The legal underpinnings of the charge of “attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization” seem like they could become constitutionally problematic fairly quickly, but in this particular case, the defendant sure seems to have done prosecutors’ jobs for them:
An American teenager disgusted with the American way of life has been arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare International airport after he allegedly tried to travel to the Middle East to join and fight with ISIS.
Federal prosecutors announced on Monday that FBI agents arrested 19-year-old Mohammed Hamzah Khan, of suburban Bolingbrook, on Saturday evening before he boarded a flight to Istanbul, Turkey, via Vienna.
They accuse him of attempting to travel overseas to support terrorism which carries a maximum sentence of 15-years and Khan is also charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
***
Agents also found a handwritten three-page letter from Khan to his parents in which he informs them he was on his way to Syria and the Islamic State, saying he was upset his U.S. taxes were going to kill his ‘Muslim brothers and sisters,’ the complaint says.
‘We are all witness that the western societies are getting more immoral day by day,’ the letter says. ‘I do not want my kids being exposed to filth like this.’ He also invites his parents to join him one day.
Khan purchased the Austrian Airlines ticket to Turkey in late September. Among the notes found at his home were drawings with arrows indicating where he might make border crossings into Syria, the complaint states.
It says in the note to his parents, Khan warned them in capital letters, ‘FIRST and FOREMOST, PLEASE MAKE SURE NOT TO TELL THE AUTHORITIES.’ [Emphasis added, but not really needed.]
I say this type of charge could get constitutionally problematic because, when you get right down to it, this guy didn’t actually do anything yet. He just talked a big game. Federal law allows an attempt to commit an offense to be charged the same as the actual offense, but in a practical sense, “attempted support” is not the same as, say, “attempted robbery” or “attempted murder.”
Here, it’s obvious what the guy intended to do, but an “attempt” offense usually requires some serious step towards committing the offense. What would a hypothetical “attempted support” case require? Does a suspect have to actually be handing cash over, or is it enough that they pulled out their wallet with intent? That might sound flippant, but I really don’t mean it to be. They have this guy drawing the IS flag in a notebook and making a bunch of pro-IS statements, plus this:
During the FBI interview at the airport, Khan allegedly said he was supposed to reach a contact in Istanbul who would then put him in touch with members of the Islamic State group.
Asked by agents what he would do there, Khan allegedly said he would, in the words of the complaint, ‘be involved in some type of public service, a police force, humanitarian work or a combat role.’
It doesn’t sound like he has the first clue what he was going to do there, nor is it at all clear that ever would’ve been able to do anything. The story makes big headlines, but that’s sort of what IS wants—they want us to think they’re everywhere, hiding behind every tree waiting to strike. Do we really need to twist the law to help them do that? Besides, maybe I’ve been watching too much Homeland, but if this guy really had a “contact in Istanbul,” does it make sense to splash this all over the news? Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to get at the contact? All the feds have done is bust a teenager with a big mouth. Uh, congrats?
Oh, and the Daily Mail also had this tidbit about the legal basis for the charges:
The United States has no specific law preventing individuals from joining such groups, but it has anti-terrorism laws that it has used to prosecute those associated with such groups.
So yeah, legally problematic.
