This House believes that defending the enemies of one's nation is legitimate free speech

Nobody is suggesting that Mehanna planted a bomb – or even attempted to. His crime, if it deserves such a word is to hold an opinion and to have expressed it. That opinion was that current American military policy in the Muslim world is wrong and to suggest that those living there should be opposition to the major powers of the age attempting to impose their will, through force of arms, on a people in a different country.

Such an opinion is not only shared by many – if not a majority – of commentators in the West but could easily have been voiced by Washington, Jefferson or Adams[i]. There are two fundamental differences between Mehanna and the Founding Fathers: firstly they went further and called for violent opposition, secondly they were wealthy and white. It may be tempting to argue, “But wait, they were also Americans” – no they weren’t they were subjects of the British Crown. One might be tempted to argue that they were born in North America, fine but Mehanna is a faithful son of Islam – like Washington, simply defending his birth right.

Rather than recognising the similarities[ii] a court, sitting not that far from Concorde, site of the first battle of the American Revolutionary War, decided to tear up the Declaration of Independence, or at least its spirit and imprison a young man for the ideas in his head. Although the analogy with America’s fight for independence from Britain may seem far-fetched, it provided the core of Mehanna’s speech[iii] at his sentencing hearing although, apparently, too little affect.

[i] To take one example, here’s a review of American Insurgents, American Patriots. Found here.

[ii] Daily Mail (AP). Al Qaeda Terrorist from Wealthy Boston suburb given standing ovation by family as he starts 18-year prison sentence. 13 April 2012.

[iii] Mehanna, Tarek, ‘Tarek’s powerful sentencing statement’, 12 April 2012, http://freetarek.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/tareks-powerful-sentencing-statement/

Prop’s argument is an intellectual sleight of hand. Ignoring the fact that the Founding Fathers and Islamic extremists are fighting for diametrically opposed goals (a reactionary theocracy versus a revolutionary democracy) they are doing so in a different world. A world where information and perception are tools of war and where the structure of the nation-state has changed so dramatically that the expectations of citizens of a particular nation are wholly different from those of the late seventeen-hundreds[i]. The simple reality is that Mehanna sided with people who would, quite happily, murder his neighbors – regardless of their views on US foreign policy.

[i] Fox News Website. Mark Dubowitz. The Real Terror War is on the Internet. 16 March 2010.

Judging people by their actions rather than what they may or may not have been thinking is a fairly fundamental tenet of liberty and seems to have been thrown aside with casual disregard in this case[i]. There needs to have been a goal in place for this to meaningfully be described as a conspiracy, there was not; and demonstrably not a goal of murdering Americans overseas, which he didn’t even mention.

Instead the court has conflated expressing an opinion about national policy – an entirely legitimate activity according to both the first amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”)[ii] and both statute and case law. As Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, declared: “It’s official. There is a Muslim exception to the First Amendment.”[iii]

A huge amount of the commentary on this verdict, and the subsequent sentence, has focused on the belief that Mehanna was found guilty because of his religion[iv] [v] [vi]. Whatever the case serious concern has been expressed by jurors, Islamic groups and civil liberties organisations.

Tarek Mehanna did not justify, take part in, orchestrate, fund, supply, encourage or plan an attack on US personnel. There is no case to answer.

[i] This has not just been the case in the US. Attempts to mark online comment as seditious is a global phenomenon. Here’s an example from India.

[ii] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

[iii] Vennochi, Joan, ‘Tarek Mehanna case puts First Amendment on trial’, The Boston Globe, 19 April 2012, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/04/19/tarek-mehanna-case-puts-first-amendment-trial-fear-trumps-liberty-terror-trial/5UwcZHgnSAifLeuBIio9sM/story.html?camp=pm

[iv] Truth Dig. Chris Hedges. First They Came For The Muslims. 16 April 2012.

[v] Information Clearing House. Roqayah Chamseddin. And Then They Came For The Muslims. April 15 2012.

[vi] The Huffington Post. Rachel Levinson-Waldman. The Narrowing of Tarek Mehanna’s Liberties has Consequences for Us All. 15 May 2012.

Mehanna clearly expressed sympathy with enemies of the US. His actions since his return from Yemen put the lie to the idea that he wished to pursue legal training and suggest a rather more explicitly jihadi purpose. He has published documentation that explicitly encourages Jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen where, as he knew, the US and her troops would be the target of that holy war. As proposition has pointed out, we live in an age where the musings of an individual can be broadcast a great deal further than an eighteenth century pamphlet. His publications gave not only practical suggestions for the participation of others but also a moral justification and all from inside ‘the Great Satan’ – the actions of fifth columnists and traitors through the ages.

Scholars, commentators and satirists[i] have pointed out the hypocrisy of current US strategy in the Islamic world. They have also pointed out that the only rational response to overwhelming American military superiority in terms of hardware is the kind of warfare being undertaken by insurgents from Bagdad to Kabul. None of them are in prison.

Mainstream politicians have called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops and the claims emanating from the right of the Republican Party that doing so ‘gives succour to America’s enemies’ now sounds as shrill as they do bizarre. Yet none of them are in prison.

Ministers of God, political activists and intellectuals have raised the issue of the loss of life among civilians in the Muslim world and the questionable justification of those losses on the grounds of national security. And yet they remain at liberty.

America’s allies around the world have questioned the continued presence of US troops in the region and, in many cases, withdrawn their own - and–if removing troops from the fight is not aiding the enemy, it would be difficult to imagine what might be. Despite this, leaders of these nations are honoured guests when they visit the Whitehouse.

There may well be those on the American Right who would happily imprison all of these groups but the reality is that they remain at large. For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, Tarek Mehanna should join them[ii].

[i] The Christian Science Monitor. Sahar Aziz. Punishing Muslims for free speech only helps Al Qaeda. 19 April 2012.

[ii] The Guardian. Ross Caoputi. Tarek Mehanna: Punished for speaking truth to power. 16 April 2012.

None of those mentioned have travelled to Yemen in pursuit of training, presumably to be followed by participation in, the Jihad. They have not posted online 37 ways to be involved in one. They haven’t identified themselves as being more supportive of Muslims, regardless of their nationality, than of their fellow countrymen in general, and those in uniform in particular. The cases are quite different.

Nobody is suggesting that Mehanna planted a bomb – or even attempted to. His crime, if it deserves such a word is to hold an opinion and to have expressed it. That opinion was that current American military policy in the Muslim world is wrong and to suggest that those living there should be opposition to the major powers of the age attempting to impose their will, through force of arms, on a people in a different country.

Such an opinion is not only shared by many – if not a majority – of commentators in the West but could easily have been voiced by Washington, Jefferson or Adams[i]. There are two fundamental differences between Mehanna and the Founding Fathers: firstly they went further and called for violent opposition, secondly they were wealthy and white. It may be tempting to argue, “But wait, they were also Americans” – no they weren’t they were subjects of the British Crown. One might be tempted to argue that they were born in North America, fine but Mehanna is a faithful son of Islam – like Washington, simply defending his birth right.

Rather than recognising the similarities[ii] a court, sitting not that far from Concorde, site of the first battle of the American Revolutionary War, decided to tear up the Declaration of Independence, or at least its spirit and imprison a young man for the ideas in his head. Although the analogy with America’s fight for independence from Britain may seem far-fetched, it provided the core of Mehanna’s speech[iii] at his sentencing hearing although, apparently, too little affect.

[i] To take one example, here’s a review of American Insurgents, American Patriots. Found here.

[ii] Daily Mail (AP). Al Qaeda Terrorist from Wealthy Boston suburb given standing ovation by family as he starts 18-year prison sentence. 13 April 2012.

[iii] Mehanna, Tarek, ‘Tarek’s powerful sentencing statement’, 12 April 2012, http://freetarek.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/tareks-powerful-sentencing-statement/

Prop’s argument is an intellectual sleight of hand. Ignoring the fact that the Founding Fathers and Islamic extremists are fighting for diametrically opposed goals (a reactionary theocracy versus a revolutionary democracy) they are doing so in a different world. A world where information and perception are tools of war and where the structure of the nation-state has changed so dramatically that the expectations of citizens of a particular nation are wholly different from those of the late seventeen-hundreds[i]. The simple reality is that Mehanna sided with people who would, quite happily, murder his neighbors – regardless of their views on US foreign policy.

[i] Fox News Website. Mark Dubowitz. The Real Terror War is on the Internet. 16 March 2010.

Judging people by their actions rather than what they may or may not have been thinking is a fairly fundamental tenet of liberty and seems to have been thrown aside with casual disregard in this case[i]. There needs to have been a goal in place for this to meaningfully be described as a conspiracy, there was not; and demonstrably not a goal of murdering Americans overseas, which he didn’t even mention.

Instead the court has conflated expressing an opinion about national policy – an entirely legitimate activity according to both the first amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”)[ii] and both statute and case law. As Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, declared: “It’s official. There is a Muslim exception to the First Amendment.”[iii]

A huge amount of the commentary on this verdict, and the subsequent sentence, has focused on the belief that Mehanna was found guilty because of his religion[iv] [v] [vi]. Whatever the case serious concern has been expressed by jurors, Islamic groups and civil liberties organisations.

Tarek Mehanna did not justify, take part in, orchestrate, fund, supply, encourage or plan an attack on US personnel. There is no case to answer.

[i] This has not just been the case in the US. Attempts to mark online comment as seditious is a global phenomenon. Here’s an example from India.

[ii] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

[iii] Vennochi, Joan, ‘Tarek Mehanna case puts First Amendment on trial’, The Boston Globe, 19 April 2012, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/04/19/tarek-mehanna-case-puts-first-amendment-trial-fear-trumps-liberty-terror-trial/5UwcZHgnSAifLeuBIio9sM/story.html?camp=pm

[iv] Truth Dig. Chris Hedges. First They Came For The Muslims. 16 April 2012.

[v] Information Clearing House. Roqayah Chamseddin. And Then They Came For The Muslims. April 15 2012.

[vi] The Huffington Post. Rachel Levinson-Waldman. The Narrowing of Tarek Mehanna’s Liberties has Consequences for Us All. 15 May 2012.

Mehanna clearly expressed sympathy with enemies of the US. His actions since his return from Yemen put the lie to the idea that he wished to pursue legal training and suggest a rather more explicitly jihadi purpose. He has published documentation that explicitly encourages Jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen where, as he knew, the US and her troops would be the target of that holy war. As proposition has pointed out, we live in an age where the musings of an individual can be broadcast a great deal further than an eighteenth century pamphlet. His publications gave not only practical suggestions for the participation of others but also a moral justification and all from inside ‘the Great Satan’ – the actions of fifth columnists and traitors through the ages.

Scholars, commentators and satirists[i] have pointed out the hypocrisy of current US strategy in the Islamic world. They have also pointed out that the only rational response to overwhelming American military superiority in terms of hardware is the kind of warfare being undertaken by insurgents from Bagdad to Kabul. None of them are in prison.

Mainstream politicians have called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops and the claims emanating from the right of the Republican Party that doing so ‘gives succour to America’s enemies’ now sounds as shrill as they do bizarre. Yet none of them are in prison.

Ministers of God, political activists and intellectuals have raised the issue of the loss of life among civilians in the Muslim world and the questionable justification of those losses on the grounds of national security. And yet they remain at liberty.

America’s allies around the world have questioned the continued presence of US troops in the region and, in many cases, withdrawn their own - and–if removing troops from the fight is not aiding the enemy, it would be difficult to imagine what might be. Despite this, leaders of these nations are honoured guests when they visit the Whitehouse.

There may well be those on the American Right who would happily imprison all of these groups but the reality is that they remain at large. For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, Tarek Mehanna should join them[ii].

[i] The Christian Science Monitor. Sahar Aziz. Punishing Muslims for free speech only helps Al Qaeda. 19 April 2012.

[ii] The Guardian. Ross Caoputi. Tarek Mehanna: Punished for speaking truth to power. 16 April 2012.

None of those mentioned have travelled to Yemen in pursuit of training, presumably to be followed by participation in, the Jihad. They have not posted online 37 ways to be involved in one. They haven’t identified themselves as being more supportive of Muslims, regardless of their nationality, than of their fellow countrymen in general, and those in uniform in particular. The cases are quite different.

In an unusual show of unity, most analysts are agreed that the wars of the 21^st century will be markedly different from those that went before[i]. Clashes will be between civilisations and global perspectives fought with comparatively scant regard to national boundaries. Within this framework, the groups identified, broadly, as ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’[ii] seem to be lining up as the two main players – although this seems to be by default in the case of the West. In this regard, at least, Bush jr. was absolutely spot on with his ‘with us or against us’ assessment of the nature of modern conflict.

Tarek Mehanna’s publications aren’t idle musings on political philosophy, they are practical suggestions about how his readers can involve themselves in a war against the US and its allies – advice given in his translation of 39 Ways to Participate in Jihad - a war between a sexist, reactionary, mediaeval theocratic mindset and those peoples who seek to defend the liberal and democratic principles of the Enlightenment. One of the reasons highlighted by the prosecution was that Mehanna and others like him don’t need to recruit a regiment or resource a battalion. The Terrorist atrocities that have shaken the world in recent years, 9.11, 7.7, Madrid and the rest, have involved in total a few dozen people. One inspirational individual, as the judge in this case noted, is quite capable of creating bloodshed and murder with a very small following.

Mehanna was and remains in no doubt about what side he is on. Prop’s only argument seems to be that he wasn’t a very effective agent. In response to which; firstly, thank God and, secondly, it would be an odd way to fight a war to wait until a massacre was committed before doing anything about it.

[i] Neumayer, Eric and Plümper, Thomas (2009) International terrorism and the clash of

civilizations. British journal of political science, 39 (4). pp. 711-734.

[ii] Although politicians have been at pains to stress that the battle with Islam per se many scholars have used the terms. This view was codified in Samuel P. Huntington’s book Clash of Civilisation in 1993. An article that preceded its publication (Foreign Affairs. Samuel Huntington. Clash of Civilizations? Summer 1993) can be found here.

Warfare hasn’t changed because it is now a battle between creeds – that has often been the case in the past. The asymmetric warfare to which op refers is a direct result of the military hegemony of the US. To confuse criticism of taking a military approach – that bombs are not the answer in a battle of ideas – with material support for the other side hands them a victory. It’s worth remembering that the US won the battle of ideas with the Soviet Union by demonstrating its virtues, as the body count increases in the foray with Islam, attitudes are hardening on both sides as we see the worst of both.

To take the one example given by Op, 39 ways to participate in Jihad – and this was at the heart of the prosecution. Google the term and you’ll come up with 590,000 returns, including full English translations and comment from respected scholars and journalists[i].

It is impossible to protect the principles of liberty and democracy by locking people up for expressing their opinions. As the UK’s former Lord Chief Justice Woolf, pointed out, it is inconceivable that terrorist acts could pose a danger to nation states comparable to WWII and yet the response of many governments has been to go further in the removal of basic rights than was the case during that conflict.

[i] The New York Review of Books. David Cole. 39 ways to Limit Freedom of Speech. 19 April 2012.

There is far more to aiding an enemy of the state than supplying them with armaments or funding. Propagandists and other saboteurs of the mind[i] have always been seen as a very real threat to national security, especially in times of war. To present the actions of Tarek Mehanna as anything other than endorsing and giving encouragement to those seeking to harm US personnel overseas takes an unusually determined form of niaivity.

He may have stopped short of posting instructions for bomb making online but he expressly stated that Muslims should resist the invasion of their lands by non-Muslim invaders. Proposition has been strangely silent on how, exactly, that could be done without the use of an AK47 or an IED.

Mehanna’s remarks are clearly a call to take up arms against US troops, presumably with the intention of killing them. That is, by definition, to be part of a conspiracy, along with his readers, to kill US citizens overseas – the crime with which he was charged and convicted.

[i] Lawfare. Benjamin Wittes. Peter Margulies Responds to David Cole. 21 April 2012.

Tarek Mehanna was engaged in promoting a political viewpoint that may not be shared by many but is certainly shared by some. Among them other American citizens[i]. When did promoting a viewpoint in the land of free speech become a crime? While we may not like that a U.S. citizen sympathises with the objective of removing US soldiers from Afghanistan and believes this enough that he considers that military resistance may be necessary to get the Americans out it is not the case that this moral support provides physical support for such attacks, and it is unlikely that he would even have provided inspiration. Mehanna was lynched, he was a scapegoat created out of the paranoia created partly by events and partly by the actions of a US administration with a point to prove.

[i] Guardian. Ibid.

Nations act to defend themselves in times of war. Frequently those actions do not represent the highest ideals against which that nation may wish to be judged but they are an unpleasant reality of survival. It is demonstrably true that there have been Jihadi cells in western nations and that Western troops are at risk from their allies and enemies in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Stopping them before they act seems vastly preferable to the deaths of dozens or hundreds of civilians and military personnel.

America’s actions against Japanese civilians in WWII or Communist sympathizers during the Cold War may fall short of the ideals one might hope for but they ensured the survival of those ideals against the threats posed firstly by Nazism and then by Communism. In the face of Islamofascism, the response of governments in the West has been comparatively restrained when set alongside those earlier periods.

However, where there is a demonstrable threat to a nations civilian or military personnel, it would be a dereliction of duty not to take action. Mehanna’s conviction and imprisonment was a relatively modest act considering the threat – and far more humane than what has been meted out in return by those he supported against US and other citizens overseas – without the niceties of due process or the outrage of the liberal press.

It is an interesting argument to suggest that the suppression of Mehanna’s rights is okay because it has not been as sweeping as the generalised internment of Japanese Americans or the insanity of the McCarthy trials. Op is basically arguing, “Look, it could have been far more brutal, so count yourselves lucky.” One cannot help but suspect that comes as very small consolation to Mehanna in his prison cell. We should remember that the United States is not at war as was the case in World War II, congress has not declared war since 1945, nor even is the United States in a struggle with a peer competitor as during World War II rather it is at most fighting a disparate band of terrorists, hardly a thread that justifies such large violations of rights.[i]

[i] Bailey, Ronald, ‘How Scared of Terrorism Should You Be?’, reason.com, 6 September 2011, http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should