still acceptable if these words do not manifest into violence.

Because political speech is protected, advocating resistance against our government is political speech.

It is nothing like yelling fire in a crowded theater...beware of giving up your freedom of speech just because you don't like what a person is saying.

Using this ruling, if it stands, if you advocate that people defend themselves against the police you could be arrested...not for actual violence, but just for speaking about it.

I imagine the Southern states would have loved this ruling during the civil rights movement.

Because political speech is protected, advocating resistance against our government is political speech.

Was he advocating resistance against the government or resistance against the country? There is a dividing line and he could have been on the wrong side of it.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

-HEAD-
Sec. 2384. Seditious conspiracy

-STATUTE-
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to
overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the
United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force
the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the
execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,
take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the
authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

=====

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

-HEAD-
Sec. 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

-STATUTE-
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
employment by the United States or any department or agency
thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms ''organizes'' and
''organize'', with respect to any society, group, or assembly of
persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new
units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes,
and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Oop, one more:
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

-HEAD-
Sec. 2389. Recruiting for service against United States

-STATUTE-
Whoever recruits soldiers or sailors within the United States, or
in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to engage in
armed hostility against the same; or
Whoever opens within the United States, or in any place subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, a recruiting station for the
enlistment of such soldiers or sailors to serve in any manner in
armed hostility against the United States -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.

Now, I'm not saying that Ali was guilty for any of the above, however Aidon; you're point seems to be that he's being charged unjustly and that the only reason he's being charged is because of the current terrorist fear atmosphere. However, just by reading the wording of the above statues, I think that it's plainly obvious that the government has purposefully added in a lot of leeway in what it can define as treason, sedition and subversive activities.

Our wonderful Patriot act in use. When the threat of terrorism becomes minimal one day, you'll see it used more and more on law abidiing citizens that just have a different point of view.

*reports Moklianne to the FBI for his comments*!!!!

Now, I'm not saying that Ali was guilty for any of the above, however Aidon; you're point seems to be that he's being charged unjustly and that the only reason he's being charged is because of the current terrorist fear atmosphere. However, just by reading the wording of the above statues, I think that it's plainly obvious that the government has purposefully added in a lot of leeway in what it can define as treason, sedition and subversive activities.

It scares me that these laws are in place.

By the reading of those laws, you could be sent to jail for 20 years for sitting with your buddy at home saying "Someone should do something about those damned Dems in office..by force if necessary".

Of course, you know, but reading that law, it seems to me that some of our Republican congressmen who were advocating violence against our judiciary should probably be charged with sedition.

Of course, you know, but reading that law, it seems to me that some of our Republican congressmen who were advocating violence against our judiciary should probably be charged with sedition.Well, at least that would put them to good use. :)

Because political speech is protected, advocating resistance against our government is political speech.


"Al-Timini was convicted of charges including soliciting others to levy war against the United States and inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law. The firearms convictions require mandatory life imprisonment."

Urm, that is not what I consider political speech...

"Al-Timini was convicted of charges including soliciting others to levy war against the United States and inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law. The firearms convictions require mandatory life imprisonment."

Urm, that is not what I consider political speech...

He was saying that in his opinion, good muslim men should go to afghanistan and defend the taliban against the US.

That's political speech.

However you want to dress it up Aidon, he became an enemy of the people of America. He was aiming to kill US citizens through his own actions and those of his followers. The government would be derelict in its duty of care to the people it represents if it had not intervened.

I'm not going to comment on the sentence.

He was saying that in his opinion, good muslim men should go to afghanistan and defend the taliban against the US.

That's political speech.

Take it to the next step Aidon, "defending" would include killing U.S. soldiers.

So basically he was promoting ppl to go to war with the U.S. Army.

You can slice and dice it all you want and as usual ignore the facts that go against what you try to pass off for logic, however the rest of us do not.

That's because you have no ability to see beyond the immediate.

You can't see the danger that lurks in the government being able to silence people.

And I'm ignoring no facts. The facts don't change the issue. The man did nothing but speak his mind. Our nation was founded by going to war against the standing government and their army.

Granted, people like yourself don't care...you're quite happy to give up your rights, and presume the Government is always right.

Our nation was founded by going to war against the standing government and their army.

Granted, people like yourself don't care...you're quite happy to give up your rights, and presume the Government is always right.

YOU must be referring to Dr. Martin Luther King.

MLK was a founder of our nation? Interesting...

oh, by the by, MLK was also arrested multiple times for what, essentially, was just speaking his mind...

Only back then, they had to trump up charges, now they can just arrest you for speech point blank.

The man did nothing but speak his mind. Our nation was founded by going to war against the standing government and their army.

As soon as you take up arms against your standing government they have the right to imprison you. Are you really suggesting that each and every person encouraged by this man should be locked up, one by one, year after year, while he's left telling people to fight against his own country?

As soon as you take up arms against your standing government they have the right to imprison you. Are you really suggesting that each and every person encouraged by this man should be locked up, one by one, year after year, while he's left telling people to fight against his own country?

Yes, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's what our Constitution dictates.

Of course, in the instance case, not one of the people he was preaching to actually went and raised arms against anyone...

oh, by the by, MLK was also arrested multiple times for what, essentially, was just speaking his mind...

Only back then, they had to trump up charges, now they can just arrest you for speech point blank.Uhh... look at the dates on Stormhaven's link.

Stormhaven's link has little to do with the case at hand. Yes, one of the charges were for inducing others to levy war against the US.

The mandatory life sentences, however, were for inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law.

Mind you, the only firearms involved in this situation were paintball guns /eyeroll.