Free speech for terrorist sympathizers!

Yesterday I wrote "Free speech means defending the vile" and compared it to protecting the rights of terrorists and other criminals to due process.

As it turns out we can almost do both at the same time. Here is the first U.S. Based Pro-al Qaeda Magazine:


(meme) The Jawa Report:

It's called Jihad Recollections and is a production of Charlotte, NC al Qaeda supporter Samir Khan's self-styled jihad media company, as-Fursan. You can download a PDF version at the links provided by Sammy here.

The magazine is 70 pages of the same kind of garbage that you'd expect from al Qaeda itself, and certainly not from an American living in North Carolina. It seems to be imitating several other jihad magazines, which started with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's Voice of Jihad.

In addition to links to al Qaeda produced videos all within a clear context of support (note to Sammy: many of your links don't work. Better luck embedding them next time) It includes two English feature length articles by al Qaeda's #1 and #2: Four Practical Steps to Expand the Global Jihad, by Osama bin Laden, and Have We Forgotten Who Is America?, by Ayman al-Zawahiri and Nasir al-Fahd.

Another article is a translation of an al-Qaeda produced video extolling the virtues of former operational leader Abu Laith al-Libi.

There's some fairly laughable poetry, articles about getting in shape (do I look fat in this bomb belt?), what appear to be advertisements but are really links to al Qaeda videos and sermons by the likes of American jihad supporter living in exile Anwar al-Awlaki.

Sammy's authors also warn Muslims in the West not to integrate and there is even an article predicting that Islam will one day conquer Rome. Don't worry, the author seems to mention Rome only metaphorically. In fact, by Rome he seems to mean either Saudi Arabia or the United States (Yes, it's that poorly written and is filled with the quotes from Osama bin Laden and an odd assortment of conspiracy theorists.)

The most worrisome articles, though, aren't the two aimed at teaching wanna-be terrorists about the technologies behind EMP and night-vision --- even though we are told that "through war booty, we can expect to see more mujahideen using night vision in their strategies." No, I think the most worrisome article is one entitled Principles of Guerrilla Warfare.

Clearly the point of the magazine is to gain sympathy for al Qaeda, the Taliban, Shabaab, and any other violent Islamist terrorist organizations (except, of course, Shia terrorists who Sammy claims are murtadeen [apostates]).

I'm not sure what allowing the likes of Samir Khan --- and whoever his coauthors are --- to vocally support the enemies of the United States and to incite others during a shooting war to lend support to those enemies [note, though, that while Samir encourages others to go off and fight the kaffir Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan -- reminding Muslims of the personal obligation of jihad -- that he conveniently writes this from an affluent suburban Charlotte home from the comfort of mommy and daddy's basement] says about where our country has gone?

Seems to me it says our country is still here, still operating under the first amendment. We allowed people to disseminate information on how to make explosives or enemy propaganda during other periods.

But I especially like how they had room to question Obama's economic stimulus package. That's a real doozy.

Update: Some info from Wikipedia:

In the landmark decision of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which expressly overruled Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (a case in which a woman was imprisoned for aiding the Communist Party), the Supreme Court referred to the right to speak freely of violent action and revolution in broad terms:

[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.