| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Happy naive kids
"Allen also contends that Megahed didn't know anything about the contents of the trunk or the video that investigators found stored on a laptop computer in the car." Yes, of course. The guy he's driving with has jihadist video about "how to use a remote-controlled toy to detonate a bomb," but he doesn't know anything about it. He's just a naive kid.
Naive Kids Update: "Prosecutor: Students Had Explosives," by Mitch Stacy for AP (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — A federal prosecutor disputes defense claims that two Egyptian college students arrested near a South Carolina Navy weapons station were carrying harmless fireworks and not dangerous explosives.An attorney for Youssef Samir Megahed filed a motion last week asking a judge to reconsider granting bail. He cited an FBI report that characterized the items found in the trunk of the car as a pyrotechnic mixture that burned but didn't explode when tested.
But federal prosecutor Jay Hoffer, in a motion filed Monday opposing bond for Megahed, said defense attorney Adam Allen "mischaracterized" the FBI report in describing the items in the trunk as harmless.
Hoffer said the items — including PVC pipe containing a mixture of sugar and potassium nitrate and capped with cat litter — meet the federal legal definition of explosives. FBI analysts determined that the mixture could explode if it was packed more tightly in the pipe and capped, Hoffer wrote.
"Experts from the FBI Laboratory describe these items as dangerous; the degree of their dangerousness is, according to them, dependent both upon their use and their surroundings," the motion said.
Allen said the mixture wouldn't have been packed in the pipes and capped off because Megahed's co-defendant, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, has said he was building "sugar rockets," which are supposed to lift off the ground but not explode.
"It is indisputable that the FBI testing of replicas of these PVC mixture pipes clearly illustrated that when ignited, they either burned, smoked or did nothing at all, which I think is completely relevant to my client's detention," Allen said Tuesday.
Megahed, 21, and Mohamed, 26, have been in jail since sheriff's deputies found what they called bomb-making materials in the trunk of their car during an Aug. 4 traffic stop near Charleston, S.C. They are charged with illegally transporting explosives.
Mohamed also faces a terrorism-related charge for allegedly making a video demonstrating how to convert a remote-control toy into a detonator for a bomb.
Allen said the two University of South Florida engineering students were on an innocent road trip to see beaches when they were stopped for speeding. Allen also contends that Megahed didn't know anything about the contents of the trunk or the video that investigators found stored on a laptop computer in the car.
Prosecutors have never presented any evidence that the students planned any wrongdoing, and Allen called the suggestion "absurd." Allen said the GPS unit in the car showed they were driving away from the Charleston Naval Weapons Station, which was about eight miles away from where they were stopped.
Hoffer said in his filing that the GPS data sheds no light on the defendants' intentions. He also said that early on the morning of their arrest, Megahed and Mohamed had attempted to buy "high-powered rifles" at a Wal-Mart.
Posted by Robert at February 7, 2008 10:53 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Elsewhere in wacademia, San Jose State Islamo-fascism apologist asks;
Who are the real terrorists?UMiss republishes this screed.
By: Liza Atamy
...I've read: "Islamic terrorists responsible for suicide bombing." Are you kidding me? Islamic terrorists? When, in its 1,400 years of existence, did Islam coincide with terrorism?... When active Muslims try to bring organization and unity to their neighborhoods, they [Muslims] too are "terrorized."
Meanwhile, nobody cares when Muslims attack the academic free expression of dhimmis;
UKentucky: Phelps apologizes for anti-Muslim e-mailPosted by: Terp Mole
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 7, 2008 11:41 AM
Happy naive kids? They look like these "happy naive kids"
http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/myspace_files/image002.jpg
at February 7, 2008 11:53 AM
Who's naive?
Posted by: Silly Allah at February 7, 2008 12:18 PM
I've heard enough. Deport them. Both.
Posted by: HotSpur at February 7, 2008 12:35 PM
The Yishmaelites are a subversive cancer in every society which is foolish enough to grant them legal status. How long will we, the people of dar al harb, tolerate the cowardice and corruption of our misrepresentatives who allow this Islamic cancer to grow in our midst?
Posted by: US_infidel at February 7, 2008 12:41 PM
US_infidel,
You (and many of us) have a chance to do something about the "cowardice and corruption of our misrepresentatives" this November. You can vote them out of office.
Posted by: PMK at February 7, 2008 1:02 PM
Just in time for Islam Awareness Month in Gainesville!
Islam Fair on Plaza kicks off awareness monthYou can't make this stuff up. Posted by: Terp Mole
"We just wanted to expose people to different Islamic cultures," said Derrick Peat, vice president of Islam On Campus. "We wanted to start off with a blast."
at February 7, 2008 1:09 PM
Terp Mole,
The link to the Saidian jihad apologist/tu quoque taqiyyalope/PC grievance monger is fascinating. Thanks.
Posted by: Beagle at February 7, 2008 1:20 PM
Incompetence would seem to be a poor defense. Who cares if the substance they transported will explode or only burn. Their intent is what is important. Long prison sentence followed by deportation if found guilty.
at February 7, 2008 1:25 PM
"It is indisputable that the FBI testing of replicas of these PVC mixture pipes clearly illustrated that when ignited, they either burned, smoked or did nothing at all, which I think is completely relevant to my client's detention," Allen said Tuesday.
-- from the article above
The defense lawyer is attempting to suggest that if someone is found with bomb-making equipment, or a rudimentary bomb, the fact that such an effort was not professional enough, that what was manufactured did not explode properly, this must mean not only that no harm was or could be done, but that no harm was intended.
But this is idiotic. That would allow all those who are busily constructing their own deadly weapons to be let off if, in fact, those weapons were simply ill-constructed.
As for intent, how can anyone argue with a straight face that the video about Jihad, and giving information about how to use a remote-control device to set off explsoives, would not have been known about by its possessors? What conceivable argument can be given to convince anyone of that?
Allen, the defense lawyer, says:
"It is indisputable that the FBI testing of replicas of these PVC mixture pipes clearly illustrated that when ignited, they either burned, smoked or did nothing at all, which I think is completely relevant to my client's detention," Allen said Tuesday.
The simple addition of a two-letter privative to one word, and the simple replacement of an initial two letters to another word, would make this sentence accurate.
Here is how to do it:
Errata Sheet
For "It is indisputable that the FBI testing of replicas of these PVC mixture pipes clearly illustrated that when ignited, they either burned, smoked or did nothing at all, which I think is completely relevant to my client's detention"
Read "It is indisputable that the FBI testing of replicas of these PVC mixture pipes clearly illustrated that when ignited, they either burned, smoked or did nothing at all, which I think is completely irrelevant to my client's intention"
There.
That should do it.
Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2008 1:35 PM
See the jihadis smiling? They have nothing to worry about. Florida jurors will set them loose in no time. This is what Florida cowards do, whether in Tampa or Miami.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at February 7, 2008 3:14 PM
If jihadis are to be judged based on how skilled they are at killing infidels, then we had better set Richard Reid free too. He couldn't even light the fuse of the bomb that was hidden in his shoe.
And the Oklahoma bomber would have been legally "innocent" too by this standard. And who could forget the bomber who fell down the stairs. Not guilty, your honor.
Jihadis in general are incompetent and mentally deranged (by Western standards). Their best hope is to come up with a "incompetency" defense, to add to the "mental illness" defense.
Posted by: special_guest at February 7, 2008 5:19 PM
As for intent, how can anyone argue with a straight face that the video about Jihad, and giving information about how to use a remote-control device to set off explsoives, would not have been known about by its possessors? What conceivable argument can be given to convince anyone of that?
by Hugh
You used the plural - possessors. If Mohammed was the one who created all of this stuff and it was his car and none of the items were stolen then Megahed's lawyer could make several very simple arguments:
1. It's not mine. Somebody else put it there.
2. It's not my car. I don't check someone's trunk before I get in their car.
3. It's not my computer. I had no way to know what he had on his hard drive.
They might not be enough to get him off but stranger things have happened. Even Mohammed could use the "plant" argument. It's been done before.
Posted by: PMK at February 7, 2008 6:37 PM
"This is what Florida cowards do, whether in Tampa or Miami."
What brave state do you hail from, Enraged?
at February 7, 2008 8:27 PM
I wish their defense lawyer would say:
If they're freed, they'll learn how to make the bombs better next time, your honor. I promise.
Since that's the truth of this case, and it would be perjury for the lawyer to knowingly say otherwise.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 7, 2008 8:39 PM
Aren't these two the same ones that were tape recorded talking about the explosives when they were put into the police car?
Posted by: Borg at February 7, 2008 10:23 PM
Engineering students? At a university? And the lawyer reckons their bomb wouldn't go off, or their rocket wouldn't fly? What sort of grades were they getting - straight Ds? But as Hugh points out, whether they would have achieved anything or not, the jihad video says something pretty damning about their aims.
In any case, M & M may only have been at the very beginnings of their little freelance paramilitary research project. Maybe they were heading off to somewhere they'd identified as a possible firing range, and their cargo was the tentative prototype. Had they not been caught, who knows what they might have cooked up, after a few months' experimentation, test firings, and fine-tuning?
The defence is trying to present them as ineffectual amateurs. But even amateurs can get it right if they keep trying. Watch the film 'October Sky' or read the nonfiction book it was based on, 'Rocket Boys'. in 1950s America, in a hardscrabble mining town, a bunch of bright high-schoolers with a little help were able to produce some pretty good rockets. Sugar was one of the things they used to make their solid fuel, which they called 'rocket candy'.
From the article: 'Megahed's co-defendant, Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, has said he was building "sugar rockets," which are supposed to lift off the ground but not explode.'
Yeah, OK, maybe not bombs, as such. That doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to hurt or frighten people. Rockets go up, yes, but eventually they come down. You can start a forest fire with a rocket. You wouldn't want one of these rockets, supposing it lifted off, coming down in your yard all of a sudden while you're hanging out the washing. You don't want it landing in a schoolyard full of little kids.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 8, 2008 6:11 AM
Abscedere,
There no brave states left in this country. I am from the formerly great state of Washington, home of the late great Henry "Scoop" Jackson rejected by the Democrat Primary voters back in 1976 in favor of Carter. We have never recovered from that horrible blunder. I at least expected the opportunity to vote for another great American, Rudy Giuliani, the only one capable of saving this country just as he saved New York City. It was not to be. After Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida voters had spoken, my choices are the crazy John McCain, Hillary Clinton and The Obamus, bad, worse and worst, and at this point it is hard to tell which is which. There is something wrong with the primary election system. The Iowa Cornheads and the New Hampshire Graniteheads get a full plate of choices, and we here get their leftovers.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at February 8, 2008 5:06 PM
...I agree...deport them now...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 9, 2008 11:37 AM
(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.)