A man was sentenced to 28 years for "planning" an attack. David Wright was convicted of leading an Islamic State-inspired plot to behead a conservative blogger who upset Muslims when she organized a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest. The plot to behead the woman was never carried out. Wright also shared Islamic State propaganda on social media. Prosecutors said Wright collected dozens of gruesome Islamic State videos that showed beheadings and encouraged violence against Americans, including a manifesto that said America's days are "numbered". David Wright's uncle, Ussamah Rahim, told Wright that he planned to go after "those boys in blue", referring to police. Wright told his uncle that was "beautiful" and encouraged him to delete all the data from his computer before he did it. Wright claimed the conversation with his uncle, which was recorded over the phone by law enforcement, was just "trash talk" and that he never thought his uncle was serious about attacking police. But prosecutors accused him of trying to deceive the court into believing he never meant any harm. Wright weighed over 500 pounds when he was arrested. The uncle, Ussamah Rahim, was shot dead by law enforcement after he lunged at them with a knife after they approached him in Boston. http://time.com/5072515/man-sentenced-beheading-blogger/ While it may be argued the accused man in this case was not entirely innocent, these type of cases also create a troubling legal precedent, when seen from another perspective. At what level does talk of violence (which isn't all that uncommon) rise to the level of a crime? Are we especially sensitive to this because the man appears to have been sympathetic towards a terrorist organization? We can't be entirely sure Ussamah Rahim was actually going to plot an attack. And even if he was, that doesn't necessarily mean his nephew Wright was serious about being involved in an attack. Is Wright automatically guilty because his words gave encouragement to carrying out an attack? That's entering an ambiguous zone of free speech issues. I see comments on this forum all the time that are worse than what Wright said to his uncle. I think we should be very cautious about criminalizing words. True, these men were sympathetic to Islamic terrorism, and might be dangerous, but these type of cases set a disturbing precedent. Are we going to apply this same type of legal treatment to other cases that don't have any connection to terrorism? And the last thing that needs to be said, at a whopping 500 pounds, one wonders how likely it could even be that David Wright was planning to or was physically capable of carrying out an attack. This really seems to me like an angry morbidly obese muslim who was just stewing in his own juices and venting violent anger online and to his family members. This type of treatment seems extremely harsh, and if sentencing someone to 28 years for saying things over the phone is really a necessary thing to do to protect us from terrorism, it might be better not to let in muslims, for their sakes. With all the resources law enforcement agencies are using to combat terrorism, it's not difficult to envision a large number of muslims getting caught up in these sort of situations. I'm not sure this 28 year long sentence was morally right.
If he is given the typical prison diet at least he'll lose weight to his benefit. Obviously the goal is to shut him up as a terrorist attack recruiter.
Your whole thread is derailed with your blatent lie in the title. He was NOT sentenced for talking on the phone, but nice try
Usually a conspiracy is defined as a plan and one deliberate act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Like planning to rob a bank, and then getting a gun, or placing the bank under surveillance. I notice that Wright advised his uncle to delete everything on his computer, which, if he did it, would be that deliberate act which would complete that conspiracy for legal prosecution purposes. The article is a little nebulous as to exactly what crime was charged and what elements of the crime needed to be proven by the prosecution.
Conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, among other things. By your dipsh1t logic, if somebody strangles somebody else to death, he is convicted of closing his fingers.
OK, so you're telling me in casual conversation how much you hate Hillary (substitute George Soros here if you want). As you list off all the bad things she's done you get yourself worked up and angry and ten minutes into the conversation you say you're going to kill her. I respond back "That would be beautiful" and then say "better delete your computer files". If I said that I would be just as guilty as this man, based on your legal theory. Huh? Where's the conspiracy and what exactly do you think constituted "material support" ?
When you tell me "better delete your computer files" you are giving me constructive advice on how to hide evidence of the crime. My opinion is that saying "That would be beautiful" does not constructively aid in carrying out the crime or hiding evidence of it, but advising me to "delete your computer files" does.
It appears that that was enough to convict him. Terrorism charges are very serious and carry heavy penalties.
Here's more. http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/12/19/david-wright-sentenced It appears his pattern of promoting Islamic state videos is seen as causing harm even prior to this episode even if it could not be connected with any violence. Its a tough case, and I would prefer a little more solid connector to prove intent, than just the request to delete, but it was enough to convince those jurors that he meant to promote this murder.
When discussing cases like this, it’s always worth searching for other news sources, especially local ones, to get a fuller picture of the situation. http://www.wbur.org/news/2017/10/18/david-wright-found-guilty; The jury will have heard all of the evidence, from both prosecution and defence, considered it in the context of the offences he’d been charged with and found him guilty of them all (relatively quickly apparently). I don’t think a casual reading of selective media coverage is sufficient to second guess their conclusions.
The overwhelming majority of laymen cannot give you a well informed opinion on this subject. Case in point: One of my relatives (by marriage) is having one of his episodes where his blood sugar is out of balance. He's arguing with his wife under the carport and the guy next door calls the cops. The cops come and interview the 6 year old stepson because this relative yells something "I'll beat your effing ass." That turned into an 8 year sentence for a meaningless outburst. Much as I don't like the guy, he won't hit anyone. Unless the Muslim posed an imminent danger of carrying out the acts, that sentence is way the Hell out of line. Courts can build precedents to give any of YOU a lengthy sentence for not going along to get along in the future. The one thing I would like to see happen in these cases is that when Muslims do something that stupid, they be put in prison / jail for a short time and then deported if they are from another country... even stripped of U.S. citizenship if they have gotten citizenship here. Twenty eight years is a bit much.
I guarantee that nobody received an 8 year prison sentence for shouting that single sentence. There will have been more to this case that you’re either not aware of or haven’t shared. For example, do you even know exactly what offence(s) was he convicted of? You didn’t see the part where one of the men he was convicted of conspiring with did attempt to carry out an attack (albeit incompetently, only succeeding in getting himself killed)? Even based on the extremely limited information in this article, there is evidence it was more than just talk. Sentencing is set out in legislation and is commonly very strict in the US because that wins votes. People might complain about individual examples of long sentences (though they also complain about individual examples of “low” sentences too) but any politician standing on a platform of lowering sentences will struggle to get elected, especially anywhere near a context of terrorism.
You nor I know the facts of the case. IF the threat were that real, IMO, it should be prosecuted as a case of treason or terrorism and the punishment should then be death. Put some money behind your guarantee and I'll show you some really bizarre cases in Georgia. One that really gets my attention (and I'll never forget it): They bring a man in on a misdemeanor. The feds then try to get they guy to be their snitch in exchange for $50,000 and making the misdemeanor go away. This guy refuses. At the trial, the prosecutor tells the judge what was offered and the defendant turned down the deal. The prosecutor wants additional charges. The judge allowed FIVE felony counts to be introduced. The prosecutor had NO evidence, NO police investigation, NO witnesses save of the alleged victim who claimed that they were forced to lie under oath. The judge allowed hearsay to be introduced AND the alleged victim testified that they were threatened by the prosecutor's office. Adding insult to injury, the first time this guy has ever seen ANY of the principals involved - alleged victim, the cop who wrote the report, etc. was at the trial. This is an actual case. Eight years for saying what that guy did in the presence of a child was extreme, but if you don't think some wild stuff happens, come visit with me some time. I have known of cases where the cops have killed people simply for what the individual believed in.
The OP should show the sentencing document that lists "talking over the phone" as one of the proven crimes.
