NY man charged for beaming Hezbollah TV

A New York City businessman is facing charges for making broadcasts from Hezbollah's al-Manar satellite TV station available to New Yorkers. [BBC]

The right wing tabloids have been all over this story. I'm surprised that the arrest of Javed Iqbal hasn't generated more attention from civil libertarians.

This case could set some very troubling precedents. So far, he has been charged with doing business with a terrorist entity, but there may be more serious charges to come:

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. [BBC]

We can't treat all dealings with Hezbollah as if they were the equivalent of dealings with an Al Qaeda cell. Like it or not, Hezbollah has an institutional and political presence in the region as well as a military force. Hezbollah runs hospitals, schools, and other social service agencies. Hezbollah members sit in the Lebanese legislature. The US government didn't sever diplomatic relations with Lebanon just because members of Hezbollah have seats in the Lebanese legislature. Why should we hold American businesspeople to a stricter standard?

Buying a meal in a mobbed up restaurant is not the same as doing business with the mob, even if you know the joint is mobbed up. Likewise, making a deal with Hezbollah's civilian television station is not the same as running guns to Hezbollah guerrillas.

I'm appalled that a US resident is facing jail time for providing access to a TV channel as part of a satellite package. His arrest is an affront to free speech.

Comments

[ballgame]

Glenn Greenwald just posted on a SF Chronicle story about two U.S. citizens being denied re-entry into the U.S. unless they submit to an FBI interrogation in Pakistan. (He also references the TV story you mention as well.)

[Sanpete]

This is tricky. I don't know what to think about treating the branches as all part of the tree. I suppose there's some logic to it.

I have questions about the whole idea of prohibiting Americans from giving material aid to terrorist organizations. I see the logic to that too, but the idea that we should oppose a group simply because of its terrorist tactics doesn't fly with me. The underlying moral distinctions, as seen in the US, at least, just don't stand up to scrutiny. The fact that they fight against an ally or have killed Americans might be more logical grounds (I emphasize might), but that isn't the basis for the current restrictions.

In any case, I'd at least like to see some kind of exception made to current law that would treat broadcasts affiliated with terrorist groups the same way other potentially harmful content is treated. If it isn't calling for specific illegal acts (or whatever the standard is), make it legal for them broadcast.

[paperwight]

In any case, I'd at least like to see some kind of exception made to current law that would treat broadcasts affiliated with terrorist groups the same way other potentially harmful content is treated. If it isn't calling for specific illegal acts (or whatever the standard is), make it legal for them broadcast.

That exemption already exists: we call it the First Amendment.

The NYCLU reports that the statute under which the gentleman has been charged actually recognizes that most basic of our laws with a specific exemption for speech.

[Fred]

I have been surprised that this story seems to have been buried and it's especially disturbing given our governments propensity to operating its own propaganda stations., not to mention producing propaganda pieces as news for public broadcast here in the good old USA.

[Sanpete]

From paperweight's link:

It appears that the statute under which Mr. Iqbal is being prosecuted includes a first amendment exemption that prevents the government from punishing people for importing news communications

This is a little vague. I can't tell if the provision just exempts acts protected by the First Amendment or whether it specifically exempts importing news. I suspect the former. As I understand it, the charges have to do not with the content of the broadcasts but with the fact that the arrangement involved doing business with Hezbollah. I doubt the free speech exception would be construed to cover that. I suppose a court could rule that this violates the First Amendment, but it's not obvious that it does. I think the most direct and reliable way to deal with the free speech concerns would be to change the law to specifically except this kind of thing, as long as the programs meet the usual standards for broadcast.

[beepbeepitsme]

I am compiling a blogroll of atheists and agnostics. Do you consider yourself to be in either of these categories? And if so, would you like to be added to the blogroll?

[Dabodius]

"Javed Iqbal, originally from Pakistan, is accused by prosecutors of doing business with a terrorist entity," reports the BBC.
Sanpete is right: this case concerns commerce, not speech. The business, not the broadcasts, is the crime here. Iqbal will have his day in court; if no money changed hands, he may have a better chance of acquital.

LB said:
"...Hezbollah has an institutional and political presence in the region as well as a military force. Hezbollah runs hospitals, schools, and other social service agencies. Hezbollah members sit in the Lebanese legislature."

But Hezbollah is still designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., among other reasons because it has killed more Americans than any other such organization except Al Qaeda. Their welfare operation and the votes they get are irrelevant to their status as a terrorist organization which bombed a JCC and Israeli embassy in Argentina, and was rocketing Israeli cities this very month.

LB said:
"The US government didn't sever diplomatic relations with Lebanon just because members of Hezbollah have seats in the Lebanese legislature."

Lebanon is a recognized member of the community of nations. Hezbollah's Iranian and Syrian sponsors may pretend recognition for it, as may its allies (Hamas etc.) in their fight to destroy Israel -- but that still leaves the rest of us with nothing to extend to them except best wishes for a speedy departure from the scene.

[The Phantom]

Sorry that this low-rent Lord Haw Haw was busted for doing a package that included Terror TV in a package with ESPN. A horrifying infringement on free speech, am sure that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the lads are rolling in their graves knowing that the people who blew up the Marine Barracks in 1983 are being kept off widescreen TVs in Staten Island.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Would you want to lock up every newsstand owner who carried a Sinn Fein newspaper? Would you want to imprison every doctor who collaborated with colleagues at a Hezbollah-run hospital or every scholar who conferred with a colleague at a Hezbollah-run college?

Give me a break. The fact is, Hezbollah runs real civilian organizations, just as the mafia runs legitimate businesses. Their presence in the legitimate sphere in no way legitimizes these organizations, nor does it mitigate their crimes.

There is no evidence, as far as I know, that Mr. Iqbal has done anything besides include a Hezbollah-run channel on one of his satellite programming packages. We don't even know whether he made a contract directly with the Hezbollah TV station. I'm guessing he didn't. I'll bet he made a deal with some middleman, or series of middlemen.

Besides which, in all likelihood, he's being punished for supplying Hezbollah propaganda to America, not for "doing business" with Hezbollah or any representative of Hezbollah. That is a veiled affront to free speech. It's ridiculous to send somebody to jail for giving money to someone who deals with someone who deals with a civilian company owned by Hezbollah.

Even if you think that we should have an absolute prohibition on international transactions with any organization connected with Hezbollah, it's absurd to argue that Mr. Iqbal should be facing jail time. The fact that the public prosecutor is threatening to charge him for materially aiding terrorists disgusts me.

[Alon Levy]

I wonder whether anyone here supports applying the same rules to corporations that display recklessness or criminal negligence. Maybe India should spearhead an effort to isolate Coke and declare anyone who deals with in the most trivial way a criminal.

[cfrost]

“Sorry that this low-rent Lord Haw Haw was busted for doing a package . . . etc.”

Citizens of the U.K. were permitted to listen to Lord Haw Haw any time they wanted too. U.S. personnel in the Pacific theatre could listen to Tokyo Rose if they felt like it. No one tried to jam their broadcasts as the Voice of America was by the Soviets or Radio Marti is by the Cubans. None of Lord Haw Haw’s intended audience had to worry that the neighbors might hear them listening, or that they had forgotten to turn the tuning dial back to an officially sanctioned station when they finished listening. No one listening to Lord Haw Haw had to worry that they would be sent to “Nacht und Nebel” oblivion. See the difference?

I don’t care how many Americans Hezbollah has killed, I don’t want anyone telling me what I can and cannot hear, watch, or read; least, and last of all the Bushistas whose fascist arrogance is becoming more insufferable by the hour. In fact, the more dangerous Hezbollah becomes, the more important it is that we know exactly what they’re saying.

This is all of a piece with trying to sabotage public broadcasting, the Janet Jackson tit hysteria, media deregulation, Condi’s Bin Laden secret message nonsense, the Roger Ailes – Fox News – Limbaugh echo chamber, etc., etc. ad nauseum. The Republican spin grifters would prefer North Korean style loudspeakers on every corner, blaring the Dear Decider’s latest flatulence, but the first amendment suggests we don’t have to play along.

Javed Iqbal is accused of buying propaganda, not running guns, or plastic explosives, not selling spy lists or rocket blueprints, but buying propaganda. Propaganda, that's all. Propaganda I’ve got a right to see.

[The Phantom]

Sinn Fein did not kill 241 marines and other military by blowing up their barracks. Showing Terror TV in these times is tantamount to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Hezbollah does lots of swell things. Hitler built swell autobahns. Does not not and did not change the fundamental evil of the respective organizations. There's not a lot to discuss here. Hezbollah is terrorist.

In Ireland and in the UK, it --was-- illegal to show Gerry Adams image on TV for to hear his voice on TV or radio for many years.

Lord Haw Haw was hanged for treason on January 3, 1946. And rightly so.

[Alon Levy]

Sinn Fein did not kill 241 marines and other military by blowing up their barracks. Showing Terror TV in these times is tantamount to shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Sinn Fein's military wing killed plenty of British civilians. The only difference between Sinn Fein and Hezbollah is that Sinn Fein had the good sense to separate the name of the party from the name of the terrorist organization.

If you ask me, talking about ordinary crime cases rather than environmental problems and corporate crime, which kill far more people, is similarly tantamount to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Neither I nor for that matter Barry Glasner supports jailing reporters for talking about crime.

[The Phantom]

Mentioning Sinn Fein is a bit of mischief, but an unsuccessful one.

Sinn Fein/IRA --there's a distinction, as there is between the Hezbollah Jew-killers and the Hezbollah Mother Teresa humanitarians--but any serious observer will agree that its a distinction without a difference.

We speak of the US here. Hezbollah if I am correct is illegal here. Sinn Fein was never illegal in this country. Hezbollah has the blood of 241 Americans on their hands. The IRA never touched any American.

Their beef was with the British, who didn't pull too many punches with them.

Hezbollah is a member of the Islamofascist terror network that constitutes the greatest threat to the US and world civilization. The IRA, bad as it was and bad as it is, has ceased the "armed struggle" , which is recognized by both the US and British governments.

The comparison makes little sense to me.

[Steve LaBonne]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (attributed to Benjamin Franklin)

[Alon Levy]

And Hezbollah's beef is with the Israelis. Killing American troops in a warzone doesn't make you a terrorist.

[The Phantom]

--"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --

Oh, horse manure. I am sure that the colonists had lots of redcoat propaganda all over their media.

--Killing American troops in a warzone doesn't make you a terrorist.--

Probably nothing they would do would make you think that they were terrorist. Hamas thinks all Israelis are combatants in a war zone, including schoolchildren. So I guess they're not terrorists either.

[The Phantom]

If this individual sent so much as one cent to Hezbollah, then he has no case.

[Alon Levy]

Probably nothing they would do would make you think that they were terrorist. Hamas thinks all Israelis are combatants in a war zone, including schoolchildren. So I guess they're not terrorists either.

Obviously, the Beirut bombing killed 200-odd American schoolchildren, so the comparison is very apt.

[Count Zero]

"Probably nothing they would do would make you think that they were terrorist."

Depends on if that country is in the middle of an armed conflict or not - which they are. However right or wrong the action, Palestine and now Lebanon are occupied by foreign nations. If organized groups attack those occupiers, then they aren't terrorists. It's a messy situation with no neat labels - however terrorist isn't one of them. Timmothy McVee was a terrorist...his argument was a political one, not of occupation by a foreign army. Al Queda's are terrorists, since we ddid not (till after 9/11) occupy any country associated with that organization. However, I do believe Hezbollah and Hamas are something quite different.

"Hamas thinks all Israelis are combatants in a war zone, including schoolchildren. So I guess they're not terrorists either."

Does killing children qualify them as being terrorists? If so then I suppose Israel more than qualifies, using your argument.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/30/mideast.main/index.html

[The Phantom]

Alon, Count Zero

Ah, I've touched a nerve I see. Lo siento for that.

Please send me a few of your links to episodes where the IDF drove car bombs into Palestinian buses. I can surely send you those where Hamas and the boys have done so to the Jewish children in Israel.

You know, or should, that the Israelis do not target children. The Arabs do. If that basic fact is not understood, then I suppose that there is not much use discussing.

There are links on LGF and other ( to you, "fascist") sites that show Hezbollah manipulating the dead bodies of their OWN children to make more dramatic propaganda fauxtography. Links sent upon request.

When Hezbollah shot missiles into Israel, my records show that Lebanon was not occupied by Israel. So that bit of adventurism would be terrorism n'est-ce pas?

But anyway if this Staten Island rat has send any money to Hezbollah for its Terror TV feed, then may they throw him in jail and toss away the key.

[Alon Levy]

You know, or should, that the Israelis do not target children.

No, they just lay mines in front of a school so that children step on them and blow up.

[cfrost]

"There are links on LGF and other ( to you, "fascist") sites that show Hezbollah manipulating the dead bodies of their OWN children to make more dramatic propaganda fauxtography."
Yeah, so? I've got a right to see the propaganda as well as the process of manipulation. Or can this information only be trusted with the folks at Little Green Footballs who have the politically correct right perspective?

[Count Zero]

"Ah, I've touched a nerve I see. Lo siento for that."

Not really - just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

"Please send me a few of your links to episodes where the IDF drove car bombs into Palestinian buses. I can surely send you those where Hamas and the boys have done so to the Jewish children in Israel."

Of course they do, however, it's been said before, everyone is a casualty of war, women and children are no exception, and that's precisely what it is. Israel and it's opposition have two different objective priorities, neither of which is what I would consider humane.

One side targets the "enemy", where civilian casualties are an "opps, sorry" result, however, no different than that of the Palestines go for their balls approach (attacking school buses). They both net the same result. The intention of either side is moot.

"You know, or should, that the Israelis do not target children. The Arabs do. If that basic fact is not understood, then I suppose that there is not much use discussing."

I don't believe that for a second, and you know, or should know that if you do, it's naive. But you're right that there isn't much of a point in discussing this since it will probably result in neither of us agreeing with each other.

"There are links on LGF and other ( to you, "fascist") sites that show Hezbollah manipulating the dead bodies of their OWN children to make more dramatic propaganda fauxtography. Links sent upon request."

I really could care less if dead people look more dramatic....dead is dead. The numbers and actions speak for themselves.

On the wonderfull world of propaganda ala Herman Hesse. Something the Israelies "never" would think of, correct? Another silly notion of yours which of course Israel does as well, though I doubt anyone bothers to even acknowledge.

"When Hezbollah shot missiles into Israel, my records show that Lebanon was not occupied by Israel. So that bit of adventurism would be terrorism n'est-ce pas?"

At what point are you referencing? The point when they were bombing airports and cities, or carpet bombing roads full of fleeing civilians who are cutoff due to the choke points created by destroyed bridges? Neither side warrants any sympathy in their conflict.

"But anyway if this Staten Island rat has send any money to Hezbollah for its Terror TV feed, then may they throw him in jail and toss away the key."

I love how you're rhetoric is full of Rush Limbaugh styled buzz words like "Terror TV", quite kitchy. They'll have to prove he was knowingly dealing with a terrorist organization first, which may be more difficult than it appears. Including a cable channel is a far cry from terrorism than blowing up buildings, and if that is how desperate they are to produce results, then we are in real trouble, in more ways than one.

[The Phantom]

--No, they just lay mines in front of a school so that children step on them and blow up.--

A red schoolhouse on the Palestinian prairie all by itself? Or something else? Whats your proof? Terror TV?