You Decide: Material Assistance to a Terrorist Group

Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a thirty-four-year-old Saudi national, earned his undergraduate degree at Ball State and by 2003 had nearly completed his doctorate in computer sciences at the University of Idaho. Al-Hussayen was President of the Muslim Student Association and was active in opposing United States involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq while also condemning terrorist violence. He volunteered to work on the website of the Islamic Assembly of North America, a charitable group. The Islamic Assembly was not itself a violent terrorist organization, but was suspected by the FBI of providing financial support to terrorists.

         Al-Hussayen was arrested and charged with providing expertise (material support) to a terrorist group when it was discovered that the website carried a small number of religious opinions issued by a radical sheik posted before September 11, 2001, that called for “suicide operations” and “bringing down an airplane on an important location.” There were also links that assisted individuals in joining terrorist movements or in donating funds to Muslim fighters in Chechnya or the Palestinian group Hamas, both of which are categorized as terrorist organizations by the United States. Sami Omar al-Hussayen’s lawyers argued that his role as Webmaster merely involved the posting of articles written by others and that of the thousands of postings, only a small number advocated violence. There was also no indication that al-Hussayen endorsed the radical sheik’s calls for violence. The prosecution responded that while freedom of speech was protected, incitement to violence and fund-raising for terrorists was not protected under the First Amendment. Sami Omar al-Hussayen was acquitted by an Idaho jury and the government agreed not to bring additional charges in return for al-Hussayen and his family agreeing to leave the United States. Should al-Hussayen have been convicted of providing expertise to a terrorist group? Was he in essence prosecuted for “guilt by association”?

          Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a thirty-four year old Saudi national, earned his undergraduate degree at Ball State and by 2003 had nearly completed his doctorate in computer sciences at the University of Idaho. Al-Hussayen was President of the Muslim Student Association and was active in opposing United States involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq while also condemning terrorist violence. He volunteered to work on the website of the Islamic Assembly of North America, a charitable group. The Islamic Assembly was not itself a violent terrorist organization, but was suspected by the FBI of providing financial support to terrorists.

         Al-Hussayen was arrested and charged with providing expertise (material support) to a terrorist group when it was discovered that the website carried a small number of religious opinions issued by a radical sheik posted before September 11, 2001 that called for "suicide operations" and "bringing down an airplane on an important location." There also were links that assisted individuals in joining terrorist movements or in donating funds to Muslim fighters in Chechnya or the Palestinian group Hamas, both of which are categorized as terrorist organizations by the United States. Sami Omar al-Hussayen's lawyers argued that his role as Webmaster merely involved the posting of articles written by others and that of the thousands of postings only a small number advocated violence. There also was no indication that al-Hussayen endorsed the radical sheik's calls for violence. The prosecution responded that while freedom of speech was protected that incitement to violence and fund-raising for terrorists was not protected under the First Amendment. Sami Omar al-Hussayen was acquitted by a Idaho jury and the government agreed not to bring additional charges in return for al-Hussayen and his family leaving the United States. Should al-Hussayen have been convicted of providing expertise to a terrorist group? Was he in essence prosecuted for "guilt by association?"