Good article on the Tarek Mehanna case, which has a nice contrast with how how white Americans are treated in more explicitly terroristic situations. Greenwald has reposted Mehanna’s sentencing speech, and I think in general it makes a lot of really good points. Essentially, the material harm he did as a terrorist was to translate the material of a variety of Jihadist, anti-American groups and failing to collaborate as an FBI informant (not to mention allegedly sidestepping entrapment) while lying to them about specific aspects of his associates’ lives, and then there’s the fact that he was definitely in Yemen in 2004 although everything about that visit seems to be hearsay.
On the other side of the coin, the FBI has him as someone who sought terrorist training in Yemen, and again the stuff about the lying.
In general, I think it’s *possible* to grant the FBI the benefit of the doubt and say they are simply using the law to put away someone they think is a legitimate threat. But I find a lot of the aspects of what they found illegal in the case, particularly in terms of translating works of groups you are not physically or financially aiding but merely agree with, really problematic, especially when contrasted against the broad history of freedom of conscience.
For instance, I don’t think it’s accurate for him to take advantage of historical parallels for violent insurgency that work for his case (notably the American war for independence) without addressing what he finds invalid about nonviolent resistance or working within the system (although I certainly understand why he glossed over that given his circumstances). But those are things that people should be able to talk about without getting put in jail unless there is evidence of material conspiracy, and the key variable there shouldn’t be Muslimness. I have a tough time believing it wasn’t in this case.
Interesting read; certainly there are many questions yet to be answered. Out of curiousity: do you believe that Mr. Mehanna, a man who admitted to–among other things– a desire to “wage war” on American military service members, is guilty of any criminal transgression?
As you know, my general view is that Western nations need to extricate themselves from all areas of the Caliphate and work to make amends for problems caused by our interminable thirst for oil. That said, this case seems to me to be yet another example of a Muslim who enjoys Western freedoms when they work in their interest, yet condemn other such freedoms/rights that do not benefit them directly and/or conflict with their often Sharia-based paradigms… The tragedy is that the burden is now–and will likely always be going forward– upon Western nations to figure out how to accommodate this all-too-common phenomenon within Islamic communities of “citizens” who publicly denounce the Western nation in which they reside, some more emphatically than others…
Again, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with translating the works of jihadists and making them available.I can’t think of anything less American than de facto banning thoughts for being subversive or “dangerous”. By all means, track and deal with people who act on those ideas in a material way. But translating them no more makes you a terrorist than translating Lolita makes you a pedophile.
If there’s proof of material harm or actual criminal conspiracy, show it. But being a criminal for talking about ideas that are against the goals of the US government is crazy talk, and I seriously doubt someone who wasn’t the target demographic of the last ten years of hysteria about Muslims would get this treatment.
I certainly agree with your “simple translations are not criminal acts” comment. That said, we do have Anti-terrorism legislation that– while inherently problematic per se– does provide law enforcement with the tools to combat “hate speech” that “promotes terrorism” or “advocates terrorist acts.” I’m not comfortable with many elements of some of this legislation (Patriot Act comes to mind immediately), but it is currently law.
My main belief here, given how much I’ve read and studied this issue since 2001, is that something does need to be done. Whether it is a full and complete withdrawal of Western military presence in Muslim countries, a halt to Islamic immigration to Western nations, some combination of both, or another option(s) that makes sense, it seems clear that something needs to be done, primarily I don’t think we could find a more culturally mismatched demographic to inject at huge numbers into Europe, the U.S., Australia, etc. It seems that every other week we’re reading reports from some part of the world supporting this reality. You don’t need to be Samuel Huntington to conclude that Islamicism is a huge problem for Western democracies, and high Muslim birth rates in the West is only going to exacerbate them, and likely accelerate their tipping points.
I just finished reading about Egypt’s election of a hard-line Islamist as their “President”– I can’t fathom how any true supporter of quintessential Liberal ideals such as justice, equality, individual determinism, human rights, freedom, etc, could view this development as anything other than a Pyrrhic victory, at best, for “democracy.”