Preaching Terror: Free Speech or Wartime Incitement?

Pakistan was the correct organization from which to obtain military training prior to taking up arms in Afghanistan, because its belief system was good and it focused on combat.9 After the meeting, four of al-Timimi's followers agreed to travel immediately to L.E.T. 10 The following day, al-Timimi told two of the four followers how to reach L.E.T. undetected.11 By September 22, 2001, these four followers had obtained travel visas, driven to J.F.K. airport in New York, and flown to Karachi, Pakistan.12 Within another two weeks, all four were training and firing weapons in L.E.T.13This Comment discusses whether al-Timimi's words are protected under the U.S. Constitution.In April 2005, al-Timimi was convicted in federal district court, and in July, he was sentenced to life in prison.14 As the first significant conviction targeting terrorist speech 15 in the post-9/11 era, 16 the resolution of this case on appeal will "Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)").9. Indictment, supra note 1, at 6. Lashkar-e-Taiba is the military wing of Markaz Dawa Wa'al Irshad, "which was founded to organize Pakistani mujahideen . . .against the Russians in Afghanistan."Id.Since the Russians departed, a primary focus of L.E.T. has been to conduct jihad against India.Id.L.E.T. claims to have trained individuals who fight today in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, and the Philippines.Id. at 2. 10.Id. at 6-7. 11.Id. at 6. 12. Indictment, supra note 1, at 6-7. 13.Id. at 7-8. 14.See Jerry Markon, Jurors Convict Muslim Leader in Terrorism Case, WASH.POST, Apr. 27, 2005, at A1 (convicting al-Timimi on all ten counts after seven days of jury deliberation); Matthew Barakat, Islamic Scholar Gets Life in Prison in Va., A.P., July 13, 2005 (reporting Judge Leonie Brinkema's belief that the evidence supported the mandatory life sentence).15.This particular case raises the issue of whether al-Timimi was in fact advocating terrorist activity, or merely unlawful activity.For an in-depth discussion on the nuances of defining terrorism, see WAYNE MCCORMACK, LEGAL RESPONSES TO TERRORISM 1-10 (2005).For the purposes of this Comment, "terrorist" activity is used interchangeably with "unlawful" activity because the question raised only revolves around whether al-Timimi exercised free speech.It is ultimately irrelevant whether al-Timimi in fact advocated terrorism, because his appeal does not hinge on this distinction.See "Defense in Terror Cases to Challenge NSA Spying," Dec. 28, 2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10628591/(reporting al-Timimi's appeal on free speech grounds).Thus, the headline of this Comment, "Preaching Terror," is designed to apply to preachers who may advocate acts beyond the scope of al-Timimi's indictment.But cf.Christine Chinlund, Who should wear the 'terrorist' label?, BOSTON GLOBE, Sept. 8, 2003, at A15 (describing one journalistic approach to the semantics of terrorism: "call the act terrorist, but not the organization").16. Cf. Patrick Wintour, Blair Vows to Root Out Extremism, GUARDIAN UNLIMITED, Aug. 6, 2005, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5256534-116499,00.html(announcing a British initiative to ban the preaching of terrorism in an effort to rein in domestic extremism