Government moves to silence Tarek Mehanna's defense!!

Read below for to find out how the government is moving to silence Tarek's defense! They have laid out all of the points they do not want out in the public, so make sure to help us make it as public as possible!


Goverment Moves to Prevent Tarek Mehanna from Presenting his Case to the Jury

In a series of pre-trial motions filed on October 3, 2011, government
prosecutors are seeking to restrict any evidence, commentary or
testimony that would expose the political nature and retaliatory
motives of their case against Tarek Mehanna. The motions themselves
lay bare the real issues at stake in the case: all the things that
the government wants to prevent the defense from talking about.

Here are some excerpts from a motion entitled "GOVERNMENT'S MOTION IN
LIMINE TO LIMIT DEFENSE COMMENT AND INQUIRY REGARDING INADMISSIBLE
SUBJECT MATTER":

"Government Charging Decisions. Arguments and comments on the
charging decisions of the government are irrelevant to whether the
evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant and could
inappropriately distract the jury from the factual issues that they
must decide. ... The decision to prosecute the defendant, including
implications about the sequence of timing of those decisions, as well
as the government's prosecutorial decisions with regard to the
co-defendant or to other individuals, are not appropriate for the
defense to comment upon in opening. "
And later: "Another attempt to impugn the propriety of the
government's investigation is likely to be through a defense attempt
to suggest that the government made immunity deals with more culpable
individuals than the defendant."

Translation: In 2010, the government allowed a cooperating witness in
the case, Bilaal McCloud, to go free on a charge of being a felony in
possession of firearms. They apparently had material evidence against
McCloud. They nevertheless chose instead to prosecute Tarek--against
whom they have no such evidence--and to allow McCloud to walk free.
They did this in return for his testimony incriminating Tarek. The
government seems to be aware that potential jurists might find this
strange--even outrageous. So they want to be sure that the jury won't
learn about it.

It's also clear that the decision to prosecute Tarek for "terrorism"
related charges occurred after a long period of coercive pressure
aimed at getting him to work as an informant for the FBI. He was
initially arrested in 2008 on a lesser charge of "lying to federal
agents." Terrorism charges followed in 2009 based on "evidence" the
government claims to have possessed since 2006 and only after Tarek
refused to work for the FBI as an informant against other Muslims.
The "sequence and timing" of the government's "charging decisions"
would raise legitimate suspicions in the mind of any rational person,
so the government doesn't want a jury to learn about it.

"The Government's Motivation for Investigating or Prosecuting the
Case. Evidence bearing on the government's decision to prosecute is
"extraneous and collateral" and thus excluded from trial."

Translation: The FBI repeatedly approached Tarek to try to recruit
him as an informant. He refused. They threatened to prosecute him on
"terrorism " charges and to make his life a "living hell." He still
refused. They proceeded to arrest him on "terrorism" charges. Most
people hearing this would see the possibility that the government's
actions were retaliatory and politically motivated. They want to be
sure that these motives can't be talked about.

From another government motion, "TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE

RELATED TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT'S POLITICAL POLICIES AND
ACTIVITIES ABROAD AND IN DOMESTIC (CRIMINAL) TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS
AND RELATED MATTERS":

"The United States of America ... moves in limine to preclude the
defendant from arguing, eliciting testimony (including expert
testimony) or presenting evidence regarding the merits of United
States government's political policies abroad, and references to the
righteousness of its defense and intelligence activities, and
domestic criminal investigations and prosecutions, and alleged
political motivation for defendant's actions. Based upon the
defendant's arguments in this case, and disclosures made by the
defense, the government anticipates attempted references in opening
statement and closing argument,and during cross and direct
examination, that question or criticize the righteousness of U.S.
governmental policies and actions, such as the invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the defendant's First Amendment right to protest
same, the solicitation of assistance in terrorism investigations, the
relationship with the American Muslim community, the prioritization
of law enforcement objectives, the decision to designate al Qa'ida as
a terrorist organization, and several other political and irrelevant
issues which will prevent a jury from remaining focused on the facts
that they will be sworn to decide."

And later: "...the government respectfully requests this Court to
preclude the defendant from eliciting testimony, presenting evidence
of or arguing in the opening or closing statement related to the
propriety of the U.S. Government's policy positions with regard to
the Executive's actions, the suggestion the prosecution seeks to
punish the defendant for opposing what he might view as improper
foreign policy actions of the United States, and his alleged first
amendment right to do so."

Translation: Tarek has been public and outspoken in his opposition to
US wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, the detention of
Muslims, and other US policies. The vast majority of "evidence" the
government has submitted against Tarek consists of political speech.
Most juries would be appalled to learn that "terrorism" charges were
being used to silence political speech. The government is thus trying
to preclude any presentation of this argument to a jury.

From a further motion, "TO PRECLUDE QUESTIONING WHICH ELICITS
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND RESTRICTS COUNSEL FROM MAKING COMMENTS
BEFORE THE JURY SUGGESTING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS BEING USED TO
PROSECUTE THE DEFENDANT":

"The United States of America ... hereby moves in limine to preclude
the defendant from eliciting testimony from any witness that would
reveal classified information or force a witness to indicate that a
response would require them to disclose classified information.
Likewise, the government requests the Court to order the defense to
refrain from making inappropriate comments to the jury suggesting
that classified information (or "secret evidence" or some other
analog) is being used to prosecute the defendant."

Translation: The government has refused to turn over evidence used in
obtaining electronic surveillance warrants against Tarek. Such
evidence might demonstrate that the government engaged in
illegitimate spying on political dissidents, or show how the
government manipulated informants, or reveal other information that
might severely discredit its case. The use of "secret evidence"
stinks of totalitarianism. So the government wants to make sure that
its use of "secret evidence" also remains a secret. The right of the
defendant to see the evidence is, after all, one of the most
elementary rights to due process. A jury might have doubts about a
case in which the defendant has been deprived of those rights.

And here's our personal favorite, quoting again from the first motion
discussed above:

"the government respectfully requests that the Court preclude any
allegations of outrageous government conduct as a trial defense."

Virtually everything about this case--including all the motions
listed above-- falls under the category of "outrageous government
conduct." What would happen if the jury heard that?