{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027186761229314422, 'fraction_numerical': 0.026004728132387706, 'mean_word_length': 4.841379310344828, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Material Support: The United States v. the Lackawanna Six

In December 2003, six American-Yemenis were sentenced for terms of seven to ten years for their role in providing material support to Al Qaeda, in violation of Title 18 United States Code §2339B. This article specifically examines the merits of the charge brought against the Six by reviewing precedent that has developed regarding §2339B from 2000 to 2004. This exercise uncovers a controversy over constitutionality, basic rights and due process that, in combination with the facts of the case, could have yielded each of the Six a better deal were the case to go to trial than he received by pleading guilty. Those pleas, made under real pressure from the prosecution, prevented the court from determining whether the Six “had ‘provided’ support to Al Qaeda, or merely ‘received’ it.”