|
September 4, 2008
Posted: 1142 GMT
LONDON, England – Last Friday saw three men appear at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court in London charged in connection with an alleged threat against the British Prime Minister. One of the men, Ishaq Kanmi, is accused of being a member of al Qaeda and of seeking the “elimination” of Gordon Brown and his predecessor Tony Blair. The alleged threat was made on the Internet in a posting in January this year. It’s the latest terrorism case in Europe that has originated from individuals posting stuff on the Web. In March, an Austrian man and his wife were given prison sentences for making a video threatening attacks on Austria and Germany. It was uploaded onto a well-known extremist Web site. Coincidentally, we learned last week that this case will be re-tried after Austria’s highest court ruled the convictions were unsafe. It said the jury had not been presented with enough information to properly consider the charges. That’s a matter for the Austrians to work out, just as it remains to be seen what will become of the three British men who appeared in court on Friday. Any trial will likely take place next year. But there’s a bigger issue here. If prosecutors in several countries are finding material on Web sites they don’t like, and feel confident enough to bring charges against the alleged perpetrators, then why don’t they move to have the Web sites themselves shut down? Earlier this year, Britain’s Home Secretary appeared to signal a new tougher stance. “The internet is not a no-go area for Government,” Jacqui Smith told a conference in London. “Where there is illegal material on the net I want it removed,” she said. So what’s the problem? Why aren’t these Web sites being pulled? For three good reasons, says Gabriel Weimann, a professor at Haifa University and author of “Terror on the Internet.” Firstly, if you close a site down it will just spring back at another address, often within hours. The hosting companies that store a Web site’s information and facilitate traffic in and out of it number in the hundreds. There’s always somewhere else to go. Secondly, extremist Web sites are popular with spooks. They provide useful information about terrorist motives, about the weapons with which they’re training, and about the target groups for propaganda. They also offer the opportunity to disrupt and “drive wedges” between the ideologues. It’s not hard to gain access to these sites, pass oneself off as a fellow traveler and start asking questions and posting material. Finally, there are civil liberty concerns. Look at the way Chinese officials routinely brand Web sites as “terrorist” and close them down, says Weimann. Western democracies just can’t operate in so heavy-handed a manner. So, that’s it then. It can’t be done and it shouldn’t be done. Well, Glen Jenvey for one strongly disagrees. He’s one of a number of people who have been tracking extremists on the Net for years. For him, it’s a moral issue. He points out that most of these Web sites are hosted by American companies. How can it be right, he asks, that these same companies are making money from Web sites that post videos showing U.S. soldiers getting blown up in Iraq or Afghanistan? Jenvey believes these companies are as guilty as the people who post the videos and should be penalised. Faced with the threat of a $50,000 fine, he says, those companies would soon start to police themselves more carefully and refuse to host extremist Web sites. Posted by: Andrew Carey, International Security Producer |
Recent Posts
Categories
|
|
CNN Comment Policy: CNN encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNN makes reasonable efforts to review all comments prior to posting and CNN may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNN the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNN Privacy Statement.
|
|