FBI: Retweeting Terrorist Organizations Could Get You Arrested

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'm not so sure arresting people for retweeting terrorists is the right thing to do, but a good old fashioned ass whuppin' might do the trick. ;)

So, what kind of Tweets will get you arrested? Statements, retweets and links that support and feed resources to terrorist organizations. Ali Shukri Amin, a 17-year old who used Twitter to promote Bitcoin donations to ISIS and ISIL and Bilal Abood, who publicly declared his allegiance to Baghdadi on the social network.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,865
Depends.


If you were to say:
"I believe in what ISIS stands for and believe the West is wrong." most likely 1A protected.

but if you were instead to say:
"This is how you donate funds and equipment to ISIS so they can continue the murder spree." may or may not be not 1A protected. But if all the feds do is use the tweet/retweet to find/follow the money, the 1A is not going to save you.. Tons of things to get you on, and the tweets could be used to hang you.

There is a whole lot of gay area in there.
 

Chunder

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
519
Simply retreating or talking about a tweet from a terrorist labeled organization can't lead to jail time "legally" due to various parts of the constitution. However, talking about how to fund one IS protected under the 1st amendment, but federal espionage and other acts for some reason suspend the constitutional protections of those labeled as traitors, and one could simply disappear illegally in the middle of the night.
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
I'm not so sure arresting people for retweeting terrorists is the right thing to do, but a good old fashioned ass whuppin' might do the trick. ;)

So, what kind of Tweets will get you arrested? Statements, retweets and links that support and feed resources to terrorist organizations. Ali Shukri Amin, a 17-year old who used Twitter to promote Bitcoin donations to ISIS and ISIL and Bilal Abood, who publicly declared his allegiance to Baghdadi on the social network.

I guess people shouldn't retweet any tweets from the FBI then. They are as much a terrorist organization as anyone else.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,312
I didn't know NAMBLA was funding ISIS :D

Please do not drag in such an upstanding organization like this.

the North American Marlon Brando Look Alike group has done wonderful things for people from all walks of life.

anigif_enhanced-buzz-32309-1353011666-19.gif
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
632
The fact they can investigate you by simply mentioning a tweet about a terrorist organization should infuriate any and all americans, especially the media. Context or not, you should not be investigated AT ALL until you have broken a law. This whole statute is entirely too vague and ripe for abuse.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
I'm wondering now how bent this statement is are the FBI also going to pursuit politicians whom funded the people which are messing up Afghanistan currently or they going to arrest politicians that were involved with Saddam Hussein ?

But if some distraught/crazy/zealot (pick whichever applies) person retweets something well that is rather a big concern. Is this what a Federal Bureau of Investigation should focus on (imagine your twitter account being hacked ..)

Are the FBI now "promoted" to internet nannies ?
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,865
The fact they can investigate you by simply mentioning a tweet about a terrorist organization should infuriate any and all americans, especially the media. Context or not, you should not be investigated AT ALL until you have broken a law. This whole statute is entirely too vague and ripe for abuse.


Finding out if you broke the law, based on a reasonable suspicion that you may have broken the law, is why they are supposed to investigate. Funding/fundraising for a terrorist organization has various levels of illegality attached. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339C
 

kinjo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,053
Wow arrested for repeating what someone else said, You know I'm all for security and protecting the country but what does it matter if the price is slowly stripping away all of the rights we as Americans have that make this a great country to live in.

Freedom should always trump security on the list of things we concern ourselves with. I've said it before but I'll say it again a million times over every single time we compromise freedom out of fear the terrorist win.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,865
The guy mentioned in the article was not arrested for tweeting. He was arrested for fundraising for a terrorist organization. His tweets were simply the method he was using to assist in fundraising efforts.
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
Do I want safety from terrorists? Yes.

Do I want it more than free speech? No.
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
Federal prosecutors have charged several Twitter users who allegedly support the Islamic State with lying to federal agents about their Twitter activity.....Arafat Nagi, a 44-year-old from Lackawanna, New York, arrested last week, made statements to federal law enforcement that were "inconsistent with his statements on the Twitter account that has been linked to him," according to an affidavit from an FBI agent. One tweet from April 2014, the agent wrote, demonstrates that Nagi was "promoting ISIL and their cause on Twitter." Agents also did an extensive review of Nagi's Twitter account, noting that 140 of the 278 Twitter handles he followed "featured profile pictures of ISIL flags, photos of al-Baghdadi or Osama bin Laden, photos of weapons or of individuals in military fatigues, photos of recent beheadings or other images which could reasonably be described as violent or terrorism-related in nature." Of Nagi's own 412 followers, the FBI said, approximately 187 "showed images that could reasonably be described as violent or terrorism-related in nature."

Since when is having an opinion or looking at beheadings a crime? Sorry, but as much as I dislike ISIS, my dislike of them doesn't trump someone else's rights. If he wants to say he likes ISIS and that they have great ideas that we all should follow, that's his right to do so. Fucking thought police, the " new" america. How diagusting, IMO equally as loathsome as ISIS.
 

Catalan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
317
I guess people shouldn't retweet any tweets from the FBI then. They are as much a terrorist organization as anyone else.
Hey now, the FBI is clearly out there fighting for our freedoms, which makes them "freedom fighters", not terrorists.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Since when is having an opinion or looking at beheadings a crime? Sorry, but as much as I dislike ISIS, my dislike of them doesn't trump someone else's rights. If he wants to say he likes ISIS and that they have great ideas that we all should follow, that's his right to do so. Fucking thought police, the " new" america. How diagusting, IMO equally as loathsome as ISIS.

This was more than having an opinion. This was active promotion of perhaps the world's most dreaded terrorist organization that's well known for using social media to recruit for its army. Big difference.

The Huffington Post rounded up a few cases where Twitter activity was key to the FBI's charges, including the case of Ali Shukri Amin, a 17-year old who used Twitter to promote Bitcoin donations to ISIS and ISIL and Bilal Abood, who publicly declared his allegiance to Baghdadi on the social network.

Involvement in the financing of terrorist organizations is clearly illegal and has been forever.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
We have an armed populace. We're fine on our own.

Being armed doesn't make one invulnerable and there are any number of ways to attack and kill people where being conventionally armed offers no protection. The vast number of guns in this country isn't being used by anyone as a reason we should a we should accept the Iran nuclear deal for instance. Where's the NRA when you need them?
 

Retronym

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
13,608
Being armed doesn't make one invulnerable and there are any number of ways to attack and kill people where being conventionally armed offers no protection. The vast number of guns in this country isn't being used by anyone as a reason we should a we should accept the Iran nuclear deal for instance. Where's the NRA when you need them?

The threats against us on the national stage are not changed from our government's involvement. In fact they have only exacerbated hostility towards the west.

The Iran deal is a complete joke. The government is not protecting us at all, they are just saving face and pushing back the embarrassment.

A few terror attacks now and again is the market price of freedom.

I'm so sick of these stupid self-proclaimed patriots claiming they are fighting to protect what we stand for by burning down all of our freedoms.

If I encounter a terrorist I will light their ass up. Simple as that.

As towards the gun issue; if given a choice would you prefer to encounter a terrorist in person here or while in London ;)
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,865
Here, Londoner's don't have guns. I do. I have at least a chance. "In Glock We Trust" and all that. :D
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
The threats against us on the national stage are not changed from our government's involvement. In fact they have only exacerbated hostility towards the west.

The Iran deal is a complete joke. The government is not protecting us at all, they are just saving face and pushing back the embarrassment.

You're trying to have it both ways. First of all it isn't THE government but the P5 plus Germany that worked out this deal. And the notion that conservatives would ever agree to a deal that had anything to do with Obama Administration was a non-starter in the first place. Iran and the US have been at odds for how long now? The real question that needs to be answered is just how willing is the US to go to war over this.

I don't think more nuclear weapons is a good thing or that Iran should have that capability. But yet another expensive war in the Middle East isn't going to be an easy sell to anyone, left or right. Saving face has nothing to do with it, it's called reality.
 

Retronym

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
13,608
Everything is about conservatives with you.

Ease up on the tribalism. Not everything is about your precious Obama.

I'm not advocating war, I just am not foolish enough to think we've changed Iran's behavior at all.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
I speak of conservatives in this case with a little "c". We have been at odds with Iran since the first days I can remember anything of foreign affairs and I'm 47. And we've been doing nothing but talking about how murderous and untrustworthy they since that time. And I perfectly understand why. But the definition of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome and we've been doing that with Iran for far too long.

To expect that Iran would submit to every demand that an American conservative would have this matter is insanity. The same people that constantly talk of distrust of their own government while distrusting every other government. In that regard Americans and Iranians are much alike.

I think this notion that the US or any other power besides Israel would go to war with Iran over its development of a nuclear weapons is seriously in doubt. A US President's ability to use military force preemptively against the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iran isn't even an option at this time, no matter the party in power. And the Iranians know it, that card was played too recently to do it again for a while.

If Iran is committed to developing nuclear weapons and don't doubt that's the case, the best that can be done at this time is to slow them down, unless we want a yet another Middle Eastern war. Even with the sanctions in place now was only slowing them down, not stopping them.
 

Retronym

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
13,608
speaking only for myself, i don''t believe any "deal" means anything at all.

i see it as a big jerk-off. let them develop their weapons and bring our people home.

there seems to be this assumption that criticizing the deal can only mean that person supports an invasion or harsher deal.

i'm saying let's drop the pretense that we have any control over other nation states at all and stop wasting everyone's time.

again, speaking only for myself.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
The gross mischaracterization in the cartoon above is that it conveniently forgets the 5 other major world powers that were part of this deal. This deal was going to be made with or without US participation especially considering that the economic sanctions were having a more adverse effect on most of these other powers than on US.

Few outside want a nuclear Iran because duh! State sponsor of terrorism that's effecting the P5. Check. Potential Israeli intervention. Check. Who knows what Iran itself would do with a nuke? Check. Saudi Arabia and other top Middle Eastern fossil fuel producers don't want an nuclear Iran. Check. A lot of interests align here which is why there were so many parties involved.

And I've not heard anyone saying to "trust Iran". But if you think they are going to build a bomb anyway isn't better to have some eyes on the ground than like none at all?
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
speaking only for myself, i don''t believe any "deal" means anything at all.

i see it as a big jerk-off. let them develop their weapons and bring our people home.

there seems to be this assumption that criticizing the deal can only mean that person supports an invasion or harsher deal.

i'm saying let's drop the pretense that we have any control over other nation states at all and stop wasting everyone's time.

again, speaking only for myself.

So you'd make peace with Iran and end the sanctions? Fair enough and reasonable. But you must realize that same people criticizing the Obama Administration over this "joke" deal would also criticize your position for the same reasons. So the "joke" would be on you as well.
 

Deathroned

Gawd
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
554
So if i retweet or tweet Obama and Clinton i will get arrested man. Murica is screwed good riddance i am not murica.
 

Litfod

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
1,465
As towards the gun issue; if given a choice would you prefer to encounter a terrorist in person here or while in London ;)

How exactly do you imagine that encounter going down? I expect it involves you saving the day like an action hero and being showered with medals.

"In person" is a big caveat when it's more likely they'll be flying a hijacked airliner into your office building or blowing up your train in a suicide attack. The US gun culture doesn't even deter freaks from shooting up movie theaters and churches, it has no value against determined terrorists.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
531
How exactly do you imagine that encounter going down? I expect it involves you saving the day like an action hero and being showered with medals.

"In person" is a big caveat when it's more likely they'll be flying a hijacked airliner into your office building or blowing up your train in a suicide attack. The US gun culture doesn't even deter freaks from shooting up movie theaters and churches, it has no value against determined terrorists.

Those theater and church shootings occur in so-called gun-free zones, which only the law-abiding gun owners acknowledge and observe. This supposed "US gun culture" isn't equally applied throughout the entire United States, after all.

22 years ago, in a church in South Africa, one man with a .38 revolver deterred actual terrorists who were armed with grenades and automatic rifles. The body count would undoubtedly have been much greater had he not intervened: http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/hero-of-1993-church-attack-calls-for-being-armed/ .
 
Top