FBI Monitoring Prison Visits of Defense attorney with Marathon Bombing Suspect

A pre-trial hearing for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev took place on June 18, 2014. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz was front row in the audience. Ortiz has ambitions to be governor and is no doubt using this terrorism prosecution as a personal career move.

As they have done in every hearing, defense lawyers requested the removal of Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) restrictions on their client, who is being kept in total lockdown. Lawyers have been complaining that they are unable to meet with Tsarnaev without the presence of an FBI officer in the room. During the last hearing on April 24, Judge O'Toole agreed with the defense that there is no national security reason why an FBI officer needs to be present and felt that the prison security should suffice. Although prosecutors insist that the FBI officer present is not going to be a witness at the trial, defense attorneys reported that the FBI officer was taking notes. The judge refused to remove SAMs and told the government they should use an out-of-state FBI agent during prison visits. The Constitutional protection of attorney-client privilege clearly does not apply especially when the defendant is a Muslim.

The defense complained about media leaks. Instead of handing over evidence to the defense, the government is working with the media. FBI agents were interviewed for TV documentaries that aired on National Geographic and 60 Minutes commemorating the one year anniversary of the bombing. These reports, which conflict each other in many ways, served to influence the minds of the public regarding guilt, long before trial. Defense attorneys complained that it is only on TV that they are learning what the prosecution's case is. Judge O'Toole admonished the government for participating in media interviews, calling it "unwise," but refused to penalize them in any way.

Throughout the proceedings, the defense has been muzzled. Attorneys have been warned against making any statements to media or even talking to friends and supporters about the case. Previously, government prosecutors brought up the possibility that defense attorneys might pass along messages from Tsarnaev to his "following" - very similar to the situation with Shaykh Omar Abdul Rahman's attorney, Lynne Stewart, who was imprisoned in retaliation for making statements to the press regarding statements her client made, except that Tsarnaev is not a political or religious leader with any following other than people following his case.

Tsarnaev cannot read any of his mail without a lawyer present and has been advised not to answer any of his mail. Likewise, his family cannot speak to the media about their belief in their son's innocence, lest they be accused of "passing along messages."

The only good thing coming out of this hearing is that the government's emotional tactic of accusing Tsarnaev of "betraying America" was struck down.

"I agree with the defense position that it was unduly prejudicial," O'Toole said, calling this type of charge "obnoxious."

However the prosecution will continue to use "He was comforting our enemies" as an argument for motive in the trial. It appears that pushing the issue of Tsarnaev's interest in Islamic causes will be central to their case. This would imply that they lack evidence, or that the evidence they have would not make the government look good. So far, they have swamped the defense with millions of pages of inconclusive, grainy photographs and some computer files showing that Tsarnaev watched jihad-related material on his laptop, but they have refused to hand over tangible evidence like the GPS of the vehicle that was used to flee from police the night Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed.

The prosecution asked the judge to demand that the defense supply them the name of their witnesses that they would use to counter the government expert witness' testimony on the Islamic nature of the Boston Marathon bombing. Presumably the government "expert witness" will be the laughingstock, Evan "Saddam is allied with al-Qaeda" Kohlmann, who has already been testifying in front of Congress about Tsarnaev's Islamic motivations long before he has even been found guilty. Defense attorney Judy Clarke argued that this is not standard practice, and according to the Fifth Amendment, they are not required to disclose this type of information to the prosecution at this point in the proceedings. O'Toole delayed making a decision.

US prosecutors say they will not use statements Tsarnaev made during his hospital bed FBI interrogation before his Miranda rights were read, during the guilt/innocence part of the trial but may bring it up for the sentencing part. Defense wants the evidence of these statements to be suppressed. O'Toole delayed the decision for mid-trial.

Tsarnaev's next status hearing is scheduled for August 14. 

2014-06-21
NewTrendMag.org

NC Upholds Fake Terror Convictions

 TMO 

From left, Hysen Sherifi, Ziyad Yaghi and Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan: Al-Arabiya

On February 11, 2014, a federal appeals court upheld the convictions of three young Muslim men from North Carolina: Omar Hassan, Hysen Sherifi and Ziyad Yaghi. The three were convicted in 2011 after two paid FBI informants falsely testified that they were part of a home-grown terror group. The men were given prison terms ranging from 15 years to 45 years. Ziyad got 31 years.

Ziyad’s attorney, Robert Boyle said that the appeals court failed to address the key legal issues. “What I find particularly disturbing is the undercurrent of Islamophobia in the decision.”

Like he has done against many other innocents, the fraud Evan Kohlmann served as the government’s expert witness during the trial. He portrayed Muslim men as inherently violent and explained how Muslims supposedly think. He convinced the jury that even though the men had not committed any crime, they would eventually commit an act of terrorism in the future.

“How on earth can he even say that and how on earth can his juvenile testimony be even taken into consideration at court?!” laments Ziyad’s mother Laila Yaghi.

In 2006 and 2007, Ziyad and Omar visited Jordan, the country of Ziyad’s birth, and Egypt, Omar’s country of origin. He and Omar also attempted to visit Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, but were denied entry by Israel. The US indictment claims Ziyad’s intention in his travels was to seek armed conflict. Ziyad’s mother Laila insists otherwise:

“All they did was go sightseeing and visit family members and were looking for a future bride. Nothing out of the ordinary took place. An American with Arab background and dual citizenship was accused of conspiracy and material support based on two trips he took abroad to his own homeland! A young man who wanted to do the right thing and get married so he won’t do anything immoral at a time where women offered themselves cheaply to him!”

The testimony of the woman who met with Ziyad was not allowed in court.

Stephen Lendmann summarizes: “Paid agent provocateur informants entrap unwary targets. Secret evidence unavailable to defense attorneys convicts them.

Government paid bogus experts lie. False testimony given is inflammatory. Credible defense witnesses are ruled out of order and denied. Pre-trial publicity hypes spurious terror threats. Media scoundrels headline them. Juries are intimidated to convict. Right-wing judges facilitate witch-hunt injustice. Targeted Muslims haven’t a chance.”

Laila remembers the horrible day in July 2009 when her son was taken away.

“He was looking ahead to go to college when that day he decided to surprise me, his mother, by cleaning the kitchen floor then marinating the chicken, then afterwards he went for a swim in the neighborhood pool. Of course, who would have even imagined that a SWAT team will come to arrest an unarmed young man of 21! A young man who had not done anything wrong or illegal, who did not even break any law but happened to be a somewhat dedicated Muslim!”

Ziyad was basically punished because he knew a guy named Daniel Patrick Boyd, an American Muslim who spoke against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though Ziyad’s association with Boyd was very limited the FBI wanted something from Ziyad that was immoral, to lie against Boyd and say whatever pleases the FBI so they can say, “we caught a terrorist,” Laila explained.

When Ziyad and his friend Omar refused to lie, the FBI retaliated. Everything they did was interpreted by the FBI in the most bizarre way. Wrestling, paintball and kickboxing became training for jihad! The word ‘marriage’ became a code word for Jihad and so was ‘the beach’. Ziyad was charged and convicted of conspiracy and material support yet the indictment does not even say which “terrorist organization.” 

“The trial was set in a town 2 1/2 hours away from us to make it hard on people to come and support us. The jury consisted of mostly senior citizens who dozed off during the trial! Most of the jury had family members in the military and were not highly educated, handpicked by the judge! Everything was done deliberately to convict these young men. Hate for our religion is growing tremendously in the US! To top it all, they tried to single us out as un-American based on our religion!” Laila continued.

“They have Ziyad in what is called the SHU, Special Housing Unit, a cell underground like a grave designed to make one lose his/her mind. A cell as small as your bathroom where Ziyad is alone in it and only allowed out of his cell an hour every two days! A country that tries to portray itself as democratic, as a first world country, treats its Muslim citizens with so much unfairness and in such an inhumane way that any reader or observer will be shocked!

“How is my son convicted of material support when he did not spend any money on anything illegal or any terrorist organization? How is he convicted of conspiracy when there hasn’t been a crime that has taken place or even a plan to commit a crime?”

One way the prosecutors manipulated the jury into thinking that these young men were jihadis was by playing endless hours of boring unclear tape recordings of Boyd, who they referred to as “the ring leader.” The prosecutors gave the jury some transcripts with words filled in by the prosecutors.

Then, even though Ziyad was not in any of these tape recordings, the prosecutors kept bringing up his name and showing his picture while the tape recordings were being played, while the jury were reading a fabricated filled in transcript by the prosecutors. Not only that, the prosecutors kept showing pictures of jihadis beheading and killing people.

“So an uninformed jury, not well educated, not traveled and elderly people who some of them mind you, can barely walk and keep awake, were anxious of getting this ordeal over and in favor of whom, of course, the well convincing prosecutors,” Laila concluded.

“Nobody should feign surprise or shock, it is painfully obvious that this is about cops and prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves when in fact, they had to rely on the anti-Islam hysteria that has gripped this nation for years now. In other words, they took the easy road toward conviction using full advantage of public ignorance and blind faith; two very dangerous commodities in this day and age. I find no honor in this and suspect future generations will look back at this time as a renaissance of the Salem Witch Trials,” writes Tim King of Salem News.

“The War on Terrorism has created a breeding ground wherein racists, political pundits, religious zealots, and more have been the catalysts of impregnating the general American mind with detrimental emotions and thoughts that challenge those founding principles,” writes Siraj Davis.

“Ziyad Yaghi is a victim, not only because he is innocent of the charges against him, but because our silence allowed it.”

“Why would my own country do this to my son and I?” Laila weeps.

“Nights seem to not end with the nightmares of my son cooped up in a tiny cell!  In the morning, the first thing that comes to my mind is that my son is in jail and when I sleep that is the last thing I pray for which is his release! All my senses are abused and hurt by what has happened to my son and until this ends and my son is out, I will continue to scream that this is a grave injustice that has happened to us just because we are Muslims.”

“I wake up every morning as if I were dead but I am still counted as alive. I wake up hoping that this world never existed that there was no such thing as life! In spite of all this pain, I have to pull all my shattered pieces together and go to work,” Laila told TMO.

Ziyad Yaghi, #51771-056; Federal Correctional Complex-USP-2; PO Box 1034; Coleman, FL 33521-0879.

Tarek Mehanna Appeal Hearing

November 27, 2013 by TMO 

Tarek Mahenna in court, artist’s rendering.

Observers at Tarek Mehanna’s appeal hearing heard from a panel of three judges on November 13, 2013. They filled the courthouse and two overflow rooms.

Judge Bruce Selya began the session with a disturbing comment reminiscent of Nazi German descriptions of its Jewish population as a disease: “Terrorism is the modern-day equivalent of the bubonic plague: it is an existential threat.”

Mehanna, a Massachusetts College of Pharmacy graduate and former teacher at Alhuda Academy in Worcester, was convicted in 2012 of conspiring to kill American soldiers and supporting Al Qaeda. Mehanna’s lawyers insist that he gave no tangible support to al-Qaida, and his online activities were protected free speech. This case has drawn widespread interest because of its implications on protected vs. unprotected speech in its connection to terrorism related charges.

In arguments before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Mehanna’s lawyer, Sabin Willett, said prosecutors repeatedly showed images of the World Trade Center in flames, videos of beheadings, and repeatedly made references to Osama bin Laden in an attempt to prejudice the jury against Mehanna.

‘’The purpose of this evidence was to frighten the jury,’’ Willett said, ‘’and it worked.’’

Judges Howard, Selya and Thompson upheld Mehanna’s conviction and sentence of 17 1/2 years.

Prosecutors said during Mehanna’s trial that he traveled to Yemen in 2004 to for terrorist training with plans to attack American soldiers in Iraq, but that the plan failed.

Mehanna’s lawyers argued that he traveled to Yemen to pursue religious studies.

Prosecutors relied heavily on the well-known fraud “expert witness” Evan Kohlmann.

What is not being discussed is that in the past, especially while the US was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, CIA-run “terror camps” were popular tourist attractions, similar to how nowadays Israel attracts Jewish tourists with the promise of rifle training. Mehanna reportedly expressed disappointment that such training camps no longer exist in Yemen.

Benjamin Wittes comments on Lawfare Blog. “The court of appeals held that the general guilty verdict could be sustained, even assuming for the sake of argument that the evidence of coordination with al Qaeda on Mehanna’s Internet activities had been inadequate to support that verdict–that is to say, even if Mehanna’s translation and advocacy were constitutionally protected… By eliminating Mehanna’s Internet activities altogether from the issues on appeal, the court thereby ensured that Mehanna will not be the important First Amendment precedent that many had thought it might be.”

US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, whose staff prosecuted Mehanna, hailed the ruling.

“We are gratified that the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed the case, found the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was more than sufficient to convict the defendant, and held that it was ‘confident’ that, in the court’s words, [Mehanna] ‘was fairly tried, justly convicted and lawfully sentenced,’ ” Ortiz said,citing the technical legality of the harsh conviction of the non-violent offender. 

Judge Selya wrote in rejection of the appeal that Mehanna’s co-conspirators had “testified that the defendant persistently stated his belief that engaging in jihad was “a duty upon a Muslim if he’s capable of performing it,” and that this duty included committing violence.

Following United States intervention in Iraq, the defendant concluded “that America was at war with Islam,” and saw American “soldiers as being valid targets” by the attacked people. Mehanna took the position that “there was an obligation for Muslims to stand up and fight against invasion of Iraq.

“The fundamental problem with the [appellate] ruling is that it allows the government to prosecute unpopular political speech,” said Alex Abdo, staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Security Project. 

Yet, beyond Mehanna’s religious belief in the concept of Jihad, or Just Warfare, he also claimed adherence to the doctrine of “aman,” which he describes as “a covenant to obey the law within a country that permits practice of the faith.” His adherence to aman would prohibit him personally from targeting American troops.

“The defendant’s position can be stated without much ceremony. He suggests… that although he may have sympathized with al-Qa’ida and spoken glowingly of the virtues of jihad, he nonetheless avoided crossing the line into criminal activity,” admits Selya.

However, Selya insists that: “Even if the government’s translation-as-material-support theory were factually insufficient, we would not reverse.”

Selya emotionally referred to the defendant’s flippant attitude regarding the “Texas BBQ” video — a phrase describing American soldiers being bombed in a widespread online video. Yet, this type of light-hearted style of murderous political commentary is very common among many Americans. One can only conclude that Mehanna is guilty of acting too American; too self-confident as a Muslim American, that he could joke about war.

Judge Selya concludes:

“We do not pretend to understand why the defendant chose to go down such a treacherous path. Nevertheless, the jury found that he knowingly and intentionally made that choice, and that finding is both supported by the clear weight of the evidence and untainted by legal error.”

It is truly unfortunate that an educated person such as Selya cannot even pretend to understand, let alone attempt to understand, why a Muslim American might sympathize with other Muslims globally, who are on the receiving end of drone attacks and worse. The court proceedings drew upon anti-Muslim prejudice not only in regards to the free speech issues but also regarding the question of who is allowed to travel abroad and for what reason.

In a world where armed, violent terrorists are trained by the US government – in Massachusetts – to send into other countries to influence political outcomes; in a world where youngsters go to Israeli terror camps to be trained in genocidal “fun,” I cannot think of anything more alarming than a judge who cannot “pretend to understand” the idea that any Muslim American might strive for freedom and equality – American style. Mehanna acted independently through free speech and free travel, without ever picking up a gun.

“The court’s likening of terrorism to ‘the modern-day equivalent of the bubonic plague’ is an example of the kind of sensational language that ensured a biased trial against Dr. Mehanna in the first place,” stated the Tarek Mehanna Support Committee. “The appeals court decision is outrageous, but we will continue to stand by Dr. Mehanna.”
“Tarek remains strong and unwavering in his iman,” reports Mehanna’s Facebook support page.