There's an interesting trial underway here in Boston. A local man (from Sudbury, about 15 miles from where I live) is accused of providing a vital service to al-Qaeda by translating some of its propaganda into English and posting it to a blog.
Neither side disputes the essential facts of the case: Mehanna appears to have done this on his own, without prompting or payment from the al-Qaeda organization; he hasn't personally advocated for violence, only posted the translations; the material was undeniably propaganda produced by al-Qaeda. There is some dispute over a trip Mehanna took to Yemen in 2004; prosecutors claim he was trying to locate and train at a terrorist camp while the defense claims he was going to learn 15th century Arabic for personal fulfillment.
The defense's primary argument is this is an abridgment of Mehanna's freedom of speech. The prosecutors are arguing that by translating and distributing propaganda of a terrorist group, Mehanna was providing a "vital service" to the group (which is a punishable offense under current US law).
I'm...conflicted. I'm not a big fan of the idea that people who translate material that is deemed offensive by the government, particularly political material, should be punished. But I'm not sure where the line of culpability is; if Nidal Hassan had been helped down the road of radicalization by reading one of Mehanna's blog posts, would that have implicated Mehanna in Hassan's actions? Is there a fundamental difference between a producer of pro-terror propaganda (such as Anwar al-Awlaki) and someone who translates and distributes such propaganda? Is that difference sufficiently great that one should be protected by the first amendment and the other is fair game for assassination (recognizing, of course, that al-Awlaki had been actively promoting jihad for a long time, longer than Mehanna had been translating, and had produced much more material, as well as allegedly participating on some level is several failed plots).
I don't really know where or how to draw these lines. But I am very interested to see how the justice system works through the issue. My gut feeling is that there should be exceptions to absolute freedom of political speech in war time, but that those exceptions should be carefully monitored to prevent abuse. That's a pretty flimsy opinion, I guess, but it's about where I am.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Seems pretty messy. I mean, would someone posting a Google translation of propaganda be liable? Would Google be liable for it's automatic translation of Youtube videos (actually, I can't remember if it does both auto-caption and auto-translate, but if it hasn't, it's inevitable). How about academic scholars who might want to study the war or the organization as a subject?
Presumably, they could try to separate it out by motive, but that would seem like an easy thing to abuse.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If they cannot find a monetary link between him and AlQda then I find the case to be on shakey ground and an abridgement of freedom of speech.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Presumably, they could try to separate it out by motive, but that would seem like an easy thing to abuse.
Intent is so difficult to infer as well.
One of my work colleagues asked if Mehanna is guilty of providing a vital service, why aren't the many news agencies who routinely translate and host al-Qaeda produced propaganda? Again, the difference seems more in intent than the potential impact of the information, which strikes me as problematic from a practical perspective.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is there a fundamental difference between a producer of pro-terror propaganda (such as Anwar al-Awlaki) and someone who translates and distributes such propaganda?
The idea that producing pro-terror propaganda is punishable by death infuriates me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:During the trial, which started in October, Mehanna's attorneys portrayed him as an aspiring scholar of Islam who traveled to Yemen to look for religious schools, not to get terrorist training. They said his translation and distribution of controversial publications was free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Prosecutors focused on hundreds of online chats on Mehanna's computer in which they said he and his friends talked about their desire to participate in jihad, or holy war. Several of those friends were called by prosecutors to testify against Mehanna, including one man who said he, Mehanna and a third friend tried to get terrorism training in Yemen so they could fight American soldiers in Iraq.
It seems like the most damning evidence were the chat logs and some telephone conversation transcripts in which Mehanna talked admiringly of jihad, and a desire to engage in it. It doesn't seem to me (at least from the handful of news articles I've read) like the prosecutors addressed in a significant way the issue of coordination, which was central to the accusation of providing material support. The judge told the jurors that "in order to find Mehanna guilty of conspiracy to provide material support to al-Qaida, they must find that he worked 'in coordination with or at the direction of' the terrorist organization. He said independent advocacy on behalf of the organization was not a violation of the law." Based on that comment, I guess the current legal dividing line between illegal propaganda and political free speech seems to be whether it occurs in a coordinated way with an enemy organization, which is perhaps easier to determine (although, still not that easy) than the intent of the person distributing it.