Coding While Muslim 
        
        
        
        I don't know about you, but since the very early days of the World Wide Web, 
  a lot of my time has been spent assisting a wide range of nonprofit organizations 
  in obtaining domain registrations, designing, setting up, and maintaining Web 
  sites. That's why I was chilled the first time I dove into news information 
  about the Patriot Act-based charges against Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Saudi National 
  completing a Ph.D. in computer science at the University of Idaho.
On the one hand, the Department of Justice was claiming that al-Hussayen had 
  built and maintained an Internet network for terrorists. But every time I read 
  the specifics about what he did, it sounded like the sort of stuff I do all 
  the time for various nonprofit organizations. And it sounds a lot like that 
  Patriot Act clause could be held against anyone working on a campus IT resource 
  that is misused.
The good news is that the trial is over and the jury acquitted al-Hussayen 
  of the Patriot Act-related charges. That good news is for you and me, not for 
  al-Hussayen, as the best he can still hope for after more than a year already 
  of imprisonment is that he'll end up shipped back to Saudi Arabia on some visa-related 
  charges.
There's a clause in the Patriot Act that makes it a crime to provide "expert 
  guidance or assistance" to groups deemed terrorist. It was one of the parts 
  of the act that many pundits, from a wide range of political thought, were critical 
  of when the act was deliberated and passed. According to Georgetown University 
  law professor David Cole, "Somebody who fixes a fax machine that is owned 
  by a group that may advocate terrorism could be liable" under the provision 
  in question.
By all non-governmental accounts that I have read, al-Hussayen is a very nice 
  person and is in fact a pacifist, devoted to charitable works. But at first 
  I bought into the government charges of a network of terrorism. But as the news 
  kept coming out, I kept reading news items and waiting for the other sh'e to 
  drop. I kept asking myself, "What is it that the Department of Justice 
  really has on him? What did he really do that his defense attorneys are hiding 
  from the public?"
Here's what he unequivocally did with regard to the Patriot Act charges, which 
  are my focus here:
· He registered some domain names for some charitable groups, none of 
  which are listed as terrorist organizations and the main one of which is still 
  in operation as a legal charity;
  · He set up some Web sites, including threaded bulletin board discussions, 
  and maybe some e-mail discussion lists; and 
  · He was among the moderators of a Yahoo! Group on which a handful of 
  posters posted messages in support of suicide bombing. (Heavily outweighed by 
  other topics, including lots of postings against suicide bombings.)
It was reported that at his trial the Department of Justice displayed a graphic 
  illustrating how one of the Web sites that he helped maintain could, through 
  hyperlinks, eventually lead a viewer into 20 other Web sites with ties to bad 
  organizations. Wow. Really? I wonder if those links eventually lead to the Department 
  of Justice Web site? Care to follow the linkages on some of the sites on your 
  institution's servers? 
That's what became more and more chilling as I learned more about this case. 
  He simply did not do anything with his information technology skills that I 
  don't routinely do. Or that you don't routinely do as part of your job for thousands 
  of students, faculty, and staff - any one of whom might decide to use those 
  resources for bad purposes.
It's not coincidental that the jury kicked out the charges against al-Hussayen. 
  Even though Idaho is one of the "reddest" of the red states, people 
  clear across the political spectrum are more and more critical of many parts 
  of the Patriot Act, including the clause at issue here. And, in fact, even as 
  the Department of Justice was bringing this case to trial, an appeals court 
  in California had already declared that part of the Patriot Act to be unconstitutional, 
  although that ruling has no standing in the State of Idaho.
The best news, though, is that more and more people - of all kinds - think 
  it's time to re-examine and refine the Patriot Act in light of what we've learned 
  by seeing it in action. And I think that's a very good thing.