The tale of a would-be terrorist

It’s a sadly familiar tale: a young Western man, born to Muslim parents, feels alienated from society and searches for life’s purpose online. The young man this time, Asher Khan of Houston, Tex., made contact with recruiters for the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant (ISIL), expressed his wish to become a martyr and, to the shock and horror of his blindsided family, flew to Istanbul to be smuggled into Syria to fight.

But Khan’s story has a different ending than most. After landing in Istanbul, he changed his mind, called his family, in tears, to confess, and returned to Texas without ever leaving the airport. Scared straight, he resumed a normal American life — until, 15 months later, he was arrested by the FBI. Charged with conspiracy and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State, Khan faces up to 30 years in prison.

Khan’s lawyer points out that his client never attempted to join the terror group and returned to a peaceful path without committing any terrorist acts. The U.S. government contends, however, that Khan is a security risk worth monitoring; the only effective way to do that, it maintains, is to charge, prosecute and convict him. There is currently no viable middle-ground option available to U.S. authorities.

That should change. Khan probably does warrant keeping under surveillance. Having demonstrated a susceptibility to jihadist propaganda, it is reasonable to place certain limits on his ability to travel and communicate online. But prison seems too harsh a punishment for the alleged offence here — it would be financially costly for the state, ruin a young life and deprive Khan of the opportunity to serve as an example and mentor to other atrisk youth who’ve yet to take up arms.

This is an issue Canadians must be prepared to face, as well. And yet discussion of it has thus far been absent from the election campaign. Foreign- based terrorism is an acknowledged threat. But self-radicalizing homegrown terrorists, or Canadians travelling abroad to fight for groups such as ISIL, is more than just a threat — it’s already a reality. It needs to be confronted.

A Canadian Asher Khan could certainly face criminal charges — travelling or even attempting to travel to commit terrorism abroad is a crime in Canada. But as with the Texas case, it’s far from clear that throwing the book at someone who considers, but does not ultimately commit, acts of terrorism is the best approach.

Unlike the United States, Canada does have a middle-of-the-road option, the so-called “peace bond” — a judicial order imposing strict behavioural conditions on individuals, even if they have not been convicted of a crime. Though peace bonds have been part of Canadian law since 1892, they have been seldom used, due to civil liberties concerns. In recent years, however, Canadian authorities have been applying for peace bonds, where reasonable grounds exist to believe an individual poses a high risk of engaging in terrorism.

Limiting a person’s freedom to travel and communicate is no small thing. Every case must be carefully considered. And yes, there may well be times when only criminal prosecution and imprisonment will be sufficient to stop individuals bent on inflicting harm on Canadians or others.

But this should be a last resort. The best solution remains engagement at the community level to prevent at-risk youth from becoming radicalized in the first place, plus a rigorously safeguarded system of pre-criminal interventions for those showing signs of indoctrination. Incarceration, where necessary, should be accompanied by robust programs to prevent or contain radicalization behind bars.

These issues are worth discussing. What are our federal party leaders waiting for?