Web sites as terror groups

[ACPlayer]

From the Federal Register (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20031010/ts_nm/security_internet_groups_dc)

It appears that the govt has added a number of web sites to the terror groups. According to the story, it would be "illegal to provide.. material support" for these sites.

Does a hosting company that hosts these sites provide support to these sites? if no site will host these sites due to this law, is this an unfair prevention of free speech.

If I visit one of these sites do I provide support to these sites? Just vist them, adding to their audience, not actually contributing money.

Any lawyers or pseudo-lawyers want to provide me with insight.

The article further states that "the law may not enable the United States to block access to the Web sites, if only for technical reasons". Are there not constitutional reasons that would prevent blocking these sites?

[Wake up CALL]

The constitution protects the rights of American citizens and allows for freedom of our speech, not freedom of speech for other countries, or terrorist groups. This is similar to the misunderstanding you had regarding writs of habeaus corpus as they pertained to the prisoners at Gitmo.

[ACPlayer]

Not my question at all.

Please re-read.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Not my question at all.

Please re-read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the question of yours I answered:

"The article further states that "the law may not enable the United States to block access to the Web sites, if only for technical reasons". Are there not constitutional reasons that would prevent blocking these sites? "

Please reread your own question.

[ACPlayer]

Al right, if you still dont see it let me spell it out again in simple english.

If tomorrow the US govt declares the Al Jazeera site or the Guardian Newspaper site, or the BBC site, or pick a site that you despise as a terrorist website, and has the technnical means to block me from reading that site in NY; does it run afoul of any constitutional arguments if it were to implement those technical means.

Your little jabs may make you feel good, but they also show that you jab first and think later.

[Cyrus]

The U.S. Constitution is interpreted by people like Wake Up CALL to mean that a U.S. citizen has the right to read everything he wants -- as long as it is made in America. If, for instance, there is an idea that is being put forth by an alien, then the U.S. Government has every right to regulate and restrict the dissemination of that idea, which enjoys no Constitutional protection whatsoever. Which makes the future of works by many alien subversives -- whatamIsayin'?? them terroristics!!-- quite uncertain.

It used to be that the U.S. stood (at least, in theory) for something worth emulating and admiring. The closed-minded fanatics have zealously been turning this around for quite some time now, to the point that now warnings come forth from America, instead of prototypes.

So, for the record, fellow listeners-to-the-bell-tolling-from-afar : This bells tolls for you. I do not agree with the restrictions now or in the future imposed by the Federal Gov't against the website of Kach, a Zionist terrorist organisation. I want to retain the right to see and learn and judge and choose for myself, about what it says -- and about everything.

U.S. Feds Ban On Websites (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20031010/ts_nm/security_internet_groups_dc)

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I don't think terrorist websites should be blocked, if only for the simple reason that allowing them to operate will give us a clue as to just who is saying "Kill and plunder all Americans wherever you find them." Allowing them to operate will increase the chances that we can find and assassinate the bastards before they manage to carry out their objectives.

[Ray Zee]

i understand not giving aid to a terrorist site or person. but listening to what they have to say should not be censored. and who is qualified to decide what should be censored, certainly not whatever the current political party happpens to be in power.

the direction the current govt. is going looks similar to the scary past

[MMMMMM]

from the link:

"Under U.S. law, it would be illegal to provide money or other material support to the designated Web sites, the people who run them could be denied U.S. visas and U.S. banks must block their funds. The State Department said it was yet clear how this would work in practice.

But the law may not enable the United States to block access to the Web sites, if only for technical reasons."

The article doesn't suggest that the content will be censored, or that the web site will be blocked.

I do think Ashcroft is going too far with a number of things in general in this country. A lot remains to be seen, but let's bear in mind that there is some difference between censorship and making it a crime to aid in incitement to murder. I'm withholding judgment on this one until it becomes more fully developed and more facts emerge.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. Constitution is interpreted by people like Wake Up CALL to mean that a U.S. citizen has the right to read everything he wants -- as long as it is made in America. If, for instance, there is an idea that is being put forth by an alien, then the U.S. Government has every right to regulate and restrict the dissemination of that idea, which enjoys no Constitutional protection whatsoever. Which makes the future of works by many alien subversives -- whatamIsayin'?? them terroristics!!-- quite uncertain.

It used to be that the U.S. stood (at least, in theory) for something worth emulating and admiring. The closed-minded fanatics have zealously been turning this around for quite some time now, to the point that now warnings come forth from America, instead of prototypes.

So, for the record, fellow listeners-to-the-bell-tolling-from-afar : This bells tolls for you. I do not agree with the restrictions now or in the future imposed by the Federal Gov't against the website of Kach, a Zionist terrorist organisation. I want to retain the right to see and learn and judge and choose for myself, about what it says -- and about everything.

U.S. Feds Ban On Websites (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20031010/ts_nm/security_internet_groups_dc)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Cyus I never interpreted the constitition, I left that to the Supreme Court but I suppose you know better than them. I never even offered an opinion as to whether or not is a good idea to block the websites or not. I merely pointed out that it appears only American citizens and legal resident aliens are protected by our Constitution, not foreign entities, particularly terrorists.


As for ACPlayer you do not warrant any more replies from me, too much of a waste of my time to dally with an argumentative troll.

[ACPlayer]

As for ACPlayer you do not warrant any more replies from me

Cool. I have yet to see a real reply from you, so i will not miss much.

[ACPlayer]

[Cyrus]

"Sorry, I never interpreted the Constitution, I left that to the Supreme Court but I suppose you know better than them."

More cop-outs. By that logic, no one except for the Supreme Court is supposed to argue about or "interpret" in argument the U.S. Constitution! It's the old last resort of the cornered : instead of admitting their point is crap, they point to the general direction of some higher authority.

Without citations, naturally...

"I merely pointed out that it appears only American citizens and legal resident aliens are protected by our Constitution, not foreign entities, particularly terrorists."

Although you now engage in the cardinal sin of trying to interpret the Constitution and meddle in the holy affairs of the Supreme Court, I will join you in sin and ask you this :

Where does it say in the Constitution, and particularly in the Bill of Rights Amendments, that a foreigner's intellectual works can be regulated by the U.S. government before they reach the American public ? What Supreme Court decision has interpreted thusly the U.S. Constitution ?

You want to argue with the Supreme Court, go ahead and cite.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

I'm just curious, is incitement to murder a crime under U.S. statutes?

Also, if the primary purpose of a website is to organize for the purposes of murder, does that constitute "intellectual work," or something less protected, and illegal?

[MMMMMM]

And 'incitement' to murder aside, how about actual conspiracy to commit murder--which is exactly what some of these al-Qaeda websites are involved in.

[ACPlayer]

Dunno, about the US statutes.

I for one would be unhappy if any speech or access to materials, however hateful is restricted. See for example my views on cross burnings in another thread.

[MMMMMM]

We're not talking about merely hateful, some of these Islamist websites incite to murder, and some go so far as to actually engage in conspiracy to commit murder.

The KKK might have the right to burn crosses, but does it have the right to tell its members to go out on a lynching spree? And if it has the right to do that, does it have the right to participate in conspiracies to lynchings, or to facilitate such conspiracies amongst its members? Somehow I doubt it. This is not merely about protecting the right to hateful speech--why are people confusing terrorist plots with hate speech?

[ACPlayer]

Its an interesting question. Is talking about or planning a crime a crime? Or rather when does talk about it become a crime. Again I dont know the law in this area.

Personally, I am not enamoured by making talking about or planning a crime, by itself, a crime.

Terrorist activity is a crime.

I, personally, dont buy into this being a war; and should not be handled differently than criminal activity. Terrorists are criminals. I am not particularly happy that there are special laws for terrorists, but realize that there is a tough responsibility that the govt has in this area.

The fundamental problem with this "war" is that it is completely undefined. There is no named enemy, no definition of victory, no end game. The other problem, realted to the nebulous nature of this "war", is that too much stuff is being swept into the "war on terror" from starting real wars, to curtailing liberties, to privacy intrusions.

[MMMMMM]

If you and a buddy get together and make plans to murder someone, you have committed a very serious crime. Ask a lawyer or someone who knows or look it up, but of this I am sure. We're not talking about "making it" a crime; this isn't a new Ashcroft law or something; conspiracy to commit murder already is a crime.

[ACPlayer]

When does it become conspiracy?

It is Oct 2004.

Me and my buddy sit down for coffee at Startbucks; broke after losing three consecutive one outers in a NL game. There is a bank across the street and we consider ways of breaking in and stealing money, as the game is still juicy. We decide the best way would be drive our SUV into the bank wall and hold up the tellers with box-cutters we already own and take the money.

We separate and go home cursing our luck.

Ashcroft who has by now planted bugs in all coffee shops to battle terror. Records this conversation and arrests us under the anti-terrorism laws, for use of a WMD (all SUVs used as weapons are now classified as WMD, under Patriot III also known as the Our Land is Sacred Act).

Have we commited a crime? Is it armed robbery? I have no idea.

I guess this is the type of stuff they study in law school.

[MMMMMM]

I'm just curious ACPlayer, in the time it took you to hypothesize and post all that, you could probably have looked up the crime of consiracy on Google and gotten a better idea (so could I for that matter). At least that way you wouldn't have to post a long conjecture and end it with "I have no idea."

Somehow I think you like having no idea.

[ACPlayer]

[ACPlayer]

Well, it turns out from a thorough sixty second law review --

A conspiracy to commit a crime must include an overt act and not just a plan -- at least according to Georgia law.

Georgia Non-Violent Crimes (http://www.georgiacriminaldefense.com/crimes/nonviolent.htm)

There is no discussion on that site about conspiracy to commit murder as a separate subject.

Federal laws if applicable may vary.

So, unless there is a specific law with respect to conspiracy to being a terrorist, it would appear that planning a terrorist act may not be a crime. I suspect however, that either Patriot I or II may have, or will, changed that.

If the Georgia law is correct then writings exhorting muslims or irishmen to commit a terrorist act is not a crime. Buying them a bomb or running a training camp is likely a crime. Providing them aid and comfort appears to be. Hosting their web site for a fee, or viewing there material hosted elsewhere??

[MMMMMM]

Now that you mention it, ACPlayer, the initial requirement of at least a small act setting the plan in motion rings a bell. That may indeed be a requirement. Good job on your 60 second review, but why didn't you check federal law instead of Georgia law since we are talking about federal legal matters?