web analytics

BLM Bums Bum Rush Pro Cop Rally In Brooklyn

By Phantom On July 14th, 2020

I don’t understand the concept of the counter-demonstration. . Those who want to counter any demonstration that they don’t totally agree with.

BLM has held about a billion demonstrations across America, and AFAIK very few of those demos have been seen counter protests.

Yesterday, there was a demonstration in Bay Ridge by Back the Blue , a march in support of the huge majority of police who are good. Bay Ridge is a natural site for such a demonstration. We’re historically conservative by brain dead NYC lib standards. A number of active duty and retired cops and fire live here. They’re our friends.

The BLM thugs, with some who appeared to be Antifa, a group that some thinks does not exist, somehow found their way here, since they couldn’t bear to let Back the Blue be.

They tried to provoke at every step. They marched and biked down local streets, chanting ” NYPD Suck My Dick ” ( oh yes they did. ) They threw vomit at former City Councilman Marty Golden. They abused customers dining outside. At 11pm, they set a waste basket afire. One idiot who threw a helmet got tazed for his trouble, and he didn’t like it that much.

The thing that most locals are talking about is that they actually burned an American flag. It was caught on film, at Fourth Avenue and 65th, by these fine people who supposedly don’t hate America.

We’re not used to such scenes here, but there you are.

Congratulations to the NYPD, who were exceptionally patient. Congratulations to the Back the Blue protesters, or 99% of them anyway. Some were out of line.

And may bad fortune follow BLM for a hundred million eternities. It is one of the more strange and pernicious movements we’ve seen in the past couple of decades.

425 Responses to “BLM Bums Bum Rush Pro Cop Rally In Brooklyn”

  1. Otto may very well have been guilty of taking down a poster but I don’t think even you would suggest it was in conspiracy with the Methodist Church and the CIA. His confession was at a press conference orchestrated by North Korea and I don’t think any reasonable person would suggest it was not made under duress.

  2. “Otto may very well have been guilty of taking down a poster but I don’t think even you would suggest it was in conspiracy with the Methodist Church and the CIA. His confession was at a press conference orchestrated by North Korea and I don’t think any reasonable person would suggest it was not made under duress.”

    Yes, but I would say that no reasonable person would suggest that locking a guy in prison for 12 years without a crime, including two years in solitary in a Supermax (which is pretty much torture) and then saying you will let him go if he pleads guilty, but he may get life (in that torturous Supermax) if he doesn’t, would a reasonable person say that is not made under duress? And if that isn’t duress then what is?

  3. Ahmed pled guilty to providingaerial support to the Taliban, using websites to raise money recuit fighters and provide equipment. His guilty plea was entered in a Court of law while represented by his own counsel.

  4. Was he locked away without a crime? I think it was locked away without a trial, and he fought and delayed extradition. Although prosecutors sought a longer sentence it wasn’t an either or situation. I should clarify any plea is made under some sort of duress but the issue is is it unlawful duress.

  5. Ah, they ” forgot ” those details.

    They thought that no one would look it up, and that we would buy that the honorable gentleman was jailed only for exercising speech.

  6. People do express support for Taliban, Iran, the Cuban government and similar causes every day here without getting into trouble.

    I’ve heard that kind of conversation on the radio here.

    What a fake, fake example.

    For shame.

  7. Ahmed pled guilty to providing material support to the Taliban, using websites to raise money recruit fighters and provide equipment.

    Seamus

    This is all untrue? He didn’t use websites to do any of those things?

  8. “They thought that no one would look it up, and that we would buy that the honorable gentleman was jailed only for exercising speech.”

    He was jailed for excerising speech. Just that speech was illegal. Which you are pretending doesn’t happen in ‘Murica.

  9. I think that someone just got busted.

  10. “I think that someone just got busted.”

    Nope. He supported the Taliban. The US decided that was illegal. And he was convicted of that illegal speech. So much for American free speech.

  11. Seamus

    You were asked what the facts of the case were. I didn’t know the facts, and said so.

    Did you willfully conceal from the rest of us that he recruited for and otherwise gave aid to the Taliban or were you unaware of the facts?

    This is a serious question.

  12. “This is all untrue? He didn’t use websites to do any of those things?”

    There is no evidence that it provided recruitment or equipment to the Taliban. Mahons is making that up. In the same way he made up that it provided training materials, but was unable to show what training materials it provided.

    It supported the Taliban. It encouraged other people to support the Taliban.

    ‘Murican free speech put him prison for it.

  13. “Did you willfully conceal from the rest of us that he recruited for and otherwise gave aid to the Taliban or were you unaware of the facts?

    This is a serious question.”

    No. Mahons made that up. There is no evidence he did any of those things.

  14. Did he encourage others to send material aid of any kind to the Taliban?

    Did he encourage people to join the Taliban?

  15. “Did he encourage others to send material aid of any kind to the Taliban?”

    Not that I am aware of. He encouraged people, as far as I am aware, to support the Taliban in order to set up an Islamic State in Afghanistan.

    “Did he encourage people to join the Taliban?”

    Not that I am aware of.

  16. If anyone urged others to send money or arms or people to the Taliban, that would be crossing a very bright line.

    That would be aid, what nearly anyone would see as an illegal act.

  17. “If anyone urged others to send money or arms or people to the Taliban, that would be crossing a very bright line.”

    Before 9/11?

    “That would be aid, what nearly anyone would see as an illegal act.”

    Yes, an illegal form of speech.

  18. Seamus seems to think the fact he was not aware of things affords him the opportunity to claim things have been made up. Babar’s plea acknowledged that he solicited and conspired to provide funds and personnel to the Talib an regime in Afghanistan and that heard others recruited men to travel to Afghanistan for training as sought gas masks to send abroad. He admitted to soliciting funds.

  19. “Babar’s plea acknowledged that he solicited and conspired to provide funds and personnel to the Talib an regime in Afghanistan and that heard others recruited men to travel to Afghanistan for training as sought gas masks to send abroad. He admitted to soliciting funds.”

    Yes. To avoid being tortured.

    Otto Warmbier also plead guilty. I’m sure we will all respect that guilty plea.

  20. In addition he admitted this solicitation was for support that would specifically targeted US residents. I learned this from reading the BBC article of December 10, 2013. I presume the full particulars of the plea would be available on the DOJ website for anyone who wishes to become aware.

  21. “In addition he admitted this solicitation was for support that would specifically targeted US residents. I learned this from reading the BBC article of December 10, 2013. I presume the full particulars of the plea would be available on the DOJ website for anyone who wishes to become aware.”

    Yes. To avoid being tortured. Torture someone long enough and they may admit to anything.

  22. This is an exceptionally juvenile argument.

    No one has ever said that free speech means that anything that is said or written, including threats, incitements, organizing material aid to criminals or terrorists, should be legal.

  23. “This is an exceptionally juvenile argument.

    No one has ever said that free speech means that anything that is said or written, including threats, incitements, organizing material aid to criminals or terrorists, should be legal.”

    So you support all the speech (and get really fucking pompous about it) except all the speech you don’t support.

  24. Seamus – it gives me no satisfaction to demonstrate that your accusation that I made it up was false. Well, ok, a little satisfaction. I’d also note that any actual abuse he received was apparently at the hands of the UK authorities who settled with him for 60,000.

  25. “Seamus – it gives me no satisfaction to demonstrate that your accusation that I made it up was false. Well, ok, a little satisfaction. I’d also note that any actual abuse he received was apparently at the hands of the UK authorities who settled with him for 60,000.”

    Supermax prison, and solitary confinement, are tandamount to torture. Locking someone in it is torture. People will do anything to escape that. And your only evidence for your claims is from a plea bargin derived from torturous behaviour by the authorities.

  26. “Seamus – it gives me no satisfaction to demonstrate that your accusation that I made it up was false.”

    You still haven’t shown what training materials he provided.

  27. You’d fail a high school debate with this.

    No one has ever said that you have free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. No one has every said you had the free speech right to tell someone ” go over there and punch mahons “. This needs to be said?

    And you most certainly did conceal from the group the allegations of material aid, too when you were asked what happened.

    Wow. Learn something new every day.

  28. “And you most certainly did conceal from the group the allegations of material aid, too when you were asked what happened.”

    No I didn’t. Because I don’t believe them to be true. There is no evidence of it, other than a torture extracted confession.

    “No one has ever said that you have free speech to yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. No one has every said you had the free speech right to tell someone ” go over there and punch mahons “. This needs to be said?”

    Assuming the material support thing is true you can provide material support to the Klan but not to the Taliban because ‘Murica.

  29. “And you most certainly did conceal from the group”

    Also considering a lot of the discussion on this thread (aside from you being a smarmy, snide bastard) started with your pretending that a BLM protestor was tazed for throwing a helmet. So you don’t get to accuse anyone of concealment.

  30. I didn’t conceal from the group.

    You did.

    You could have said that you did not think that it was true but you owed it to people to mention the most relevant charges.

    I said that I didn’t know anything about the case — a case that you chose to bring up and that you seemed to know enough about it so as to give strong opinions about the case.

  31. “I didn’t conceal from the group.”

    One idiot who threw a helmet got tazed for his trouble

    He was not tazed for throwing the helmet. You concealed that from the group, until someone put the video up.

    “You could have said that you did not think that it was true but you owed it to people to mention the most relevant charges.”

    No I didn’t. As soon as I said his name you could have googled it. I mentioned my perceptions of the case that he was convicted for supporting the Taliban, in violation of ‘Murican free speech. That is still my perception. His tortured confession doesn’t add anything to that.

  32. T

  33. He pled guilty to exactly what I wrote. You accused me of making it up which we both know was not true. Now that you are confronted with the facts you speculate that he only did so under torture.

  34. “He pled guilty to exactly what I wrote. You accused me of making it up which we both know was not true. Now that you are confronted with the facts you speculate that he only did so under torture.”

    What training materials did he provide?

  35. He did throw the helmet and he did approach the cops in a threatening way and those all led to him being tazed and arrested.

    You mentioned this unknown ( to many of us ) case and you intentionally left out the most relevant part of the story – which didn’t really have anything to do with his views, with his speech rights.

    Make all the insults you want, but what you did here today was exceptionally sneaky.

  36. “He did throw the helmet and he did approach the cops in a threatening way and those all led to him being tazed and arrested.”

    He did throw the helmet, but that is not why he was tazed. So your original statement was a misleading attempt to confuse people.

    “You mentioned this unknown ( to many of us ) case and you intentionally left out the most relevant part of the story – which didn’t really have anything to do with his views, with his speech rights.”

    No I didn’t. He was convicted for supporting the Taliban. That is the most relevant part of the story.

    “Make all the insults you want, but what you did here today was exceptionally sneaky.”

    The only insult I have made was pointing out that you have been a hypocritical, smarmy bastard. Which I think is a fair assessment.

  37. Babar Ahmad, the British citizen jailed in the US for providing material support to the Taliban at a time when they were harbouring Osama bin Laden, has returned home.

    Ahmad, 41, was sentenced in July last year after pleading guilty to providing material support to the Taliban and Chechen mujahideen by using websites to raise money, recruit fighters and provide equipment for the movements.

    A Home Office spokesman said: “Babar Ahmad was extradited to the US on 5 October 2012 for trial on terrorism offences. He subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy and providing material to support terrorism and was sentenced to 12 and a half years’ imprisonment.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/19/babar-ahmad-returns-after-jail-sentence-in-us-for-supporting-terrorist-groups

    From the Guardian, hardly a right wing publication.

    Poor Seamus, caught out this day

  38. “Poor Seamus, caught out this day”

    No. He plead guilty. That has been established. After being in solitary in a Supermax, pretty much torture. What hasn’t been established is that he actually did it.

  39. Seamus – Now everyone knows your claim I made up what he pled to was….wait for it….made up. Pleasant Dreams.

  40. “Seamus – Now everyone knows your claim I made up what he pled to was….wait for it….made up. Pleasant Dreams.”

    Where are those training materials?

  41. Almost 300 comments. A great thread but boy a bad tempered and snipey one !

  42. Seamus – I don’t know, I’m not in possession of the evidence. I am however in possession of the facts of his plea. Facts of the plea you stated were made up. Usually you have a good grasp of details so I’ll assume you had those details at the time of your false accusation.

  43. “Seamus – I don’t know, I’m not in possession of the evidence.”

    So why did you claim he provided training materials? And claim he was guilty of it when you are not in possession of the evidence?

  44. I’m not in possession of any of the evidence. I claimed what he pled to. Why did you lie that I made up what he pled to? Answer: Because it didn’t fit with your narrative.

  45. “I claimed what he pled to”

    You claimed he was guilty. Not that he plead guilty, or was found guilty, but that he was guilty.

  46. They pretty much all claim innocence.

    The veracity of the government claim is unknowable to anyone here.

    But it the claim that he provided material aid to the Taliban was indeed true …that had nothing to do with him expressing his views. It would have everything to do with him providing material aid to the Taliban.

    I still don’t think that the UK should have extradited him. He committed no crime in the US, or any directly impacting the US, and I don’t buy this ” server was in America ” bullshit for a New York minute.

    Governments like the US and China are way too quick to say that their law applies outside their own borders

  47. “But it the claim that he provided material aid to the Taliban was indeed true …that had nothing to do with him expressing his views.”

    Except that isn’t even the claim. There is no one saying he provided material aid to the Taliban. They are alleging that he encouraged other people to do so i.e. his speech.

  48. Did he directly ask others to send money or arms or fighters to the Taliban?

    If he did, then in my opinion he has crossed the line.

    Very big difference to saying ” the Taliban is good ” and saying ” The Taliban is good, and please wire £100 to them if you could so that they can wage jihad “.

    All kinds of views are tolerated here, again, even on radio and TV.

    I’ve heard pro Communist Cuba stuff on the lefty radio a number of times here ( WBAI, back in the day ). Those stations never got in trouble. If they’d asked listeners to send money to the Cuban regime, the stations would have lost their license and someone may have gone to jail.

  49. So would you say there is a difference between supporting the Klan and encouraging others to give money to the Klan? Bearing in mind the Taliban wasn’t (and I believe still isnt) a listed terrorist organisation.

  50. It’s legal to say good things about the Klan, to say that you support them.

    I’d have no respect for anyone who did it, but those who did would be breaking no law.

    I don’t think that the KKK is illegal today. It is in great, terminal decline I believe, of a few older guys who run around in the woods with the hoods on or whatever.

    I am not aware of them committing violent acts for a long time.

    It was a huge thing then, not now. And it wasn’t just in the South. There were KKK rallies in NYC in the twenties.

  51. “I don’t think that the KKK is illegal today.”

    Neither is the Taliban.

  52. Four police officers injured today when attacked by ” Defund the Police ” thugs on the Brooklyn Bridge.

    An officer was hit with a cane, bolts and other heavy objects were thrown at police.

    These are the actual real life dangerous terrorists that we need to be afraid of. If the police are defunded, these so called strong guy would rule the weak on the streets of America.

    https://abc7ny.com/protesters-clash-with-nypd-defund-the-police-encampment-officer-injured/6318496/

  53. What I said he pled to you said I made up. This is an embarrassing moment for you, and you are incapable of acknowledging your lie apparently. Lol.

  54. Seamus wanted to push a story about ‘Murica” trampling on the free speech rights of this skel. He’s fallen on his face. Better luck next time.

  55. Maybe stick to Babar the elephant since fiction is your new gig.

  56. Nope, you said he was guilty of x, y and z. Which you would have no way of knowing i.e. made up.

    That you think this is an embarrassing moment shows how small and pathetic you really are.

  57. At least Mr. Ahmed admitted he was wrong, you should follow your hero’s example.

  58. He plead guilty after being tortured. I guess in your mind the Guildford Four were guilty as well.

    I also want wrong. You claimed he was guilty, which you would have no way of knowing, and now are trying to pretend otherwise.

    All while showing how small and pathetic you really are. You think I made a mistake and you are pretty much wanking away over it.

  59. Nope. The Guilford Four in fact were innocent and to the extent there were confessions they were illegally obtained.
    There is no evidence that Babar’s guilty plea was due to torture. If there was his lawyers would have not allowed the guilty plea (and neither would the Court). The only thing here be tortured is the truth by you.

  60. “There is no evidence that Babar’s guilty plea was due to torture.”

    He was locked in solitary confinement for years. Seems pretty torturous.

    “and neither would the Court”

    Yeah because judges are never wrong.

  61. Torture is not defined as solitary confinement so you’ll have to do better than that. Judges can be wrong. But there is no indication that this judge was anything but lenient with him.

  62. “Torture is not defined as solitary confinement so you’ll have to do better than that.”

    I actually don’t. You’ve been nothing but a pathetic troll tonight and have no interest in actually debating things. I’m sure in your less troll like moments even you will have read of the huge psychological damage done by solitary confinement.

  63. There is no indication that Babar was not competent to enter his plea of guilty to the acts you claim I made up. His lawyers obviously could have made such an argument, but they were burdened by the fact that they could not prove such a thing, they can’t offer speculation as you do. You are the Rasputin of this thread, you keep getting killed but come back for more.

  64. He was competent. And he weighed up a life sentence of torture versus pleading guilty and being set free. If prosecutors honestly believed he did what he did they wouldn’t have offered the deal. They did it to cover their backs from potential lawsuits.

    He has made it clear that if the potential sentence was lower, as it would have been in the UK, he’d have fought the case.

  65. They didn’t offer the deal my darling, the judge gave it to him. The prosecutors wanted a longer sentence.

    The prosecutors were immune to lawsuits, so there is another one of your claims down the drain.
    Of course he said he would have fought it if only, he’s been waging a propaganda war that has convinced the soft minded.

  66. Was the United States immune to lawsuits? Or is this you trying to be being a clever cunt again?

    And you honestly saying he wasn’t offered a plea bargain by prosecutors?

  67. I wrote the prosecutors were immune from lawsuits. There was nothing they did here that wold expose them to a lawsuit. I am clever, I’ll leave the cunt designation to you. He was offered a plea bargain, but the Judge is the one who reduced the sentence.

  68. They didn’t offer the deal my darling, the judge gave it to him. The prosecutors wanted a longer sentence […]

    He was offered a plea bargain, but the Judge is the one who reduced the sentence.

    While I’ve no problem spectating at Seamus and yourself knocking lumps out of each other I’m just going to interject on the points above. He was indeed offered a deal:

    The prosecutors immediately offered Ahmad a deal – plead guilty to the charge of using the website to support the Taliban and he would be back in Britain within months [… .]

    The US government had asked for twice this sentence, but the judge handed down an unexpectedly lenient sentence which meant, because of time already served, Ahmad was freed within months

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/12/babar-ahmad-jihad-bosnia-us-police-interview

  69. “I wrote the prosecutors were immune from lawsuits. There was nothing they did here that wold expose them to a lawsuit.”

    And the prosecutors represent the United States government who is not immune from lawsuits. You seem to spend half the time here trying to be clever, and the other half pretending to be incredibly stupid.

  70. O/T

    ThE Court of Appeal has ruled so called ‘ISIS bride’ Shamima Begum can return to the UK to directly challenge the revoking of her British citizenship:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/16/shamima-begum-wins-right-to-return-to-uk

  71. Paul – he was offered a deal, but it was the judge who set down the length of time. I presume you don’t plan on interjecting as to what he pled to.

  72. The Prosecutors have prosecutorial immunity. The country has sovereign immunity, an exceptionally high bar for the likes of your admitted felon. In this case any lawsuit would be tossed as frivolous.

  73. Because he plead guilty (to avoid being tortured). Are you saying someone who spent over a decade in prison and is then acquitted would get no compensation for wrongful imprisonment?

  74. But it was the judge who set down the length of time

    Yes, that’s why my blocked quote stated:

    But the judge handed down an unexpectedly lenient sentence

    The fact of the matter was that he was offered a plea bargain against a life sentence which the prosecution were originally asking for. The prosecution were looking for double the sentence the judge handed to him in his plea bargain.

    The judge was lenient but there’s absolutely no question that he pleaded guilty as part of a deal.

    I presume you don’t plan on interjecting as to what he pled to.

    Well, I could but it would just mean repeating myself from yesterday.

  75. Paul – all plea bargains are a deal.

  76. He pled guilty because he was guilty. There is no indication he was tortured in the US or faced torture. And he wasn’t acquitted or wrongfully imprisoned. So there is no basis for a lawsuit by him for wrongful imprisonment.

  77. Thank you, that’s precisely the point I was making:

    They didn’t offer the deal my darling, the judge gave it to him. The prosecutors wanted a longer sentence

  78. “He pled guilty because he was guilty.”

    Can you please show the evidence the proves that?

    “There is no indication he was tortured in the US or faced torture.”

    He was held in solitary confinement in a Supermax, which is pretty much torture.

    “And he wasn’t acquitted or wrongfully imprisoned. So there is no basis for a lawsuit by him for wrongful imprisonment.”

    Because he plead guilty.

    Stop pretending to be stupid.

  79. He pled guilty because he was guilty

    Yes, he was guilty of running two articles on a blog which supported the Taliban. Pretty much against all the US free speech stuff.

  80. Paul – have you read the plea itself, or are you avoiding doing so because it destroys your argument?

  81. What argument of mine does it destroy?

    However, at least you now seem to accept that he accepted a plea deal.

  82. If only General Flynn had your support…

  83. Paul – I never denied he accepted a plea deal.

  84. Flynn’s guilt can be demonstrated beyond his plea deal – there is an abundance of material in the public domain about it. The same cannot be said for Babar Ahmed.

  85. Paul

    ThE Court of Appeal has ruled so called ‘ISIS bride’ Shamima Begum can return to the UK to directly challenge the revoking of her British citizenship:

    A disappointing result in my opinion.

  86. Is a smart arse quip rather than a direct answer to a direct question a general American trait?

    Paul – I never denied he accepted a plea deal

    Then why write this?

    They didn’t offer the deal my darling, the judge gave it to him.

  87. Paul – because they didn’t offer him the deal but rather a deal. The prosecutors wanted a deal with a longer sentence, the judge reduced the time. That is the distinction.

  88. A disappointing result in my opinion

    I haven’t read the ruling yet Dave so I’m not able to comment on the reasoning behind it. It’s my understanding that it’s only to challenge the revocation of her citizenship rather than leave to stay indefinitely.

  89. Paul – because they didn’t offer him the deal but rather a deal

    Really? Semantics?

    The prosecutors wanted a deal with a longer sentence, the judge reduced the time.

    He accepted the original prosecution plea bargain and the judge was more lenient than expected in the sentencing.

  90. Paul

    I haven’t read the ruling yet Dave so I’m not able to comment on the reasoning behind it. It’s my understanding that it’s only to challenge the revocation of her citizenship rather than leave to stay indefinitely

    My comment wasn’t really about the details, but about the fact that her revoked citizenship is still being challenged
    I might have been prepared to give her a second chance and she showed remorse in her earlier interviews. But she didn’t. In fact, she expressed quite the contrary.

  91. Paul – words matter in the law, take the works guilty and innocent for starters. The prosecutors offered a deal but sought a longer sentence. The judge did not agree with them resulting in the deal being for less time. That is the distinction I was trying to make.

  92. The fact that her revoked citizenship is still being challenged

    Lawyer’s gonna law.

  93. “My comment wasn’t really about the details, but about the fact that her revoked citizenship is still being challenged

    I might have been prepared to give her a second chance and she showed remorse in her earlier interviews. But she didn’t. In fact, she expressed quite the contrary.”

    It is illegal to render someone stateless. The government’s argument is that she isn’t stateless as she is entitled to citizenship of another country. That seems to be testing the limit of the law, by moving the goalposts from has another citizenship to could have another citizenship. It is right that gets tested in court.

  94. Paul – words matter in the law

    I’m very well aware that words matter in law and the fact is he took the original prosecution plea bargain and the judge reduced its tariff.

  95. Mahons,

    Paul – words matter in the law, take the works guilty and innocent

    I’ve never heard the legal system use the word innocent. Only guilty and not guilty.
    My understanding is the legal system is not set up to find a person innocent. It’s only capable of proving if there is enough evidence to convict them of the crime.

  96. Dave – – you’ve never heard of the presumption of innocence?

  97. That seems to be testing the limit of the law, by moving the goalposts from has another citizenship to could have another citizenship. It is right that gets tested in court.

    Not in my opinion it isn’t. From what I’ve read the British government is not doing anything wrong legally here.

  98. Mahons,

    Dave – – you’ve never heard of the presumption of innocence?

    Is that not the point I’m actually making?
    If you’re found not guilty you’re not innocent, you’re presumed innocent.

  99. To get away to from the intricacies of the technicalities of the legal process and back to the Babar Ahmad point, Ahmad spent 12 years in jail for running two articles on a blog which supported the Taliban. Pretty much contrary to all the US free speech stuff.

  100. Dave – yes a finding of not guilty is not a finding of innocence.

  101. “From what I’ve read the British government is not doing anything wrong legally here.”

    Which is what is being tested. The Home Secretary can only make that order if the person is actually eligible for a different citizenship. The Bangladeshi government have made it clear that they would reject her application for citizenship. Thus it is questionable if she possesses dual citizenship and as such whether or not the Home Secretary’s order was legal.

    And there is then the further, more moral point, of the fact that she is British and that this is simply the UK government trying to export their problems and their mistakes to a third country.

  102. Paul – No, that is incorrect. He didn’t plead guilty to simply running two articles on a blog merely supporting the Taliban. Why don’t you read what he factually and voluntarily pled to?
    Under his plea agreement he could have faced 25 years by the way, had the judge accepted the prosecutors recommendations.

  103. And there is then the further, more moral point, of the fact that she is British and that this is simply the UK government trying to export their problems and their mistakes to a third country.

    How is she the British government’s mistake?

  104. “How is she the British government’s mistake?”

    Radicalised on their watch.

  105. Why don’t you read what he factually and voluntarily pled to?

    I’m very very well aware of what he pled guilty in a plea bargain too. He also did it in the face of having spent almost twelve years in harsh prison conditions for running two articles on a blog supporting the Taliban and the prosecution asking for a life sentence.

    His actions didn’t fit the vindictive charges and you are attempting to hide behind the plea bargain fig leaf in order to justify them.

  106. I don’t know anything about this case other than what I’ve read on this thread, but the actions of the government seem egregious.

  107. Radicalised on their watch.

    I think that’s a bit harsh to make it the responsibility of the British government for the behaviour of individual citizens.
    However, Begum’s radicalisation was helped by her family such as her father taking her to see hate Preachers like Anjem Choudhury. Someone who regularly used the UK legal system to his advantage, that’s making it much harder for the UK government to prevent hin radicalising others. so yes it’s a good thing the government takes responsibility for this radicalisation and prevents people like Begum coming back to the UK and radicalising others.

  108. And instead abdicates their responsibility? She is British, she isn’t Bangladeshi. There is no rational argument to suggest that she should be Bangladesh’s problem but not Britain.

    Bring her back, deradicalise her, and watch her like a hawk for the rest of her life.

  109. Or better still legally prevent her from returning to the UK and save a shitload of money on probably failing to de-radicalise her and watching her for the rest of her life.

  110. So he didn’t do the acts he admitted to in the plea?
    By pleading guilty under the plea he could have faced a 25 year sentence had the judge been so inclined.

  111. This is a rabbit hole of a thread .once in you can’t leave. Bit like the revelation of st John. Lol

  112. “Or better still legally prevent her from returning to the UK and save a shitload of money on probably failing to de-radicalise her and watching her for the rest of her life.”

    And leave her where? What happens when the Syrians, the Turks, the Kurds etc… decide that this girl is British and they don’t want to keep her anymore?

  113. Babar Ahmad could marry her and keep an eye on her.

  114. So he didn’t do the acts he admitted to in the plea?

    Unless you cosider running two articles on a blog supporting the Taliban and carrying factual reports of Bosnian and Checam Muslim casualities as ‘providing support for terrorism’, yes.

  115. So he admitted to fabricated charges and faced a potential 25 year sentence despite having his actions limited to what you describe. The Prosecutors made it up, and his lawyers were that incompetent that they couldn’t get the charges dismissed or him acquitted if all he did was merely what you say and this Federal Judge permitted it to happen?

  116. Where was it said that the only things that he did was ” running two articles on a blog “?

    The Guardian article does not say that.

    Do the court documents say that?

    What is the source of that assertion?

  117. Don’t expect the facts to trouble their narrative of an innocent Muslim martyr caught up in the devious clutches of the Islamophobic American prosecution.

  118. No Mahons, he pleaded guilty to a potential further twelve years in jail plea bargain rather than the life sentence the prosecution was asking for.

    The Federal Judge that yo speaK actually stated that Ahmad was no international terrorist, didn’t support Al Qeada, nor Osama Bin Laden.

    Phantom, from having no knowledge on the cas you now seem to have become an expert on it.

    This is what the Guardian article says:

    After being sentenced to 12-and-a-half years for providing material support [the two online articles] to the Taliban government

  119. Don’t expect the facts to trouble their narrative of an innocent Muslim martyr caught up in the devious clutches of the Islamophobic American prosecution

    Much like smatarse quips as answers to direct questions extreme exaggeration of a commentators position seems to be common currency of the New Yorkers.

  120. Like you guys, I know very little about the facts here.

    But I do note that the Guardian article still does not mention ” two online articles “, on a blog or anywhere else.

    Those words were written by you, not by them.

  121. Ok, like I said they won’t mention the clear language of the acts in the plea. Language he voluntarily agreed to.

  122. Language he voluntarily agreed to

    After spending almost twelve years in jail and looking at a possible life sentence. As I said above, you are attempting to hide behind the plea bargain fig leaf in order to justify the vindictive charging.

    Those words were written by you, not by them

    My blocked quote at 2.41 is literally taken from the Guardian.

  123. The phrase “the two online articles” is taken from the Guardian?

    I’m not hiding behind the plea bargain. I’m pointing out precisely what it said.

  124. “I’m not hiding behind the plea bargain. I’m pointing out precisely what it said.”

    You are pretending that the plea bargain is an accurate version of events, rather than an agreement signed under duress.

  125. The phrase “the two online articles” is taken from the Guardian?

    Yes, although I won’t hold my breath waiting for Phantom to retract/ apologise.

    I’m not hiding behind the plea bargain. I’m pointing out precisely what it said

    What Seamus said.

  126. So he pretended, his lawyers pretended, the federal prosecutor pretended and a sympathetic Federal Judge allowed the pretending?

  127. Rather that gamble on a potential life sentance he agreed to a plea bargain is what he did.

    There, I fixed that for you.

  128. He accepted a deal that would free him, even if it wasn’t accurate. So did his attorney (who’s role was to protect his interest). The prosecution wanted to protect the United States from litigation. And the judge had to go by the letter of the law which criminalised Ahmed’s speech.

  129. Paul I just read the article interview where you quote came from. Would you agree it was a fairly biased account? It accepts all his allegations and is apparently the subject of legal process. And what of the Guardian article Phantom quoted above? Did they get it wrong that day?

  130. “Would you agree it was a fairly biased account?”

    So sources that agree with you should be chiseled in stone, but all others are “biased”?

  131. The deal might have resulted in an additional dozen years. Did his attorney state it was inaccurate? What is the basis for the claim the Prosecutor wanted to spare the US from litigation? Has anyone charged the Prosecutor with misconduct?

  132. “What is the basis for the claim the Prosecutor wanted to spare the US from litigation?”

    The false imprisonment, the misleading of the grand jury about the location of the server, etc…

  133. Seamus – No. I think any fair reading of the article Paul cited would admit it is exceptionally biased. There may very well be articles biased in the other direction. The article cited by Phantom above seems pretty objective.

  134. What is biased about the article? Be specific.

  135. Misleading the grand jury would be grounds for dismissal (if true). False imprisonment is a fairly high bar.

  136. Last year Ahmad was finally released from prison after being sentenced to 12-and-a-half years for providing material support [the two online articles] to the Taliban government at a time when they were harbouring bin Laden

    That’s taken from the article that Phantom said the Guardian didn’t write, we did.

    And what of the Guardian article Phantom quoted above? Did they get it wrong that day?

    Rather than go with your argument ad ignorantium I’m gonna go with the Guardian article which was written a year after Ahmad’s release.

  137. The article accepts all of his claims without questions and doesn’t provide anything contrary to those claims. The author even adopts much of the propaganda.

  138. I think any fair reading of the article Paul cited would admit it is exceptionally biased.

    Unlike your own absolutely non partisan, impartial reading of it?

  139. Of course you are Paul.

  140. And you have accepted the plea deal claims without question. Is that biased?

  141. This Ahmad case should never have been introduced to this thread, regardless of the legitimate interest in talking about it otherwise. ( I again see no legitimate interest in the US prosecuting this case, for starters. That ” server ” stuff is a dangerous nonsense. )

    He was arrested for providing material aid to the Taliban. No one here is qualified to speak as to the truth or falsity of that charge.

    But he was not arrested, detained, or convicted for expressing his views.

    There are unfortunately British and Americans who support the Taliban now. They could demonstrate in front of the White House or Parliament with signs saying how good the Taliban was and nothing would happen to them.

    You were allowed to support the Taliban in 1999, you are allowed to support it now.

  142. I went to read it because I’d welcome a non biased account. It was no better than Patrick’s proffered article about Dr. Atlas today.

  143. “He was arrested for providing material aid to the Taliban. No one here is qualified to speak as to the truth or falsity of that charge.

    But he was not arrested, detained, or convicted for expressing his views.”

    That material aid were his expressed views, not actual aid. Thus he was arrested, detained and convicted for expressing his views.

  144. I questioned what he pled to so I could know what he admitted to. When I pointed out what he pled to you said I made it up. I suppose you are now saying he made it up.

    I would support anyone wrongfully prosecuted for speech, and there are certainly examples over the years of wrongful prosecution. I don’t think this was one of them

  145. Of course you are Paul

    Of course I am what? Unbiased? I’ve already said that the charges were vindictive and didn’t fit the actions. I believer that publishing internet articles doesn’t warrant any jail time never mind twelve years, (as well as being against all that US free speech stuff), so in those terms I’m absolutely biased.

    No one here is qualified to speak as to the truth or falsity of that charge.

    We are as qualified to speak about it as we are any other case.

    But he was not arrested, detained, or convicted for expressing his views.

    No, he was arrested and detained for publishing opinions on the Taliban.

  146. “When I pointed out what he pled to you said I made it up. I suppose you are now saying he made it up.”

    You said that he was guilty. Not that he pled guilty. When Phantom asked me if all of it was true I said no you made it up. Which is true. You have no idea if he is guilty or not, and didn’t qualify your statement on his guilt, meaning you made it up.

  147. This Ahmad case should never have been introduced to this thread

    Trying to close down speech? That’s how this lengthy thread came into being in the first place.

  148. No, just pointing out that the case is completely irrelevant to any true speech discussion.

    Ahmad was free to write blogs in favor of the Taliban then, he is free to do it today.

    There is nothing in British or US law AFAIK that would restrict any of that.

  149. No, the fact was that he was arrested and detained for publishing his views on the internet hence the case came to be discussed here.

    Here it is from the Guardian article that you said we wrote.

    Last year Ahmad was finally released from prison after being sentenced to 12-and-a-half years for providing material support [the two online articles] to the Taliban government at a time when they were harbouring bin Laden

  150. “No, just pointing out that the case is completely irrelevant to any true speech discussion.”

    He wrote two articles, supporting the Taliban and encouraging others to do the same. He spent 12 years in prison for it. If that isn’t relevant to a free speech debate then nothing is.

  151. Tried to give you a gracious exit, but you seem to want to cling to this to the end of time.

    He was charged with providing material aid to the Taliban.

    And none of us here know if he did do that or not.

    And unless we know that, we can’t discuss this case from any position of knowledge.

  152. Can you provide the complete texts of the two blog articles?

    That would be the beginning of knowledge on this.

  153. “He was charged with providing material aid to the Taliban.”

    And that material aid was his online articles in support of them. Thus it was a criminalisation of his free speech.

    “Tried to give you a gracious exit, but you seem to want to cling to this to the end of time.”

    I can’t speak for others but I don’t need a gracious exit. One of the benefits of being right I guess. If you don’t want to argue the point then don’t argue the point. But just because you don’t want to argue the point doesn’t mean that your final, self-delusional stance on the issue is the accepted version of events.

  154. “Can you provide the complete texts of the two blog articles?”

    I can’t find them, I have tried to find them. The entire website is gone.

  155. If he only did what was claimed, publish two pro Talib an articles, the charges could not possibly have stuck.

  156. So, like the rest of us, you have no knowledge on the most salient point of the discussion.

    It’s all supposition.

  157. “So, like the rest of us, you have no knowledge on the most salient point of the discussion.”

    I don’t have the text. Whether that is the most salient part is debatable. He wrote an article, two in fact. And was out in prison for 12 years for it. Those are the only established facts.

  158. Can you provide the complete texts of the two blog articles?

    No, but I can put up where an internationally respected newspaper says that that was the case that he spent twelve years in jail for. Now, perhaps you’d like to put up the evidence of fine detail as to the allegations in the plea bargain?

    Tried to give you a gracious exit, but you seem to want to cling to this to the end of time

    No ‘gracious exit’ is needed but your patroising is noted, thanks.

    I don’t really think that there’s much more needed to say on tis. I think the point has been made as evidenced by your fellow countryman, the magnificent Charles’, comments.

  159. *patronising

  160. So Mr. Ahmad was randomly selected because of two blog articles and everything else set forth in his plea was false?

  161. They have no idea what it was that he wrote but they are sure that none of it was material assistance.

    Sounds logical to me! 🙂

  162. “They have no idea what it was that he wrote but they are sure that none of it was material assistance.”

    He was investigated in the UK and it was found he commmited no offence. So it was material assistance in America but not material assistance in the UK?

  163. We do not know any of it.

    Standards may vary.

  164. I suppose the UK and US possibly have some different laws.

  165. “Standards may vary.”

    But facts don’t. And if it was a material assitance to terrorists in the US then it was also material assitance to terrorists in the UK.

    “I suppose the UK and US possibly have some different laws.”

    Indeed. One criminalised this specific form of speech, the other didn’t.

  166. Ah, so now the cocky gloating begins? A variation of Mahons’ argument ad ignorantium above.

    Look it’s stated above in black and white from an internationally respected newspaper that Phantom says we wrote:

    Last year Ahmad was finally released from prison after being sentenced to 12-and-a-half years for providing material support [the two online articles] to the Taliban government at a time when they were harbouring bin Laden.

    Got that now?
    Expressing an opinion in internet ether by it’s very definition can’t be material assistance (and against all that American free speech thing).

    Charles, with no dog in this fight, has been his characteristically objective, honest self above.

  167. Paul come on that article isn’t a news article, it’s a profile piece written by a highly sympathetic writer featuring an unchallenging interview with Ahmad. It reads with the objectivity of Ivanka Trump interviewing her father.

  168. Expressing an opinion in internet ether by it’s very definition can’t be material assistance (and against all that American free speech thing).

    Again, you have no idea what he said.

    You have no idea whether it was only opinion.

    This is all roaring from a position from a position of invincible ignorance, without thinking anything through.

  169. So because Mahons disagrees with a journalist (who spent 10 years as a court reporter, was the home affairs and law editor for The Independent, and is a journalist specialising in extremism who literally wrote the book on Jihadi John) then that person is as objective as Ivanka Trump interviewing her father?

  170. The article clearly was not objective, whether or not I agreed with the writer.

  171. Written by a highly sympathetic writer featuring an unchallenging interview with Ahmad

    Seamus beat me to the punch above.

    Rather more unsympathtetic and dispassioned than two Americans that can’t accept the their country locked up a guy for writing two intenet articles I would have thought.

    You have no idea whether it was only opinion

    Yet more agrgument ad ignortantium.

    Internet ether by definition can’t be ‘material’

  172. No.

  173. I can accept plenty of things the US has done wrong in regards to free speech issues and/or the “War on Terror”. Back when it was a hotter ATW topic I consistently called for either a trial or release of individuals languishing in Gitmo. I just don’t accept that Babar wasn’t guilty of the crimes he pled to.

  174. Yes

    We crossed swords on that issue a few times

  175. Blimey , this thread has been going on longer than that poor guy was in solitary confinement. 🙂