Foreign Fighter Prosecutions Under Federal Law
Overview
A foreign fighter is generally someone who leaves their home country to join a foreign conflict, often to fight alongside terrorist organizations or insurgent groups. The U.S. government prosecutes such individuals under various federal laws aimed at preventing terrorism and supporting foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs).
Key Federal Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 2339B – Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
18 U.S.C. § 2339A – Providing material support or resources to terrorists generally.
18 U.S.C. § 842(p) – Possession or use of explosives or weapons with intent to aid terrorism.
18 U.S.C. § 956 – Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. or its nationals abroad.
18 U.S.C. § 2389 – Conspiracy to overthrow the government or levy war against the U.S.
Prosecutorial Challenges
Proving intent to support terrorism.
Demonstrating knowing involvement with a designated terrorist group.
Tracking travel and communication across borders.
Handling classified evidence and national security concerns.
Addressing constitutional rights in terrorism contexts.
Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: United States v. Ali Al-Timimi (2007)
Facts: Al-Timimi was charged with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists by encouraging jihad and recruiting fighters to fight U.S. forces in Iraq.
Issue: Whether Al-Timimi’s speech and recruitment efforts constituted material support.
Ruling: The court convicted Al-Timimi, emphasizing that recruitment with intent to aid terrorism falls under § 2339B.
Significance: Highlighted that speech coupled with intent to aid terrorism can be criminalized as material support.
Case 2: United States v. Omar Farah (2017)
Facts: Farah was accused of attempting to join ISIS in Syria to fight as a foreign fighter.
Issue: Whether the defendant’s attempted travel and communications showed intent to provide material support to ISIS.
Ruling: Convicted under § 2339B for attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
Significance: Showed prosecution of attempted foreign fighter travel even if the individual is stopped before joining.
Case 3: United States v. Anwar al-Awlaki (posthumous indictment, 2010)
Facts: Al-Awlaki was a U.S.-born cleric linked to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
Issue: Although killed in a drone strike, he was indicted posthumously for providing material support and inciting terrorism.
Significance: Demonstrates the federal government’s commitment to prosecuting foreign fighters and facilitators linked to terrorist acts against the U.S.
Case 4: United States v. Tarik Shah (2015)
Facts: Shah was arrested for trying to travel to Syria to join ISIS and for soliciting others to join the fight.
Issue: Material support and conspiracy charges under §§ 2339A and 2339B.
Ruling: Shah pleaded guilty, acknowledging his intent to join ISIS.
Significance: Showed how social media recruitment and attempted travel lead to federal convictions.
Case 5: United States v. Craig Lang (2017)
Facts: Lang traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS and returned to the U.S. where he was arrested.
Issue: Material support and conspiracy charges.
Ruling: Convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term.
Significance: Illustrated prosecution of returning foreign fighters and the use of evidence from foreign battlefields.
Case 6: United States v. Mohamad Jamal Khweis (2016)
Facts: Khweis voluntarily traveled to Syria and joined ISIS.
Issue: He later surrendered to U.S. forces, claiming he left ISIS voluntarily.
Ruling: Pleaded guilty to material support charges but argued about voluntary withdrawal.
Significance: Demonstrated complexities in prosecuting foreign fighters who later defect or cooperate.
Case 7: United States v. Ahmed Ghailani (2010)
Facts: Ghailani was captured in Pakistan, alleged to be involved in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings.
Issue: Terrorism conspiracy and material support.
Ruling: Acquitted of conspiracy but convicted of lesser charges.
Significance: Highlights challenges in terrorism prosecutions, evidentiary issues, and jury perceptions.
Summary and Key Takeaways
The U.S. prosecutes foreign fighters primarily under material support statutes.
Charges may be based on attempted travel, recruitment, conspiracy, and actual participation.
Courts have ruled that speech and recruitment with intent to aid terrorism qualify as material support.
Defendants often arrested upon returning to the U.S. or during attempted travel.
Cases show the balance between national security and due process protections.
Plea agreements are common but trials occur for significant or contested cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments