![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Friday, 25 Aug 2006
The US just arrested a US-Pakistani Businessman for providing US citizens with Al Manar TV, Hezbollah's TV channel.
Javed Iqbal, originally from Pakistan, is accused by prosecutors of doing business with a terrorist entity.
The Hezbollah Shia militia has been involved in a
month-long conflict with Israeli forces in Lebanon and is seen as a
terrorist group by the US.Mr Iqbal's lawyers say his arrest violates his right to free speech.
"It's like the government of Iran saying we are going to
ban the New York Times because we think of it as a terrorist outfit, or
China saying we will ban CNN," a spokesman for the law firm
representing Mr Iqbal told the Reuters news agency.[...]
According to court papers and government documents, the
authorities sent an agent posing as a potential customer after being
informed that Mr Iqbal was offering al-Manar TV.Mr Iqbal reportedly offered the agent a television package that included access to al-Manar broadcasts.
Mr Iqbal appeared in court on Thursday and was bailed for $250,000 (£132,300).
Prosecutor Stephen A Miller had argued against granting him bail, indicating more charges were likely to be filed.
"The charge lurking in the background is material support for terrorism," the Associated Press news agency quotes him as saying.
Al-Manar TV is broadly seen as the mouthpiece of the
Hezbollah militia and European-owned satellites have been banned by the
EU from broadcasting it.
Hmmm…
Not that I like Al Manar, but wouldn't the case involve material support for Terrorism only If Mr. Iqbal was paying Hezbollah to broadcast this channel in the US? Because otehrwise, if they are only providing the content, doesn't that count as prohibiting freedom of speech? I mean, if it was a pron channel or something similar, I would get it, but being arrested for providing access to a news channel?
If he is funding Hezbollah, then by all means, lock him up and throw away the key. But if he is only providing access to their channel, I am not sure if that counts as "providing material aid to terrorism". No?
August 25th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Al-Manar is a propaganda channel, not news; its primary function is incitement to murder and gathering support for a terrorist organization.
People seldom, if ever, kill because of p0rn; people often kill because of Al-Manar.
Kind of like the blog of one of the regulars here, Al-Manar is a weapon; and the chief victims of this weapons are children.
August 25th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
I got a chuckle from the reference of banning the NYT in Iran… As they go house to house tearing down satelite dishes.
August 25th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Usually I am Mr. Free Speech.
But this channel’s dedication to “Protocols of Zion” and other wonderful programing makes this a tough one. I mean, we didn’t generally broadcast “The Stallinist Network” or the very popular “Hitler at Night” tv shows.
I think it is acceptable to ban hate propaganda networks… specially when it is not our propaganda!
August 25th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Why isn’t Aljazeera prosecuted under this law, heck, why isn’t Aljazeera considered a terrorist organization, or at least aiding them, not to mention preaching intolerance, racial prejudice, and every moonbat inconceivable conspiracy theory that grade schoolers could see through. They promote the Protocols as fact, what rubbish, they have the nerve to state their objectivity and moderate stance. Joseph Geobbels had nothing on them and could probably learned a thing or two. Why hasn’t something been done about the so called news organizations that spew such hate and negative fantasy?
August 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Sam says:
If he is funding Hezbollah, then by all means, lock him up and throw away the key. But if he is only providing access to their channel, I am not sure if that counts as “providing material aid to terrorism”. No?
Material aid, perhaps not, but definitely inspiring terrorism as Al Manar exists for no other purpose. Al Jazeera, while biased does at least do the news now and again.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Even if not technically material aid to terrorism, which it may be the law is very broad, it is good policy to harrass this guy, find out who he was broadcasting to and harras them also. Supporters of Hezzbollah, the organization responsible for killing hundreds of US Marines, should be reminded that they are the enemy and that life in the US should be hell for them, and their fellow jihadis.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
This guy and others watching his program would be deported if it was up to me. They are sympathizing with an enemy of the United States, something that is widespread and tolerated way too much in this country.
August 25th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Well, the last time I heard, money was considered material aid.
This guy was just the salesman, selling his company’s wares, getting his commison off of the revenue being paid for access to this “Terrorism Central” tv channel.
So the money going back to Al Manar could be considered material aid.
But I wouldn’t worry about it getting that far.
Papa Ray
August 25th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Running such a station takes money. The prosecutors surely followed the money trail before acting.
In the US, freedom of speech has certain limits. There is 1) the “bad tendency” test, which applies to speech that has a tendency to corrupt society, or cause people to engage in illegal acts, and 2) the “clear and present danger” test, speech leading to, for example, a riot, the destruction of property, or the corruption of an election. The usual example of #2 is yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater.
I think both apply here. Hezbollah is designated a terrorist organization. In the US, the airwaves are considered a public resource. I expect the prosecutors examined their position rather closely.
August 26th, 2006 at 12:06 am
This is how the goverment can claim to be winning the war on terror, by going after the people who in the chain of terrorism mean little or nothing.
The US is as much a police state as Egpyt. It’s just better at maintaining the pretense of being a free society.
August 26th, 2006 at 1:33 am
So what if Hezbollah owns the TV Station? What makes it any more biased int he coverage of the war than Israeliy television? Both sides have an agenda. Why ban one and not the other? Why ban Al Manar and not Al arabiya?
August 26th, 2006 at 5:36 am
Hezbollah TV should not be allowed in the US or any other free country. It incites the enemy within. They have enough incitement from their mosques and the internet already. A public safety issue which should also apply to all Arab sponsored TV channels, especially Al Jazeera, IMHO.
August 26th, 2006 at 7:21 am
FREE SPEECH is an American ideal, however Nazi’s tend to get locked up in this country. Another Nazi to go co-mingle with the Aryan asses in prison. Should be a love fest 2night.
hahaahhaahahaahaaahaahaaha!!!
August 26th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Free Speech isn’t an American ideal.
August 26th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Faisal and Jeffrey Smith,
Surely you know that you are not allowed to question the right to Free Speech in the USA. We’ll be by shortly to pick you up.
August 26th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Jeff,
Do you really believe your own rhetoric? I mean, honestly?
August 26th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
MEB, did you ever read or watch any Israeli news? Please do before you compare it to Al-Manar. Constant attempts at moral equivalence point to a broken moral compass.
About Al-Jazeera and their ilk: they are not banned for the same reason Saudi Arabia is an on-the-paper ally of the USA; same reason CAIR and other terrorist front organizations are left unchecked and undisturbed. I guess Hizballah and Iran just don’t have enough pull in the USA yet.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:49 am
Yep, get rid of Al Manar and leave Fox running, now there’s a great leap forward for the right of the public to be informed. Good thing that the Saud family are such great supporters of the U.S. ( don’t mention the Wahabists it might upset someone ). Get rid of Ben Franklin’s picture on the currency and repace it with Janus, much more appropriate.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Just an aside; the IBA channel (Israeli) is quite prejudiced in its treatment of the news. Al Jazeera is actually quite tame compared to the Tehran channel. The Lebanese stations have become radicalized since the incursion, in comparison to before the incursion. It seems the Qatar station is also more radicalised as Qatar bids to supplant Saudi Arabia as the major Arab force in the area.
If Hizbullah TV is banned, why can Tehran TV still be broadcast in the US?
January 7th, 2007 at 8:31 am
The First Amendmen to the US Constitution protects speech that you do not like. What would be the use of having an amendment that protected speech like… “Gee, Melissa sure is purdy” or, “Christina is a good cook” don’t need protection. By the way, no one here or in this corrupt regime, seems to have a problem with the control that AIPC and the Zionists have over this government and our propagandistic media. We are constantly fed lies about Hizbullah. I am so proud of the way that these men repulsed an unprovoked attack on their positions. The Mossad killed Primeminister Rafik Hariri, with the assistance of the US and blamed it upon Syria, in order to get the Syrians to withdraw from Lebanon and leave them undefended so that Israel could attack the weakened country. Well, surprise, surprise, Hizbullah was up to the task. They defended Lebanon, while the newly installed US-Zionist puppet president, cowered in Beruit. God Bless Hizbullah… so said all the Christians in Lebanon and Syria…. We should not believe all the propaganda that the Zionists in the US and their bought of congress tell us. It is Israel and the US who are the terrorists. We are the only ones in the world who are too stupid to realize it. The world knows, that is why the US Zionist regime in D.C. came down hard on Al Manar. If Americans saw what was happening in Iraq and Gaza, they would not be so in love with the Zionists.