Man Arrested for Illegally Providing Hezbollah TV Station - ACLU Pissed

[JaJae]

New Yorker Arrested for Providing Hezbollah TV Channel

New Yorker Arrested for Providing Hezbollah TV Channel

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 25, 2006; A10

A New York man was arrested yesterday on charges that he conspired to support a terrorist group by providing U.S. residents with access to Hezbollah's satellite channel, al-Manar.

Javed Iqbal runs HDTV Corp., a Brooklyn-based company registered with the Federal Communications Commission that provides satellite television transmissions to cable operators, private companies, government organizations and individual customers.

According to an affidavit made public yesterday in U.S. District Court in New York, a paid FBI confidential informant told law enforcement officials in February that Iqbal's company was selling "satellite television service, including access to al-Manar broadcasts." The informant then had a recorded conversation during which Iqbal offered al-Manar broadcasts along with other Arab television stations.

The U.S. Treasury Department in March designated al-Manar a "global terrorist entity" and a media arm of the Hezbollah terrorist network. The designation froze al-Manar's assets in the United States and prohibited any transactions between Americans and al-Manar.

Iqbal's attorney, Mustapha Ndanusa, said yesterday that the accusations against his client are "completely ridiculous," according to the Associated Press. Ndanusa added that he is not aware of another instance in which someone was accused of violating U.S. laws by enabling access to a news outlet.

Donna Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union said she is "deeply troubled" that a television distributor is being prosecuted for the content of a broadcaster. Such a prosecution, she said, "raises serious First Amendment concerns." She said she thinks that the law under which Iqbal has been charged has a First Amendment exception for news communications.

Mark Dubowitz of the Coalition Against Terrorist Media (CATM), which is composed of Jewish, Christian, Muslim and secular organizations, said yesterday he is "saddened" that a U.S. resident was allegedly facilitating the transmission of al-Manar "but pleased that the U.S. is taking the necessary steps to ensure al-Manar's incitement to violence is stopped."

Al-Manar, he said, was placed on the terrorist list because it was used to incite violence, recruit people to a terrorist organization and raise funds for terrorist activities, including the provision of bank accounts where money should be sent.

On July 11, according to the affidavit, the FBI confidential informant arranged to have the satellite system installed in a New York City apartment that the bureau had wired for sound and video. Iqbal's technician installed the system, but the al-Manar channel came in scrambled.

The informant called twice in the ensuing week and during the second call Iqbal said he wanted to "check out the CI [confidential informant] to make sure the CI was not a spy," according to court documents.

In mid-August, the al-Manar channel at the apartment still was not fixed. When the informant called again on Aug. 17, Iqbal told him the Israeli bombing had disrupted al-Manar's transmissions. Iqbal also acknowledged that he was aware broadcasting of al-Manar was illegal in the United States, although he understood the government would make it legal again soon, according to the affidavit.

So basically the guy was knew he was doing wrong. He said he wouldn't unscramble the channel to this guy until he could prove he wasn't a "spy". Yet he did offer him the service and was providing it illegally for others.

From what I've read al-Manar is about as much a news organization as the bin Laden video tapes.

From wiki:

Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) broadcasts

(Click Link to View Video Clip [7])

* 5/15/2004 Nasrallah / Hezbollah Crowd: Death to America
CastUP: 074 Final-4

* 2/18/2005 Nasrallah Speech to tens of thousands: "Death to Israel... Death to America (Crowd) Death to America! Death to America! .... I must clarify that when I say 'America' I do not mean the American people, .... [t]his American administration is an enemy."
CastUP: 566 Nasrallah final-4

* 11/29/2005 Young Student on Hezbollah TV: - Just like Hitler fought the Jews – We are a great Islamic nation of Jihad, and we too should fight the Jews and burn them.
CastUP: 962 lebanese universiry youth final-4

* 2/23/2006 Nasrallah Speech Inciting crowd of thousands America America You are the Great Satan! Death to America!
CastUP: 962 lebanese universiry youth final-4

* 7/16/2006 Nasrallah: We are waging the battle of the Ummah, whether we like it or not, whether the Lebanese like it or not.
CastUP: 1194 nasrallah final-4

Contrary to what "certain posters" have stated in other threads, Hezbollah is very anti-US. They are also very dangerous. Banning the station doesn't seem like a bad thing to do as Americans funding them doesn't seem like a very bright idea.

The argument about banning a news station to me is mute, it's not a news station. It's a hate station that calls for the death and destruction of America and Americans should not be paying to support such a thing.

Whether that opinion is legal or not is not up for me to decide. There are first amendment rights, however, they don't apply to other nations. And this could hardly be considered "press". And even at that degree where do you draw the line at what is press and what isn't? If I call myself "press" do I have the right to do whatever I want? Does anyone know exactly how this all works?

My problem with this is not so much that the US banned the station. If the man wanted to bring the station back he should have done so the legal way and took it up with our court system and media. This man knowingly broke the law and should be charged to the fullest extent of it in my opinion.

However, the fact that this man is a criminal and should be charged isn't exactly the purpose of this thread, although I'm sure it'll come up. The big issue is should the US "censor" us from such opinions. Is it even censorship if it was broadcasted in a language very few Americans could even understand?

[6SpeedTA95]

Of course the ACLU is pissed, they've made a habbit of siding with terrorist sympathizers.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Of course the ACLU is pissed, they've made a habbit of siding with terrorist sympathizers.

I think you've called me one, what, 3 times now too?

The ACLU stands up for civil liberties of US citizens when it's most unpopular. Free speech is worth nothing if it's only protected when the message is widely accepted.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Contrary to what "certain posters" have stated in other threads, Hezbollah is very anti-US.

Uhhh.. who said Hezbollah was pro-US?

Just because there are differences between Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and I (and some others) have pointed it out doesn't mean we were saying they were pro-US or not dangerous.

And, no. I don't think we should be in the business of censoring stuff like this. I don't like the Government playing the role of a parent. If I don't want to watch something or am offended, I wont watch it. Watching a television station that carries propaganda (hi fox news) is hardly supporting an organization.. it's different than providing some support.

The problem with this (and probably why the ACLU is interested) is that stuff like this can lead to justification of other censorship of news that doesn't offer pro-US, or pro-Administration viewpoints. Granted, this is an extreme example, but again.. free speech is only worthwhile as a 'right' if it's protected when the message is disliked.

I know some people erroneously believe Al Jazeera is a terrorist organization too, however I see it as a tool to see how events are reported and thought of in the arab world.. why censor that?

[Thorgrim]

When are they going to start arresting people for broadcasting Jon Stewart?

motivez makes the big points nice

However, if the case ever goes before the SC, he'll go away free, the court gives ENORMOUS leeway to political speech, and no one can doubt that the television station is sponsored by the Hezbollah political party

So, I side with the ACLU, but I'm not too concerned because it'll never stand

[Donkey®]

Yet the Jews can be on my CNN begging for donations for the 10 people left homeless from the "war?"

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

I think you've called me one, what, 3 times now too?

The ACLU stands up for civil liberties of US citizens when it's most unpopular. Free speech is worth nothing if it's only protected when the message is widely accepted.



Uhhh.. who said Hezbollah was pro-US?

Just because there are differences between Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and I (and some others) have pointed it out doesn't mean we were saying they were pro-US or not dangerous.

And, no. I don't think we should be in the business of censoring stuff like this. I don't like the Government playing the role of a parent. If I don't want to watch something or am offended, I wont watch it. Watching a television station that carries propaganda (hi fox news) is hardly supporting an organization.. it's different than providing some support.

The problem with this (and probably why the ACLU is interested) is that stuff like this can lead to justification of other censorship of news that doesn't offer pro-US, or pro-Administration viewpoints. Granted, this is an extreme example, but again.. free speech is only worthwhile as a 'right' if it's protected when the message is disliked.

I know some people erroneously believe Al Jazeera is a terrorist organization too, however I see it as a tool to see how events are reported and thought of in the arab world.. why censor that?

Big fat

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Yet the Jews can be on my CNN begging for donations for the 10 people left homeless from the "war?"

I was just thinking of that...

Israelis begging for money so they can commit atrocities and try ethnic cleansing campaigns

[thomez]

I see no reason why there is such a fuss over people that want to view such things being able to pay for them and do so.

Not everyone wants Skinimax, some view it as vile and disgusting, so it's an option. I pay for it, I can watch. Pretty simple concept IMO and I see no reason why the "terrorist" designation by our government should impede such abilities, if we so choose alternative news sources.

The "funding terrorists" arguement holds some merit, until held up to the slightest bit of questioning. If this reason alone were to prevent and disallow money flows to those who may or are proven supporters of terrorist causes, we would not import a single barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia tomorrow. We all know how likely that is, so please spare us the bullshit excuses as you strip us of our liberty to make such decisions for ourselves.

[SoFlaJDM]

i think as an american, i can watch whatever the fuck TV channels i want... this is censorship and i for one appreciate the ACLU fighting for little things like this, even though i probably won't watch that channel ever, it's the principle of what's going on

[SoFlaJDM]

not surprising where certain people stand on this issue BTW

[beez]

Originally Posted by thomez

I see no reason why there is such a fuss over people that want to view such things being able to pay for them and do so.

Not everyone wants Skinimax, some view it as vile and disgusting, so it's an option. I pay for it, I can watch. Pretty simple concept IMO and I see no reason why the "terrorist" designation by our government should impede such abilities, if we so choose alternative news sources.

The "funding terrorists" arguement holds some merit, until held up to the slightest bit of questioning. If this reason alone were to prevent and disallow money flows to those who may or are proven supporters of terrorist causes, we would not import a single barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia tomorrow. We all know how likely that is, so please spare us the bullshit excuses as you strip us of our liberty to make such decisions for ourselves.

Fuck a nanny-state.

[6SpeedTA95]

Hezbollah doesn't originate in the US, its not a US media outlet so I dont really see how the first amendment applies.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

I I don't like the Government playing the role of a parent.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

IMO, it all comes down to whether the TV station furnishes bank accounts to facilitate terrorist activity. It didn't explain that bit much, but if it's true, it would go beyond just a TV station. As much as I'd like to call this a simple matter of free speech and censorship gone wild, it seems that serving as a banking center for terrorists goes beyond the first amendment.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Hezbollah doesn't originate in the US, its not a US media outlet so I dont really see how the first amendment applies.

Thank you Mr. Hamilton for warning us of this. Tis a shame we didn't listen.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Hezbollah doesn't originate in the US, its not a US media outlet so I dont really see how the first amendment applies.

So telling Americans they cant watch a tv show is not censorship in your world ?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

So telling Americans they cant watch a tv show is not censorship in your world ?

They're saying Americans can't fund what they consider to be a terrorist regime. That's not such a bad thing in my opinion. However, there is a fine line between censorship and banning funds from going to this regime.

Because it is considered a media outlet (by some), perhaps leaving it to the judicial branch is more appropriate than letting the treasury decide.

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I was just thinking of that...

Israelis begging for money so they can commit atrocities and try ethnic cleansing campaigns

Arab populations are 49 fold greater than Jewish populations. Arab populations are skyrocketing exponentially while Jewish populations are declining.

404 ethnic cleansing not found.