Okay, ilpars. I take back alot of what I said before. Sorry bro. Chalk it up to ignorance..

It shouldn't be. But unfortunately, sometimes common sense and sound judgement fail and the matter of terrorism advocacy as free speech gets taken up by the criminal justice system, rather than, say a room full of New Yorkers with basebat bats.

The US Government's expert witness: "Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour testified that the terrorist acts being undertaken in the name of Islam violate the religion and its commitment to peace. But under cross-examination, Mansour acknowledged that his interpretation of Islam differs from that of all three major Islamic sects and was responsible for his dismissal from Al Ahzar University in Egypt in 1987 following a tribunal. Mansour, an Egyptian, admitted that the school labeled him as being against Islam. Mansour came to the United States on Oct. 15, 2001, to avoid arrest in Egypt. The government gave him political asylum in June 2002 and was paying him $200 an hour for his assistance in the case against Al-Hussayen. He has been a visiting fellow at the Harvard University law school since last June, working in the school's human rights program. .................................... The upside so far is this fakir's been locked up for over a year, his Islamowife & 3 sons have left the country to avoid deportation proceedings. And, The SOB's Clinton era NSA doctoral-grant to study in the US has been sh!t canned. Hopefully this dirtbag will either face additional charges, or be shipped back to the Arab cesspool he crawled out of and whacked! On Watch

The upside so far is this fakir's[Sami Omar Al-Hussayen] been locked up and held incommunicado -- his Islamowife & 3 sons have left the country to avoid deportation proceedings. And, The SOB's Clinton era NSA doctoral-grant to study in the US has been sh!t canned. This dirtbag will either face additional charges, or be shipped back to the Arab cesspool he crawled out of and hopefully whacked! On Watch

It's not, not even in America, despite what conclusions you might draw from that case. Even in America, advocating violence can be construed to be a crime, that's why the case went to court in the first place. What the article your reading shows is that if a judge with certain political inclinations is placed in a high profile case in which he is under alot of media and advocasy pressure to return a not guilty verdict, and if he gives vague and possibly erroneous instruction to the jury, that a jury of Americans might be convinced that 'what he said was ok' and return not guilty simply because Americans do set the bars on freedom of speach so high. I wouldn't and doesn't always work that way. Sometimes the system works. Other times it doesn't - the ACLU mucks things up as often as it fixes them, and the press has no interest in justice just sensationalism. All systems that rely on human judgement will have some sort of failing. The American system just has particularly American failings. There is no way that you could advocate violence against a minority group in America and get away with it. A website which instructed 'fellow whites' to go and burn crosses in 'colored peoples' yards, to engage in lynching, or other similar acts of terror would be shut down and its owner prosecuted (successfully) anywhere in the U.S. And if it wasn't, the press would immediately move to shame the whole community responcible. That is because it is burned into our collective conscious that it is wrong to do that and we are collectively ashamed of that part of our past. But this fight is new, or at least new to this generation of Americans, and it will take them some time to decide exactly what limits on free speach they find to be just. The same collective shame which motivates some American factions to a fierce since of justice also quells thier ability to act with common sense in other areas. I agree. Advocating terrorism is as bad as actually participating in it. In fact, I would say that advocating terrorism makes you a participant in it.

There are plenty of groups in American that openly advocate violence. You have your white supremacists of course, but also the animal rights folks, anti-abortionists, anti-government types and so on. Very few of these folks get busted for this stuff.

Technically that might be I think be "consiracy to commit" I'm not aware however that such people make themselves so dangerous that they need to be arrested, and the disadvantages often outweigh. Besides making a martyr it "annoys" the civil-rights system. Some things have to be tolerated that ideally wouldn't be-politics is the art of the lesser evil, or something like that. However such a person cannot complain if there are an unusual number of feds following him as that was the path he chose In any case I speak in the abstract-I didn't study any case you might be thinking of

Well, they haven't been able to run down the Earth Liberation Fronters yet, but the Earth Firsters and the local "militia" got stepped on pretty hard here in Montana. And let's not forget Ruby Ridge or Waco--two groups who got exactly what they deserved, IMHO.

If I evver see that Camel Jockey face to face, I sear, I will beat the living out of him. I love free speech!!!

GIVEN: I believe in the Patriot ACt as a wartime measure. Let's not mention Waco since I and many veteran DPS troopers still think the Feds killed too many innoncents by their screwups. Okay the guy should be deported and all but the govt. failed to show he was helping terrorists. There are 100's of sites that post such drivel. And many are even hosted here in the US. IF they could have even shown that he gave aid or helped two known terrorists communicate , then they might have had something. They could not even show webmaster editorials that were pro-terrorism from what I can google. Remember Hate Crimes are Thought Crimes. Remember Dunnigan and crew stay out of these forums sometimes just to disassociate from calls of muslim genocide that are routinely posted here. What if the Saudis had an extradition treaty with the US and tried to put AK on trial for terrorist threats? ;)