The Conviction of Ali al-Timimi

By Evan Kohlmann

After days of deliberations, jurors have finally returned with a guilty verdict in the case of would-be "Islamic scholar" Ali al-Timimi in Alexandria, Virginia.  Timimi is a prominent advocate of a puritanical and often extremist form of fundamentalist Islam known as Salafism.  As the federal prosecutors in Alexandria demonstrated over the past month, Timimi's "religious" teachings included directly encouraging his followers to take up arms against America in order to fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan and their "Arab mujahideen" allies--read Al-Qaida.  Timimi's attorneys had attempted to shield their client in the protection of the First Amendment, arguing that Timimi's language never rose to the stringent incitement standard delineated in the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio case.  The jurors were apparently unpersuaded.

The conviction of Ali al-Timimi is a significant victory for the Department of Justice in its ongoing counterterrorism efforts.  At a time when the DOJ is still coming to grips with regrettable evidentiary and legal defeats in a number of recent cases (such as those of London-based Al-Qaida recruiter Abu Doha and former University of Idaho student Sami Omar al-Hussayen), Timimi's conviction seems to confirm that the U.S. government is still able to successfully prosecute controversial terrorism cases without resorting to extrajudicial means, such as designating an individual as an enemy combatant.  One final note: this latest conviction is due--in no small part--to the tireless work of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Once again, the EDVA has proven itself to be a model of efficiency and success in tackling complex and critically important terrorism cases.  Americans should come to expect the same level of professionalism and expertise in all facets of our national counterterrorism strategy.

TrackBack