Material Support to Foreign Terrorist Organization—Yassin Aref

Yassin Aref, an Iraqi Kurd, has denied that he has ever been associated with terrorists and claims he doesn’t believe in violence.^[1] Mr. Aref testified during his trial in New York, where he stands accused of conspiring with Mohammed Hossain to “help an FBI informant launder $50,000 from the sale of a shoulder-fired missile in a US sting based on false plans to assassinate Pakistan’s UN Ambassador in New York.”^[2] Both Mr. Aref and Mr. Hossain have been “charged with conspiracy to provide material support to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed, which is [a designated] foreign terrorist organization”; this charge is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. It also seems that Mr. Aref is charged with making false statements “about his affiliation with a Kurdish political group know as the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan, or IMK”; if he is convicted of false statements and it involves international or domestic terrorism, he can be punished with a fine, imprisonment for up to 8 years (as opposed to five for non-terrorism cases), or both.^[3]

On the first day of trial, “a terrorism expert” testified over defense objections that Mr. Aref ”has associated with known Islamist militants and sympathized with their violent causes.”^[4] The defense objected because it argued that the expert, Evan Kohlmann, “doesn’t have enough experience in the field of counterterrorism and he didn’t spend enough time examining the case against Aref.”^[5] Mr. Kohlmann told the court “that according to [Mr.] Aref’s diary, [Mr.] Aref either met with several key militant figures or reviewed their writings and sympathized with their causes while he was affiliated with the IMK.”^[6]

The defense also read aloud portions of his diary, which “refer[red] to conversations with other Muslims who discuss moving the war to ‘America and Israel to make explosions there’ and ‘attacking Western targets so we can get the people’s attention toward us.’”^[7] According to Mr. Aref, “[t]he diary doesn’t show [he] was happy [with] what they say or support what they say.”^[8]

When a writing, or part of a writing, is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously;^[9] this rule is based on the notion that a statement taken out of context can create misleading impressions and the adverse party ought to have the ability to address them.^[10]

---

[1] Holly McKenna, Kurd in NY Trial Denies Any Link to Terrorism, Reuters, Sep. 28, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
[4] Holly McKenna, NY Plot Suspect Associated with Militants: Expert, Reuters, Sep. 27, 2006.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] McKenna, supra note 1, at 2.
[8] Id.
[9] Fed. R. Evid. 106.
[10] Id. (adv. comm. notes).