From the BBC:
Six men have been arrested on suspicion of incitement offences by anti-terror officers from the Metropolitan Police.
They include Abu Izzadeen, also known as Omar Brooks, who made headlines when he heckled Home Secretary John Reid at an event last year.
Five arrests took place in London and the sixth in Luton, Bedfordshire.
Scotland Yard said the arrests related to allegations of inciting others to commit acts of terrorism abroad and fund-raising for terrorists.
The Jawa Report’s Rusty Shackleford—who has been agitating for closer scrutiny and arrests for those linked to exiled radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed—describes his reaction to news as “ecstatic”.
In addition to heckling Home Secretary Reid, Abu Izzadeen is also notorious for his rather candid pronouncement that “”Terrorism is part and parcel to Islam. Terrorism is part of the deen [Islamic way of life] of Islam.”
Perhaps certain clerics in Pittsburgh who have been taking their cues from such candor might bear closer scrutiny, as well…
JOHNSTOWN, DAMNIT! JOHNSTOWN.
Can’t we get any love?
Unfortunately, the Brits no longer seem to have the guts to do what they need to do with these geeks.
Me, I’d be sic’in the likes of Jimmy Bond on their jihadi asses. Old school, found in the apartment with a hole in his forehead, that type of thing.
Sorry, Tom.
It’s OK Jeff, I feel better now.
I doubt such arrests would be possible in the U.S. We tend to value our freedom of speech quite a bit, which isn’t a bad thing, but it can be problematic at times.
BTW, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be scrutinizing some people, not am I saying they shouldn’t be arrested if they are breaking the law. I just don’t see it happening due to a lack of collective political will.
If the situation on the ground in the U.S. changes radically, as many of us expect it will sooner or later, then all bets are off and many such people will find themselves under quite close scrutiny.
I’ve been contemplating this very issue for several days. How does one reconcile Freedom of Speech with open calls for nefarious action in support of a radicalized Islam?
The short answer is … I’m not sure. We all understand the concept that Free Speech has inherent limits as prescibed by law, mainly relating to public safety (shouting “fire” in a crowded theater,) slander and libel and the threatening another person with harm. It is interesting to note that the term “terroristic threats” was statute on the books well before “terrorism” reached its transcendant definition.
Is it conceivable that we could, in some way, use the existing threat statutes and apply them with a broad swath to radical Islamists? Proclaiming Jihad and honoring terrorism have very clear messages of violence and violent overthrow. However, are we left to divine the intention of the speaker or is the word sufficient to provide for legal remedy?
I admit that I am unsure or, at least. lacking in confidence. So much of what I know concerning Radicalized Islam screams at me to proclaim the legal end of the use of the word “Jihad” in a public setting. Yet …yet I hesitate, unsure of the unseen consequences of such a borderline, draconian position.
I would be more than happy for someone (especially you, Jeff) to step forward and clear my troubled reasoning on this topic.
This is kind of ironic, in light of the comments of the new grey mutineer to be; Ret. Gen. James
Jones, formerly of the NATO command. He is for
the surge, but wants to abolish Gitmo, because it
looks bad. From my view, Western Europe. looks like a more dangerous long term source of trouble,
with regards to jihadist fervor; than either of
our theatres in Central and Near East Asia. The
New York Times latest reporter turned novelist;
agrees with this view; at least implicit. His
first novel; the Faithful Spy, posited a series
of al Queda attacks directed by ‘clean skinned’
British and French nationals, which involve
nuclear material from Iraq; wait Iraq had no such
mater. . .The faithful spy of the story, is an
American intelligence of mildly Middle East background,(they have Johnny Depp in mind for the film adaptation) who infiltrates Al Queda, and returns home to warn his superiors, who do not trust him because of his long absense, his belief
in the Koran, and the lack of details with regards to the plots.
I heard about this on the news I am glad they got to them before they pulled off an attack.