|
Email trail from navy man
to London 'terror' site goes fuzzy
George Smith, Dick Destiny
The
Register
Friday February 1, 2008
In pre-trial maneuvering this month the US government's case
against ex-Navy signalman Hassan Abu-jihaad became more moth-eaten.
Prosecutors filed an interesting brief indicating they had no
evidence against the defendant of a terror plot modus operandi.
Abu-jihaad has been charged with e-mailing information on the
transit of his naval battle group through the Straits of Hormuz
to Babar Ahmad and Azzam Publications in London in 2001. At the
time he was serving on the destroyer Benfold. For the purpose
of the case, Babar Ahmad - now awaiting a court decision in February
on whether or not he is to be extradited to the States - is considered
by the US government to be a terrorist. The government alleges
Abu-jihaad's communications with Ahmad and the purchase of Chechen
resistance videotapes from the Azzam website to be aiding terror,
with the defendant an agent of a foreign power.
A glaring problem with the government's case against Abu-jihaad
is that the evidence against him is thin. Although the US has
submitted e-mails to Azzam which they have claimed are from Abu-jihaad,
prosecutors admitted in pre-trial filings this month that "the
Government had no recorded statements or testimony personally
linking Abu-jihaad to the e-mail account from which [the communications
to Azzam in question] were sent."
(Article continues below)
Also discussed in December, prosecutors submitted excerpts from
surveillance tapes made of conversations between Abu-jihaad, a
dodgy FBI informant named William Chrisman, and an acquaintance
of the defendant, Derrick Shareef who pled guilty in late 2007
to conspiracy to attack a shopping mall with hand grenades offered
to him in a sting engineered by the bureau. The prosecutors now
argue that subject matter in Abu-jihaad's taped conversation with
an FBI informant constitutes proof that e-mails to Azzam were,
in fact, made by him.
"At one point, for example, the defendant admits that he
corresponded with the Azzam website, and even that he sent the
e-mail discussing the bombing of the USS Cole," write prosecutors.
"These admissions directly prove some of the allegations
in [the government's] indictment." (prosecution argument)
It should be carefully noted that Abu-jihaad had nothing to do
with the bombing of the Cole, a fact that has been obscured in
some mainstream reporting on the case. In fact, this particular
e-mail has been discussed previously here and it shows only a
conversation in which the author privately insults his superiors
over what the author believes to be their lack of courage after
the Cole bombing, the likes of which one would imagine cannot
be altogether unheard of in the US Navy.
The US government also now argues that Abu-jihaad's knowledge
of the Maktabah-al-Ansar bookshop in Sparkhill, Birmingham, provides
more evidence that he must have been doing business with Azzam.
This is because, prosecutors argue, "materials from [Maktabah-al-Ansar]
were openly marketed on the Azzam websites."
It again must be noted that the Maktabah-al-Ansar bookshop has
not been convicted of anything. Additionally, on the off chance
that Babar Ahmad's legal appeal to avoid extradition succeeds
- he is represented by Birnberg Peirce in the matter - the Abu-jihaad
prosecution will be left to deal with a reality in which it becomes
difficult to honestly paint Azzam as a terror front.
The net result of such arguments further underscores weaknesses
in the US government's case against Abu-jihaad. Prosecutors appear
to have given up trying to argue that Abu-jihaad was directly
engaged in real terror plots, instead falling back onto a strategy
that seeks only to prove that his taped conversations sounded
shifty and unpleasant. "[A] number of the defendant's statements
- such as his carefully coded references to violent jihad, and
his obsession with security - can be reasonably viewed to demonstrate
his consciousness of guilt."
In December the government leaked anonymous say-so to the press
that it had further undisclosed evidence on the defendant. Resulting
stories attempted to sell the idea that Abu-jihaad was enmeshed
in and providing intelligence for potential attacks against the
military.
However, the threadbare nature of the arguments have become so
apparent that even some in the US mainstream media have been compelled
to change their tune, if only a bit. Recently the Associated Press
tabbed an expert within the weedy thicket of university war-on-terror
teaching centers to state the obvious. "I think the government
has taken a risk with borderline cases and tried to make them
into something they're not," said Michael Greenberger, director
of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University
of Maryland to the news agency.
In reply to prosecution assertions that Abu-jihaad's conversational
tone, style and obsession with secrecy prove his guilt, his defense
argued that this was irrelevant, asking it to be ruled as inadmissible
in the coming trial.
"The government's theory seems to be that in 2001 the defendant
provided what it deemed to be logistical information to the Azzam
website," writes attorney Robert S. Golger.
"Five years later, the defendant is intercepted by a wiretap
speaking with Derrick Shareef," he continues. "At the
time Derrick Shareef is interested in gaining logistical support
for his own Jihaadist aspirations. The defendant (who has been
out of the military for several years) essentially tells him that
he cannot help him because he has not been in an environment where
he could come across such information. The defendant is also aware
at this time that he is suspected of transmitting sensitive intelligence
information which is alleged to have emanated from the Benfold.
The government claims that both of these incidences show consciousness
of guilt... Nothing about these conversations is probative of
the defendant's guilt of the offenses charged in the indictment,
rather they constitute nothing more than an invitation to the
jury to speculate on the issue of guilt. The statements were made
five years after the fact and relate to an entirely different
matter." (defense argument)
The stakes are high. In previous reviews of the government's
surveillance of Abu-jihaad it was revealed the FBI had spent some
effort to entice the defendant into implicating himself in an
active plot, at one point having its informant offer automatic
weapons in exchange for money. Abu-jihaad apparently did not bite,
possibly because he is no terrorist. Five years had elapsed between
his rash e-mails from the Benfold and his arrest for allegedly
sending them. It seems obvious that prosecutors now hope to be
able to inflame a jury with selected segments of nasty-toned talk
on other matters culled from the spying transcripts.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
