Woman in England convicted of terrorist POETRY?!?

[quade 4]

Ok, normally I simply browse the headlines of Drudge but something was so strange about the topic I decided to click it and read.

Here's the Drudge headline and link;

British Muslim woman convicted of penning poems about beheadings...

She was also found to be in possession of books. Now, mind you, she didn't actually -do- anything; just wrote some poetry and had books.

I'm SO freekin' glad I live in the U.S. and so freekin' glad that GWB only has one more year left in office. This is getting out of hand.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DZJ 0]

She wasn't convicted for the poetry, she was found "guilty of possessing documents likely to be used for terrorism" though I wouldn't expect a rag like the Mail to understand the difference.

[quade 4]

Ok, well, you're in the UK and I'm not so maybe you can help me understand this story better.

"guilty of possessing documents likely to be used for terrorism", couldn't that be just about anything; a train schedule, a map, a photograph, a poem?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

she was found "guilty of possessing documents likely to be used for terrorism."

What constitutes such documents? my bookshelf>

Was intent to act on materials or knowledge contained there-in established?

The "distance learning" phenomenon among radical Islamists/global Salifists is well-established particularly w/r/t construction of IEDs. It's also fascinating to observe where they have almost cut-n-pasted translated versions of stuff from right-wing, Neo-Nazi, anti-government American militant 'literature' of the the 1980s-1990s.

At the same time, deconflicting that from artistic expression -- even if I don't like what it says or portrays --and the 16-year old geek in the midwest who has a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook are important differences, imo.

What is it in this case? Or is that not quite clear?

Is it an application of an anti-terrorism version of the 'precautionary principle.' i.e., assumed to be used for terrorist purposes unless can be shown unilaterally to the contrary?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Refresh my memory - which political party is the strong proponent of 'hate crime' (iow, thought control) laws, again?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DZJ 0]

  Quote

"guilty of possessing documents likely to be used for terrorism", couldn't that be just about anything; a train schedule, a map, a photograph, a poem?

Not in isolation, no. In this case, the defendant's possession of a range of material, coupled with her membership and support of extremist groups and her advocacy of violence was sufficient for a jury to convict. I think it ought to be remembered that she was cleared of a more serious charge.

It may be that this woman was simply a misguided fantasist who built up some sort of persona which led her to acquire this material, but post-7th July I'm not sure we have the luxury of giving such cases the benefit of the doubt.

[quade 4]

  Quote

Refresh my memory - which political party is the strong proponent of 'hate crime' (iow, thought control) laws, again?

Depends on which "thought crimes" you're talking about, but in the context of this thread, the "Patriot Act" and all the other "Big Brother" laws, it's most definately the current occupants of The White House and Naval Observatory.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,590]

  Quote

She wasn't convicted for the poetry, she was found "guilty of possessing documents likely to be used for terrorism" though I wouldn't expect a rag like the Mail to understand the difference.

Free men don't need their governments permission to own books or any other kinds of documents.

However after reading the sample of her poetry, I would say she should be convicted of "felony bad taste".

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Refresh my memory - which political party is the strong proponent of 'hate crime' (iow, thought control) laws, again?

Depends on which "thought crimes" you're talking about, but in the context of this thread, the "Patriot Act" and all the other "Big Brother" laws, it's most definately the current occupants of The White House and Naval Observatory.

Nice qualification to support the bias of the OP....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Refresh my memory - which political party is the strong proponent of 'hate crime' (iow, thought control) laws, again?

Depends on which "thought crimes" you're talking about, but in the context of this thread, the "Patriot Act" and all the other "Big Brother" laws, it's most definately the current occupants of The White House and Naval Observatory.

Nice qualification to support the bias of the OP....

UH . . . I -AM- the Original Poster!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Refresh my memory - which political party is the strong proponent of 'hate crime' (iow, thought control) laws, again?

Depends on which "thought crimes" you're talking about, but in the context of this thread, the "Patriot Act" and all the other "Big Brother" laws, it's most definately the current occupants of The White House and Naval Observatory.

Nice qualification to support the bias of the OP....

UH . . . I -AM- the Original Poster!

Yes, I know that.... wait - I'll make it clearer:

Nice qualification to support the bias of your OP.

There - better?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

Refresh my memory - which political party is the strong proponent of 'hate crime' (iow, thought control) laws, again?

Perhaps I'm confused ... am confident that someone will correct me if that's the case.
For something to be considered a "hate crime" does not another crime, i.e., murder have to be committed in which hate was motivating factor?
E.g., the KKK can self-publish, march, and post on the internet hateful "speech" but until another crime is committed, it is not a hate crime.

In the British case was there another crime committed?

---- ---- ----

Otoh, the reference to the original version of the PATRIOT Act, which included provisions for folks like librarians to potentially be compelled to report to LEO the books that a person of interest read as part of counter-terrorism investigations, does seem relevent ... if that is to what the OP was referring?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[DZJ 0]

  Quote

Free men don't need their governments permission to own books or any other kinds of documents.

I would agree, were it not for the actions of certain other free men who strapped themselves with explosives and killed 52 of my fellow Londoners, or of yet other free men who tried to do likewise two weeks later.

There's seems to me an important distinction, and I'm speaking generally here rather than specifically to you, in perception between American and British views of the 'War on Terror' (which, by the by, I think is an extraordinarily bad name to give one's foreign policy) 9/11 was an attack by foreign nationals while the London bombings were carried out by otherwise fully assimilated British citizens. Britain has an indigenous Muslim population of a size and concentration that the US, so far as I know, does not. Islamic extremism is therefore a largely external threat for the US, but in Britain is a force that has to be combatted within a large domestic population, the overwhelming majority of whom are decent, law-abiding British citizens. I don't pretend to know where the balance should fall between liberty and security, but in the current climate a certain amount of care has to be taken. A balance has also to be struck between vigorous anti-terrorist policing, and the risk of further alienating those who are at risk of radicalisation. Overall I'm satisfied that the correct decision has been made here, though the non-unanimous (10:1) verdict perhaps reflects the ambiguity.

[b1jercat 0]

Well it's only a matter of time before they get around to witchcraft, I wouldn't want to be in JK Rawlings shoes.

blues

jerry

[billvon 3,028]

>he was found "guilty of possessing documents likely to be used for terrorism"

I have the following books/documents:

The Physics of Re-Entry Bodies
Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion: Principles, Practice and New Developments
Lithium Mobile Power
Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill
The Last True Story I'll Every Tell: A Soldier's Account of the War in Iraq

What's going to happen to me?

[DZJ 0]

I imagine the Lord Chief Justice will come and clap you in irons, before hauling you off to the Tower of London, to be on the safe side.

[vpozzoli 0]

  Quote

>he was found "guilty of possessing documents likely to be used for terrorism"

I have the following books/documents:

The Physics of Re-Entry Bodies
Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion: Principles, Practice and New Developments
Lithium Mobile Power
Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill
The Last True Story I'll Every Tell: A Soldier's Account of the War in Iraq

What's going to happen to me?

For having those books in your living room? Probably nothing.
But if you're ever caught trying to acquirehigh-grade rocket fuel AND high yield explosives illegally, that might give the investigators some ideas as to what you were probably planning to do with those items.

Cheers,

Vale

[masterblaster72 0]

  Quote

Nice qualification to support the bias of the OP....

Ya know, it's interesting...you continually point out others' biases in your posts, and every now and then I see you saying "well both parties are full of it"...

...yet I only see you ragging on democrats, while almost never giving any slight to republicans.

Have you ever thought that your bias is showing as well?

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Andy9o8 2]

  Quote

She wasn't convicted for the poetry, she was found "guilty of possessing documents likely to be used for terrorism" though I wouldn't expect a rag like the Mail to understand the difference.

Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up.

In the US, a person could never even be charged with such an offense, much less have a conviction like that withstand constitutional scrutiny on appeal.

Calling a pig a bird doesn't make it any less a pig. But calling willing citizens sheep sometimes is spot-on. Citizens of a democratic nation who would willingly accept such a thing masquerading as justice should be ashamed of themselves.

[nigel99 522]

  Quote

It may be that this woman was simply a misguided fantasist who built up some sort of persona which led her to acquire this material, but post-7th July I'm not sure we have the luxury of giving such cases the benefit of the doubt.

That is the problem in that we are losing the ability to think and act freely in the west (I don't think the US is much better than the UK on this). Remember the old chemistry sets? As a kid I loved playing around and making things go bang - some of the stuff was quite dangerous. There are fascinating old books with bomb making recipies that can be really interesting to read - are we going to be expected to "register" the books with the police?

The problem with the counter-terrorism laws as they are evolving is that they are pre-emptive. Many household goods (including milk) can be used to make explosives so are we going to be shutting down CostCo etc to stop bulk purchasing of potentially lethal materials?

I remember traveling to the US regularly during the early part of the Iraq war and I was genuinely too scared to take political reading materials on the plane (specific examples are Hans Blix "Dissarming Iraq" and "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward. Both mainstream books but I had no trust in the system not to get screwed as a potential high risk individual.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Nice qualification to support the bias of the OP....

Ya know, it's interesting...you continually point out others' biases in your posts, and every now and then I see you saying "well both parties are full of it"...

...yet I only see you ragging on democrats, while almost never giving any slight to republicans.

Have you ever thought that your bias is showing as well?

Maybe that's due to the fact that the Repubs will (generally) admit the flaws in their own party, while the Dem will (again, generally) try to lay the ills of the world squarely at the feet of the Repubs.

Pointing out that the Dem's hands are just as dirty != bias toward the Repubs. They're scumbags on both sides of the aisle, out for what money and power they can grab.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

  Quote

Maybe that's due to the fact that the Repubs will (generally) admit the flaws in their own party, while the Dem will (again, generally) try to lay the ills of the world squarely at the feet of the Repubs.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!



I mean, you don't actually believe that, do you?
I only know one truly fair and balanced person on this Earth. By coincidence, it happens to be me.

[DZJ 0]

  Quote

Calling a pig a bird doesn't make it any less a pig. But calling willing citizens sheep sometimes is spot-on. Citizens of a democratic nation who would willingly accept such a thing masquerading as justice should be ashamed of themselves.

'Patriot' Act, anyone?

[Andy9o8 2]

  Quote

  Quote

Calling a pig a bird doesn't make it any less a pig. But calling willing citizens sheep sometimes is spot-on. Citizens of a democratic nation who would willingly accept such a thing masquerading as justice should be ashamed of themselves.

'Patriot' Act, anyone?

...and we (US citizens) are howling to high heaven about it! Those that are not...are the sheep. We have our sheep, you have yours. Don't be one of yours.

[Mike111 0]

some of these materials were found to be taken from abu hamzar or had some link to him i remember seeing on the news. those books sounds like factual accounts of the logic and motivation behind terroriist mentalities aswell as scientific books.

they are nto the same as wat she had. im fine with her being arrested. although you can't imprison someone for being muslim and looking suspicious, she clearly has provocative material which can incit rhatred.

if, and do not get me wrong, i have many muslims friends who are totally law abiding and lovely, as is 99.% of their community. but given the climate and how some preachers of hate moan about police harassment this person can shut up moanong and serve the appropriate penalty.