Report: Al Qaeda-linked Web site based in Canada

When will governments pass legislation requiring server operators to regularly police the sites they host and fine them for failing to do so, rather than wait for organizations to come and tell them they've got terrorists for customers?

Water,

I understand the sentiment COMPLETELY--BUT: Unless citizens are legally and publically deputized to perform police functions, which would certainly be possible, given the circumstances, I would oppose seeing all of us participating in the kind of situation they have in totalitarian states, where neighbor spies on neighbor, school children spies on parents, etc.

We have a system where we delegate police, military, etc. functions to specially designated individuals. Maybe we SHOULD deputize the server hosts, but let's not just force them, without legal sanction, into the role of unofficial spies.

I agree with Waterdragon - the hosts should have a responsibility to monitor their domains for hate sites and shut down any offending parties. As for chargeing them with breaking the law, that's an entirely different matter. It appears this distinction is being blurred here.

With hate legislation being foisted upon the US and Canada by the Left, I would also be concerned with whom would be applying the definition of a 'hate site'- Sites that are working in defense of the West could just as easily be targeted (like Here).

Cubed:

To ratchet down on the funding of terror, financial institutions (banks and insurance companies) around the globe have been required via statute to require new depositors to provide substantial identifying information and monitor cash deposits over certain amounts (or series of cash deposits made over periods of time) and report to regulatory agencies any suspicious transactions. These institutions, however, are not enforcing anti-money laundering/terror-funding laws, they are simply making it harder for the criminals to raise money and bring the law down on those who try to get around it.

Also, perhaps more to the point, various countries have regulations as to what may be broadcast over its airwaves. Hence, Hezbollah's Al-Manure has been punted from France's airwaves for continuing to broadcast hatred against Jews despite a promise to cease and desist. I do not see why it should be any different for companies supporting websites. They make sure they get paid for the service, so they can damned well check into who they are doing business with.

Cubed, I like your line of thinking....Laws and regulations go a lot farther than privacy and they should be guarded, if rules of the hosts are broken then they will get the boot.

Terrorism - systematic covert warfare to produce terror for political coercion.

they have achieved this goal would;nt you agree?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both". Benjamin Franklin

Hi, People,

My thinking is that these sites are the property of the hosts. JW is Robert's property, and as such, he has the right to its use and disposal, just as he would his car, his home, or the shirt off his back.

If he wants someone barred from the use of the site, he can do that; if he doesn't care, he isn't obliged to bar him; if he agrees, he can allow the user to appear without restriction.

It would be different if he said "Go out and rob so-and-so's house, at 1234 Maple Street, and while you're at it, why not rape Mrs. so-and-so and kill Mr. so-and-so." That would be an obvious threat and promotion of illegal action. But if he said, "I really hate what so-and-so believes," it's his right to hate it, and that would not be actionable.

If the kind of information coming to the site is useful to law enforcement, then they have at hand the legal means to observe the site, and they can screen HUGE numbers of sites SIMULTANEOUSLY for suspicious content. There is actually not a great need to ask hosts to be policemen.

I just don't like the idea of FORCING citizens to become "unofficial policemen." As citizens, we can make the so-called "citizen's arrest" when we see a crime being committed; that means that we can hold a person until the properly authorized police get to the scene to assess the situation.

To FORCE undeputized citizens to act AS IF they were policemen is just a hair's breadth short of vigilantiism (sp?). Frankly, I think most hosts would volunteer "tips" to legitimate law enforcement authorities if something suspicious came to their attention.

The financial institution thing began as a tool to be used to try to track drug dealers and tax evaders, and was quickly adapted to the threat of terrorism. I really do think that re: web sites etc. there are better ways to accomplish the goal of screening for nasties--and I believe that these better ways are currently in use.

I could put a couple of words in this very post right now that would send a red flag to the monitors, and bring up my communication up for a closer look.

I'm all for the total destruction of the enemy, even if it means castrating every single one of them, but I don't want my untrained neighbor or my spiteful co-worker using unofficial police powers to further his own, and possibly suspect, ends.

Let's leave law enforcement to the professionals. We all have our areas of training and expertise.

Citizens' Arrest
By David C. Grossack, Constitutional Attorney
Common Law Copyright © 1994
All Rights Reserved

Not long ago the politically correct Boston Globe noticed a "shocking" new trend. It seems as if some citizens of Massachusetts were so fed up with crime that they have begun to intervene in petty street crime afflicting the streets of our cities. Thieves and pickpockets in Massachusetts should exercise caution in where and how they ply their craft as the chances that vigilantes pummel them and drag them to the nearest cop are definitely on an upswing. While the Globe is shocked at this healthy trend, students of the law should note that both a statutory and common law basis for a certain degree of "vigilante behavior" is well founded. Indeed, in an era of lawlessness it is important that readers be advised as to their lawful right to protect their communities, loved ones and themselves by making lawful citizens' arrests. The purpose of this essay is to simply explain the law and the historical context of the citizen's arrest.

First, what is an arrest?

We can thank Black's Law Dictionary for a good definition: "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." See Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).

Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction. From this legacy originated the concept of the posse comitatus which is a part of the United States legal tradition as well as the English. In medieval England, the right of private persons to make arrests was virtually identical to the right of a sheriff and constable to do so. (See Inbau and Thompson, Criminal Procedure, The Foundation Press, Mineola, NY 1974.

A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen.

In the most crime ridden spot in the country, our nation's capitol, District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:

(b) A private person may arrest another -

(1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -

(A) a felony, or

(B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or

(2) in aid of a law enforcement officer or special policeman, or other person authorized by law to make an arrest.

(c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, § 210(a); 1973 Ed., § 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, § 7(e), 35 DCR 147.)

In Tennessee, it has been held that a private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not. (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).

Contrast this to Massachusetts law, which while permitting a private person to arrest for a felony, permits those acquitted of the felony charge to sue the arresting person for false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 Mass. App. 165 (1981))

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Utah law permits citizen's arrest, but explicitly prohibits deadly force. (See Chapter 76-2-403.)

Making citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It would obviously be a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score.

Civil lawsuits against department stores, police departments, and even cult deprogrammers for false imprisonment are legend. Anybody who makes a citizens arrest should not use more force than is necessary, should not delay in turning the suspect over to the proper authorities, and should never mete out any punishment ... unless willing to face the consequences.

As the ability of the powers that be to hold society together and preserve law and order diminishes, citizen's arrests will undoubtedly be more common as a way to help communities cope with the wrongdoers in out midst.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The military uses JAG Officers on the front lines of war zones to determine if action is indeed legal at a specific point and time.

Talk about having your hands tied; check your specific locale for rules on this. Mine turns out to be quite disapointing in regards to this and has a lot of grey area.

http://arab2000.net/wnewsDetails.asp?
id=18591&cid=25

Here's the link to a defensive response to the rise in antisemitism from Muslims living in Europe,the author Dr.Elmasry was the yahoo in Canada that stated on TV that all Israelis over 18 were valid targets for murder by suicide bombers because of the Army's draft system.
Below is a brief extract from his tripe and he now claims Coptic Christians in Egypt live in peace and that there has never been a genocide
or holocaust in the history of Islam.

__________________________________________________

Dr.Elmasry: 2/5/05

I have used Egypt as my example, because it is the Muslim country with the longest history of coexistence with the Jews living inside its borders. But I have also visited Morocco and Turkey, two other Muslim countries with significantly large Jewish populations. And like Egypt, hatred of Jews is simply not part of their culture.

The Holocaust -- whose 60th anniversary once again gave the world pause to consider how humans could do such horrible things to one another -- could never, ever happen in a Muslim country. Islam and the history of Muslims themselves both support this fact.

So please, do not blame Muslims for anti-Semitism.
(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, a professor of computer engineering at the University of Waterloo, is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamiccongress.com)