Accused web terror trio change pleas to guilty
Fiendish net-cell masterminds or bonehead warez d00Dz?
Three men accused of inciting terrorism via the internet have all now changed their pleas to guilty.
Younes Tsouli, 23, originally from Morocco and lately of Shepherd's Bush, native Briton Waseem Mughal, 24, of Chatham in Kent, and Tariq Al-Daour, 21, were on trial at Woolwich Crown Court. The three were said to have used email, chatrooms, and websites to promote the ideology of Osama bin Laden and to exhort others to commit murder.
The trial was briefly enlivened in May when the presiding beak was quoted as saying that he didn't know what a website was. Judge Peter Openshaw later said that in fact he was fully tech-savvy but had been trying to simplify complex testimony for the jury.
The three accused had initially pleaded not guilty, but on Monday Tsouli and Mughal changed their pleas to guilty. UAE-born Bayswater resident Al-Daour followed suit on Wednesday, and court officials confirmed to the Register that sentencing was scheduled for today and tomorrow.
Tsouli, Mughal, and al-Daour have admitted inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the UK which would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute murder.
They also copped to conspiracy to defraud banks and credit card providers. They were said to have used false and stolen identities during their terror promotion activities, methods characterised by police as "sophisticated terror tradecraft".
Other analysts have suggested that at least one of the web terror masterminds was actually no more than a "warez d00D undone". ®
If broccoli dies, don't make me the scapegoat
"Is the freedom to advocate murder the one we should be concerned about"
Yes, you're right, we should have to prove that we really need a freedom in order to keep it. But when we're proving it, we should be careful what we say, so as not to get arrested.
Kill all mexicans.
.... is an example of something I should not say when making the point. However now that I have said it, have mexican died as a result of my comment? No?
So the words aren't enough. They're just words and if the words alone don't 'incite' then it's not a crime of 'incitement'. However they do make a nice easy scapegoat to draw attention away from other things.
To me, it's better to have a muslims marching on parliament calling for Blairs head on a pike. That that represents a healthy state of affairs, it lets people vent their anger, and venting anger is important and necessary and healthy for a democracy.
Sure Blair might want to suppress that, but that was the nature of the man, fix the PR not the problem.
Die broccoli die, there I feel better now.
Many freedoms seem to be under attack today. Is the freedom to advocate murder the one we should be concerned about, now that the freedom to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre is denied us?
So does this mean
So does this mean, that since the libraries at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities, which are full of hard copy versions of similar seditious material are to be burnt to the grown for displaying opinions contrary to that of the ruling elite ?
No freedom of speech and expression is permitted in this democracy in the 21st Century!
Sad ,as the original Magna Carta as written, did attempt to outlaw such illegal persecution as this , merely because one's personal views differed from that imposed by authoritarian figures!
Freedom has now just become another word in the dictionary and relegated to the history books about the last century!