Sept. 11: Five Years Later

Washington Post reporter Mary Beth Sheridan wasonline Tuesday, Sept. 5, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss her story about Muslims convicted of involvement with a local "jihad network." The Justice Department says it is trying to prevent terror attacks; many Muslims complain of prosecutorial overkill.

The story is part of The Washington Post's special series Sept. 11: Five Years Later.

The transcript follows:

____________________

washingtonpost.com: Mary Beth will start responding to questions in a few minutes. We're having some technical difficulties.

_______________________

Mary Beth Sheridan: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the chat. Sorry for the technical problems and delay.

_______________________

Jerusalem, Israel : We read much about Saudi supported Wahahabi extremist anti- American education being done in America's mosques. Can you estimate how widespread and significant is this phenomenom?

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks for your question. My colleague David Ottoway wrote a story a few years ago about Saudi proselytizing in the U.S. He quoted a survey of 1,200 U.S. mosques done in 2000 by several Muslim organizations. It found 21% followed Wahhabi practice. But I would direct you to a story in the Post today by my colleague CAryle Murphy, which talks about how much of the Saudi activity in the U.S. has been curtailed since 9/11--both by the U.S. government and the Saudis themselves.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com:

For Conservative Muslims, Goal of Isolation a Challenge by Caryle Murphy

_______________________

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: I thought the idea of "preventative prosecutions" was reserved for futuristic films like The Minority Report. Have we, or are we, reaching that future without paying enough attention? What is the legal basis for "preventative prosecutions?"

Thank you

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks for your question. This is obviously a controversial practice. The federal officials note that they only charge people for crimes they've allegedly committed--but the reason for aggressively pursuing them is to head off something worse. As for the legal basis, many of these cases involve conspiracy charges, which can also be controversial, since someone can have a very small role and still be found guilty. Of course, under American law, conspiring to commit a crime is a crime in itself.

_______________________

Charleston, S.C.: Do you feel that the reason our government is so "trigger-happy" to convict any persons they believe to have involvement in terrorist activities has mostly to do with the issue of creating a feeling of security among the American public while strengthening the belief that our government is winning the war on terror?

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks for your question. I"ve certainly heard that from defense attorneys. But I also think it's very hard to identify possible terrorists--and the consequences of getting it wrong are huge. The government was certainly heavily criticized for not "connecting the dots" before 9/11, and I think they would rather err on the side of caution. And bear in mind that most of the guys I wrote about were found guilty by juries or judges.

_______________________

Catonsville, Md.: We always read the about the outcomes of these terror trials, but seldom know really what's said in the courtroom. As someone who is a habitual 'trial watcher', I know the real story unfolds in the details of the prosecution and the details of the defense. Any hope of ever getting an inside view of these terror trials?

Mary Beth Sheridan: You're right, of course. The difficult thing is that the trials took several days or weeks, and the transcripts go on for hundreds or even thousands of pages. Maybe you could start a campaign to get the Post editors to let us write even longer stories??!! (LOL).

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Did you watch the trials? One juror said in The Washington Post that the case was insignificant. If that was the case, why did he convict? Do you think the jury is being influenced by fear, the constant scaring by Bush about the 'impending terror threat'? How much does fear play into the jury in your opinion?

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks for the question. I got to see a lot of the Chandia trial, less of the others, although I read the transcripts when they were over. There's been a lot of debate about how much juries have been influenced by the post-9/11 sense of insecurity, and the juries in federal court in Alexandria are thought to be generally pro-government. But in the Chandia case there was a lot of evidence presented that he did help the Lashkar guy. In fact, his defense agreed he did--but argued that Chandia didn't know the man was from Lashkar. The prosecution presented evidence that Chandia was very familiar with Lashkar, and didn't just bump into this guy by chance. So I'm not surprised the jury convicted him. However, the fact they found him guilty didn't necessarily mean they thought Chandia was worth prosecuting--as the juror indicated in the story.

_______________________

New York City: The two questions that are constantly on my mind when I read or hear something about conservative muslims in Western Nations are:

- If their religious practices are so at odds with a liberal democractic society in everything from man/woman interaction to the food served in public schools, why do they not just come to these countries, but insist on the citizenry bending to their rules?

- Although there have been many tips from the Muslim community, why aren't the community and religious leaders, and members of CAIR screaming at the top of their lungs for the heads of all Muslims who excuse and justify the terror bombings in the US, London, Spain, etc.? Their argument is akin to "there are good Nazis and bad Nazis, and sometimes when Nazis feel threatened by the dominate Western Culture Nazis have to fight back." They are parsing radical Islamo-facism.

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks. I think that one of the things at the core of American democracy is freedom of religion--which means freedom for all religions (as long as they don't violate the law, of course). So if you're an Orthodox Jew and follow certain customs that are different from the mainstream, you're free to do that. And the same if you're an ultra-orthodox Muslim, or a Sikh, or a Quaker, or whatever. I think the majority of Muslims have been able to integrate their faith and American identity. (And as for why they come here...bear in mind something like one-third of U.S. Muslims are African-Americans who were born here). I also think most Muslims are absolutely appalled by the terrorist attacks here, in London, etc. and American Muslim groups have strongly condemned them.

_______________________

Greenbelt, Md.: The article mentioned that some of Chandia's supporters were discouraged from talking to the press. That may leave the impression, surely coupled with today's story that they are conservative fundamentalists who are seeking isolationism, that they did not have contact at all. This was absolutely not the case. Press releases and a great deal of time was spent with all of the reporters who covered this particular trial. The problem was that we were very much in disagreement with the facts as they were presented, some in the absence of additional information, some in the form of sheer misinformation. When you are Muslim in America, the voice that is portrayed in the press can sway public opinion in many dangerous ways, particularly because most Americans do not know much about Islam and have very little contact with Muslims.

Mary Beth Sheridan: I certainly understand the sensitivity many Muslims feel about their portrayal in the media. And I agree there's lots of misinformation out there about Islam. But, as I tried to talk to Muslims outside the Chandia trial, his supporters would literally circle whoever was talking to me, hissing at them not to trust the media. I think press releases are very helpful, but journalists like to be able to engage in conversation to understand a person's point of view, ask questions, etc. I'm sure many people feel it's a risk to talk to a journalist; will they be accurately quoted? But I'm not sure how they'll be able to get across their point of view otherwise.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: As a reporter do you feel inclined to bring unbiased information to the newspaper, or are you specifically required to report from the point of view assigned to you? The reason I ask is because I am a lifelong Washingtonian, a daily Washington Post reader, and a convert to Islam. I feel like although the paper has made attempts in recent years to have a more "hometown" feel instead of a a "political-town" feel, I have seldom seen any articles that reflect the Washington life of muslims as a group except when the article is related to terrorist activity. How can that be the case from an "independent newspaper?"

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks for your question. No, we're certainly not assigned a point of view. And if an editor insisted on imposing one, I would withdraw my byline or quit. Really. As you know, there's been a lot more interest in the Muslim community in the wake of 9/11; the Post has had lots of articles on Muslim life, including such topics as Muslim scout troops, Latinos converting to Islam, Muslims trying to be both fashionable and observant, etc. However, as you point out, the terrorism theme is a constant. I think that's mainly because terrorism is seen as such a huge threat to the country post-9/11. Having said that, though, I think we need to constantly be aware about presenting the Muslim community in a fair way, and not only in relation to terrorism investigations.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: I'm an American Muslim. Over the last few years, the media has really been pushing labels on Muslims in America: conservative, moderate, salafi, wahabi, etc. How can you prevent yourself from being used by the govt to show who the 'bad' Muslims are and who the 'good' Muslim are?

Today's piece on 'Salafis' I think shows them as the 'bad' Muslim, but it's funny because most Muslims view them as apolitical and the ones least likely to get involved with action against any government.

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks for the question. I think Muslims themselves make distinctions about the way different Muslims observe their faith. In my story (which ran on Sunday) and the piece today by Caryle Murphy, many of the quotes about salafism are from Muslims. I tried hard to understand the "jihad network" group from the inside--to understand what drew the men to the salafi approach. And certainly it was nothing bad; they were trying to be true to their faith, and not compromise their religious principles. I agree that traditionally salafis were largely apolitical. But I think that has changed, at least for some.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com:

Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats by Mary Beth Sheridan

_______________________

Beltsville, Md.: India has been fighting with Kashmir forces for decades. As far as I know, the US has always viewed the independence struggle as an internal thing for that region. Soon after 9/11, the US declared LET a terrorist organization at India's insistence. Are you going to explore the politics of that, and how it played into the 'VA Jihad' trials. What about Chechnya, since 9/11 we also declared that struggle to be terrorism, when it used to be an 'internal problem'. Will the govnt start going after Moslem who supported the Chechens, what do you think?

Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks. I think the government has actually charged some people for supporting the Chechen rebels. I think there's a couple of interesting points here. One is that, after 9/11, the government became far more concerned about all kinds of violent guerrilla-type groups. Some are not focused on America, including Lashkar. But questions have grown about Lashkar's ties to al-Qaeda--particularly since an al-Qaeda official was found in one of its safehouses in 2002. The other point is, of course, once a group is designated as a terrorist organization, it's illegal under U.S. law to support it in any way--even if you think the designation was a mistake.

_______________________

Mary Beth Sheridan: I'm afraid I have to wrap it up. I'm sorry I couldn't get to all the questions--they're very thoughtful and I greatly appreciate your interest and suggestions. Thanks so much!

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.