PDA

View Full Version : Father: Ahmed ‘not guilty of any crimes in the eyes of Allah’



Perilloux
06-10-2009, 12:00 PM
Updated: 11:22 a.m. June 10, 2009
Ex-Tech student found guilty on terrorism charge (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/06/10/terrorism_trial_tech.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_new stab)
Father: Ahmed ‘not guilty of any crimes in the eyes of Allah’

By BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The guilty verdict on the terrorism conspiracy charge against his son was expected, Syed Riaz Ahmed said Wednesday. But Ahmed said his son, Syed Haris Ahmed, never harmed anyone and only expressed thoughts that he never acted upon.

“You think something and you’re guilty,” Syed Riaz Ahmed said, standing outside a federal courtroom shortly after hearing his son pronounced guilty. “He’s not guilty of any crimes in the eyes of Allah. He’s guilty of U.S. laws.” Syed Haris Ahmed was misled into his extremist thoughts by propagandist Web sites, his father said, adding that he believed his son never would have followed though on any plans to engage in terrorism.

Ahmed, a 24-year-old former Georgia Tech student, was convicted of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. During his trial last week, prosecutors introduced into evidence e-mails and Internet chats during which Ahmed said he wanted to engage in violent jihad.

In the summer of 2005, Ahmed went to Pakistan to join a terrorist training camp, but changed his mind and returned to Atlanta, re-enrolling at Georgia Tech. Federal prosecutors said that after Ahmed returned, he regretted not joining the camp and considered returning to Pakistan to follow through with his plans.

thinker
06-10-2009, 12:19 PM
Jailing someone based upon intent and internet chat is never a pretty thing. He definitely did some stupid things, but I would love it if someone would link where he actually committed a terrorist act.

This is not a defense of this person, merely a statement that jailing people who have not actually committed any crime makes me extremely uncomfortable.

noonwitch
06-10-2009, 01:13 PM
Jailing someone based upon intent and internet chat is never a pretty thing. He definitely did some stupid things, but I would love it if someone would link where he actually committed a terrorist act.

This is not a defense of this person, merely a statement that jailing people who have not actually committed any crime makes me extremely uncomfortable.


Yeah, reading that article does make it seem like the worst thing he did was express some pro-terrorist sentiment online and consider training to be a terrorist. And, if the emails are all they have on him and there is no plotting of specific events, then is it really a crime? Being a jerk isn't a crime.

PoliCon
06-10-2009, 01:19 PM
The state would have had to have proven intent - wich apparently they did. Thinking it is not a crime - attempting to do it - is. Let's not forget that the press - as a whole - is sympathetic to these guys.

MrsSmith
06-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Even from wiki... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Haris_Ahmed)


During five interviews in March, 2006, Ahmed had made a number of self-incriminating statements. Ahmed had also led the agents who interviewed him to his parents' home and surrendered the camera that was used for the recordings.[11] At the bail hearing for Sadequee, prosecutors alleged that Ahmed and Sadequee traveled to Washington, D.C. to make "casing videos" of the United States Capitol building, the World Bank, a Masonic temple, and a fuel depot, and that Sadequee had then sent the video to now-imprisoned London propagandist Younis Tsouli, better known by his online pseudonym Irhabi007 ("terrorist 007").[6] Tsouli later confirmed that the pair were the source of the recordings.[11]

In August, 2008, US Magistrate Gerrilyn Brill ruled Ahmed's interrogation statements admissible for trial despite defense assertions that the statements were the result of coercion and deception. Brill wrote that Ahmed was "intelligent and had been interviewed by law enforcement twice before", and, therefore, “there is nothing … to suggest that his will was critically affected by the agents’ various appeals to his Muslim beliefs and there is nothing inherently coercive about such tactics.” Although Ahmed had referred to the videos and the discussions with other Muslims as "stupid", he had admitted to the interviewing agents that the recordings could have been used in planning terrorist acts.[11]

Ahmed and Sadequee were re-indicted by a federal grand jury in December, 2008. Both men were again charged with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, including trying to join Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2005. Under this indictment, the videos are believed to have been passed to another convicted British terrorist, Aabid Hussain Khan, on whose computer they were also found when Khan was arrested.[12]



Slightly more than thought... :rolleyes: