Jurors hear cleric’s praise for September 11 attacks

Comments (13)
paintcan wrote:

Unless this man actually planned and participated in the attacks, how does the First Amendment not protect him?

There are incendiary comments in these threads and those people have a right to their opinion.

What protects the private citizen against incendiary and violent messages promoted by their own governments for dubious motives?

It should be remembered that the invasion of Afghanistan was seen with far more sympathy by the rest of the world and had greater legal justification than the invasion of Iraq and the death toll of both has exceeded the deaths caused by the 911 attacks by a factor at least several hundred times greater. None of those far more destructive politicians and political commentators will ever see the inside of a courtroom here, will they? As long as they are considered popularly on “our side”, they are barely noticed – is that not so?

Our military didn’t bother to count civilian dead. Some online estimates make it as high as over 1,000,000 casualties. The British medical journal “The Lancet” was the only organization that attempted to monitor civilian deaths that I ever read mention of. I don’t think their estimates were nearly as high.

If this country were embroiled in a civil war (I am reading Gore Vidal’s Lincoln) the courts would be taking a very different stand on freedom to incite militancy as they did then. Both sides would be praising violence and the right to take up arms to defend their causes. The draft at the time on both sides depended on it.

Is the Court trying to maintain that one has to have a license, or work for the government, or one of the major news organs to incite to kill? Or do they have to use the proper euphemisms so they can more easily get away with it?

Apr 21, 2014 9:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:

If Abu Hamza al-Masri broke US laws, then so did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle. All should get equal treatment.

Apr 21, 2014 9:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BIGEEE1 wrote:

Another classic example of why Islam is the cancerous tumor on the lung of humanity!

Apr 21, 2014 10:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BIGEEE1 wrote:

Another classic example of why Islam is the cancerous tumor on the lung of humanity!

Apr 21, 2014 10:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

If we simply look at those countries where Islam is the primary religion, they are almost universally the most violent countries on the planet. They kill each other, innocent men, women and children and American’s at every opportunity. Islam isn’t a religion. It’s a disease.

Apr 21, 2014 10:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

paintcan..in the case described above in Yemen were 4 people were killed. It appears he was aiding and abetting (that’s the prosecutions charge) which in this country makes you every bit as guilty as if you pulled the trigger yourself. You can’t use the 1st Amendment to justify a crime.

Apr 21, 2014 10:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Art16 wrote:

If he broke the law, then lock him up. Anyone who thought watching people die in the World Trade Center terrorist attack was wonderful, has something very wrong in the head. I have it, lets have an annual national day of celebration for all the terrorists we kill! I would attend that for sure!

Apr 21, 2014 11:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
courtobserver wrote:

My guess is that al-Masri is guilty as sin but if we were to try and convict every Muslim that was happy with 9/11, we would need a prison the size of Texas and beyond.
Shouldn’t the question be whether or not he actively participated and is there hard evidence?

Apr 22, 2014 8:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

@BIGEEE1- if Islam is “the cancer on the lung of Humanity” then it will die.

@XYZ2055 – You could say exactly the same thing about every population or religion on this planet at one time or another and you can say it about almost all of them now. There are a lot of Christians fighting foreign devils just as there are Islamic fundamentalists fighting something they hate. What makes either so different from each other?

If he’s “aiding and abetting” an enemy that is so large and moves about so easily you will exhaust yourself trying to fight it everywhere and anywhere you claim it exists. You can also find that the government becomes more like your enemy to fight him. Fighting the Third Reich changed this country and many people knew that at the time. In other words, you will have to become as “criminal” or as sick as the disease to match it and you still might not defeat it. And there is such a thing as a metastasized cancer that is too advanced to treat anymore, you know?

There is every reason to believe the “bad guys”, or “Al Qaeda” or any number of offshoots, are as powerful as they were over ten years ago.

What have you accomplished? And when does “treatment” become little more than torture?

Apr 22, 2014 9:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
moosemyfrnds wrote:

In 1957 Republican President Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, after Democrat LBJ (Lyndon Baines Johnson) lead Senate in a fight against those rights. The Civil Rights Act is based on white Christian value to combat discrimination and treat all Americans equal, no matter what race they are. Hamas-The Muslim Brotherhood Front Group, Cair (The Council Of American-Islamic Relations) America keeps quoting and defending Islam Civil Rights or Radical Islam Civil Rights. They are missing the boat on white Christian value completely. If you were to go back to the Middle East to live, we would not be having this conversation! Here; in the United States, you can hide behind Civil Rights and Religion to Bully Humans. In the Middle East, you will still be demanding humans to conform to your lifestyle, because they offend you.

Apr 22, 2014 11:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

@moosemyfrnds – So what’s your point? If they went back to the ME, they wouldn’t be in court at all.

Islamic Fundamentalism, by whatever name it chooses to go by, may not be something any country can ever successfully fight? It has no clear definition, occupies no distinct territory and has no government structure to speak of. It is not given to compromise or negotiations and how can any country sign a treaty with it? It can even be counterfeited. It is as open ended and prone to popular hysteria as the Middle age’s obsession with Witchcraft. It is also only the fundamentalism that is claiming headlines now. There are also Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu fundamentalists that aren’t getting the coverage they could be. And all fundamentalists open to door to being ousted or over run by other “fundamentalists” or the next bunch of died in the wool believers. Self-righteousness is such a charge, it’s hard to give it up for everyday, boring, humble relativism.

The government can call almost anything it likes “terrorist” and can use the fight against it to abridge any civil liberties it likes. With an ocean of money flooding the campaigns for the elections in the future, you may be witnessing the opening of the door to Sejanus like political control here. Then we may see all sorts of “bad guys” getting their just deserts but every other “good citizen” might also find that the definitions of “good” or “bad” got terribly eroded in the process and they live at the grace and sufferance of some ruthless and very self-serving bastards who happen to own congress, the President and the SC. Sejanus could be right around the corner. Terminal cancer could be the kinder option. The definition of “good guys” always depends on winning the argument, don’t you know?

Sometimes the defendant isn’t as important as the issue his case might jeopardize. It’s obvious this man is no fan of the US government but I know many people who aren’t either. Most of the people I know just don’t like to think about it all that much.

Are we the good guys or just the apathetic? That could depend on how demanding the government is for agreement? But a war that has lasted over ten years and wasn’t based on general conscription, argues that the government isn’t all that confident the general public would agree with it at all.

Apr 23, 2014 1:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

@moosemyfrnds – So what’s your point? If they went back to the ME, they wouldn’t be in court at all.

Islamic Fundamentalism, by whatever name it chooses to go by, may not be something any country can ever successfully fight? It has no clear definition, occupies no distinct territory and has no government structure to speak of. It is not given to compromise or negotiations and how can any country sign a treaty with it? It can even be counterfeited. It is as open ended and prone to popular hysteria as the Middle age’s obsession with witchcraft. It is also only the fundamentalism that is claiming headlines now. There are also Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu fundamentalists that aren’t getting the coverage they could be. And all fundamentalists open to door to being ousted or over run by other “fundamentalists” or the next bunch of died in the wool believers. Self-righteousness is such a charge; it’s hard to give it up for everyday, boring, humble relativism.

The government can call almost anything it likes “terrorist” and can use the fight against it to abridge any civil liberties it likes. With an ocean of money flooding the campaigns for the elections in the future, you may be witnessing the opening of the door to Sejanus like political control here. Then we may see all sorts of “bad guys” getting their just deserts but every other “good citizen” might also find that the definitions of “good” or “bad” got terribly eroded in the process and they live at the grace and sufferance of some ruthless and very self-serving bastards who happen to own congress, the President and the SC. Sejanus could be right around the corner. Terminal cancer could be the kinder option. The definition of “good guys” always depends on winning the argument, don’t you know?

Sometimes the defendant isn’t as important as the issue his case might jeopardize. It’s obvious this man is no fan of the US government but I know many people who aren’t either. Most of the people I know just don’t like to think about it all that much.

Are we the good guys or just the apathetic? That could depend on how demanding the government is for agreement? But a war that has lasted over ten years and wasn’t based on general conscription, argues that the government isn’t all that confident the general public would agree with it at all. And any agreement it gets tends to be cheap and easy. Most of it’s supporters don’t feel the pains of the war, unlike those in the ME who actually have to live with it.

Apr 23, 2014 1:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

Sorry, my last comment was not supposed to go in trice.

The defendant’s point of view and his hatred is very easy to understand.

Apr 24, 2014 7:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.