American Teen Gets 11 Year Sentence for Pro-ISIS Tweets
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
Independent of his support for ISIS on Twitter, Ali Shukri Amin converted his friend Reza Niknejad to a radicalized form of Islam, put him in touch with an ISIS recruiter, convinced him to join ISIS in Syria, gave him instructions on how to transfer from Turkey to Syria, drove Reza Niknejad to the airport to fly to Turkey, and relayed messages between Reza Niknejad and his family informing them of what was happening. In all likelihood Reza Niknejad is going to die working for the worst terrorist organization in the world.
There's clearly a discussion to be had about whether educating ISIS-aspirants in the use of Bitcoin to evade laws against donating to ISIL counts as "training" under 18 USC 2339A. I agree that some of what's alleged in the plea deal comes pretty close to criminalizing being nice to ISIS.
But there's a pretty cut-and-dried case against Ali Shukri Amin even without the Twitter drama. This isn't a teenager sentenced for a few tweets. He has been convicted on a single count of "Material Support". He has stipulated the truth of the DOJ's allegations about Reza Niknejad. It seems clear that the facts support the single count he's charged with.
revised a bit for clarity, and to add the dig at Techdirt
Honestly asking: Is that any different than spreading any other idea or creed?
Seems like the only proper defense we have as a society is to teach children thinking skills so they aren't easily swayed by poor ideas. Otherwise we encroach on others' freedom of expression.
To be honest, I have no idea what "material support" means. Google defines it as "In American law, providing material support for terrorism is a crime". Could you shed some light on this unholy circular reference?
the term “material support or
resources” means any property, tangible
or intangible, or service, including
currency or monetary instruments or
financial securities, financial
services, lodging, training, expert
advice or assistance, safehouses, false
documentation or identification,
communications equipment, facilities,
weapons, lethal substances, explosives,
personnel (1 or more individuals who
may be or include oneself), and
transportation, except medicine or
religious materials;
So while the government didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his tweets about funding were material support, those tweets could be used to increase his sentence for the Reza Niknejad thing.
But you can also look at it the other way around. We're in part disquieted by the Twitter stuff because we (sensibly) believe mere opinions and their expression shouldn't be criminally actionable. But here we have very concrete evidence that these were not mere opinions, but in fact a concerted effort to assist ISIS in a meaningful way.
Absurd. What crime did he commit? "Radicalizing" someone is not a crime. Putting two people in contact is not a crime. Driving someone to the airport is not a crime. Relaying messages to someone's family is not a crime.
Actively getting a random person to join a terrorist organization and then fly overseas to fight for it is a crime; it's the crime of "Providing material support to terrorists" (18 USC 2339A), which (sensibly) includes "personnel" in its definition of "material support".
As usual in Message Board Law, we're here being asked to fall into the trap of considering each of this person's actions independently, ignoring the greater (and in this case crystal clear) pattern of their intent and the outcome of their plan. "Putting two people in contact is not a crime". Sheesh.
His friend is the one providing "personnel" to ISIS, by joining the organization, if that's in fact what happened.
(Firing a pistol, running over sb., incarcerating a hostage)
I don't understand why the press insists on calling them ISIS, which they love, vs Daish/Daesh which they hate.
Emulating the enemy is a key feature of the Paranoid Style of typical American politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American...
> why the press insists on calling them ISIS
1. Don't underestimate the value of consistent branding.
2. You might want to reconsider the motives of "the press". If they get paid in proportion to the size of their audience, they are incentivized to act in ways that draw in viewers, i.e. sensationalist stories. The Islamic State is not their audience, so their opinion is not important.
--
[from the plea agreement at justice.gov]
> the defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal the conviction and any sentence > within the maximum described above [of 15 years] ... in exchange for the concessions > made by the United States
Maybe I'm missing something, but the only concession made by the United States in the "plea agreement" sees to be a vague promise not to prosecute the defendant again. Given that the government should already have this restriction thanks to the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause, is this even a concession by the government?
> The defendant agrees to forfeit all interests in any terrorism-related asset that > the defendant owns or over which the defendant exercises control, directly or indirectly, > as well as any property that is traceable to, derived from, fungible with, or a substitute for > property ... involved in the offense.
That could be almost anything.
> the defendant further agrees to waive all constitutional and statutory challenges > to forfeiture in any manner (including direct appeal, habeas corpus, or any other means) > to any forfeiture carried out in accordance with this Plea Agreement on any grounds, ...
How much do they have to threaten you with to get you to agree to that crap?
> ... including that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine or punishment.
How is it even legal?
>Maybe I'm missing something, but the only concession made by the United States in the "plea agreement" sees to be a vague promise not to prosecute the defendant again. Given that the government should already have this restriction thanks to the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause, is this even a concession by the government?
Seems to me like the government concedes that they wont demand a higher sentence than agreed to.
>> The defendant agrees to forfeit all interests in any terrorism-related asset that > the defendant owns or over which the defendant exercises control, directly or indirectly, > as well as any property that is traceable to, derived from, fungible with, or a substitute for > property ... involved in the offense.
>That could be almost anything.
That's what he agreed to, why does it matter? And in any case it's not very broad, it's just stuff related to the crime. > ... including that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine or punishment.
>How is it even legal?
Why not? That essentially means that he agrees that the punishment isn't excessive.