![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
|

Sami Omar Al-Hussayen
Are those who give money to terrorist organizations as guilty as those who plant the bombs? If they know where the money is going, why not? From the Idaho Statesman, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
The case the federal government will try to make against former University of Idaho grad student Sami Al-Hussayen is this: People who give money to terrorist organizations are as guilty as the radicals who plant the bombs.Al-Hussayen´s jury trial on three counts of conspiracy to support terrorism and 11 visa fraud charges begins today in U.S. District Court in Boise. Al-Hussayen is accused of using his status as a graduate student in computer science as a cover for funneling $300,000 and technical expertise to maintain Web sites for radical anti-American organizations.
“The question is: Did Sami know the money he is accused of helping shift through the Web site was going to terrorist activities?” said Dr. Rand Lewis, a former U.S. Army counterterrorism expert who now heads the University of Idaho´s Martin Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution. “Or did he think (the money) was to be used in support of Arab groups for humanitarian reasons?”
“I think what (prosecutors) are saying is that the real danger is not just the terrorists themselves, but the sympathizers,” said Beau Grosscup, a political science professor who specializes in terrorism and Middle East politics at Chico State University in California. “This is very much in line with post 9/11 thinking.”
The Al-Hussayen trial comes at a time of heightened interest in terrorism against the United States and its ripple effects throughout the world. A federal commission is looking into the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence on terrorism before Sept. 11. Citizens and lawmakers debate the appropriateness of expanded investigatory powers under the U.S. Patriot Act.
It´s the fallout of 9/11 and the current political climate that may make it harder for Al-Hussayen, said Sherry Matteucci, a former U.S. attorney in Montana.
“People are more aware of the international connection with terrorism since 9/11. It will be easier (for prosecutors) in the sense people have context and general awareness of terrorism they might not have had prior to that,” Matteucci said.
David Nevin, the Boise attorney representing Al-Hussayen, has consistently disputed the government´s claims, describing Al-Hussayen as a peaceful graduate student and community leader who condemned the violence of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Lewis said the government must explain Al-Hussayen´s role in the confusing hierarchy of terrorist networks. Terrorist organizations can look like a pyramid, he said:
• On the top are leaders like Osama Bin Laden, who provide vision and planning for organization.
• The second level includes the “active cadre” — terrorists who actually carry out bombings or shootings.
• The third level is made up of active supporters, people who raise and funnel money or create safe houses for terrorist efforts.
• At the bottom level are passive supporters, people who wouldn´t even know they were supporting terrorist activities. An example: someone who contributes to a famine relief fund for Palestinian camps without knowing that some of the money could go to terrorist organizations.
“Somewhere in the bottom of the triangle is where Sami is. If he is in the passive base, that makes it a difficult case for authorities,” Lewis said. “Even if he is in the active level, it´s still going to be hard to prove how important he was.”
Both Lewis and Grosscup said the post-9/11 political climate seems to favor federal prosecutors in the case.
“I think Sami is kind of a fall guy,” said Lewis. “I think they are hanging their hat on Sami.”
“It seems to be more of a political than legal issue ... like the federal government is doing something to soothe fears (of the public),” Grosscup said.
Matteucci said while the current political climate helps federal prosecutors, it´s still a difficult case to make.
“There is visceral reaction to a violent crime that is not present in cases like this,” she said. “It´s way more difficult to prove intent when you have a complex document and computer case about financial evidence. It doesn´t speak the same as a stab in the heart.”
Posted by Robert at April 13, 2004 7:48 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
He's no fall guy. What I Hope he is, is a signal (if convicted *crosses fingers*). Hopefully that will happen and it will receive enough press to give pause to others who consider helping 'humanitarian' Islamic charities.
Posted by: Gary at April 13, 2004 8:03 AMDoes complicity before the fact strike a nerve! It should. Yes," indeedy! "
Anyone that gives money to a "charity group" that is known to support terrorism is complicit in that act. And by the same token, those that have information about these same terrorists that isn't turned over to the authorities is complicit after the fact. They become "arm-chair terrorists" if not something worse.
Posted by: epg at April 13, 2004 8:51 AMtwo thoughts come to mind:
(1) you can't be a little bit pregnant.
(2) whatever happened to "ignorance is no defense in the law"? it seems that due to the verdicts of recent trials where deranged mothers kill their kids, and now this terrorism-loopholism defense strategy, that we are getting to a state where perpetrators are not culpable.
Posted by: ted at April 13, 2004 12:32 PMYou slack-jawed ignorant freaks - if you knew *anything* about the case you'd at least be concerned about how the way it turns out will affect our First Amendment rights forever. You would have to think twice about posting to any website. As it is, the Patriot Act violates half of the Bill of Rights. And never mind that if you do nothing wrong you will have nothing to worry about - that will not help you given the new paradigm the Act sets up. Never mind that the organization Al-Hussayen was involved with is a legitimate, non-terrorist organization. Never mind that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested. Never mind that the Idaho US Attorney swore in public on many occassions that his trial had nothing to do with the Patriot Act and that it was all about visa infractions. Never mind that the government lies repeatedly and blatantly. And never mind that you fall for all its propaganda like numb-minded automatons.
Posted by: Betty at April 29, 2004 10:16 AMSo when will the government start prosecuting everyone who supports the NRA?
Posted by: Al at April 29, 2004 7:40 PM

(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)