Terror Ideology on Trial:

This week marked the closing arguments of a trial that could prove to be a landmark case in the war on terror. This case, unlike many before and surely many to come, is not about charging a man who has acted violently against us. Indeed, this man is not even being tried for conspiring to do violence against us.

The man on trial is Ali Al-Timimi. A noted Iraqi-American biologist and renowned Islamic speaker, Mr. Al-Timimi is far from moderate, as is indicated by the charges levied against him.

Background:

• Ali Al-Timimi is, as noted in the articles linked above, a noted scholar of both Islam and biology. He is a first generation Iraqi-American, and he is a man who, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 urged some of his followers to support the Taliban and fight against the US and her allies.


• Al-Timimi is, according to the government, linked to the group of "Virginia Paintball Jihadis", a group of young men convicted of conspiring to levy war against the United States and conspiracy to contribute services to the Taliban, as well as other terror related charges.


• Al-Timimi's defense does not deny that some of what the man has espoused could be considered "hate speech", but rather contends that such statements are covered under the first amendment right to Free Speech (pardon the reflexive link), an idea I will discuss further


• Al-Timimi is on trial for encouraging some of his young followers, to whom he held the equivalent power as a rock-star, to train for and engage in violence in support of the Taliban.


• Al-Timimi, in an e-mail al-Timimi sent to followers on Feb. 1, 2003, the morning of the shuttle Columbia disaster:
  
  "There is no doubt that Muslims were overjoyed because of the adversity that befell their greatest enemy," wrote al-Timimi, who called the disaster a "good omen" that 500 years of Western supremacy would end and "this way, God willing, America will fall and disappear."



• For more on this case, please refer here, here, here, here, and here (this last is more background on connection to Va. paintball jihadi group).
  

Central to Al-Timimi's defense is the notion that, repulsive though his comments, attitudes, and ideas may be to most, he is allowed to say what he wants under the Constitution.

However, a brief discussion of what this implies, and indeed demands, will show that this is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, given the radical content and nature of Al-timimi's statements, it is clear why he must be prosecuted and convicted.

Arguments:

I have previously argued that free speech can and should be limited when what is said is repugnant or harmful due to the nature of the speaker as a figure holding authority over his/her audience. In my previous post, the aim was to show that radical professors ought not to be protected by their position as professors, and that their speech could be limited when statements are made in the role of teacher speaking to student.

In this case, given his role as a renowned speaker, even a 'rock-star' of sorts, when Al-Timimi encouraged his young followers to travel abroad for training to conduct violent jihad it was, and should be considered, a crime. Given his position of authority, real or percieved, his encouragement was a religious, institutional sanctioning of efforts to support enemies of America both materially and in a violent conflict.

For his defense to be successful, Al-Timimi's lawyers will have to persuade the jury that, contrary to popular belief, Ali Al-Timimi was not a renowned scholar held in high regard throughout the Muslim community, in the US and abroad. Rather, Al-Timimi was merely an articulate, outspoken critic of the United States and the West whose ideas were freely expressed as an average, everyday private citizen, not from a position of authority. This idea is preporterous.

Consider the following hypothetical situation. A priest who, as a result of the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision encourages catholics attending his parish to go and violently oppose women seeking their right to choose under this precedent. Suppose the priest didn't encourage specific violence, but referred his parishioners to attend a lecture at a local university on the substance of home-made explosives so as to gain valuable knowledge in the fight for Life, resulting in the bombing of an abortion clinic in the same neighborhood as the church. Such statements would be more than merely reprehensible, they would provide for criminal culpability.

Ali Al-Timimi may not have been an Imam giving a sermon, or an institutionally sanctioned religious and spiritual leader (though I believe a case could be made that he was), but his position as an authority on Islam as a scholar is beyond doubt. As such, his comments and statements, like those of the fictitious priest above, should be considered more than merely reprehensible, they should be considered criminal and treated as such.