First, the law doesn’t “make him a terrorist,” but uses the term “terroristic threats.” That is, a threat meant to terrorize or place someone in fear. Doing that is illegal. You cannot legally say, “I intend to harm you,” “I intend to blow up this building,” or “I intend to burn this building down.” Uttering the words themselves is an illegal act because they are threats, just as it is illegal to yell “FIRE” in a crowded building. Using threatening words is not what sane people do; your young friend was clearly having mental issues (as evidenced by his choice of deportation over a short jailhouse penance). School authorities and law enforcement officials remember Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, whose behavior prior to his murderous rampage was within half a stride of that of Zhai. Bottom line: Zhai is nuts. Loopy. Whacko. With a history of previous encounters with law enforcement. He made a threat to destroy a building. You can’t do that here. Zhai may be a hero to people who admire bad behavior; he may have had cultural issues; he may suffer from some organic mental trauma that is not his fault; but he is most emphatically NOT a victim in this case.

Even up to today the US prosecutors has failed to indict Zhai on any account. They had offered Zhai a plead bargain – if Zhai pleaded guilty to a “petit disorderly conduct” charge then Zhai would be released – apparently the prosecutors could not make the case for the “terroristic threat,” the allegation with which they had detained Zhai for months. Anyway, Zhai rejected the plead bargain, and then he was handcuffed and deported back to his home country. Where is the rule of law in the USA?

Thank you for the kind words. Our newspaper strives to get as many details as possible about our stories. Also, I was unaware of the comments on the website and took a look at them.

Let me provide some more background information. Actually, Stevens IT is not prosecuting in this case. Because these are criminal charges, Hudson County itself will be prosecuting.

Also, there seems to be a lot of stigma about people and things being labeled as “terroristic.” Terroristic threats are not something open to interpretation. Threats to burn down a school building are very serious. And this was not some paranoid delusion perceived by a professor. He literally called into the school and threatened to burn it down!

Several of my friends and my colleagues have filled in certain details about his odd behavior around the time of his arrest. Since he was suspended, the fear of deportation was most likely resting heavily on his mind. As well, even the department he was under was noticing his odd behavior as well.

Thanks for reading everyone. Remember, don’t believe everything you read! There are always two sides to every story. You should consult other sources before coming to an educated and informed conclusion.

I have to admit that the term “terroristic threat” is new to me. So our country is really going down the route of criminalizing certain kinds of speeches? Adding the adjective “terroristic” surely could terrify a few. The problem is who is to decide whether a speech is sufficiently “terroristic” or not?