An American citizen from a Boston suburb was convicted on Tuesday on terrorism charges, but the charges were loosely defined and the verdict may represent a significant blow to free speech rights.
Federal prosecutors claimed that Tarek Mehanna, 29, traveled to Yemen in 2004 with the hope of training as a terrorist and going on to fight American soldiers in Iraq. He failed to find any training camps, but returned home and allegedly promoted al Qaeda by writing about violent jihad against U.S. foreign policy on the Internet.
Mehanna and his lawyers instead claimed that he traveled to Yemen to receive training to become an Islamic scholar and that his writings on the Internet amounted to free speech.
“The charges scare people,” said J. W. Carney Jr., Mehanna’s lawyer and told reporters they would appeal. “The charges scared us when we first saw them. But the more that we looked at the evidence, the more that we got to know our client Tarek, the more we believed in his innocence.”
Post 9/11, the government has convicted many people on charges of “material support” to terrorists. But free speech advocates insist these are suffocating First Amendment rights and may grow to be even broader in the future.
Mehanna’s lawyers requested a jury instruction on First Amendment issues which included three points of instruction. The first reminded the jury of the right to hold views they regard as appalling. The second emphasized special protection for speech concerning public issues.
And the third explained the material support statute Mehanna was charged with, and makes clear: “To constitute a crime, the material support must be provided at the direction of the terrorist group, or in coordination with the terrorist group, or as a service provided directly to the terrorist group at its request. The statute does not prohibit someone from vigorously promoting and supporting the political goals of the group. This is considered independent advocacy, and is protected by the First Amendment.”
“The ACLU of Massachusetts,” read a statement by executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU Carol Rose, “is gravely concerned that today’s verdict against Tarek Mehanna undermines the First Amendment and threatens national security.”
“Under the government’s theory of the case, ordinary people–including writers and journalists, academic researchers, translators, and even ordinary web surfers–could be prosecuted for researching or translating controversial and unpopular ideas. If the verdict is not overturned on appeal, the First Amendment will be seriously compromised.”
It used to mean something to be American. I guess it still does – it's just a far cry from what it was.
We are now living in the shadow of democracy and the substance of a police state.
This is indeed frightening! This latest is a government canard to control and or shape the war-narrative. What is mind-numbing is that our president graduated Magna-Cum-Laude from Harvard University Law School, a revered institution of legal interpretation and learning. And yet, he is willing to circumvent and or ignore the laws of our land as well as international protocol, convention, decorum and convention for political expediency.
Pragmatics over principles, same with every other American politician.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing the same old tired lament about "undermining free speech" yada yada yada. You think that if they even gave a damn about that they'd have opened investigations on sites such as antiwar.com? Hmmm? Like George Carlin said "You don't have any rights only privileges" . Privileges THEY allow you to have and then TAKE away when they feel like it. And right now they're gleefully rolling back the privs.
There is a recent Brookings Institute report that puts what you say in highlight. The report, "Recording Everything: Digital Storage as an Enabler of Authoritarian Governments" discusses how a government – any government – can create a data store that will allow them to examine everything a "dissident" might say online, or by telephone, or where they travel and with whom they associate (and their data trail also).
The relevant issue is that if they can record all this data they can also modify the data to suit their needs. And since they are the final arbiters, how can you scream "you lie!!" when they hold the "TRUTH."
http://tinyurl.com/7udbb9v
Thank you. Excellent points. As you've heard before "Who watches the watchers?" When what is touted as truth is defined or redefined by self appointed "guardians" then the game is rigged. When people wise up to the lies you can expect another incident to appear over the horizon to distract us with the media propagandists all too happy to oblige.
The one problem I have with this Brookings document is that, as is all too often the case, they use the weasel words "authoritarian governments" or "repressive regimes" to paint anyone outside the Empire as "those others" all the while the very things they talk about are happening to us right here and now! What planet are they from? And the countries helping these so-called despots are the very ones you hear bloviating on and on about "democracy" while cutting their own citizens throats. Good stuff in there but not enough noose for our own criminals.
I suspect that, regarding your point of Brookings not pointing the finger at all appropriate regimes, it might only be "for show." By them not being blatant, they will protect their esteemed position with those in power. You know, as long as you don't actually accuse, then, well, it never really happened… Something along the lines of Israel's stance regarding their "non-existent" nukes – because they never acknowledge so they must not be.
But, everyone who reads this understands undoubtedly, who they are really talking about. I think there might even be one sentence buried in the report that points out that it would be foolish to consider that American companies who are building these kind of tools are not doing business with our own government. I remember a few years ago when I lived in Tampa, they started installing video cameras throughout Ybor City (a local nightlife center) and the hue and cry from concerned civil libertarians… "It's too fight crime!!!" the Archons chimed… and the deed was done. We lose.
Thank you. Excellent points. As you've heard before "Who watches the watchers?" When what is touted as truth is defined or redefined by self appointed "guardians" then the game is rigged. When people wise up to the lies you can expect another incident to appear over the horizon to distract us with the media propagandists all too happy to oblige.
I can only imagine what kind of brainless, bigoted, ovine, legally-ignorant refuse constituted the "jury" in this case.
What a disgrace!
My thought also. We could also challenge the legal abilities of the Judges in this case and the cases where the FBI conducts sting and entrapment operations against stupid and gullible individuals. The individuals never had the wherewithal to carry out any type of actions until they were provided with money, vehicles and weapons by the FEDS. This prosecution hearkens back to the Sedition Act of 1918. The famous statement by Supreme Court judge Oliver Wendall Holmes, "The Right to free speech does not allow a person to shout "Fire" in a crowed theater", was part of his argument in support of the Sedition Act. The ACLU came into being as a result of the egregious and enthusiastic misuse of that law.
The jury..Mmmmm.. better to call them the sheeple..This is what happens when you select sheeple from the street who don't know right from wrong expet when it comes to sport & movies they are number one. I did five years to avoid 14 years just because I was facing jusry who hated my Arab name even though I am not Arabic. They still think I am terrorist even though I never in my entire life invoved in politics. They broke my nose. laceration on my head, broken ribs & other enjuries, beside destroying my reputation but they never destroy my well. Now I live in Europe away from thease gung ho paranoid thugs peacefully. Nobody asks me who are you or where are you going. Hope the best for the sheeple.
This is why I prefer anarchy.
Wooow. I don't understand why they flagged my comment. I did not use any prfane language. Pls someone tell me who controls the comment section.
“To constitute a crime, the material support must be provided at the direction of the terrorist group, or in coordination with the terrorist group, or as a service provided directly to the terrorist group at its request. The statute does not prohibit someone from vigorously promoting and supporting the political goals of the group. This is considered independent advocacy, and is protected by the First Amendment.”
Did they indeed prove that Mehanna was acting under orders from AQ when he published his diatribes, or was this done purely on his own? If he had no orders, no 'leadership', from AQ then it must be concluded that he was not acting according to their direction and thus his writings- however distasteful they may be to others- are protected under the 1st Amendment.
But, when the laws are suspended and logic and reason thrown out the window…. chaos reigns. And where chaos reigns, profit thrives. Who gains from a guilty verdict in this case? Not the American people, I guarantee you.
When is this law going to affect politicians who have helped Jundallah and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group?
Ha ha! That's what I was thinking. And how about the MEK in Iran ?
Many in the Washington establishment would be prime candidates for conviction regarding their support for the MEK.
Can this verdict be appealed?