Charged with possession of a book?

[MiniMatt]

Not in any way trying to make light of or justify the tube/bus bombings but I thought this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6675165.stm - news story was somewhat interesting. Bloke has been charged, with possession of an al-Qaeda training manual.

I bet you can get those on ebay I thought :) Well, brief look didn't reveal any on ebay, but google lists just shy of a million hits, the top link being a translation on, of all sites, the US Department of Justice site (wonder if they're in breach of copyright by publishing that? :) ). I'll not link the site as I don't want to be knobbled for incitement to possess a training manual or something :)

Then I thought, what about chemistry students - surely anyone taking a chemistry degree (heck, even an A-level) could easily be training for the purposes of terrorism. And possession of a chemistry text book is surely going to enable the owner to use their knowledge of organic chemistry to make bombs.

I know that in theory it should all be a matter of context - for example, you're probably breaking some law by carrying a swiss army knife around, yet I always have one in my glove box and under the seat of my bike (you never know when you'll need to remove a stone from a horse's hoof!). It's just that context is such a grey area and subject to much individual interpretation - a white, elderly professor of terrorism studies would probably not be charged with possession of an al-Qaeda training manual, even if his only "excuse" was that it was purely of intellectual interest; yet would a jury buy the same excuse if the defendant was young and looked a bit foreign?

Dunno, I'm just a rabid liberal lefty but I just can't shake this feeling from my mind that banning possession of certain books was one of those scenes in 1984....

[SoulKiss]

Yep your swiss army knife is likely to land you in hot water - especially if you have one with a lock mechanism.

Almost ANYTHING you do these days can be considered a crime with the right interpretation.

What it means is that if they cant get you for something they suspect you of, they can get you on the minor thing - think of Capone and the Income tax thing.

I have a friend that is interested in WWII - he got given a book on the way that the French Resistance was set up.

We then figured out that as it tells you how resistance cells were set up, how to keep them separate so as to limit damage to the system if one group was discovered. Under the legal description, that book is a "Terror Manual"

Its all just part of the society we live in, where FUD is the name of the game - Fear, Uncertanty & Doubt.

[Stig]

Not the same at all but...

When boarding a plane bound for Scotland from Heathrow, I had my nail clippers removed from my possession. :shock:

As for the book, It has only one purpose. It's not as if it's a book on chemistry which "could" show how to make bombs.

[hovis]

why would you need an al-Qaeda training manual? apart from the obvious?

he was up to no good IMO

[Tiger 55]

Dunno, I'm just a rabid liberal lefty but I just can't shake this feeling from my mind that banning possession of certain books was one of those scenes in 1984....
What, like a never ending war against an unseen enemy?

Like a beaten population dreaming of escape by winning a massive lottery?

Like speech and literature being governed by political correctness, sorry, newspeak?

And don't even get me started on the surveillance.

[MiniMatt]

why would you need an al-Qaeda training manual? apart from the obvious?

he was up to no good IMO

Purely intellectual curiosity? In the same way I found those instructions on how to make a plutonium bomb that circulated a few years back genuinely interesting. Never going to make one, and as a rabid liberal lefty, I hate the very thought of nuclear weapons; still find it all interesting though. Learning stuff is never bad, and learning about stuff you find abhorent is even better.

Now, the individual in question, well he probably was up to no good. But how do we know that, is it because he's a bit foreign? Young? Muslim?

[slark01]

I would like to know why he had the book.
If he isn't a possible terrorist, why have it.
I find it strange that he is from an arabic family and possesses a manual that can teach how to cause harm to others. To me it would be too far fetch to think he had it just to read out of curiosity.
No book or writing should be band unless it is specifically designed to cause harm to the general public. This particular book does exactly that, so yes it should be ( and is ) and the person who has it should be prosecuted.
In this case there is no grey area, but I know that there are books out there that people think should be band, however these books are usually just a personal opinion ( ie I believe that Guy Fawkes should have succeeded in blowing up parliament ) and therefore cannot be band due to free speech etc.

[hovis]

why would you need an al-Qaeda training manual? apart from the obvious?

he was up to no good IMO

Purely intellectual curiosity? i dont think so

Now, the individual in question, well he probably was up to no good. But how do we know that, is it because he's a bit foreign? Young? Muslim?

as the book is banned, he should be prosicuted, weather he intended to do anything or not.
IMO

[MiniMatt]

i dont think so


And if the defendant does think so, who's right?

as the book is banned, he should be prosicuted, weather he intended to do anything or not.
IMO

That's kinda my concern, banning books just feels wrong to me. Sure if he's plotting some nefarious deed then charge with "conspiracy to blow the crap out of things" and I'd support that 100%. Simply being charged with simple ownership of writing seems wrong to me.

Not trying to start a flame war btw, you have your opinion and I have mine and I get the impression we'll probably never alter eachothers, I'll still buy you a pint if I ever get off my **** and get to one of the South West meets though :)

Oh, and on books of bad things - every one of these is written for one abhorent and nefarious purpose, but I bet they're all quite an interesting read: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Want-Police-File-You-%3F/lm/10J8208QBUFOG/ref=cm_lmt_dtpa_f_2_rdssss0/202-5806502-1659844

[rictus01]

I'd have to come down on the side of MiniMatt here, books don't hurt anyone (OK the corners are a bit sharp if thrown ;) ) but i've see more than a few "band2 books in my time, It's interesting to see what others dictate I should read, most of the time there is nothing even vaguely interesting and it was done more as a political tool than anything else, I remember some years back the spy book, had to get a copy from Australia as you couldn't buy it here, was crap, but apparently true about the secret service :smt102 banning it made a crap book into a best seller, that worked well didn't it [-(

From a different viewpoint, surely knowing about something is better than sticking your head in the sand, I've read a lot on other cultures, not that I agree with them, but being informed allows an educated opinion rather than a regurgitated one.

Cheers Mark.

[Alpinestarhero]

Then I thought, what about chemistry students - surely anyone taking a chemistry degree (heck, even an A-level) could easily be training for the purposes of terrorism. And possession of a chemistry text book is surely going to enable the owner to use their knowledge of organic chemistry to make bombs..

Well, your partly right. The lecturuers do have to be carefull to keep an eye out for anyone who seems "suspicious" - one of my leacturers was telling me in the first year that since all of this terrorism bisiness got really in the public eye that everything has become much harder to get, just incase someone sneaks it out for a bomb.

I mean, you can make an explosive from hydrogen peroxide and nail varnish remover (acetone), if your clever enough.

And TNT isnt the hardest thing to make either!

Matt

[carlos]

I totally agree that by banning books will make them more popular, but this isn't just some old war relic, the war against terror is a current issue and as such I think anyone in possession of one is up to something naughty. Similarly, if you were caught in 1944 in posession of Nazi propaganda you'd have been accused of being a German spy and marched off to the local plod. OK, 60 years later its a different story but not then. Some things you do and some you don't as they are just stupid, especially when you're a young Muslim in a today's world, and owning an AlQueida manual is asking for trouble.

And bigape, I had a likewise with the security at Birmingham airport 2 years ago, apparently the small roll of black electrical tape which was in the bottom of my hand luggage was a contraband item. Allegedly I could, if I wanted to hijack the plane that is, tie someone to their seat. My reply "WTF? Yeah, so how many hijackers bring their wife, kids and the in-laws on terror mission. Oh and do you want my shoe laces aswell?" Ridiculous.

[Baph]

I'd have to come down on the side of MiniMatt here, books don't hurt anyone (OK the corners are a bit sharp if thrown ;) )

I can vouch for that. Hit me dad just under the eye once, gave him a right shiner!

You can make "explosive devices" out of a lot of things these days. Hell, give me a can of fizzy pop, a couple of sweets & a bag of nails. I'll give you a rocket propelled nail gun!

It might also interest you to know theatres don't escape the strong arm of the terrorism act either. Imagine if someone walked out of a theatre holding a prop that had a couple of wires hanging out of it, and a digital countdown clock on the front! Madness gone mad it is!

[timwilky]

I remember some years back the spy book, had to get a copy from Australia as you couldn't buy it here, was crap, but apparently true about the secret service :smt102 banning it made a crap book into a best seller, that worked well didn't it [-(


Cheers Mark.


Yes, I felt so proud to get my copy of Peter Wright's Spycatcher. Started interesting, but quickly became a bitter moan about his lack of a pension and the ban made it a best seller when without the ban it would have died a natural death for being a crap book.

True, there is no good reason to own such a manual. beyond curiousity. However, I know Blair and his cronies are control freaks but the last people who banned certain books were the nazis with their bonfires of 1933 and look how they finally ended. So farenheight 451 here we come

[Sudoxe]

Yep your swiss army knife is likely to land you in hot water - especially if you have one with a lock mechanism.



Up on presenting my leatherman to sid squid to open a box of chocolates the other day, i believe the reaction was "Thats not a knife, thats a weapon"

I find it bloody useful though, owning a triumph and all...

Dan

[Stu]

You can make "explosive devices" out of a lot of things these days. Hell, give me a can of fizzy pop, a couple of sweets & a bag of nails. I'll give you a rocket propelled nail gun!


.Org, I give you.....


MacGyver

[gettin2dizzy]

i know someone with a pdf version of it, just out of curiosity. (i don't know if he can read any of it, i presume it must be written in english).
maybe you should google the patriot act. - an act passed in america that was made 'against terrorism' that stated if someone acted 'against the interests of the country' they could be arrested and held indefinitely regardless of evidence prior to prosecution. So far this act has been used for arresting everybody, including people for drugs charges as it requires such little evidence. Britain has an equivalent 'anti terrorism' rule thats abused :(

[Biker Biggles]

George Orwell was a truely brilliant man.He may have been slightly out on the date,but his vision of the future was remarkably accurate.

[PsychoCannon]

All this talk of an Al Qeada manual...just what the hell IS an Al Qeada manual? a load of rhetoric? an Islamic version of the Anarchist cook book? what?,

[Baph]

just what the hell IS an Al Qeada manual? a load of rhetoric? an Islamic version of the Anarchist cook book? what?,

I'd imagine it's just elements from the Anarchists cookbook, but those elements have been expanded upon.

I doubt that blue-boxing (no, that's not a fight with gloves on in winter :lol:) would be that useful to terrorists these days, given that the phone systems now make it nigh on impossible to achieve. Explosives from fertiliser on the other hand...

[PsychoCannon]

Yeah the last cookbook I read was talking about Kermit >_<, the hacking stuff in most of it is so out of date it's not funny.

The Chemistry doesn't change much though :)

[Baph]

Yeah the last cookbook I read was talking about Kermit >_<, the hacking stuff in most of it is so out of date it's not funny.

The Chemistry doesn't change much though :)
Alas, we disagree. The anarchists cookbook never did contain much hacking (in the sense of the word that I understand). It was always about the abuse of a system to meet some form of gain.

Hacking is more about re-engineering the system so that it functions differently. Perhaps pedantry, but for example, I wouldn't call lock picking hacking, neither is cracking a password IMO.

Re-writing low level system applications to throw buffer overruns & the use of NOOP-sleds, now that's another story. But if you didn't re-write it then you just stumbled on some sloppy coding, you didn't hack it. (Hacking also involves fixing things not just breaking them).

Sorry, I'll stop the geek stuff now. :oops:

[northwind]

Someone told them "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and books are FULL of the stuff! It could go off at any moment!

I'm just enjoying the idea of an Al Queda Manual. "Difficulty rating: 4 AK-47s. Assembly is the reverse of explosion"

[Razor]

Just showing a total lack of imagination, the Al Queda book can't be that bad.

How about this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012) or this one (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anarchist-Cookbook-Peter-M-Bergman/dp/0974458902/ref=pd_sbs_b_3/202-3652979-0360639?ie=UTF8&qid=1179765698&sr=1-1)

[PsychoCannon]

Oh I agree totally :) especially as they covered social engineering in a lot of the articles.

It's just as they were always called "Hacking" "Phracking" etc I've just come to use those terms when refering to them ;)

When I mocked up a login screen in Access and crashed out windows so that it was the only process running and renamed the process so it looked totally legit that was more social engineering than hacking but it worked =p

[MeridiaNx]

Gotta say on the 'manual' in question then I agree with Matt that presumption of some sort of guilt and/or charging people with a crime for possession of said book is a little too fascistic for my liking. Heck, I even read the 'cookbook' under discussion, just out of interest. Never did anything in it, just found it an interesting browse!

The flip side of the coin on the argument is to catch people who they otherwise could not. For e.g. watching one of those UK police programmes, was in the Manchester/Salford region...2 cops get called out to a suspected burglary. 2 lads been seen about, glass heard smashing etc. etc. all on a quiet estate in the middle of the night (an estate they evidently didn't live in). They find the lads, you know the look, trackies/caps/hands down trousers etc. Seeing as the call was non-specific they can't find a point of entry on a house, and there are loads to search so it seems they can't prove anything. They then open the car of the 2 lads to find the boot has all sorts of 'implements' in it, bolt-cutters, thick gloves, bin liners, complete changes of clothing, small ladder etc. etc.

The copper in charge said they could only hold them for going 'equipped to burgle' or something similar (which I didn't even know was a legitimate offence). Couldn't prove they had done anything even though it seems pretty damn obvious they were guilty of something. A case similar to the possession of the training manual no? Where does the line blur between trying to get those responsible even if they can't quite prove it and harassing innocent civilians?

Tough call I think.

[Baph]

The copper in charge said they could only hold them for going 'equipped to burgle' or something similar (which I didn't even know was a legitimate offence). Couldn't prove they had done anything even though it seems pretty damn obvious they were guilty of something. A case similar to the possession of the training manual no? Where does the line blur between trying to get those responsible even if they can't quite prove it and harassing innocent civilians?

Tough call I think.

It is an offence, along the same lines, with less severity than attempted murder. You might not of done the actual crime, but that doesn't detract from you being a criminal. It's also the sort of difference between manslaughter, and premeditated murder (the forethought).

I agree though, tough call to make. I'd presonally rather be arrested for suspicion of terrorism than be blown up though.

[MeridiaNx]

True but, though I'm no legal buff, surely in a lot of attempted murder cases the person has actually physically tried to kill someone but failed? I'm not arguing here, just musing out loud. 'Cos if you hadn't actually tried then we'd be looking at a Minority Report-style pre-crime thing. Same with manslaughter and pre-med, they are rightly differentiated but the fact remains in both cases that someone has died as a result of the defendant's actions.

In the case of the chav burglars however, there was nothing apart from suspicion and circumstantial evidence particularly as they couldn't even find a break-in. I agree, in this case, it was comforting to see they got done for something because it seemed pretty clear that they had done it but the coppers just couldn't find the house. However, flip-side is that all those items were all usuable from a tradesmans point of view, and they were just picking their car up. Tenuous I know, and as I say, their responses didn't help them and they got done. Still, similar idea to the 'Terror Manual'.

Odd though, because I thought arresting the chavs quite right, but the possession of a book not to be so even though I'm arguing they're similar. Goes to show my own prejudice perhaps :rolleyes: