All this guy had to do was cooperate, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever, he made his bed, he gets to lie in it. DD
He went to Yemen to train to fight America. If you hire someone to kill someone even if you don't succeed you go to jail. Sounds like a case of a rich suburban kid trying to act tough .
That makes sense. I found his statement interesting. I wonder how many agree/disagree with what was said in it.
DaDa, can you explain further? From your posts, I'm understanding that your position is: if you're asked to be an informant and you reject this offer, then you deserve to be punished for crimes which would be wiped away if you accept the offer. The fact that this guy is dangerous or is considered dangerous should not interfere with due process. But it seems in this particular case, you are heavily in favor of bypassing due process, not even questioning whether those offers were legal or they ever happened. If we adjust the 'facts' of Mehanna's perception to your absolute perception of the world, you are essentially saying that you would accept an offer to be an informant for, say, Al Qaeda if the alternative is imprisonement for a lesser crime you did commit but can be waived if you cooperate. That's concerning (I'm sure to everyone except you-know-who), and it seems like a form of blind worship: something which you are consistently critical about. Then again, I only know what's being discussed in this thread and article, maybe you're aware of more evidence?
If the guy trained in Yemen to fight America, then I don't see why a big fuss is being made about smaller stuff, why can't they get him specifically for THAT?
This is all stuff that he claimed, but that we don't know to be true. He clearly hates America; how do we know he did not make this stuff up to make America look bad?
The statement by Tarek was very impressive, elegant and a pretty accurate rendition (no pun intended) of American history wrt to folks here at home and also our treatment of Muslims in the Middle East-- especially wrt to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.. As he states, it is no crime, nor is it "terrorism" for folks in the Middle East to fight foreign aggressors. For instance it is clear that the majority of the folks actually fighting our troops there fall into that category. I'm not sure exactly what Tarek did and that may very well have been a serious crime. Given recent history it is hard to totally believe the US government, It is possible that as Tarek predicts history will exonerate him.
Again if you go try to find a killer even if you don't succeed you are going to jail. He is pretty eloquent, but Muslims seem to commit a lot of atrocities against other Muslims. Did he forget about all of that?
I see this guy kind of like a Breivik that was stopped before it happened. One could also say that Breivik was/is "eloquent", as crazy as this monster is. Both have in common that they have an imaginary enemy, and they think that pretty much anything is "justified" to fight against that enemy. If one could have monitored and stopped Breivik before he went on his killing spree, if someone had stumbled across his "manifest" before...would anyone seriously argue that one should have not put him in jail? Or would you have argued "but what? all he did was write crazy stuff on the Internet and buy some fertilizer"? I understand that it is a slippery slope to arrest and convict someone and give him a long jail sentence before he ever physically harmed anyone...but better to be safe than sorry. Conspiracy to kill people as a terrorist is a crime as well. Whether 17 years is too much is another matter.
While your point is well taken, it is tangential to the point that Mehanna is making. He's speaking in a very specific context, one that should not be overlooked or discounted. Additionally, the paradigmatic shift of 'Muslim v. Muslim' violence is incredibly analogous to the 'Black v. Black' violence trope employed against those decrying the realities of racialized conflict. Does every statement need to be qualified with an alternative context that is not relevant to the discussion topic at hand? That said, the crux of the discussion is not the views he had, but rather the limits (or lack thereof) of preemptive prosecution in terrorism trials and the way in which otherwise constitutionally protected free speech can become subject to scrutiny. I personally disagree with Mehanna's views, but dont know whether or not those views should be criminally liable insofar as we begin to prosecute people on what is essentially a thought crime.
I've got agree with ATW, how do you know he didn't train for anything? He's shown to have lied numerous times to the authorities, he was setting himself up for disaster. There are people like Maher Arar who were completely falsely arrested, but this Tarek guy does not seem to be one of them.
I find that for some reason the "Victim" card is played a lot by Islamists, why is that? Can't blame others for your own lot in life. DD
Agree that he was setting himself up for disaster, and I'm not sure anyone is necessarily looking at Tarek as an entirely innocent actor (perhaps adeel is, but I doubt it). Clearly the trip to Yemen was problematic, and although I've spent some time reading the specifics of the case, I'm not certain the extent to which the trip was conclusively shown to be for the intention of participating in paramilitary activities (it may have, I just havent read it...). I have no desire to lionize Tarek as some champion who we will look back on as a hero. Despite his own convictions and a moving final address, there is no comparison between the many civil/human rights activists he cited and him. The chief concern in his case, as has been an ongoing concern for many, is the manner in which 'material support' is qualified in a court of law. From what I've read, much of the court proceedings focused on Mehanna's writings, translations, and uploading of videos that advocated, or at the very least sympathized, with terrorist groups. The chief concern is that these activities constitute speech, and it is a fickle enterprise to get into the business of determining what 'limits' we want to apply to it. For example, many academics and government officials translate and publish statements and videos of terrorists for their own purposes. There are many people who actively promote dissident groups (see govt officials and MEK for example), and as a society, we regularly tolerate a large range of speech, regardless of how repugnant we find it. So the question becomes, how do we determine a real threat as opposed to an ideological dissident? Additionally, there are precedent cases that have gone the other way. Take for example, Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, a Saudi grad student who was brought up on material support charges in 2004. At the time, he was accused of setting up websites for terrrorist organizations and posting inflammatory messages on the Internet. After a brief trial, the jury acquitted him of the charges. Again, the question is not whether or not he did things that were stupid, unwise, and criminally liable for such as lying to authorities, because he did. The question is really whether or not he provided material support to terrorist groups by translating their material and writing stuff online that was rabidly anti-American.
Good post, vaids13. I understand the freedom of speech issue. It's a difficult area, but I trust that the judicial system produced the correct result. I'd rather see someone like that locked up than wait until we have another Fort Hood or another Utoya. It's just interesting to see that adeelsiddiqui seems to take everything this guy says at face value. I still wonder what the link between Mr. Siddiqui and Mr. Mehanna is. There has been an interesting propaganda war from certain Islamic representatives in the USA on behalf of Mr. Mehanna and also of Ms. Siddiqui, who was convicted on charges of attempted murder of FBI agents. http://www.peaceandtolerance.org/in...aking-news-terror-suspect-convicted-in-boston Breaking News: Terror Suspect Convicted in Boston Wednesday, 21 December 2011 12:16 A Federal jury today found Sudbury resident and Massachusetts College of Pharmacy graduate Tarek Mehanna guilty on all seven charges of supporting Al Qaeda and lying to Federal investigators about his involvement with the group. Mehanna, a son of an Egyptian immigrant, could face a life sentence. Children making "Free Tarek" signs at Islamic Center of Worcester During the trial, the prosecution told the jury of Mehanna's attempt to seek terrorist training in Yemen. They described the pleasure he and his friends took in watching videos of Americans being beheaded and of American soldiers killed and mutilated in Iraq. Watching a scene of an American soldier whose chest was ripped open and whose innards then set ablaze with gasoline, Mehanna called it "a Texas barbeque." When asked by a fellow extremist if the soldiers should not have received some sort of trial, Mehanna said no, "BBQ sauce is the way to go." Mehanna and his friends talked online about how his own translations of Al-Qaeda recruitment literature into English made him part of "the media wing of Al Qaeda." In these same conversations, monitored by the FBI, he has said that he "looks to Osama Bin Laden as his real father" and "loves him," and that he wasn't sorry for the victims of 9/11; he was just sorry "for the buildings." Despite all this, prominent leaders of the Massachusetts Muslim community openly and aggressively encouraged their constituents to support Mehanna during his trial. Pro-Mehanna activists harassed the U.S. Attorney's office with persistent phone calls and sit-ins. They accused the Justice Department of racism and targeting of innocent Muslims. Mosques like the Islamic Center of Worcester and the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Roxbury, held events and fundraisers in Mehanna's support. Mehanna's supporters have built a large web presence among online extremists, who post messages like "Close Guantanamo Bay, Reopen Auschwitz" on Free Mehanna websites. This isn't surprising, considering that indicted along with Mehanna was the son of former Roxbury mosque vice president Abdulbadi Abousamra. Sons of two other local Muslim leaders were also in on Mehanna's plots and became cooperating witnesses against Mehanna, presumably in exchange for immunity. Imam Abdullah Faaruuq at a "Free Tarek" demonstration. Most vocal and extreme in support of Mehanna has been the president of the umbrella Muslim group in New England, the Islamic Council of New England, Imam Abdullah Faaruuq. Faaruuq, the Muslim Chaplain of Northeastern University and the spiritual guide to the University's Muslim students, has urged Muslim congregations to to pick up the gun and the sword on behalf of Mehanna and another Boston-based convicted terrorist, Aafia Siddiqui. Siddiqui was convicted in 2010 on charges of attempted murder of FBI agents. In fundraising efforts for Siddiqui, Imam Faaruuq expressed support for "cutting through" FBI agents with a machete. Take a look at this video about the alarming level of Islamic extremism at Northeastern and Imam Faaruuq's role in its spread at the university. <object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcAGbaLzytk&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DcAGbaLzytk&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>
