Is research a criminal offence?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32142038

A British law student, who was cleared of plotting an attack in the UK's first secret terror trial, has been jailed for 42 months for possessing a bomb-making manual.

Erol Incedal, 27, from London, was acquitted of planning a terror attack at the Old Bailey last week.

His friend, Rarmoul-Bouhadjar, who admitted having a manual identical to Incedal's, was given three years.

Most of the trial was behind closed doors and details cannot be reported.

While sentencing, the judge said the bomb-making guide included information for viable explosive devices, although it lacked detail.

Mr Justice Nicol said: "The potential for such bombs to cause death, injury and destruction are obvious."

Incedal has been in custody since he was stopped by police in October 2013. Rarmoul-Bouhadjar has also done about 18 months on remand, according to BBC home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani.

So, what's your opinion of this? Does this punishment seem fair? Or is it effectively making it a criminal offence for people to simply possess knowledge and carry out research- after all, they were acquitted of actually planning to carry out a terror attack. Doesn't this mean that a thriller author who possessed the same reading material could now also be jailed for the same reason?

It's unfair, but if the police have reasonable evidence to suggest you might carry out a terrorist attack then they can arrest you, and apparently owning a bomb making book is enough evidence

Knowledge should never be crime in any circumstances.

The man was wrongfully imprisoned.

That doesn't sound fair.

Why did he have bomb making manuals exactly?

Make it a crime to SELL the manual. Make it a crime to PRINT the manual. Make it a crime to WRITE the manual. If these three things are legal, then it is absolutely insane to criminalize the owning of the manual.

I personally think the knowledge of how to do stuff like make bombs should be destroyed utterly. All books and websites. I know I know "Censorship. Freedom of speech." But what constructive purpose does bomb making serve? None. No debate. If you give people instructions how to destroy things then you obviously want people to destroy things.

I think Captain America has some wisdom on this.

Knowledge is not harmful and therefore should not be criminal. Do we really want to become a society that punishes people for crimes we suspect they might have intentions of committing?

@edblank:

Well, tell that to people who destroy Hotel in Las Vegas each month... or to the people who try to disarm bomb BEFORE they explodes...

And I don't know youre position about guns, but if you push your argument logically, the NRA will not like it.

Who knows? I myself considered trying to acquire one in the past- not because I actually wanted to blow stuff up, but because I was in the middle of writing a counter-terrorist action thriller novel (long completed by now, but never published, due to fact that the publishing companies I approached with it were asking me to pay up front for the privilege of publication), and I wanted to make it as gritty and realistic as I possibly could. Now, I find out that if I had gone ahead and done so, I could have been facing a jail sentence of over three years for the 'crime'.

Let's cite another, analogous situation. Why exactly would people have a 'manual' which includes information for viable chemical weapons, even if the 'manual' lacks the detail which would be needed to actually produce practical devices without trial and error (such as a relatively advanced practical chemistry textbook, or a detailed history book about early chemical warfare)? The potential for such chemicals to cause death, injury and destruction are obvious; and as such, why shouldn't the owners of these textbooks similarly be handed prison sentences accordingly? If anything, the people with chemistry textbooks should get even longer sentences, by the judge's logic; after all, what's a mundane explosive compared to mustard gas canisters? One's a mere IED; the other's a veritable WMD! Quick, imprison all the chemistry students...

It's helpful if you want to know how to blow things up, and the vast majority of bombs are used for peaceful purposes.

Knowledge and ideas are not criminal. Bad actions are criminal. What is the difference between what you recommend and thought police?

crazy people

This is disgusting. Knowledge should never be considered a crime.

Owning the manual shouldn't really be a crime, but from your quote it sounds like he had been under suspicion before, perhaps this was simply the last straw?

One Piece tried to warn us about this type of thing lol

He was on a secret trial (the first ever secret terror trial held in the UK), accused of alleged terror-related offences by the authorities. He was cleared of actually plotting to carry out a terrorist attack- but he had the manual, so they decided to cite his possession of it as a 'terror-related crime' and gave him prison time for it. Because we have to show everyone that we're "tough on terrorism"...

My point though is that if it was a "secret" trial there are probably details not released to the public, being cleared of the crime doesn't necessarily clear him of suspicion, thus with a shady past the manual might be considered a final straw. But again I am not read up on it, so I might be wrong, but those are my initial feelings on what I gathered from the quote in OP. In the end I don't want to voice an opinion on a sentence when I don't know the full story.

Knowledge is power. And also a curse.

I'm glad we separated from those commies during the Cival War and killed their Nazi leader Adolf Hitler with Seal Team 6, praise Ronald Reagan

Blowing up a hotel is not the same thing as what a maniac does. The people who demolish hotels take quite a while rigging the building. I think the cops would notice after week 2 of them setting up the demo (if they were bad guys)

Logic and the NRA are not fast friends.

I am of course talking about the bombs that people like Unabomber use. If it's something professional, industrial, or authorized military then there would be ways to teach and use.

Regular people should be stopped from doing certain things. Many certain things. Most people are working at the mental level of house pets so restricting their activity is perfectly reasonable.

Seriously? Why would you say something like that when it's patently untrue? Unless- you're not an alien spy trying to soften humanity's defences for an incoming invasion force, are you?

By that logic, the case full of books we have at my house about serial killers are evidence enough of my intent to abduct, rape and mutilate. Surely the books we have detailing forensic procedure and so called undetectable poisons, or the books we have about magic and rituals (some of which suggest the user do some pretty messed up things like eat a newly stillborn baby while walking widdershins around a graveyard altar at midnight etc) are just as dangerous?

Also as someone whose hobby entails doing a lot of messed up research.... if that one bomb making book is enough to lock someone away, I could get life for my Google search history.

Then again I have such a white girl name. I'm probably safe for now...>_>

People who demolish buildings usually expend that much time preparing the charges because they want to do a controlled explosion and they don't want the explosion to affect other buildings or to have some ruble hurt a civilian.

This is something.

I can see both sides.

This is one of the core values of progressivism that I reject. Though I believe many people are not living up to their potential, that does not mean a ruling class should make decisions on these people's behalf. This is the same attitude of all the kings, dictators and oligarchs throughout history.

Instead, we should allow people to be responsible for their own actions and through their mistakes gain maturity.

I am being glib - so let's not waste time comparing the smartest parrot to the average person.

Here's the point: I bought a large Tupperware container that people use to store books and that type of thing. There was a big azz sticker on it explaining that it was not okay to seal children in the container. This sticker - I realized - is completely necessary. Now if I was a nefarious person, the sticker wouldn't stop me - so it's not meant to stop the evil among us. This sticker is for the well meaning nincompoop who needs this kind of heads up.

People exist as part of a social group. Every single one of us. A social group has a hierarchy which includes leadership. Even the leader of the group is beholden to the social contract such that he would be replaced or revolted against if we was wrong enough. Society absolutely needs a ruling class. The average person doesn't even know what the National Debt IS, how could they purposefully act in a way which would affect it? Would you want the people to vote on the Fed's interest rate or the details of a trade agreement with another country? I wouldn't. I want an expert to operate the nuclear power plant, not a group of civic minded average Joes.

Aren't African Elephants illegal for the average lunkhead to own? Do you want your neighbor raising a Grizzly in a chain link pen? As such, we shouldn't be passing out bombs, either.

@sundeep

*looks shifty* why? what have you heard?

This is a 50/50 kind of situation.

50/50, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.. Instead of making an excuse over something (that may happen) that could be avoided.

You were being a bit glib, but you were being glib about an attitude that you do hold as you admitted in the section I underlined.

Of course, most people do not know the intricacies of all government policies. That's why we have a Republic where we elect representative to vote in our stead representing us as a group of individuals, but there is a difference in having a public servant who takes time to examine things closely and vote as we desire and a ruling class which declares themselves self-appointed experts who get to guide the lost sheep of citizenry to the green pastures of progressive utopia.

Obviously, we need experts in various fields, but we must remember that the experts work for us and we do not work for the experts, a values which progressives often dismiss.

As far as elephants and bears being illegal to own, you are probably right though if my neighbor had a proven way to contain them and their sound, I would love for my neighbor to own both because that would be awesome. If not, then he is endangering the community and there is a legitimate reason to intervene, but intervention comes only after a legitimate threat is proven not when a potential threat is suspected.

Even so, this situation differs in that here knowledge itself is made illegal. The proper comparison is not between someone who has a bomb making manual and someone who owns a bear but between someone who owns a bomb making manual and someone who owns a bear raising manual. The acquisition of freely shared knowledge should never be a crime.

Almost. Except: a bear raising manual cannot translate to an actual bear without finding a bear or two. A bomb making manual is by definition the next step to literally making a bomb. Now if people could build bears out of stuff they can buy at Home Depot... then maybe.

I do have the attitude that most people are not qualified to run a bank account. I have this attitude because of the people I meet who have trouble with their bank accounts. Out of all the people I have encountered, only a fraction of them are people I would - say - give my house key and simple instructions on how to clean my oven. I literally think that 8 out of 10 would leave the door unlocked, leave the oven on, steal, or something that would make me regret trusting them to carry out the task. I want to be where the intelligent and trustworthy people are. I ain't there. As such, keep them away from bombs.

Just so we're clear: I don't agree with arresting dude over owning the book. I say arrest the publisher of the book. If we are not prepared to arrest everyone involved in bringing the book to reality then the consumer shouldn't face any consequences, either.

They are so politically backwards in Europe it's borderline not okay.

I have a bigger problem with the secrecy of part of the trial. There isn't enough information to properly develop an opinion.

It can be, but if the student submitted a proposal through the Institutional Review Board and got approval, he should have been protected. If the student deviated from the methodology outlined in that proposal, his research might be called unethical, and--if there was significant harm to the participants--then he could be subject to a lawsuit or legal consequences. [*Teaches research ethics]

insufficient evidence