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.

Ragged Threads And Loose Ends

I haven't been able to blog as much or as often as I would have liked lately, and I've been forced to neglect many of the stories that I'd been following, some of which continue to develop. I can't write a full post about each of these stories, but I don't want to forget them altogether, so here they are: a collection of ragged threads and loose ends that have been in danger of being cut off ...

~~~

Derrick Shareef has been sentenced to 35 years in prison after trading a pair of car stereo speakers for a box which he was told contained four grenades, a handgun and some ammunition. According to the official account, Shareef was planning to attack CherryVale Mall in Rockford, Illinois, in December of 2006. In reality, the mastermind behind the plot to bomb the mall was Jameel Chrisman, an informant sent to Rockford by the FBI to entrap Shareef, who they hoped would lead his friend, Hassan Abujihaad, to incriminate himself.

~~~

The entrapment of Shareef was part of an effort by the FBI to bolster their case against Abujihaad, a former US Navy signalman who allegedly passed secret information to a terrorist website while he was serving aboard the USS Benfold. The prosecution admitted there was no forensic footprint connecting him to the information they found when Babar Ahmad was arrested in England. Abujihaad, who despite the lack of evidence was convicted of supporting terrorism, has requested a new trial, on the grounds that no actual evidence was presented against him.

~~~

Amateur rocket-fuel experimenter Ronald Swerlein has been sentenced to 6 years probation and 200 hours of community service for making and detonating explosive compounds, in his Longmont, Colorado, home. He's also been billed $30,000 by the Longmont Police Department for the expenses the police incurred in firing seven cannisters of tear gas into his his living room, rather than knocking on the door and asking him to step outside; plus the four days they spent cataloging and taking away his his chemistry set, his library, his firearms and so on.

~~~

In Canada, a guilty verdict has been handed down against a teenager whose name cannot be published (because he's under-age), who was charged under the country's "strong" new anti-terrorism law. How strong? As Toronto's Globe and Mail reported:

Despite the fact there was no evidence that he planned, or even knew about, any specific plot, he was found guilty of participating in a terrorist group.

We discussed this case back in June when the chief witness for the prosecution admitted that the young man who was found guilty was unaware of any plot to commit acts of terrorism, that he merely went along on a camping trip with the others, who were so secretive that they spent part of their weekend eating donuts in the parking lot of a popular store.
The International Herald Tribune notes:

Despite the guilty verdict, the man, now 20 years old, has not yet been formally convicted. His conviction cannot be entered until the court reviews an abuse-of-process application from his lawyer contending that many of the group's activities were made possible by a paid police informant who, the lawyer says, committed illegal acts himself.

There's more on the story here, at the Galloping Beaver (and here too) and here, at Creekside (and thanks to McJ.)

~~~

I made an error of omission (which has been corrected) in yesterday's post, "A Formula For Endless War: The Wounded Shark, The Quest For Victory, And The Illusion Of Success", when I wrote about

a common thread running through all our wars: every piece of equipment ruined must be replaced. Every bomb used, every bullet fired, every meal eaten must be supplied by somebody who is making money on the deal.

I failed to mention, of course, the intimidation factor.

Every other country in the world must measure each action, plan, or strategic idea according to a number of factors, including whether they think the Americans will stand for it.

The bombing, invasion, destruction and subsequent occupation of Iraq -- based on no credible evidence to support any of the claims which supposedly made this course of action necessary, says to every other nation on the planet:

"Who wants to be next?"

As Jonah Goldberg explained in National Review in 2002:

I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I've ever heard, by the way).

Yep. He's entertaining as all hell, for some people.

And this may be God's way of preparing them for the journey.

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

Derrick Shareef, Garbage Can Grenadist, To Be Sentenced Tuesday

Derrick Shareef [sketch] is scheduled to be sentenced on Tuesday. He faces life in prison.

Shareef was arrested in December of 2006, after trading a pair of car stereo speakers for a package he thought contained four grenades, a handgun and some ammunition.

According to documents released by the FBI at the time, Shareef was planning to attack holiday shoppers at CherryVale Mall in Rockford, Illinois, by detonating grenades in garbage cans there on the Friday before Christmas.

Unfortunately for Shareef, the "arms dealer" in this bogus transaction was working for the FBI, and so was the "friend" who set up the meeting between them.

The "friend", an FBI asset named William "Jameel" Chrisman [photo], had been sent to Rockford by the FBI with the task of meeting and "befriending" (and entrapping) Shareef.

Fortunately for Chrisman, Shareef was homeless and preparing to move in with the manager of the video store in which he worked, when Chrisman arrived, introduced himself as a fellow Muslim and offered Shareef a place to live.

Shareef started moving in with Chrisman -- and his three wives and nine children -- that same day. And the rest, for an experienced operator like Chrisman, was easy.

Chrisman, a convicted felon who converted to Islam in prison before going to work for the FBI, had Shareef under his roof for more than two months, during which he recorded every conversation they had. The FBI pulled the most incriminating segments together for its "evidence" against Shareef, and yet even in this non-representative sample, Chrisman can clearly be seen as the ringleader.

Close examination of the FBI-supplied affidavit reveals only one detail of the attack plan coming from Shareef -- the lunatic notion of detonating the grenades in garbage cans!

It was Chrisman who suggested attacking CherryVale Mall; it was Chrisman who suggested using grenades; it was Chrisman who suggested attacking on the Friday before Christmas; it was Chrisman who drove Shareef to CherryVale on two occasions, to "plan" the "attack". Both times they walked around the mall together under heavy FBI surveillance.

It was slick as could be: attacking the mall, where interstate commerce is carried out, makes it a federal offense; and using (or planning to use) grenades puts it into the category of "weapons of mass destruction" and makes possible a life sentence, according to the applicable federal law (no, I am not kidding). Chrisman couldn't possibly have done a "better" job.

But when the mainstream media report on Shareef's case, they always forget to mention Chrisman. And by the time the "terrorism experts" get to the story, Derrick Shareef has morphed into a "lone wolf".

Shareef pled guilty in November of 2007, then withdrew the guilty plea before he "withdrew the withdrawal", as a local TV report phrased it at the time. So the guilty plea still stands, and sentencing is next week.

Interestingly, Chrisman testified in court in New Haven, Connecticut, in the trial of Hassan Abujihaad [photo], on the same day that Shareef pled guilty in a federal court in Illinios. Shareef's guilty plea was entered in the morning; Chrisman took the stand in the afternoon.

It was almost as if Shareef had to plead guilty before Chrisman could reveal -- in another court -- the details of how Shareef had been entrapped.

But so what? Derrick Shareef, in many ways, is collateral damage. The FBI sent Chrisman after Shareef in the hope that Shareef and Chrisman working together could lead Abujihaad to incriminate himself. And it all kind of worked out, for the FBI, ha ha ha, didn't you know it would?

For more details, please see any (and perhaps even all) of the following:

Convicted Without Evidence: 'Father Of The Holy War' Found Guilty

Burned! Meet William Chrisman, FBI Entrapment Specialist

Rolling Stone: The Fear Factory

My series on Hassan Abujihaad: Father Of The Holy War

My series on Derrick Shareef: Derrick And The Detonators

Winter Parking: collected news articles about Derrick Shareef | Hassan Abujihaad | William "Jameel" Chrisman

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

Convicted Without Evidence: 'Father Of The Holy War' Found Guilty

The wingnuts will be celebrating tonight, but it's another sad day for the remains of the rule of law in America. Hassan Abu-Jihaad has been convicted of a charge for which the prosecution admittedly had no evidence.

Abu-Jihaad, who was a signalman aboard the USS Benfold, was accused of passing along details that included the makeup of his Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the dangerous Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf on April 29, 2001.

Abu-Jihaad's attorney said a four-year investigation that spanned two continents failed to turn up proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements and their vulnerability to attack.

Federal prosecutors [...] acknowledged they did not have direct proof that he leaked the ship details.

~~~

ninth in a series

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

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

(UPDATED below)

John Christoffersen for the AP via Newsday:

A federal judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors trying a former Navy sailor charged with supporting terrorism can tell a jury about his coded speech and admissions that he communicated with suspected terrorism supporters and destroyed videos that promoted violent jihad.

Authorities allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad leaked a document describing the location and vulnerabilities of a Navy battle group to suspected terrorism supporters in London. His trial starts Feb. 25.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz is a boost to prosecutors, who have acknowledged that they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.

The case against Hassan Abu-Jihaad (aka Abujihaad) gets weirder and thinner by the month. George Smith (aka Dick Destiny) has written an excellent article on the topic for the UK's Register and I urge you to read it: "FBI's 'idiot dude' fails to boost US Navy terror emails: Wiretap excerpts hint at rich vein of pointless tedium". Here's the beginning:

We now return readers to the case of alleged terrorist Hassan Abu-jihaad, the former US Navy signalman banged up for sending Babar Ahmad and Azzam Publications information on when his surface action group was transiting the Strait of Hormuz in 2001. Another alleged crime was buying a few Chechen jihadi videos and tipping the web company five dollars in overpayment.

These actions eventually resulted in Abu-jihaad's arrest and indictment in 2006 on charges of materially aiding terrorists and disclosing information said to be of use to terrorists. However, it has now become plain that the US government has been nursing its case against Abu-jihaad. It had started running surveillance on him in 2004, employing wiretapping and an informant. The government accumulated as much talk as possible, coming up with a thirty-three page list of excerpts which the prosecution has submitted for consideration as further evidence in advance of the defendant's trial.

The FBI informant, known as William Chrisman, was many things: a former convicted armed robber, car thief and gang member who converted to Islam and claimed to be patriotically moved to help protect the nation against terror after 9/11. He has nine children by three wives - apparently a harem - in some type of ill-defined common law arrangement and was angling for a fourth, according the Associated Press, when the proposed new addition was apparently scared off by the size of the Chrisman stable.

Normally, one does not expect FBI informants to be model citizens. But increasingly in the war on terror, the government seems to have been employing individuals of extremely dubious quality, people looking for a payday while trolling for potential patsies.

In a twist of fate, Chrisman's future career as an FBI informant was scotched when the New Haven Independent, an on-line local news organization covering pre-trial maneuvering in the Abu-jihaad case, published his picture.

The Independent portrayed Chrisman as a "terrorist buster," then busted his days as a clandestine operative with the photo. Although the publication quickly yanked it, the WinterPatriot blog plastered a copy of Chrisman's mug all through its coverage of the informant, where it indelibly remains.

Chrisman's testimony in court, assembled in the FBI proffer, is an attempt to further indict Abu-jihaad by implication. While the affidavit is lengthy, it adds little of hard substance - and we'll get to this in a bit - to the original emails to Azzam which resulted in the terror complaint against him.

As the case gets weirder, and thinner, the government gets more desperate, of course, so it gets even more chilling, as John Christoffersen reported (same link as above):

In court papers, prosecutors cite Abu-Jihaad's "obsession with operation security," his use of codes and his suspicion of government surveillance to "explain why there is no forensic footprint that directly links the defendant" to the leaked document.

If this argument is accepted, it will set a precedent effectively eliminating the notion that the prosecution must provide proof of guilt, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. If they really want to put you away, federal prosecutors won't have fabricate evidence, or lie about what their genuine evidence really means. They won't even have to give the impression that they have incriminating evidence against you.

They will only have to say, "We don't have any proof because the suspect is too sneaky."

And that will be the end of that.

see also: Burned! Meet William Chrisman, FBI Entrapment Specialist

and don't forget the rest of : FBI's 'idiot dude' fails to boost US Navy terror emails: Wiretap excerpts hint at rich vein of pointless tedium

UPDATE: two new posts from George Smith for your consideration:

at The Register: Email trail from navy man to London 'terror' site goes fuzzy

In pre-trial maneuvering this month the US government's case against ex-Navy signalman Hassan Abu-jihaad became more moth-eaten. Prosecutors filed an interesting brief indicating they had no evidence against the defendant of a terror plot modus operandi.

Abu-jihaad has been charged with e-mailing information on the transit of his naval battle group through the Straits of Hormuz to Babar Ahmad and Azzam Publications in London in 2001. At the time he was serving on the destroyer Benfold. For the purpose of the case, Babar Ahmad - now awaiting a court decision in February on whether or not he is to be extradited to the States - is considered by the US government to be a terrorist. The government alleges Abu-jihaad's communications with Ahmad and the purchase of Chechen resistance videotapes from the Azzam website to be aiding terror, with the defendant an agent of a foreign power.

A glaring problem with the government's case against Abu-jihaad is that the evidence against him is thin. Although the US has submitted e-mails to Azzam which they have claimed are from Abu-jihaad, prosecutors admitted in pre-trial filings this month that "the Government had no recorded statements or testimony personally linking Abu-jihaad to the e-mail account from which [the communications to Azzam in question] were sent."

and there's more at his blog, "Dick Destiny": SHIFTY ATTITUDE INDICATES TERROR AIM: Main prosecution plank against Hassan Abu-jihaad

Click. Read. Learn. Then what?

~~~

seventh in a series

Wanna Get This Picture On The Cover! The Photo Rolling Stone Should Have Published With "The Fear Factory"

(UPDATED twice, below and belower)

Rolling Stone has just published a long and fairly good article called "The Fear Factory", which focuses on the FBI's so-called Joint Terrorism Task Forces and their apparent history of fomenting bogus terror -- creating false "terror cells" which they can then bust.

The author, Guy Lawson, shines a spotlight on the shady dealings of FBI entrapment specialist William "Jameel" Chrisman, whose story graced these pages some time ago.

Unfortunately, Rolling Stone didn't publish Chrisman's photo, even though it is readily available. Nor did Lawson link to any corroborating evidence, even though plenty of that is available, too.

I have been working on a review of Lawson's piece and I hope to have it ready shortly. But in the meantime, since Lawson has sparked some interest in the case, it makes sense to post a photo of the rat and links to more information.

For a closer (and annotated) look at William "Jameel" Chrisman, how he entrapped Derrick Shareef, and how he tried to entrap Hassan Abujihaad:

Burned! Meet William Chrisman, FBI Entrapment Specialist

And for another glimpse behind the scenes of bogus terror:

Inadequate Deception: The Impossible Plots Of The Terror War

I'll be back with more on Lawson's piece and some related matters as soon as possible. In the meantime, and especially if you're new to all this, please click some links and learn about the terrorist threat we face, where it comes from, and how serious it really is!

UPDATE 1:

The Register-Star, hometown paper of Rockford, Illinois, was none too thrilled with the coverage Rolling Stone provided their fair city, and had this to say about it:

Rolling Stone takes aim at Rockford: Says city not worthy of terrorist attack

Jan 30, 2008 @ 07:22 PM | RRSTAR.COM

ROCKFORD - Rolling Stone, the venerable anti-establishment pop-culture magazine, took notice of Rockford in its latest issue.

In "The Fear Factory," a piece that suggests the federal government is "manufacturing" terror threats, author Guy Lawson examines the strange case of would-be mall bomber Derrick Shareef.

In the process, he takes a few swipes at Rockford, "a Midwestern city of 150,000, with a minuscule Muslim population and the lone claim to fame of being the hometown of Cheap Trick."

Later, Lawson opines, "Finding a meaningful target to blow up in Rockford isn't easy. A hardscrabble town in the middle of America, the place is not much more than an intersection of interstates and railway lines, with little of note that might attract the attention of terrorists."

What are your thoughts on this? Send us an e-mail at local@rrstar.com.

So I sent them my thoughts:

In "Rolling Stone takes aim at Rockford", I see the following:

"The Fear Factory," ... suggests the federal government is "manufacturing" terror threats

I hate to break it to you, but you can go without the quotes.

The article describes some of the bogus terror threats that the federal government has been manufacturing! Period.

It is very clear and all the author's assertions are very well-documented elsewhere. But you won't report on that, will you?

Why not? Doesn't the truth matter to the newspapers anymore?

I think you're not only upset that Rolling Stone took a swipe at your thriving metropolis.

I think you're also ticked because they showed up your shitty little paper.

You should have been reporting on this more than a year ago.

I wrote to Mike Wiser -- the "Star" reporter who covered this story extensively at the time -- and pointed out that the evidence of entrapment was enormous.

Indeed, the scent of entrapment was all over this case from the beginning.

But apparently he wasn't interested. And apparently you still aren't.

Are your revenues declining, just like all the other shitty newspapers in this country?

Maybe you should start printing the truth for a change and see whether that makes a difference in your sales.

Because right now the bloggers have your ass beat from here to hell and back, chump.

UPDATE 2:

I've been looking and looking for a good piece on this story and I've finally found one.

William N. Grigg: Federal Provocateurs: The "One Percent Solution"

Draped across the throat of our nation like a lank noose about to be pulled taut is a system of 102 Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). These entities, which could properly be called homeland security soviets, combine state and local police with FBI Special Agents, covert operatives from the CIA, personnel from various directorates of the Department of Homeland Security, and investigators from the IRS.
...

FBI Special Agent Lundgren told Rolling Stone that the JTTFs are governed by “the Dick Cheney one percent solution”: If there is just a one percent chance that a terrorist incident can occur, “then we have to treat our response as if there were a 100 percent chance.”


Of course, where no evidence of a plot exists, the Feds stack the odds by employing provocateurs who supply the missing “one percent chance.”

Right on, William!

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