Because he wasn't found guilty of that charge. Had he trained, you can be assured he would have had a few more life sentences added to the 17 years.
This is the only thing I have an issue with: Did he do/post shady stuff, I am sure, but what was he found guilty for, and does the punishment fit the crime.
I'll shock you and say that I think from the facts I have seen, the punishment seems very, very high, not to say excessive. I don't think the guy would have had to face any jail time in Germany. To put things in perspective, Breivik might not even get 17 years, which is crazy. Different legal systems, I know. But again, we simply don't know what the guy would have ended up doing. Maybe locking him up in jail prevented the death of hundreds. Maybe not. It's a tricky legal issue. But I can't feel too sorry for the guy either. And I think the real scandal is that some Islamist associations try to make it seem like the guy is some kind of victim, a martyr, a saint. He isn't - that much seems certain.
It truly is a difficult era. I know that you trust the judicial systems result, but you have to realize that many dont, and they have the right to feel that way, regardless of how illegitimate the reasons may be. Your last point about waiting is a curious one. The question that many are asking is whether or not such a case was presented beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly he admired terrorists and terrorist organizations. But when pushed to join such a group by a close friend he had known for a long time, he refused to conduct any such activities. If he had demonstrated a willingness to act based on his friends provocation, then the discussion would undoubtedly be different. This only reinforces my point. Read the entire quote above- at what point are the sentiments he expresses considered illegal or criminal? All of it is repugnant, disgusting, and almost inhuman. But it is legal, no? In our society, we tolerate dispicable views on a daily basis and use 'social pressure' or politically correct constructs to shun such elements of our society. If white supremacists, for example, wanted to organize a conference, they would be hard-pressed to find a venue willing to host them. Political officials are routinely criticized for questionable associations, and the same scrutiny is applied to many organizations and personnel. My expressing discriminatory views in the workplace would likely result in my termination, and the same would apply to anyone else. The reason that such measures have to be put in place is because those people actually exist. There are people who are anti-semitic, white supremacists, islamophobes, islamists, etc. But at the end of the day, we all respect people's rights to think and say those things.
Well, I trust that it was not an unfair trial, but the result is very high from a German lawyer's perspective. Then again, I live in a country where people kill someone and get very low sentences. The German justice system is much more lenient in general than the American one, so my perspective is different.
He does not clearly hate America, that is inaccurate. He hates American policies. It is clear to me that he loves America and Americans, as well as other people around the world. As for your question, I'll say it in your language: NEED MORE EVIDENCE.
You can't say he doesn't love America or Americans. You may have an opinion as to whether he expressed that love appropriately, but that doesn't mean he doesn't love America. Love is not necessarily rational or right. As for the scoreboard, it's not a game to me, I'm not trying to win anything, and most importantly that court is not "supreme" to me, but I'm glad you're happy I guess.
Very good article on this trial by Chris Hedges. Earlier in this thread I made mention of a 2004 trial that somewhat paralleled the charges in this trial. As another point of comparison, look at the Christian Patriot militia movement, Hutaree. Mehanna had no target, no weapons, no plot, and refused an offer to travel and conduct violence against American troops. The Hutaree were actually training for nearly two years, had stockloads of illegal firearms, and had intentions to kill federal officials. Last month, almost all charges were dropped against the Hutaree (only a few weapons charges remain), with U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts saying: Other important and especially salient quotes about the Hutaree trial: Today, seven of the nine defendents are free, while two are still held on weapons charges. If there was ever a full out, blatant, abject demonstration of double-standards when it comes to the way in which material support charges are produced against Muslims, I cant think of an example better than the Hutaree....
The problem with this though is that you are advocating convicting him for pre-crime which as you state we have no way of knowing. I think that is very dangerous if the standard of conviction is what may happen rather than what did. As for this case I haven't studied it enough to have a solid opinion. I agree with Vaids though given what has been presented I don't think this guy was an innocent and given that Al Qaeda is considered a criminal organization advocating and spreading propaganda for Al Qaeda is considered criminal.
I agree that does seem like quite a bit of a double standard. I don't know enough about the Hutaree but playing devil's advocate one difference might be if the Hutaree is on the Federal list of terrorist organizations. Also in the case of Al Qaeda there is a Congressional Authorization of Force against them that carries the weight of a declaration of war. The Hutaree might not meet that standard.
Oh no question, that is true. My point in illustrating the two cases is to highlight the considerations that go into declaring a group guilty of attempting to commit violence. This rubric is highly inconsistent, and is markedly lower for Muslims in America. For example, almost every case where a Muslim is charged, their statements play a prominent role throughout the trial. Phone conversations, written statements, etc. Conversely, the charged rhetoric employed by the Hutaree was essentially deemed inconsequential during their trial. The same was said regarding their beliefs and the many wild conspiracy theories that emanated from that. I have a hard time believing any Muslim would be afforded such a concession... I guess the point I'm trying to make is the simplicity with which a Muslim can be charged under one of the many terrorism-related statutes being used today. If you have someone who's made politically incorrect statements, was planning to/already has traveled for any reason (visit family, etc.) to a predominantly Muslim country, and looks the part (beard, skin color, etc.), then chances are they will be found guilty. This dichotomy is becoming readily apparent, and has led even establishment journalists to question the legal process and the way it works for Muslims. Andrew Rosenthal, an editor for the NY Times who oversees the Op-Ed section, penned a piece on this topic entitled, Liberty and Justice for Non-Muslims, an article I tend to find highly instructive.
