(#1) The underlying charge against Tarek Mehanna, the one that overrides Constitutional rights to say what one pleases (eg "Join the jihad against America!") and visit where one pleases (eg Yemen, not a place noted for its Islamic scholarship), is "treason." (#2) "Treason" charges had been abused in the centuries leading up to 1787 (the drafting of our Constitution) to suppress even reasonable dissent. As Sir John Harington put it ca. 1600: (V1) "'Treason doth never prosper.' (V2) What's the reason? (V3) Why, if it prosper, (v4) None dare call it 'treason'!" (#3) To safeguard against abuses, Article 3 Section3 of our Constitution carefully restricts the definition of "treason": "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Given the bloody attacks being made on Americans by Islamist extremists since 2001/9-11, however, Hehanna's adherence to them met this Constitutional definition.

It sounds very much as if Mr. Mehanna was convicted for thinking unpopular thoughts and publishing unpatriotic material. Obviously his patriotism is suspect, but so is that of anyone who shows such contempt for American democratic values that they would promote waterboarding or trial by military commission. What might be critical for an appeal is the judge's instructions to the jury. The conviction of Benjamin Spock, William Sloane Coffin and their co-defendants was thrown out on this basis.

Don't see translating documents as providing material support. As an Arab, clearly this guy was a little more bothered by our war crimes in Iraq than the average American. I really don't blame him- we shouldn't have been in Iraq, we killed a lot of women and children in Iraq, it was an evil episode in our history. If I was Arab, or had family in Iraq, I could almost see wanting to go to Iraq to fight for the other side. Like if that draft-dodging war profiteer Cheney and his idiot sidekick Bush had invaded Ireland for no good reason, and started torturing and bombing the Irish, I'd probably think about going over to help my people out. Of course it's a also a horrible shame that so many American soldiers got killed by Bush and Cheney for no reason.

Did the jury convict Mehanna for treason?

The defense made the case that Mehanna disapproved of attacks on US civilians, or against domestic targets. They were not able to refute the main element of the prosecution case, though: Mehanna had every intention to join the fight against American and other foreign forces in Iraq, and actively attempted to do so. His oft-averred belief in the rights of Muslims to 'defend' themselves is protected under our Constitution, but his attempts to join al Qaeda specifically to engage in combat against US soldiers on foreign soil is not. It should be added that prosecutors demonstrated convincingly that Mehanna considered the 9/11 attacks as exemplars of Muslim 'self-defense'. There are several mitigating factors in this case that ought to be considered at sentencing, however. First, Mehanna was the least militant of the three young men - one has the sense that he was a 'consolation conviction' after the 'big fish', Abousamra, got away. Second, the conviction based on his translations was highly questionable, insofar as prosecutors were unable to show that al Qaeda commissioned, supported, or even approved of them. Third, despite his unquestionable attempt to enter the fight against coalition forces in Iraq, he was unsuccessful in joining either a terrorist cell or training camp, and therefore shouldn't be penalized to the same extent as someone who had been successful at either of these. For these reasons and more, a life sentence seems too harsh for his rather hapless youthful pursuits. The irony is that this fiasco - including his principled refusal to cooperate, the subsequent prosecution, and questionable conviction regarding his translations - will not have softened his ambitions. Mehanna considers himself a Muslim first, an American second or farther down, and so once again religious identity is the decisive factor in a young person's turn toward violence. This is a sad case, fraught with ironies. The 9/11 attacks were the work of a megalomaniacal radical Islamicist, Osama bin Laden, and his misguided followers. Mehanna, alas, approved of their continuing folly and fervently hoped to join it. One doesn't have to be an Islamicist to regard the subsequent US invasion of Iraq as misguided, though, or to acknowledge that its initiation by the Bush administration required a sophisticated strategy of selective intelligence, deception, and disinformation. One could argue that it is the duty of every responsible American to have opposed it. Finally, it may be true indeed that Tarek Mehanna was a 'budding scholar', and it is clear that youthful passions were at play here, but this was a scholar who tried to 'walk the talk' and take up arms. His defenders should realize that, were the tables turned and Mehanna was a radical Israeli Zionist trying to join a group engaged in terrorist attacks against Arabs, it is likely they'd be celebrating his convictions, not calling them an injustice.

thumbs up at ground zero-fry him danthegas-feel free to leave this country

Tkob, you want to fry Mehanna just for his views? Feel free to leave the country.