On Tuesday, December 20, Terek Mehanna of Sudbury was found guilty of several terror-related charges and three charges of lying to authorities. The link below will direct you to an article and video that discuss the courts ruling on the case. After reading/watching, answer the questions below. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/mostpopular/30037719/detail.html
- Do you think the prosecution’s argument would have been as effective/successful had it not included references to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks? Why or why not?
- “They said his translation and distribution of controversial publications was free speech protected by the First Amendment.” Does the First Amendment apply to situations such as this? Is this a valid argument for the defense?
- Do you agree with the jury’s ruling? Why or why not?
1. I do not think the prosecution's argument would have been as effective/successful had it not included references to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks because these events were used as relevant evidence to support the convictions. If the references were not made, the prosecutor's argument would not have been as well-supported or backed up; this could have changed the outcome of the verdict. In addition, what occurred during 9/11 touched and hurt many people's lives, and because the charges pressed against Tarek Mehanna related to it by the prosecutor’s references, people would judge him as guilty. Anybody who is somehow related or relevant to 9/11 would be judged as guilty because people cannot stand what happened on that day. They ponder on how a person can just let that disastrous attack occur under their own knowledge. For this reason, I do not think the prosecution’s argument would have been as convincing.
ReplyDelete2. I do not think the First Amendment applies to situations such as this; publications that instigate harmful acts or terrorism should not be protected by freedom of speech or freedom of religion because it causes disruption. People who received the publications could have taken the content seriously and followed through with terrorism and such. The First Amendment rights should be denied in situations like this for the safety of civilians and America. Nobody deserves to be hurt just because the First Amendment protected a person's right to distribute disruptive, dangerous publications. At the same time, I think it is a valid argument for the defense because passing out publications is related to freedom of speech and religion. Literally, the First Amendment protects that right, but I do not think it should have been allowed.
3. I do agree with the jury's ruling because Tarek Mehanna was caught training for terrorism, and if he was not stopped, another attack could have been plotted in which he was involved. Keeping civilians and the US safe and secure from terrorists is a hard job, but by putting people like Mehanna in jail, the job can be executed safely. In addition, Mehanna was also charged of lying to the authorities, which should not be allowed. Judging him guilty serves him right for lying. At the same time, his family members said that he would never even hurt a fly, let alone be involved in terrorism. So, if the jury decided he was guilty when he really was not, a person's life has just been ruined, and that is not just. I think, based on the evidence and the charges, the jury's ruling was accurate, but people cannot be certain.
1) I think the prosecution’s argument would have not have been as affective if the references to Al-Qaida and 9/11 were not used. This is because without these references it would not show the relevance of terrorists in America’s history. As said in the video, mentioning Al-Qaida and 9/11 scared the jury into convicting Mehanna. The jury knows that if suspected terrorists are not taken seriously, thousands of peoples lives could be taken away like seen in 9/11, and they were not chancing that.
ReplyDelete2) I think the First Amendment can partially apply to a situation such as this one. I understand that Mehanna translated and distributed controversial publications, which some people might think should be regulated. Since 9/11 has touched so many Americans, many people are sensitive to Muslims, as well as Al-Qaida. Even though Mehanna does have freedom of speech, since it deals with such an extreme issue such as terrorism, some people might find this threatening to our nation. On the other hand, Mehanna has a right as an American citizen to express his views, and in this case translate a Muslim book. I think it is valid to bring in the First Amendment from the defense standpoint. This is because it shows every person has the right to do, and say what they want. It also shows that it was in no business that the government came in and took Mehanna’s actions into their own hands, and ignored his rights as a person.
3) I somewhat agree with the jury’s ruling on this case. I do believe that since terrorism is serious that what Mehanna did should be taken seriously. I also agree that with putting him in jail, if Mehanna was planning a terrorist attack, his plan would be stopped. On the other hand I disagree with charging Mehanna of terrorist related charges. This is because Mehanna’s first amendment was taken away from him. I also believe that maybe Mehanna was just traveling to Yemen to learn more about Jihad, so he could inform others back in the U.S. about it. Going along those lines if Mehanna was not looking to launch a terrorist attack, he is charged for basically the rest of his life for something he did not even do. Overall, I believe that Mehanna’s story can be seen both ways and that I somewhat agree with the final verdict made regarding this case.
1)Like Baylee, I do not think that the prosecution’s argument would have been as effective without the references to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks. These references and pictures helped to illustrate all the innocent lives that were lost as well as the damage that was done by Al-Qaida. These references helped connect Mehanna with Al-Qaida. The jurors probably thought that another incident similar to 9/11 could happen if Mehanna was not convicted. By referring to Al-Qaida and 9/11, it really helped to speed up the deliberation, which is why it only took 10 hours. Although I feel that the outcome would have been the same, without the 9/11 and Al-Qaida references, the conviction have taken considerably longer.
ReplyDelete2)No, I do not think that the First Amendment applies to situations such as this. When the First Amendment was originally written, there were no terrorists that were trying to harm the United States and its people. It was written to allow people to speak freely without the fear of censorship. In this case, Mehanna was supposedly going to kill U.S. troops. Although the First Amendment allows citizens to speak freely, it was not written to permit terrorists to have the freedom to destroy the U.S. and its citizens. From the defendant’s point of view, this is a valid argument. They are trying to do everything they possibly can to free Mehanna. By using the First Amendment, they are trying to get the point across that he should be able to say what he wants.
3)Yes, I agree to the jury’s ruling. A terrorism task force found documents and videos supporting Jihad’s terrorist activities in his home in Sudbury. He also went to Yemen to train in terrorism. These pieces of evidence all clearly and thoroughly supported that Mehanna was guilty. I agree with Savera’s opinion, and as I said earlier, that another attack like 9/11 could happen again if he charges are not held against him. I feel that he is a ticking time bomb, and sooner or later Mehanna would be involved in a terrorist attack on the United States.
1) I dont think so beacause its edvidence to the case and it involved 9/11. Also, this edvidence was to help with the jury's decision. This edvidence helped with the decsion to his conviction or not. Its not random edvidence.
ReplyDelete2) Yes, the First Admendment does because the First Admendment is freedom of speech. This is prob not valid for this case but in other cases sure. But depending on what the case is this is deffinetly a valid reason.
3) Yes, I agree with the jury's ruling because the evidence showed that he did and he shoule have been convicted no matter what because he helped with 9/11
Referencing the 9/11 attacks and Al-Qaida made the prosecutor’s argument a lot more powerful. 9/11 and Al-Qaida are disturbing things that many people associate with terrorism. The court case was on Tarek Mehanna being accused of terror related charges which made the references relevant to the trial. 9/11 and Al-Qaida are also things that are significant to many people who lost loved ones and close friends. Things like these make people pay attention because they were and still are a big deal. By referencing these things I believe that the prosecutor made their argument a lot stronger.
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment protects peoples' freedom to speak their opinion, however in situations such as this trial, I think that the specifics are very important. The persecutors argued that his “translation and distribution of controversial publications was free speech protected by the First Amendment”. I think that this is a valid issue to bring up but not one to prove innocence. It is proven that Mehanna conspired and trained for terrorism and then returned to the U.S. He clearly had some intent of violence against the U.S. otherwise he would've have gone to receive training and then return to the U.S. He was technically exercising his First Amendment rights but free speech isn't enough to show against the evidence that Tarek Mehanna wasn't guilty of anything.
I do agree with the court's decision. I think that there was enough evidence and reason to show that Tarek Mehanna was guilty of something terrorist related. He conspired with Al-Qaida and then went to receive terrorist training. Returning to the U.S. afterward and then lying to authorities I think is a pretty good indication that this man was up to no good. Even if he wasn't planing to do anything, why would some one conspire with Al-Qaida then train for terrorism and then lie for no reason?
1) I agree with Baylee because they prosecutors used the references because they knew that that day was a traumatic day for many people, and Jurors would be mad at him just because the other people say Mehanna was involved like it said in the video people take the topic of 9/11 to heart. Also the references wouldn’t show any relevance with case because he was charged with helping Al-Qaida and if they didn’t mention 9/11 then the jurors would think that he shouldn’t have been charged.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with Sam because when the first amendment was written there were no terrorists around threating to hurt U.S citizens. The amendment was written to allow U.S citizens to speak freely and share their ideas. The amendment wouldn’t protect him in this case because he is not a U.S citizen and he wasn’t sharing his ideas, he is sharing his ideas to hurt the U.S troops.
3) Like Edj I do agree with court’s decision because there was enough supporting evidence that Mehanna was involved with terrorist related activities. First he took terrorist training and second, he conspired with Al-Qaida. Mo man takes terrorist training and does m=nothing with the new knowledge, he was obviously doing something bad with knowledge. Not to mention he lied about it. If he did it as some kind of deranged fun with no ideas of attacking U.S troops than he would have no reason to lie. Since he did lie to the authorities about he should be guilty.
1) I agree with everything that was said about the prosecutor's use of 9/11 references. It is a day that will always be remembered, and will always be remembered as an act of pure evil. Referring to it helped remind everyone why we need to put people like this man in jail.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with Edj. The Amendment does say that you can speak your mind without consequence, but that is entirely different than plotting terrorism. While he is protected by the First Amendment, terrorism is still a crime and he will still be put in jail for planning acts of it.
3) I agree with the jury's decision. It is important to stop men like this from even attempting acts of terrorism. Like Danielle said, taking terrorism training is almost evidence enough. It's not like terrorism is an interesting side project you'd be interested to know how to carry out. If you take the training, you're planning on using it.
1.) I agree with Baylee and Sam in saying that the prosecution's argument would not have been as effective or successful if it had not included references to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks because the evidence that was displayed to the jury was used to show how big of an impact terrorists from foreign countries, such as Al-Qaida, have been made on America in the past. In the video, it stated that the references used scared the jury into ultimately convicting Mehanna for "conspiring with Al-Qaida and plotting to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq." These pieces of evidence were used to support the prosecutor's argument in saying that Mehanna was guilty on multiple counts for lying to authority and attempting to take part in terrorist acts that could potentially kill many U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq. I feel that the references of 9/11 and Al-Qaida were also used to show the jury that if this man was not arrested and free to do do whatever he was doing before, his actions could possibly lead to another horrible attack on America and kill the lives of thousands of innocent people. The jurors most likely did not want to take the chance in letting this man go and then being accused later on if he did try to do some type of terrorist action on our country.
ReplyDelete2.) I do not think that the First Amendment applies to situations such as this because the First Amendment was not written in order to protect and allow alleged terrorists from translating and distributing controversial publications that summarize how to take part in and lead various types of terrorist actions, it was written in order to allow U.S. citizens to speak freely on their opinions and protect what they had to say. I agree with Sam and Danielle because the First Amendment does not allow people of a different country to distribute information and ideas on how to kill people and troops of our free country that we live in today. However, I agree with Savera in saying that this is a valid argument for the defense attorney because distributing information and personal ideas is related to the First Amendment since it involves and includes the protection of people's speech and rights, but in no way do I think that it makes it okay that he translated and distributed this publication that was about how to do and take part in terrorist attacks on U.S. people and soldiers, nor do I think that this argument should have been allowed, like Savera said.
3.) I strongly agree with the jury's ruling because of all the different pieces of evidence that clearly show that Mehanna wanted to take part in and do some type of terrorist action on our U.S. soldiers and country. Some of this evidence includes Mehanna going to Yemen to train in the act of terrorism and the translation and distribution of the controversial book that included information on how to kill U.S. soldiers. I feel that each one of these sources and pieces of evidence very clearly and accurately supports the fact that Mehanna lied to U.S. authority and he wanted and attempted to take part in some terrorist actions, which led me and the jury to come to a conclusion that he was guilty of four different "terror-related"charges. Like Sam said, if each one of these terror charges were not brought upon and held against him in court, he might have been let go and free to do these terrorist actions once again and potentially kill thousands of U.S. soldiers and people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.) I also agree with Baylee because with the reference to 9/11 and Al-Qaida the jurors could remember 9/11 and what happened that day. The reference Mehanna made to 9/11 and Al-Qaida proved he had similar thoughts and intentions to the people that ruined our country on September 11, 2001. With someone threatening the safety of America again, the jury knew the immediate decisions they had to make to protect America. There was no way that they could risk the safety of America, knowing that there was someone in the country threatening it.
ReplyDelete2.) I feel the First Amendment does not apply to situations like this because it puts other people in danger. Although he did use the First Amendment to explore Al-Qaida and 9/11 through his own interests, it puts others in peril and is a very dangerous, sensitive topic to most people in America. This also could be a valid argument for the defense because it is also true that it was his First Amendment right and he is allowed to explore anything because of the First Amendment.
3.) I agree with the jury's ruling because the evidence clearly shows that Mehanna is a threat to our country's safety. There is many things proving the statement that Mehanna is a potential terrorist. First, he went to terrorism training to learn how to be a terrorist. He also had photos and information about 9/11 and Al-Qaida, showing that he had taken interest in our country's worst experiences. The jury made a good decision planning to press charges making Mehanna guilty. We could not risk the threat of killing millions of U.S. soldiers and innocent citizens.
1. I agree with Baylee and Annalise that if the prosecutors had not put in the references to 9/11 and the Al-Qaida their case would not be as strong. The tragedy of 9/11 hurt a great deal of people. It affected everyone and is still a big part of everyone. In the plane attacks many family members died. For all we know the jury could have had some pass away because of 9/11, because of Al-Qaida. By possibly having that connection they would want revenge and want to put away anyone who might have to do with it. Therefore without it, it would have been less personal for the jury and might have given them a different opinion.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the First amendment does not apply to Mehanna and other situations such as this. At one point in time when we still thought America was invincible, we would have ignored his comment. But since Al-Qaida and 9/11 terrorism is much more real. The first amendment says people have the right to speak your opinion. Although he is entitled to his opinion terrorism is much too real for people and talking like he did can frighten people. Therefore the first amendment does not apply to situations where terrorism is the case.
3. I do not fully agree or disagree with the jury’s opinion. The article never said if the jury had any relation to 9/11 or Al-Qaida. Depending on their connection if there was one, the jury could have listened more to their connection than the facts. Most people with connections want nothing more than to throw people involved with 9/11. If none of the jury had a connection then I would agree because then people would know they listened to the facts. But if some did then I would disagree because they are deciding a person’s fate but is more interested in putting them away. Overall, I am undecided because I do not know the connections the jury had to 9/11.
1. I agree with Taylor, Annalise, and Baylee. The prosecutor's references to 9/11 and their references to Al-Qaida made the case very strong. The references showed that Mehanna was dangerous and wanted to harm Americans, so he had to be put in jail. If there had not been references to 9/11 or Al-Qaida, the jurors may have decided that he was innocent and let him go and there would be a terrorist plotting against America and bad things may have happened. By referencing these things, Mehanna is in jail and there we don't have to worry about him trying to hurt Americans, so the references definitley made the prosecutor's argument more effective and successful.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Anna and Taylor, the first ammendment does not apply to situations like this case. Mehanna was a terrorist that was trying to hurt Americans. When the saftey of the American citizens is at risk, then freedom of speech should not apply to those situations because people are being put in danger. The first ammendment should not apply to situations or cases where there is terrorism involved.
3. I agree with Annalise and strongly agree with the jury's ruling. Mehanna went to terrorism training so obviously he was a threat to America. He was too dangerous not to be put in jail and if he was found innocent, then he would continue trying to find ways to harm the country. So I strongly agree with the jury's ruling that Mehanna is guilty.
1.) I agree with Kelly that those references definetly made the case stronger than it would have been. By making refrences to 9/11 and Al-Qaida it made the jury immidiletly think of death and tragedy. 9/11 was a great tragedy and whenever you hear about you think bad bad bad. By making connections to this automatically the jury looked at the victim negatively. However, what he was doing definetly pointed towards attacks on the u.s soldiers and citizens. i think that without the references, the Mehanna would have still gone to jail because it seemed as he was going to attack. He was a danger to us as a country. The references definetly made the case stronger though.
ReplyDelete2.)i also agree with kelly that this the first ammendment shouldnt apply to cases like this. Our country needs to be protected and terrorism is very dangerous. When a person is threatening to kill others of his country i believe that his freedom is taken away because he is putting us in danger and taking away our freedom as a country. I do think however that they probably believe that Mehanna was just looking into things he was interested in and that was his right but when it has to be questioned i think it has gone too far.
3.)I do agree with the Jury's ruling because i do believe he was a threat to our country. i remember ms. ryan telling us about it and i got frightened just by hearing what he was planning to do. I think that the jury did the right thing. By ruling him guilty they protected our country from someone who had plans to attack us.
1. I agree with Kelly, that the references to 9/11 and Al-Qaida attacks made the prosecutors trial much stronger. Both of these references make us think of death and destruction. If this man wanted to be part of Al-Qaida than he obviously wanted to harm Americans. The prosecutors needed to show that side of the argument to get the point across to the jury that he was a dangerous person.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the First Amendment should not apply to this situation because it was related to potential harm or killing of innocent people. I also agree with Anna that the First Amendment was not written to potentially help terrorists from being able to plan or help others to plan a terrorist act.
3. I agree with Kelly, he should have been put in jail, and if he hadn’t than he would keep trying to harm America. He was trying to help people commit terrorist acts by giving them these controversial publications.
1. I agree with Savera and Kelly that the prosecutors would not have had as good an argument without the references to 9/11 and the Al-Qaida attacks. Without these references, the prosecutor would not have had much evidence to back up their charges against this man. The events show just how powerful the Al- Qaida is and how they can harm our country. We do not want to live with the threat of our country being harmed again, and the references to 9/11 helped show the court that it can happen again if we do not put away the people who were associated with the events.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Savera and Edj, that the First Amendment does protect our freedom of speech rights but if what is said can endanger or threaten citizen's lives, then something needs to be done. In this case the Freedom of Speech may apply in the sense that this man was able to express his beliefs, but it does not mean that he is innocent and it does not mean that he should be able to say more things that could threaten lives. Acts of terrorism are not accepted in this country and they go against our constitution, so even though the freedom of speech is protected, talking about killing people should not be.
3. I do agree with the Jury's ruling. People who train to become terrorists can not be trusted to walk freely on the streets with children and innocent children. Our country was threatened by terrorists once and this man has shown us that the Al-Qaida is still an acting group that can hurt our country again. After 9/11 our country realized that it had to take some serious precautions and locking up people who practiced the Al-Qaida ways was one of them. It is hard to trust people after what happened and the government would not lock any away they did not consider a threat. The Jury was just acting as concerned citizens and they have the right to do that after what happened on 9/11.
1. I believe it wouldn't have been as successful because showing the pictures to the jury persuaded them to act upon someone who was presenting a threat to public safety. It put any doubts in their minds down and allowed them them to reach a verdict. Plus it showed the jury how terrorism is still a threat to America and that they should punish anyone collaborating with terrorists.
ReplyDelete2.I believe that doing this in itself is protected by the first amendment. But preaching violence against innocent people and U.S. troops clearly put public safety in danger and needs to be stopped immediately. Just because something in the constitution says you can do something, doesn't mean that you can do it to cause harm to others.
3.I agree with the jury's ruling. Those who encourage and ally with terrorists need to be prosecuted as so. they are threatening our safety and the safety of innocent people. If they are not stopped and prosecuted before they can inflict damage on anyone, they will attack and try to destroy our safety and sense of security.
i agree with Bailey i do not think that prosecution’s argument would have been as effective/successful had it not included references to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks because 9/11 was a tragic day in American history where many lives were lost, and i think that like it said in the video the kind of scared people into convicting him. because like any human would do if they thought that they could prevent further attacks on their country they would. so i think that in a way they manipulated the jury to convict him.
ReplyDelete2.I agree with Savera edj, and nicole I think that the First amendment does protect our freedom of speech.However, when American lives are potentially in danger, i think that they are going to over see the first amendment t to save those lives. i also agree with Anna because the constitution was written to protect our country and its people after all it say right in the first line "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..." The GOvernment lives by these rules and they are to do what they need to protect the people and"establish justice". After all if some stupid terrorist kills us all they're not going to get a pay check so there is no way that they are going to take that risk.
3. I do agree with the jury's ruling because their was a potential for this man to cause serious hard to American citizen and i do not believe that it was worth taking the chance that he might be innocent and then have him go and blow up a couple million people. I don't know about but if i was on the jury and that happened I wouldnt want to be know was the person who allowed hi to kill millions of people.
1: The refrences to 9/11 and Al-Qaida defenitally made the prosecution's argument stronger because comparing it to such bad people groups and events will make anyone think that this is bad as well. These refrences convinced the Jury that it was a danger to the public.
ReplyDelete2: i do not believe the First amendment applies to situations like this. if it can harm innocent people in any way, then the First amendment does not back it up.
3: The jury did come to the right verdict because he was caught and there is proof that there was some intention of harm, and so he must be scentenced guilty to save lives.
1. The prosecution's use of comparing someone suspected of terrorism is clever in the sense that he is being compared to people who have done America much harm. This is effective in making the jury believe that the defendant was guilty.
ReplyDelete2. The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever. Therefore, it shouldn't even be brought up in such a situation. There are many other ways to prove bone's innocence without using the First Amendment.
3. Honestly, there was no tangible evidence of the defendant's innocence. Therefore, I believe that the jury had every reason to believe that the defendant was guilty.
1. I agree with Alex if the prosecutors had not referenced the 9/11 attacks the jury may have felt differently about the decision. Showing a tragic event like that and having a man in-front of you that has been charged with acts of terrorism would most likely make you feel differently about your decision. Although if the statements and charges against him were supported and backed up by evidence it may have not changed their decision.
ReplyDelete2.I agree with kyle on this one, the First Amendment should not apply to a situation like this (terrorism). After the tragic event that occurred it should not be taken lightly, this man should have recognized this as well.
3. I do agree with the jury's ruling, after being shown pictures from nine eleven and the evidence against him I would of found him guilty. With having evidence of him travailing to Yemen to receive terrorist training and all of the documents found, he had no chance to argue his innocence.
1. I do not believe the verdict would have been the same if 9/11 was not brought up. The event of 9/11 tugs at American's heart strings. Whenever someone or something is referenced to 9/11 the feelings of hatred and sadness are brought up again. If 9/11 had not been brought up in the trial, people probably wouldn't have had those feelings towards the man. However, I do think the man is guilty of something, whether is had to do with 9/11 or not.
ReplyDelete2. I do believe that the First Amendment protects against certain aspects. However, if the speech that is being made threatens our well being, something should be done. After 9/11, certain speech should be monitored more, such as terrorism speech.
3. I do agree with the jury's ruling. It's hard not find someone guilty when we are reminded of what happened on 9/11. I also believe that the jury had enough evidence to prove that the man was a danger. We also want to take more heavy duty precautions when it come to terrorism .This being one of them.
1) I don't think the prosecution's argument would have been the same if it had not included references to the 9/11 attack. 9/11 was a devastating event and like Lauren said, whenever it is brought up, feeling of hatred and sadness are brought up. The people don't want something like 9/11 to happen ever again, so they are more careful in listening, and realize that there is something very important to worry about
ReplyDelete2) I don't think the FIrst Amendment should be applied in this situation. Freedom of speech is one thing, but terrorism is completely different. This could bring danger to many people, and the man should go to jail.
3)I do agree with the jury's ruling. After all the evidence that is being held against him, it pretty much proves he is guilty. After 9/11 was brought up, it made it so he looked even more guilty, and like Kyle said, he should go to jail to save the life of others