National Defense Authorization Act

On November 30 2011 22:34 Disregard wrote:
One step closer to being a police state.

On November 30 2011 22:34 Disregard wrote:
One step closer to being a police state.

On November 30 2011 22:34 Disregard wrote:
One step closer to being a police state.

On November 30 2011 22:37 motbob wrote:
I don't know why I even bother.

On November 30 2011 22:34 Disregard wrote:
One step closer to being a police state.

On November 30 2011 22:55 amazingxkcd wrote:
So what I understand is that they have to prove that the people they detained have proof of such association, or can they just detain without probable cause?

On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote:
nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die

On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote:
nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die

On November 30 2011 23:24 Hypertension wrote:



So basically we should get rid of the criminal justice system in favor of death squads who hunt down murderers and terrorist sympathizers? Interesting theory.

On December 01 2011 10:30 Romantic wrote:


You can't join a group the United States is at war with and think you can run around immune from attack because you were\are an American citizen

It wouldn't work if you had joined the Viet Cong or the Wehrmacht, and it won't work with Al-Qaeda.

On December 01 2011 10:26 travis wrote:
Why should it be allowable to detain anyone indefinitely?

On December 01 2011 11:00 ElMeanYo wrote:


So they don't get on a plane with a shoe bomb and blow everyone up.

On December 01 2011 11:00 ElMeanYo wrote:


So they don't get on a plane with a shoe bomb and blow everyone up.

On December 01 2011 11:08 acker wrote:
Does the bill allow indefinite detention for people who have proven to be "terrorists", or people the US Government claims are "terrorists"?

If the former, why not simply change the bill to "terrorist=life without parole after conviction" instead of "indefinite detention"? If the latter...we have issues. Very large issues.

From news articles, it appears Obama's threatened to veto it. Not sure on his reasoning, though.

On December 01 2011 11:29 screamingpalm wrote:

This is what I'd like to know as well. Legal experts are claiming the latter, and I'd like to find the wording they're getting this from.

The threat to veto will come with a price (if he actually exercises it). A veto on a military budget bill won't be very popular in this country and conservatives will surely play off of it. I'm sure of his reasoning either to be honest... after all, the administration has been spying on peace activist groups. Not that I'm complaining if he does veto it.

On December 01 2011 12:09 acker wrote:


The budget for the military is tied to the appropriations bill (not this one), according to the NYT.

On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote:
nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die

On December 01 2011 10:30 Romantic wrote:


You can't join a group the United States is at war with and think you can run around immune from attack because you were\are an American citizen

It wouldn't work if you had joined the Viet Cong or the Wehrmacht, and it won't work with Al-Qaeda.

On December 04 2011 12:08 flowSthead wrote:
I think this site should be added to the OP: www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/

I don't think it is as simple as the OP implies, because the definition of enemy combatant is so vague. I posted this on Facebook: Essentially, the entire definition rests on the idea of an "enemy of the United States", which means if you're downloading torrents, or you kill someone, or you rob a convenience store, or mug a New Yorker, you will be fine (as in subject to the normal proceedings in a court of law). But if you self-identify as a Juggalo or Anonymous or any type of gang, and those groups are deemed to be enemies of the United States, you can be held without trial basically indefinitely.

Regardless of that though, even if you assume the U.S. citizens are safe, why is okay that non U.S. citizens be held without trial? That sounds counter to justice in my mind. I don't like it.

On December 02 2011 22:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Hopefully Obama will veto this BS. That's our only chance.

Can't believe 44 of our Republicans voted FOR this violation of the U.S. Constitution.

On December 04 2011 12:26 InvalidID wrote:


Would anyone really be opposed to the indefinite detainment of juggalos?

On December 04 2011 12:44 aksfjh wrote:
I really wonder if people understand what the 3 different branches of US Government are there for. The idea is that each branch executes their power to the fullest, and the other 2 will complete their tasks to make sure what is done is both in the interest of the people and legal in regards to the Constitution. In essence, it doesn't matter what is passed in Congress or what the President does, if it's against the Constitution, it will be struck down.

On December 04 2011 13:11 Dapper_Cad wrote:


By that logic the American state is infallible.

On November 30 2011 23:31 Days wrote:


Oh America, America! How perfect your people is...

On December 04 2011 16:56 hypercube wrote:
I find it cynical how Americans draw a distinction between US citizens and non-citizens.

On December 05 2011 02:04 Dapper_Cad wrote:


I think that's a poorly thought out comment. You draw a distinction between US citizens and non-citizens, you can tell because you used the word "American". Perhaps you dislike that US citizens have rights in the US that non-citizens don't, that that's a fact of life in any state. You can disagree with it, but then you are disagreeing with the very notion of the nation state. We could argue about that, hell I might well agree that the very notion of statehood is an idea that is past it's sell by date... or not... but I think it's a discussion for a different thread.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

On December 05 2011 13:38 patrick321 wrote:
I disagree with the premise here. Just because they've already scrounged a bunch of these powers in from other ambiguous laws doesn't mean they should have ever had them to begin with. Saying that 'they already do it anyway' is nothing more then a strawman to the real issue of whether this law is something the US needs and whether their previous actions were lawful. I refuse to believe that military trials for us citizens was something that needed to be codified. We should be protecting the rights of US citizens, not encouraging the executive branch to trounce on them.

On December 04 2011 12:08 flowSthead wrote:
I think this site should be added to the OP: www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/does-the-ndaa-authorize-detention-of-us-citizens/

I don't think it is as simple as the OP implies, because the definition of enemy combatant is so vague. I posted this on Facebook: Essentially, the entire definition rests on the idea of an "enemy of the United States", which means if you're downloading torrents, or you kill someone, or you rob a convenience store, or mug a New Yorker, you will be fine (as in subject to the normal proceedings in a court of law). But if you self-identify as a Juggalo or Anonymous or any type of gang, and those groups are deemed to be enemies of the United States, you can be held without trial basically indefinitely.

Regardless of that though, even if you assume the U.S. citizens are safe, why is okay that non U.S. citizens be held without trial? That sounds counter to justice in my mind. I don't like it.

On December 05 2011 12:29 hypercube wrote:


I could have gone into details but the point is that while some rights naturally only apply to citizens (like access to diplomatic services abroad) others should apply to everyone. The right for due process shouldn't depend on citizenship and I believe and, at least in theory, it doesn't in EU countries. Although in practice it's much more likely that a non-citizen would be transfered to a country that doesn't respect human rights, so it's not absolute.

On December 08 2011 20:08 FuzzyJAM wrote:

Absolutely this. I am completely disgusted that anyone would think otherwise.

There are obvious reasons for having differences in how you operate some rights - it's simply not feasible for country X to provide free health care for all seven billion people on the planet, or pensions, or disability allowance, or whatever else. However, the right to freedom? The right to life? The nationality of someone has absolutely nothing to do with whether a government should respect these. If there is not enough reason to justify denying these rights to someone of one nationality, there is not enough reason to justify denying them to someone of any nationality whatsoever. I honestly don't see how this can be argued.

I am truly amazed that some people actually seem to feel differently. It's honestly very sad.

On December 06 2011 07:03 Krikkitone wrote:


It has to do with the idea of being in a "state of war" ie you don't give enemy soldiers a trial, you shoot at them, unless they surrender, and then you hold them until the war is over.

Now you have a problem when
1. the "soldiers" do not have uniforms
2. the "war" is not against a state with territory and relatively clear leadership, but a group with no territory, and potentially unclear leadership.

While you could use purely criminal methods for this (because its not a "state"), it gets complicated when the criminal organization is operating across national borders, and when you don't have full cooperation with the local "state". (the local "state" may be militia if the official "state" is too weak)

This probably indicates that some revision is needed, in designing a system so the executive branch doesn't have the power to hold people indefinitely without some type of individual trial. (with allowances made for more time if the inital 'detention' was in foreign territory)

On November 30 2011 22:29 motbob wrote:

The U.S. military has been detaining persons under the "Enemy Combatant" rule for the last ten years, so this law is basically business as usual.

But what about the possibility of the U.S. Army detaining a U.S. Citizen? Doesn't that violate due process?

The Supreme Court agrees with you 100%! In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court ruled that the Executive Branch of the United States doesn't have the right to hold U.S. Citizens indefinitely without following due process. This court ruling led directly to the release of a U.S. Citizen who was being labeled an enemy combatant.

So, essentially, the bill doesn't need a provision excluding U.S. citizens from the bill's scope. The Supreme Court's ruling has already excluded them.

I know this is tl;dr, and the only reason I'm posting it is so that whenever someone posts a dumb over-simplified thread saying that the U.S. Army now has the right to imprison the entirety of OWS I can just close it and link to this thread instead.

On December 09 2011 08:26 urSa wrote:
nonono this is good! since pretty much everyone released from places like guantanamo bay end up going back to their terrorist roots...this is why its being made i think

On December 09 2011 08:35 travis wrote:
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2447-Indefinite-military-detention-for-U-S-citizens-now-in-the-hands-of-a-secretive-conference-committee-


They voted to make it a closed conference... so the public doesn't know what they are saying.....

Could someone explai nt ome the necessity of that?

(Washington, DC) – US President Barack Obama’s apparent decision to not veto a defense spending bill that codifies indefinite detention without trial into US law and expands the military’s role in holding terrorism suspects does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), over detainee provisions, but on December 14, 2011, issued a statement indicating the president would likely sign the legislation.

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

The far-reaching detainee provisions would codify indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era when Congress in 1950 overrode the veto of then-President Harry Truman and passed the Internal Security Act. The bill would also bar the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo into the US for any reason, including for trial. In addition, it would extend restrictions, imposed last year, on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to home or third countries – even those cleared for release by the administration.

There are currently 171 detainees at Guantanamo, many of whom have been imprisoned for nearly 10 years. As one of his first acts in office, Obama signed an executive order for the closure of Guantanamo within one year. Instead of moving quickly to close the prison and end the use of the discredited military commissions, he supported modifications to the Military Commissions Act.

“It is a sad moment when a president who has prided himself on his knowledge of and belief in constitutional principles succumbs to the politics of the moment to sign a bill that poses so great a threat to basic constitutional rights,” Roth said.

The bill also requires the US military take custody of certain terrorism suspects even inside the United States, cases that previously have been handled by federal, state and local law enforcement authorities. During debate over the bill, several senior administration officials, including the secretary of defense, attorney general, director of national intelligence, director of the FBI, and director of the CIA, all raised objections that this provision interfered with the administration’s ability to effectively fight terrorism. In the last 10 years over 400 people have been prosecuted in US federal courts for terrorism related offenses. Meanwhile during that same period, only six cases have been prosecuted in the military commissions.

“President Obama cannot even justify this serious threat to basic rights on the basis of security,” Roth said. “The law replaces an effective system of civilian-court prosecutions with a system that has generated the kind of global outrage that would delight recruiters of terrorists.”

On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote:
nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die

On December 16 2011 14:12 Klamity wrote:
Thanks for this write up. It's hard to find unbiased information.

On November 30 2011 23:19 white_horse wrote:
nice write-up OP. People crying big brother over this is the same as all those hippies complaining about america killing the terrorist al-alwaki because he was an american citizen. get fucking real. american or not if your trying to kill american people you deserve to die

On December 02 2011 22:29 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Hopefully Obama will veto this BS. That's our only chance.

Can't believe 44 of our Republicans voted FOR this violation of the U.S. Constitution.

On December 24 2011 09:51 Marcus420 wrote:

Just think of the ways the gov't could abuse this power.

Good luck doing any kind of occupy protest

This bill will pass whether we want it too or not.

On December 24 2011 10:07 IntoTheBush wrote:

Exactly. Which is another reason why I am embarrassed to say I'm a U.S. citizen. Honestly our Constitution isn't even worth the paper it's written on anymore...

Also with the NDAA being passed it gives the President the right to arrest, detain, and even assassinate anybody(yes even American citizens) who are considered a threat to national security.

I honestly think that once they are able to censor the net anybody who opposes what is going on in Washington will be handled accordingly.

On December 24 2011 10:59 motbob wrote:

You didn't read the OP. The entire point of the OP is that the government does not have the right to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens no matter what laws Congress passes. You cannot extend constitutional authority by simply passing a law.

On January 01 2012 09:53 Ympulse wrote:
Llama, the statute in the bill referencing 'indefinite detainment' of US citizens is still in.

lol @ 4th amendment rights,

On January 01 2012 11:07 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:


Section 1021, the "infinite detainment" statute, is not in the final bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112zkMBxz::

On January 01 2012 11:21 screamingpalm wrote:


1031, and as far as I know it is still in and passed with the bill. We'll have to see what implications it has, personally I prefer that they err on the side of caution with the jargon, but it's too late now.

On January 01 2012 11:39 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:


The OP mistyped the section number:

Both wikipedia and the official source shows that the entry in question is Sec. 1021
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1540

People claim that it's still in, but can someone actually back up their statement with a citation? I've provided two direct sources that directly prove the opposite.

On January 01 2012 12:03 screamingpalm wrote:


It does appear they renamed it from 1031 to 1021, my apologies. It still appears to have made the cut- the Udall amendment was defeated, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that the provision was taken out.

On January 02 2012 04:09 ryanAnger wrote:
( e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

-----

The above is from Section 1021 of the bill. Simply put, it means nothing has changed regarding citizens rights. There have been precedents disallowing indefinite detention of United States citizens, and they still stand because of the above sub-paragraph.

TL;DR The President’s opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don’t seem to realize they’ve been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.

He signed it because if he didn’t, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I’ll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President’s wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.

You’ll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn’t coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President’s stated mandate - they are effectively a giant ‘fuck you’ to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President’s support with his own base. Observe:

Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.
Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political shitstorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.
Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)
Here’s where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party’s base and the opposition’s. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to ‘Keep America safe’ and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent’s liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that’s what they care about most. You’ve designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don’t even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.
Pass the ‘parent’ legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military’s operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent’s base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won’t matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.
Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It’s a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.
This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don’t know or don’t care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this ‘corporate shill’, congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don’t seem to see that. You don’t have to like your country’s two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it’s being used like this.

EDIT: thanks to Reddit user Mauve_Cubedweller for this post

On January 02 2012 04:09 ryanAnger wrote:
( e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

-----

The above is from Section 1021 of the bill. Simply put, it means nothing has changed regarding citizens rights. There have been precedents disallowing indefinite detention of United States citizens, and they still stand because of the above sub-paragraph.

On January 02 2012 14:12 goldenkrnboi wrote:


found on tumblr regarding the issue (which apparently came from reddit)

The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop.

On January 02 2012 02:54 Orcasgt24 wrote:
So where are the OWS type protests for this bill? What the hell kind of free country could allow such a proposal to pass into law without resistance from the people.

Governements are nothing without people and it is your right to oppose your own government should you deem them unworthy

WASHINGTON -- The White House released rules Tuesday evening waiving the most controversial piece of the new military detention law, and exempting U.S. citizens, as well as other broad categories of suspected terrorists.

Indefinite military detention of Americans and others was granted in the defense authorization bill President Barack Obama signed just before Christmas, sparking a storm of anger from civil libertarians on the left and right.

The new rules -- which deal with Section 1022 of the law -- are aimed at soothing many of their gravest concerns, an administration official said. Those concerns are led by the possibility that a law that grants the president authority to jail Americans without trial in Guantanamo Bay based on secret evidence could easily be abused.

"It is important to recognize that the scope of the new law is limited," says a fact sheet released by the White House, focusing on that worry. "Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States."

On January 18 2012 18:52 mmp wrote:
Hedges to sue Obama, Panetta
source (including legal doc): http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_suing_barack_obama_20120116/
+ Show Spoiler +

“You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA section] 1021?” the judge asked.

“We can’t say that,” Torrance answered.

“Are you telling me that no U.S. citizen can be detained under 1021?” Forest asked.

“That’s not a reasonable fear,” the government lawyer said.

“Say it’s reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does ‘directly supported’ mean?” she asked.

“We have not said anything about that …” Torrance answered.

“What do you think it means?” the judge asked. “Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example.”?

“We have not come to a position on that,” he said.

“So assume you are a U.S. citizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?” the judge said.

“I couldn’t offer any specific language,” Torrance answered. “I don’t have a specific example.”

There are now 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies that work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States, The Washington Post reported in a 2010 series by Dana Priest and William M. Arken. There are 854,000 people with top-secret security clearances, the reporters wrote, and in Washington, D.C., and the surrounding area 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2011. Investigative reporter James Bamford wrote in the latest issue of Wired magazine that the National Security Agency is building the largest spy center in the country in Bluffdale, Utah, as part of a secret NSA surveillance program code-named “Stellar Wind.” Bamford noted that the NSA has established listening posts throughout the country to collect, store and examine billions of email messages and phone calls.

Limiting the NDAA via Congressional Action

One problem with a presidential directive is, of course, that it can be rescinded by a future president. And while the new directive represents a laudable effort to narrow some of the NDAA’s most objectionable provisions, it leaves section 1021 of the law untouched.

A much better, if more long-term, approach to remedying the law’s problems would be to repeal or amend it. The hearings held this morning by the Senate Judiciary Committee are a step in that direction.

Close observers of the NDAA will recall that its detention provisions were passed without any hearings, and that even though its provisions negatively impacted the civilian justice system, the bill was never brought before the House or Senate Judiciary Committees for a vote. Today’s hearing, while too late to prevent the NDAA’s passage, should serve to formally initiate the broad congressional discussion that the law’s provisions merit.

What is needed is statutory reform: a clear legal rule that terrorism cases belong in the civilian courts. Because, in the end, flexibility and executive discretion—the focus of the new directive—mean that the government is as free to take the wrong approach as the right one.

As the fact sheet accompanying the directive emphasizes, the new rules open up the executive’s detention options, but they do not limit those options. A determination that section 1022 does not apply or should be waived “does not affect the executive branch’s discretion to use any lawful disposition option…[It just means] that there is no statutory requirement to place an individual in military custody.”

I know this is tl;dr, and the only reason I'm posting it is so that whenever someone posts a dumb over-simplified thread saying that the U.S. Army now has the right to imprison the entirety of OWS I can just close it and link to this thread instead.

TAREK’S SENTENCING STATEMENT
APRIL 12, 2012

Read to Judge O’Toole during his sentencing, April 12th 2012.


In the name of God the most gracious the most merciful Exactly four years ago this month I was finishing my work shift at a
local hospital. As I was walking to my car I was approached by two federal agents. They said that I had a choice to make: I could do things the easy way, or I could do them the hard way. The “easy ” way, as they explained, was that I would become an informant for the government, and if I did so I would never see the inside of a courtroom or a prison cell. As for the hard way, this is it. Here I
am, having spent the majority of the four years since then in a solitary cell the size of a small closet, in which I am locked down
for 23 hours each day. The FBI and these prosecutors worked very hard-and the government spent millions of tax dollars – to put me in that cell, keep me there, put me on trial, and finally to have me stand here before you today to be sentenced to even more time in a cell.


In the weeks leading up to this moment, many people have offered suggestions as to what I should say to you. Some said I should plead for mercy in hopes of a light sentence, while others suggested I would be hit hard either way. But what I want to do is just talk about myself for a few minutes.


When I refused to become an informant, the government responded by charging me with the “crime” of supporting the mujahideen fighting the occupation of Muslim countries around the world. Or as they like to call them, “terrorists.” I wasn’t born in a Muslim country, though. I was born and raised right here in America and this angers many people: how is it that I can be an American and believe the things I believe, take the positions I take? Everything a man is exposed to in his environment becomes an ingredient that shapes his outlook, and I’m no different. So, in more ways than one, it’s because of America that I am who I am.


When I was six, I began putting together a massive collection of comic books. Batman implanted a concept in my mind, introduced me to a paradigm as to how the world is set up: that there are oppressors, there are the oppressed, and there are those who step up to defend the oppressed. This resonated with me so much that throughout the rest of my childhood, I gravitated towards any book that reflected that paradigm – Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and I even saw an ehical dimension to The Catcher in the Rye.

By the time I began high school and took a real history class, I was learning just how real that paradigm is in the world. I learned about the Native Americans and what befell them at the hands of European settlers. I learned about how the descendents of those European settlers were in turn oppressed under the tyranny of King George III.


I read about Paul Revere, Tom Paine, and how Americans began an armed insurgency against British forces – an insurgency we now celebrate as the American revolutionary war. As a kid I even went on school field trips just blocks away from where we sit now. I learned about Harriet Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, and the fight against slavery in this country. I learned about Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the struggles of the labor unions, working class, and poor. I learned about Anne Frank, the Nazis, and how they persecuted minorities and imprisoned dissidents. I learned about Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King,
and the civil rights struggle.

I learned about Ho Chi Minh, and how the Vietnamese fought for decades to liberate themselves from one invader after another. I learned about Nelson Mandela and the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Everything I learned in those years confirmed what I was beginning to learn when I was six: that throughout history, there has been a constant struggle between the oppressed and their oppressors. With each struggle I learned about, I found myself consistently siding with the oppressed, and consistently respecting those who stepped up to defend them -regardless of nationality, regardless of religion. And I never threw my class notes away. As I stand here speaking, they are in a neat pile in my bedroom closet at home.


From all the historical figures I learned about, one stood out above the rest. I was impressed be many things about Malcolm X, but above all, I was fascinated by the idea of transformation, his transformation. I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie “X” by Spike Lee, it’s over three and a half hours long, and the Malcolm at the beginning is different from the Malcolm at the end. He starts off as an illiterate criminal, but ends up a husband, a father, a protective and eloquent leader for his people, a disciplined Muslim performing the Hajj in Makkah, and finally, a martyr. Malcolm’s life taught me that Islam is not something inherited; it’s not a culture or ethnicity. It’s a way of life, a state of mind anyone can choose no matter where they come from or how they were raised.

This led me to look deeper into Islam, and I was hooked. I was just a teenager, but Islam answered the question that the greatest scientific minds were clueless about, the question that drives the rich & famous to depression and suicide from being unable to answer: what is the purpose of life? Why do we exist in this Universe? But it also answered the question of how we’re supposed to exist. And since there’s no hierarchy or priesthood, I could directly and immediately begin digging into the texts of the Qur’an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, to begin the journey of understanding what this was all about, the implications of Islam for me as a human being, as an individual, for the people around me, for the world; and the more I learned, the more I valued Islam like a piece of gold. This was when I was a teen, but even today, despite the pressures of the last few years, I stand here before you, and everyone else in this courtroom, as a very proud Muslim.


With that, my attention turned to what was happening to other Muslims in different parts of the world. And everywhere I looked, I saw the powers that be trying to destroy what I loved. I learned what the Soviets had done to the Muslims of Afghanistan. I learned what the Serbs had done to the Muslims of Bosnia. I learned what the Russians were doing to the Muslims of Chechnya. I learned what Israel had done in Lebanon – and what it continues to do in Palestine – with the full backing of the United States. And I learned what America itself was doing to Muslims. I learned about the Gulf War, and the depleted uranium bombs that killed thousands and caused cancer rates to skyrocket across Iraq.

I learned about the American-led sanctions that prevented food, medicine, and medical equipment from entering Iraq, and how – according to the United Nations – over half a million children perished as a result. I remember a clip from a ’60 Minutes‘ interview of Madeline Albright where she expressed her view that these dead children were “worth it.” I watched on September 11th as a group of people felt driven to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings from their outrage at the deaths of these children. I watched as America then attacked and invaded Iraq directly. I saw the effects of ’Shock & Awe’ in the opening day of the invasion – the children in hospital wards with shrapnel from American missiles sticking but of their foreheads (of course, none of this was shown on CNN).


I learned about the town of Haditha, where 24 Muslims – including a 76-year old man in a wheelchair, women, and even toddlers – were shot up and blown up in their bedclothes as the slept by US Marines. I learned about Abeer al-Janabi, a fourteen-year old Iraqi girl gang-raped by five American soldiers, who then shot her and her family in the head, then set fire to their corpses. I just want to point out, as you can see, Muslim women don’t even show their hair to unrelated men. So try to imagine this young girl from a conservative village with her dress torn off, being sexually assaulted by not one, not two, not three, not four, but five soldiers. Even today, as I sit in my jail cell, I read about the drone strikes which continue to kill Muslims daily in places like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Just last month, we all heard about the seventeen Afghan Muslims – mostly mothers and their kids – shot to death by an American soldier, who also set fire to their corpses.

These are just the stories that make it to the headlines, but one of the first concepts I learned in Islam is that of loyalty, of
brotherhood – that each Muslim woman is my sister, each man is my brother, and together, we are one large body who must protect each other. In other words, I couldn’t see these things beings done to my brothers & sisters – including by America – and remain neutral. My sympathy for the oppressed continued, but was now more personal, as was my respect for those defending them.


I mentioned Paul Revere – when he went on his midnight ride, it was for the purpose of warning the people that the British were marching to Lexington to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, then on to Concord to confiscate the weapons stored there by the Minuteman. By the time they got to Concord, they found the Minuteman waiting for them, weapons in hand. They fired at the British, fought them, and beat them. From that battle came the American Revolution. There’s an Arabic word to describe what those Minutemen did that day. That word is: JIHAD, and this is what my trial was about.

All those videos and translations and childish bickering over ‘Oh, he translated this paragraph’ and ‘Oh, he edited that sentence,’ and all those exhibits revolved around a single issue: Muslims who were defending themselves against American soldiers doing to them exactly what the British did to America. It was made crystal clear at trial that I never, ever plotted to “kill Americans” at shopping malls or whatever the story was. The government’s own witnesses contradicted this claim, and we put expert after expert up on that stand, who spent hours dissecting my every written word, who explained my beliefs. Further, when I was free, the government sent an undercover agent to prod me into one of their little “terror plots,” but I refused to participate. Mysteriously, however, the jury never heard this.


So, this trial was not about my position on Muslims killing American civilians. It was about my position on Americans killing Muslim civilians, which is that Muslims should defend their lands from foreign invaders – Soviets, Americans, or Martians. This is what I believe. It’s what I’ve always believed, and what I will always believe. This is not terrorism, and it’s not extremism. It’s what the arrows on that seal above your head represent: defense of the homeland. So, I disagree with my lawyers when they say that you don’t have to agree with my beliefs – no. Anyone with commonsense and humanity has no choice but to agree with me. If someone breaks into your home to rob you and harm your family, logic dictates that you do whatever it takes to expel that invader from your home.

But when that home is a Muslim land, and that invader is the US military, for some reason the standards suddenly change. Common sense is renamed ”terrorism” and the people defending themselves against those who come to kill them from across the ocean become “the terrorists” who are ”killing Americans.” The mentality that America was victimized with when British soldiers walked these streets 2 ½ centuries ago is the same mentality Muslims are victimized by as American soldiers walk their streets today. It’s the mentality of colonialism.


When Sgt. Bales shot those Afghans to death last month, all of the focus in the media was on him-his life, his stress, his PTSD, the mortgage on his home-as if he was the victim. Very little sympathy was expressed for the people he actually killed, as if they’re not real, they’re not humans. Unfortunately, this mentality trickles down to everyone in society, whether or not they realize it. Even with my lawyers, it took nearly two years of discussing, explaining, and clarifying before they were finally able to think outside the box and at least ostensibly accept the logic in what I was saying. Two years! If it took that long for people so intelligent, whose job it is to defend me, to de-program themselves, then to throw me in front of a randomly selected jury under the premise that they’re my “impartial peers,” I mean, come on. I wasn’t tried before a jury of my peers because with the mentality gripping America today, I have no peers. Counting on this fact, the government prosecuted me – not because they needed to, but simply because they could.


I learned one more thing in history class: America has historically supported the most unjust policies against its minorities – practices that were even protected by the law – only to look back later and ask: ’what were we thinking?’ Slavery, Jim Crow, the internment of the Japanese during World War II – each was widely accepted by American society, each was defended by the Supreme Court. But as time passed and America changed, both people and courts looked back and asked ’What were we thinking?’ Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the South African government, and given a life sentence. But time passed, the world changed, they realized how oppressive their policies were, that it was not he who was the terrorist, and they released him from prison. He even became president. So, everything is subjective - even this whole business of “terrorism” and who is a “terrorist.” It all depends on the time and place and who the superpower happens to be at the moment.


In your eyes, I’m a terrorist, and it’s perfectly reasonable that I be standing here in an orange jumpsuit. But one day, America will change and people will recognize this day for what it is. They will look at how hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed and maimed by the US military in foreign countries, yet somehow I’m the one going to prison for “conspiring to kill and maim” in those countries – because I support the Mujahidin defending those people. They will look back on how the government spent millions of dollars to imprison me as a ”terrorist,” yet if we were to somehow bring Abeer al-Janabi back to life in the moment she was being gang-raped by your soldiers, to put her on that witness stand and ask her who the “terrorists” are, she sure wouldn’t be pointing at me.


The government says that I was obsessed with violence, obsessed with ”killing Americans.” But, as a Muslim living in these times, I can think of a lie no more ironic.


-Tarek Mehanna
4/12/12