A man originally from Pakistan, who was living and working in the U.S. on an H-1B visa, has been sentenced to 18 years in a U.S. court for communicating through the internet to try to arrange joining an Islamic militant group in Syria and Northern Iraq. It does seem a little questionable since the "crime" amounted to communicating that he planned to do something, to fight on behalf of a group in another distant part of the world in another country. Allegedly, in one communication, the man mused (it was not clear how seriously) about the possibility his role could be "lone wolf attacks" in the United States, but stated he believed he "belonged on the front line", to fight and work as a combat medic for ISIL in the Middle East. Muhammad Masood, age 31, worked at a research clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and had been in the U.S. since 2018. He was a doctor and held a medical license in Pakistan. The man communicated a plan to reach Syria by flying from Chicago to Jordan in March 2020, but that never actually took place, because the country of Jordan announced closure of its borders in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Mr. Masood purchased a ticket for a flight from Minnesota to Los Angeles, and on March 19, 2020, he was arrested by federal agents at Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. A probable reason he wanted to go to Los Angeles was that many international flights leave from there, so he may have been trying to reach Syria, or perhaps go back to his home country of Pakistan. Authorities believe he may have been planning to board a cargo ship to reach Syria. Mr. Masood's lawyer, Jordan Kushner, called the prison sentence "extremely harsh", especially given his client's history of mental illness. The 18 year prison sentence will be followed by 5 years of supervised release. Masood pled guilty to the criminal charge of "attempting to provide material support to a terrorist organization". The Judge was Paul A. Magnuson. Muhammad Masood Sentenced to 18 Years for Trying to Join ISIS, Orlando Mayorquin, The New York Times, August 25, 2023 similar older stories: Man sentenced to 28 years for talking over the phone (Law & Justice section, Dec 19, 2017 ) Man sentenced to 15 years - accused of socks and rain ponchos to Terrorists (posted by JoakimFlorence, Law & Justice section, May 18, 2016 )
"Masood pled guilty to the criminal charge of "attempting to provide material support to a terrorist organization"." sounds like they caught him in time
I do see some concerning precedent this could set for the area of free speech, since individuals are being harshly punished for communications and what almost amounts to "thought crimes". Basically a vague non-specific crime that has not occurred yet. Imagine if someone just said they were going to rob a bank, and then that person got punished as if they had robbed a bank. It's also kind of worrying because these internet communications can be faked and planted, this is ultimately just electronic data records in computers. It wouldn't be that hard to make it look like you had sent a communication, even when in reality you did not actually send it. And some people just carelessly, casually, and not always wisely, type things on the internet. Words very often do not always carry over into actions. We all understand of course they want to prevent terrorism, but we are deluding ourselves if we do not recognize there is probably going to be some inherent trade-off.
It could be argued that he did not actually violate that law. It is a very stretched interpretation of the meaning of the word "attempting". Of course a defendant in that situation is pressured to plead guilty, knowing they will likely get much more prison time if they do not plead guilty. He realized they were going to send him to prison, so it did not matter so much if he actually violated that specific criminal statute which he pleaded guilty to. Any jury would have been very likely to find him guilty in this situation, regardless of whether they believed he actually broke the specific laws he was being charged with. So it could be said this is an example, although not a very good one, of a person being forced to plead guilty to breaking a law which they did not break. You might say that doesn't matter in this case, but I'm just trying to highlight some legal principles that can apply more broadly than this specific case.
Yes, you got it, that is really what the heart of this issue is about. Of course there are some reasons why they will go after people for "thought crimes" when it is about mass-murder or connected to the category of terrorism (even where the crime would likely take place in another country). But I still think it sets a very worrying and concerning disturbing precedent. Because, as we can see, no actual physical crime has been committed yet. And the supposed "plotting" did not really involve any communications to further any plans. That is, the communications did not actually really help or direct one person to commit a crime. The "danger" (or "slippery slope") is that this sort of interpretation of the law could end up getting applied in other types of situations. And then it would become essentially "illegal" (or treated that way) to even discuss possibly committing a crime, even if that "crime" were very vague and non-specific. And once again, people are being arrested for communications over the internet, when there is no actual real crime to connect those communications to. Those communications themselves are the "crime". Some people might say unwise things to other people, either out of foolishness or anger. Like "I want to kill this person".
It's all the more outrageous because during this time it seems the U.S. Obama Administration was half-covertly supplying slightly more "moderate" Islamic militant groups in Syria with help (and probably including weapons) to try to topple the Syrian government. Even though this man seems to have been willing to fight against the U.S., if he had indeed gone to Syria and joined the group ISIL to fight on their side, it remains questionable whether he really would have ended up doing anything worse than what the Obama Administration had supported. (Even though it's true ISIL did some pretty terrible things in Northern Iraq across from the Syrian border) Hillary was Secretary of State (under Obama) until January 2013, and the U.S. was still very much involved in the civil war in Syria up until 2020. U.S. troops were sent in September of that year, supposedly to fight back ISIL because they were growing too powerful (but it's also believed it was to try to limit Russian influence in the country).
Obama and Hillary will not face any thing for their crimes. The law is a spider web it catches flies and wasps go free Hillary is a wasp so is Obama.
I really don't want Pakistan turning them loose or letting him communicate with terrorist organizations.
