UK jails teenager for possessing al-Qaeda's online magazine < br /> 2012-05-12 00:07:24 GMT+7 (ICT) LONDON (BNO NEWS) -- A teenager from London was sentenced to more than one year in jail on Friday for possessing copies of al-Qaeda's English-language online magazine, which provides commentary as well as information on how to carry out terrorist attacks, police said.Mohammed Abu Hasnath, 19, was arrested in October 2011 as he was cycling along East India Dock Road near his house in east London. At the time of his arrest, detectives searched a backpack he was carrying in which they found a USB stick containing several copies of Inspire, al-Qaeda's English-language online magazine.Inspire was launched by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in July 2010 to attract aspiring jihadis who cannot read Arabic, and it has frequently been found in the possession of terrorism suspects. It offers instructions on bomb-making, weapons training, security measures as well as encryption lessons for beginners. It also offers extremist heavyweight Qur'anic commentary and rudimentary propaganda."This is a serious terrorist offence and we hope this will send a clear message that anyone caught in possession of such material can expect to be bought before the courts," said Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne who is the senior national coordinator counter-terrorism.Hasnath was sentenced to 14 months on Friday but officials did not say why Hasnath was in possession of the documents and if he had any plans to carry out a terrorist attack. "We do not have that information," a Scotland Yard spokesman said, giving no other details when asked about the motive.Britain has made any possession of Inspire illegal, and several people have been arrested and jailed in recent years in connection with the publication. "The magazines provide practical guidance on how to commit acts of terrorism, which brings them within the ambit of section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000," a Scotland Yard spokesperson said.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-05-12

I've been curious what these jihadist mags had in them but I'm not about to get anywhere near that stuff.

There was a much bigger story in the news this week concerning the conviction of British moslems.

I've been curious what these jihadist mags had in them but I'm not about to get anywhere near that stuff.

I saw one on-line. Just a bunch of hateful rhetoric. Talk about boring.

There was a much bigger story in the news this week concerning the conviction of British moslems.

Quite true but one must not dig too deep into the sordid affair as it may well cause offence and be deemed racist extremism and we can't have that can we!!.

Edited May 11, 201214 yr by Colin Yai

Was reading about Germaine Grant today. Bizarre story.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18016978

Sort of surreal the UK exporting small cell jihad to Africa.

There was a much bigger story in the news this week concerning the conviction of British moslems.

Quite true but one must not dig too deep into the sordid affair as it may well cause offence and be deemed racist extremism and we can't have that can we!!.

If you'd read any of the respectable UK newspapers you'd have seen that the case was very well and factually reported and no concessions were made as to the race or religion of those convicted. I'm not sure how the Mail reported it. Perhaps you can tell us?

Surely people should be free to read what they like providing it is not Child Porn, just by possessing the mag doesn't mean that he was going to blow someone up, if I read about bomb making out of curiosity will I too be jailed-- of course it would be another matter if I had bomb making equipment in my house. This seems to be a slightly worry trend, wasn't there a teenager in the UK who was arrested for comments he made on Facebook about the death of some British Soldiers in Afghanistan? These Western countries that like to preach to others are not as democratic as they would like to have us think. Detention without trial, assassination of their own citizens, draconian legislation etc.

There was a much bigger story in the news this week concerning the conviction of British moslems.

Quite true but one must not dig too deep into the sordid affair as it may well cause offence and be deemed racist extremism and we can't have that can we!!.

If you'd read any of the respectable UK newspapers you'd have seen that the case was very well and factually reported and no concessions were made as to the race or religion of those convicted. I'm not sure how the Mail reported it. Perhaps you can tell us?

Shame the police did indeed make concessions causing endless unnecessary suffering and more criminal acts to be committed. With regards to the O.P you can prosecute individuals but with the internet potentially damaging information will always find a way to be distributed.

Edited May 12, 201214 yr by Steely Dan

Surely people should be free to read what they like providing it is not Child Porn, just by possessing the mag doesn't mean that he was going to blow someone up, if I read about bomb making out of curiosity will I too be jailed-- of course it would be another matter if I had bomb making equipment in my house. This seems to be a slightly worry trend, wasn't there a teenager in the UK who was arrested for comments he made on Facebook about the death of some British Soldiers in Afghanistan? These Western countries that like to preach to others are not as democratic as they would like to have us think. Detention without trial, assassination of their own citizens, draconian legislation etc.

I agree to some extent that the the state should not monitor or censor peoples reading/writing habits. I am a writer in my free-time and I work professionally in editing books. I would like to live in a world where everyone can say what they want freely & everything can be discussed openly in a friendly and civilised way.

But that is more a philosophical position, it is different when it comes to preventing terrorism, time is critical and the police in the UK are trying to stamp out sparks before they turn into fires. I didn't lose any relatives in 7/7 but I still sat infront of the TV crying my eyes out when I saw those terrified wounded people, their only crime was commuting to work in some grim office somewhere & many died and many others maimed. In my view, stopping any further such attacks is a practical necessity & overrides the philosphical 'freedom to read anything' argument. Its a hard balancing-act for the anti-terrorist police & I don't envy them their jobs at all. Sometimes they make huge mistakes such as in the Jean Charles De Menezes tragedy. For my part I'm happy to sacrifice my 'right' to read terrorist bomb making books if it prevents another massacre like 7/7.

Edited May 12, 201214 yr by Yunla

...but officials did not say why Hasnath was in possession of the documents and if he had any plans to carry out a terrorist attack. "We do not have that information," a Scotland Yard spokesman said,

So they don't know why he had them or if he had any plans to carry out an attack - and he still got more than one year in prison?

...but officials did not say why Hasnath was in possession of the documents and if he had any plans to carry out a terrorist attack. "We do not have that information," a Scotland Yard spokesman said,

So they don't know why he had them or if he had any plans to carry out an attack - and he still got more than one year in prison?

I'm sure they know why he had them, but they haven't made that information public. He is not the first person to be arrested just for having the Inspire magazine, and not a lot of details are usually released. I haven't heard arrests because of Inspire in any other country. It seems in the UK it is illegal to have it for whatever reason even though someone could have it for journalism, research, etc. (although I doubt they would arrest journalists over it). All because it "could be useful" to a terrorist, even though the majority of the magazine is propaganda/news/opinions and only 1 or 2 out of 60 or so pages is how-to stuff. I don't think it should be illegal, maybe only if there is a serious intend to do something with it.

Edited May 12, 201214 yr by mpoppel

There was a much bigger story in the news this week concerning the conviction of British moslems.

Quite true but one must not dig too deep into the sordid affair as it may well cause offence and be deemed racist extremism and we can't have that can we!!.

If you'd read any of the respectable UK newspapers you'd have seen that the case was very well and factually reported and no concessions were made as to the race or religion of those convicted. I'm not sure how the Mail reported it. Perhaps you can tell us?

Endure is there any chance you can produce a link from one of those "respectable" newspapers as to what actually took place and how the police and prosecution services reacted to it when the problem was at first reported ,thank you in advance and in closing how would you define "respectable " newspapers??? , maybe you could name a few.

Edited May 12, 201214 yr by Colin Yai

For my part I'm happy to sacrifice my 'right' to read terrorist bomb making books if it prevents another massacre like 7/7.

So, whose word are you going to take about what is "safe" for you to read? The state? What else are you willing to give up for safety? You already have CCTV watching your every step, scanners looking beneath your underwear at airports, and police agencies monitoring your words over the phone and internet, just waiting for you to slip up and say something that can be interpreted as a threat. And now if you read the wrong thing, you go to jail? Western countries are treating their citizens like zoo animals. And I, for one, do not intend to reside in their monkey cage.

So, whose word are you going to take about what is "safe" for you to read? The state? What else are you willing to give up for safety? You already have CCTV watching your every step, scanners looking beneath your underwear at airports, and police agencies monitoring your words over the phone and internet, just waiting for you to slip up and say something that can be interpreted as a threat. And now if you read the wrong thing, you go to jail? Western countries are treating their citizens like zoo animals. And I, for one, do not intend to reside in their monkey cage.

I think its sort of funny when people talk about "they" meaning the State as being the enemy. I don't fear the state, I don't break the law, so they can tap my phone or read my emails or whatever. Ultimately I'm paying their salaries with my taxes and I'm paying them to stop terrorists and criminals. I am infact a lot more concerned with a different "they", criminals who (unlike the state) have broken into my house and robbed me and left me with serious injuries, on different occasions. I take the side of law-enforcement including anti-terror and intelligence agencies, because ultimately I am their employer by paying their wages & I remain their employer until I break a law of the land. Criminals are different, they don't care what you write in your emails or talk about on your phone, they will smash your skull in & rob you, rape you etc. for no reason at all.

And whatever you say, those are the two options ; anarchy with mob rule by the strongest criminals, or state law with rule by the police & the intelligence departments.

Like I said before - violent criminals have almost killed me in my own home, and police/MI5 have not done this to me. Its an easy decision which side I will take. Re: Terrorism policing, the law agencies are not Doctor Spock, they can not know who is plotting to blow up trains and buses unless they investigate them & we have to manage without the use of magical psychic powers.

Re; airports they can look under my underwear if they want to, its only a human body.

Edited May 12, 201214 yr by Yunla

I think its sort of funny when people talk about "they" meaning the State as being the enemy. I don't fear the state, I don't break the law so they can tap my phone or read my emails or whatever.

Although I mostly agree with you, there is a happy medium. I do not want the state to be able to abuse the power that the people give them.

Re; airports they can look under my underwear if they want to, its only a human body.

I was in one of those body scanners at an airport. They make you empty your pockets of EVERYTHING not just metal. I raised my hands above my head and as I'm stepping out the TSA guy pointed and said there must be something in my pocket. I look at him and instinctively said something like, "What, you mean pocket lint? Are you serious??" and he let me go. You want to check me for metal, liquids and gel in the name of anti-terrorism, so be it. But when you start going after my pocket lint, that's where I draw the line.

As for the freedom to read whatever you want, I think it's safe to draw the line at publications that instruct how to make bombs and kill people. If it were a magazine full of propaganda and ideas, that's one thing. But promoting and giving know-how to commit mass murder should be stopped.

Re; airports they can look under my underwear if they want to, its only a human body.

I was in one of those body scanners at an airport. They make you empty your pockets of EVERYTHING not just metal. I raised my hands above my head and as I'm stepping out the TSA guy pointed and said there must be something in my pocket. I look at him and instinctively said something like, "What, you mean pocket lint? Are you serious??" and he let me go. You want to check me for metal, liquids and gel in the name of anti-terrorism, so be it. But when you start going after my pocket lint, that's where I draw the line.

As for the freedom to read whatever you want, I think it's safe to draw the line at publications that instruct how to make bombs and kill people. If it were a magazine full of propaganda and ideas, that's one thing. But promoting and giving know-how to commit mass murder should be stopped.

Of Course Khoheesti any one with a modicum of common sense agree's with the latter part of your post ,the first part is really up for grabs depending on the individual ain't it

It raises some interesting questions though. He was prosecuted because he had a copy in a USB memory stick, not for reading it on-line. So I would assume the web-site is blocked in the UK (??).

Well we know there are ways around that. I would also assume that if he had downloaded onto his hard drive he would be similarly guilty as equally in possession. What if he had used the storage capacity of an e-mail service not located in the UK? Is he still in possession? What about the applicability of the law outside UK territory?

Here is a bit more info about this teenage culture enricher.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9260207/Extremist-behind-gay-free-zone-posters-jailed-for-possessing-al-Qaeda-literature.html

He has a previous conviction for putting 'gay free zone' stickers up in East London. Such behavior at one time would have appalled the lib-left, however nowadays Islamic warriors tend to get a free pass.

Re; airports they can look under my underwear if they want to, its only a human body.

I was in one of those body scanners at an airport. They make you empty your pockets of EVERYTHING not just metal. I raised my hands above my head and as I'm stepping out the TSA guy pointed and said there must be something in my pocket. I look at him and instinctively said something like, "What, you mean pocket lint? Are you serious??" and he let me go. You want to check me for metal, liquids and gel in the name of anti-terrorism, so be it. But when you start going after my pocket lint, that's where I draw the line.

As for the freedom to read whatever you want, I think it's safe to draw the line at publications that instruct how to make bombs and kill people. If it were a magazine full of propaganda and ideas, that's one thing. But promoting and giving know-how to commit mass murder should be stopped.

Of Course Khoheesti any one with a modicum of common sense agree's with the latter part of your post ,the first part is really up for grabs depending on the individual ain't it

Who gets to decide what constitutes a modicum of common sense? I doubt that is remotely doable. We either have the freedom or we don't. I can live with it either way. What I can't live with is politicians appointing themselves as policemen for the written word.

Pakboong I would have thought that having a bit of common is down to the individual of what they see as "Not quite right" ,and not ordered by some politician, and in any case things of this nature are down to the security forces judgement as to what poses a threat ,in this case IMHO judged on the guys past track record they acted correctly.

Pakboong I would have thought that having a bit of common is down to the individual of what they see as "Not quite right" ,and not ordered by some politician, and in any case things of this nature are down to the security forces judgement as to what poses a threat ,in this case IMHO judged on the guys past track record they acted correctly.

Am I to understand that you are in favor of censorship as long as it meets your standard of common sense? There are as many "common sense" standards as there are people. IMO, consistency of enforcement is impossible to guarantee. You have special interest groups who would love to impose their narrow standard on the world's 7 billion people. Do we as the individuals among those 7 billion want to give such a power to a relatively small special interest group? I vote personally for no censorship and total freedom of the press. If the individual does not like what it says, don't read it. The consistency of what is written will either validate itself with time, or it will be discarded as nonsense when it doesn't.

Pakboong ,&lt;deleted&gt; who said anything about censorship??, what this topic boils down to is what our security forces deem as literature which could pose a threat to the population, is that too hard to understand ?,as far as freedom of the press goes and against censorship of any kind no one and I do say no one is more is in favour of complete freedom ,with one or two exceptions, like an ongoing investigation in to terrorist activities were splashing it all over the front page gives advanced warning that they have been "rumbled" were a press "blackout" is quite necessary , I do hope I have made myself quite plain

For my part I'm happy to sacrifice my 'right' to read terrorist bomb making books if it prevents another massacre like 7/7.

So, whose word are you going to take about what is "safe" for you to read? The state? What else are you willing to give up for safety? You already have CCTV watching your every step, scanners looking beneath your underwear at airports, and police agencies monitoring your words over the phone and internet, just waiting for you to slip up and say something that can be interpreted as a threat. And now if you read the wrong thing, you go to jail? Western countries are treating their citizens like zoo animals. And I, for one, do not intend to reside in their monkey cage.

You are free to live in another country then. The fact remains that Countries such as the UK are under a perpetual threat of attack at the hands of terrorism. Measures have to be taken to reduce this risk, measures which many can accept are not too extreme when faced with the alternatives.

This teenager was jailed for possessing what has been deemed to be illegal material inciting terrorism. I can think of no viable reason why someone would wish to be reading material such as this unless their views were already 'Anti-West' in the extreme.

But, should one be jailed for having an opinion or some magazines? I think this sends out the message that the Government and its Police force find this unacceptable and the general greater good and safety of the populace precedes over someones freedom to read hateful, inflaming and potentially dangerous material. Yes, people have freedoms, but if an individual wants to be part of Society these freedoms must be respected.

Pakboong ,&lt;deleted&gt; who said anything about censorship??, what this topic boils down to is what our security forces deem as literature which could pose a threat to the population, is that too hard to understand ?,as far as freedom of the press goes and against censorship of any kind no one and I do say no one is more is in favour of complete freedom ,with one or two exceptions, like an ongoing investigation in to terrorist activities were splashing it all over the front page gives advanced warning that they have been "rumbled" were a press "blackout" is quite necessary , I do hope I have made myself quite plain

If you are not permitted to possess or read a particular document, magazine, whatever... that is censorship. It simply is what it is.

It is in fact, a double edged sword.

Edited May 14, 201214 yr by Pakboong

For my part I'm happy to sacrifice my 'right' to read terrorist bomb making books if it prevents another massacre like 7/7.

So, whose word are you going to take about what is "safe" for you to read? The state? What else are you willing to give up for safety? You already have CCTV watching your every step, scanners looking beneath your underwear at airports, and police agencies monitoring your words over the phone and internet, just waiting for you to slip up and say something that can be interpreted as a threat. And now if you read the wrong thing, you go to jail? Western countries are treating their citizens like zoo animals. And I, for one, do not intend to reside in their monkey cage.

You are free to live in another country then. The fact remains that Countries such as the UK are under a perpetual threat of attack at the hands of terrorism. Measures have to be taken to reduce this risk, measures which many can accept are not too extreme when faced with the alternatives.

This teenager was jailed for possessing what has been deemed to be illegal material inciting terrorism. I can think of no viable reason why someone would wish to be reading material such as this unless their views were already 'Anti-West' in the extreme.

But, should one be jailed for having an opinion or some magazines? I think this sends out the message that the Government and its Police force find this unacceptable and the general greater good and safety of the populace precedes over someones freedom to read hateful, inflaming and potentially dangerous material. Yes, people have freedoms, but if an individual wants to be part of Society these freedoms must be respected.

Nice one Richard, in essence a perfect explanation of just what this topic is all about.

Pakboong ,&lt;deleted&gt; who said anything about censorship??, what this topic boils down to is what our security forces deem as literature which could pose a threat to the population, is that too hard to understand ?,as far as freedom of the press goes and against censorship of any kind no one and I do say no one is more is in favour of complete freedom ,with one or two exceptions, like an ongoing investigation in to terrorist activities were splashing it all over the front page gives advanced warning that they have been "rumbled" were a press "blackout" is quite necessary , I do hope I have made myself quite plain

If you are not permitted to possess or read a particular document, magazine, whatever... that is censorship. It simply is what it is.

So according to you any one should be able to go into the stationers or a public library and buy or borrow literature that incites hatred of another religion and gives the means and Information to make a powerful bomb out of cheap household materials .

Pakboong ,&lt;deleted&gt; who said anything about censorship??, what this topic boils down to is what our security forces deem as literature which could pose a threat to the population, is that too hard to understand ?,as far as freedom of the press goes and against censorship of any kind no one and I do say no one is more is in favour of complete freedom ,with one or two exceptions, like an ongoing investigation in to terrorist activities were splashing it all over the front page gives advanced warning that they have been "rumbled" were a press "blackout" is quite necessary , I do hope I have made myself quite plain

If you are not permitted to possess or read a particular document, magazine, whatever... that is censorship. It simply is what it is.

So according to you any one should be able to go into the stationers or a public library and buy or borrow literature that incites hatred of another religion and gives the means and Information to make a powerful bomb out of cheap household materials .

It is a law that is difficult to enforce, and the down side of trying to do so can be far more damaging than what an individual might do with the information. I am not advocating that I am for or against censorship, I simply don't take stands on such matters without critical thought as to the actual cost of doing so. I am quite sure that you would not want "my" version of common sense applied to your daily routine.

Edited May 14, 201214 yr by Pakboong

Pakboong is there any chance of an Answer to my post #28 , a straight yes or no will do quite nicely