The New York Times had a jarring report on Monday on jihadist bloggers. There is, of course, nothing particularly new about this phenomenon; al Qaeda’s mastery of the Internet is a familiar, if unfortunate, fact of modern life. What was jarring was that the prime example cited in the Times article—a blogger who extols the virtues of Osama bin Laden and decries the supposed depravity of the “United States of Losers”—lives right in the very country that he loathes. As the Times account notes:

It turns out he is a 21-year-old American named Samir Khan who produces his blog from his parents’ home in North Carolina, where he serves as a kind of Western relay station for the multimedia productions of violent Islamic groups.

The Times claims that “there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Khan is operating in concert with militant leaders, or breaking any laws.”

Can this really be true? I’m no lawyer (more knowledgeable contentions readers, please feel free to weigh in), but isn’t he guilty at least of conspiracy to commit terrorism, inciting violence, or some other crime? If not, then it suggests that our laws need to be revised. It would have been unthinkable in World War II to have Americans spreading Nazi propaganda on our own soil. It should be just as unthinkable to have jihadists operating here today, even if they limit themselves to written assaults.

In fact, Khan may not confine himself to spreading propaganda in the future. The Times writes:

Mr. Khan said that he had dreams about meeting Mr. bin Laden and that he would not rule out picking up a weapon himself one day. In a recent essay, he argued that jihad was mandatory for all Muslims, and he cited three ways to fulfill this obligation: join fighters in Iraq, Afghanistan or Algeria; send them money; or promote militant videos as part of the jihad media.

Isn’t this tantamount to a child molester’s announcing his intentions in advance? Surely there must be legal mechanisms that society can take to protect itself against such would-be predators.