Charges of Terrorism in Tennessee Often Fall Apart

A report out of The Tennessean has shown that the state is falling down when it comes to terrorism prosecutions, a charge that is apparently difficult to have stick. The paper found that only nine people in the state have been arrested on terrorism charges since the state’s laws went into effect in 2002. All but one of the defendants either had their charges dismissed or were convicted on lesser charges.

The law in Tennessee makes it a felony to commit any crime intended to “intimidate or coerce” civilians or the government or to disrupt government. The offense is punishable by up to 25 years in prison for a first offense.

The exact reason for why terrorism charges are so hard to make stick is difficult to pin down. It could be many things; mental illness on the part of the defendant will often excuse or reduce the charges. Prosecutors often end up taking into consideration the intent of the defendant making the threats as the words may have been said as a result of extreme emotional distress on their parts and not meant to actually cause harm.

Davidson County recently saw their first such terrorism–related arrest when Amal Abdullahi told a CEVA Logistics co-worker on September 1 that she was ready to die for Allah and that America was full of nonbelievers who should die. Police said she also told the co-worker that nobody pays any attention to her and “she should pick up a gun and shoot all these people.”

The incident was not reported to police until September 6, and CEVA could not be reached for comment. Abdullahi is currently free on $50,000 bond after family was able to post her bail. She is expected to be in court again on October 10 and has retained an attorney

Another terrorism-related arrest that fizzled happened in 2008, when a Middle Tennessee State University student was arrested after, police said, he set fire to his dorm and threatened large-scale devastation on the campus. Rather than admit to terrorism, he pleaded guilty to charges of setting fire to personal property and filing a false report.

On Halloween 2010, a local guy in Chattanooga was arrested on a terrorism charge after he called 911 to say there was an active shooter and several people had been wounded in the fictitious attack. Again, prosecutors dropped the terrorism charge and the man eventually pled guilty to a charge of making a false report.

Source: “TN terrorism charges are rarely upheld,” by Brian Haas, published at WBIR.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on DUI Forced Blood Draws
Sixth Circuit Rules that Park Ranger Was Right to Detain Man Carrying AK-47

President Obama Fails to Veto the National Defense Authorization Act

In a surprising move today by President Obama, the White House issued a statement supporting the controversial National Defense Authorization Act. In an earlier blog post, we highlighted some of the more controversial provisions of the Act. In short, critics fear this law oversteps the bounds separating government power and civil liberties. One of the main provisions authorizes the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain alleged Al Qaeda members or other terrorist operatives captured on U.S. soil.

The news comes as quite a shock to many people due to President Obama's recent assurance that he would veto the NDAA when it fell on his desk. The reasoning behind the "change of heart," according to CBS News, was because the military mandate in the final version of the act had been "softened." The statement issued by the White House said in part,

"We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto."

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch states, "By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law. In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side."

Even FBI Director Robert Mueller opposes the Act because of the restraints it puts on the federal government's ability to investigate and prevent terrorism. He said this when he expressed his concern, "My concern is that you don't want FBI agents and the military showing up at the same time, with some uncertainty as to who is in control."

This news will no doubt cause controversy for President Obama in his upcoming bid for reelection. What is more important, however, is the effect it will have on the civil liberties of U.S. citizens in the future. Unfortunately, only time will tell.

U.S. Senate Passes The National Defense Authorization Act

The Huffington Post reports today that the U.S. Senate voted 93 to 7 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In an interesting article featured on the American Constitution Society Blog, Stephen Vladeck, a law professor and Associate Dean at American University Washington College of Law, highlights some of the more controversial portions of the NDAA.

The NDAA, passed just over a decade after the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), seems to greatly increase governmental power to detain persons suspected of participating in and aiding terrorist activities against the U.S. While terrorism awareness and prevention have obviously been priorities in the government since September 11, 2001, many believe this Act crosses lines that should have never been drawn. The AUMF left many questions unanswered and over the last decade, courts have attempted to answer some of these questions. For instance, they have reached conflicting views on whether AUMF authorizes the detention of U.S. citizens or non-citizens lawfully present within the United States. Most importantly though, the courts have consistently held that the purpose of the AUMF was to authorize the government to use military force on those reasonably believed to be tied to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A main concern of the NDAA, according to Vladeck, is that it severs the requirement that detention be tied to involvement with the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Many say that the NDAA expands the authority to detain to dangerous measures, disintegrating the boundaries used to protect the liberties of U.S. citizens. The NDAA authorizes, in addition to the AUMF,

"any detention of a person who was a part of or substantially supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

According to Vladeck, "the NDAA effectively authorizes the military detention of any individual who provides assistance anywhere in the world to any group engaged in hostilities against any of our coalition partners, whether or not the United States is in any way involved in (or even affected by) that particular conflict."

An obvious question is what the government would define as "direct support" of these enemy forces: money, outward praise, logical assistance, full-fledge involvement, etc. This particular language is undoubtedly vague and could include many different actions.

Another question with the language is what groups are included in the term "associated forces" because many may believe human rights activists, political protestors and even the infamous "occupiers" are "associated forces." Would that then permit the government to detain members of these "associated forces?"

Former FBI agent and author of the article in the Huffington Post, Coleen Rowley, expresses concern over another part of the NDAA; one that would be particularly damaging to the application of certain provisions of the Bill of Rights. According to Rowley, the NDAA would authorize the government to "decide who gets an old-fashioned trial (along with a right to an attorney and right against self-incrimination) and who gets detained without due process and put into a modern legal limbo." Some, including Rowley, believe the NDAA allows the government to treat U.S. citizens suspected of aiding terrorist groups as if they were "enemy combatants", and therefore, not to be afforded the same due process rights as other U.S. citizens accused of various crimes.

The biggest fear among the critics of the Act is that the already powerful U.S. Government would be given far more power than was originally intended and drafted into the Constitution. That U.S. citizens could be detained without due process for potential "support" or "aid" of enemy forces goes against the entire purpose of the Constitution.

For the vocal critics against the NDAA and all of those who may be quietly doubting its constitutionality, it seems President Obama has every intention of vetoing the Act once it reaches his desk. While that may provide some comfort, many fear this is only the first step to an eventual decline in the everyday liberties of U.S. citizens.