Toronto man haunted by U.S. jail nightmares
Former Algerian air force lieutenant jailed for 5 years says Canada's decision to transfer him to the United States after Sept. 11 attacks was illegal
Isabel Teotonio | Staff reporter | February 29, 2008
Benamar Benatta rarely sleeps more than three or four hours a night.
The 33-year-old former Algerian air force lieutenant still spends nights wondering why Canadian officials transported him across the border on Sept. 12, 2001 then handed him to American authorities. And, of course, there are recurring nightmares of five years spent in U.S. jails, despite being cleared by the FBI in November 2001 of having any links to the 9/11 attacks.
The Toronto man can still hear the taunts from jail guards who called him a terrorist; can still hear the jingle of keys as guards entered his cell every half-hour, waking him from a fitful slumber.
"I'm not the same person I used to be before Sept. 12, who was full of life and full of spirit," said Benatta, whose feet and hands bear scars from his time in jail. "It's like they've marked me for the rest of my life. It wasn't only five years of detention – what they did to me will hurt me the rest of my life," said Benatta, who was granted refugee status in November.
Benatta's story became a minor cause celebre in the U.S., but his fight to have the Canadian government probe his case, isn't well-known north of the border. That's why he is scheduled to speak tonight at the Noor Cultural Centre.
"He is the first and only known case of Canada effecting an extraordinary rendition – an illegal transfer of a person from one legal jurisdiction to another outside the scope of law," said Benatta's lawyer Nicole Chrolavicius.
A Canada Border Services Agency spokesperson refused to comment yesterday, saying the government is reviewing the allegations in a lawsuit filed by Benatta.
Benatta was raised in a middle-class family in Algeria, the youngest of 10 children. He trained as an aeronautical engineer and joined the air force in 1992, the same year the military-backed government cancelled elections to keep the opposition Islamic party from power. Conflict engulfed the nation in a civil war marked by atrocities.
Benatta watched the military crackdown and refused to participate in some acts, which landed him in prison. He also received death threats from Islamic fighters.
In December 2000, he and other Algerian officers went to the U.S. to train in aircraft technology. But when his six-month visa expired, he stayed illegally.
On Sept. 5, 2001, he decided to seek asylum in Canada. Officials spotted his false identification and arrested him. On Sept. 12 he was handed over to the Americans, but he unaware of what had happened the previous day.
Benatta and his lawyer say this was an illegal transfer. There has been suggestion by the Canadian government he had withdrawn his asylum bid and returned voluntarily but no paperwork has been produced to support that claim.
Benatta was held in jail under abusive conditions documented in U.S. court filings. Although he was cleared of terror links two months later, he wasn't told, or given access to counsel, until April 2002.
He was then transferred to another prison on charges of having carried fraudulent papers. A federal judge later called the case a "sham."
Benatta was released in summer 2006 when Canada issued him a temporary residency permit, allowing him to claim refugee status, which was granted because it was determined he would be in danger if he returned to Algeria.
"I'm very disappointed about (the government's) reaction," said Benatta, who recently landed a job and got off social assistance. "When they allowed me to return, I thought they'd accept their mistake and say `Sorry.' Maybe for them it means nothing, but for someone who has been subjected to torture.... It means a lot."
Discussion starts at 7:30 p.m. at the Noor Cultural Centre. Admission: $5.
Toronto Star : Toronto man haunted by U.S. jail nightmares
Friday, February 29, 2008
Filed under
Benamar Benatta,
extraordinary rendition,
lawyers,
refugees
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, February 29, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Sailor's trial provides window into Navy fears after Cole attack
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sailor's trial provides window into Navy fears after Cole attack
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 29, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - U.S. Navy commanders were wary as their ships headed to the Persian Gulf in the months after a terrorist ambush in 2000 killed 17 sailors aboard the USS Cole.
Passing the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow, busy shipping lane that often invited challenges from Iran, was never easy. Ship commanders decided to travel quickly at night after conducting a drill. Sailors took up machine gun positions and shut valves and hatches to limit damage in case of attack.
"We really weren't sure what to expect," said Lt. Commander Jay Wylie, who was on board the USS Benfold.
No one expected to find a threat from within.
But federal authorities say there was. A Benfold signalman, Hassan Abu-Jihaad of Phoenix, had provided suspected terrorist supporters in London with sensitive details of when U.S. ships would pass through the strait and their vulnerability to attack, prosecutors say.
Testimony last week in Abu-Jihaad's trial has provided a window into the fears of top Navy officials after an explosives-laden boat rammed the Cole as it refueled in a Yemen harbor. It also revealed how heightened vigilance after Sept. 11 triggered an investigation that began in Connecticut and expanded to London before Abu-Jihaad and others were arrested.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
Prosecutors rested their case Friday. Abu-Jihaad does not plan to take the stand Monday when his attorneys call one witness before closing arguments.
Abu-Jihaad, an American born Muslim convert, changed his name from Paul Hall in 1997. A year later, he was granted security clearance that gave him access to secrets, according to Navy officials.
Abu-Jihaad was one of the first sailors Petty Officer Josh Kelly met when he boarded the Benfold. Abu-Jihaad was chatty about where the ship was headed, Kelly says.
"We always wonder where we were going," Kelly testified, noting the stress of life at sea.
But advance movements were a closely guarded secret. Dennis Amador, a quartermaster and Abu-Jihaad's supervisor, told his wife where he was in code.
"We in the Navy are taught from the minute we come in that loose lips sink ships," he said.
Those details were kept locked in a safe with a red sticker marked secret. But when the charts and travel plans were laid out, Abu-Jihaad could see them in his job as a signalman, Navy officials say.
The Benfold and other ships left San Diego in March 2001. Their first stop was Hawaii, where the sailors were treated to a luau feast.
As the ship headed toward the Middle East, Abu-Jihaad began to send e-mails to Azzam Publications, a Web site that authorities say provided money and equipment to terrorists.
While the Cole was the worst nightmare for commanders, Abu-Jihaad called it a martyrdom operation in one of his e-mails to Azzam and praised "the men who have brong (sic) honor ... in the lands of jihad Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc."
Abu-Jihaad signed the e-mail: "A brother serving a kuffar nation," meaning nonbeliever or infidel, according to testimony. He also ordered graphic videos from Azzam that depicted Muslim fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia.
"He seemed to be fascinated with the Chechen conflict and seemed to be supportive of the Chechen rebels," Amador said, not thinking much of it at the time.
Abu-Jihaad kept communicating with Azzam until a little over a week before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Shortly after the attacks, a company that hosted Web sites raised concerns with federal authorities about one of Azzam's Web sites in Connecticut. That complaint led investigators to those they say ran Azzam in London, where they say they found the leaked ship details in an apartment.
Authorities also say they found Abu-Jihaad's e-mail account with Azzam. They were able to recover e-mails he exchanged with the group, but say accounts were regularly purged by e-mail service providers.
Authorities acknowledge they do not have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked the classified details. His attorneys call the case weak, urging a judge Friday to dismiss the charges while prosecutors objected.
Navy officials acknowledged that the allegedly leaked details were filled with errors. Still, they say the leak was alarming and they would have immediately changed plans had they known about the compromise at the time.
The ships were never attacked.
The Navy did plenty of soul searching after the Cole attack, said Rear Adm. David Hart Jr., commander of the battle group.
"It was a very vulnerable period of time for us," Hart testified.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 29, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - U.S. Navy commanders were wary as their ships headed to the Persian Gulf in the months after a terrorist ambush in 2000 killed 17 sailors aboard the USS Cole.
Passing the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow, busy shipping lane that often invited challenges from Iran, was never easy. Ship commanders decided to travel quickly at night after conducting a drill. Sailors took up machine gun positions and shut valves and hatches to limit damage in case of attack.
"We really weren't sure what to expect," said Lt. Commander Jay Wylie, who was on board the USS Benfold.
No one expected to find a threat from within.
But federal authorities say there was. A Benfold signalman, Hassan Abu-Jihaad of Phoenix, had provided suspected terrorist supporters in London with sensitive details of when U.S. ships would pass through the strait and their vulnerability to attack, prosecutors say.
Testimony last week in Abu-Jihaad's trial has provided a window into the fears of top Navy officials after an explosives-laden boat rammed the Cole as it refueled in a Yemen harbor. It also revealed how heightened vigilance after Sept. 11 triggered an investigation that began in Connecticut and expanded to London before Abu-Jihaad and others were arrested.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
Prosecutors rested their case Friday. Abu-Jihaad does not plan to take the stand Monday when his attorneys call one witness before closing arguments.
Abu-Jihaad, an American born Muslim convert, changed his name from Paul Hall in 1997. A year later, he was granted security clearance that gave him access to secrets, according to Navy officials.
Abu-Jihaad was one of the first sailors Petty Officer Josh Kelly met when he boarded the Benfold. Abu-Jihaad was chatty about where the ship was headed, Kelly says.
"We always wonder where we were going," Kelly testified, noting the stress of life at sea.
But advance movements were a closely guarded secret. Dennis Amador, a quartermaster and Abu-Jihaad's supervisor, told his wife where he was in code.
"We in the Navy are taught from the minute we come in that loose lips sink ships," he said.
Those details were kept locked in a safe with a red sticker marked secret. But when the charts and travel plans were laid out, Abu-Jihaad could see them in his job as a signalman, Navy officials say.
The Benfold and other ships left San Diego in March 2001. Their first stop was Hawaii, where the sailors were treated to a luau feast.
As the ship headed toward the Middle East, Abu-Jihaad began to send e-mails to Azzam Publications, a Web site that authorities say provided money and equipment to terrorists.
While the Cole was the worst nightmare for commanders, Abu-Jihaad called it a martyrdom operation in one of his e-mails to Azzam and praised "the men who have brong (sic) honor ... in the lands of jihad Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc."
Abu-Jihaad signed the e-mail: "A brother serving a kuffar nation," meaning nonbeliever or infidel, according to testimony. He also ordered graphic videos from Azzam that depicted Muslim fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia.
"He seemed to be fascinated with the Chechen conflict and seemed to be supportive of the Chechen rebels," Amador said, not thinking much of it at the time.
Abu-Jihaad kept communicating with Azzam until a little over a week before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Shortly after the attacks, a company that hosted Web sites raised concerns with federal authorities about one of Azzam's Web sites in Connecticut. That complaint led investigators to those they say ran Azzam in London, where they say they found the leaked ship details in an apartment.
Authorities also say they found Abu-Jihaad's e-mail account with Azzam. They were able to recover e-mails he exchanged with the group, but say accounts were regularly purged by e-mail service providers.
Authorities acknowledge they do not have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked the classified details. His attorneys call the case weak, urging a judge Friday to dismiss the charges while prosecutors objected.
Navy officials acknowledged that the allegedly leaked details were filled with errors. Still, they say the leak was alarming and they would have immediately changed plans had they known about the compromise at the time.
The ships were never attacked.
The Navy did plenty of soul searching after the Cole attack, said Rear Adm. David Hart Jr., commander of the battle group.
"It was a very vulnerable period of time for us," Hart testified.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
David Hart Jr.,
Dennis Amador,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
Jay Wylie,
Josh Kelly,
USS Benfold
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, February 29, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Prosecutors rest case against sailor after playing taped calls
Friday, February 29, 2008
Prosecutors rest case against sailor after playing taped calls
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 29, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Federal prosecutors played for jurors secretly taped phone conversations Friday in an effort to show that a former Navy sailor charged with leaking ship movements to suspected terrorism supporters used coded speech to discuss intelligence related to military bases.
In the calls, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, speaks of "fresh meals" and "cold meals" in conversations with associates. A "fresh meal" referred to useful information, while "cold meal" was code for outdated intelligence, prosecutors said.
Abu-Jihaad has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Prosecutors rested their case Friday. Defense attorneys do not plan to call Abu-Jihaad to the stand and say they will rest their case after calling one witness Monday.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have endangered his own ship, the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold, and other ships. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
William Chrisman, an FBI informant, testified that the calls were references to intelligence related to military bases.
"I ain't been working in the field of making meals in a long time," Abu-Jihaad said in a 2006 call played in court Friday. "I've been out of that quatro years."
Authorities said the call was an admission that Abu-Jihaad provided information to terrorists while in the Navy four years earlier.
Chrisman also said Abu-Jihaad referred to jihad as "j" or "7," referring to the highest level of heaven for those killed on the battlefield; and "MO" for martyrdom operation.
U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz cautioned the jury that Abu-Jihaad was not charged with anything connected to the conversations. Prosecutors hoped to boost their case by showing what they say are Abu-Jihaad's secretive ways.
Under cross-examination, Chrisman testified that Abu-Jihaad never admitted sending classified ship details through the Straits of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where U.S. ships were frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Prosecutors say investigators discovered files on a computer disk recovered from an alleged terror supporter's home in London that included the ship movements, as well as the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities. The file ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Navy officials have testified that, as a signalman, Abu-Jihaad would have had access to details of ship movements.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with the suspected terrorism supporters.
Prosecutors ended their case after calling an investigator who plotted out the rough location of Abu-Jihaad's ship as he exchanged the e-mails with the suspects.
Abu-Jihaad's attorneys made a standard request to dismiss the charges, saying the details that were allegedly leaked were so inaccurate they could not involve classified information. Prosecutors disagreed, while Kravitz did not make a ruling.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 29, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Federal prosecutors played for jurors secretly taped phone conversations Friday in an effort to show that a former Navy sailor charged with leaking ship movements to suspected terrorism supporters used coded speech to discuss intelligence related to military bases.
In the calls, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, speaks of "fresh meals" and "cold meals" in conversations with associates. A "fresh meal" referred to useful information, while "cold meal" was code for outdated intelligence, prosecutors said.
Abu-Jihaad has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Prosecutors rested their case Friday. Defense attorneys do not plan to call Abu-Jihaad to the stand and say they will rest their case after calling one witness Monday.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have endangered his own ship, the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold, and other ships. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
William Chrisman, an FBI informant, testified that the calls were references to intelligence related to military bases.
"I ain't been working in the field of making meals in a long time," Abu-Jihaad said in a 2006 call played in court Friday. "I've been out of that quatro years."
Authorities said the call was an admission that Abu-Jihaad provided information to terrorists while in the Navy four years earlier.
Chrisman also said Abu-Jihaad referred to jihad as "j" or "7," referring to the highest level of heaven for those killed on the battlefield; and "MO" for martyrdom operation.
U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz cautioned the jury that Abu-Jihaad was not charged with anything connected to the conversations. Prosecutors hoped to boost their case by showing what they say are Abu-Jihaad's secretive ways.
Under cross-examination, Chrisman testified that Abu-Jihaad never admitted sending classified ship details through the Straits of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where U.S. ships were frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Prosecutors say investigators discovered files on a computer disk recovered from an alleged terror supporter's home in London that included the ship movements, as well as the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities. The file ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Navy officials have testified that, as a signalman, Abu-Jihaad would have had access to details of ship movements.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with the suspected terrorism supporters.
Prosecutors ended their case after calling an investigator who plotted out the rough location of Abu-Jihaad's ship as he exchanged the e-mails with the suspects.
Abu-Jihaad's attorneys made a standard request to dismiss the charges, saying the details that were allegedly leaked were so inaccurate they could not involve classified information. Prosecutors disagreed, while Kravitz did not make a ruling.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Babar Ahmad,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
Mark Kravitz,
USS Benfold,
William Chrisman
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, February 29, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Prosecutors say taped calls support terrorism charge
Friday, February 29, 2008
Prosecutors say taped calls support terrorism charge
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 29, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Federal prosecutors played for jurors secretly taped phone conversations Friday in an effort to show that a former Navy sailor charged with terrorism used coded speech while discussing military secrets.
In the calls, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, speaks of "hot meals" and "cold meals" in conversations with associates. A "hot meal" referred to useful information, while "cold meal" was code for outdated intelligence, prosecutors said.
Abu-Jihaad has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Prosecutors rested their case Friday. Defense attorneys do not plan to call Abu-Jihaad to the stand and say they will rest their case after calling one witness on Monday.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship, the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
William Chrisman, an FBI informant, testified that the calls were references to intelligence that would be useful to strike American military targets.
"I ain't been working in the field of making meals for a long time," Abu-Jihaad said in a 2006 call played in court Friday. "I've been out of that quatro years."
Authorities said the call was an admission that Abu-Jihaad provided information to terrorists while in the Navy.
Under cross-examination, Chrisman testified that Abu-Jihaad never admitted sending classified information, including the details of his ship's movements through the Straits of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where U.S. ships were frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Prosecutors say they discovered files on a computer disk recovered from an alleged terror supporter's home that included the ship movements, as well as the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities. The file ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Navy officials have testified that, as a signalman, Abu-Jihaad would have had access to details of ship movements.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with the suspected terrorism supporters.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 29, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Federal prosecutors played for jurors secretly taped phone conversations Friday in an effort to show that a former Navy sailor charged with terrorism used coded speech while discussing military secrets.
In the calls, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, speaks of "hot meals" and "cold meals" in conversations with associates. A "hot meal" referred to useful information, while "cold meal" was code for outdated intelligence, prosecutors said.
Abu-Jihaad has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Prosecutors rested their case Friday. Defense attorneys do not plan to call Abu-Jihaad to the stand and say they will rest their case after calling one witness on Monday.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship, the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
William Chrisman, an FBI informant, testified that the calls were references to intelligence that would be useful to strike American military targets.
"I ain't been working in the field of making meals for a long time," Abu-Jihaad said in a 2006 call played in court Friday. "I've been out of that quatro years."
Authorities said the call was an admission that Abu-Jihaad provided information to terrorists while in the Navy.
Under cross-examination, Chrisman testified that Abu-Jihaad never admitted sending classified information, including the details of his ship's movements through the Straits of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where U.S. ships were frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Prosecutors say they discovered files on a computer disk recovered from an alleged terror supporter's home that included the ship movements, as well as the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities. The file ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Navy officials have testified that, as a signalman, Abu-Jihaad would have had access to details of ship movements.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with the suspected terrorism supporters.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Babar Ahmad,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
USS Benfold,
William Chrisman
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, February 29, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Prosecutors: Documents Matched Ship Path
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Prosecutors: Documents Matched Ship Path
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 28, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Prosecutors at the federal trial of a former sailor accused of supplying information that could have doomed his ship tried to show Thursday that a stop by his vessel in Hawaii matched details in leaked documents.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, an American-born Muslim convert, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Dennis Amador, a quartermaster and Abu-Jihaad's supervisor on the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold, testified Thursday that keeping ship movements confidential is so important that he uses code even to tell his wife where he is.
"We in the Navy are taught from the minute we come in that loose lips sink ships," he said.
Abu-Jihaad is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from the home of an alleged terrorism supporter, Babar Ahmad, also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with suspected terrorism supporters, including Ahmad.
Adam Conaway, a Navy quartermaster, testified that Abu-Jihaad's ship stopped in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for ammunition on March 20, 2001. One of the leaked documents recovered by authorities indicated that some ships would load Tomahawk missiles on that date.
On cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorneys pointed out that the leaked document referred only to some ships and did not specifically mention the Benfold. Prosecutors rebutted that by asking Conaway to confirm that the Benfold was the only ship from the battle group that stopped in Hawaii that day.
In testimony Thursday, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jay Wylie, who served on the Benfold with Abu-Jihaad, agreed with a question by a defense attorney that the battle group document was "riddled" with inaccuracies. He said his initial impression was that details about the ship listed in the document came from a publication available to the public, but also said that publication would not predict ship movements.
Abu-Jihaad, of Phoenix, was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider. Formerly known as Paul R. Hall, the Navy signalman received an honorable discharge in 2002.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 28, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Prosecutors at the federal trial of a former sailor accused of supplying information that could have doomed his ship tried to show Thursday that a stop by his vessel in Hawaii matched details in leaked documents.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, an American-born Muslim convert, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Dennis Amador, a quartermaster and Abu-Jihaad's supervisor on the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold, testified Thursday that keeping ship movements confidential is so important that he uses code even to tell his wife where he is.
"We in the Navy are taught from the minute we come in that loose lips sink ships," he said.
Abu-Jihaad is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from the home of an alleged terrorism supporter, Babar Ahmad, also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with suspected terrorism supporters, including Ahmad.
Adam Conaway, a Navy quartermaster, testified that Abu-Jihaad's ship stopped in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for ammunition on March 20, 2001. One of the leaked documents recovered by authorities indicated that some ships would load Tomahawk missiles on that date.
On cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorneys pointed out that the leaked document referred only to some ships and did not specifically mention the Benfold. Prosecutors rebutted that by asking Conaway to confirm that the Benfold was the only ship from the battle group that stopped in Hawaii that day.
In testimony Thursday, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jay Wylie, who served on the Benfold with Abu-Jihaad, agreed with a question by a defense attorney that the battle group document was "riddled" with inaccuracies. He said his initial impression was that details about the ship listed in the document came from a publication available to the public, but also said that publication would not predict ship movements.
Abu-Jihaad, of Phoenix, was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider. Formerly known as Paul R. Hall, the Navy signalman received an honorable discharge in 2002.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Adam Conaway,
Babar Ahmad,
Dennis Amador,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
Jay Wylie,
USS Benfold
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, February 28, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Prosecutors try to show leaked documents matched ship movements
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Prosecutors try to show leaked documents matched ship movements
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 28, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Prosecutors at the federal trial of a former sailor on terrorism charges tried to show Thursday that a stop by his ship in Hawaii matched details of ship movements that he allegedly leaked to terrorism supporters.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from an alleged terror supporter's home also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Navy officials testified that, as a signalman, Abu-Jihaad would have had access to details of ship movements.
Adam Conaway, a Navy quartermaster, testified Thursday that Abu-Jihaad's ship, the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold, stopped in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for ammunition on March 20, 2001.
The leaked documents recovered by authorities indicated that some ships would load Tomahawk missiles on that date.
On cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorneys pointed out that the leaked document referred only to some ships and did not specifically mention the USS Benfold. Prosecutors rebutted that by having Conaway confirm that the Benfold was the only ship from the battle group that stopped in Hawaii that day.
Conaway also highlighted the dangers the battle group faced going through the Strait of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where U.S. ships were frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
He said sailors were in a heightened state of readiness, manning machine guns and closing hatches in case the ship was damaged. Before the ships entered the strait, a team prepared to defend the ship conducted a drill, he said.
Passing through the strait posed a "significant" risk to the ships, Scott Graham, a Navy commander, testified. He said leaking details of the ship movements would "cause great concern" and might have led to an even higher alert.
Dennis Amador, a quartermaster and Abu-Jihaad's supervisor on the Benfold, testified that keeping ship movements confidential is so important that he uses code even to tell his wife where he is.
"We in the Navy are taught from the minute we come in that loose lips sink ships," he said.
He testified that during his time on the Benfold, Abu-jihaad showed him a brutal, graphic video of Chechen rebels attacking Russians. Earlier in the trial, prosecutors showed videos depicting violent jihad that they say Abu-Jihaad ordered from Web sites run by terrorism supporters. His attorneys say that pictures and videos don't prove he passed along classified information.
"He seemed to be fascinated with the Chechen conflict and seemed to be supportive of the Chechen rebels," Amador said.
The defense, meanwhile, continued to press a point raised Wednesday, saying some ships from the battle group passed through the Strait of Hormuz on May 2, 2001, and others on May 3. The leaked documents indicated they would pass through the strait on April 29.
A retired admiral testified Wednesday that the plan did call for passing into another area on April 29 that is sometimes confused with the Strait of Hormuz.
In testimony Thursday, Navy Lt. Commander Jay Wylie, who served on the USS Benfold with Abu-Jihaad, agreed with a question by a defense attorney that the battle group document was "riddled" with inaccuracies. He said his initial impression was that details about the ship listed in the document came from a publication available to the public, but also said that publication would not predict ship movements.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with the suspected terrorism supporters.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 28, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Prosecutors at the federal trial of a former sailor on terrorism charges tried to show Thursday that a stop by his ship in Hawaii matched details of ship movements that he allegedly leaked to terrorism supporters.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from an alleged terror supporter's home also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Navy officials testified that, as a signalman, Abu-Jihaad would have had access to details of ship movements.
Adam Conaway, a Navy quartermaster, testified Thursday that Abu-Jihaad's ship, the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold, stopped in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for ammunition on March 20, 2001.
The leaked documents recovered by authorities indicated that some ships would load Tomahawk missiles on that date.
On cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorneys pointed out that the leaked document referred only to some ships and did not specifically mention the USS Benfold. Prosecutors rebutted that by having Conaway confirm that the Benfold was the only ship from the battle group that stopped in Hawaii that day.
Conaway also highlighted the dangers the battle group faced going through the Strait of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where U.S. ships were frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
He said sailors were in a heightened state of readiness, manning machine guns and closing hatches in case the ship was damaged. Before the ships entered the strait, a team prepared to defend the ship conducted a drill, he said.
Passing through the strait posed a "significant" risk to the ships, Scott Graham, a Navy commander, testified. He said leaking details of the ship movements would "cause great concern" and might have led to an even higher alert.
Dennis Amador, a quartermaster and Abu-Jihaad's supervisor on the Benfold, testified that keeping ship movements confidential is so important that he uses code even to tell his wife where he is.
"We in the Navy are taught from the minute we come in that loose lips sink ships," he said.
He testified that during his time on the Benfold, Abu-jihaad showed him a brutal, graphic video of Chechen rebels attacking Russians. Earlier in the trial, prosecutors showed videos depicting violent jihad that they say Abu-Jihaad ordered from Web sites run by terrorism supporters. His attorneys say that pictures and videos don't prove he passed along classified information.
"He seemed to be fascinated with the Chechen conflict and seemed to be supportive of the Chechen rebels," Amador said.
The defense, meanwhile, continued to press a point raised Wednesday, saying some ships from the battle group passed through the Strait of Hormuz on May 2, 2001, and others on May 3. The leaked documents indicated they would pass through the strait on April 29.
A retired admiral testified Wednesday that the plan did call for passing into another area on April 29 that is sometimes confused with the Strait of Hormuz.
In testimony Thursday, Navy Lt. Commander Jay Wylie, who served on the USS Benfold with Abu-Jihaad, agreed with a question by a defense attorney that the battle group document was "riddled" with inaccuracies. He said his initial impression was that details about the ship listed in the document came from a publication available to the public, but also said that publication would not predict ship movements.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with the suspected terrorism supporters.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
USS Benfold
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, February 28, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
AP : Prosecutors: Documents Matched Ship Path
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Prosecutors: Documents Matched Ship Path
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN | February 28, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Prosecutors at the federal trial of a former sailor accused of supplying information that could have doomed his ship tried to show Thursday that a stop by his vessel in Hawaii matched details in leaked documents.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, an American-born Muslim convert, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Dennis Amador, a quartermaster and Abu-Jihaad's supervisor on the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold, testified Thursday that keeping ship movements confidential is so important that he uses code even to tell his wife where he is.
"We in the Navy are taught from the minute we come in that loose lips sink ships," he said.
Abu-Jihaad is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from the home of an alleged terrorism supporter, Babar Ahmad, also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with suspected terrorism supporters, including Ahmad.
Adam Conaway, a Navy quartermaster, testified that Abu-Jihaad's ship stopped in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for ammunition on March 20, 2001. One of the leaked documents recovered by authorities indicated that some ships would load Tomahawk missiles on that date.
On cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorneys pointed out that the leaked document referred only to some ships and did not specifically mention the Benfold. Prosecutors rebutted that by asking Conaway to confirm that the Benfold was the only ship from the battle group that stopped in Hawaii that day.
In testimony Thursday, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jay Wylie, who served on the Benfold with Abu-Jihaad, agreed with a question by a defense attorney that the battle group document was "riddled" with inaccuracies. He said his initial impression was that details about the ship listed in the document came from a publication available to the public, but also said that publication would not predict ship movements.
Abu-Jihaad, of Phoenix, was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider. Formerly known as Paul R. Hall, the Navy signalman received an honorable discharge in 2002.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN | February 28, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Prosecutors at the federal trial of a former sailor accused of supplying information that could have doomed his ship tried to show Thursday that a stop by his vessel in Hawaii matched details in leaked documents.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, an American-born Muslim convert, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Dennis Amador, a quartermaster and Abu-Jihaad's supervisor on the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold, testified Thursday that keeping ship movements confidential is so important that he uses code even to tell his wife where he is.
"We in the Navy are taught from the minute we come in that loose lips sink ships," he said.
Abu-Jihaad is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from the home of an alleged terrorism supporter, Babar Ahmad, also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements, but cite e-mails he exchanged with suspected terrorism supporters, including Ahmad.
Adam Conaway, a Navy quartermaster, testified that Abu-Jihaad's ship stopped in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for ammunition on March 20, 2001. One of the leaked documents recovered by authorities indicated that some ships would load Tomahawk missiles on that date.
On cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorneys pointed out that the leaked document referred only to some ships and did not specifically mention the Benfold. Prosecutors rebutted that by asking Conaway to confirm that the Benfold was the only ship from the battle group that stopped in Hawaii that day.
In testimony Thursday, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jay Wylie, who served on the Benfold with Abu-Jihaad, agreed with a question by a defense attorney that the battle group document was "riddled" with inaccuracies. He said his initial impression was that details about the ship listed in the document came from a publication available to the public, but also said that publication would not predict ship movements.
Abu-Jihaad, of Phoenix, was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider. Formerly known as Paul R. Hall, the Navy signalman received an honorable discharge in 2002.
Filed under
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
USS Benfold
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, February 28, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
AP : Top Official Testifies in Navy Case
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Top Official Testifies in Navy Case
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN | February 27, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — The Navy would have immediately changed plans had it known that details of ship movements had been leaked to suspected terrorism supporters, a top Navy official testified Wednesday at the trial of a former sailor on terrorism charges.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of leaking details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by prosecutors from an alleged terror supporter's home also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message.
Retired Rear Adm. David Hart Jr., who was involved in planning the deployment of the battle group, testified Wednesday that he would have immediately alerted his supervisor in 2001 if he knew that a battle group document was in the hands of suspected terrorism supporters. He said he would have sought an opportunity to change the time and nature of the operation.
"It was a very vulnerable period of time for us," said Hart, who noted earlier that naval officials had taken steps to protect sailors after the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
Hart also said that sailors were typically in a heightened state of readiness through Strait of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where they are frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Hart confirmed that the information Abu-Jihaad is accused of leaking was sensitive and classified.
But on cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorney, Dan Labelle, said the Navy wasn't shy about letting the world know when it was deploying ships to the Persian Gulf because it wanted to project strength and deter a crisis.
"I think that's fair to say," Hart responded.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
He was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN | February 27, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — The Navy would have immediately changed plans had it known that details of ship movements had been leaked to suspected terrorism supporters, a top Navy official testified Wednesday at the trial of a former sailor on terrorism charges.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of leaking details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by prosecutors from an alleged terror supporter's home also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message.
Retired Rear Adm. David Hart Jr., who was involved in planning the deployment of the battle group, testified Wednesday that he would have immediately alerted his supervisor in 2001 if he knew that a battle group document was in the hands of suspected terrorism supporters. He said he would have sought an opportunity to change the time and nature of the operation.
"It was a very vulnerable period of time for us," said Hart, who noted earlier that naval officials had taken steps to protect sailors after the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
Hart also said that sailors were typically in a heightened state of readiness through Strait of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where they are frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Hart confirmed that the information Abu-Jihaad is accused of leaking was sensitive and classified.
But on cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorney, Dan Labelle, said the Navy wasn't shy about letting the world know when it was deploying ships to the Persian Gulf because it wanted to project strength and deter a crisis.
"I think that's fair to say," Hart responded.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
He was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Examiner : Top Official Testifies in Navy Case
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Top Official Testifies in Navy Case
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 27, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - The Navy would have immediately changed plans had it known that details of ship movements had been leaked to suspected terrorism supporters, a former top Navy official testified Wednesday at the trial of a former sailor on terrorism charges.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces as many as 25 years in prison.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of leaking details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from a suspected terrorism supporter's home also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Retired Rear Adm. David Hart Jr., who was involved in planning the deployment of the battle group and was the commander, testified Wednesday that he would have immediately alerted his supervisor in 2001 had he known that a battle group document was in the hands of suspected terrorism supporters. He said he would have sought an opportunity to change the time and nature of the operation.
"It was a very vulnerable period of time for us," Hart said. He noted earlier that naval officials had taken steps to protect sailors after 17 of them were killed in the 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
Hart also said that sailors were typically in a heightened state of readiness through Strait of Hormuz, a busy, narrow Persian Gulf waterway where they are frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Hart confirmed that the information Abu-Jihaad is accused of leaking was sensitive and classified.
But on cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorney, Dan Labelle, said the Navy wasn't shy about letting the world know when it was deploying ships to the Persian Gulf because it wanted to project strength and deter a crisis.
"I think that's fair to say," Hart responded.
Hart testified that some other information in the leaked documents was incorrect, including a claim related to the vulnerability to a small craft attack. But he said he was still concerned because even if the allegedly leaked details were not precisely accurate, they would have given away the key tactical element of surprise.
Defense attorneys introduced a ship log indicating that the battle group passed through the Strait of Hormuz on May 2, 2001, not April 29. But Hart testified that the plan did call for passing on April 29 into an area sometimes confused with the Strait of Hormuz.
The documents indicated that ships would pass through the strait in a dual formation, which did not happen, Hart said. He also called a diagram that showed a submarine on each side of the ships "tactically unfeasible."
Prosecutors noted that a title on the document appeared on only one column of the ships, suggesting a single formation.
Prosecutors also acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements. But they introduced e-mails he exchanged with a Web site operated by suspected terrorism supporters.
Prosecutors also introduced a document showing Abu-Jihaad had a secret security clearance, saying that could have given him access to the ship movements.
He was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 27, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - The Navy would have immediately changed plans had it known that details of ship movements had been leaked to suspected terrorism supporters, a former top Navy official testified Wednesday at the trial of a former sailor on terrorism charges.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces as many as 25 years in prison.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of leaking details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from a suspected terrorism supporter's home also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Retired Rear Adm. David Hart Jr., who was involved in planning the deployment of the battle group and was the commander, testified Wednesday that he would have immediately alerted his supervisor in 2001 had he known that a battle group document was in the hands of suspected terrorism supporters. He said he would have sought an opportunity to change the time and nature of the operation.
"It was a very vulnerable period of time for us," Hart said. He noted earlier that naval officials had taken steps to protect sailors after 17 of them were killed in the 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
Hart also said that sailors were typically in a heightened state of readiness through Strait of Hormuz, a busy, narrow Persian Gulf waterway where they are frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Hart confirmed that the information Abu-Jihaad is accused of leaking was sensitive and classified.
But on cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorney, Dan Labelle, said the Navy wasn't shy about letting the world know when it was deploying ships to the Persian Gulf because it wanted to project strength and deter a crisis.
"I think that's fair to say," Hart responded.
Hart testified that some other information in the leaked documents was incorrect, including a claim related to the vulnerability to a small craft attack. But he said he was still concerned because even if the allegedly leaked details were not precisely accurate, they would have given away the key tactical element of surprise.
Defense attorneys introduced a ship log indicating that the battle group passed through the Strait of Hormuz on May 2, 2001, not April 29. But Hart testified that the plan did call for passing on April 29 into an area sometimes confused with the Strait of Hormuz.
The documents indicated that ships would pass through the strait in a dual formation, which did not happen, Hart said. He also called a diagram that showed a submarine on each side of the ships "tactically unfeasible."
Prosecutors noted that a title on the document appeared on only one column of the ships, suggesting a single formation.
Prosecutors also acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements. But they introduced e-mails he exchanged with a Web site operated by suspected terrorism supporters.
Prosecutors also introduced a document showing Abu-Jihaad had a secret security clearance, saying that could have given him access to the ship movements.
He was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Babar Ahmad,
David Hart Jr.,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad
by Winter Patriot
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Navy says documents allegedly leaked by Phoenix sailor dangerous
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Navy says documents allegedly leaked by Phoenix sailor dangerous
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 27, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - The Navy would have immediately changed plans had it known that details of ship movements had been leaked to suspected terrorism supporters, a retired top Navy official testified Wednesday at the trial of a former sailor on terrorism charges.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from an alleged terror supporter's home also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Retired Rear Adm. David Hart Jr., who was involved in planning the development of the battle group and was the commander, testified Wednesday that he would have immediately alerted his supervisor in 2001 had he known that a battle group document was in the hands of suspected terrorism supporters. He said he would have sought an opportunity to change the time and nature of the operation.
"It was a very vulnerable period of time for us," Hart said. He noted earlier that naval officials had taken steps to protect sailors after 17 sailors were killed in the 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
Hart also said that sailors were typically in a heightened state of readiness through Strait of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where they are frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Hart confirmed that the information Abu-Jihaad is accused of leaking was sensitive and classified.
But on cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorney, Dan Labelle, said the Navy wasn't shy about letting the world know when it was deploying ships to the Persian Gulf because it wanted to project strength and deter a crisis.
"I think that's fair to say," Hart responded.
Hart testified that some information in the leaked documents was incorrect, including a claim related to the vulnerability to a small craft attack. But Hart testified that he was still concerned because even if the allegedly leaked details were not precisely accurate, they would have given away the key tactical element of surprise.
Referring to ship movements, Hart said, "That could be an important piece of information."
Defense attorneys introduced a ship log indicating that the battle group passed through the Strait of Hormuz on May 2, 2001, not April 29. But Hart also testified that the plan did call for passing into another area on April 29 that is sometimes confused with the Strait of Hormuz.
The documents indicated that ships would pass through the strait in a dual formation, which did not happen, Hart said. He also called a diagram that showed a submarine on each side of the ships "tactically unfeasible."
Prosecutors noted that a title on the document appeared only on one column of the ships, suggesting a single formation.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements. But they introduced e-mails he exchanged with a Web site operated by suspected terrorism supporters.
Prosecutors also introduced a document showing Abu-Jihaad had a secret security clearance, saying that could have given him access to the ship movements.
He was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 27, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - The Navy would have immediately changed plans had it known that details of ship movements had been leaked to suspected terrorism supporters, a retired top Navy official testified Wednesday at the trial of a former sailor on terrorism charges.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information.
If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of leaking information that could have doomed his own ship. He was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002.
He is accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Files found on a computer disk recovered by authorities from an alleged terror supporter's home also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message, according to testimony.
Retired Rear Adm. David Hart Jr., who was involved in planning the development of the battle group and was the commander, testified Wednesday that he would have immediately alerted his supervisor in 2001 had he known that a battle group document was in the hands of suspected terrorism supporters. He said he would have sought an opportunity to change the time and nature of the operation.
"It was a very vulnerable period of time for us," Hart said. He noted earlier that naval officials had taken steps to protect sailors after 17 sailors were killed in the 2000 terrorist attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
Hart also said that sailors were typically in a heightened state of readiness through Strait of Hormuz, a busy narrow Persian Gulf waterway where they are frequently challenged by Iranian officials.
Hart confirmed that the information Abu-Jihaad is accused of leaking was sensitive and classified.
But on cross-examination, Abu-Jihaad's attorney, Dan Labelle, said the Navy wasn't shy about letting the world know when it was deploying ships to the Persian Gulf because it wanted to project strength and deter a crisis.
"I think that's fair to say," Hart responded.
Hart testified that some information in the leaked documents was incorrect, including a claim related to the vulnerability to a small craft attack. But Hart testified that he was still concerned because even if the allegedly leaked details were not precisely accurate, they would have given away the key tactical element of surprise.
Referring to ship movements, Hart said, "That could be an important piece of information."
Defense attorneys introduced a ship log indicating that the battle group passed through the Strait of Hormuz on May 2, 2001, not April 29. But Hart also testified that the plan did call for passing into another area on April 29 that is sometimes confused with the Strait of Hormuz.
The documents indicated that ships would pass through the strait in a dual formation, which did not happen, Hart said. He also called a diagram that showed a submarine on each side of the ships "tactically unfeasible."
Prosecutors noted that a title on the document appeared only on one column of the ships, suggesting a single formation.
Prosecutors acknowledge that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements. But they introduced e-mails he exchanged with a Web site operated by suspected terrorism supporters.
Prosecutors also introduced a document showing Abu-Jihaad had a secret security clearance, saying that could have given him access to the ship movements.
He was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Babar Ahmad,
Dan Labelle,
David Hart Jr.,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad
by Winter Patriot
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
AP : Feds: Ex-Sailor Ordered Violent Videos
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Feds: Ex-Sailor Ordered Violent Videos
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN | February 26, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Prosecutors played videos promoting violent jihad Tuesday at the trial of a former sailor accused of communicating with suspected terrorists and leaking information that could have doomed his own Navy ship.
Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad ordered the videos. His attorneys have said in court papers that they don't dispute that he was in contact with the company that sold the videos, but that pictures and videos don't prove he passed classified information.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
On Tuesday, prosecutors showed e-mails from 2000 and 2001 in which Abu-Jihaad ordered violent videos from Azzam Publications. They say he later destroyed his copies of the videos after news reports about the case.
The videos, filled with explosions, flames and dead bodies, feature Muslim fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia. In one segment played in court Tuesday, a group of fighters in Chechnya find an injured Russian soldier, then force him to stand despite his injuries. They eventually kill him with an assault rifle.
Prosecutors say the videos are important evidence because they must prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002. Prosecutors offered evidence Tuesday that he changed his name to Abu-Jihaad in 1997.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
On Monday, the first day of the trial, British investigators described how they found details about the vulnerability of Abu-Jihaad's Navy battle group in the London home of Ahmad's parents, where Ahmad had a room.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
Craig Bowling, a computer expert with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, testified Tuesday that e-mail service providers regularly purge their accounts. He also said there was evidence that a computer program that wipes out information was applied to a floppy disc containing the information about the ships and other files.
According to an FBI affidavit, Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation. In those e-mails, Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Osama bin Laden and those who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, investigators say.
In an e-mail sent to Azzam Publications and presented Tuesday in court, Abu-Jihaad called the attack on the USS Cole a "martyrdom operation" and praised "the men who have brong (sic) honor ... in the lands of jihad Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc."
He signed the e-mail: "A brother serving a kuffar nation." Bowling defined kuffar as nonbeliever or infidel.
Prosecutors hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant and the government's case is weak.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN | February 26, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Prosecutors played videos promoting violent jihad Tuesday at the trial of a former sailor accused of communicating with suspected terrorists and leaking information that could have doomed his own Navy ship.
Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad ordered the videos. His attorneys have said in court papers that they don't dispute that he was in contact with the company that sold the videos, but that pictures and videos don't prove he passed classified information.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
On Tuesday, prosecutors showed e-mails from 2000 and 2001 in which Abu-Jihaad ordered violent videos from Azzam Publications. They say he later destroyed his copies of the videos after news reports about the case.
The videos, filled with explosions, flames and dead bodies, feature Muslim fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia. In one segment played in court Tuesday, a group of fighters in Chechnya find an injured Russian soldier, then force him to stand despite his injuries. They eventually kill him with an assault rifle.
Prosecutors say the videos are important evidence because they must prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002. Prosecutors offered evidence Tuesday that he changed his name to Abu-Jihaad in 1997.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
On Monday, the first day of the trial, British investigators described how they found details about the vulnerability of Abu-Jihaad's Navy battle group in the London home of Ahmad's parents, where Ahmad had a room.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
Craig Bowling, a computer expert with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, testified Tuesday that e-mail service providers regularly purge their accounts. He also said there was evidence that a computer program that wipes out information was applied to a floppy disc containing the information about the ships and other files.
According to an FBI affidavit, Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation. In those e-mails, Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Osama bin Laden and those who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, investigators say.
In an e-mail sent to Azzam Publications and presented Tuesday in court, Abu-Jihaad called the attack on the USS Cole a "martyrdom operation" and praised "the men who have brong (sic) honor ... in the lands of jihad Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc."
He signed the e-mail: "A brother serving a kuffar nation." Bowling defined kuffar as nonbeliever or infidel.
Prosecutors hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant and the government's case is weak.
Filed under
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
USS Benfold
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, February 26, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Prosecutors in ex-sailor's terror case play violent videos
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Prosecutors in ex-sailor's terror case play violent videos
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 26, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Prosecutors played videos promoting violent jihad Tuesday at the trial of a former sailor accused of communicating with suspected terrorists and leaking information that could have doomed his own Navy ship.
Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad ordered the videos from a Web site allegedly run by terrorism supporters. His attorneys have said in court papers that they don't dispute that he was in contact with the Web site that sold the videos, but that pictures and videos don't prove he passed along classified information.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
On Tuesday, prosecutors showed e-mails from 2000 and 2001 in which Abu-Jihaad ordered violent videos from Azzam Publications. They say he later destroyed his copies of the videos after news reports about the case.
The videos, filled with explosions, flames and dead bodies, feature Muslim fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia. In one segment played in court Tuesday, a group of fighters in Chechnya find an injured Russian soldier, then force him to stand despite his injuries. They eventually kill him with an assault rifle.
Prosecutors say the videos, which also showed Osama bin Laden, are important evidence because they must prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002. Prosecutors offered evidence Tuesday that he changed his name to Abu-Jihaad in 1997.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
On Monday, the first day of the trial, British investigators described how they found details about the vulnerability of Abu-Jihaad's Navy battle group in the London home of Ahmad's parents, where Ahmad had a room.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements. Craig Bowling, a computer expert with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, testified Tuesday that e-mail service providers regularly purge their accounts and he cited evidence that a computer program that wipes out information was applied to a floppy disc containing the information about the ships and other files.
Bowling also testified that investigators obtained some of Abu-Jihaad's e-mails only because they turned up in the text of replies from the Web site.
On cross-examination, Bowling said some information about the formation of the ships and their arrival in the Middle East was inaccurate. But prosecutors noted that the document was predicting a date of arrival.
Abu-Jihaad sent e-mails related to the videos to the Web site around the same time the document indicated the Navy ships were deploying in the spring of 2001, Bowling testified.
His last e-mail to Azzam was sent a little over a week before the Sept 11 attacks, Bowling testified. Abu-Jihaad said foreigners who try to convert Muslims in Afghanistan should be punished by death, according to an e-mail introduced in court.
According to an FBI affidavit, Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation.
In an e-mail sent to Azzam Publications and presented Tuesday in court, Abu-Jihaad called the attack on the USS Cole a "martyrdom operation" and praised "the men who have brong (sic) honor ... in the lands of jihad Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc."
He signed the e-mail: "A brother serving a kuffar nation." Bowling defined kuffar as nonbeliever or infidel.
Prosecutors hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant and the government's case is weak.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 26, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Prosecutors played videos promoting violent jihad Tuesday at the trial of a former sailor accused of communicating with suspected terrorists and leaking information that could have doomed his own Navy ship.
Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad ordered the videos from a Web site allegedly run by terrorism supporters. His attorneys have said in court papers that they don't dispute that he was in contact with the Web site that sold the videos, but that pictures and videos don't prove he passed along classified information.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
On Tuesday, prosecutors showed e-mails from 2000 and 2001 in which Abu-Jihaad ordered violent videos from Azzam Publications. They say he later destroyed his copies of the videos after news reports about the case.
The videos, filled with explosions, flames and dead bodies, feature Muslim fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia. In one segment played in court Tuesday, a group of fighters in Chechnya find an injured Russian soldier, then force him to stand despite his injuries. They eventually kill him with an assault rifle.
Prosecutors say the videos, which also showed Osama bin Laden, are important evidence because they must prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002. Prosecutors offered evidence Tuesday that he changed his name to Abu-Jihaad in 1997.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
On Monday, the first day of the trial, British investigators described how they found details about the vulnerability of Abu-Jihaad's Navy battle group in the London home of Ahmad's parents, where Ahmad had a room.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements. Craig Bowling, a computer expert with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, testified Tuesday that e-mail service providers regularly purge their accounts and he cited evidence that a computer program that wipes out information was applied to a floppy disc containing the information about the ships and other files.
Bowling also testified that investigators obtained some of Abu-Jihaad's e-mails only because they turned up in the text of replies from the Web site.
On cross-examination, Bowling said some information about the formation of the ships and their arrival in the Middle East was inaccurate. But prosecutors noted that the document was predicting a date of arrival.
Abu-Jihaad sent e-mails related to the videos to the Web site around the same time the document indicated the Navy ships were deploying in the spring of 2001, Bowling testified.
His last e-mail to Azzam was sent a little over a week before the Sept 11 attacks, Bowling testified. Abu-Jihaad said foreigners who try to convert Muslims in Afghanistan should be punished by death, according to an e-mail introduced in court.
According to an FBI affidavit, Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation.
In an e-mail sent to Azzam Publications and presented Tuesday in court, Abu-Jihaad called the attack on the USS Cole a "martyrdom operation" and praised "the men who have brong (sic) honor ... in the lands of jihad Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc."
He signed the e-mail: "A brother serving a kuffar nation." Bowling defined kuffar as nonbeliever or infidel.
Prosecutors hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant and the government's case is weak.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Babar Ahmad,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
Osama bin Laden,
USS Benfold
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, February 26, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Feds: Ex-Sailor Ordered Violent Videos
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Feds: Ex-Sailor Ordered Violent Videos
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 26, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Prosecutors played videos promoting violent jihad Tuesday at the trial of a former sailor accused of communicating with suspected terrorists and leaking information that could have doomed his own Navy ship.
Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad ordered the videos. His attorneys have said in court papers that they don't dispute that he was in contact with the company that sold the videos, but that pictures and videos don't prove he passed classified information.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
On Tuesday, prosecutors showed e-mails from 2000 and 2001 in which Abu-Jihaad ordered violent videos from Azzam Publications. They say he later destroyed his copies of the videos after news reports about the case.
The videos, filled with explosions, flames and dead bodies, feature Muslim fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia. In one segment played in court Tuesday, a group of fighters in Chechnya find an injured Russian soldier, then force him to stand despite his injuries. They eventually kill him with an assault rifle.
Prosecutors say the videos are important evidence because they must prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002. Prosecutors offered evidence Tuesday that he changed his name to Abu-Jihaad in 1997.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
On Monday, the first day of the trial, British investigators described how they found details about the vulnerability of Abu-Jihaad's Navy battle group in the London home of Ahmad's parents, where Ahmad had a room.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
Craig Bowling, a computer expert with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, testified Tuesday that e-mail service providers regularly purge their accounts. He also said there was evidence that a computer program that wipes out information was applied to a floppy disc containing the information about the ships and other files.
According to an FBI affidavit, Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation. In those e-mails, Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Osama bin Laden and those who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, investigators say.
In an e-mail sent to Azzam Publications and presented Tuesday in court, Abu-Jihaad called the attack on the USS Cole a "martyrdom operation" and praised "the men who have brong (sic) honor ... in the lands of jihad Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc."
He signed the e-mail: "A brother serving a kuffar nation." Bowling defined kuffar as nonbeliever or infidel.
Prosecutors hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant and the government's case is weak.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 26, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Prosecutors played videos promoting violent jihad Tuesday at the trial of a former sailor accused of communicating with suspected terrorists and leaking information that could have doomed his own Navy ship.
Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad ordered the videos. His attorneys have said in court papers that they don't dispute that he was in contact with the company that sold the videos, but that pictures and videos don't prove he passed classified information.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging he provided material support to terrorists and disclosed classified national defense information. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
On Tuesday, prosecutors showed e-mails from 2000 and 2001 in which Abu-Jihaad ordered violent videos from Azzam Publications. They say he later destroyed his copies of the videos after news reports about the case.
The videos, filled with explosions, flames and dead bodies, feature Muslim fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia. In one segment played in court Tuesday, a group of fighters in Chechnya find an injured Russian soldier, then force him to stand despite his injuries. They eventually kill him with an assault rifle.
Prosecutors say the videos are important evidence because they must prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a Navy signalman and received an honorable discharge in 2002. Prosecutors offered evidence Tuesday that he changed his name to Abu-Jihaad in 1997.
Abu-Jihaad was charged in the same case that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.
Abu-Jihaad is being prosecuted in New Haven because the federal investigation first focused on a Connecticut-based Internet service provider.
On Monday, the first day of the trial, British investigators described how they found details about the vulnerability of Abu-Jihaad's Navy battle group in the London home of Ahmad's parents, where Ahmad had a room.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
Craig Bowling, a computer expert with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, testified Tuesday that e-mail service providers regularly purge their accounts. He also said there was evidence that a computer program that wipes out information was applied to a floppy disc containing the information about the ships and other files.
According to an FBI affidavit, Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation. In those e-mails, Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Osama bin Laden and those who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, investigators say.
In an e-mail sent to Azzam Publications and presented Tuesday in court, Abu-Jihaad called the attack on the USS Cole a "martyrdom operation" and praised "the men who have brong (sic) honor ... in the lands of jihad Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc."
He signed the e-mail: "A brother serving a kuffar nation." Bowling defined kuffar as nonbeliever or infidel.
Prosecutors hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant and the government's case is weak.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Babar Ahmad,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
USS Benfold
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, February 26, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
London (Canada) Free Press : Brits testify in trial of ex-U.S. sailor
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Brits testify in trial of ex-U.S. sailor
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN | AP | February 26, 2008
NEW HAVEN, CONN. -- The trial of a former U.S. navy sailor accused of helping suspected terrorists, including leaking information that could have doomed his own ship, opened yesterday with British investigators describing evidence they found.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, has pleaded not guilty to charges he provided material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens and disclosed classified information relating to national defence. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Prosecutors allege he sent details of the location and vulnerabilities of a navy battle group to suspected terrorism supporters in London. A Canadian warship, HMCS Winnipeg, was in the battle group.
Abu-Jihaad's lawyers say the government's case is weak.
Abu-Jihaad was charged as a result of an investigation that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running websites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is awaiting extradition to the United States.
Three British investigators testified yesterday that agents who searched Ahmad's parents' house, where he had a room, in 2003 found a computer disk.
Computer expert Samantha Miller testified that the disk contained information on U.S. navy ships and planned ship movements.
Information on the disk included statements such as "They have nothing to stop a small craft with RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), etc., except their SEALS' stinger missiles."
Prosecutors have said files found on Ahmad's computers contained classified information about the positions of navy ships and discussed their susceptibility to attack.
They also allegedly listed the ships in a navy battle group, which included the Winnipeg, along with the group's planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert from Phoenix formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a navy signalman. He was honourably discharged in 2002.
The investigation that led to his arrest was one of the first to target online terrorism financiers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and experts have cited Abu-Jihaad's case as an example of how Internet propaganda fuels radicalization.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN | AP | February 26, 2008
NEW HAVEN, CONN. -- The trial of a former U.S. navy sailor accused of helping suspected terrorists, including leaking information that could have doomed his own ship, opened yesterday with British investigators describing evidence they found.
Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, has pleaded not guilty to charges he provided material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens and disclosed classified information relating to national defence. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.
Prosecutors allege he sent details of the location and vulnerabilities of a navy battle group to suspected terrorism supporters in London. A Canadian warship, HMCS Winnipeg, was in the battle group.
Abu-Jihaad's lawyers say the government's case is weak.
Abu-Jihaad was charged as a result of an investigation that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running websites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is awaiting extradition to the United States.
Three British investigators testified yesterday that agents who searched Ahmad's parents' house, where he had a room, in 2003 found a computer disk.
Computer expert Samantha Miller testified that the disk contained information on U.S. navy ships and planned ship movements.
Information on the disk included statements such as "They have nothing to stop a small craft with RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), etc., except their SEALS' stinger missiles."
Prosecutors have said files found on Ahmad's computers contained classified information about the positions of navy ships and discussed their susceptibility to attack.
They also allegedly listed the ships in a navy battle group, which included the Winnipeg, along with the group's planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert from Phoenix formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a navy signalman. He was honourably discharged in 2002.
The investigation that led to his arrest was one of the first to target online terrorism financiers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and experts have cited Abu-Jihaad's case as an example of how Internet propaganda fuels radicalization.
Filed under
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
lawyers
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, February 26, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
FBI : Response to Rolling Stone Magazine Article on Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs)
Monday, February 25, 2008
For Immediate Release | February 25, 2008
Washington D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
This is the full version of a letter sent to the editor of Rolling Stone magazine in response to their article, The Fear Factory which appeared in the February 7, 2008 edition. Rolling Stone printed an edited version to comport with their word limitations, in the February 22, 2008 issue.
FBI Response to Rolling Stone Magazine Article on Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs)
There is an old saying among reporters: The worst thing you can do to a good story is check it out. Guy Lawson (“The Fear Factory” Rolling Stone, February 7th) brings hypothetical theory to new heights. After “checking it out,” Mr. Lawson simply tailored his story around any compelling facts that did not fit his original premise. Before coming to the FBI over 25 years ago, I won most of the major awards that they give to a reporter. I feel I have standing to say that a journalist has an obligation to tell at least two sides of a story. Your readers only got one.
The premise to which Mr. Lawson’s story was married is his theory that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) have to justify their existence in the post 9/11 world by ginning up thin cases against arguably docile suspects who have neither the intent nor capability to cause real harm. Mr. Lawson deftly skips over 27 years of the work of the JTTFs capturing al Qaeda suspects from the first World Trade Center bombing, preventing the attacks on New York landmarks, the Embassy and USS Cole bombings, the Millennium Plot and more. Instead, Mr. Lawson narrowed his focus to cases involving small groups and “lone wolves” that planned to murder American citizens on U.S. soil.
Derrick Shareef, the convicted terrorist at the center of the story who Mr. Lawson frivolously described as being a “wanna-be jihadi,” possessed all of the traits necessary to harm or kill innocent citizens. Investigators were also keenly aware of Mr. Shareef’s continuous contacts with Hassan Abujihaad, another domestic terror suspect being monitored by the FBI. Mr. Abujihaad was indicted for sending classified e-mails while serving on a U.S. Navy ship to pro-Taliban forces, divulging his naval battle group’s operational vulnerabilities. It was only after the two had a falling out that Mr. Shareef accelerated his plans to act independently and swiftly to launch an attack. The JTTF took correct action to disrupt his plans and arrest him.
Mr. Shareef, like scores of suicide bombers overseas, was infused with a poisonous ideology, displayed a single-minded desire to take action, regularly declared his intent to kill, and sought to obtain weapons to commit an attack.
One needs only to reflect on the example of Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 U.S. citizens in the Oklahoma City bombing. Mr. McVeigh could have been described as having little money, working a dead end job as a security guard, dealing with anger issues, and devoted to an extremist ideology. Like Mr. Shareef, Mr. McVeigh discussed his plans with others, cased potential targets, took action to secure explosives for the operation, and tried to do it as cheaply as possible.
Other killers have started out with even less. Take John Allan Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, the “D.C. Snipers.” Two practically homeless men, living out of a car, filled with hate and armed with a high-powered assault rifle. As in the case of Mr. Shareef, you might be tempted to call them “losers,” but their actions paralyzed greater Washington D.C. for three weeks in 2002. In the end, 10 people died in the attacks and still others were identified from earlier shootings in other states. None of these men would have met Mr. Lawson’s standard as being a legitimate threat, yet had the FBI known about them before they struck, we would have been severely criticized.
At any point during his planning process, Mr. Shareef could have stopped his actions, but he chose not to. There is no evidence that he ever wavered in his desire to murder holiday shoppers in the CherryVale Mall that day. Would he have succeeded had it not been for the diligence of the JTTF? Mr. Lawson’s story suggests we should be willing to take this gamble, but he is not responsible for the outcome. No one will knock on the doors of Rolling Stone and ask why people died that day.
Not every terrorist needs to be linked to an organized group like al Qaeda to kill the innocent. What these lessons have taught us is that if the motivation is strong enough, challenges such as getting weapons or paying for the operation can be overcome.
JTTF agents and officers abide by FBI procedures, Department of Justice legal guidance, and the United States Constitution. They must bring facts before a judge to get authorization for a warrant or electronic surveillance. Since 9/11, the JTTFs have broken a dozen plots targeting civilians on U.S. soil. None of them have been well-financed, but I cannot remember any victim of a terrorist attack lamenting that they wished they’d been killed by a more expensive plot.
Mr. Lawson’s sweeping statement, “The defendants posed little if any demonstrable threat to anyone or anything,” seems to be his uneducated guess rather than an objective summary of the legal outcomes or courtroom results. In almost every case heard by a jury, the defendants were found guilty, in spite of having some dedicated and talented defense lawyers articulate the same claims Mr. Lawson has swallowed. The Yassin Aref case in Albany, New York, and the Hamid Hayat case in Lodi, California, are two examples. In other cases such as the “Lackawanna Six,” and the Torrance cell, the defendants pled guilty with the advice of counsel.
If we have identified somebody with the intent to take lives in the name of extremism and we fail to take the appropriate action, we are ignoring our sworn mission to protect the innocent. Regardless of criticism, it is our obligation to err on the side of safety while continuing to adhere to Constitutional protections.
John J. Miller
Assistant Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
This is the full version of a letter sent to the editor of Rolling Stone magazine in response to their article, The Fear Factory which appeared in the February 7, 2008 edition. Rolling Stone printed an edited version to comport with their word limitations, in the February 22, 2008 issue.
FBI Response to Rolling Stone Magazine Article on Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs)
There is an old saying among reporters: The worst thing you can do to a good story is check it out. Guy Lawson (“The Fear Factory” Rolling Stone, February 7th) brings hypothetical theory to new heights. After “checking it out,” Mr. Lawson simply tailored his story around any compelling facts that did not fit his original premise. Before coming to the FBI over 25 years ago, I won most of the major awards that they give to a reporter. I feel I have standing to say that a journalist has an obligation to tell at least two sides of a story. Your readers only got one.
The premise to which Mr. Lawson’s story was married is his theory that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) have to justify their existence in the post 9/11 world by ginning up thin cases against arguably docile suspects who have neither the intent nor capability to cause real harm. Mr. Lawson deftly skips over 27 years of the work of the JTTFs capturing al Qaeda suspects from the first World Trade Center bombing, preventing the attacks on New York landmarks, the Embassy and USS Cole bombings, the Millennium Plot and more. Instead, Mr. Lawson narrowed his focus to cases involving small groups and “lone wolves” that planned to murder American citizens on U.S. soil.
Derrick Shareef, the convicted terrorist at the center of the story who Mr. Lawson frivolously described as being a “wanna-be jihadi,” possessed all of the traits necessary to harm or kill innocent citizens. Investigators were also keenly aware of Mr. Shareef’s continuous contacts with Hassan Abujihaad, another domestic terror suspect being monitored by the FBI. Mr. Abujihaad was indicted for sending classified e-mails while serving on a U.S. Navy ship to pro-Taliban forces, divulging his naval battle group’s operational vulnerabilities. It was only after the two had a falling out that Mr. Shareef accelerated his plans to act independently and swiftly to launch an attack. The JTTF took correct action to disrupt his plans and arrest him.
Mr. Shareef, like scores of suicide bombers overseas, was infused with a poisonous ideology, displayed a single-minded desire to take action, regularly declared his intent to kill, and sought to obtain weapons to commit an attack.
One needs only to reflect on the example of Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 U.S. citizens in the Oklahoma City bombing. Mr. McVeigh could have been described as having little money, working a dead end job as a security guard, dealing with anger issues, and devoted to an extremist ideology. Like Mr. Shareef, Mr. McVeigh discussed his plans with others, cased potential targets, took action to secure explosives for the operation, and tried to do it as cheaply as possible.
Other killers have started out with even less. Take John Allan Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, the “D.C. Snipers.” Two practically homeless men, living out of a car, filled with hate and armed with a high-powered assault rifle. As in the case of Mr. Shareef, you might be tempted to call them “losers,” but their actions paralyzed greater Washington D.C. for three weeks in 2002. In the end, 10 people died in the attacks and still others were identified from earlier shootings in other states. None of these men would have met Mr. Lawson’s standard as being a legitimate threat, yet had the FBI known about them before they struck, we would have been severely criticized.
At any point during his planning process, Mr. Shareef could have stopped his actions, but he chose not to. There is no evidence that he ever wavered in his desire to murder holiday shoppers in the CherryVale Mall that day. Would he have succeeded had it not been for the diligence of the JTTF? Mr. Lawson’s story suggests we should be willing to take this gamble, but he is not responsible for the outcome. No one will knock on the doors of Rolling Stone and ask why people died that day.
Not every terrorist needs to be linked to an organized group like al Qaeda to kill the innocent. What these lessons have taught us is that if the motivation is strong enough, challenges such as getting weapons or paying for the operation can be overcome.
JTTF agents and officers abide by FBI procedures, Department of Justice legal guidance, and the United States Constitution. They must bring facts before a judge to get authorization for a warrant or electronic surveillance. Since 9/11, the JTTFs have broken a dozen plots targeting civilians on U.S. soil. None of them have been well-financed, but I cannot remember any victim of a terrorist attack lamenting that they wished they’d been killed by a more expensive plot.
Mr. Lawson’s sweeping statement, “The defendants posed little if any demonstrable threat to anyone or anything,” seems to be his uneducated guess rather than an objective summary of the legal outcomes or courtroom results. In almost every case heard by a jury, the defendants were found guilty, in spite of having some dedicated and talented defense lawyers articulate the same claims Mr. Lawson has swallowed. The Yassin Aref case in Albany, New York, and the Hamid Hayat case in Lodi, California, are two examples. In other cases such as the “Lackawanna Six,” and the Torrance cell, the defendants pled guilty with the advice of counsel.
If we have identified somebody with the intent to take lives in the name of extremism and we fail to take the appropriate action, we are ignoring our sworn mission to protect the innocent. Regardless of criticism, it is our obligation to err on the side of safety while continuing to adhere to Constitutional protections.
John J. Miller
Assistant Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Filed under
Derrick Shareef,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
John J. Miller,
lawyers
by Winter Patriot
on Monday, February 25, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Trial starts for terror case against ex-sailor from Phoenix
Monday, February 25, 2008
Trial starts for terror case against ex-sailor from Phoenix
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 25, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - The trial of a former Navy sailor on terrorism charges opened Monday with British investigators describing how they found details about the vulnerability of the sailor's Navy battle group in the London home of an alleged terrorism supporter.
American prosecutors allege that the sailor, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, sent those details to suspected terrorism supporters in London.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to charges he provided material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens and disclosed classified information relating to the national defense. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the government's case is weak
The investigation that resulted in charges against Abu-Jihaad also led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is awaiting extradition to the U.S.
Three British investigators testified Monday that agents who searched Ahmad's parents' house, where he had a room, in 2003 found a computer floppy disk.
Computer expert Samantha Miller testified that the disk contained information on U.S. Navy ships and planned ship movements.
The information on the disk included statements such as "They have nothing to stop a small craft with RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), etc., except their SEALS' stinger missiles."
The ship details included the makeup of the Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001. It also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a signalman before he received an honorable discharge from the Navy in 2002.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
But Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation, according to an FBI affidavit. In those e-mails, Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Osama bin Laden and those who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, investigators say.
Abu-Jihaad also purchased videos promoting violent jihad from the group. Prosecutors plan to play portions of the graphic videos.
Prosecutors say the videos and Web pages that prosecutors displayed in court help prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Prosecutors also hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Authorities said Abu-Jihaad spoke of "hot meals" and "cold meals" in conversations with associates to refer to intelligence that would be useful to strike American military targets.
Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant. The trial is expected to last one to two weeks.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 25, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - The trial of a former Navy sailor on terrorism charges opened Monday with British investigators describing how they found details about the vulnerability of the sailor's Navy battle group in the London home of an alleged terrorism supporter.
American prosecutors allege that the sailor, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, sent those details to suspected terrorism supporters in London.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to charges he provided material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens and disclosed classified information relating to the national defense. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the government's case is weak
The investigation that resulted in charges against Abu-Jihaad also led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is awaiting extradition to the U.S.
Three British investigators testified Monday that agents who searched Ahmad's parents' house, where he had a room, in 2003 found a computer floppy disk.
Computer expert Samantha Miller testified that the disk contained information on U.S. Navy ships and planned ship movements.
The information on the disk included statements such as "They have nothing to stop a small craft with RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), etc., except their SEALS' stinger missiles."
The ship details included the makeup of the Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001. It also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a signalman before he received an honorable discharge from the Navy in 2002.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
But Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation, according to an FBI affidavit. In those e-mails, Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Osama bin Laden and those who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, investigators say.
Abu-Jihaad also purchased videos promoting violent jihad from the group. Prosecutors plan to play portions of the graphic videos.
Prosecutors say the videos and Web pages that prosecutors displayed in court help prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Prosecutors also hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Authorities said Abu-Jihaad spoke of "hot meals" and "cold meals" in conversations with associates to refer to intelligence that would be useful to strike American military targets.
Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant. The trial is expected to last one to two weeks.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Babar Ahmad,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
USS Benfold
by Winter Patriot
on Monday, February 25, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Trial starts for terror case against ex-sailor
Monday, February 25, 2008
Trial starts for terror case against ex-sailor
The Associated Press | February 25, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A British investigator is the first person to testify in the Connecticut trial of a former Navy sailor on terrorism charges.
Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad (ah-boo-GEE'-hahd) of Phoenix sent details of the location and vulnerabilities of a Navy battle group to suspected terrorism supporters in London when he was on active duty.
Abu-Jihaad is charged in the same case as Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist arrested in 2004 and accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists.
As Abu-Jihaad's trial started today, the British investigator testified that agents who searched Ahmad's parents house in 2003 found a computer floppy disk that authorities say contained details of ship movements.
Abu-Jihaad has pleaded not guilty to charges he provided material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens. He also pleaded not guilty to charges he disclosed classified information relating to the national defense.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The Associated Press | February 25, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A British investigator is the first person to testify in the Connecticut trial of a former Navy sailor on terrorism charges.
Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad (ah-boo-GEE'-hahd) of Phoenix sent details of the location and vulnerabilities of a Navy battle group to suspected terrorism supporters in London when he was on active duty.
Abu-Jihaad is charged in the same case as Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist arrested in 2004 and accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists.
As Abu-Jihaad's trial started today, the British investigator testified that agents who searched Ahmad's parents house in 2003 found a computer floppy disk that authorities say contained details of ship movements.
Abu-Jihaad has pleaded not guilty to charges he provided material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens. He also pleaded not guilty to charges he disclosed classified information relating to the national defense.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Babar Ahmad,
Hassan Abu-Jihaad
by Winter Patriot
on Monday, February 25, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Examiner : Terror Trial Starts for Ex-Navy Sailor
Monday, February 25, 2008
Terror Trial Starts for Ex-Navy Sailor
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 25, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - The trial of a former Navy sailor on terrorism charges opened Monday with British investigators describing how they found details about the vulnerability of the sailor's Navy battle group in the London home of an alleged terrorism supporter.
American prosecutors allege that the sailor, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, sent those details to suspected terrorism supporters in London.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to charges he provided material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens and disclosed classified information relating to the national defense. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the government's case is weak
The investigation that resulted in charges against Abu-Jihaad also led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is awaiting extradition to the U.S.
Three British investigators testified Monday that agents who searched Ahmad's parents' house, where he had a room, in 2003 found a computer floppy disk.
Computer expert Samantha Miller testified that the disk contained information on U.S. Navy ships and planned ship movements.
The information on the disk included statements such as "They have nothing to stop a small craft with RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), etc., except their SEALS' stinger missiles."
The ship details included the makeup of the Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001. It also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a signalman before he received an honorable discharge from the Navy in 2002.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
But Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation, according to an FBI affidavit. In those e-mails, Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Osama bin Laden and those who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, investigators say.
Abu-Jihaad also purchased videos promoting violent jihad from the group. Prosecutors plan to play portions of the graphic videos.
Prosecutors say the videos and Web pages that prosecutors displayed in court help prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Prosecutors also hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Authorities said Abu-Jihaad spoke of "hot meals" and "cold meals" in conversations with associates to refer to intelligence that would be useful to strike American military targets.
Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant. The trial is expected to last one to two weeks.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, The Associated Press | February 25, 2008
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - The trial of a former Navy sailor on terrorism charges opened Monday with British investigators describing how they found details about the vulnerability of the sailor's Navy battle group in the London home of an alleged terrorism supporter.
American prosecutors allege that the sailor, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, sent those details to suspected terrorism supporters in London.
Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to charges he provided material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens and disclosed classified information relating to the national defense. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the government's case is weak
The investigation that resulted in charges against Abu-Jihaad also led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is awaiting extradition to the U.S.
Three British investigators testified Monday that agents who searched Ahmad's parents' house, where he had a room, in 2003 found a computer floppy disk.
Computer expert Samantha Miller testified that the disk contained information on U.S. Navy ships and planned ship movements.
The information on the disk included statements such as "They have nothing to stop a small craft with RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), etc., except their SEALS' stinger missiles."
The ship details included the makeup of the Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001. It also included the number and type of personnel on each ship and the ships' capabilities and ended with instructions to destroy the message.
Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a signalman before he received an honorable discharge from the Navy in 2002.
Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.
But Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation, according to an FBI affidavit. In those e-mails, Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Osama bin Laden and those who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, investigators say.
Abu-Jihaad also purchased videos promoting violent jihad from the group. Prosecutors plan to play portions of the graphic videos.
Prosecutors say the videos and Web pages that prosecutors displayed in court help prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.
Prosecutors also hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Authorities said Abu-Jihaad spoke of "hot meals" and "cold meals" in conversations with associates to refer to intelligence that would be useful to strike American military targets.
Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant. The trial is expected to last one to two weeks.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Filed under
Hassan Abu-Jihaad,
USS Benfold
by Winter Patriot
on Monday, February 25, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : Vote Is Expected to Further Weaken Musharraf
Monday, February 18, 2008
Vote Is Expected to Further Weaken Musharraf
By CARLOTTA GALL and JANE PERLEZ | February 18, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistanis began voting Monday morning in parliamentary elections that are expected to diminish President Pervez Musharraf further and present Washington with a challenging new political lineup here as it pursues its fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the region.
The vote, which was delayed after the assassination of the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto nearly two months ago, comes amid anxiety of further political turmoil if the government manipulates the results or enters a battle with the opposition parties over forming a government. Reuters reported that 80,000 troops were backing up police, keeping watch over polling places.
At least four candidates, including Ms. Bhutto, and nearly 100 other Pakistanis have been killed during the campaign. Parties have reported kidnappings and arrests of candidates and attempts to intimidate their families, according to Sheila Fruman, director of the National Democratic Institute’s office in Pakistan. The opposition has threatened street protests if the vote is perceived to be unfair, but has also called for a government of national consensus.
American officials and others here hope that the election provides a fresh opportunity for a new civilian government to rally Pakistanis behind the fight against the militants who now threaten the security and stability of the country.
After growing frustration with eight years of military rule, opposition politicians and analysts argue that Mr. Musharraf has lost the support of the people and cannot fight extremism effectively without it.
With the country facing a growing insurgency by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, rising prices and escalating violence, the nationwide vote will now serve as a kind of referendum on Mr. Musharraf, who has grown deeply unpopular.
No matter which party prevails, Mr. Musharraf, who has been Washington’s partner in the campaign against terrorism for the past six years, is almost certain to emerge further reduced in the post-election skirmishing.
He is already much weakened after resigning as army chief in November, and a popularly elected prime minister with the backing of Parliament will emerge as a competitive new force.
The party that has supported Mr. Musharraf for the past five years, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, is expected to fare considerably worse than it did in the last election.
The party of Ms. Bhutto, the Pakistan Peoples Party, is riding a wave of sympathy after her death and may emerge as the largest party in Parliament, analysts say.
Ms. Bhutto’s party, which is now led by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari, and the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan Muslim League-N, are moderate parties opposed to terrorism.
They argue that only a popularly elected government can bring the country together to oppose militancy. For his part, Mr. Zardari has also called for a government of national consensus after the election and has not ruled out working with Mr. Musharraf.
The insurgency remains at the top of the Bush administration’s agenda here, and American officials have started to prepare for Mr. Musharraf’s eventual exit. In a series of high-level visits in the past month on how to stem the militants’ efforts to destabilize Pakistan, Washington officials have focused on the new army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, an implicit recognition of the shifting balance of power.
Despite the complaints about violence in the campaign and the potential for fraud, the Bush administration has appeared determined to validate the election as a satisfactory exercise in democracy. Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, recently told a Congressional committee that he was looking for “as fair an election as possible.”
International observers, including several United States senators who arrived Sunday, have already warned of serious flaws in the pre-election process. They have said that at best the election would be deemed “credible,” rather than free and fair.
The biggest question will be to what extent the government apparatus will try to manipulate the results in favor of the pro-Musharraf party. If the elections are skewed too far in its favor, the government risks large protests and violence.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said after arriving in Lahore on Sunday night as an election observer that he was “mildly optimistic” that the election would be “fairly credible.”
But Mr. Biden said that if the election turned out to be seriously flawed, he would seek to curtail United States military aid to Pakistan. Two other members of the foreign relations committee, Senators Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, also arrived to observe the election.
Ms. Fruman, of the National Democratic Institute, described a litany of complaints, mostly from opposition parties, of bribery and the use of state resources for campaigns. The production of counterfeit identity cards was uncovered in the town of Quetta when a package of 3,000 fake cards split open, Ms. Fruman said. Millions of names were found to have been missing from voter rolls, including, in one case, an entire village where support was strong for the Pakistan Peoples Party, she said.
“We cannot verify them, but in many cases the same complaints have come from different parties,” Ms. Fruman said. The irregularities were consistent with the trends described in the institute’s pre-election mission report, she said. Any one such incident, she added, “would be enough to stop elections in the West.”
Mr. Musharraf has promised free and fair elections and has warned parties not to protest if they lose. “I assure you that the elections will be fair, free and transparent and peaceful,” he said at a seminar in Islamabad, the capital, last week, the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan reported.
“Let there be no doubt that anyone will be allowed to resort to lawlessness in the garb of allegations about rigging in the elections,” he was quoted as saying.
Yet even the attorney general, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, seemed to acknowledge government interference in a telephone conversation with an acquaintance, which was recorded by a journalist in November. “They will massively rig to get their own people to win,” Mr. Qayyum said, apparently referring to the government.
Mr. Qayyum has since denied that the conversation occurred, but a transcript was released by Human Rights Watch, a New York-based organization. Mr. Qayyum had taken the call from his acquaintance while still on the line with the journalist, who had been interviewing him.
In a first for Pakistan, an estimated 20,000 volunteers have fanned out across the country to monitor polling stations, as well as the critical counting process that will be conducted by election officials at district courthouses after the polls close. But as many as 4,000 of them were denied accreditation to monitor the vote by government officials in Punjab, the most important province in the election.
The small army of volunteers is organized by the Free and Fair Election Network, which is financed in part by the United States Agency for International Development. Many of the monitors are in their 20s and 30s, eager to help make the election process fairer. They will conduct a parallel vote count Monday night in 264 of the 272 parliamentary constituencies.
A report by the Free and Fair Election Network released Feb. 5 said mayors had been supporting certain candidates by urging voters to vote for them, attending their rallies and allowing them to use resources like official cars and premises. “Most support is reported to have been in favor of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q,” Mr. Musharraf’s party, the report said.
The most sensitive hours of the election, according to experts, will be the counting of the ballots. The 272 officials who will count them are lower-court judges chosen by the national election commission, and many are in thrall to high-court judges appointed by the Musharraf government.
The IFES (formerly the International Foundation for Election Systems), a nonpartisan group, had advised the Pakistanis to change the counting system to make it less vulnerable to fraud, Western diplomats said. The changes, which would have involved requiring the returning officers to announce the constituency results polling station by polling station, had been rebuffed, they said.
Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, the former chief minister of Punjab and Mr. Musharraf’s candidate for prime minister, sounding more optimistic than even most officials of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, said he expected the party to win “100-plus seats” of the 148 parliamentary seats in Punjab.
The party dominated local government in Punjab, and local mayors would bring voters to the polls to vote for the Muslim League-Q ticket, he said. Most analysts say that even though Pakistani parliamentary elections turn on local politics, Mr. Elahi’s projection is exceptionally generous.
By CARLOTTA GALL and JANE PERLEZ | February 18, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistanis began voting Monday morning in parliamentary elections that are expected to diminish President Pervez Musharraf further and present Washington with a challenging new political lineup here as it pursues its fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the region.
The vote, which was delayed after the assassination of the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto nearly two months ago, comes amid anxiety of further political turmoil if the government manipulates the results or enters a battle with the opposition parties over forming a government. Reuters reported that 80,000 troops were backing up police, keeping watch over polling places.
At least four candidates, including Ms. Bhutto, and nearly 100 other Pakistanis have been killed during the campaign. Parties have reported kidnappings and arrests of candidates and attempts to intimidate their families, according to Sheila Fruman, director of the National Democratic Institute’s office in Pakistan. The opposition has threatened street protests if the vote is perceived to be unfair, but has also called for a government of national consensus.
American officials and others here hope that the election provides a fresh opportunity for a new civilian government to rally Pakistanis behind the fight against the militants who now threaten the security and stability of the country.
After growing frustration with eight years of military rule, opposition politicians and analysts argue that Mr. Musharraf has lost the support of the people and cannot fight extremism effectively without it.
With the country facing a growing insurgency by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, rising prices and escalating violence, the nationwide vote will now serve as a kind of referendum on Mr. Musharraf, who has grown deeply unpopular.
No matter which party prevails, Mr. Musharraf, who has been Washington’s partner in the campaign against terrorism for the past six years, is almost certain to emerge further reduced in the post-election skirmishing.
He is already much weakened after resigning as army chief in November, and a popularly elected prime minister with the backing of Parliament will emerge as a competitive new force.
The party that has supported Mr. Musharraf for the past five years, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, is expected to fare considerably worse than it did in the last election.
The party of Ms. Bhutto, the Pakistan Peoples Party, is riding a wave of sympathy after her death and may emerge as the largest party in Parliament, analysts say.
Ms. Bhutto’s party, which is now led by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari, and the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan Muslim League-N, are moderate parties opposed to terrorism.
They argue that only a popularly elected government can bring the country together to oppose militancy. For his part, Mr. Zardari has also called for a government of national consensus after the election and has not ruled out working with Mr. Musharraf.
The insurgency remains at the top of the Bush administration’s agenda here, and American officials have started to prepare for Mr. Musharraf’s eventual exit. In a series of high-level visits in the past month on how to stem the militants’ efforts to destabilize Pakistan, Washington officials have focused on the new army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, an implicit recognition of the shifting balance of power.
Despite the complaints about violence in the campaign and the potential for fraud, the Bush administration has appeared determined to validate the election as a satisfactory exercise in democracy. Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, recently told a Congressional committee that he was looking for “as fair an election as possible.”
International observers, including several United States senators who arrived Sunday, have already warned of serious flaws in the pre-election process. They have said that at best the election would be deemed “credible,” rather than free and fair.
The biggest question will be to what extent the government apparatus will try to manipulate the results in favor of the pro-Musharraf party. If the elections are skewed too far in its favor, the government risks large protests and violence.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said after arriving in Lahore on Sunday night as an election observer that he was “mildly optimistic” that the election would be “fairly credible.”
But Mr. Biden said that if the election turned out to be seriously flawed, he would seek to curtail United States military aid to Pakistan. Two other members of the foreign relations committee, Senators Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, also arrived to observe the election.
Ms. Fruman, of the National Democratic Institute, described a litany of complaints, mostly from opposition parties, of bribery and the use of state resources for campaigns. The production of counterfeit identity cards was uncovered in the town of Quetta when a package of 3,000 fake cards split open, Ms. Fruman said. Millions of names were found to have been missing from voter rolls, including, in one case, an entire village where support was strong for the Pakistan Peoples Party, she said.
“We cannot verify them, but in many cases the same complaints have come from different parties,” Ms. Fruman said. The irregularities were consistent with the trends described in the institute’s pre-election mission report, she said. Any one such incident, she added, “would be enough to stop elections in the West.”
Mr. Musharraf has promised free and fair elections and has warned parties not to protest if they lose. “I assure you that the elections will be fair, free and transparent and peaceful,” he said at a seminar in Islamabad, the capital, last week, the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan reported.
“Let there be no doubt that anyone will be allowed to resort to lawlessness in the garb of allegations about rigging in the elections,” he was quoted as saying.
Yet even the attorney general, Malik Muhammad Qayyum, seemed to acknowledge government interference in a telephone conversation with an acquaintance, which was recorded by a journalist in November. “They will massively rig to get their own people to win,” Mr. Qayyum said, apparently referring to the government.
Mr. Qayyum has since denied that the conversation occurred, but a transcript was released by Human Rights Watch, a New York-based organization. Mr. Qayyum had taken the call from his acquaintance while still on the line with the journalist, who had been interviewing him.
In a first for Pakistan, an estimated 20,000 volunteers have fanned out across the country to monitor polling stations, as well as the critical counting process that will be conducted by election officials at district courthouses after the polls close. But as many as 4,000 of them were denied accreditation to monitor the vote by government officials in Punjab, the most important province in the election.
The small army of volunteers is organized by the Free and Fair Election Network, which is financed in part by the United States Agency for International Development. Many of the monitors are in their 20s and 30s, eager to help make the election process fairer. They will conduct a parallel vote count Monday night in 264 of the 272 parliamentary constituencies.
A report by the Free and Fair Election Network released Feb. 5 said mayors had been supporting certain candidates by urging voters to vote for them, attending their rallies and allowing them to use resources like official cars and premises. “Most support is reported to have been in favor of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q,” Mr. Musharraf’s party, the report said.
The most sensitive hours of the election, according to experts, will be the counting of the ballots. The 272 officials who will count them are lower-court judges chosen by the national election commission, and many are in thrall to high-court judges appointed by the Musharraf government.
The IFES (formerly the International Foundation for Election Systems), a nonpartisan group, had advised the Pakistanis to change the counting system to make it less vulnerable to fraud, Western diplomats said. The changes, which would have involved requiring the returning officers to announce the constituency results polling station by polling station, had been rebuffed, they said.
Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, the former chief minister of Punjab and Mr. Musharraf’s candidate for prime minister, sounding more optimistic than even most officials of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, said he expected the party to win “100-plus seats” of the 148 parliamentary seats in Punjab.
The party dominated local government in Punjab, and local mayors would bring voters to the polls to vote for the Muslim League-Q ticket, he said. Most analysts say that even though Pakistani parliamentary elections turn on local politics, Mr. Elahi’s projection is exceptionally generous.
Filed under
elections,
Jane Perlez,
Pakistan
by Winter Patriot
on Monday, February 18, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?
By PATRICIA COHEN | February 14, 2008
A popular video on YouTube shows Kellie Pickler, the adorable platinum blonde from “American Idol,” appearing on the Fox game show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” during celebrity week. Selected from a third-grade geography curriculum, the $25,000 question asked: “Budapest is the capital of what European country?”
Ms. Pickler threw up both hands and looked at the large blackboard perplexed. “I thought Europe was a country,” she said. Playing it safe, she chose to copy the answer offered by one of the genuine fifth graders: Hungary. “Hungry?” she said, eyes widening in disbelief. “That’s a country? I’ve heard of Turkey. But Hungry? I’ve never heard of it.”
Such, uh, lack of global awareness is the kind of thing that drives Susan Jacoby, author of “The Age of American Unreason,” up a wall. Ms. Jacoby is one of a number of writers with new books that bemoan the state of American culture.
Joining the circle of curmudgeons this season is Eric G. Wilson, whose “Against Happiness” warns that the “American obsession with happiness” could “well lead to a sudden extinction of the creative impulse, that could result in an extermination as horrible as those foreshadowed by global warming and environmental crisis and nuclear proliferation.”
Then there is Lee Siegel’s “Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob,” which inveighs against the Internet for encouraging solipsism, debased discourse and arrant commercialization. Mr. Siegel, one might remember, was suspended by The New Republic for using a fake online persona in order to trash critics of his blog (“you couldn’t tie Siegel’s shoelaces”) and to praise himself (“brave, brilliant”).
Ms. Jacoby, whose book came out on Tuesday, doesn’t zero in on a particular technology or emotion, but rather on what she feels is a generalized hostility to knowledge. She is well aware that some may tag her a crank. “I expect to get bashed,” said Ms. Jacoby, 62, either as an older person who upbraids the young for plummeting standards and values, or as a secularist whose defense of scientific rationalism is a way to disparage religion.
Ms. Jacoby, however, is quick to point out that her indictment is not limited by age or ideology. Yes, she knows that eggheads, nerds, bookworms, longhairs, pointy heads, highbrows and know-it-alls have been mocked and dismissed throughout American history. And liberal and conservative writers, from Richard Hofstadter to Allan Bloom, have regularly analyzed the phenomenon and offered advice.
T. J. Jackson Lears, a cultural historian who edits the quarterly review Raritan, said, “The tendency to this sort of lamentation is perennial in American history,” adding that in periods “when political problems seem intractable or somehow frozen, there is a turn toward cultural issues.”
But now, Ms. Jacoby said, something different is happening: anti-intellectualism (the attitude that “too much learning can be a dangerous thing”) and anti-rationalism (“the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion”) have fused in a particularly insidious way.
Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don’t think it matters.
She pointed to a 2006 National Geographic poll that found nearly half of 18- to 24-year-olds don’t think it is necessary or important to know where countries in the news are located. So more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map.
Ms. Jacoby, dressed in a bright red turtleneck with lipstick to match, was sitting, appropriately, in that temple of knowledge, the New York Public Library’s majestic Beaux Arts building on Fifth Avenue. The author of seven other books, she was a fellow at the library when she first got the idea for this book back in 2001, on 9/11.
Walking home to her Upper East Side apartment, she said, overwhelmed and confused, she stopped at a bar. As she sipped her bloody mary, she quietly listened to two men, neatly dressed in suits. For a second she thought they were going to compare that day’s horrifying attack to the Japanese bombing in 1941 that blew America into World War II:
“This is just like Pearl Harbor,” one of the men said.
The other asked, “What is Pearl Harbor?”
“That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War,” the first man replied.
At that moment, Ms. Jacoby said, “I decided to write this book.”
Ms. Jacoby doesn’t expect to revolutionize the nation’s educational system or cause millions of Americans to switch off “American Idol” and pick up Schopenhauer. But she would like to start a conversation about why the United States seems particularly vulnerable to such a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism. After all, “the empire of infotainment doesn’t stop at the American border,” she said, yet students in many other countries consistently outperform American students in science, math and reading on comparative tests.
In part, she lays the blame on a failing educational system. “Although people are going to school more and more years, there’s no evidence that they know more,” she said.
Ms. Jacoby also blames religious fundamentalism’s antipathy toward science, as she grieves over surveys that show that nearly two-thirds of Americans want creationism to be taught along with evolution.
Ms. Jacoby doesn’t leave liberals out of her analysis, mentioning the New Left’s attacks on universities in the 1960s, the decision to consign African-American and women’s studies to an “academic ghetto” instead of integrating them into the core curriculum, ponderous musings on rock music and pop culture courses on everything from sitcoms to fat that trivialize college-level learning.
Avoiding the liberal or conservative label in this particular argument, she prefers to call herself a “cultural conservationist.”
For all her scholarly interests, though, Ms. Jacoby said she recognized just how hard it is to tune out the 24/7 entertainment culture. A few years ago she participated in the annual campaign to turn off the television for a week. “I was stunned at how difficult it was for me,” she said.
The surprise at her own dependency on electronic and visual media made her realize just how pervasive the culture of distraction is and how susceptible everyone is — even curmudgeons.
By PATRICIA COHEN | February 14, 2008
A popular video on YouTube shows Kellie Pickler, the adorable platinum blonde from “American Idol,” appearing on the Fox game show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” during celebrity week. Selected from a third-grade geography curriculum, the $25,000 question asked: “Budapest is the capital of what European country?”
Ms. Pickler threw up both hands and looked at the large blackboard perplexed. “I thought Europe was a country,” she said. Playing it safe, she chose to copy the answer offered by one of the genuine fifth graders: Hungary. “Hungry?” she said, eyes widening in disbelief. “That’s a country? I’ve heard of Turkey. But Hungry? I’ve never heard of it.”
Such, uh, lack of global awareness is the kind of thing that drives Susan Jacoby, author of “The Age of American Unreason,” up a wall. Ms. Jacoby is one of a number of writers with new books that bemoan the state of American culture.
Joining the circle of curmudgeons this season is Eric G. Wilson, whose “Against Happiness” warns that the “American obsession with happiness” could “well lead to a sudden extinction of the creative impulse, that could result in an extermination as horrible as those foreshadowed by global warming and environmental crisis and nuclear proliferation.”
Then there is Lee Siegel’s “Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob,” which inveighs against the Internet for encouraging solipsism, debased discourse and arrant commercialization. Mr. Siegel, one might remember, was suspended by The New Republic for using a fake online persona in order to trash critics of his blog (“you couldn’t tie Siegel’s shoelaces”) and to praise himself (“brave, brilliant”).
Ms. Jacoby, whose book came out on Tuesday, doesn’t zero in on a particular technology or emotion, but rather on what she feels is a generalized hostility to knowledge. She is well aware that some may tag her a crank. “I expect to get bashed,” said Ms. Jacoby, 62, either as an older person who upbraids the young for plummeting standards and values, or as a secularist whose defense of scientific rationalism is a way to disparage religion.
Ms. Jacoby, however, is quick to point out that her indictment is not limited by age or ideology. Yes, she knows that eggheads, nerds, bookworms, longhairs, pointy heads, highbrows and know-it-alls have been mocked and dismissed throughout American history. And liberal and conservative writers, from Richard Hofstadter to Allan Bloom, have regularly analyzed the phenomenon and offered advice.
T. J. Jackson Lears, a cultural historian who edits the quarterly review Raritan, said, “The tendency to this sort of lamentation is perennial in American history,” adding that in periods “when political problems seem intractable or somehow frozen, there is a turn toward cultural issues.”
But now, Ms. Jacoby said, something different is happening: anti-intellectualism (the attitude that “too much learning can be a dangerous thing”) and anti-rationalism (“the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion”) have fused in a particularly insidious way.
Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don’t think it matters.
She pointed to a 2006 National Geographic poll that found nearly half of 18- to 24-year-olds don’t think it is necessary or important to know where countries in the news are located. So more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map.
Ms. Jacoby, dressed in a bright red turtleneck with lipstick to match, was sitting, appropriately, in that temple of knowledge, the New York Public Library’s majestic Beaux Arts building on Fifth Avenue. The author of seven other books, she was a fellow at the library when she first got the idea for this book back in 2001, on 9/11.
Walking home to her Upper East Side apartment, she said, overwhelmed and confused, she stopped at a bar. As she sipped her bloody mary, she quietly listened to two men, neatly dressed in suits. For a second she thought they were going to compare that day’s horrifying attack to the Japanese bombing in 1941 that blew America into World War II:
“This is just like Pearl Harbor,” one of the men said.
The other asked, “What is Pearl Harbor?”
“That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War,” the first man replied.
At that moment, Ms. Jacoby said, “I decided to write this book.”
Ms. Jacoby doesn’t expect to revolutionize the nation’s educational system or cause millions of Americans to switch off “American Idol” and pick up Schopenhauer. But she would like to start a conversation about why the United States seems particularly vulnerable to such a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism. After all, “the empire of infotainment doesn’t stop at the American border,” she said, yet students in many other countries consistently outperform American students in science, math and reading on comparative tests.
In part, she lays the blame on a failing educational system. “Although people are going to school more and more years, there’s no evidence that they know more,” she said.
Ms. Jacoby also blames religious fundamentalism’s antipathy toward science, as she grieves over surveys that show that nearly two-thirds of Americans want creationism to be taught along with evolution.
Ms. Jacoby doesn’t leave liberals out of her analysis, mentioning the New Left’s attacks on universities in the 1960s, the decision to consign African-American and women’s studies to an “academic ghetto” instead of integrating them into the core curriculum, ponderous musings on rock music and pop culture courses on everything from sitcoms to fat that trivialize college-level learning.
Avoiding the liberal or conservative label in this particular argument, she prefers to call herself a “cultural conservationist.”
For all her scholarly interests, though, Ms. Jacoby said she recognized just how hard it is to tune out the 24/7 entertainment culture. A few years ago she participated in the annual campaign to turn off the television for a week. “I was stunned at how difficult it was for me,” she said.
The surprise at her own dependency on electronic and visual media made her realize just how pervasive the culture of distraction is and how susceptible everyone is — even curmudgeons.
Chris Floyd : The Courtier's Choice: Arthur Schlesinger and the Willing Executioners of Democracy
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Courtier's Choice: Arthur Schlesinger and the Willing Executioners of Democracy
Chris Floyd | February 18, 2008
The late Arthur Schlesinger was long regarded as one of the leading lights of the American Establishment: a great public intellectual, a prize-winning historian of the nation's political heritage, a much sought-after commentator on current affairs, and a liberal lion of the old school – stalwart of the New Deal, anti-communist left; keeper of the Kennedy flame, etc. In short, one of the great and good, the meritocratic elite who keep the flame burning in the "shining city on the hill" that is America.
But there is one aspect of Schlesinger's glittering resume that goes unmentioned in the encomiums that invariably attend evocations of his brilliant career: his role as a willing conspirator to destroy democracy in a small, impoverished nation.
The story is told in a chapter of Mark Curtis' remarkable book, Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses. As the title would indicate, American depredations in this regard play a secondary – if indispensable – part in the book, which is based largely on partly declassified UK government documents. And the chapter in question here describes perhaps the least destructive of the many Anglo-American interventions over the past 60 years -- interventions which, as Curtis details, have resulted in approximately 10 million deaths. What's more, Schlesinger's role in this particular destruction of a nascent democracy is very small, confined to a few bits of advice passed on to his boss in the White House, John F. Kennedy.
But even so, it is instructive to watch our great and good operate behind the scenes, and to see how they really feel about freedom, democracy and liberation for the poor and oppressed – those rhetorical tropes that have adorned our transatlantic rhetoric for so long, both in the halls of government, and in the weighty pronouncements of our great public intellectuals.
Curtis tells the tale of a ten-year effort by Britain and the United States to prevent the most popular party in what was then British Guiana (now Guyana) from taking power. It began in 1953, when the colony – which had been in Britain's control since 1814, when they seized it from the Dutch – attempted to use the limited self-government it had been "granted" by Her Majesty to place the People's Progressive Party (PPP) in office. Led by Cheddi Jagan, the party's platform was the usual mixture of land reform, social programs and nationalist feeling (which is called "patriotism" when it occurs in America and Britain, but is denigrated as a troublesome aberration when it rears its ugly head amongst the lesser breeds) that arose across the "third world" in the post-war years. These were all treated – without exception, whatever their various ideological, ethnic, or religious character – as dire threats to American and British "interests." That is, the successful implementation of these programs would have slightly reduced the profits of a few vast foreign-owned industrial and corporate combines that held whole nations in their thrall. Each of these movements were denounced as "communist" by Western leaders – even when the leaders knew, and admitted freely among themselves, that the movements and their leaders were not communists, and would not align their nations with the Soviet bloc.
But more than the bloated profit margins of favored corporations were at stake. There was also the West's overriding fear of a successful challenge to Anglo-American domination of subject nations. The fact that the overwhelming majority of these movements sought good relations with the United States and Britain, and were peaceful, law-abiding parties seeking power through the democratic process meant nothing; because they stood for the principle of national independence, non-alignment, and self-determination – i.e., because they would not automatically submit to the dictates of Washington and London – they could not be allowed to succeed. All measures were "justified" to prevent them from taking power – or to overthrow them in the event they were elected by their people. In order to subvert these popular movements, successive, bipartisan governments in the United States and Britain repeatedly armed, funded, trained and supported what they fully recognized were the worst elements in a given society: corrupt political hacks, feudal lords and rapacious corporate bosses, criminal gangs, power-mad military tyrants, religious extremists, warlords, death squads, and so on. The end result was almost always the same: moderate forces were destroyed, their remnants were radicalized, societies were violently polarized, economies were wrecked, and ordinary, innocent people suffered – and sometimes died – by the millions.
The historical record of this process is long and clear: Guatemala, Iran, Iraq (the two CIA-assisted coups that put the Baathists in power, and the present-day policy of arming and supporting both Shiite and Sunni extremists to maintain an obedient client state and prevent the emergence of any genuine independence), Yemen, Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, El Salvador, Colombia, Nicaragua, Uganda, Chile (perhaps the epitome of this dark art), and many others.
And so in 1953, the British sent troops and warships to Guyana to overturn the people's election of Cheddi Jagan and the PPP. For the next few years, the colony was ruled directly from London. But in 1961, when elections were again allowed, the PPP won again. By this time, Britain had promised to "grant" Guyana its independence – but the idea that the "independent" country should be allowed to choose its own leaders was not to be borne. After all, it was clear that they would vote the "wrong way" again. What's more, the preceding decade had seen an acceleration in the withering of Britain's imperial pretensions; it was now recognized in official US and UK papers that Guyana "was in the US, not the UK, sphere of interest." Thus London was willing to defer to whatever Washington desired for the newly "independent" nation.
Curtis quotes a number of US and UK intelligence reports and diplomatic papers that make clear that leaders on both sides of the Atlantic knew that the PPP was not a communist party. They also openly acknowledged that Jagan was "the ablest leader in British Guiana," as one State Department report described him. Curtis describes the main outlines of the American view from government papers at the time:
After Jagan won the 1961 pre-independence election with 45 percent of the vote – easily outpointing the main opposition party led by the Anglo-American favorite, Forbes Burnham – the Americans came up with a two-fold plan. First, Washington would make a public show of offering Jagan technical and economic assistance to prepare the country for independence. But behind the scenes, they would launch a covert operation to destroy the PPP, bring down Jagan and put a suitable leader in his place.
And here the liberal lion and champion of democracy Arthur Schlesinger enters the documentary picture. Writing in his capacity as Special Assistant to the President, Schlesinger pointed out to Kennedy that the two prongs of Washington's plan were in blatant conflict: obviously, Washington could not support Jagan and overthrow him at the same time. So what did Schlesinger recommend? That Kennedy eschew the low-down and undemocratic path of covert action, and instead help the people of Guyana – and their freely elected leader – to step into independence with the full support and blessing of "the world's leading democracy?"
Of course not. Taking his courtier's pen (or typewriter) in hand, Schlesinger wrote that the conflict between the benevolent public pronouncements and the plans for dirty pool "means that the covert program must be handled with the utmost discretion."
That's it. That's Schlesinger's analysis, that's the extent of his morality, of his Pulitzer Prize-winning political convictions: "If we're going to strangle Guyana's democracy in its cradle, then for God's sake, let's do it quietly."
And that's how it was done. Again, a tried-and-true path was followed. As Curtis details, the CIA funded and organized strikes and riots to bring economic and political chaos to Guyana. These American-created upheavals were then cited by U.S. and UK officials as "proof" that Jagan was leading the country to ruin. (This technique was perfected years later in Chile, when the US spent millions of dollars to foment unrest under the Allende regime. Curtis quotes U.S. Ambassador Edward Korry's candid assessment of the strategy: "[We must] do all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty;" i.e., to make them suffer for the crime of exercising their freedom and voting the "wrong way.")
Meanwhile, Britain engineered a "constitutional coup" in setting up the structure of the soon-to-be independent state. The Brits imposed an electoral system on Guyana which their own major parties had always rejected (and still do): proportional representation. They recognized that in any winner-take-all system, Jagan and the PPP would continue to win. But a system of proportional representation – which gives losing parties additional seats as the "second choice" of voters – would allow a coalition of pro-American interests to cobble together a ruling coalition.
And so it proved. In the last pre-independence election in 1964, Jagan and the PPP won 46 percent of the vote – again, by far the largest share. But with proportional representation, minority parties won enough votes to put together a coalition headed by – of course – Forbes Burnham. As Curtis notes, "now that the acceptable leadership had taken office, Guyana could be granted independence, which proceeded in 1966."
Both London and Washington – and Arthur Schlesinger – knew that the people of Guyana had been ill-served by these undemocratic machinations. Curtis quotes UK Colonial Secretary Iain MacLeod writing to Schlesinger in February 1962: "If I had to make a choice between Jagan and Burnham as head of my country, I would choose Jagan any day of the week." But the welfare of the Guyanese people didn't amount to a hill of beans to our great public intellectual – and certainly not to the highly respected statesmen he so assiduously served.
As we said before, the subversion of democracy in Guyana was actually very small beer for a system that killed millions of people to maintain its elites in wealth and privilege. But even the deadliest of these operations have found – and still find – avid assistants and staunch apologists among our great and good. And what would Schlesinger have advised if instead of a plan to "merely" overturn a democratic election and plunge a nation into chaos, upheaval and hardship, he had been presented with a CIA scheme to, say, blow Cheddi Jagan's brains out?
Given the nature of our great public intellectuals, and their characteristic attitude toward those in power, I think it's clear what Schlesinger's answer would have been in such a case. Drawing on the excellent Harvard education that he and his president shared, he would have plucked a passage from the highest reaches of Western culture, and scribbled in the margins of the plan: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."
***
Chris Floyd | February 18, 2008
The late Arthur Schlesinger was long regarded as one of the leading lights of the American Establishment: a great public intellectual, a prize-winning historian of the nation's political heritage, a much sought-after commentator on current affairs, and a liberal lion of the old school – stalwart of the New Deal, anti-communist left; keeper of the Kennedy flame, etc. In short, one of the great and good, the meritocratic elite who keep the flame burning in the "shining city on the hill" that is America.
But there is one aspect of Schlesinger's glittering resume that goes unmentioned in the encomiums that invariably attend evocations of his brilliant career: his role as a willing conspirator to destroy democracy in a small, impoverished nation.
The story is told in a chapter of Mark Curtis' remarkable book, Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses. As the title would indicate, American depredations in this regard play a secondary – if indispensable – part in the book, which is based largely on partly declassified UK government documents. And the chapter in question here describes perhaps the least destructive of the many Anglo-American interventions over the past 60 years -- interventions which, as Curtis details, have resulted in approximately 10 million deaths. What's more, Schlesinger's role in this particular destruction of a nascent democracy is very small, confined to a few bits of advice passed on to his boss in the White House, John F. Kennedy.
But even so, it is instructive to watch our great and good operate behind the scenes, and to see how they really feel about freedom, democracy and liberation for the poor and oppressed – those rhetorical tropes that have adorned our transatlantic rhetoric for so long, both in the halls of government, and in the weighty pronouncements of our great public intellectuals.
Curtis tells the tale of a ten-year effort by Britain and the United States to prevent the most popular party in what was then British Guiana (now Guyana) from taking power. It began in 1953, when the colony – which had been in Britain's control since 1814, when they seized it from the Dutch – attempted to use the limited self-government it had been "granted" by Her Majesty to place the People's Progressive Party (PPP) in office. Led by Cheddi Jagan, the party's platform was the usual mixture of land reform, social programs and nationalist feeling (which is called "patriotism" when it occurs in America and Britain, but is denigrated as a troublesome aberration when it rears its ugly head amongst the lesser breeds) that arose across the "third world" in the post-war years. These were all treated – without exception, whatever their various ideological, ethnic, or religious character – as dire threats to American and British "interests." That is, the successful implementation of these programs would have slightly reduced the profits of a few vast foreign-owned industrial and corporate combines that held whole nations in their thrall. Each of these movements were denounced as "communist" by Western leaders – even when the leaders knew, and admitted freely among themselves, that the movements and their leaders were not communists, and would not align their nations with the Soviet bloc.
But more than the bloated profit margins of favored corporations were at stake. There was also the West's overriding fear of a successful challenge to Anglo-American domination of subject nations. The fact that the overwhelming majority of these movements sought good relations with the United States and Britain, and were peaceful, law-abiding parties seeking power through the democratic process meant nothing; because they stood for the principle of national independence, non-alignment, and self-determination – i.e., because they would not automatically submit to the dictates of Washington and London – they could not be allowed to succeed. All measures were "justified" to prevent them from taking power – or to overthrow them in the event they were elected by their people. In order to subvert these popular movements, successive, bipartisan governments in the United States and Britain repeatedly armed, funded, trained and supported what they fully recognized were the worst elements in a given society: corrupt political hacks, feudal lords and rapacious corporate bosses, criminal gangs, power-mad military tyrants, religious extremists, warlords, death squads, and so on. The end result was almost always the same: moderate forces were destroyed, their remnants were radicalized, societies were violently polarized, economies were wrecked, and ordinary, innocent people suffered – and sometimes died – by the millions.
The historical record of this process is long and clear: Guatemala, Iran, Iraq (the two CIA-assisted coups that put the Baathists in power, and the present-day policy of arming and supporting both Shiite and Sunni extremists to maintain an obedient client state and prevent the emergence of any genuine independence), Yemen, Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, El Salvador, Colombia, Nicaragua, Uganda, Chile (perhaps the epitome of this dark art), and many others.
And so in 1953, the British sent troops and warships to Guyana to overturn the people's election of Cheddi Jagan and the PPP. For the next few years, the colony was ruled directly from London. But in 1961, when elections were again allowed, the PPP won again. By this time, Britain had promised to "grant" Guyana its independence – but the idea that the "independent" country should be allowed to choose its own leaders was not to be borne. After all, it was clear that they would vote the "wrong way" again. What's more, the preceding decade had seen an acceleration in the withering of Britain's imperial pretensions; it was now recognized in official US and UK papers that Guyana "was in the US, not the UK, sphere of interest." Thus London was willing to defer to whatever Washington desired for the newly "independent" nation.
Curtis quotes a number of US and UK intelligence reports and diplomatic papers that make clear that leaders on both sides of the Atlantic knew that the PPP was not a communist party. They also openly acknowledged that Jagan was "the ablest leader in British Guiana," as one State Department report described him. Curtis describes the main outlines of the American view from government papers at the time:
[The U.S. thought] that Jagan was not a 'controlled instrument of Moscow' but 'a radical nationalist who may play both sides of the street but will not lead British Guiana into [Soviet] satellite status.U.S. intelligence reports quoted by Curtis noted that Jagan would "make a more determined effort to improve economic conditions" in Guyana. The Party drew its strength not only from its main base of "poverty-stricken rural and urban workers" among the Indian community, but also from "a considerable number of small businessmen."
After Jagan won the 1961 pre-independence election with 45 percent of the vote – easily outpointing the main opposition party led by the Anglo-American favorite, Forbes Burnham – the Americans came up with a two-fold plan. First, Washington would make a public show of offering Jagan technical and economic assistance to prepare the country for independence. But behind the scenes, they would launch a covert operation to destroy the PPP, bring down Jagan and put a suitable leader in his place.
And here the liberal lion and champion of democracy Arthur Schlesinger enters the documentary picture. Writing in his capacity as Special Assistant to the President, Schlesinger pointed out to Kennedy that the two prongs of Washington's plan were in blatant conflict: obviously, Washington could not support Jagan and overthrow him at the same time. So what did Schlesinger recommend? That Kennedy eschew the low-down and undemocratic path of covert action, and instead help the people of Guyana – and their freely elected leader – to step into independence with the full support and blessing of "the world's leading democracy?"
Of course not. Taking his courtier's pen (or typewriter) in hand, Schlesinger wrote that the conflict between the benevolent public pronouncements and the plans for dirty pool "means that the covert program must be handled with the utmost discretion."
That's it. That's Schlesinger's analysis, that's the extent of his morality, of his Pulitzer Prize-winning political convictions: "If we're going to strangle Guyana's democracy in its cradle, then for God's sake, let's do it quietly."
And that's how it was done. Again, a tried-and-true path was followed. As Curtis details, the CIA funded and organized strikes and riots to bring economic and political chaos to Guyana. These American-created upheavals were then cited by U.S. and UK officials as "proof" that Jagan was leading the country to ruin. (This technique was perfected years later in Chile, when the US spent millions of dollars to foment unrest under the Allende regime. Curtis quotes U.S. Ambassador Edward Korry's candid assessment of the strategy: "[We must] do all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty;" i.e., to make them suffer for the crime of exercising their freedom and voting the "wrong way.")
Meanwhile, Britain engineered a "constitutional coup" in setting up the structure of the soon-to-be independent state. The Brits imposed an electoral system on Guyana which their own major parties had always rejected (and still do): proportional representation. They recognized that in any winner-take-all system, Jagan and the PPP would continue to win. But a system of proportional representation – which gives losing parties additional seats as the "second choice" of voters – would allow a coalition of pro-American interests to cobble together a ruling coalition.
And so it proved. In the last pre-independence election in 1964, Jagan and the PPP won 46 percent of the vote – again, by far the largest share. But with proportional representation, minority parties won enough votes to put together a coalition headed by – of course – Forbes Burnham. As Curtis notes, "now that the acceptable leadership had taken office, Guyana could be granted independence, which proceeded in 1966."
Both London and Washington – and Arthur Schlesinger – knew that the people of Guyana had been ill-served by these undemocratic machinations. Curtis quotes UK Colonial Secretary Iain MacLeod writing to Schlesinger in February 1962: "If I had to make a choice between Jagan and Burnham as head of my country, I would choose Jagan any day of the week." But the welfare of the Guyanese people didn't amount to a hill of beans to our great public intellectual – and certainly not to the highly respected statesmen he so assiduously served.
As we said before, the subversion of democracy in Guyana was actually very small beer for a system that killed millions of people to maintain its elites in wealth and privilege. But even the deadliest of these operations have found – and still find – avid assistants and staunch apologists among our great and good. And what would Schlesinger have advised if instead of a plan to "merely" overturn a democratic election and plunge a nation into chaos, upheaval and hardship, he had been presented with a CIA scheme to, say, blow Cheddi Jagan's brains out?
Given the nature of our great public intellectuals, and their characteristic attitude toward those in power, I think it's clear what Schlesinger's answer would have been in such a case. Drawing on the excellent Harvard education that he and his president shared, he would have plucked a passage from the highest reaches of Western culture, and scribbled in the margins of the plan: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."
***
Filed under
Arthur Schlesinger,
Chris Floyd,
UK,
USA
by Winter Patriot
on Monday, February 18, 2008
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
