Pathway To Darkness, Part 2: Babar Ahmad and the TSG

In March of 2009, Babar Ahmad, who is Officially Described As (ODA) a "UK terror suspect", was awarded £60,000 in damages pertaining to an exceptionally violent arrest which he endured more than five years earlier.

Ahmad [photo] is accused of supporting terrorism by raising money and equipment for jihadi groups through a pro-terrorist website and is fighting extradition to the USA.

He is wanted in the case involving Hassan Abujihaad, in a story that involves William "Jameel" Chrisman and (tangentially) Derek Shareef, all of whose names have graced these pages in days past.

To recap briefly: Derrick Shareef, ODA "a mall bomber", is currently serving 35 years in federal prison after trading a pair of stereo speakers for a box which he thought contained four grenades. The grenades were non-functional, the arms dealer who took the speakers as payment was working for the FBI, and the bogus arms deal was arranged by William "Jameel" Chrisman, a convicted felon now also working for the FBI.

Although Chrisman is always ODA "an informant", it's quite clear that he is primarily an agent provocateur, and his primary target in this instance appears to have been Hassan Abujihaad, a former US Navy signalman who once lived with Derrick Shareef.

Abujihaad, a Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is serving 10 years after being found guilty of sending confidential US Navy information to Babar Ahmad in April of 2001, when Abujihaad was stationed aboard the USS Benfold and Babar Ahmad was allegedly running Azzam Publications.

For federal prosecutors, the main problem in the case against Abujihaad was that there was no "forensic footprint" on the information police say they found on a disk belonging to Babar Ahmad. In other words, they had no way of proving that the information was in fact sent by Abujihaad.

This wasn't their only problem, however, since it turned out that the information in question was not so secret after all.

To get a conviction in this case, the prosecution needed more than circumstantial evidence, and Abujihaad was convicted partially on taped conversations between Abujihaad and Chrisman.

William "Jameel" Chrisman [photo] was sent by the FBI from Buffalo, New York, to Rockford, Illinois, and was tasked with meeting Shareef and gaining his confidence.

As it turned out, Shareef was looking for a place to live when Chrisman walked into his life. So Chrisman took him home to live with him and his family -- his three wives and nine children.

From that point until he was arrested, Shareef was under Chrisman's roof as well as under his influence, although the FBI was careful not to divulge these facts until after Shareef had been convinced to plead guilty. (Chrisman testified against Abujihaad later the same day!)

As revealed by a close reading of the affidavit filed by the FBI against Shareef, Jameel Chrisman fabricated every important detail of the "terror plot" to attack CherryVale Mall in Rockford on the last Friday before Christmas, 2006. Chrisman suggested the target, he suggested the date, he suggested the hand grenades ... and Shareef went along with him every step of the way, up to and including the phony arms deal that sent Shareef to prison.

And while that was happening, Chrisman was encouraging Shareef to talk to his old friend Abujihaad, and get him talking about doing some "jihad". Unbeknownst to Shareef, Chrisman was recording all the conversations. But Chrisman wasn't getting anywhere through Shareef, so eventually he began to call Abujihaad directly, trying to get Abujihaad to incriminate himself.

Abujihaad [photo] apparently suspected that he was being set up, because he shifted into code, speaking of "fresh meals" and "cold meals" in response to questions about whether he had been planning any terrorist missions.

Since Abujihaad spoke to Chrisman in code, he must have been hiding something, and that something must have been related to terrorism, and therefore he must have been the one who delivered US Navy secrets to Babar Ahmad, or something like that ...

So Abujihaad is in jail, but the feds are still desperately looking for something to use as evidence against Babar Ahmad, who was arrested in December of 2003. After Ahmad's arrest, according to the AP via KTAR:

Ahmad was released without charge but was re-arrested in August 2004 on a U.S. extradition warrant. He remains in custody.

American officials accused the Pakistani native of running Web sites to raise money for the Taliban, appealing for fighters and providing equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles to terrorists.

Babar Ahmad, as the AP notes, is still in prison, but the AP report fails to mention that he has never been formally charged with a crime and no evidence has ever been presented against him in a court of law.

On the other hand, Babar Ahmad can now expect five-figure "compensation" for what he endured on the day of his arrest. According to The Guardian,

During his arrest, Ahmad was punched, kicked and throttled, the court heard.

Officers stamped on the 34-year-old's feet and repeatedly punched him in the head before he was forced into the Muslim prayer position and they shouted: "Where is your God now? Pray to him."

After a sustained attack, he was forced into the back of a police van, where he was again beaten and punched before being put in a "life-threatening" neck hold and told: "You will remember this day for the rest of your life."

At one stage, one of the officers grabbed his testicles and he was also deliberately wrenched by his handcuffs – a technique known to cause intense pain.

The Guardian also notes:

The Met [Metropolitan London police] had repeatedly denied the claims, saying officers had used reasonable force during the arrest.

However, lawyers for the force's commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, today admitted at the high court that Ahmad had been the victim of gratuitous and sustained violence at his home in Tooting, south-west London.

"The commissioner has today admitted that his officers subjected Babar Ahmad to grave abuse tantamount to torture during his arrest," Ahmad's solicitor, Fiona Murphy, said outside the court.

During the hearing, it emerged that the Met had lost "a number of large mail sacks" containing details of other similar allegations against the officers who assaulted Ahmad.

Murphy said the few documents that had not been mislaid should have triggered a thorough investigation.

"The horrifying nature and volume of complaints against these officers should have provoked an effective response from the Metropolitan police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) long ago," she said.

"Instead, it has fallen to Babar Ahmad to bring these proceedings to achieve public recognition of the wrong that was done to him."

She said other crucial documents relating to the case were also lost.

They included all the officers' contemporaneous notebooks and the taped recording of an interview with the senior officer in the case.

Murphy added: "The papers will be referred to the director of public prosecutions for urgent consideration of criminal charges against the officers concerned and for an investigation as to whether events surrounding the mislaid mail sacks constitute evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

The Guardian provides just enough context to dash any such hopes.

An IPCC investigation in 2007 ended with no action being taken against any officer.

The police officers who arrested Babar Ahmad in such a brutal fashion belonged to the Territorial Support Group (TSG), which is essentially the Met's SWAT team.

Assigned to deal with terrorism, public disorder, and high-priority crime, the TSG is never ODA a SWAT team, but there's no doubt that the TSG employs special weapons and special tactics.

The weapons include batons and shields and tasers, and the tactics are revealed in a subsequent article in The Guardian, which reports that

the Met was aware for years that the six [TSG] officers involved [in the arrest of Babar Ahmad] were the subject of repeated complaints. According to documents submitted to the court, four of the officers who carried out the raid on Ahmad's home had 60 allegations of assault against them - of which at least 37 were made by black or Asian men. One of the officers had 26 separate allegations of assault against him - 17 against black or Asian men.

The Met has confirmed that since 1992 all six officers involved in the Ahmad assault had been subject to at least 77 complaints. When lawyers for Ahmad asked for details of these allegations it emerged that the police had "lost" several large mail sacks detailing at least 30 of the complaints.

Senior figures in Scotland Yard admit there are concerns about the conduct of the officers. Although the Independent Police Complaints Commission supervised an investigation carried out by the Met, none of the officers has been disciplined for the assault on Ahmad and all but one are still working in the territorial support group. Asked about the string of allegations against the officers, the Met said that all but one had been found to be unsubstantiated following inquiries.

The Guardian lists some of the allegations.

Documents submitted to the high court and seen by the Guardian list details of some of the alleged assaults carried out by the officers:

• March 2007: one officer is accused of bundling a man into the back of a police van where he was told to "get on his knees". When he replied this was not Guantánamo Bay he claims the officer grabbed him round the neck and "discharged his CS gas while continuing to hold his throat". He says he was then thrown from the van, leaving him with eye, neck and head injuries. According to the document no action was taken because the complaint was either "incapable of proof" or there was "no case to answer".

• November 2005: two of the officers were accused by a "black male" of attacking him in the back of a police van. The document states that he was subjected to "constant kicking to his head and stomach (approx 12 kicks). Head lifted off the floor by grabbing his right ear and lifting head." The attack left the man with bruising and swelling to his face but the case was not pursued, the Met said, because of "non-cooperation" by the complainant.

• October 2005: the document stated that two of the officers were involved in another assault on a "black male". It read: "In van repeatedly assaulted - kicks to the face, stamps on his head whilst handcuffed." The victim said afterwards he "felt like he might die". Vomiting and blood coming out of his ears, black swollen eye, lip busted, hands very swollen.

• June 2003: two officers accused of beating a "black male" in the back of the TSG van. "The beating continued in the van and in a search room at the station."

The Guardian continues:

The allegations against the officers came to light after the high court issued a disclosure order on 13 February demanding that the Metropolitan police release all "similar fact allegations" against the officers involved in the Ahmad case.

The Met's legal team wrote to Ahmad's lawyers a few weeks later to say that "because of the sheer volume of unsubstantiated complaints" against the officers they would only be able to provide a schedule of the claims rather than the files in time for the deadline.

The schedule outlining 77 separate complaints against the officers was subsequently submitted to the court, along with a sample of complaints taken from 27 files containing some of the allegations. The police said they had lost several large mail sacks detailing at least 30 other files.

During the hearing it emerged that other crucial documents, including the officers' contemporaneous notebooks and a taped recording of an interview with the senior officer in the case, had also been mislaid.

Ahmad's lawyers say they are now calling for a judicial inquiry into the case and seeking a criminal prosecution against the officers involved. Murphy said: "The failure of the Metropolitan police and the IPCC to take effective action long ago against this group of officers can only be addressed by a full judicial inquiry and we will invite the director of public prosecutions to support the family's call for an independent judicial inquiry."

It doesn't take an independent judicial inquiry to figure out what's happening here. There's a reason why so many mailbags of complaints about police brutality have been lost. There's a reason why notebooks and tape recordings have disappeared. There's a reason why TSG officers with long histories of complaints about brutality remain on the force, without so much as a reprimand.

And it's all the same reason: they're simply doing what they're supposed to do.

~~~

Previous: Part 1: "The Easter Bombers"
Next: TBA

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Trial Set To Begin For 'Father Of The Holy War'

In New Haven, Connecticut, the long-awaited trial of a former US Navy signalman Hassan Abu-Jihaad is about to begin.

Abu-Jihaad [photo], formerly known as Paul R. Hall, is accused of providing material support to terrorists while serving aboard the USS Benfold.

The defense describes the government's case as weak -- and that's a charitable description indeed. The case rests on supposedly classified information allegedly found on a computer (or a disk) belonging to Babar Ahmad, who is currently detained in the UK, accused of assisting terrorists and awaiting a decision about possible extradition to the US.

Federal prosecutors admit there is "no forensic footprint" tying the defendant -- whose chosen name means "Father Of The Holy War" -- to the supposedly classified information found on Babar Ahmad's computer. But that doesn't matter, because this is the war on terror. And normal rules don't apply. Our "security" agencies must get their man -- guilty or no, evidence or no.

This is how they do it:

[1] Entrap a potential informer:

Burned! Meet William Chrisman, FBI Entrapment Specialist

Chrisman [photo] is also known as "Jameel Chrisman" or "Jamaal Chrisman". And he's bad news.

[2] Get legal permission to use irrelevant evidence, illegally obtained:

Government Tries To Introduce New Evidence Against 'Father Of The Holy War'

[3] Convince a judge it would be all right to convict this defendant without any actual evidence, because he's so sneaky, and so scary-looking.

Convictions Without Evidence: Federal Prosecutors Try To Establish Dangerous Precedent In Weak Anti-Terror Case

[4] It's all part of a plan to market terror and counter-terror at all levels of our rapidly militarizing society.

Bogus Terror: Feds Wage War Against The Rule Of Law

[5] And -- of course -- the plan is approved at the highest levels:

False Witness: Director Of National Intelligence Lies To Senate Committee

~~~

eighth in a series

Burned! Meet William Chrisman, FBI Entrapment Specialist

A federal court in New Haven, Connecticut, heard startling testimony from an FBI entrapment specialist late last month in the case of an alleged terrorist supporter from Phoenix.

William Chrisman [photo] testified on November 28 and 29 in a hearing in the case against former US Navy signalman Hassan Abujihaad, taking the stand just hours after Derrick Shareef, whom Chrisman entrapped, pleaded guilty in Chicago.

Shareef had previously pleaded not guilty to a charge involving the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

In celebration of Chrisman's victory over the forces of trans-American terrorism, the New Haven Independent ran a photo of Chrisman -- apparently ending his career as an undercover agent.

That photo has since been removed. But it hasn't been lost.

William Chrisman

William Chrisman got into lots of trouble as a gang member in Camden, New Jersey.

He was convicted of two felonies: armed robbery and possession of a stolen vehicle; he says he also sold crack cocaine.

While in prison, William Chrisman converted to Islam, and now he is also known as Jameel or Jamaal Chrisman (or Crisman).

Chrisman says he wanted to join the military during the first Gulf War but he was refused because of his convictions.

“After 9/11, all the Salaafi scholars came out with a ruling,” Chrisman said — “it is imperative for Muslims to stop terrorism.”

So, according to Chrisman, he volunteered to do counter-terror work for the FBI.

Crisman's name has come to light recently because of his role in the arrests of Derrick Shareef and Hassan Abujihaad, both of whom have been mentioned quite frequently in this space during the past year or so.

Derrick Shareef

On December 6, 2006, Derrick Shareef (aka Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef) [sketch] tried to trade a pair of stereo speakers for four hand grenades, a handgun and some ammunition.

He and an accomplice had planned to detonate the grenades in CherryVale Mall, Rockford, Illinois, on the Friday before Christmas.

But the grenades and ammo were duds and Shareef was arrested immediately after receiving them.

The "arms dealer" who supplied the nonfunctional weaponry was an FBI agent.

And the accomplice who set up the deal was FBI informant William Chrisman.

Hassan Abujihaad

Hassan Abujihaad (also Abu-Jihaad), formerly Paul R. Hall [photo], was a signalman in the US Navy, serving aboard the USS Benfold in 2000 and 2001.

During that time he corresponded by email with Babar Ahmad, alleged supporter of terrorists and allegedly the proprietor of various pro-terrorist websites including Azzam Publications.

Authorities say Abujihaad shared secret information about ship movements and the best ways to attack them.

Abujihaad, whose chosen name means "Father Of The Holy War", was arrested in March of 2007, in Phoenix , Arizona, after a long investigation.

He is being held without bail in New Haven, Connecticut, charged with two counts of supporting terrorists.

His trial is scheduled to begin in March, 2008.

The Story So Far

The following timeline is reconstructed from sources including the affidavit filed against Derrick Shareef in Chicago last December and news reports from last week's hearing in New Haven, Connecticut. [Follow the links for additional information.]

2000: Hassan Abujihaad is in the US Navy, serving as a signalman aboard the USS Benfold.

October 12, 2000: Seventeen US Navy sailors are killed when their ship, the USS Cole, is attacked Aden, Yemen.

April, 2001: While still serving as a signalman aboard the USS Benfold, Abujihaad allegedly corresponds with Babar Ahmad, through Azzam Publications.

Abujihaad buys three jihadi videos, at least one of which he has delivered to him aboard the Benfold [photo]. Abujihaad also allegedly sends Ahmad confidential US Navy information.

April 29, 2001: USS Benfold sails through the Strait of Hormuz.

July, 2001: Abujihaad allegedly sends more email to Azzam Publications, praising Islamist fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya.

January, 2002: Hassan Abujihaad is granted an honorable discharge from the US Navy.

2003: Abujihaad meets Derrick Shareef at a mosque in Phoenix.

Shareef and Abujihaad live together for seven months in 2003 and 2004.

December 2nd 2003: Babar Ahmad is arrested in Britain. He is kept in police custody and questioned for six days. His house is searched intensively for three days. His computers, printer and various documents are taken away for analysis. Samples of his DNA and fingerprints are distributed to law enforcement agencies in several countries.

December 8, 2003: Babar Ahmad is released without charge.

August 5, 2004: Babar Ahmad [photo] is arrested a second time.

Telegraph: The Imperial College student accused of waging jihad in South Kensington

British police say that among Babar Ahmad's possessions, investigators find a computer (or a floppy disk -- reports vary) containing naval intelligence.

BBC News: Terror suspect 'had naval plans'

The information they characterize as "secret" could have come from Abujihaad aboard the USS Benfold.

Authorities say the information found on Ahmad's computer includes the date on which the Abujihaad and the USS Benfold's battle group would be moving through the Strait of Hormuz as well as the formation in which they would be sailing.

Further information sent to Azzam Publications allegedly describes the best way to attack them.

Other messages from Abujihaad allegedly describe the US military as "scary pussies" and praise the 2000 attack on the USS Cole as "a martyrdom operation".

Prosecutors would clearly love to nail Abujihaad for treason but they have no proof that he sent the "secret information", which on closer examination turns out to be not so secret after all. So they start an investigation, but it doesn't lead anywhere ... yet.

BBC News: The battle to banish Babar Ahmad

"If you're supporting the Taleban and the Taleban is killing American soldiers, we're alleging you're conspiring to kill American citizens abroad," Connecticut US Attorney Kevin O'Connor said in October 2004.

September / October 2006: William Chrisman is sent to Rockford, Illinois (just west of Chicago) to meet Derrick Shareef.

Chrisman finds Shareef working in a video store in Rockford, Illinois. Shareef has no place to live and is about to move in with the store manager.

Chrisman offers Shareef an alternative, and less than eight hours later Shareef moves in with Chrisman -- and his three wives and nine children!

Until Shareef is arrested in December, Chrisman will record every conversation between himself and his "target".

But Shareef suspects nothing. And they talk.

Shareef tells Chrisman about his friend Hassan Abujihaad.

Shareef says he was with Abujihaad when Abujihaad learned of Babar Ahmad's second arrest, in 2004, and that Abujihaad said "I think this is about me".

Shareef tells Chrisman about plots he and Abujihaad had discussed, including an armed assault on a recruiting office in Phoenix and a coorinated attack on a Naval base in San Diego. None of these plots ever got beyond the discussion phase, and all this is hearsay.

Chrisman wants more.

He sends Abujihaad books to gain his confidence, and starts trying to corroborate the information he's been getting from Derrick Shareef.

He also starts trying to push the old plot against the base in San Diego.

November 2006: Chrisman and Shareef write and record martyrdom videos.

Chrisman presses Abujihaad for more information.

Abujihaad begins to speak in code.

Abujihaad says "Under the Black Leaves" for the initials UBL meaning Osama (Usama) bin Laden. He uses "L" to mean logistics and he refers to plots as meals: "cold meals" are obsolete but "fresh meals" are still considered viable.

Abujihaad correctly suspects the FBI is monitoring his conversations, but he doesn't seem to suspect that he's speaking (directly and indirectly through Shareef) to an FBI informant.

November 30, 2006: Chrisman gets a phone call from the undercover FBI agent posing as a weapons dealer, asking whether Shareef is ready to buy any weapons. Chrisman and Shareef then talk about "places where they could conduct an attack against civilians."

From the affidavit filed against Derrick Shareef, written by FBI agent Jared Ruddy:

Chrisman asked if Shareef believed it was a better idea to “hit the mall”.
Shareef responded that the mall was “just one potential place.”
...
Chrisman: “I mean, alright, we gotta look at it this way, we want to disrupt Christmas.”
Shareef: “Oh hell yeah, the mall is where it’s at.”

An attack against a facility involved in interstate commerce is clearly a federal offense.

Chrisman then asked Shareef if he believed that they needed grenades for the attack.
Shareef responded that they did.

Chrisman: “You go in there and toss a grenade, and no one’s gonna know who did it.”
Shareef: “No one’s gonna be expecting no shit like that.”
...
Shareef: “The last thing anybody gonna be thinking about at the mall is a damn grenade.”

The last thing Shareef is thinking of is a damn grenade! It's a good thing Chrisman thought of it!

Chrisman: “What targets you wanna hit, the mall’s good?”
Shareef: “Any place that’s crowded, like a mall is good, anything, any government facility is good.”
...
Shareef: “Here, we’re gonna check out some places, see where you could possibly lob one, do you toss it, do you, could you just sit it down and tip off, speed walk away.”

That's it!

You just sit it down and tip off! You just speed walk away!!

December 1, 2006: Chrisman hears from the undercover arms dealer and now he tries to solidify the weapons deal with Shareef.

Chrisman: “He said he had an order for 11, . . . 11 pineapples.”
Shareef: “Shit, did he do that so he could give ‘em to us wholesale?”
Chrisman: “No, he said that he’d sell them to us for $50 a pop.”

Shareef, for all his martyrdom video bravado, does not want to die. He's trying to figure out how to detonate multiple grenades in a shopping mall -- and survive!

So Chrisman lies to him about how the grenades ("the pineapples") work:

Chrisman: “You can change the time up to 15 seconds.”
Shareef: “How do you do that?,”
Chrisman: “You crank it, there’s a crank on it.”
Shareef: How do you know you cranking that shit the right way?,”
Chrisman: “You gotta listen.”
Shareef: “And then explode.”
Chrisman: “He said the longer you take, the harder the pin, the harder the hammer.”
Shareef: “So that shit gonna be like Boom!”

Sure, Derrick. That shit gonna be like Boom!

Chrisman takes Shareef to the CherryVale Mall. They've already cased the place once before; now they go back again. And when they get there:

Chrisman: “This place gonna be tore up in about two weeks.”

Shareef, still looking to save his hide, suggests detonating the grenades in garbage cans. The cans would contain the shrapnel and direct the blast upwards, causing much less damage to shoppers than if they were detonated in the open. But Chrisman is so delighted to see any sign of cooperation from Shareef that he actually compliments him on this exceedingly stupid idea:

Chrisman: “I’m glad you came up with the idea, though, the garbage can. That’s sweet.”
Shareef: “That’s pandemonium. The garbage going to be shrapnel.”

Right, Derrick! All the people are gonna get killed by flying paper cups!

Chrisman can't supply the money (or even the speakers) for the grenades -- unless he wants to entrap himself. So he keeps pushing Shareef:

Chrisman: “Don’t forget, man, we should get the grenades some time next week.”
Shareef: “Yeah.”
Chrisman: “So you should try to get as much flous [an Arabic term for money] as you can get ‘cause we need it.”
Shareef: “I got a little change in the bank.”
Chrisman: “All you need is like $100, that’s two grenades.”

December 6, 2006: Chrisman and Shareef go for a drive in Chrisman's car. They pick up Shareef's speakers, then Chrisman drives Shareef to a store parking lot for his meeting with the phony "arms dealer" (the undercover agent or UCA).

Shareef then opened the trunk to Chrisman’s vehicle and showed the UCA a set of speakers.

After a brief discussion about the speakers, Shareef picked up the speakers and carried them to the open trunk of the UCA’s vehicle.

Chrisman did not walk with Shareef and the UCA to the UCA’s car.

Chrisman knows many things Shareef doesn't -- including the fact that the "arms deal" is being recorded. He wouldn't want to appear in the video, would he?

At the trunk of the UCA’s vehicle, the UCA advised Shareef that he had locked the weapons in a lock box, and he kept them in a lock box in the event police ever stopped him.

The UCA then opened a lock box in the trunk of his vehicle and showed Shareef four non-functioning grenades, a 9 millimeter hand gun, and several rounds of non-functioning ammunition.
...

Shareef asked the UCA how long between the time the grenade pin was pulled and the time that the grenade went off.

The UCA explained that the time was approximately three to five seconds.

Shareef must realize at this point that Chrisman was lying about the fifteen second lead time, and may be hoping to forget about the whole idea in view of this very inconvenient fact. But he has no idea how many other things Chrisman has been lying about, and he also has no idea that his luck has just run out!

The UCA then closed the lock box, Shareef took key to the lock box, and Shareef picked up the lock box. Shareef then placed the lock box containing the purported weapons inside the trunk of Chrisman’s car. At the time that Shareef placed the lock box in the trunk, the UCA gave a pre-determined signal to agents who were surveilling the transaction, and the agents arrested Shareef without incident.

So let us recap, shall we? Derrick Shareef was arrested after placing a box of non-functional grenades in the trunk of Chrisman's car, after being driven by Chrisman to a meeting set up by Chrisman in order to get the grenades as suggested by Chrisman for the attack on the CherryVale Mall as suggested by Chrisman -- who also pushed for a firm commitment to a date, because "we want to disrupt Christmas". Who's "we"??

Derrick Shareef has been in prison ever since, and will be for many years to come, no matter what happens next. And William Chrisman is a hero.

The billions of dollars we spend every year on security protects us against what?

Winter Patriot: Rockford, Illinois: Terrorist Plot Foiled? Or Just Another Knucklehead Stung?

Chrisman calls Abujihaad to tell him about Shareef's arrest and presses for a confession.

Meanwhile, details emerging from the affidavit filed against Shareef scream "entrapment!"

WP: More on Derrick Shareef, the "Air Grenadist" of Rockford, Illinois

A week and a half after the arrest, in Rockford, Illinois, residents finally begin to relax after a jolt of fear.

WP: Rockford Breathes a Sigh of Relief, Safe from the Menace of Derrick Shareef

December 20, 2006: Shareef [sketch] waives two hearings: one in which the government would have been required to present evidence against him, the other in which he could have requested bail.

And it turns out that the law under which Shareef is charged defines a grenade as a weapon of mass destruction.

WP: Appearances: Derrick Shareef Appears In Court; US Invasion of Iraq Appears Justified

January 2007: The Shareef story makes international news.

WP: Jerusalem Post Stokes The War On Muslims Even "Better" Than FOX "News"!

January 9, 2007: Derrick Shareef pleads not guilty on one count pertaining to attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and a second count of conspiracy to commit arson in a facility used for interstate commerce.

WP: Derrick Shareef Pleads Not Guilty -- Trial Date To Be Set Next Month

February 23, 2007: U.S. District Judge David H. Coar orders a psychological examination to determine whether Shareef is fit for trial.

WP: Judge Orders Tests To Determine Whether Alleged Terrorist Wannabe Derrick Shareef Is Competent To Stand Trial

March 7, 2007: Hassan Abujihaad is arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, where he had been working for a parcel delivery service.

BBC News:
Terror charges for ex-US sailor

Abujihaad is taken to New Haven, Connecticut to await trial on charges of supporting terrorism in connection with the secrets he allegedly sent to Babar Ahmad via email from the USS Benfold.

The trial is in Connecticut because Babar Ahmad's Azzam Publications once used a server located there.

Tim Gaynor of Reuters via The Scotsman:
Former U.S. sailor arrested on terror charges

March 23, 2007: Abujihaad is indicted, charged with two counts: "material support of terrorism" and "disclosing previously classified information relating to the national defense".

April 4, 2007: Abujihaad pleads not guilty.

WP: Former USN Enlistee Pleads Not Guilty To Spying For Terrorists

WP: Ex-USN 'Terror-Spy' Knew Derrick Shareef Before He Was A Detonator

George Smith, Dick Destiny, The Register, April 12, 2007
Loose mouth and loose change - $5 tip leads to terror finance rap

May 23, 2007: Derrick Shareef is found competent to stand trial.

WP: Air Grenadist Cleared For Courthouse Performance, But No Date Set

May 24, 2007: Abujihaad is denied bail. Federal prosecutors admit they have no "forensic footprint" linking the information found on Ahmad's disk with Hassan Abujihaad.

WP: 'Father Of The Holy War' To Be Held Without Bail As Bogus Alleged Plots Grow And Intertwine

November 22, 2007: The trial of Hassan Abujihaad is scheduled to begin February 25, 2008.

WP: Trial Date Set For 'Father Of The Holy War' And His $5 Terrorist Tip

Morning of November 28, 2007: In New Haven, FBI agent David G. Dillon [photo] testifies against Hassan Abujihaad and plays recordings made by William Chrisman.

Dillon explains what the recorded conversations mean; that "under the black leaves" means Osama bin Laden, and so on.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, Derrick Shareef changes his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" on one of his two charges -- the attempted use of weapons of mass destruction. The government will not reveal whether Shareef is cooperating in the investigation against Abujihaad, but it has been reported that the second charge against Shareef, pertaining to arson and interstate commerce, will probably be dropped.

In connection with this story it is reported for the first time that Shareef's trial was scheduled to begin December 10, 2007. Now it is not clear whether Derrick Shareef will ever come to trial.

Afternoon of November 28, 2007: William Chrisman takes the stand in New Haven, where he testifies for the afternoon and much of the following day. In his testimony, Chrisman discloses certain details which might have been useful for an entrapment defense on behalf of Derrick Shareef, had Shareef not already changed his plea.

WP: Government Tries To Introduce New Evidence Against 'Father Of The Holy War'

November 29, 2007: New Haven Independent runs an article called "Betrayal Revealed" with a photo of William Chrisman alongside FBI agent David Dillon. It's the only known photo of Chrisman. Why did the FBI decide to burn him?

And how did they get Derrick Shareef to plead guilty in Illinois just hours before William Chrisman appeared in court in Connecticut and explained how Shareef came to be arrested?

before December 5, 2007: New Haven Independent removes the photograph of Chrisman and Dillon from "Betrayal Revealed" and replaces it with a shot of a US Attorney and a paralegal. Apparently the FBI didn't intend to burn Chrisman after all.

December 10, 2007: Trial of Derrick Shareef potentially scheduled to begin.

January 4, 2008: US District Judge Mark Kravitz will hear oral arguments and then rule on whether the newly disclosed information can be considered as evidence against Abujihaad in his upcoming trial.

February 25, 2008: Trial of Hassan Abujihaad scheduled to begin.

Unanswered Questions

It's been interesting so far, but what's even more interesting is what we haven't been told.

How much has the FBI paid Chrisman for his "volunteer" counter-terror work? He says he was paid $8,500 for the two months he worked on the Shareef case, plus $1,200 for the cases he worked on in the four previous years. David Dillon testified that the FBI had paid Chrisman $22,000 so far.

Why did the FBI send Chrisman to meet Shareef?

Why did Shareef change his plea to guilty? Is there a secret arrangement in place? And has Shareef been cooperating with the investigation of Abujihaad?

How did the feds manage to get Shareef to change his plea on the same day that Chrisman first testified in court? Were they concerned that if Shareef and his attorney knew what Chrisman was saying in New Haven, they might claim entrapment?

What kind of legal representation has Shareef been getting? He waived his bail hearing. He waived the evidentiary hearing. He pleaded guilty before the trail was scheduled to start. So far, he's liable for a minimum of 20 years (some say 30), and the government hasn't had to present a single bit of evidence against him. Must be nice!

Why did the feds decide to burn Chrisman? He is burned, isn't he? Or do the feds think Muslims will fall for his game again? On second thought, some of them might. If they're as clueless as Derrick Shareef, they'll fall for anything. But if chumps like Shareef are not instigated, how much danger do they really pose?

Will the judge allow all this new evidence to be introduced against Abujihaad at trial? It's all hearsay (Shareef says Abujihaad told him he gave secrets to Ahmad but Abujihaad denies it) or irrelevant (even if Abujihaad and Shareef did discuss attacking a base in San Diego, that doesn't prove Abujihaad gave secrets to terrorists) or illegally gathered (according to Abujihaad's attorneys, Dan E. LaBelle and Robert G. Golger, who point to portions of the USA PATRIOT Act struck down in September by a judge in another case).

Some observers think the FBI has turned its big guns against Abujihaad because he might get them Babar Ahmad, which would be a propaganda coup if nothing else.

There's also the considerable propaganda value to be had if they can convict Abujihaad; already Shareef is being described as a "convicted mall bomber" even though he never bombed anything -- and to the best of our knowledge, never hurt anybody!

As for William Chrisman, the FBI probably didn't count on photographs of him being published.

But they can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, can they? Oh well.

FBI entrapment expert William Chrisman (L) with FBI agent David Dillon.

The Big Picture

In a country of 300 million, at least 2 million of whom are in prison, does it really matter, in the big picture, whether another entrapment victim spends most of his life in jail? Probably not.

If Abujihaad is guilty as charged, then he deserves to be punished. I can't see anything other than entrapment in the Shareef case.

For some people, this case is about exposing an international terrorist conspiracy, but the conspiracy they're trying to expose probably doesn't exist:

According to US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald,

"If [Shareef] was being directed by overseas terrorists, he wouldn't have been trading two stereo speakers to buy grenades."

For others, it's about something much more sinister.

Derrick Shareef, "the convicted mall bomber" has become a poster child for the Homegrown Terrorist Fearmongering Campaign, along with such notables as Matin Siraj, the so-called "convicted subway bomber".

Siraj was entrapped by Osama Eldawoody [photo], who is now collecting $3200 a month from the NYPD because his exposure has ruined his career as an informant, but his work as an informant has ruined his credibility to the point that can't get a job anywhere else.

Siraj, the "subway bomber", didn't have a bomb of any kind -- not even a dud!

And yet, because of Shareef and Siraj and some other dolts entrapped by FBI informants, we have to give up our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms!

It's not as if there were no other options.

A Smarter Approach To Terror

To an independent observer who is not involved in trying to sell fear and propaganda to enrich those in the security and prison industries, and who is seriously interested in reducing the already very slight risk of non-state-sponsored terrorism, many smarter approaches to handling terrorist wannabes like Derrick Shareef and gullible fools like Matin Siraj [photo] suggest themselves.

I submit that it would have been much less costly, and equally or even more effective in the grand scale of things, to send someone to see Derrick Shareef, not with the intention of putting him in prison for the rest of his life, but of helping him to get his life straightened out. I don't mean a babysitter to sit with him and pamper him. I mean a belt across the head from an Arabic-speaking Muslim who says:

LISTEN UP, CHUMP!

One: Terrorism is not Allah's way. If you're upset because of the way the US hurts innocent Muslims, that's understandable. But if you attack innocent people because of it, then you're no better than they are.

Two: If you attack people here, it will give the warmongers the pretext they're looking for: to feed the war in the Middle East and to crack down on Muslims (and others) in the US.

Three: You don't have any weapons, you don't have any independent access to weapons, you don't have any money to buy weapons even if you had access, and you don't have any knowledge of weapons. You don't have any common sense either, so you're not likely to do much damage -- except to yourself.

Four: The government already knows all about you! Why do you think I'm here? And we're watching you, because we know you're a chump! So smarten up, and you might even keep your poor dumb ass out of jail for a while!

Instead it's

Come and live with me and my three wives and my nine kids, because I'm a Muslim and I know Muslims are supposed to look after one another.

What do you want to attack? The mall's good! because I'm a counter-terrorist so my job is to instigate terrorism.

Do you think we need grenades for that? I can get some! even though this is clearly entrapment, that doesn't even matter anymore.

The War on Terror has changed everything and now there are certain types of crimes for which the regular laws no longer apply. Entrapment used to be considered "a complete defense" -- if you could prove you were enticed into committing a crime that was all you needed to do: you walked! Now, if the crime of which you are accused involves terrorism, entrapment is no longer a complete defense; it's not a defense at all.

And that's just part of the problem.

~~~ news ~~~

Melissa Bailey in the New Haven Independent, November 28, 2007:
Ode To Osama
[mirrored here]

Josh Meyer in the Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2007:
Ex-sailor accused of plotting to attack San Diego base
[mirrored here]

John Christoffersen of the Associated Press in Newsday, November 29, 2007:
Government plays more coded calls in sailor terrorism hearing
[mirrored here]

Michael P. Mayko in the Connecticut Post, November 29, 2007:
FBI informant testifies in terror case
[mirrored here]

Melissa Bailey in the New Haven Independent, November 29, 2007:
Betrayal Revealed
[mirrored here]

Alison Leigh Cowan in the New York Times, November 29, 2007:
Federal Informer Testifies Against Sailor Accused of Aiding Terrorism
[mirrored here]

John Christoffersen of the Associated Press in the Washington Post, December 2, 2007:
FBI Informant's Role Emerges in Court Hearing
[mirrored here]

~~~ views ~~~

George Smith, Dick Destiny, November 29, 2007:
US NURSES TERROR CASE IN PRESS: Grim prospects for Hassan Abujihaad

George Smith, Dick Destiny, December 2, 2007:
ROTTEN EGG INFORMANT IN TERROR CASE: So-called patriot

Scott P. Richert, Chronicles Magazine dot org (Your Home for Traditional Conservatism), December 4, 2007:
Muslim Terrorists in Court: The Dominoes Start to Fall

~~~ related WP series ~~~

Derrick Shareef:
Derrick And The Detonators

Hassan Abujihaad:
Father of the Holy War

Matin Siraj:
Remember Me To Herald Square

Government Tries To Introduce New Evidence Against 'Father Of The Holy War'

A two-day pre-trial hearing has been adjourned in the case of Hassan Abujihaad, with no decision as to whether the government may introduce new evidence which may have been illegally obtained and which appears to be unrelated to the charges against him.

Hassan Abujihaad, formerly of the US Navy, has been charged with giving material assistance, including classified USN information, to an international terrorist network.

During the past two days of hearings, the government has played recordings of secretly recorded conversations and heard testimony from an undercover informant.

The government now says Abujihaad conspired with his former roommate, Derrick Shareef, in planning an attack on a US Navy base in San Diego. No such attack was ever carried out.

Abujihaad served aboard the USS Benfold, a destroyer which was in the Persian Gulf in early 2001.

While serving in the Navy, Abujihaad allegedly communicated by email with Babar Ahmad, the operator of a terrorist website, from which he bought three videos via mail order.

At least one of those videos was delivered to Abujihaad aboard the Benfold, and this does not appear to have caused a problem. But when the distributor, Azzam Publications, was busted in 2004, investigators found a series of email messages from Abujihaad.

According to Dick Destiny, the feds had been looking for Abujihaad ever since 2004, when they found an email in which he called the US military "scary pussies". If so, they weren't looking very hard; they didn't find him until earlier this year, after his former roommate Derrick Shareef was busted trying to trade his stereo speakers for a box of hand grenades. Shareef allegedly planned to detonate the grenades in garbage cans in a shopping mall outside Chicago, but the arms deal was bogus; the dealer was an FBI agent and the grenades were duds. Shareef pleaded guilty to a charge involving weapons of mass destruction earlier this week and faces a minimum of 20 years in prison.

Hassan Abujihaad had been living and working in Phoenix, and using his newly chosen name (which means "Father of the Holy War") rather than his given name, Paul R. Hall. Since the feds were looking for a man with the remarkable name of Hassan Abujihaad, rather than the more common Paul Hall, it's difficult to imagine how they failed to find him until Derrick Shareef told them where he was.

But that's just one of many aspects of this story which is difficult to imagine.

Here's a look at the most recent coverage of the case:

An introduction to the issues at hand, from the Connecticut Post:

Secret records at issue in terror trial

The use of secret documents in the trial of a former U.S. Navy signalman accused of giving classified information to terrorists will be debated during a series of evidentiary hearings in federal court beginning this morning.

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz has set aside several days to hear testimony that will form the basis for the government's case against Hassan Abujihaad, 31, once known as Paul Hall. FBI recordings and a cooperating witness are expected to try to link Abujihaad to a cohort in Chicago who planned a Christmas season attack last year on a suburban mall. That attack was stymied when the FBI arrest the Chicago man.

Abujihaad, of Phoenix, Ariz., also is accused of providing classified information to an al-Qaida support cell in London. The information was sent via computer aboard the U.S.S. Benfold, a destroyer where Abujihaad was assigned, through a web-hosting firm in Trumbull to a site rented by Azzam Publications, a Muslim-based business in London.

The indictment alleges that Abujihaad e-mailed ship movements and personnel of an American Naval battle group headed to the Middle East in the spring of 2001. He is accused of advising the terrorist cell that the ships would be sailing through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001, under a communications blackout. The indictment alleges he also informed the cell the ships would be vulnerable to an attack using rocket-propelled grenades. However, none of the 10 ships and one submarine in the battle group was attacked.

Abujihaad, who is detained without bond, was honorably discharged from the Navy in 2002.

He is represented by Daniel LaBelle and Robert Golger, two court-appointed lawyers from Fairfield County. Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan, who are associated with Azzam Publications, are also under indictment and awaiting extradition from England. Kravitz has set Feb. 13 for the start of jury selection in Abujihaad's trial. He has tentatively set aside Feb. 25 to March 14 for the trial.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Reynolds is prosecuting the case. FBI Special Agent David Dillon, who has investigated Bridgeport drug gangs, and Senior Special Agent Craig Bowling of the Department of Homeland Security, conducted the probe after uncovering evidence on the Internet following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The New Haven Independent had Abujihaad praising an Islamic hero in secret code:

Ode To Osama

In secretly recorded phone calls that rung through a quiet courtroom, an ex-U.S. Navy sailor laughs with a friend as a sniper tears U.S. soldiers’ bodies apart, and lauds the “psychological anxiety” wreaked on the USA by his coded hero, “Under the Black Leaves.”

“Under the Black Leaves” was a thinly veiled name for Usama (Osama) Bin Laden — the man Hassan Abu-Jihaad was supposed to be fighting with his naval battle group back in 2000 and 2001.

Instead of helping the U.S. fight Bin Laden, government prosecutors charge, the former sailor leaked sensitive information about the Navy’s movements to people involved in a London-based terrorist cell.

Abu-Jihaad, 31, of Arizona, sat quietly in a bright orange prison shirt before Judge Mark R. Kravitz in New Haven U.S. District Court Wednesday as federal prosecutors rolled out phone calls, emails and a star undercover witness to build their case against him. The young ex-sailor, formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was indicted in March on two counts of providing material support of terrorism and giving out classified info related to national defense.

Abu-Jihaad has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Here we also get our first glimpse of the "informant" agent provocateur at the heart of the sting:

After lunch Wednesday, the government rolled out its star witness: A guy from New Jersey who shed his life of crime to befriend and betray suspected terrorists. Jameel Chrisman, in a plaid shirt and tight-fitting skull cap, took the stand Wednesday and described conversations he’d had with Shareef the mall-bomber and others.

Chrisman had been convicted of armed robbery and car theft before the FBI recruited him to their side. He was assigned to befriend Shareef, and ended up moving in with him in Rockford, Ill. He posed as an Islamic extremist to gain Shareef’s trust and then record days’ worth of conversations with him. The trail led him back to Shareef’s childhood mentor, Abu-Jihaad.

The government’s using Chrisman’s testimony in part in effort to establish that Shareef and Abu-Jihaad were co-conspirators in a plot to attack a military recruiting station in Phoenix and a military base in San Diego.

Abu-Jihaad’s attorneys, Dan LaBelle and Robert Golger, argue the new statements garnered from Chrisman should not be admitted as evidence. They characterized the statements as a lot of talk that showed jihadists sympathies, but did not prove any conspiracy.

Jameel Chrisman is referred to as William Chrisman in other accounts.

From the AP, a look at the grounds for Abujihaad's claim that the new evidence is inadmissible:

Hearing Focuses on Ex-Sailor's Calls

[Abujihaad's] lawyers are citing a ruling by a federal judge in Oregon that struck down key portions of the USA Patriot Act as unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled the act cannot be used to authorize secret searches and wiretapping to gather criminal evidence — instead of intelligence gathering — without violating the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Bush Administration is appealing the ruling.

A second piece from the Connecticut Post added a few more details and "explains" why the planned attacks never quite came to fruition:

Testimony says former Navy man planned attack

A former U.S. Navy signalman, already under indictment for disclosing ship movements to a terrorist cell linked to al-Quida, also allegedly discussed plans to attack the San Diego Naval base in late Oct 2006. FBI special agent David Dylan testified in federal court Thursday that Hassan Abujihaad, 31, of Phoenix discussed this plan with Derrick Shareef. Dylan said that Abujihaad knew the layout of the base because he had been stationed there. The agent said the plan was to attack a barracks or chow hall to create turmoil and then pick off service men by sniper attacks. However, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Reynolds said the plans were never followed through.

That's the because the prosecutor said Shareef was more intent on lobbing grenades into a suburban Illinois shopping mall during the 2006 holiday season. The testimony came during a hearing Wednesday where U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz was to determine if the prosecution could use alleged uncharged terrorist acts against Abujihaad during his upcoming trial in February....

ABC News had some coverage of the Abujihaad case in their story about the newly guilty Derrick Shareef:

Ill. Mall Bomb Plotter Pleads Guilty

The case against Abujihaad's purports to show a complex nexus of international terrorism, as he allegedly sent the classified information on U.S. warship movements to U.K. terrorism suspect Babar Ahmad [of Azzam Publications].

Ahmad was indicted in the United States in 2004 for allegedly providing material support to Chechen terrorist groups and the Taliban. He is currently battling his extradition to the United States in British courts.

From the late 1990s until 2004, Ahmad allegedly ran Web sites for Azzam Publications, which used to carry propaganda for al Qaeda. The Azzam Web site was a key recruitment and propaganda tool for al Qaeda and mujahedeen fighters.

As for Shareef, it remains unclear how much of a threat he really is, as authorities have maintained their belief that he was acting alone in the Rockford mall plot.

At the time of his arrest last year, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said of Shareef, "If he was being directed by overseas terrorists, he wouldn't have been trading two stereo speakers to buy grenades."

The LA Times had the longest and most detailed article on the first day of the hearings:

Ex-sailor accused of plotting to attack San Diego base

According to a court motion filed by federal prosecutors that was unsealed Wednesday, Shareef and Abujihaad talked in 2003, while they were roommates in Phoenix, of attacking a military recruiting station; in 2004 proposed attacking the unspecified San Diego base with sniper fire; and in 2006 took concrete steps to pursue such an attack.

Prosecutors are seeking to introduce evidence of the alleged plot at Abujihaad's trial, set for early next month. That evidence includes wiretaps, statements from the informant -- himself a central participant in the alleged conspiracy -- and "efforts to obtain weapons and ammunition in connection with the proposed sniper attack," said the 123-page motion.

The prosecutors said Shareef and Abujihaad conspired to commit sedition, or to "put down the government of the United States, or levy war against it, or to oppose its force by authority" as well as to attempt to kill officers or employees of the U.S., particularly military members.
...

At Wednesday's hearing, Dillon and the informant testified for hours that Abujihaad and Shareef had talked frequently about the plot, plans to buy semiautomatic weapons and their anger at the U.S. for its treatment of Muslims worldwide. The court filing includes many snippets of those conversations, but most of the time the two men seem to be talking in code or seeking to avoid discussing details because Abujihaad suspected, correctly, that the FBI was wiretapping them.

In some conversations, Abujihaad appears reluctant to help carry out such an attack, in part because he knew FBI agents were watching him to see if he had relationships with extremists overseas. But in one taped call in November 2006, he told Shareef that he would support the alleged plot with "whatever I can . . . with whatever Allah has instilled me to . . . help out with," the court filing says.

Prosecutors acknowledged that after his arrest last December, Shareef said that his discussions with Abujihaad were "idle talk," but those comments were dismissed as "self-serving."

Prosecutors also acknowledged that in several calls, the informant appears to be initiating efforts to proceed with the plot and to buy weapons. "But that's not the only evidence the government has," said one Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case.
...

In normal times, a statement that "the informant [was] himself a central participant in the alleged conspiracy" would have been enough to support a defense of entrapment.

But in these twisted times, there is no protection for entrapment victims, especially when their "crime" involves terrorism.

And finally, coverage from Newsday of the hearing's second day:

Government plays more coded calls in sailor terrorism hearing

Federal prosecutors played secretly recorded phone calls Thursday as they tried to show how a former Navy sailor charged with supporting terrorism spoke in code about a plot to attack military personnel.

On the second day of a pretrial hearing in U.S. District Court, the government played calls between Hassan Abu-Jihaad and friends last year in which he allegedly talked in code about plotting sniper attacks on personnel and recruiting stations. Some of those calls were with former roommate Derrick Shareef, who was convicted this week in an unrelated plot to attack an Illinois mall with hand grenades.

In one call, Abu-Jihaad used the letter `L' for logistics support, authorities said. Prosecutors say his use of the phrases "cold meal" or "fresh meal" described whether a scheme was outdated or viable.
...

In one call, Abu-Jihaad, a left-hander, is asking specifically about obtaining left-handed weapons, prosecutors say. He also is heard allegedly pledging support to Shareef in vague terms.

"I'm down, you know what I'm saying ... with whatever I can ... with whatever Allah has instilled me to ... help out with ... if I can do that, then I'm for it ... and I'll say it again, with whatever I can give you that's beneficial I'll give it to you," he said.

But under cross examination, Chrisman testified that Abu-Jihaad never provided logistical support and acknowledged that Shareef complained that Abu-Jihaad was so passive it would take him 20 years to do something. Abu-Jihaad's attorneys also pointed out that he is heard on a call denying that he is a jihadi, an Islamic militant.

For commentary on what all this means, and an excellent overview of the case, please see Dick Destiny's "US NURSES TERROR CASE IN PRESS: Grim prospects for Hassan Abujihaad".

And if you're looking for a moral to the story, try this one: To make sure you get no breaks from the legal system, be a young black Muslim accused of helping international terrorists!

Trial Date Set For 'Father Of The Holy War' And His $5 Terrorist Tip

A trial date has been scheduled for Hassan Abujihaad, formerly Paul R. Hall, who is accused of passing classified information to terrorists. The trial is set to begin in Bridgeport, Connecticut, on February 25, 2008, according to the East Valley Tribune of Mesa, Arizona.

The trial is of interest in Arizona because Abujihaad was living and working in Phoenix when he was arrested in March, following the arrest and subsequent interrogation of Derrick Shareef.

Shareef was accused of violating laws against weapons of mass destruction after he traded a pair of stereo speakers for a box containing what he thought was four grenades, a handgun and some ammunition.

Shareef was recorded by his FBI informant (read: agent provocateur) saying he wanted to detonate the grenades in garbage cans at the Cherry Vale Mall in Rockford Illinois on the weekend before Christmas, 2006.

According to investigators, Abujihaad (whose chosen name means "father of the holy war") and Shareef used to live together, and Shareef was with Abujihaad when the latter learned of the arrest of his former terrorist contact, Babar Ahmad.

"I think this is about me," Abujihaad allegedly told Shareef, when he read that Babar Ahmad was in trouble. Abujihaad had bought a couple of videos from Azzam Productions, once accidentally overpaying by $5 and then telling Babar Ahmad to keep the extra money as a tip.

Abujihaad was in the US Navy at the time, stationed on the USS Benfold. He even had a jihad video shipped to him aboard the ship.

Federal investigators also allege that classified US Navy information was found on the computers of Babar Ahmad and Azzam Productions; that Hassan Abujihaad had access to that information; and that therefore Abujihaad passed the information to Azzam.

The classified information allegedly concerned the formation in which the Benfold's battle group would be passing through the Strait of Hormuz and what would be the best way to attack it.

No attack was launched on the battle group when it passed through the strait, and more to the point, investigators have recently admitted that they have found no forensic footprint linking the data found on the Azzam computers to Abujihaad himself.

Azzam Productions formerly used computer servers in Connecticut, so that's where the legal proceedings are happening.

Abujihaad has been held there without bail ever since he was arrested, and that's where his trial is scheduled to begin, three months from now.

It has always seemed strange to me that no progress was made in the hunt for Hassan Abujihaad until Derrick Shareef allegedly told investigators where he was. After all, as documented here previously, Hassan Abujihaad was living and working openly under that name.

How many fathers of the holy war can there be?

How much information would the federales need to find someone who was suspected of assisting terrorists?

And how much information do they have?

You don't have to answer these questions.

~~~

fourth in a series

'Father Of The Holy War' To Be Held Without Bail As Bogus Alleged Plots Grow And Intertwine

The latest news on the Hassan Abujihaad case comes to us from Randall Beach in the New Haven Register (or here):

A federal judge Thursday denied a defense attorney's motion to release a man charged with supporting terrorists by disclosing secret information about the locations of U.S. Navy ships and the best ways to attack them.

Hassan Abujihaad, 31, of Phoenix, formerly known as Paul Hall, must remain incarcerated in Connecticut and await trial as a result of U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz's ruling.

In addition to recapping what we already knew of this case, Randall Beach adds a few surprising details, including this admission of weakness from the prosecution:

[Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen] Reynolds did say there is "no forensic footprint connecting Mr. Abujihaad to the battlegroup document" found on a floppy disk at the home of one of the alleged terrorists in London.

No forensic footprint? What does this mean?

A few months ago, when setting up the arrest and the indictment, the feds made it seem like a slam-dunk. Now they tell us there's no forensic footprint linking the suspect to the documents in question?

Not that any of this will matter; as we have seen over and over, the courts are reluctant to buck the anti-terrorists -- ever, anywhere. Some of the weakest, strangest cases have led to convictions and long prison sentences. We're even seeing cases based on no evidence of anything -- except entrapment by undercover FBI agents -- leading to convictions and long sentences.

And suddenly last month's article by George Smith in Britain's The Register -- which seemed very strange at the time -- cuts a lot more ice with me than it did when I first read it:

Loose mouth and loose change - $5 tip leads to terror finance rap

In the terror case against Hassan Abujihaad, formerly known as Paul R. Hall - sailor on the destroyer Benfold, the US government has another mangy cat in the GWOT.

A mangy cat whose adopted name means "Father of the Holy War"?

"Material support of terrorism and disclosing previously classified information" are the beefs in the indictment against Abujihaad, according to a government press release from March. It sounds serious and the newsmedia did its usual listless job in reporting on it.

Nobody else seemed to notice that the circumstances leading to the arrest of Hassan Abujihaad were very peculiar.

"Hassan Abujihaad, 31, is accused of supporting terrorism by disclosing secret information about the location of Navy ships and the best ways to attack them," wrote Associated Press. "Investigators say he provided those secrets, in classified documents, to a suspected terrorism financier."

If one looks at the indictment and evidentiary exhibits logged against Abujihaad, it's thinner cloth.

Abujihaad bought videos from Azzam Publications and Babar Ahmad, a London computer programmer locked up since 2004 and awaiting extradition for trial to the US, for running a website that promoted Islamic fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan, according to the press.

As for sending classified documents to Ahmad [more here], what Abujihaad did do, and we'll get to it in detail in a bit, is send rash e-mail, including video orders from the [U.S.S.] Benfold, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer upon which he served.

Among these communications was one in which Abujihaad generally addressed the time of the movement of the Benfold's surface action group through the Strait of Hormuz. This was sensitive information, says the government and it is reasonable to believe it. In the e-mail, he also described a very general vulnerability of an asset in the group. In the government indictment, prosecutors misrepresent it slightly in attempting to polish the case against him.

Abujihaad's primary sin is extremely poor judgment. He corresponded with Babar Ahmad, a man the US government has been trying to get to trial in this country very badly. Abujihaad also called the government of the United States "scary pussies" in mail to Ahmad. Once this was recovered from a diskette in Ahmad's possession in London in 2004, its inflammatory content insured lawmen would pursue Abujihaad.

It appears from the indictment the US has been nursing the case for years. Assuredly, as soon as Abujihaad's e-mails were uncovered in London in 2004, it knew where he was. At that point, what appears to have transpired was the recruitment of a snitch to get close. The objective - to determine if there was a terror plot.

Apparently, no plot. Abujihaad received an honorable discharge from the Navy in 2002 and wound up in Arizona, perhaps an unhappy young man, eventually acutely aware that he might be in trouble for his e-mails to Azzam.

However, when the US government argues that Abujihaad gave material assistance to Ahmad, one expects not to see the equivalent of mail order of three videos reclassified as terrorist activity. Yet this is exactly what is meant.

Evidence of the crime?

In recovered e-mail in 2001, prior to 9/11, Abujihaad writes: "I'm wondering did you guise [sic] receive my two separate orders [sic] the first one was Russian Hell 2000. I ordered Chechnya From the Ashes at a later date. If you have any info please e-mail back."

In July of that year, now writing from the Benfold, Abujihaad thanks Ahmad for the quality of the jihad videos, although apparently Azzam Publications had sent him a different title than requested. "It is my first time viewing my first CD, Russian Hell Pt. 2 ... I thought it was Russian Hell 2000 Pt. 1." Abujihaad gives the port mail address for his ship, requests the title he doesn't have, Russian Hell 2000 Pt. 1, and writes, "Keep up the great work [sic] it is very well appreciated."

In August, Abujihaad sends Ahmad thirty dollars for another video, Bosnian War.

In this order, he has overspent by five dollars. Ahmad writes "Please tell us what you want done with the remaining $5."

"Dear Brothers, you guys can keep the remaining $5.00 and [add it] to the funds that you Brothers are spending in the way of Allah and the great Websites .. Azzam Pub."

Material assistance to terror groups is, you read right, ordering three videos, overpaying slightly and telling the seller to keep the change. "By stating that he watched the video, [Abujihaad] demonstrated that he knew Azzam supported acts of terrorism." Hmmm, maybe, but logically it seem to indicate many people not normally considered terrorists must now be included in the definition, too.

It is extremely dubious that Hassan Abujihaad is being prosecuted for watching the videos; he did after all have one of the videos delivered to him aboard the ship. The more serious matter -- the aspect of the case which has had people clamoring for Abujihaad's head on a platter! -- concerns advance knowledge of ship movements and vulnerabilities to attack. According to the authorities, they found indications that Abujihaad had transmitted such information to Ahmad, directly endangering his entire battle group.

As George Smith sees it,

The more serious matter is Abujihaad telling Ahmad when the Benfold's surface action group was transiting the Strait of Hormuz prior to Iraqi Freedom. He writes Azzam, informing his battle group is "to hold up [UN] sanctions against Iraq ... There is the possibility that [the group] will carry out a strike against Afghanistan: Main targets: Usama [Osama bin Laden] and the Mujahideen, Taliban, etc ... The [battle group] will be going through the straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001 at night."

The serviceman then includes some general information, which may appear sensitive to laymen, on his ship group. However, the same can be found in many open source public information websites on the US military.

The serviceman then includes some general information, which may appear sensitive to laymen, on his ship group. However, the same can be found in many open source public information websites on the US military. In the affidavit, the prosecution draws attention to the statement, "Weakness: They have nothing to stop a small craft with RPG etc except their Seals' Stinger missiles." In the complaint, it's presented slightly out of context, seeming to indicate Abujihaad is revealing something secret, like how to attack the battlegroup's large ships. Actually, he's indicating SEALs in boarding party boats don't have big heavy weapons, which constitutes more functional open source information, no matter the context.

Can this be right? There's a possibility of a 25-year sentence over a five-dollar tip?

Throughout the indictment and affidavit materials, there is nothing except indication that Abujihaad's basically a grumbling serviceman, impolitic and without common sense, as well as a buyer of video tapes on the wars in Chechnya and Bosnia.

Apparently, the case languished but was not forgotten until sometime last year when the government began to think it had a more compelling story to tell.

Homeland Security and the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force have a network of informants, one of whom was able to get a Chicago man, Derrick Shareef, entangled in a terror sting by volunteering to sell him hand grenades for throwing into a shopping mall. When Shareef tried to buy the grenades, he was arrested. Subsequent interrogation revealed Shareef and Abujihaad had, in the past, been acquaintances. At this point, investigators instruct the informant to contact Abujihaad with news about Shareef so the FBI can record the conversations.

Abujihaad, understandably, freaks out. At this point he knows the government is near. And on March 7 he was arrested.

It is a tale, and a bit of a sad one, in which someone which the book against, so far, does not show any serious involvement in terrorism. It is the story of a man who ordered videos and had loose lips when he should have kept his virtual mouth shut, a case of extraordinarily bad timing just prior to 9/11.

But since there is no shortage of experts who can be called upon by the government to insist, true or not, that Azzam Publications was allied with al Qaeda for the courts, Abujihaad's fate looks grim.

His prospects aren't helped by some of the other details in the new article from Randall Beach:

In addition to "troubling" activities and mission of Azzam Publications, Reynolds said, government wiretaps of Abujihaad's phone conversations disclosed he praised jihad and its violent methods.

Reynolds said another wiretap showed Abujihaad threatening to kill his ex-wife after she threatened to "spit out" to authorities what she knew about his alleged activities. He also cited a wiretap in which Abujihaad spoke with a government informant about buying assault weapons.

Reynolds also mentioned a wiretap showing Abujihaad recommended a violent jihad article to Derrick Shareef, who three days later bought weapons, allegedly to attack Christmas shoppers at a mall in suburban Chicago. Shareef was arrested before he could carry out the alleged plan.

This last bit is very bizarre.

It has previously been reported that Abujihaad and Shareef knew each other (and may have lived together) in 2004, but this is the first time -- to my knowledge -- that the anyone has floated the notion that they were in contact as recently as three days before Shareef's arrest -- or that Abujihaad had anything at all to do with Shareef's alleged plot.

It's always interesting watching alleged plots grow and intertwine.

The so-called "fertilizer bombers" plot in England is a good example. Seven men were on trial for a year and eventually five of them were convicted of planning to detonate a fertilizer-and-aluminum bomb, in an attack that was said to be "imminent" even though the prosecution admitted they had never decided on a target. The trial was conducted almost entirely in secret -- made necessary after two of the suspects implicated the supposedly allied Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, in their testimony, and there was never any open discussion about other targets, other weapons, or other means of attack -- until recent reports claiming the fertilizer bombers were planning to several major targets simultaneously, using multiple fertilizer bombs, an airplane, and a nuclear device, in a wave of attacks which would make 9/11 look like child's play.

So it won't be surprising to see reports beginning next month or so, about Derrick Shareef and Hassan Abujihaad and their cell of vicious terrorists, and all the terrible things they were allegedly plotting to do. The garbage cans will vanish first, of course, and eventually the nonfunctional grenades will, too. And you won't hear much about a $5 tip or a videotape that was delivered to a sailor aboard a US Navy ship. But oh! the hatred! Oh! the horrible things they were plotting to do!! And oh! the horrible web that weaves them all together!!

Just you wait!!

OOPS! You may not have to wait any longer. And it may seem like a bit of a stretch to go from plotting to detonate hand grenades in garbage cans in a shopping mall to plotting to "blow up a local shopping mall", but World Net Daily has no such trouble -- nor do they have any trouble tying both Shareef and Abujihaad to a larger group of "Blacks recruited for terror by al-Q'aeda".

So it turns out I was not clairvoyant after all.

Still, enormous lies persist. And I can't help but think that winning the War on Terror would be difficult enough if we were being told the truth about everything. With all the lying that goes on, no wonder it seems impossible!