| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Sides debate role of free speech in Al-Hussayen trial |
| 2004-06-02 |
| EFL from WND Attorneys on Friday sparred over the role First Amendment protections for free speech would play when jurors begin deliberating next week in the case of accused terrorist supporter Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. "It is impermissible to base criminal punishment on protected speech," lead defense attorney David Nevin told U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge. Nevin called the government’s case against the University of Idaho graduate student an attempt to "hook criminal responsibility on the expression of speech." But Assistant U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist argued the defense’s proposed instruction to the jury would shift the focus of the trial to whether the information Al-Hussayen posted on the Internet was protected instead of whether he knew posting it would foster terrorism. "This tells the jury they have the right to litigate the legal issue of the First Amendment" when that was not the case the government charged or presented, Lindquist said. "This puts a whole new spin on things." Lodge urged the lawyers to find a compromise, but by day’s end Nevin agreed with Lindquist that "we’re just at odds on this particular thing. It’s one of those irreconcilable situations." Lodge said he would consider arguments from both sides as he drafted the instructions over the weekend. Closing arguments are set Tuesday, with the case expected to be in the jury’s hands by the end of the day. The trial began April 13. Al-Hussayen, a 34-year-old Saudi national only months from his doctorate in computer science, is charged with using the Web sites of the Michigan-based Islamic Assembly of North America to encourage people to contribute to or join terrorist groups. -snip- I visited my parents in Akron, Ohio over the weekend. My mom, a librarian, always brings a stack of back issues of Commentary Magazine for me to read when I visit. I checked to see whether their articles were available Online - they aren’t. If you are interested in this topic, I recommend checking out the current issue of Commentary next time you are in the library for Justice for Terrorists: Can we afford to try members of al Qaeda in ordinary civilian courts? by J. Andrew Kent. I backs up the contention that all accused terrorists should go to military tribunals to prevent disclosure of classified materials. In another example for Former Asst. DA Andrew C. McCarthy provides an example of evidence that he provided to the blind sheik’s defense attorney being found in the Sudan by those trying to track down UBL. |
| Posted by:Super Hose |