Eric Harroun pleads out, released
You might remember Eric Harroun, the Army veteran who was arrested last Spring for supporting terrorists while he was fighting against the Assad government in Syria. Well, apparently, federal prosecutors reached a deal with him, but court documents are sealed, and he’s been sentenced to time served, according to the Associated Press;
Court records document Thursday’s guilty plea and Harroun’s sentence of time served. But the plea agreement itself is sealed. The statement of facts, a detailed description of the illegal conduct supporting the guilty plea, is also under seal. The initial charges in March against Harroun and his subsequent indictment were both trumpeted in Justice Department press releases. No press release was issued about Harroun’s guilty plea.
The few documents that are not sealed indicated that federal sentencing guidelines call for a term of three to four years for Harroun, even under the reduced charge to which he pleaded. But prosecutors asked the judge to impose a lighter sentence for reasons that were not explained publicly.
Harroun said he indeed started out fighting with the Free Syrian Army, but that in a hasty retreat from one battle he ended up in a truck with Jabhat al-Nusra. Harroun told authorities that al-Nusra initially treated him warily, but that he eventually gained their trust and joined them in several more battles, even using a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
But Kamens argued that Harroun, who spoke limited Arabic and was discharged from the Army after suffering a serious head injury, was simply confused about the rebel groups and mistakenly assumed he had joined up with al-Nusra when really he hadn’t.
I just hope he gets some help, because it doesn’t seem that he’s wired too tightly. Maybe that should have been part of the plea deal.
Category: Terror War
I’m guessing he provided some good intel too.
Wait, so the Presifent can send these same groups weapons and ammo and that’s fine , but this guy is sent to jail for providing them assistance in the form of his person.
Gee, something seems amiss here.
Instinct: no, not really. Under the Constitution, the Executive Branch makes foreign policy (though treaties require the advice and consent of the Senate). And to reinforce that, a part of Federal Law called the Logan Act (18 USC 953) specifically states that unauthorized private citizens may not engage in negotiations with foreign entities regarding US policy. Violation is a felony that can get you 3 years in the pen. Other Federal laws prohibit various related acts (providing material support to terrorists, trading with specified banned nations, etc . . . ).
Harroun stepped over that line. He got nailed for it, but the court apparently also took note of the fact that the guy “ain’t quite right” and didn’t body-slam him anywhere near as hard as it could have.
First, he was seen as NO THREAT.
Second, he provided something.
Third, he was not all there.
Fourth, sealed plea deal.
Fifth, walks with free men but will ALWAYS be on radar!
@Hondo, Brings to mind all the times people like Dennis Rodmann travelling to North Korea to visit the little turd in charge, Jesse Jackson negotiating with terrorists in the middle east, I would not want clowns like that speaking on my behalf, or even from my time frame, Hanoi Douchenozzle Jane, who thought of herself as a representative of our Country and someone who helped bring the war to a close. I guess it all depends on who you are, what the extent of penalties that will be imposed.
@Dana
Don’t forget Jay-Z and Beyonce. Going down to Cuba for an ‘educational trip’. That was actually a honeymoon and propaganda coup for the Communist Regime down there.
I wish that was the kind of thing that led to arrests and beatings for everyone involved.
John Frikkin’ Kerry, while still an officer in the US Navy, traveled to Paris while we were still engaged with the North Vietnamese and entered into talks with the North Vietnamese delegation. He had no permission to do so, not much money, but somehow found the funds and contacts to make the trip, and was greeted officially by the North Vietnamese delegation.
Kerry should have been sent to prison over that, but nothing was ever done.
Harroun was doing nothing different than Amerticans have done for centuries: Joining the military of other nations/groups whose caused they believed in. The Lincoln Brigades, the Washington Brigade, the Eagle Squadron, etc.
Our own retard in the White House wants to support the terrorists fighting against Assad, even though doing so violates our own federal laws. In all likelihood, the entire Benghazi disaster was the result of his illegal arms transfers to them. To prosecute Harroun for ANY crime is hypocrisy at it’s core definition, and shouldn’t be tolerated.
AW1 Tim: by that logic, anyone from the US who wanted to go and fight for, say, al Qaeda and/or the Taliban should be given a pass also.
Sorry, but when the group they believe in is hostile to the US – “I got a problem with that.”
As for hypocrisy on the part of local/state/Federal governments – yeah, it sucks. But it’s been with mankind as long as we’ve had governments.
I also have a problem with people fighting on the side of our enemies. In Harroum’s case, though, that’s a damned blurry line because it seems that our resident in the White House is hell-bent on supporting them.
Seriously, his administration’s entire foreign policy has been designed, on the surface, to not only weaken our foreign policy and national defense, but to assist our enemies. The “declaring of victory” and pulling our troops out of Iraq & Afghanistan, and doing everything BUT consulting with AQ and the Taliban while doing it, supporting the Muslim brotherhood and other terrorist groups in Libya, Egypy, Syria and God knows where else, refusing to assist Europe (especially Poland) in their defense against potential Russian aggressian, refusing to deal with an escalating Iranian nuclear program, marginalizing Israel, and cutting back on our Navy while pulling back from overseas bases in the face of an escalating and very real Chinese naval threat, of refusing to deal harshly with North Korea over it’s own Nascent nuclear program, and the list goes on.
I have absolute respect for the office of the president, but I have absolutely NO respect for the current one. At the risk of sounding all conspiratorial, he’s either a Manchurian Candidate, or Chauncey Gardner. I’m not sure which one, though.
The embarrassment and oh my god factor I did all sorts of illegal things that will turn his allies and friends against him. Also I’ll get impeached for this crap.
[…] Ain’t Hell has a number of great posts up including this one by Jonn on “Eric Harroun pleads out, […]
So what happens to Americans who enlist in the French Foreign Legion, or the Israeli Defense Forces?
Harroun is at worst another American AQ, and at best a tool. But unlike many of the politicians mentioned above (Pelosi, et al), Harroun wasn’t speaking with the authority encumbant of high national political office.
@12DaveO and others
First, let’s also remember Chris Jeon, a college student with no military experience who “thought it would be cool” to spend his summer vacation fighting with anti-Qaddafi rebels.
Anyway, did either Harroun or Jeon break US law just by joining up [note: Harroun was charged with using a WMD (viz. a grenade launcher)]? Probably not (though the issues can get muddy quickly (e.g., what counts as a foreign army?)).
While the government probably doesn’t want its (non-Blackwater*) citizens running off to foreign wars, historically it’s been pretty common.
There is a rule (18 USC § 959) that forbids citizens from “enlist[ing] himself,…in the service of any foreign [] state….”; however, that has been construed to mean it’s illegal merely for citizens to be recruited in the U.S. for a foreign army, not simply to fight for one. Nor does simply joining the armed services of a foreign state mean you automatically forfeit your citizenship; there needs to be an intent to relinquish (as many Israeli dual-citizens can attest). So, generally speaking, a citizen is okay so long as the foreign power isn’t engaged in hostilities with the U.S., and/or he doesn’t serve as an officer.
In fact, that’s exactly what John “American Taliban” Walker Lindh argued: he didn’t intend to aid al-Qaeda or attack Americans. His argument of course failed for many reasons, including: (1) U.S. law affirmatively prohibits membership in, and aiding of. designated terrorist organizations; and (2) you can still be charged with war crimes/crimes against humanity for acts committed in another country.
*I’m kidding a bit, here. Private contractors are very careful (at least judged by the amount paid for high-end legal advice) about their exposure to these sorts of problems.
JohnC: not necessarily true. 18 USC 2339, 2339A, 2339B, 2339C, and 2339D may come into play if the state involved has been identified as a state sponsor of terrorism. And those prohibitions and penalties might definitely apply in Harroun’s case, where the guy was fighting for a non-state actor. If he was fighting for or with any group declared by the USG as a terrorist organization, the guy stepped on his crank bigtime.
I’m pretty sure that most of these provisions of Federal law have been on the books for a while – like since about 1994 – in one form or another.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113B
Well, yes, inter alia, aiding terrorist groups, terrorist sponsors, or states engaged in hostilities with the U.S. is a bad idea. But, neither Harroun or Jeon, nor most of the dozen or so similar loons whom the DoJ has investigated were alleged to have violated the material support/aiding statutes. Could it have been different with, say, Nicole Mansfield (the American Woman Killed in Syria)? Maybe: the statutes are broad enough to get Mother Theresa.
What makes the whole thing more problematic is, as we saw earlier this year with the resistance in Egypt, is legally defining the nature of the for whom someone is fighting; especially here, given the balkanized yet amorphous nature of the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Liberation Front….the Libration Front of Syria [Insert “Life of Brian” Joke here].
JohnC: agreed. My point was that Federal law now prohibits much conduct by US citizens abroad that was perfectly legal 20+ years ago. Most people have little or no idea how broadly those current prohibitions regulate what you can and can’t do while abroad.
Fighting in a foreign war to which the US is not formally a party is now much more problematic that it was during the 1930s – or even during the 1980s. Ditto contributing financially to foreign “charities” and political movements. And don’t get me started on the ambiguities created by relatively recent changes in law related to “trafficing in persons” and potential overzealous/overbroad applications of same.
“My point was that Federal law now prohibits much conduct by US citizens abroad that was perfectly legal 20+ years ago.”
I fixed the sentence for you: “Federal law now prohibits much conduct that was perfectly legal 20+ years ago irrespective of whether you’re in the U.S. or even a citizen (as will attest anyone who’s played the “How many obscure crimes can we charge Mother Theresa with” drinking game).
And yes, having worked with the FCPA, I agree.
All these articles on me are far from the truth.