[Ppnews] Tarek Mehanna & Manufacturing the "Homegrown Threat"

[Political Prisoner News]

2 Articles Follow

Tarek Mehanna: From suburban teenager to convicted terrorist

http://www.latitudenews.com/story/tarek-mehanna-suburban-teenager-accused-terrorist/

by 
<http://www.latitudenews.com/author/michael-may/>Michael 
May on December 19, 2011

UPDATE 12/20 11:30: The jury found Tarek Mehanna 
guilty on all counts after deliberating for ten hours.

It’s unusual for an accused terrorist to have an 
American fan base. But that’s the situation with 
Tarek Mehanna, a second-generation Egyptian 
American on trial in federal district court in 
Boston for providing material support to 
terrorism and other crimes. Mehanna’s supporters 
crowd the courtroom nearly every day of the 
eight-week trial – more than a hundred showed up 
for the closing arguments. The chasm between the 
competing portrayals of Tarek Mehanna is deep. 
His supporters say he was a loving teacher and a 
role model to local Muslim youths, and are 
convinced the government is pursuing him just for 
expressing his anger at U.S. foreign policy. The 
government says he’s the type of guy who would 
consider killing Americans at a mall in cold blood.

So, who is the real Tarek Mehanna? The Mehannas 
live in the bedroom community of Sudbury, 
Massachusetts. His father teaches at the 
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and both Tarek 
and his brother also graduated from there.  His 
brother, Tamer Mehanna, told me that Tarek grew 
up a typical American kid. He went through 
various phases as a teenager in the 1990s. Comic 
books. Drawing. Grunge music. He was the resident 
Nirvana expert among their friends. “You go into 
my brother’s room,” Tamer said, “and he had 
binders of histories of the band, discographies, 
rare LPs. My brother always wanted to know 
everything about what he was interested in. And 
that carried into Islam as well.”

<http://www.theworld.org/2011/12/tarek-mehanna/>Listen 
to Michael May’s story on Tarek Mehanna for PRI’s 
The World<http://www.theworld.org/2011/12/tarek-mehanna/>.


Inspired by an unlikely source

But Fundamentalist Islam was more than a phase. 
The transformation happened in 2000, during 
Tarek’s senior year in high school. And it was 
sparked by an unlikely source: Howard Zinn’s A 
People’s History of The United States. His 
anthropology teacher assigned the book. Zinn’s 
radical take on U.S. history inspired Tarek to 
learn more about his faith. “Because before that, 
we were kids, we didn’t think about the world,” 
says Tamer. “And neither of us had given much 
thought to our identity as Muslims here in 
America.” Soon, Tarek grew his beard and began 
hanging out with a close-knit group of devout Muslim men.

Tarek lived with his parents in a plush suburban 
home until he was taken into custody two years 
ago. His room, in contrast, is austere and just 
how he left it. Nothing but a bed. Some weights. 
And a wall of floor-to-ceiling bookshelves, 
filled with leather-bound texts covered in gilded 
Arabic script. Tarek’s passion was translating 
the particulars of Islamic law from Arabic and 
putting them on his blog for other 
English-speaking Muslims. His friend Mohamed 
Bahe, a radiology student, got to know Tarek 
online. He went to his blog to read ancient texts 
that he otherwise wouldn’t have had access 
to.  “And he had hundreds and hundreds of 
translations on marriage, prayer, dealing with 
fellow kinsman, friends, how to be a good 
Muslim,” says Bahe. “His blog dealt with all 
aspects of life, which is what I really liked about it.”

The War Comes Home

Tarek’s spiritual awakening happened at a 
difficult time for American Muslims. First there 
was 9/11. Then the U.S. retaliated by invading 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Tarek viewed the wars as an 
attack on Muslims. And Tarek felt Muslims had the 
right to defend themselves by any means 
necessary. Tarek began to post on a listserve 
called At-Tibyan Publications where 
English-speaking Muslims praised Al Queda. Bahe 
also frequented the site. “He would always tell 
me, who am I, living in this comfortable house, 
to judge those people? One man’s terrorist is another man’s hero,” says Bahe.

Tarek took the grim news from Iraq very 
personally. His mother, Sawat Mehanna, remembers 
the day she came home to find Tarek crying. He 
told her that U.S. soldiers had raped a 
14-year-old Iraqi girl and killed her family. 
“And Tarek hardly cried,” she said. “It was very 
difficult for him. I can’t forget that day, his 
dad even talked to him, to try to calm him down.”

This incident was also discussed in court. 
Afterwards, Tarek and his friends passed around 
an Al Queda video showing the bodies of U.S. 
soldiers who’d been dragged behind a truck and 
then set on fire in retaliation. During an online 
chat intercepted by the FBI, Tarek cheered the 
insurgents’ bloody response: “Texas BBQ is the way to go,” he wrote.


“This is America, we can say anything”

<http://www.latitudenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Tarek-at-Ground-Zero.jpg>
[]



The government found this photo on Tarek 
Mehanna's computer, and used it as evidence in 
his trial. Mehanna (on the right) and two of his 
friends, both of whom testified for the 
prosecution, strike a pose at Ground Zero.

Much of the prosecutor’s evidence against Tarek 
came from chats with his friends. Over the years, 
he supplied prosecutors with a wealth of crude 
comments. In public forums, he was considerably 
more delicate, although he was not shy about 
sharing his controversial views. He gave a fiery 
speech at a Massachusetts mosque. Afterwards 
someone approached his father and said, “If I 
didn’t know he was your son, I’d think he was an 
extremist.” Tarek’s parents warned him to tone it 
down. “He was stubborn,” says Sawat Mehanna. “He 
would say, ‘I am not doing anything wrong, so you 
don’t have to worry about anything. This is America, we can say anything.’”

But according to US prosecutors, Tarek did more 
than just talk. He and two close friends made a 
trip to Yemen in 2004 and prosecutors say they 
intended to train with a terrorist group and then 
go kill Americans in Iraq. Whatever the case, 
Tarek came home after a couple weeks and went back to school.

But prosecutors say that failure did not dissuade 
him. They say he turned his attention to 
translating documents for Al Queda. According to 
the government’s argument, the act of translating 
in this context is a crime: material support of 
terrorism. Tarek’s lawyer says hi has the right 
to freedom of speech like any other American.

The FBI Visits

His mother never suspected he was in serious 
trouble until two FBI agents knocked on their 
door in 2008. “They said, ‘we met your son, and 
we asked to him to cooperate with us and he 
refused,’” says Sawat Mehanna. “They said, ‘we 
have a tape with a false statement, he can be 
charged with serious crime, and your life is 
going to be hell.’ I felt like they wanted to 
scare us, so we have to do what they want.”

Tarek had told the FBI that his friend Daniel 
Maldanado was in Egypt, but the FBI had secretly 
recorded a phone call where Daniel had told Tarek 
that he was in Somalia. Shortly afterwards, they 
arrested Tarek for lying to the feds and then 
released him on bail. Eight months later they 
arrested him again, with new charges. The 
government announced that Tarek and his friends 
had planned to go on a shooting spree in a local 
mall. That allegation was dropped from the 
indictment before trial, presumably because there was not enough evidence.

While Tarek refused to cooperate, six of his 
friends agreed to work with the government. One 
of them, Kareem Abu-zahra, who is protected under 
full immunity, wore a wire for the FBI. On the 
stand, Abu-zahra admitted to paying for Tarek’s 
trip to Yemen and coming up with a plot to attack 
Hanscom Air Force Base. He also said he tried to 
acquire guns for the attack on the mall. He’s 
currently living with his family and doing IT 
work at UMass Lowell. His employers were so 
concerned about the content of his testimony that 
he was suspended from work and one of the 
school’s top executives called prosecutors to discuss whether he was a danger.

Meanwhile, Tarek Mahenna’s been in solitary 
confinement for two years. And there’s quite a 
bit of evidence that he actually softened his 
views considerably by 2005. He posted online that 
Islamic law prohibited killing civilians and 
using suicide bombers, in direct contrast to the 
views of Al Queda. Bahe says that the 
administrators of At-Tibyan Publications finally 
banned Tarek from the site. “He would bring up 
arguments against them,” says Bahe. “Like the 
invasion of Iraq. He would say, ‘most of the 
protests that happened were not in Muslim 
countries. They were in western nations in 
Boston, New York. How are these people your 
enemies?’ And people on the forum started 
changing their minds, saying, ‘that is a 
legitimate point.’ And when the admins saw that, 
they just banned him from the group. And that’s when I left as well.”

A Community Watches

Mohamed isn’t the only person who says Tarek was 
a positive influence. At the Worcester Islamic 
Center, where Tarek taught, his students are 
watching the trial closely. Kareem Abdel-Kader, 
17, learned Islamic studies, math and science 
with Tarek. If the kids finished their studies, 
he’d let them go play in the gym. “Everyone loved 
him. Everyone who had him said he was their 
favorite teacher,” says Abdel-Kader.

I spoke to several administrators at the Center, 
who told me that, in the time they knew Tarek, 
they saw no evidence that he was an extremist. 
They told me that the Mosque has had official 
meetings with law enforcement in the past and 
worry that Tarek’s prosecution could dissuade 
Muslims from sharing information with authorities.
******************************************

<http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1620/targeted-and-entrapped_manufacturing-the-homegrown>Targeted 
and Entrapped: Manufacturing the "Homegrown Threat" in the United States

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1620/targeted-and-entrapped_manufacturing-the-homegrown

[The following report was issued by The Center 
for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at 
New York University School of Law.]

Targeted and Entrapped: Manufacturing the 
"Homegrown Threat" in the United States

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has 
targeted Muslims in the United States by sending 
paid, untrained informants into mosques and 
Muslim communities. This practice has led to the 
prosecution of more than 200 individuals in 
terrorism-related cases. The government has 
touted these cases as successes in the so-called 
war against terrorism. However, in recent years, 
former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 
agents, local lawmakers, the media, the public, 
and community-based groups have begun questioning 
the legitimacy and efficacy of this practice, 
alleging that­in many instances­this type of 
policing, and the resulting prosecutions, constitute entrapment.

This Report examines three high-profile terrorism 
prosecutions in which government informants 
played a critical role in instigating and 
constructing the plots that were then prosecuted. 
In all three cases, the FBI or New York City 
Police Department (NYPD) sent paid informants 
into Muslim communities or families without any 
particularized suspicion of criminal activity. 
Informants pose a particular set of problems 
given they work on behalf of law enforcement but 
are not trained as law enforcement. Moreover, 
they often work for a government-conferred 
benefit­say, a reduction in a preexisting 
criminal sentence or a change in immigration 
status­in addition to fees for providing useful 
information to law enforcement, creating a dangerous incentive structure.

In the cases this Report examines, the 
government’s informants held themselves out as 
Muslims and looked in particular to incite other 
Muslims to commit acts of violence. The 
government’s informants introduced and 
aggressively pushed ideas about violent jihad 
and, moreover, actually encouraged the defendants 
to believe it was their duty to take action 
against the United States. In two of the three 
cases, the government relied on the defendants’ 
vulnerabilities­poverty and youth, for example­in 
its inducement methods. In all three cases, the 
government selected or encouraged the proposed 
locations that the defendants would later be 
accused of targeting. In all three cases, the 
government also provided the defendants with, or 
encouraged the defendants to acquire, material 
evidence, such as weaponry or violent videos, 
which would later be used to convict them.

The government played a significant role in 
instigating and devising the three plots featured 
in this Report­plots the government then “foiled” 
and charged the defendants with. The defendants 
in these cases were all convicted and are facing 
prison sentences of 25 years to life. These 
prosecutions­and others that similarly rely on 
the abusive use of informants­are central to the 
government’s claim that the country faces a 
“homegrown threat” of terrorism. Serious 
questions have been raised about the government’s 
role in each of these cases, as well as around 
the set of laws that have facilitated these 
practices. They also raise fundamental human rights concerns.

Part I.A. of this Report considers four trends 
that have enabled the aggressive and widespread 
use of informants in Muslim communities: (1) the 
conflation of Muslims with terrorism and 
terrorists; (2) the U.S. government’s adoption of 
unsupported theories about “radicalization” and 
“homegrown terrorism” in American Muslim11 
communities; (3) a shift toward a preventative 
model of policing and prosecuting terrorism, 
which seeks to intervene prior to any plan to 
commit a particular crime; and (4) the lack of 
accountability and transparency of law 
enforcement activities. Part I.B. assesses the 
domestic legal framework governing the use of 
informants in undercover investigations, 
including the entrapment defense. Drawing on 
media accounts, court documents, and interviews, 
Part II then examines three high-profile 
terrorism prosecutions, looking closely at the 
government’s practices in instigating and 
constructing the plot through informants, and the 
impacts the prosecutions have had on the families 
of the defendants. Part III evaluates the human 
rights impacts of the practices and policies 
detailed herein and the corresponding obligations 
of the U.S. government to respect, protect, and 
fulfill these human rights. Part Iv concludes with policy recommendations.

This Report is grounded in consideration of the 
government’s prosecutions against the “Newburgh 
Four” with a focus on defendant David Williams; 
the “Fort Dix Five” with a focus on defendants 
Eljvir, Dritan, and Shain Duka; and the case of 
Shahawar Matin Siraj. Family members of David, 
Eljvir, Dritan, Shain, and Shahawar were 
interviewed for this Report, which builds on the 
Center for Human Rights and Global Justice’s 
(CHRGJ) longstanding work documenting the impact 
of U.S. counterterrorism policies on Muslim, 
Arab, Middle Eastern, and South Asian 
communities. We also interviewed and consulted 
with experts, journalists, and community leaders studying these issues,
and drew on court documents and media accounts.

The experiences of the families who were 
interviewed for this Report demonstrate the 
profound toll government policies are taking on 
Muslim communities and families. Counterterrorism 
law-enforcement policies and practices are 
undermining U.S. human rights obligations to 
guarantee the rights to nondiscrimination; a fair 
trial; freedom of religion expression and 
opinion; as well as the right to an effective 
remedy when rights violations take place.

The families have been outspoken about the 
injustice of these tactics and the prosecutions 
that they have spawned. A growing chorus of 
commentators, community members, scholars, and 
policy experts, is beginning to challenge the 
legitimacy of the government’s practices, and the 
notions that these prosecutions substantiate a 
“homegrown threat” or provide any security- enhancing benefits.

The cases highlighted in this Report do not stand 
alone. A number of cases around the country have 
been met with similar concerns, which further 
suggests that the practices highlighted here are 
illustrative of similar law enforcement 
activities targeting Muslim communities around 
the country. As this Report argues, the U.S. 
government must put an end to criminalizing 
Muslim communities. Not only do these practices 
fail to enhance public safety goals, but they 
pose intolerable threats to basic human rights across the country.

To abide by these international human rights 
obligations, CHRGJ urges the U.S. government to 
act immediately to implement the following 
recommendations with respect to law enforcement 
and counterterrorism investigations, particularly 
those that involve the use of extensive 
surveillance and paid informants without 
particularized suspicion of criminal activity:

The U.S. government should reject 
“radicalization” theories that threaten the 
rights to freedom of religion, opinion, and 
expression, and should put an end to the 
preventative policing and prosecution methods that rely on such theories.

Congress should hold hearings on the impact of 
counterterrorism policies on Muslim, Arab, South 
Asian, and Middle Eastern communities in the 
United States. These hearings should include 
consideration of current intelligence-gathering 
tactics and the use of informants in counterterrorism investigations.

Congress should pass the End Racial Profiling 
Act, proposed federal legislation to ban racial 
profiling by law enforcement.an end to 
criminalizing Muslim communities. Not only do 
these practices fail to enhance public safety 
goals, but they pose intolerable threats to basic human rights across the
country.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) should revise its 
own June 2003 Federal Guidance on Racial 
Profiling to eliminate the border and national 
security loophole, to include a ban on profiling 
based on religion and ethnic origin, and to 
ensure that the guidance is enforceable.

The DOJ should open an investigation into all 
terrorism-related cases involving the use of an 
informant since September 11, 2001, with a view 
towards examining oversight and actions of 
informants, the circumstances under which they 
are deployed, the types of information they 
gather, and their role in instigating terrorist plots.

Attorney General Holder should issue new 
guidelines to replace the Mukasey Guidelines for 
Domestic FBI Operations (2008), the 2006 Gonzales 
Guidelines on Confidential Human Sources, and the 
2002 Ashcroft Guidelines on FBI Undercover 
Operations. These new guidelines should eliminate 
authorization for the pre-investigation 
“assessment” stage. Further, the new guidelines should ensure that:

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies do not 
open investigations, including by using 
informants, against individuals absent particularized
suspicion of wrongdoing.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are 
not allowed to target individuals and communities 
through surveillance, informants, or other 
information-gathering techniques based on race, 
religion, or national origin, or political and 
religious statements or beliefs.

The FBI is explicitly and consistently prohibited 
from using informants to engage in entrapment or inducement to commit crimes.

The NYPD should revise its guidelines to only 
allow for investigations when there is an 
articulable and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

[Click 
<http://www.chrgj.org/projects/docs/targetedandentrapped.pdf>here 
to download the full report as a PDF document.]





Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20111220/5d088a35/attachment.htm>