Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US v. Mehanna: Government's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Based on First Amendment Grounds

US v. Mehanna: Government's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Based on First Amendment Grounds

Ratings: (0)|Views: 95 |Likes:
Published by CEInquiry

More info:

Published by: CEInquiry on Jan 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/18/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTSUNITED STATES OF AMERICA)))v.) Criminal No. 09-10017-GAO))TAREK MEHANNA)
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PORTIONSOF COUNTS ONE THROUGH THREE OF THE SECOND SUPERCEDING INDICTMENT
The United States of America, by and through United StatesAttorney Carmen M. Ortiz, and Assistant United States Attorneys(“AUSA”) Jeffrey Auerhahn and Aloke S. Chakravarty, for theDistrict of Massachusetts, and Jeffrey D. Groharing, TrialAttorney, Counterterrorism Section, National Security Division,United States Department of Justice, hereby responds to theDefendants’ motion to dismiss dated July 15, 2011. For the reasonsstated herein and supported by the allegations in the record
1
, theGovernment respectfully requests that the Defendants’ Motion bedenied.
INTRODUCTION
Information expected to be tendered at trial and previewedto the court previously through the Indictment, Complaint
1
See Second Superseding Indictment ("Indictment"), ComplaintAffidavit of Agent Nambu and Detention Proffer for a non-exhaustive summary of evidence which, along with supplementalevidence is likely to be elicited at trial as relates to theinstant motion.
1
Case 1:09-cr-10017-GAO Document 200 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 25
 
Affidavit, Detention Proffer and other pleadings reveals thefollowing:A group of young men from the suburbs of Boston radicalizedthemselves to justify, plan, and take action to conduct violencebased on their religious beliefs. Among other materials, the menconsumed terrorist propaganda materials from Al Qa’ida, reveledin the acts of September 11, 2001. and ultimately desired toanswer the call of Osama bin Laden to engage in violent jihad Twomembers of the group, defendants Tarek Mehanna and AhmadAbousamra agreed with others that violent jihad was theirobligation and that they should find a way to act. Throughnumerous occasions of studying and discussing materials whichjustified violent jihad, seeking supportive materials on-line,and by watching and discussing videos depicting violent jihad,they concluded that they too should take up arms in defense oftheir beliefs. In furtherance of their objective, theyultimately planned violence, sought military-type training atterrorist training camps, and agreed to help providepersonnel(including themselves) to engage in jihad, as well asprovide services and expertise through translation and computerskills to help recruit others to do what they aspired to do,support terrorists and al Qa’ida.In 2002, in furtherance of their conspiracy, Abousamratraveled to Pakistan for the purpose of receiving military
2
Case 1:09-cr-10017-GAO Document 200 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 25
 
training at a terrorist camp, so that he could then enterAfghanistan to fight and kill Americans. Having failed in hisefforts, he returned to Boston and rejoined the group.The men discussed their desire to die as martyrs to theirfaith on the field of battle. Together, they watched anddistributed jihadi videos and other media as a source ofinspiration. Influenced in part by Abousamra's failure inPakistan, three of the men discussed potential alternative actsof violence which could be committed in the United States,including the assassinations and terror shootings as means ofparticipating in jihad. Some plans were abandoned as impracticaland some because of a high probability of failure.In 2004, the defendant and two of his associates left theUnited States with the intention of traveling to Yemen, wherethey sought military training at a terrorist camp. Once properlytrained, they intended to train with other 'mujahideen' and enterIraq to fight and kill American soldiers. Mehanna and Abousamramade it to Yemen, but were apparently unsuccessful in finding theterrorist training camp they expected. Abousamra continued toIraq in order to fight and kill Americans without any furthertraining.All three of the group ultimately returned to the UnitedStates. Defendants Mehanna and Abousamra continued to consideradditional ways by which they could serve and participate in
3
Case 1:09-cr-10017-GAO Document 200 Filed 07/29/11 Page 3 of 25

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->