Drudge relays "Al Qaida" message; Pakistan arrests Adam Gadhan

[Liberty Star]

This does not seem to be related to recent NY news ( CNN: Two Israeli Jews abruptly convert, now preaching violent Jihad in NY http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=218147 ) but timing of sudden arrest of this "American born Al Qaida leader" is interesting.


Drudge report has this link:


Al Qaeda Calls On American Muslims To Attack U.S.

PATRICK QUINN | 03/ 7/10 01:05 PM |

CAIRO — Al-Qaida's American-born spokesman on Sunday called on Muslims serving in the U.S. armed forces to emulate the Army major charged with killing 13 people in Fort Hood.

In a 25-minute video posted on militant Web sites, Adam Gadahn described Maj. Nidal Hasan as a pioneer who should serve as a role model for other Muslims, especially those serving Western militaries.



But Drudge doesn't report that Adam has been arrested by Pakistanis:



Adam Yahiye Gadahn (Arabic: آدم يحيى غدن‎, Ādam Yaḥyā Ghadan; born Adam Pearlman, September 1, 1978) is an American-born, senior operative, cultural interpreter, spokesman [2] and media advisor[3] for the terrorist group Al-Qaeda.

Gadahn's Jewish paternal grandfather, Carl Pearlman, was a prominent urologist; according to Gadahn, he was a "zealous supporter" of Israel.[7][8] Gadahn's paternal grandmother, Agnes Branch, a Christian, was an editor for The Chronicle Christian Newspaper.[9]

Gadahn's father, originally Phil Pearlman, grew up in Orange County, California. He was involved in the counterculture movement at the University of California at Irvine, and before Adam's birth became a Christian. He and his wife Jennifer changed their name to Gadahn, after the Biblical warrior Gideon.[2]




American al Qaeda spokesman arrested in Pakistan, official says

March 7, 2010 2:34 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- Adam Gadahn, an American spokesman for al Qaeda, has been arrested in Pakistan, a senior Pakistani government official source told CNN.

The official said Gadahn was arrested Sunday in Karachi.

Several U.S. officials told CNN that they have no indication that Gadahn has been captured.



http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/07/pakistan.alqaeda.american/?hpt=Sbin

[lester1/2jr]

he was probably completley annoying and they just got sick of him

[furface]

What exactly is Adam Gadhan guilty of? Is propaganda a crime in America? I bet they don't try to try him in America unless they can link him to actual acts or conspiracies towards actual acts.

If someone says "people should bomb abortion clinics" is that a crime?

[Liberty Star]

I think it is under current patriot freedom rules but I'm by no means a constitutional law expert on outer limits of freedom of speech. Besides, in times of high fear constitution is not all that important or potent.

[Mach]

This video is the makers personal opinion and does not necessarily represent RPFs points or views on this subject matter and is only to only be considered a reference neither for or against.. :D

YouTube - Fake Al Qaeda Actors EXPOSED! Adam Gadahn & Yousef al-Khattab (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0)

[jmdrake]

What exactly is Adam Gadhan guilty of? Is propaganda a crime in America? I bet they don't try to try him in America unless they can link him to actual acts or conspiracies towards actual acts.

Defamation against the muslim people by a fake muslim. I hope the Pakis fry his behind.



If someone says "people should bomb abortion clinics" is that a crime?

That could possibly fall under the "true threat" doctrine depending on the details. A group that put up a "hit list" of abortion doctors was successfully prosecuted if I recall correctly. Besides, Pakistan doesn't have to abide by the U.S. constitution.

[fj45lvr]

this guy is probably a "plant". I think it will be funny as hell if he rots in a Pakistani prison cell for a decade (if he is a plant by zionists).

[furface]

It's not Adam Gadahn.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/03/08/2010-03-08_al_qaeda_mouthpiece_adam_gadahn_not_captured_bu t_another_american_terrorist_was_.html


Apparently he's wanted for giving "aid and comfort" to Al Qaeda. It's a pretty spurious term. I believe in a true court of law they'd actually have to demonstrate that his support is "material," meaning that it aided in ways that were not just rhetorical or persuasive in a general sense.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/gadahn_a.htm


Adam Yahiye Gadahn was indicted in the Central District of California for treason and material support to Al Qaeda. The charges are related to Gadahn's alleged involvement in a number of terrorist activities, including providing aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and services for Al Qaeda.

The abortion doctor hit list action appeared to be civil, not criminal, although I could be wrong.

http://news.cnet.com/Abortion-hit-list-slammed-in-court/2100-1023_3-221054.html

[jmdrake]

It's not Adam Gadahn.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/03/08/2010-03-08_al_qaeda_mouthpiece_adam_gadahn_not_captured_bu t_another_american_terrorist_was_.html


Apparently he's wanted for giving "aid and comfort" to Al Qaeda. It's a pretty spurious term. I believe in a true court of law they'd actually have to demonstrate that his support is "material," meaning that it aided in ways that were not just rhetorical or persuasive in a general sense.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/gadahn_a.htm



The abortion doctor hit list action appeared to be civil, not criminal, although I could be wrong.

http://news.cnet.com/Abortion-hit-list-slammed-in-court/2100-1023_3-221054.html

You may be right about the abortion clinics, but if the speech had been deemed protected under the first amendment they wouldn't face civil or criminal liability.

As far as a treason charge goes, being an official spokesman for the enemy counts as material support. Consider the trial of Tokyo Rose.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5389722.stm

[furface]

As far as a treason charge goes, being an official spokesman for the enemy counts as material support. Consider the trial of Tokyo Rose.

I doubt the feds could try someone for spokesperson treason today. The 1st Amendment was written after any treason references in the Constitution, so it would nullify any treason charges based purely on self expressions. A lot of stuff happened in and around WWII that was highly unconstitutional, for instance internment camps. Check out:

http://bss.sfsu.edu/internment/korematsu.html

I can think of a couple material support cases. One is the case of a Palestinian professor in Florida. He was accused of providing web links for donations to Hamas, I think among other things.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/usalhussyn304sind2.pdf

Another is the case of a cable TV provider in New York selling subscriptions to Hezbollah's Al Manar TV. The important thing for the cable TV case is that it was about the monetary compensation to Hezbollah that amounted to material support, not providing the TV broadcasts.

The issue is relevant to stuff you see around here. If someone says "I think Joe Stack did the right thing," or like his daughter said "he's a hero," is that an actionable offense?

If you ask me, I doubt it. Criminally it has to be way more than just generalized statements or even encouragements. I can't think of any modern case where general encouragements or allegiances were successfully prosecuted.

John Walker Lindh plead guilty of serving in the Taliban Army and carrying weapons, charges that can't be side swiped by the 1st Amendment.

In the case of the abortion doctor hit list, even that goes beyond merely rhetorical in that it becomes a facilitator for violence against specific doctors, but again it would be hard to prosecute criminally nowadays if you ask me.

[jmdrake]

I doubt the feds could try someone for spokesperson treason today. The 1st Amendment was written after any treason references in the Constitution, so it would nullify any treason charges based purely on self expressions. A lot of stuff happened in and around WWII that was highly unconstitutional, for instance internment camps. Check out:

http://bss.sfsu.edu/internment/korematsu.html


And a lot of unconstitutional stuff happens today to so that really doesn't help your point. Also some forms of "self expression" are not protected under the first amendment. Incitement to violence is not protect. True threats are also not protected. The works of Adam Gadhan arguably fall under both incitement and truth threat.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=true_threats

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//analysis.aspx?id=21677&SearchString=incitement



I can think of a couple material support cases. One is the case of a Palestinian professor in Florida. He was accused of providing web links for donations to Hamas, I think among other things.


1) Hamas isn't at war with the U.S.

2) It sounds like he was a bit player. Not a major spokesman.

3) Asking for donations is not the same as issue threats of or inciting to violence.



http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/usalhussyn304sind2.pdf

Another is the case of a cable TV provider in New York selling subscriptions to Hezbollah's Al Manar TV. The important thing for the cable TV case is that it was about the monetary compensation to Hezbollah that amounted to material support, not providing the TV broadcasts.


Not relevant.



The issue is relevant to stuff you see around here. If someone says "I think Joe Stack did the right thing," or like his daughter said "he's a hero," is that an actionable offense?


Apples and oranges. If you wanted a real scenario you'd need someone who said "I'm a part of the Joe Stack air force and we have hundreds of planes, pilots ready to die, and the addresses of all of the IRS buildings in the country and we are ready to rumble!". That and some reason to believe the person was serious.



If you ask me, I doubt it. Criminally it has to be way more than just generalized statements or even encouragements. I can't think of any modern case where general encouragements or allegiances were successfully prosecuted.


Then you've never heard of Tom Metzger. He was bankrupted for encouraging murder and later convicted and incarcerated for cross burning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Metzger

Anyway, I'm confused as to your defense of Gadhan. He sounds like a CIA front operation anyway.

[furface]

I think you're missing the point. Adam Gadahn will not be prosecuted for treason. He will be prosecuted for material support of terrorism. There hasn't been a treason conviction in the U.S. in over 50 years. It will not stand a 1st Amendment test.

Your Tom Metzger analogy is interesting. Metzger was found civilly liable instructing members of a particular group to carry out violence. I'm not sure there was ever any criminal component to it. In that analogy, there may be civil charges against Adam Gadahn. Criminal, who knows?

But civil charges can be used to harass. The thing to remember is that the nature of speech is never really the issue in these things. If you want to stand in the middle of the forest and make statements against powerful people or the government, you can do so all you want without impunity until people actually start listening. When anti-government actions start becoming effective, people need to watch out because the government's going to fight back hard with everything it can, including bs lawsuits and criminal actions.

[Liberty Star]

Switching gears a bit, does this arrest point to a rift between Obama handlers and Pakistani regime?



This video is the makers personal opinion and does not necessarily represent RPFs points or views on this subject matter and is only to only be considered a reference neither for or against.. :D

YouTube - Fake Al Qaeda Actors EXPOSED! Adam Gadahn & Yousef al-Khattab (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0)


Putting such a dangerous vid on a public forum accessible to both males and females is really uncalled for, this vid should be banned by youtube or by Obama administration if youtube fails to act.

[Mach]

Switching gears a bit, does this arrest point to a rift between Obama handlers and Pakistani regime?





Putting such a dangerous vid on a public forum accessible to both males and females is really uncalled for, this vid should be banned by youtube or by Obama administration if youtube fails to act.

If YouTube could get away with banning it without any hoopla, they would.

I guess you've already seen what pops up on the video at 1:19.