Now, of course, he says he misunderstood the question. I’m sure it was posed to him in so garbled and complicated a fashion as to make ready comprehension impossible. This is the same fellow who repeatedly prevailed upon Facebook to repost his jihad videos: “after they blocked his account, that he had contacted other organisations such as change.org and threatened them with legal action.” Facebook folded quickly in the face of such a threat: the last thing they want is to be accused of “Islamophobia.” They’re “Islamophobia” hunters, after all, making sure that nothing critical of Islam is posted. Facebook’s Vice President Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan last July to assure the Pakistani government that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. That endeavor had already started before Kaplan’s trip. In mid-February, traffic to Jihad Watch from Facebook dropped suddenly by 90% and has never recovered. We do not post any hateful or provocative material and neither incite nor approve of violence, but Facebook is acting as judge, jury and executioner in all this. There is no appeal and no recourse.
“Sunderland dad refused to answer police when asked if he supported Isis, terror trial hears,” by Debra Fox, Sunderland Echo, January 31, 2018 (thanks to Paul):
A jury has heard how a civil engineering worker accused of posting Isis videos on his Facebook page avoided answering if he supported the group when first interviewed by police.
Abdulrahman Alcharbati made 110 references to martyrdom and the proscribed terrorist organisation on his open social media profile and, in the space of one day last February, posted links to six videos.
The married dad, who is originally from Syria, had a copy of a manual titled Easy Explosives 4th edition on how to make improvised explosive devices, specifically suicide bomb vests, downloaded onto his mobile phone.
When the 31-year-old was arrested at his home in Noble Street, Sunderland, last May he told officials: “I just posted the news.”
During the second day of his evidence, prosecutor Dan Pawson-Pounds told Newcastle Crown Court how Alcharbati’s answers about Isis during his first three police interviews were different to those given when he later received legal representation.
Mr Pawson-Pounds asked Alcharbati why he appeared to avoid answering whether he supported Islamic State during the earlier interviews.
Alcharbati said: “I thought I was being asked about the different terrorist factions in Syria.
“I mustn’t have understood the person who was asking the question, they didn’t specifically ask me do you support Islamic State.
“They are a terrorist organisation, they did a terrorist attack in the United Kingdom. I respect the rules of the United Kingdom. I’m living in the United Kingdom.”
Alcharbati later went on to say that he didn’t have his bipolar medication during the interviews and he was very confused.
‘I don’t class the people who are fighting as terrorists’
When he was asked by Mr Pawson-Pounds if he supports Islamic State, Alcharbati said: “Of course I don’t sir, they are a terrorist organisation, sir. In the interview I was under so much pressure I didn’t understand the questions asked to me.”
Mr Pawson-Pounds asked Alcharbati why he did not ask for an interpreter and pointed out how his masters degree was taught in English.
Alcharbati replied: “I should have asked for an interpreter, sir.”
When asked by Mr Pawson-Pounds if he believed President Assad and those who support him are evil, Alcharbati replied: “The government, yes sir.”
Alcharbati agreed when Mr Pawson-Pounds asked him if Islamic State fight against President Assad.
Mr Pawson-Pounds asked Alcharbati if he believed Syrians or people fighting with them on their side have no other choice but to use suicide bombs and create martyrs against President Assad, his government, his soldiers and his officers and if it is justified.
Alcharbati replied by saying: “In my personal opinion, yes sir.”
When Mr Pawson-Pounds asked if it was to be celebrated, Alcharbati replied: “Yes sir. Just the people of Syria not the terrorists.
“The people of Syria have no food or water, nothing to defend themselves against these massacres.
“I don’t class the people who are fighting as terrorists, never, ever sir.”
Alcharbati later backtracked when asked again about celebrating suicide attacks.
He said: “I said martyrdom in general not suicide attacks.
“I said you corner them into a corner and they would kill themselves. But I didn’t say celebrate them. I said celebrate martyrdom, the Syrian people.
“If you put them in a corner without weapons and food the result would be they would blow themselves up. I would excuse them for that.
“It would be a very, very sad thing sir. Why would I celebrate it sir?”
When asked if the actions of the suicide bombers in one for the videos he posted were justified he replied, “No sir.”….
Mr Pawson-Pounds asked Alcharbati why he told Facebook, after they blocked his account, that he had contacted other organisations such as change.org and threatened them with legal action.
Alcharbati said: “I’m thinking of myself, how I am going to solve the world problems.
“I thought of myself as the one who was going to save the world, sir.”
Alcharbati told the court during evidence he was not aware that having the explosives manual on his mobile phone was illegal….
Terry Gain says
Oh he answered alright. And very clearly.
Andy says
New Figures: London a War Zone Under Mayor Sadiq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M_jZC0pg5I
Stephen Sharp says
Do you support Islamic state = “no comment”.
He is hardly going to sit there and say “yes, I support a terrorist organization”. Maybe lies and subterfuge are new concepts to the UK police and intelligence services.
neil mcleod says
” Mental issues”…Again..favourite cop out.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Back to Dumasscus with him!
Frank Anderson says
*In the US* *Under US law and the Constitution* I can see where asking this question during a trial would at least cause a useless instruction to the jury to disregard the question and for it to be removed from the record of the trial for “prejudicial effect outweighing probative value”, leaving in any event another issue for appeal. I could see where the defense lawyer would move (ask) for a mistrial, to cost more money, raise the burden on the court and prosecution, lose witnesses, and delay, delay, delay, until other cases flood this one off the docket. In the US the prosecutor could have problems for asking this question. State of North Carolina v Mike Nifong. And we still haven’t heard anything from Maryland about prosecutor Marilyn Mosby following her judicially determined misconduct.
If I were representing the accused I would “pitch a fit” on the borderline of being held in contempt if the prosecutor tried to get an answer. With other evidence already showing his (the “accused’s”) orientation/commitment/sympathies, this question would be cumulative (“Asked and answered.”). Now as always I will be the first to recognize US law does not apply by requirement in the UK. Their law may be different. But, there are still possible issues of limitation of what is permitted under EU and UN human rights treaties. I would appreciate better information.
Frank Anderson says
Mr. Spencer, and Honored Host:
“We do not post any hateful or provocative material and neither incite nor approve of violence,”
I hope you can tell from my participation that I support JW and its goals. I believe if you review comments connected with the recent stories from Jan 28, Philadelphia: Muslim who shot cop refuses to enter plea. . . and also from the same date, Pope denounces “terrible terrorist massacre”. . . *Several* people were commenting decrying the officer’s failure to kill the “accused” when he had the chance. Considering the regularity of articles here that mention the SPLC and massive numbers of other people and groups who are hostile to JW and its readers, comments like those are harmful. At least some of them are “watching” everything that is posted here to see what can be used to embarrass or shut down JW. Please consider other articles appearing here about prosecutors going after internet sites and posts they do not like. Who else would take a chance to cost time and money limiting or defeating the goals of JW and its readers?
If the officer had killed the “accused” knowing that he did not need to, the officer could and should have been charged with MURDER and CIVIL RIGHTS violations. He could, if he had killed the man unlawfully, been prosecuted in both federal and state courts on a laundry list of charges, and *convicted or not* his life would have been destroyed. The officer this time understood this and did what was necessary and only what was necessary to arrest the man who shot him.
The short version of a murder charge, such as the summary used for bar review courses in preparation for an examination is (corrections appreciated):
1. The unlawful, (contrary to law)
2. Killing, (unless the “victim” dies there is no murder)
3. Of a human being, (zombies, vampires, space aliens, non-human animals don’t apply)
4. With malice aforethought, (malice is rebuttably presumed from the use of a weapon or where “Universal Malice” is shown from the accused killer’s actions)
5. Without justification, (no exception under the law-ex. death warrant for an execution)
6. Without mitigation, (ex. stress of the moment or circumstances).
7. And without excuse (ex. Accident not reflecting indifference to the consequences-such as “Universal Malice”)
Murder is another word for “summary execution”. An example, one of many worldwide throughout history, of “summary executions gone wild” can be found in Nazi Germany where the least nobodies in uniform could kill without consequence anyone they felt worthy of killing. That is the risk of turning loose the restraints of our Constitution through any kind of inaction, legislation or “declaration of war”. Once uncontrolled killing by law enforcement starts, who will keep it directed?.
I suggest advocating summary execution is not consistent with your goals.
With greatest respect and support, please consider.
Native Jo says
It’s not safe to keep him in the country