'Lyrical terrorist' sentenced over extremist poetry

A 23-year-old former Heathrow shop assistant who called herself the "lyrical terrorist" and scrawled her extremist thoughts on till receipts has been handed a nine-month suspended jail sentence.
Samina Malik became the first woman convicted under new terrorism legislation after writing poems entitled How To Behead and The Living Martyrs.

Malik, described as an "unlikely but committed" Islamic extremist, was last month convicted by an jury at the Old Bailey of a charge under the 2000 Terrorism Act.

She worked at WH Smith at Heathrow, where she scribbled her extremist lyrics on till receipts. On one she wrote: "The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom."

But Malik told the jury she only adopted her "lyrical terrorist" nickname because she thought it was "cool" and insisted: "I am not a terrorist."

Malik had tears in her eyes as she left the dock, while her mother wept during the court hearing. The judge said Malik's crime was on the "margins" of the offence of which she was found guilty. He said Malik was of "good character" and from a "supportive and law-abiding family who are appalled by the trouble that you are in".

"The Terrorism Act and the restrictions it imposes on the personal freedom exist to protect this country, its interests here and abroad, its citizens, and those who visit here. Its protection embraces us all. Its restrictions apply to us all, whatever our personal religious or political beliefs."

He told Malik that if she had been convicted of the more serious charge of possessing an article for terrorist purposes - of which the jury cleared her - she would have faced a jail term. But he said, while a custodial sentence was merited, she had already faced "extremely rigorous" bail conditions which were "tantamount to house arrest".

The court heard that she also spent five months in custody after being arrested in October last year. Malik's sentence was suspended for 18 months, with the condition that she be supervised for the whole period and undertake unpaid work.

Outside court Malik's solicitor Iqbal Ahmed read out a statement on her behalf. He said: "The trial process has been a terrible ordeal for her and she is now relieved that it is all over. The jury found that she did not have the material for terrorist purposes which was an important part of her case. She now wants to get on with her life."

Last month, Malik was found guilty of possessing records likely to be useful in terrorism by a majority of 10 to one. She cried as the verdict was read. Two female jurors were also in tears. The court heard that Malik stocked a "library" of material useful to terrorists at her family home in Southall, west London.

The court was told Malik was 20 years old when she "first started to consider Islam" and was "like most teenagers, somewhat rebellious". Malik had been interested in poetry, and had written love poems, followed by rap poems and later by "what can only be described as the distasteful poetry which has been mentioned in this trial".

John Burton, defending, said: "She became hooked on Abu Hamza-type addresses and that affected her mindset." The jury was told that she joined an extremist organisation called Jihad Way, set up explicitly to spread terrorist propaganda and support for al Qaida.

Jonathan Sharp, prosecuting, told the court she visited a website linked to the jailed cleric Abu Hamza and stored material about weapons. The court also heard Malik belonged to a social networking website called hi5, describing her interests as "helping the mujaheddin in any way which I can".

Under favourite TV shows, she listed: "Watching videos by my Muslim brothers in Iraq, yep the beheading ones, watching video messages by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri and other videos which show massacres of the kaffirs." removed

After her conviction, Judge Peter Beaumont, the recorder of London, told her: "You have been, in many respects, a complete enigma to me."

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the decision by the judge to suspend the sentence. Inayat Bunglawala said: "It always seemed a rather bizarre decision to prosecute Samina when she is clearly not an actual terror plotter.

"Samina Malik was being prosecuted in effect for a thought crime because she had downloaded some material from the internet which anyone could download."
Mr Bunglawala said the case demonstrated how ill-conceived and "incredibly broad-ranging" the law is under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act. "Teenagers download some quite nihilistic material every day and they are not prosecuted," he said.

"The fact that this case went to court sends a very worrying signal that if you are Muslim and you are downloading from the Internet you may be judged to a quite different standard from others. Fortunately the judge has been sensible about this. The wider Muslim community must be relieved that she hasn't got a custodial sentence."

In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said: "Samina Malik was not prosecuted for writing poetry. Ms Malik was convicted of collecting information, without reasonable excuse, of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

Boo hoo. 99.99% of Hollywood output is dreck (or if you prefer the Marshall McLuhan term: SCHLOCK).

Isn't it amazing that these hucksters pull off having a "union" when there are literally thousands of unpaid writers (and actors) willing to take their place overnight, working for probably half as much money?

Bless youtube and cheap media equipment. Hollywood has maybe 30 years of dominance left, if that.

TV writers? Boo fking hoo. Try digging a ditch or carrying a rifle.

Wow. Again with the long post. Because you quote me and end up calling me a troll, I’ll take the time and effort to go through each of your points. I realize that by now, no one but you and I are reading this so I’ll speak directly to you rather than attempting to make my comments applicable to others.
“What do feelings have to do with anything here? You're being patronizing. That's rude. And I don't see where you've asked me a question, by the way.”
Patronizing, maybe. I am attempting to show you that I do read and listen to the material pertinent to this discussion. I am not “speaking out of my rear” so to speak. I am informed and was letting you know that. My suggestion that it may or may not make you feel better is my attempt to signify that you may be glad to discuss this with someone who is reasonably well read or you may be upset because you were trying to teach me something by pointing out something of which I might not be aware. As to the question, glance up a ways and you will see this: “A strong stock market, driven by a steady influx of capital from "the rich" directly improves the lives of those totally dependant upon their pensions. Is that good? Or bad?” Personally, I think that this is a good thing.

“First off, you're attributing words to me I haven't said or implied with your "evil rich" quip.”

Granted. I apologize for lumping you in with those people who think that people with massive amounts of wealth are evil. All I have as a defense is the tone I have derived from your posts leading back to the original quip about taxing billionaires fairly.


“Secondly, your insinution that people of every level of wealth break tax laws and that it then follows that "the system is thoroughly and completely broken" is not supported anywhere in either article. But you imply as much, and then you go on to marshall this false premise to support your opinion. This is a form of dishonesty.”

So now I am dishonest? Interesting. I don’t see anywhere that I suggested that either article discussed people of every income level breaking tax laws. What I said was “That so many people (not just the evil rich) get away with cheating the tax system is a sign that the system is thoroughly and completely broken.” Please try to take this in the way that I mean it. I realize that you are not a US citizen and in my mind your attempt to label me as dishonest means that you are not aware of some commonly known facts about taxes in the US. I will simply say that there is a vast array of methods used by everyone including the rich to avoid paying taxes on income. It may be a waiter under-reporting his tips, a construction worker paying their nanny/gardener in cash, or a small business owner hiding income within their business expenses. This is not an exhaustive list, but all of these share a common thread: they require conscious thought and are a direct attempt to cheat on taxes. This is all illegal and yet it is done every year by people from the highest to lowest income brackets. I’m a firm believer in the rule of law and even though it is a tax code I do not agree with, it is the law and everyone should be made to follow it. Not just the rich. Everyone. This doesn’t even include the people who unintentionally cheat on their taxes because the tax code is ridiculously complex and nearly impossible to understand. Here (http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/09/04/NewsInBrief/Irs-Help.Centers.Gave.Incorrect.Information-457639.shtml) is an AP story that shows that 43% of the time the actual IRS help desk gave incorrect or no answer to tax questions. The actual people paid to help you do the right thing on your tax forms told you the wrong information or gave you no help 43 freaking percent of the time. That is truly insane. That is yet another sign that the US tax system is well and truly broken. To put it into numbers, the IRS estimated in 2001 that 15% ($353 billion) of taxes went unpaid (http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/307/essentials/p42.htm). It’s certainly not all because of intent to defraud the government, but that represents a sizeable chunk. In summary, my premise is not false. You read it as false because you inferred that I was only discussing the material in the two articles given. I was not. Facts support my opinion in this particular point. My premise was that everyone cheats. Facts show that rich people cheat, middle class people cheat, and poor people cheat. My opinion was that everyone who cheats should be punished.


“I take that as a compliment. But I'd not limit my efforts to the middle class of course; the marginalized and disenfranchised poor are at least as deserving of fairness as are the middle-class.”

It wasn’t really meant as a complement nor was it meant as an insult. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that you would try and help the people as you thought best rather than helping yourself. I don’t know you, so I can’t judge your character. I was just listing my assumption before moving on to my next argument.



“The word "labour" is meaningless when we are talking about the uber-rich; the only fruits in question here are derived by the labour of others--for productive property accrues value on its own while owners sit idle or lobby their friends in government to manipulate legislation in their favour ie., for more welfare-for-the-wealthy.”

Here is where we dramatically different in outlook. I am not going to try and change your opinion, it would take quite a bit more than this forum to change either of our opinions I believe. But in any case, I am going to state mine more in detail and hopefully you will see some of the basis of my views. You state “uber-rich” like they appeared out of thin air as if through a miracle. I contend that this is not the case. As I see it, rich people in general (uber and non-uber alike) come from one of three places:

1) Inherited wealth. Inherited wealth exists and in some cases has been passed down for centuries. Inherited wealth did not appear from nothing however. At some point in time, someone earned that wealth and it has been passed down. That wealth is “earned” though the person holding it now is not the one who earned it. Income derived from this wealth is also earned in that the wealth itself must be risked in some fashion in order to generate income or the principal itself must be sold in order to realize a gain.

2) Earned wealth. Earned wealth is the most common form of wealth (at least in the US, read Tom Stanley’s the Millionaire Next Door). Earned wealth comes directly from the fruit of one’s labor. It may be an assembly line worker who has earned a good wage and invested wisely, a plumber who has worked hard and grown a business, or any of the five richest men in the world who all earned the greatest portion of their money within their own lifetime.

3) Obtained wealth. Generally, thieves. I lump in everyone from Bonny and Clyde to Ferdinand Marcos in this category. These people take the wealth of others through force, intimidation, trickery, etc. I have already stated my position on the law (see above).

You appear to believe that people become obscenely wealthy (and I use that merely as an adjective, not as a statement on their character) through idleness and massaging the system in their favor. That may be the case in some instances, but for the most part wealth comes from a good business plan and hard work. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are great examples of this. Yes they both started from somewhat privileged backgrounds, but their real wealth came from their hard work. They may not have built buildings or dug holes, but both of them are known for their incredible work ethics. They earned their money fairly and no one has the right to take it away just because they are wealthy. Just because there are fewer rich people than poor people doesn’t enter into it.


“And you know quite well that your consumption tax scheme is regressive and unjust.”

You claim to know what I know do you? Interesting. Somehow I doubt it. In this case, you are quite wrong. First, I don’t claim any credit for the concept of a consumptive tax. Let me quote Alexander Hamilton. “It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.” He concisely stated what is self evident truth, i.e. that consumptive taxes are self limiting in that too much consumption tax reduces revenue by reducing consumption itself. But that doesn’t address your point. You suggest that “my” consumptive tax scheme is unjust and go on to list why it is without any benefit being given to “me” for forethought on the topic. You make assumptions, assign them to me, and then argue against them. Just for thought, I’ll list two possible scenarios which are neither regressive nor unjust. In scenario 1, consumptive taxes are placed on all goods except utilities, food, daycare, and healthcare. Thus, if you are at or below the poverty level and spending all of your money on just getting by you pay no taxes whatsoever. The more wealth you have, the more money you spend on things other than these items and the more tax you pay thus placing a “progressive” tax burden upon the wealthy. You can argue whether housing should be included in the exemption, but that is another discussion. Scenario 2 is a plan already in place and proposed before both the US Senate and House of Representatives. It’s the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org). In essence, it is also a sales tax except instead of making exemptions for certain goods it has no exemptions at all and instead gives taxpayers a “prebate” each month that makes up for taxes which would be paid on basic services. The authors make a good case why this should be so and illustrate how it means the middle and lower tax brackets either pay the same or pay even less tax while they do now but I don’t know that I am convinced that the bureaucracy created would be able process these prebates in a timely manner. Both of these cases use a national sales tax to totally replace corporate, income, capital gains, payroll, and estate taxes. In the case of the Fair Tax, extensive research has been done already to determine the effects of this on the economy as well as on taxpayers in different income brackets. For the Fair Tax at least, studies show an across the board reduction in overall effective tax rate with the greatest reduction (1.5% effective lifetime tax rate) for those in the low-income brackets and the least reduction (20.5% effective lifetime tax rate) in the highest brackets. So, in effect, everyone pays less taxes and yet the program is revenue neutral. And because of the prebate (or in scenario 1, the exemptions), it ends up retaining the “progressive” nature of the current income tax system.


“In other words "it is so because you say it is so--for no other reason but this." Except I don't buy it.”

Whatever. Let me reword it and see if you can buy it this way. If I attempt to force you to accept my views because I think they are right, it doesn’t change the fact that I am trying to force you to accept my viewpoint.


“You're transparent and you're predictable. Please put some effort into being interesting.”

I don’t believe that you mean any of it this way, but I take this as a complement even with you sticking smilies at the end of your sentences. I aim to be transparent and I have made no attempt to disguise my true opinions. And I’m glad you think that I am predictable because it means to me that I am being consistent. I shrug off the fact that you think you can “predict” me and yet you were 180 degrees wrong about what I “know” as discussed above.


“You weren't really. You just been trolling here.”

And finally, you resort to calling me a troll. It’s funny because I have made no aspersions as to your character and have in fact accepted your statements as true previously in this exchange. Since you can “predict” me, I don’t need to explain, but just in case anyone else reads this far let me explain to them. My original motivation behind posting this video and soliciting comments was simple. I accept that because of the way the US is heading, we are likely to institute some form of universal health care in the next ten years or so. Given that is true, I was looking for comments on how to ensure that a situation like that described in the video is prevented and discussion on how the US should construct a health care system. In support of this, I stated in the summary of this video the following statement “The dialogue is heavily slanted and there is a clear agenda to the message, but the underlying points are valid and worthy of discussion. If the US is truly going to attempt universal healthcare, how can we design a system so that something like this doesn't happen in the US?” At the very heart of the matter to me is the concern that American citizens won’t have access to the best possible care here in the US. In my mind, sending our citizens to some other country for health care that they can’t get here (or at least in a timely enough fashion such that they don’t die while waiting) is not an acceptable solution. The first few exchanges between us addressed the fact that money was the issue, not some other fundamental flaw in the CHA and this was directly related to the discussion at hand. The conversation took a downward turn around the time we started discussing the “fairness” of tax law.

Brett Darrow videoA motorist who refused to discuss his personal business with a St. George, Missouri police officer was threatened with arrest last Friday. Brett Darrow, 20, no stranger to unconventional encounters with police, caught a St. George Police Sergeant James Kuehnlein stating that he had the power to invent charges that would put Darrow behind bars. Update: Sergeant Kuehnlein was placed on unpaid leave Monday pending an investigation.

"Try and talk back... to me again," yelled Sergeant Kuehnlein. "I bet I could say you resisted arrest or something. You want to come up with something? I come up with nine things."

The incident began at around 2am. Darrow was to meet a friend who was working late and was going to pick him up. Darrow headed toward a 24-hour commuter parking lot in an unincorporated part of Saint Louis County in his 1997 Nissan Maxima. He put on his turn signal and entered the lot which, aside from Kuehnlein's cruiser, was essentially vacant. After stopping the car, the police officer approached and began questioning Darrow about what he was doing. When Darrow declined to discuss his personal business, the police sergeant exploded. Although the video clearly shows Darrow driving properly and using his turn signal, the police officer insisted that Darrow had broken the law.

"Oh, while you were coming towards me you were swerving back and forth within the roadway," Sergeant Kuehnlein said. "I might give you a ticket for that. You want me to come up with some more? When you turned in, you failed to use your turn signal, your right turn signal."

Without the video, Darrow tells TheNewspaper that he would have stood no chance disproving the officer's word in court. Twenty-eight percent of the St. George municipal budget comes from traffic citations. Darrow wonders how many of the tickets were legitimate.

"Looking into this guys eyes, he was crazy," Darrow said. "I was really scared he was going to assault me. I just wonder how many other people have been arrested on these charges."

After ordering Darrow against the car and searching him, Sergeant Kuehnlein released the motorist.

@tjs989 notes: "Think about it, when someone needs cancer treatment, or heart surgery where do they go? To the United States because we have some of the most advanced equipment and best doctors."

OK, I thought about it. Maybe I am the first of the two of us to do so.

Your point is that Americans are better off because prohibitively expensive health care keeps less privileged citizens out of the queue, thereby making more room for rich foreigners to purchase time from American doctors. Your global altruism is commendable, but why do you value the interests of rich foreigners above those of your fellow citizens, and quite possibly yourself?

I live in Europe and know of zero examples of people traveling to the US for any type of medical treatment. Many do travel within the EU (often to Germany) when equipment, expertise or capacity is not available locally, with costs funded by their domestic national health. Of course, I might not have researched this as much as you have, but I suspect I have researched it exactly as much (not at all).

Chilaxe notes, sarcastically I assume, "I'd rather ... wait on line a year for an appointment with a doctor!" I am unaware of anybody waiting "a year" for a doctor's appointment, but I do know that I could have a doctor here, at my house, today (it's Sunday), in half an hour, for free. Or go to the emergency room at any time. For free. My regular doctors keeps office hours, but I am sure I could be in to see him some time tomorrow if I needed to. For free.

Don't get me wrong, there are many problems and shortcomings to our health care system here. For example, there _are_ waiting lists for advanced procedures, especially for non life-threatening (yet possibly still quite unpleasant)conditions, and preventative care often gets deprioritized in the face of so many actual fires to put out. People who are especially worried about this can and do buy private health insurance which builds on top of the public one (this should give relief to anybody worried that rich people might not be able to buy extra privileges for themselves just because public health insurance exists). And I say "for free", but of course I actually pay for it through taxes forwarded to the national health insurance scheme. It must be possible to draw a line across the income scale somewhere in which the average persons earning over this line would get cheaper or better health care via private insurance or even per-visit payments, while all below would get it cheaper via taxes because their tax contributions are lower than their actual medical costs. I suppose you could find your score on this scale and decide your position on this issue based solely on whether you are above or below this line, provided you have no social consciousness at all. But this same game lies behind all insurance schemes and also depends on how sick you are. At least in a public system, you will not be denied treatment due to "preexisting conditions".

People love to point out that public services are generally less efficient than private enterprise, but the US system also suffers heavy bureaucratic overhead from insurance company marketing and their convoluted attempts to pay as few benefits as possible. According to Princeton economics processor Paul Krugman, this overhead in the American system is much larger than that experienced in most real-world public systems. See, for example, his editorial, Health Economics 101.

I've not seen Mr. Moore's film yet, though the clips reveal a huge "grass is always greener" problem in his argument--but, hey, it's Michael Moore. I do think, though, that Americans should take a more serious look at existing systems of health care throughout the world and consider how their own system could be better. It looks like this film attempts to do exactly that. American ought not allow a two-word argument ("Socialized Medicine") conjure up outdated images of 4-hour bread lines in Eastern Europe and stop them from considering a nationalized system for health care.

Americans like to talk a lot about freedom, so consider this. How free are you when your boss can hold not only your job and income over your head, but effectively the health and survival of some or all your entire family? Doesn't that make you a bit more willing to sacrifice some personal freedom and put in a little more extra, unpaid overtime?

<RantMode ="Off"> (sorry)

An unfortunate confrontation of two widely perpetuated stereotypes maybe?

I now have a strong dislike for everyone in this video. Except maybe the grammy. I mean, police officer loses control (choke-hold excessive), skater can't shoot for shit (take off the hell-spawned excessory that is the fish-eye!), and the rest of the kids are dumb as shit for trying to run away. Even the one kid who tries to make himself appear "in the right", by saying, 'I'm gonna stay here . . ." still moves away from the 'scene', prompting the officer to chase him down as well. Grammy had everything right. Regardless of how wrong it might seem, when a cop starts talking to you, YOU DON'T DO SHIT! Just stay there! If he did shit wrong, get a lawyer bring it up then, get the case thrown out and give the cop a little well deserved unpaid vacation.

i hate ads, but i also hate unpaid labour

@ looris - yes, a separate queue for paid-for content might not find that big an audience. Though if advertisers buy the lottery ticket idea, the audience only needs to be big enough to provide quality control in terms of which ads make it to the front page. What I like about the idea is this: if you don't like the ads that make the front page, you can either become a charter member or start quality controlling the ads yourself, but either way you're providing some value back to videosift. That's quite neat.

@ dag - will the algorithm be the same for paid-for videos as for unpaid? You might find you have to make it a little more lenient as I doubt the quality of paid submissions will be as high...