A terrorism case that went awry

Seattle Times ^ | Nov. 22, 2004 | Maureen O'Hagan

[JohnathanRGalt]

A terrorism case that went awry

By Maureen O'Hagan
Seattle Times staff reporter, Monday, November 22, 2004

Sami al-Hussayen, a Saudi Arabian, faced terrorism charges in Idaho.

John Ashcroft called Sami al-Hussayen part of "a terrorist threat to Americans that is fanatical, and it is fierce."

Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne said al-Hussayen is proof that terrorists are hiding in the heartland.

Yet al-Hussayen, a 34-year-old doctoral candidate at the University of Idaho, didn't exactly fit the profile when he was arrested in February 2003 and likened in court documents to Osama bin Laden.

Instead, al-Hussayen's alleged crimes occurred at his keyboard in Moscow, Idaho, where he volunteered his computer skills to run Web sites for a Muslim charity. While the charity on its face was geared toward peaceful religious teachings, prosecutors alleged that buried deep within the Web sites were a handful of violent messages — written by others — encouraging attacks on the United States and donations to terrorist organizations.

Al-Hussayen was charged under a law prohibiting "material support" to terrorism, a provision that has been used routinely in alleged terrorist cases since 2001.

	KEVIN GERMAN / THE SPOKESMAN-REVIEW/ FBI and U.S. Customs agents remove evidence from the home of University of Idaho graduate student Sami al-Hussayen after his arrest in Moscow, Idaho, in February 2003. All told, he would spend about 1½ years in jail.

But al-Hussayen's case was nothing like the rest. There was no evidence the Web sites recruited terrorists, or, for that matter, that he even believed their hateful message. And even if he did, the First Amendment would protect his right to speak his mind, as long as there was no imminent threat of violence.

Law enforcement used the Patriot Act, the sweeping anti-terrorism law hurriedly passed in October 2001, to get around some of those hurdles. Al-Hussayen was charged under a clause that expanded the definition of "material support" to include those who provide "expert advice or assistance" to terrorists' cause. He was the first person ever to be charged under that provision, which Congress has considered expanding.

The contention was that al-Hussayen used his expert skills as Webmaster, so that made him a terrorist.

Prosecutors say his arrest alone disrupted terrorist fund-raising.

"His fingerprints were intricately involved in the building of Web sites that called on young people to go and kill themselves" and to make donations for attacks, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Terry Derden. "Can you call on people to donate money to attack America? That's where we were going with our prosecution."

But jurors, who considered the charges in U.S. District Court in Idaho in June, didn't buy it.

	KATHERINE JONES / THE IDAHO STATESMAN Sami al-Hussayen's lead defense attorney, David Nevin, in front, and defense-team member Scott McKay, right, leave the courthouse in Moscow, Idaho, on May 27. Nevin said prosecutors "focused on people they were suspicious of and set about trying to prove they had indeed committed a crime."

"There was not a word spoken that indicated he supported terrorism," said juror John Steger, a retired federal employee. "It was a real stretch."

Al-Hussayen's case, along with the proposed legislation, indicates a shift in the way the laws are being enforced.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the government's mission has been to stop terrorists before they attack — a strategy that's a matter of life or death but also is fraught with questions: Does targeting those who espouse anti-American sentiment jibe with freedom of speech? When government snoops around based on little more than mere suspicion, are we truly inviolate in our own homes?

Perhaps more to the point, can we be safe any other way?

A bank teller's suspicions

Al-Hussayen's donations and work as a Webmaster attract federal attention.

At the eastern end of the golden Palouse that undulates for endless miles in the drive along Highway 270, Moscow appears on the horizon, a town marked by little more than a string of chain restaurants and gas stations and strip malls. It's enough to keep its 21,000 residents — about half of them University of Idaho students — sated.

Yet even in this tucked-away corner of the country, life was different after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked to do their part to stop terrorism. That fall, a local bank teller told the FBI that an Arab student had made a "suspicious" bank transaction.

Post-9/11 changes in surveillance laws helped turn suspicion into a massive investigation.

	JOE JASZEWSKI / THE IDAHO STATESMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist, lead prosecutor in the al-Hussayen case, told jurors that al-Hussayen had a "dual persona. One face to the public and a private face of extreme jihad."

Although the bank account was not al-Hussayen's, prosecutors later explained he had some connection to it. In any case, he drew their attention.

Born in Saudi Arabia to a well-to-do family, he began studying in the United States in 1994. He got a master's degree from Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., and in 1999 came to Moscow to study for his doctorate in computer science. By the time of his arrest, he was nearly done.

Al-Hussayen and his wife, Maha, sent the oldest two of their three children to public school. And as president of the Muslim Student Association during the Sept. 11 attacks, he had been the public face of Islam in Moscow. Back then, he organized a blood drive for victims, marched in peace vigils, and wrote a letter on behalf of Muslim students condemning the terrorist attacks.

But some things about al-Hussayen made the FBI suspicious. Over five years, prosecutors say, he donated as much as $300,000 to Islamic charities — a figure defense lawyers disputed, saying it was wrong by about half, and that most of the total was a donation from a rich uncle that al-Hussayen passed along. The figure remains in dispute.

What is clear, however, is that al-Hussayen gave generously, like all faithful Muslims, who are required to donate substantially each year.

Al-Hussayen also was Webmaster for one of the charities, the Islamic Assembly of North America. The group, like many other Islamic charities, has been investigated for links to terrorist-financing networks, but no charges have been filed and the U.S. has not outlawed it.

	COURTESY OF DAVID NEVIN Sami al-Hussayen's volunteer role as Webmaster for a Muslim charity was the source of federal suspicion.

In early 2002, the investigation of al-Hussayen began in earnest. The government's effort, it now appears, turned up a number of bogus clues leading to mistaken conclusions.

For example:

• He had switched advisers for his dissertation midway through the school year. To the FBI, that meant he was trying to slow down his graduation, that his dissertation was "fictitious," and that his real purpose in coming to the United States was to help raise money for jihad, a holy war, using the Web. Al-Hussayen's explanation? His first adviser was battling cancer, and he switched so he could finish his dissertation on time.

• He studied computer-security systems. "They would always mention it with a sneer," said John Dickinson, al-Hussayen's faculty adviser. Al-Hussayen's explanation? He was working on a way to detect computer break-ins, not bring the nation's computer systems down.

• He moved his office from the computer-science building to one that years ago had housed the science department's nuclear reactor. To the FBI, that meant he might be seeking radioactive material to make a dirty bomb. The reality? The reactor was long defunct and the nuclear materials inaccessible, according to school officials.

"This case really stood the normal order of business on its head," said al-Hussayen's lawyer, David Nevin. "The typical situation would be a crime gets committed and you go and find the people you think committed it. In this situation they instead focused on people they were suspicious of and set about trying to prove they had indeed committed a crime."

Authorities were suspicious enough to want to tap al-Hussayen's phones, but Nevin said they didn't have the required "probable cause" to believe a crime had been committed and therefore couldn't get a typical search warrant.

	SPOKESMAN-REVIEW Maha al-Hussayen, Sami al-Hussayen, wife, is shown as federal agents search their home in 2003.

To get around that Fourth Amendment requirement, they turned instead to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was created in the 1970s so government could spy on spies. That court, which is conducted in secret, doesn't have the strict "probable cause" requirement. And under the Patriot Act, its jurisdiction was expanded, and it has increasingly been used in cases that don't involve spies.

In spring 2002, the court granted a government request to record all of al-Hussayen's phone calls and e-mail. All told, some 20,000 e-mails and 9,000 phone calls were captured over the course of about a year.

In addition to the wiretaps, as many as 20 local, state and federal law-enforcement officers began tailing al-Hussayen, according to his lawyer, recording his daily activities around campus and elsewhere.

Essentially, the government vacuumed every corner of al-Hussayen's life looking for crumbs of terrorist activity. After nearly a year of investigating, the FBI was ready to pounce.

Government leaps

Al-Hussayen arrested, and other Arab students interrogated.

On Feb. 26, 2003, Moscow awoke to find the university's day-care parking lot blocked by a swarm of federal, state and local officers.

They were there primarily to grab al-Hussayen, who lived in university housing near the center. But the officers also were armed with a list of Arab students and began knocking on their doors about 5 a.m.

	COURTESY OF DAVID NEVIN Sami Al-Hussayen is reunited with his three young sons at the airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Before his arrest, he had been working on a Ph.D. in computer science at the University of Idaho.

Rarely used before 9/11, the questioning of Muslims has become a regular ingredient in the war on terror. The tactic was used in Seattle earlier this fall, when the government said it had to question Muslims because of possible pre-election attacks.

In Moscow, the Muslim students began frantically calling the university's law school early that morning, saying they'd been threatened with jail or deportation if they failed to cooperate, according to Monica Schurtman, a law professor who advised some of them. One was questioned for seven hours, she said.

"We wanted to know what they knew," said prosecutor Derden, calling the students al-Hussayen's associates.

The interrogations in Moscow ended with no charges other than those filed against al-Hussayen.

In a news conference after the raid, authorities trumpeted the arrest and described al-Hussayen as a money man for terrorist operations. Some agents even told reporters that the case could show how attacks such as those on the World Trade Center were funded.

Moscow was stunned.

"I think most people's first reaction was trust the government," recalled Elizabeth Brandt, a university law professor. When dozens of agents "show up in town and arrest a guy, most people think he must have done something really wrong."

It didn't take long, she said, for skepticism to grow.

Charges filed

Before terrorism charges were filed, al-Hussayen was held in jail for months for alleged immigration infractions.

Despite all the hoopla, the charges filed against al-Hussayen had nothing to do with terrorism.

Instead, he was charged with 11 counts of visa fraud and making false statements for filling out his immigration forms wrong. There were two basic problems that he repeated on several forms.

First, he swore he had entered the country "for the sole purpose" of study, and not to work. He broke that promise by volunteering for the Web sites, prosecutors said.

He also ran afoul of a post-9/11 requirement that males entering the country provide a list of organizations to which they belong. Al-Hussayen did not list the Islamic Assembly of North America.

It was the first time anyone had been charged with a crime for failing to disclose volunteer charity work to the U.S. government, according to immigration lawyer Robert Pauw, who represented al-Hussayen. In fact, one of the prosecution's own witnesses, who was from Iraq, held a paying job in violation of her own visa, but she was never charged.

At al-Hussayen's bail hearing, the judge was skeptical. Saying there was no evidence al-Hussayen was dangerous, he denied prosecutors' request that al-Hussayen be jailed until trial.

But prosecutors had another plan. Turning to immigration court, where it's easier to keep a suspect locked up until trial, they filed separate charges alleging al-Hussayen had earned about $300 over his five years of volunteering for the charity. The immigration judge, trumping the previous judge, ruled al-Hussayen would be held behind bars until all the charges were resolved.

All told, he would spend about 1½ years in jail.

After about a year, prosecutors filed terrorism charges. They alleged he was supporting terrorists in Israel, Chechnya and other places through the Web sites.

"It was a type of prosecution that had not been tried before," prosecutor Derden said, noting that the U.S. Department of Justice made the case "a priority."

Derden knew, however, that it would be tough.

Trying to build a case

Jury left to wrestle with untested legal issues.

In opening statements, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist told the jury al-Hussayen had a "dual persona. One face to the public and a private face of extreme jihad."

"When he [Lindquist] got done," recalled juror Steger, "I thought, this guy's going to be in jail for life."

But soon, Steger and the others began to have doubts. Weeks into the trial, Lindquist hadn't presented any evidence of terrorism.

During week four, prosecutors began to show the jury those alleged connections.

• On al-Hussayen's Web pages, prosecutors argued, you could click on links that would allow you to donate to Hamas, which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization. Not so fast, the defense replied. Those links were removed from the site before al-Hussayen became Webmaster.

• The links might be hidden, prosecutors countered, but al-Hussayen was still funneling potential donors to Hamas. That's because a would-be terrorist could still donate via al-Hussayen's Web sites if he knew what to type into the address bar. Ridiculous, the defense replied.

"If you really want to have a page that will allow people to make donations to Hamas, it makes no sense to hide it," said Nevin, al-Hussayen's attorney.

• But how to explain the Islamic edicts, or fatwas, the prosecution countered? One of the edicts, written by a radical sheik and posted months before 9/11, advocated "suicide operations" and "bringing down an airplane on an important location."

Surely, a devoted Muslim reading that statement could be incited to violence. However, as the defense pointed out, another prosecution witness, Reuven Paz, admitted he had much of the same material posted on his Web site, as did the BBC.

Throughout the trial, Nevin held fast to the argument that al-Hussayen was a peace-loving student, not a terrorist. "These are not Sami's opinions," Nevin said. "It's not right to hold him responsible for what someone else said."

Under the law, Lindquist countered, it didn't matter if al-Hussayen intended to aid terrorists. All he needed to prove material support was to show that al-Hussayen knew his Web sites attracted donations or recruits.

The jury, which retired to deliberate the first week in June, would be wrestling with some legal issues that had never before been tested.

Changing rules

Al-Hussayen's case differs from all other terrorism prosecutions.

To understand the uniqueness of al-Hussayen's case, it's helpful to look at how terrorism prosecution has changed over the years and how his case compares to the rest.

The first "material support" of terrorism law was passed in 1994; under it, the government had to show a connection between the support and a terrorist act.

It also had to prove that the person providing material support intended to aid terrorists. For example, if someone donated to Hamas intending to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians, he could not be prosecuted.

"Unless I could show how Hamas used that money — something you could never show as a practical matter — this law was doing no good to cut off funding," said Robert Chesney, a law professor at Wake Forest University.

In 1996, after the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress expanded the material-support law to address those concerns.

Then came 9/11. Six weeks after the attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which added a clause to the material-support law outlawing "expert advice or assistance" to terrorist organizations. It did not define the term, however.

Nevin, al-Hussayen's lawyer, said the idea was to "permit the government to go after someone who provided the know-how to make a bomb."

But that's nothing like what al-Hussayen was accused of doing. In fact, his case is different from every other terrorism prosecution. First, he is the only person to be charged with providing expert advice or assistance. And second, it is the only case targeting Internet support of terrorism.

To Nevin, al-Hussayen was akin to the person who runs a printing press. He simply posted articles at the direction of others. Among thousands of postings, a handful advocated attacks on America, but that didn't make him a criminal, in Nevin's view. It's as if al-Hussayen simply provided the "soapbox" for those people to stand on, Nevin said. And under the First Amendment, that couldn't be a crime.

Chesney sees it differently.

"In this country, we're famously committed to free speech," he said. "Surely you can say what you want, even that al-Qaida is great. But when that starts becoming incitement or fund-raising, then it gets very difficult."

Since 9/11, the material-support law has been used against 52 defendants, Chesney noted, but none but al-Hussayen's case raised this thorny issue. He favors the Patriot Act's material-support provision, saying when concerns such as this arise, they should be considered case-by-case.

Others disagree, saying the law is too broad. "It has become the linchpin of [outgoing Attorney General John] Ashcroft's war on terrorism precisely because it doesn't require proof that an individual engaged in any sort of terrorist act or even supported any terrorist activity," said David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University. "It is to my mind a resurrection of the principle of guilt by association."

That's what happened when Japanese Americans were rounded up during World War II and when communists were persecuted and prosecuted, Cole said.

Chesney and Cole have researched the Patriot Act extensively but had come to opposite conclusions.

It was anybody's guess how jurors would see it.

Jury speaks

Unanimous verdict on terrorism charges derails government's case.

Idaho would seem like a friendly state in which to prosecute an alleged Arab terrorist. It is considered among the most conservative states in the nation and is also among the least diverse, with Arabs making up just one tenth of 1 percent of the population.

On the other hand, Idaho juries have a history of keeping government in check, said law professor Schurtman. Look at the case of Randy Weaver, an Idaho man who was acquitted of murdering a federal agent, in part because the government was seen as the aggressor.

Initially, the jury in the al-Hussayen case focused on the immigration violations. After six days, arguments and tears, al-Hussayen was acquitted of three of them. The jurors deadlocked on the other eight, unable to agree whether he intentionally misled immigration officials or whether the forms simply weren't clear.

Finally, they considered the terrorism charges.

"In two or three hours," juror Steger recalled, "we voted him not guilty on all three."

"There was no direct connection in the evidence they gave us — and we had boxes and boxes to go through — between Sami [al-Hussayen] and terrorism," said juror Clair Ingraham.

A yearlong investigation, the work of scores of officers, the promise of finding out how al-Qaida funds operations. It had all evaporated with a resounding "not guilty."

Al-Hussayen reached an agreement with the U.S. government and flew back to Saudi Arabia in July.

Issue survives

How far can the government go in the name of fighting terrorism?

To Derden, the prosecutor, the case was not a total failure.

"I don't think anybody ever thought the case was airtight," he said. "The attorney general asked us to go out and disrupt terrorism and material support wherever it occurred. We were unsuccessful in the terrorism charges, but ultimately we thought we were successful in disrupting what was going on."

But what was going on, juror Steger still wants to know.

"It made me feel bad the federal government had this guy in jail for a year and they didn't have better evidence," he said.

When Ahmed Ressam was convicted of crossing the border from Canada into Washington with a carload of explosives, intent on bombing Los Angeles International Airport, his support for terrorism was obvious. When James Ujaama pleaded guilty in connection with a plan to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon, it was obvious what he did wrong.

But in cases involving alleged Internet recruitment of terrorists, there are many unknowns. Did donors click on the links that led to Hamas? Did terrorists join the cause because of the fatwas?

Under the current law, those answers aren't necessary. Supporters say that's how to stop terrorists before they act.

U.S. House and Senate negotiators had been working on a bill related to the 9/11 commission recommendations; tucked into it were provisions expanding the scope of the Patriot Act. One would have essentially prohibited membership in certain organizations — whether that membership furthered terrorists' ends or, for example, was to advocate nonviolence or provide humanitarian aid.

The bill died Saturday when the House and Senate failed to reach agreement on the commission recommendations. But the part of the bill related to the Patriot Act could be revived in coming months.

In the meantime, there are voices like Nevin's.

"Law enforcement in this country has a complicated task," he said, noting it has to catch bad guys — and now, potential bad guys — "and still preserve the constitutional rights of citizens. There's this tendency that if we have something really serious, we can kind of relax the rules.

"When you do that, you get into trouble."

[JohnathanRGalt]

The article provides an in-depth review of the al-Hussayen case. --- Is the Seattle Times author, Maureen O'Hagan, glossing over many of Hussayen's terrorist connections in order to paint a false picture in favor of Muslim webmasters who produce terror websites?

[JohnathanRGalt]

Jehadi website ping: (let me know if you want on or off)

[Max Combined]

He is lucky I was not on that jury.

[BillyCrockett]

"the First Amendment would protect his right to speak his mind, as long as there was no imminent threat of violence."

Isn't their ANY way we can line up the liberal community in the front row of any terrorist attack on the US?

[Grampa Dave]

Maureen O'Hagan is probably a member of GIM. See the link below and my tagline explaining GIM members who are out in force with any story to try and embarrass GW and of course the evil Ashcroft.

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Maureen%20O'Hagan%20Gay

[TChris]

Sounds to me like the system worked. The Feds went on a witch hunt and a clear-minded (conservative) jury saw right through it, acquitted and sent the man home. Anyone care to guess the outcome if the roles had all been reversed?

[JohnathanRGalt]

"the First Amendment would protect his right to speak his mind, as long as there was no imminent threat of violence."

The liberal judge in the case carefully instructed the jury that it's OK to incite people to murder other people -- just as long as people aren't immediately murdered. I suppose you could justify child porn on the internet with the same logic.

The link to Maureen O'Hagan's support of the gay cause didn't work. Try this instead: Maureen O'Hagan Gay

[JohnathanRGalt]

Sounds to me like the system worked. The Feds went on a witch hunt and a clear-minded (conservative) jury saw right through it, acquitted and sent the man home. Anyone care to guess the outcome if the roles had all been reversed?

How is the system supposed to work if the Judge won't let the jurors see the evidence?

[In a ruling that bolstered Mr. Hussayen's case on Monday, Judge Edward J. Lodge of Federal District Court in Idaho would not let prosecutors show the jury a Web page that encourages suicide bombings. The judge said the government must prove that Mr. Hussayen created the page or endorsed its contents.]

Does that sound like a 'clear minded' jury to you? Sounds to me like the system worked as well as it did on the O.J. trial.

[Billthedrill]

Bad bust, IMHO, and most of the folks around the U of I will tell you that. The guy's websites weren't exactly Terror Central, although any website specializing in Arab language content is going to be easier to exploit than ones in English. It's really difficult to make a webmaster responsible for the activities of transient users - look, for example, at the sort of stuff that gets posted to FR from time to time.

The problem was the money. That's a lot of cash to be moving around, (although a number of the Saudi students really are that rich) and I'm sure it raised all sorts of flags. The real problem is that money sent to "perfectly legitimate" Islamic charities really does end up in terrorist hands. That's the principal reason we're in a war with radical Islam at the moment. Where "moderate" Muslims have failed is in allowing the tremendous financial resources of Islam to be directed that way, and it is completely out of control and looks to stay that way.

The author definitely underestimates the resentment and suspicion the Ruby Ridge case generated throughout this area (that was about 150 miles north of UI), not because Weaver was a local but because the nature of the case against him was so completely trumped up and the feds essentially got away with it scot-free. Three hours to a "not-guilty" on all accounts will tell you all you need to know about this case as it was presented to the jury.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Bump

[nw_arizona_granny]

Ping

[TChris]

How is the system supposed to work if the Judge won't let the jurors see the evidence?

Of course, I wasn't on the jury, but from what I've read, there is nothing suspicious about this exclusion at all. He was a webmaster on a system that allowed others to post -- not unlike FreeRepublic in that regard. This man wouldn't be any more responsible for what others posted there than the owners/operators of FreeRepublic would be for what I post here. The judge is allowed to exclude this type of evidence, and I believe he was right to do so in this case.

I'm as eager as anybody for terrorists to be caught and prosecuted. But I'm not ready to join the lynch mob and string up everyone with an Arab name and a beard.

[dennisw]

That guy is one of the fruitiest looking Jihadis so far. OBL can also stike a fetching pose.

[JohnathanRGalt]

Bad bust, IMHO, and most of the folks around the U of I will tell you that. The guy's websites weren't exactly Terror Central,...

Actually, the sites were "Terror Central". Al-Hussayen, as webmaster and moderator was directly responsable for the content of the sites and forums. He approved of the content and uploaded / posted it:

Court told of ties to Web group

Postings on the e-mail group called "Qoqaz" urged Muslim support for a violent jihad -- or holy war -- in the Middle East, Chechnya and elsewhere in the non-Muslim world, according to an indictment against Al-Hussayen.

Two days before Al-Hussayen's arrest last year, an "urgent appeal" was posted on the e-mail group urging Muslims to identify and supply information about U.S. military targets in the Middle East.

Al-Hussayen is on trial in U.S. District Court on charges of providing material support to terrorists, using his computer expertise to develop and maintain Web sites for Islamic extremists and lying to U.S. immigration officials to gain a student visa.

Bobby Lee, an engineering manager for Yahoo Groups, testified Wednesday, using voluminous computer records obtained from Yahoo with a federal subpoena.

Those records indicate Al-Hussayen opened two e-mail accounts, now controlled by Yahoo, using his University of Idaho e-mail address as an alternate to two Yahoo accounts....

... The federal prosecutor asked Lee about Yahoo records, which showed Al-Hussayen approved a Qoqaz posting on June 7, 2000, using his University of Idaho e-mail address.

The witness did not discuss the specific posting or indicate its contents.

Hinnen then asked Lee about another Qoqaz posting that Al-Hussayen, acting as a group moderator, deleted from the group's site two months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. ...

although any website specializing in Arab language content is going to be easier to exploit than ones in English. It's really difficult to make a webmaster responsible for the activities of transient users - look, for example, at the sort of stuff that gets posted to FR from time to time.

The moderator/webmaster is certainly responsable for what appears. Assume, for the sake of arguement, that a moderator on FR allowed, and sometimes openly encouraged posts calling for illegal activites such as murder or violent jehad. If the moderator refused to remove the offending posts can we assume that moderator would be as responsable for the posts as the original poster? Would FR be held responsable (in the public mind if not the court) if it allowed the postings to continue?

[JohnathanRGalt]

Of course, I wasn't on the jury, but from what I've read, there is nothing suspicious about this exclusion at all. He was a webmaster on a system that allowed others to post -- not unlike FreeRepublic in that regard. This man wouldn't be any more responsible for what others posted there than the owners/operators of FreeRepublic would be for what I post here. The judge is allowed to exclude this type of evidence, and I believe he was right to do so in this case.

Al-Hussayen was the webmaster and moderator. He approved of what was said and posted. He physically uploaded the content to the websites using his admin password. If someone posts the things on FreeRepublic that Al-Hussayen approved of they'd be quickly banned and their posts would be immediately deleted.

The judge blinded the jury by disallowing important evidence. The judge then re-defined the English language by telling them that incitement isn't really incitement if it doesn't incite to a crime within a short period of time.

I'm as eager as anybody for terrorists to be caught and prosecuted. But I'm not ready to join the lynch mob and string up everyone with an Arab name and a beard.

And I say we can't excuse people for their violent speech and actions because they have an Arab name and a beard.

[steve8714]

More likely in Idaho a Libertarian-leaning jury...

[TChris]

He approved of what was said and posted. He physically uploaded the content to the websites using his admin password.

I saw nothing to support these assertions in the article. He probably was the moderator, but the possiblity that he simply did a sloppy job of that isn't enough to convict him, in my mind. Besides, the guy has a history of protesting terrorism; certainly not the usual tactics of a terrorism lover. Those were the ones cheering on 9/11, but not this guy. Also, I saw nothing to indicate that he had to personally approve everything that was posted, nor did I see anything about his "admin password". Where did you come up with that?

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Billthedrill]

Assume, for the sake of arguement, that a moderator on FR allowed, and sometimes openly encouraged posts calling for illegal activites such as murder or violent jehad.

Well, actually that sort of thing did happen in FR's early days, often put-up jobs by people who were attempting to smear the site. Links to StormFront, that sort of thing. Nasty stuff. FR Didn't have Mods, and JimRob's gotta sleep sometime.

That aside, the case hinged on what this guy actually did as opposed to what people did on sites and email groups he set up, and the prosecutors failed to link the two.

Again, my point is not that he's innocent, but that most of what he did himself is peripheral and hence it is extremely difficult to prove criminality. Directing charity contributions, for example, is perfectly legal - try proving that legal charity is siphoning money to terrorists. Everyone knows that it is, but try proving it. And that's the real problem.

[JohnathanRGalt]

I saw nothing to support these assertions in the article.

In the very first post I asked the question: "Is the Seattle Times author, Maureen O'Hagan, glossing over many of Hussayen's terrorist connections in order to paint a false picture in favor of Muslim webmasters who produce terror websites?"

Of course you didn't see it in the article. Those assertions weren't there because Maureen O'Hagan selectively left them out in order to paint a false picture.

If you want to find out what's really happening you have to dig a little deeper than what the liberal media will allow you to see. IANA (The Islamic Assembly of North America) has been the discussion topic on FreeRepublic several times in connection with terrorist activities over the past several years. Consider this discussion:

Upstate charity tied to illegal Iraqi cash: Feds say N.Y. group laundered millions

... Probers exploring a possible terror connection have focused on Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, a 34-year-old computer scientist and doctoral candidate who was researching cyber-intrusion techniques at the University of Idaho in Moscow.

Saudi-born Al-Hussayen ran two of Help the Needy's Web sites and is listed as having registered Web addresses for a dozen sites linked to or belonging to the Islamic Assembly of North America, according to court documents and the Internet Council of Registrars in Geneva.

The Islamic assembly sites were the ones that allegedly posted fatwas in Arabic from two radical Saudi clerics allied with Bin Laden - Salman Al-Awdah and Safar Al-Hawali - that advocated suicide attacks against the U.S. The sites also provided religious justification for Al Qaeda's "martyrdom operations."

Chilling pre-9/11 words

The Web sites Al-Hussayen ran for Help the Needy posted no such materials. But a site he operated for the assembly posted an article, "Provision of Suicide Operations," on June 19, 2001, that included this chilling excerpt, which the government quoted in court filings:

"The mujahid [or warrior] must kill himself if he knows this will lead to killing a great number of the enemies ... or demolishing a center vital to the enemy or its military forces. ...

"In this new era, this can be accomplished with the modern means of bombing or bringing down an airplane on an important location that will cause the enemy great losses."

Besides, the guy has a history of protesting terrorism; certainly not the usual tactics of a terrorism lover. Those were the ones cheering on 9/11, but not this guy.

After 9/11 we saw CAIR also making public denouncements of terrorism. It's important to dig deeper to find out what people actually believe and promote.

Also, I saw nothing to indicate that he had to personally approve everything that was posted, nor did I see anything about his "admin password". Where did you come up with that?

Webmasters, ISP administrators, and moderators have admin passwords. Nothing goes onto a website site without their tacit approval. All content on the web exists because someone with an admin password allows it to exist.