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?
I think that if the prosecution included less references to 9/11 then the argument would be less successful. I think it would be less successful because without the videos or pictures then the jury would not realize in full detail how severe terrorism can be. They could have thought that if they stop Terek now (whether or not he is guilty) they wouldn't take the risk of another 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI think the First Amendment does apply, however I do not think that the 9/11 references should have been shown. Terek did not have anything to do with 9/11 and therefore it was not relevant.
I do not know if I believe that he is guilty of being a terrorist, but I believe (depending on the lies) that he did lie three times to authorities. I would need more information to make a better decision though.
I do not think the prosecution’s argument would have been as effective had it not used references to Al-Qaida and 9/11. These references painted a much darker picture of Terek. 9/11 and Al-Qaida make many Americans very angry and, likewise, using those names in court made the jury very angry with the defendant. However, there was nothing wrong with showing those images; Terek’s actions were indeed related to 9/11 and Al-Qaida.
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment does not apply to Terek’s actions because his actions had malicious intent. If someone printed and distributed a book about how to spot and kill Jews, they would be arrested and their actions would not be protected by the First Amendment right, so why should Terek’s actions be protected? First Amendment violation is not a valid argument for the defense to use. Terek’s actions can be classified no less severely than conspiracy to commit murder, so he is not protected by the First Amendment.
I do agree with the jury’s ruling. What Terek did not only promotes violence, but also caused fear in Americans. Therefore, it was just for the jury to find him guilty of conspiring with Al-Qaida, a well-known terrorist group. Terek’s actions were criminal, so he deserves no less than a guilty verdict.
I don't think that the prosecution's argument would have been as strong if it didn't make references to the 9-11 attacks and Al-Qaida. 9-11 is a very emotional topic for a lot of people and it makes a lot of people angry and upset. By bringing this event into account during the trial, the prosecution brought out this anger for the jury, while also bringing out memories. All of that judgement came back and caused Terek to be proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteI think that the first amendment would protect Terek's actions as long as he did not specifically say he would harm anyone or America. Similarly, I agree with Jessica when she said that the 9-11 references should not have been counted as evidence. Despite what Ortiz said when he said, "It was relevent," I don't believe it was. Like Jessica said, Terek was not involved with 9-11. Any evidence regarding 9-11 should not have been relevant.
I do not agree with the Jury's ruling that he was a terrorist. I believe that he made some mistakes and should be punished, but not for terrorism. I believe that people have a right to think what they want to, and even though he may have taken that too far, I don't think that makes him a terrorist.
In my opinion I do not think the prosecutions argument would not of been as strong without the references to 9/11. The pictures, videos and personal stories from 9/11 bring out an emotional side to most people. By considering this part of the argument, it makes Terek Mehanna look as though he was going to take over two planes and kill thousands of people. Was that really Mehanna’s intentions? We don’t know and neither do the judges. They are assuming that he was a terrorist. I think that the first amendment applies to this because he has the right as an American, to say whatever he wants; as long as it is not obvious he is going to harm someone/something. I don’t necessarily agree with the ruling because Terek Mehanna didn’t get a fair trial. First, they profiled him by assuming he was a terrorist because he was from the Middle East. Second, they tied their evidence to 9/11 which could’ve had nothing to do with Terek Mehanna. I think they should have let the 9/11 not count because everyone knows that nobody can sit there and say it doesn’t make them angry, sad or emotional. They basically had the jury won over when they brought out that evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe prosecution’s argument would not have been as effective/successful had it not included references to the Al-Qaida and 9/11. Terrorism is a very frightening thing and emotional subject and because Terek was labeled as a supposed terrorist, the prosecution used the references to sway the jury to believe how big of a threat he was and convict him. The prosecution made the jury look at Terek in another way because of the terrorist comments and was one of the reasons that he was convicted. If he had not used any comments or pictures regarding terrorism, Terek would have had a better chance of winning his case.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the First Amendment would protect Terek’s actions if, like Lexi, he had not said that he would hurt or kill people in America or not. When you start to threatened people’s lives, the First Amendment can only go so far because you are dangerous to them. In Terek’s case, it was controversial publications, but even if people do not agree with it, he has a right to say or write it as long as it does not bring any harm to someone. I believe that it is a valid argument for the defense because everyone is entitled to the First Amendment and what he was saying was not illegal.
I do agree with the jury’s ruling. He was constantly promoting violence and putting people in danger. Terek’s ideas scared Americans and caused the verdict. He deserves to go to jail for what he did because everything that he did was sinister and he wanted to cause fear.
I think that the prosecution’s argument would not have been as effective/successful if it did not include references to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks. I think this because of the fact that 9-ll was a touchy subject to all that have witnessed, it was a fact that persuaded the jury. It was brought out during this trial to sway the jury that Terek was guilty because he was supposedly a terrorist. Pictures and comments were used illustrating the inhumane terrorism. The emotional, horrible, unforgettable event of 9-ll was a point that convinced the jury to call Terek guilty. Without the bringing up of it, Terek could have maybe won his case.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the First Amendment does apply to situations like this. It would have protected Terek's actions if he did not threat to harm others. I also agree with Lexi and Jessica about the 9-11 pictures and comments. They should not have brought the topic of 9-11 into this trial because Terek was not directly, nor was there any evidence, involved in the terrorist attack. Although, because he was claimed to be a terrorist, the 9-11 details could have maybe been necessary to ensure that the jury would call him guilty so he would not have to be a threat to the Americans.
I do agree with the jury's ruling because Terek was accused of lying three times to the jury, and also convicted of being a terrorist. His mother and father did not have much to say, therefore, there is less evidence that they were trying to protect their son, making him look more guilty. He was a threat to the Americans, and if he was not guilty, there would be a chance that he could harm people. He promoted violence and caused fear.
I do not think that the prosecution’s argument would have been as effective or successful if it had not included references to 9/11. For all Americans it is such a sensitive issue that we just want to be over with. I am completely sure that all of the jury remembers that day as many people do. People like to jump to conclusions when 9/11 is brought up because like many good people they just want to see some justice happen over it. Therefore, I think that showing references to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks might have swayed the case out of the defendant’s favor a lot.
ReplyDeleteI think that the First Amendment can apply to these situations to a certain degree. If the jury can find proof within his words that there was intent to harm other people, than they should most definitely be able to use it against him. If he was just speaking to the people about his ideas and distributing them around for more people to hear than it was harmless. Isn’t our different opinion on the government and social interactions what the United States was founded on? Unless he was intentionally hurting people than the argument that what he was saying was protected by the First Amendment should be valid in defending his case.
It is not that I don’t completely agree with the jury’s ruling, but I think that his case should be looking into more than it already has been. As an outsider reading the article about the case it seems to me that with a combination of specifically using motional evidence against him and his families’ testimonies that there could be a reasonable reason to believe that there is still a chance that he could be innocent. Even if they re-look at the case and find him guilty again it will be better than having a doubt always in your mind as to whether the jury sent an innocent man to jail on account of the fact that he could be allied with the people who were behind the 9/11 attacks.
I do not think that the prosecution's argument would have been as effective or successful if it had not included refrences to 9/11 and Al-Qaida. 9/11 is a very emotional subject to most of Americans because it has affected many. By including this in the trial, the jury connected it back to how they were affected by 9/11 and how terrible it would be if it were to happen again.
ReplyDeleteI think that the First Amendment would protect Terek to a certain extent. I disagree with Lexi and Jessica because I think that the 9/11 photos and videos were needed in the argument. Terek was threatening to harm people and if the pictures and videos were what it took to convince the jury that Terek was indeed a terriost then it was definitley needed.
I agree with the jury's ruling. I agree because the United States of America should never have to go through what the Al-Qaida did to us. Even if Terek just threatened to harm people, it is better safe than sorry. Also he was accused of lying three times therefore, Terek is not a trustworthy person.
I believe that the prosecution's argument would still stand, albeit a less successful outcome would occur. The events that occurred on 9/11 have effected every American life, so of course referencing it in a trial for an alleged terrorist would have sway on the jury. It is impossible not to be somewhat biased after such an event occurring on American soil. With that being said, I do not believe that Mehanna was prosecuted solely because of these tactics. As an impartial jury, they must look at the evidence at hand. Although the references to 9/11 may have played a part in the trial's success, the jury had to have seen indisputable proof of his guilt within the evidence.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, to a certain extent, the First Amendment may protect Mehanna's actions. Although it does protect rights such as freedom of speech and press. With that being said, their are certain times at which these rights are void. For instance, if these rights are used in a way which harms another individual, they are void. You cannot, for example, yell "fire" in a public area, for it may cause injury to those around you due to mass hysteria. Because it has been noted that Mehanna had malicious intentions for the documents, I do not believe that the First Amendment protects him.
I absolutely agree with the jury's ruling. Tarek Mehanna had knowingly gone to seek Al-Qaida training, and even brought back training manuals. He translated these documents, which could easily be circulated to Al-Qaida supporters. I believe that it would be dangerously irresponsible to allow someone with this knowledge in his possession to walk free in the United States.
I do not think the prosecution's argument would have been as successful if there were no 9/11 or Al-Qaida references. 9/11 is a very emotional memory for Americans and since the prosecution related his actions to Al-Qaida everyone on the jury probably thought of all of the terrorist plots set to destroy America.The jury could relate these bad memories to Terek because they know that if he was to be ruled innocent he could go back out into the streets and start another terrorist attack. America has experienced that once and the prosecution knows by bringing 9/11 up it will also bring bad memories.
ReplyDeleteI think that the First Amendment would protect Terek, for a while.As long as Terek did not hurt anyone and was just communicating with others about ideas, I think that is okay. If Terek had started to threaten people and start to hurt Americans, I think that is when the First Amendment would stop protecting him.
I agree with the jury's ruling. He should not be allowed to be back in a community if he had ever thought or planned to kill someone. That makes them very dangerous because he was promoting violence and causing fear in a community.
I do not think that the prosecution's argument would have been as successful if they did not bring up any Al-Qaida or 9/11 references. These two subjects bring up emotions in everybody, if you lost someone or not so in the trial they were trying to pull a the jury's heart strings and it worked.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the First Amendment should protect Terek. He was conspiring with a well known terrorist group and could have potentially caused harm to america, or america's citizens. Therefore I do not think that it is a valid point that the defense could use to help prove him innocent.
I agree with the ruling of the jury. This man should not be allowed back into society if he has the potential to harm somebody.
I think that the prosecution’s argument would have been less effective if they had not included references to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks because those are terms that every America citizen is very familiar with. They would be upset and scared to learn that somebody in America was involved with terrorists. So if references to 9/11 were not made, the jury probably would not have been as emotional about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maddie that the first amendment protects Terek to an extent. It does not apply to situations like this because he was jeopardizing the safety of Americans.The protection of our citizens comes before the first amendment of somebody who wanted to harm them.
I basically agree with the jury’s ruling because anybody involved in terrorism against the United States should be in jail, to prevent future attacks. The last thing America wants is another 9/11. Terek had lied in the past to authorities, so now they cannot believe him. However, I agree with Jess that I need more information to be completely sure.
I do not think that the prosecution’s argument would have been as effective had it not been for the references of 9/11. I think this because when using the 9/11 references they can see how the steps that Tarek Mehanna was taking and compare them to the steps leading up to the incident of 9/11. In this case they would have less evidence on why they think Tarek Mehanna is responsible for this crime and therefore he might have been let free when he was supposed to be in jail.
ReplyDeleteThe first amendment is freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion. This protects citizens so that they can have freedom to all of these things unless it threatens someone or something. In this case he is threatening the soldiers of Iraq and could potentially attack the United States as well. He doesn't have the freedom of these things because he would hurt someone or something in some sort of way so this is not a valid reason for the defense to fight for.
I do agree with the jury's ruling because it is better to be safe then sorry and they had enough evidence to state that he is guilty. I think that if he is planning to hurt someone or a group of people then he should be punished for that. He has no reason to do it either. In this case I am very glad to hear about the decision of the jury because then the soldiers and other U.S citizens don't have to be scared anymore.
I do not think the prosecution's argument would have been as effective had it not used references to Al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks because that is a sensetive subject in America. Simply bringing up the topic could have persuaded the jury to find Mehanna guilty. Terrorism is a serious crime and I think when most citizens of America think of terrorism they think of 9/11. If 9/11 and Al-Qaida had not been brought up, I think the jury would have had a harder time deciding whether or not Mehanna was guilty.
ReplyDeleteI believe the First Amendment does apply to situations like this. Mehanna, as an American citizen, has the right to say what he wants as long as he is not threatening to harm someone or America. I do not think the 9/11 references should have been made because Mehanna did not take part in 9/11 therefore they were not relevant.
I do agree with the jury's ruling because Mehanna made awful decisions and has the potential to harm someone. He was accused of lying to authority three times and is not trustworthy. However, I think this case should have been more investigated and like Jessica said, I would need more information to be completely sure.
I do believe this trial would have been much different if they did not use the references to 9/11 and Al-Quida. I believe that the prosecutions's argument should not have even brought in the references in the first place to this trial. The prosecution cannot place nor put Tarek Mehanna in any contact or planning into the referenced attacks making the references irrelevant to the case in the beginning. The article stated that he first started even being in contact with Al-Quida in 2001. I do not believe that he would have any possible relevance to the 9/11 attacks if they occurred the same year because the terrorists would not have his full trust. I am not saying that he is innocent because we have no knowledge on the evidence the FBI gathered i am just stating that the 9/11 reference was unnecessary and irrelevant to the case.
ReplyDeleteIn a way the First Amendment does apply to situations as this. Tarek Mahanna was just talking about ideas if an attack not actually attacking. Tarek's idea may have meant harm to others which kind of makes your first amendment void. As Maddie Rundlett said above you can't scream fire in a building because that is jeopardizing everyone else's safety as does blowing up a building or saying it.
Yes, I do agree with the jury's final verdict on the case. If i was on that jury though, i would not take into mind the 9/11 references. I do not believe that there was any relevance at all to the case i can see if they had proof of him planning the attacks but they do not. I do agree with the verdict because with the evidence we see it seems as if his actions were meant with harm and i believe that if not stopped we would have had another catastrophic day in history.
First off, i would like to point out that i actually did something on this case during First Amendment Day, and it was very mixed in points of views there. I personally don't think it would have made a difference if he mentioned al Qaida and 9/11 or not cause we live in America, a country where just saying terrorism could scare people out of their wits. Apparently the court thought "hey he just translated terrorist messages, so he counts as a terrorist," and that is why it wouldn't make a difference, because they were still terrorist messages.
ReplyDeleteThis is a totally valid arguement that his free speach was protected and i may get some fire for this but honestly he was just translating. If he was going out and doing some things that Al Qaida would have done, then it would have been another story, but he was just translating. I feel he just trying to show citizens what al Qaida was saying cause not everybody can speak or understand them.
Oh I totally disagree with the Jury's ruling because they persecuted him for translating something. He himself was not saying those things, Al-Qaida was. Sure, he did try to join Al-Qaida, but they denied him, THEY DENIED HIM, so he wasn't part of them. Again if he was part of Al-Qaida, i would totally agree with the Jury, but since he wasn't I can say that i disagree with the Jury 100%.
No, I don't believe the prosecutor's case would have been as effective if they did not use the 9/11 or Al-Qaida references. I believe this because 9/11 is a sensitive subject for America, so them talking about it makes people hate Terek. They start to believe he is a terrorist because he has some things in common with the terrorists.
ReplyDeleteI think the First Amendment applies to this but can only go so far. It cannot protect someone if they start to threaten people's lives. I don't think this is a valid argument because if what the prosecutors said was true, he was threatening people's lives and planning to kill. The First Amendment does not protect this.
I do not fully agree with the jury's ruling. I do believe that what he did was wrong, promoting violence and fear. But i don't think this makes him a terrorist. He didn't actually do anything to hurt anyone. There is no solid evidence that he was planning on attacking anyone, just theory.
I do not think that the prosecution's argument would have been as strong without the references to 9/11 and Al-Qaida because terrorism , especially pertaining to 9/11, is such a touchy and serious subject for Americans. People take terrorism very seriously in America.
ReplyDeletePersonally, it is hard to decide if the First Amendment should apply in this situation. I do believe that everyone has the right to free speech, but if by using this right others are put in danger, then that is not okay. So no, the First Amendment should not apply in this case.
I cannot say that I agree with the jury because I feel that if I were to agree or disagree with the ruling, I would have to find out more about this case to make a decision.
Obviously, the references made to 9/11 and Al-Qaida had a major impact on the outcome of the trial. If the were not made, the trial would have defiantly been different. I think what the prosecutors did was intelligent and the references they made were somewhat relevant. Tarek Mehanna was collaborating with terrorists and the prosecutors related his actions to those of 9/11 and those who work with Al-Qaida. At the same time, Tarek Mahanna had noting to do with 9/11 nor was he part of Al-Qaida. The prosecutors could have chosen a different terrorist attack other than the infamous 9/11 attack because since it is so well known and commonly used it supports the misconception that "all Muslims are terrorists" which is a generalization.
ReplyDeleteI think the First Amendment can apply to this situation because Tarek Mehanna, an American citizen, has the freedom of speech.... to an extent. You cannot say "FIRE!" in a movie theater when there isn't one, so I personally think you should be translating messages terrorizing messages or planning on a terrorist attack that may or may not ever happen. Even though you are not following through with the messages and planning, it is unnecessary to bring up, because there will eventually be consequences. So I personally think that it can go either way, yes he has freedom of speech; but, he was saying things that could potentially cause harm to America.
I do not know much about this case, and as of right know I cannot agree or disagree with the jury. They defiantly played it safe by having a possible terrorist be put into prison; but who knows, he can be an innocent man after all.