Post‑9/11 Terrorism Cases

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond unanimously threw out all remaining convictions of Virginia Islamic scholar Ali al‑Timimi on Jan. 9, ruling that his post‑Sept. 11 statements urging followers to travel abroad for militant training were protected by the First Amendment. Al‑Timimi had been sentenced to life in prison in 2005 on 10 counts, including soliciting treason, after advising a group of Washington‑area Muslim men to go to Pakistan to join a militant group that could potentially fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan; some bought weapons and trained but none actually fought. Writing for the court, Judge James Wynn said that 'plenty of speech encouraging criminal activity is protected' and stressed that constitutional protection 'does not depend on the popularity or palatability of the message,' but is 'most vital when speech offends, disturbs or challenges prevailing sensibilities.' The men in the so‑called 'paintball terrorists' case had used paintball games in Virginia as paramilitary practice, and several served lengthy terms on related charges, underscoring how aggressively the government once wielded material‑support and solicitation statutes in the post‑9/11 climate. The ruling marks a rare and sweeping appellate repudiation of an early war‑on‑terror prosecution, and will likely fuel new scrutiny of how far U.S. authorities can go in criminalizing extremist advocacy that stops short of concrete, imminent action.