Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Woman Imprisoned For Having Literature

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 1:03:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Curious readers beware: in the British police state, merely possessing a copy of the supposed al-Qaeda magazine Inspire will get you a twelve month stint in the hoosegow.

Begum"s conviction and incarceration set a dangerous precedent people can now be sent to prison for merely having literature on their computers and cell phones.

Inspire: A Magazine Produced by a Pentagon Dinner Guest. Inspire is said to be the work of Anwar al-Awlaki, the"Pentagon dinner guest who"worked for the FBI."

-- http://www.infowars.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 1:19:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm unsurprised. In a democratic society, where the people are sovereign (and in which the state is charged immediately with their care), all the little security things that it uses to keep them safe eventually have to turn to internal threats, and, often, to potential internal threats--an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, amirite?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 1:53:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 1:22:34 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Less biased source: http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Yeah, this is wrong.

Really? According to the attached AP article, she was charged with "possessing material useful to terrorists" (i.e., possessing literature that could conceivably be used to terrorize); further, "Passing sentence Thursday, judge Adrian Fulford said he accepted Begum"s explanation that she downloaded the material to understand her brothers" case, but said he had no choice but to impose a prison sentence." I.e., doesn't matter that we totally get what you're doing--you're going to jail anyway.

Also, I don't see how the BBC article is counter-evidence, strictly speaking--it repeats basically everything Geo's article argued (particularly as construed through cited sources, since I never take anything on Infowars at face value). BBC still argues that a) she had "material likely useful to terrorists, b) she was sent to jail (BBC only mentions the possibility of early release), and c) the judge being understanding, but incarcerating her anyway. And I mean, hell--the subtitle to the BBC article is "A new bride who had al-Qaeda terrorist material on her mobile phone has been jailed for a year." That kind of poisons the well from the beginning.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 2:17:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess there's such a thing as being too concise. What I meant was, I think the sentence passed was wrong and I agree with Geo. Sorry for making you waste two paragraphs of your time dude. :P
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 2:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is nothing new.

Though, I don't know what Info Wars is trying to pull by calling it a "supposed" Al Qaeda magazine. It's a straight-up terrorist instruction manual.

It is a terrible thing, though.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 2:30:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 2:20:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:
This is nothing

Though, I don't know what Info Wars is trying to pull by calling it a "supposed" Al Qaeda magazine. It's a straight-up terrorist instruction manual.

Terrorism isn't just designated to only Al Queda. However they admitted it was a magazine by Al-CIAda operative, Anwar Alwaki.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:25:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 1:03:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Curious readers beware: in the British police state, merely possessing a copy of the supposed al-Qaeda magazine Inspire will get you a twelve month stint in the hoosegow.

Begum"s conviction and incarceration set a dangerous precedent people can now be sent to prison for merely having literature on their computers and cell phones.

Inspire: A Magazine Produced by a Pentagon Dinner Guest. Inspire is said to be the work of Anwar al-Awlaki, the"Pentagon dinner guest who"worked for the FBI."

-- http://www.infowars.com...

Facts are fun to spin.

So, it is believed that Inspire is an Al-Queda publication. So, if one has a subscription, they are giving money to this organization. Isn't that illegal to do? Is she not giving aid to an enemy organization? The fact that she is receiving something in exchange (even if it is knowledge) actually makes it worse in the eyes of the law.

So, it is a truthful statement to say that she was jailed because she possessed literature, but it would be misleading. What was the charge she was guilty of?

Now, if there is no charge for this literature, a case could still be made that popularity of a website/article gives credence/aid to the organization. This is a harder sell, but, as I have said before, infowars is not an objective news source (no naming of charge, no stating if material cost anything, implying the judge didn't want to convict). In fact, there is not one word that discusses the other side of the issue.
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 3:52:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:25:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Facts are fun to spin.

So, it is believed that Inspire is an Al-Queda publication. So, if one has a subscription, they are giving money to this organization. Isn't that illegal to do? Is she not giving aid to an enemy organization? The fact that she is receiving something in exchange (even if it is knowledge) actually makes it worse in the eyes of the law.

Subscription? I believe she merely downloaded it with no monetary exchange.

And if funding Al Queda is an imprisonable offense then Obama and Geithner should be behind bars.
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com...

So, it is a truthful statement to say that she was jailed because she possessed literature, but it would be misleading. What was the charge she was guilty of?

Now, if there is no charge for this literature, a case could still be made that popularity of a website/article gives credence/aid to the organization. This is a harder sell, but, as I have said before, infowars is not an objective news source

False. Infowars is highly objective. One of the top accurate, well investigated unbiased sources. You claim theyre biased. Biased towards what? Theyre not left or right. Biased towards Liberty sure, you could say that.

(no naming of charge, no stating if material cost anything, implying the judge didn't want to convict). In fact, there is not one word that discusses the other side of the issue.

It linked to the AP news article. There is no justification for imprisonment for literature. What side. You want them to sympathize with and justify fascism to appear unbiased?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mr_Anon
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 7:53:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:52:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 3:25:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Facts are fun to spin.

So, it is believed that Inspire is an Al-Queda publication. So, if one has a subscription, they are giving money to this organization. Isn't that illegal to do? Is she not giving aid to an enemy organization? The fact that she is receiving something in exchange (even if it is knowledge) actually makes it worse in the eyes of the law.

Subscription? I believe she merely downloaded it with no monetary exchange.

And if funding Al Queda is an imprisonable offense then Obama and Geithner should be behind bars.
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com...

The first two sources are based on propaganda from the (former) Libyan and Syrian governments. Yes, Al-Qaida has a presence in those countries, but the main opposition groups are unaffiliated with them. The third one is just garbage and gives no evidence to justify its ridiculous claims.
Mr_Anon
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 8:13:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

False. Infowars is highly objective. One of the top accurate, well investigated unbiased sources. You claim theyre biased. Biased towards what? Theyre not left or right. Biased towards Liberty sure, you could say that.

Stop saying "false", as if it is objective fact, and then following up by repeating your own opinion.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 1:31:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/10/2012 3:52:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/10/2012 3:25:48 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Facts are fun to spin.

So, it is believed that Inspire is an Al-Queda publication. So, if one has a subscription, they are giving money to this organization. Isn't that illegal to do? Is she not giving aid to an enemy organization? The fact that she is receiving something in exchange (even if it is knowledge) actually makes it worse in the eyes of the law.

Subscription? I believe she merely downloaded it with no monetary exchange.
You believe there was no money involved, you do not know. It was not part of the analysis offered by Kurt Nimmo. In fact, there was no analysis of the prosecution at all, nor the charge, nor the law. In fact, there was no mention of these key pieces of information.
Also, even if it was free, I gave a plausable case the prosecutor could use. No comment on that?

And if funding Al Queda is an imprisonable offense then Obama and Geithner should be behind bars.
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com...
This is not the issue at hand. We are talking about this woman who was convicted, not others that should/should not be prosecuted.



So, it is a truthful statement to say that she was jailed because she possessed literature, but it would be misleading. What was the charge she was guilty of?

Now, if there is no charge for this literature, a case could still be made that popularity of a website/article gives credence/aid to the organization. This is a harder sell, but, as I have said before, infowars is not an objective news source

False. Infowars is highly objective. One of the top accurate, well investigated unbiased sources. You claim theyre biased. Biased towards what? Theyre not left or right. Biased towards Liberty sure, you could say that.

Then why is there no analysis of the prosecution? No mention of the charge? Why use the harsh language of "British police state" in the first sentence? Why does the headline blatently lie, when the woman did not have a magazine, she had a download (petty, I know, but still...)? If this person believes Inspire is a CIA publication and not Al Queda, then, again, he lies in his headline. It should have read "Woman is imprisoned for downloading public CIA reports".

(no naming of charge, no stating if material cost anything, implying the judge didn't want to convict). In fact, there is not one word that discusses the other side of the issue.

It linked to the AP news article.
The AP article was giving the facts, this article from infowars was an analysis. I expect more from analyses than news reporting.
There is no justification for imprisonment for literature. What side. You want them to sympathize with and justify fascism to appear unbiased?
Again, with my little knowledge, I claim she wasn't imprisoned for having the literature, per se. She was imprisoned for aiding the enemy, and the fact that she had this literature possibly made her an accomplice after the fact to the crimes of her husband, at least the way the law was written.

It is quite difficult to have a discussion regarding this without knowing what she was charged with and what the law actually states, especially since the judge seemed to disagree with the law (in this case), but was forced to uphold it.

Again, if infowars was so about getting people information, knowing the charge/law is important to properly digest the situation. Instead, they withhold this and use the facts of the case to incite anger. This is irresponsible/incompetent at best, manipulation at worst.
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 3:33:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 1:31:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 3:52:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Subscription? I believe she merely downloaded it with no monetary exchange.
You believe there was no money involved, you do not know. It was not part of the analysis offered by Kurt Nimmo. In fact, there was no analysis of the prosecution at all, nor the charge, nor the law. In fact, there was no mention of these key pieces of information.

It's all irrelevant. I'm glad he left it out. If I shop at Walmart for a murder mystery novel and some Walmart exec murders somebody, does that make me responsible? No.

Also, even if it was free, I gave a plausable case the prosecutor could use. No comment on that?

Nope. Who cares. The fact that they can nitpick to imprison you doesn't justify injustice and anti-freedom.

And if funding Al Queda is an imprisonable offense then Obama and Geithner should be behind bars.
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com...
This is not the issue at hand. We are talking about this woman who was convicted, not others that should/should not be prosecuted.

It does matter because it shows the absurdity and where the governments priorities are. Britain lets Obama, an arms and money dealer to Al-Queda, into their country as an honorary guest all the time. They make no attempt to arrest him, but they imprison a lady with a magazine.

False. Infowars is highly objective. One of the top accurate, well investigated unbiased sources. You claim theyre biased. Biased towards what? Theyre not left or right. Biased towards Liberty sure, you could say that.

Then why is there no analysis of the prosecution? No mention of the charge?

Honestly, that was a rather unusually brief analysis and low word count for an Infowars article. They usually provide long indepth analysis of issues, but mainly for ones that are more important.

Why use the harsh language of "British police state" in the first sentence?

Calling a spade a spade. Plus, the article demonstrates a clear police state.

Why does the headline blatently lie, when the woman did not have a magazine, she had a download (petty, I know, but still...)?

Magazines can be digital, Infowars magazine is hardcopy and digital. Plus, in the sickle it said it was a download. Even worse cause that means they spied on her cell phone.

If this person believes Inspire is a CIA publication and not Al Queda, then, again, he lies in his headline.

Not lies. They made the headline understandable. Plus, the CIA isn't Al Queda, it runs Al Queda, at least most of it. So it's accurate to say it's an Al Queda publication if that is in fact the case. Plus, they were just reporting the charge.

You lose credibility when you keep calling things lies that are not lies based on your stretches of truth that turn out to actually be false.

It should have read "Woman is imprisoned for downloading public CIA reports".

No.

It linked to the AP news article.
The AP article was giving the facts, this article from infowars was an analysis. I expect more from analyses than news reporting.

It's both news reporting amd analysis.

There is no justification for imprisonment for literature. What side. You want them to sympathize with and justify fascism to appear unbiased?
Again, with my little knowledge, I claim she wasn't imprisoned for having the literature, per se. She was imprisoned for aiding the enemy, and the fact that she had this literature possibly made her an accomplice after the fact to the crimes of her husband, at least the way the law was written.

Thats the problem. With the ways the laws are written, everyone is arising the enemy. Libertarians are considered to be aiding the enemy, being a prepper is being a terrorist, having bumper stickers of third party candidates is aiding the enemy. Anyone who likes freedom is an enemy to the foreign dictators who have taken over the Western nations.

It is quite difficult to have a discussion regarding this without knowing what she was charged with and what the law actually states, especially since the judge seemed to disagree with the law (in this case), but was forced to uphold it.

What the law states is irrelevant. In Nazi Germany, genocide was legal. Again, the point is, criminals are legalizing criminal dictatorship.

Again, if infowars was so about getting people information, knowing the charge/law is important to properly digest the situation. Instead, they withhold this and use the facts of the case to incite anger. This is irresponsible/incompetent at best, manipulation at worst.

They provided all relevant information AND provided the full AP article. They didn't withhold any information. And even after reading all the little details, you should still be outraged. Honestly, I think Infowars is trying to incite a rebellious spirit. In fact, he admittedly said his magazine is based off the pamphleteers that the Founding Fathers handed out.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 11:22:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 3:33:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/11/2012 1:31:06 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2012 3:52:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Subscription? I believe she merely downloaded it with no monetary exchange.
You believe there was no money involved, you do not know. It was not part of the analysis offered by Kurt Nimmo. In fact, there was no analysis of the prosecution at all, nor the charge, nor the law. In fact, there was no mention of these key pieces of information.

It's all irrelevant. I'm glad he left it out. If I shop at Walmart for a murder mystery novel and some Walmart exec murders somebody, does that make me responsible? No.
If you give someone money who then uses that money to buy a gun and they murder someone, are you responsible? Maybe, it depends. This is a much more appropriate analogy, as my money is directly used by the recipient.

Also, even if it was free, I gave a plausable case the prosecutor could use. No comment on that?

Nope. Who cares. The fact that they can nitpick to imprison you doesn't justify injustice and anti-freedom.
I care, because before I go around saying a law is unjust I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS!
Tell me, if a friend kills someone with a gun, and I hold on to the gun (never tell the police my friend gave it to me), I may go to jail as a accomplace after the fact. Will that be reported as me going to jail for posessing a gun?

And if funding Al Queda is an imprisonable offense then Obama and Geithner should be behind bars.
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://thenewamerican.com...
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com...
This is not the issue at hand. We are talking about this woman who was convicted, not others that should/should not be prosecuted.

It does matter because it shows the absurdity and where the governments priorities are. Britain lets Obama, an arms and money dealer to Al-Queda, into their country as an honorary guest all the time. They make no attempt to arrest him, but they imprison a lady with a magazine.
So, the law is not relevant, the theory of the crime is not relevant, but other people who should be prosecuted are relevant? If the law does not apply to diplomats (as they usually don't), there is no absurdity, and there is no reason to bring it up in this case. (Plus, you are assuming these charges could be sustained in a court of law)

False. Infowars is highly objective. One of the top accurate, well investigated unbiased sources. You claim theyre biased. Biased towards what? Theyre not left or right. Biased towards Liberty sure, you could say that.

Then why is there no analysis of the prosecution? No mention of the charge?

Honestly, that was a rather unusually brief analysis and low word count for an Infowars article. They usually provide long indepth analysis of issues, but mainly for ones that are more important.
I didn't know that imprisoning people for literature is a low rating on the scale of importance...

Why use the harsh language of "British police state" in the first sentence?

Calling a spade a spade. Plus, the article demonstrates a clear police state.
The article demonstrates that a woman went to prison and nothing more. By not showing the state's theory, one cannot demonstrate a police state mentality.


Why does the headline blatently lie, when the woman did not have a magazine, she had a download (petty, I know, but still...)?

Magazines can be digital, Infowars magazine is hardcopy and digital. Plus, in the sickle it said it was a download. Even worse cause that means they spied on her cell phone.


If this person believes Inspire is a CIA publication and not Al Queda, then, again, he lies in his headline.

Not lies. They made the headline understandable. Plus, the CIA isn't Al Queda, it runs Al Queda, at least most of it. So it's accurate to say it's an Al Queda publication if that is in fact the case. Plus, they were just reporting the charge.
Valid points on my criticism, but they did not report the charge; they reported the evidence. What crime was committed?

You lose credibility when you keep calling things lies that are not lies based on your stretches of truth that turn out to actually be false.
Likewise.

It should have read "Woman is imprisoned for downloading public CIA reports".

No.
Fair enough.
It linked to the AP news article.
The AP article was giving the facts, this article from infowars was an analysis. I expect more from analyses than news reporting.

It's both news reporting amd analysis.
Except there was no analysis of the case. Furthermore, we are talking about infowars' article, not the AP (aren't they the mainstream media you're not supposed to trust, anyway).

There is no justification for imprisonment for literature.
Really? What if said literature was stolen? What if the literature was child porn? It really depends on the facts, doesn't it? The facts that were not brought to light for me or anyone else to make an informed decision.
What side. You want them to sympathize with and justify fascism to appear unbiased?
No, I want them to be present the information and analyze it. If they disagree, fine, but at least tell me what the theory was.

Again, with my little knowledge, I claim she wasn't imprisoned for having the literature, per se. She was imprisoned for aiding the enemy, and the fact that she had this literature possibly made her an accomplice after the fact to the crimes of her husband, at least the way the law was written.

Thats the problem. With the ways the laws are written, everyone is arising the enemy. Libertarians are considered to be aiding the enemy, being a prepper is being a terrorist, having bumper stickers of third party candidates is aiding the enemy. Anyone who likes freedom is an enemy to the foreign dictators who have taken over the Western nations.
Except, I have no idea what the law states, so I can't make that assertion. Besides, I have never heard those things, I have heard those things are charteristics of terrorists, but not inherhently illegal.

It is quite difficult to have a discussion regarding this without knowing what she was charged with and what the law actually states, especially since the judge seemed to disagree with the law (in this case), but was forced to uphold it.

What the law states is irrelevant. In Nazi Germany, genocide was legal. Again, the point is, criminals are legalizing criminal dictatorship.
What the law stats IS relevant, otherwise how can I assess whether it is unjust? The same goes for the facts of the case. Using your analogy, did she commit genocide, or did she kill one Jew? There is a difference.

Again, if infowars was so about getting people information, knowing the charge/law is important to properly digest the situation. Instead, they withhold this and use the facts of the case to incite anger. This is irresponsible/incompetent at best, manipulation at worst.

They provided all relevant information AND provided the full AP article.
False. No theory, charge, or law.
They didn't withhold any information. And even after reading all the little details, you should still be outraged.
Why would I be outraged when I don't know what happened? But, this proves my point. "Don't analyze the analysis, just get angry"
Honestly, I think Infowars is trying to incite a rebellious spirit. In fact, he admittedly said his magazine is based off the pamphleteers that the Founding Fathers handed out.
Did people not analyze those?
My work here is, finally, done.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 11:39:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree with Cody.
Except I think rather than put her in prison they should have kept an eye on her to lead to other people. But they probably don't have the man power.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...