inventing-terrorists-study

ENDNOTES
1 It can be argued that the preventive strategy of preemptive prosecution, under one
name or another, has been part of American law enforcement for most of our history.
This study focuses on the particular period after 9/11, but recognizes that preemptive
prosecution has long played a role in perpetuating injustice in America.
2 Chris Hedges, “First They Come for the Muslims,” Truthdig, April 16, 2012,
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/first_they_come_for_the_muslims_20120416/
3 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
4 See Diala Shamas, “Where’s the Outrage When the FBI Targets Muslims”, The
Nation, October 31, 2013, http://www.thenation.com/article/176911/wheres-outragewhen-fbi-targets-muslims#;
Andrew Rosenthal, “Liberty and Justice for Non-Muslims,”
New York Times, Taking Note blog, March 30, 2012,
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/liberty-and-justice-for-non-muslims/;
and Elaine Cassel, “Is Playing Paintball and Firing Legal Guns Terrorism Three
Disturbing Convictions Strongly Suggest Discrimination Against Muslim Americans,”
Findlaw, March 25, 2004, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20040325.html
5 The MEK (Mujahadeen-e-Khalq) case is relevant here. A number of prominent U.S.
politicians accepted money from MEK in exchange for lobbying to have MEK removed
from the State Department’s list of designated terrorist organizations (DTOs). Although
their actions clearly constituted material support for terrorism under the strained
definition in the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision, none of the politicians
were ever prosecuted for their coordinated speech and advocacy for MEK. This study
does not suggest that they should have been prosecuted, but only notes the disparity
between Muslims who are prosecuted for speech not specific to any designated terrorist
group, and prominent politicians who are not prosecuted for paid advocacy on behalf of
a specific designated terrorist organization, MEK. See Scott Shane, “For Obscure
Iranian Exile Group, Broad Support in U.S.,” New York Times, November 27, 2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/us/politics/lobbying-support-for-iranian-exilegroup-crosses-party-lines.html
6 Free association charges involve guilt by association––charges based on the target’s
association with others.
7 Many defendants to whom the authors spoke, who were convicted of trying to defend
Muslim communities abroad from attack, were shocked that the U.S. considered their
conduct criminal rather than laudatory, especially when (as in the case of Bosnia) the
44