*** Just because Fahim & others could not possibly have successfully stormed parliament, lopped off Mr. Harper's head & declare a fantasy Islamic State from the Speaker's Chair - he & his bomb-plot partner, Zakaria WANTED so many people to die (Islamic quote: "Actions are by their intentions") and that is what they should be measured against.
They would have been overjoyed at the prospect of shards of glass flying through the air and cutting down the innocent - at the idea of blood and panic everywhere - at the subsequent harm and damage that would have come to Canada and Canadians - and for that reason alone, they deserve far worse than they will get. MS ***
FROM: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/18/final-toronto-18-case-in-hands-of-jury/
Whether the “Toronto 18” would have followed through on their chilling mandate to execute the most devastating act of terrorism ever to occur on Canadian soil — or whether they were simply a ragtag bunch of amateurs enthralled by a big talker, Fahim Ahmad, and a charismatic radical, Zakaria Amara — is a question that will forever hang in the balance as the lengthy case draws to a close.
Certainly, their plot was sufficiently alarming to warrant the country’s largest terrorism prosecution to date, a complex, multi-million-dollar, four-year saga that laid bare the group’s desire to realize what one expert describes as “Canada’s 9/11”: a series of explosions to demolish entire city blocks in the heart of downtown Toronto, and leave a nation shell-shocked.
On Friday, as the jury trying the two remaining suspects retired to decide their fate, star Crown witness Mubin Shaikh was watching, and waiting. For years, he infiltrated the terror cell from the inside and then spent countless hours on the stand, pulling the events apart thread by thread, in a process as cumulatively shocking as it was tedious.
On Saturday, as Mr. Shaikh considers penning a book on the saga and completes a degree in policing intelligence and counterterrorism, he dismissed as “laughable” the idea that the Toronto 18 could have carried out their ambitious plot, which included beheading the Prime Minister and broadcasting victory over public radio.
“Given the lack of know-how, the lack of weapons, the lack of preparation, training, all that stuff, it is not possible that this group could have successfully stormed Parliament and lopped off the Prime Minister’s head,” Mr. Shaikh suggested, speaking inside the Brampton courthouse where Asad Ansari, alleged to be a minor player in the group, and Steven Chand, who faces charges of participating in the terror cell and counselling fraud for its benefit, awaited their final verdict.
“Fahim was a big talker more than he was a doer. That is the reality,” Mr. Shaikh said.
Wesley Wark, a security specialist at the University of Toronto, begs to differ: “The ringleaders were capable and serious and that is all that mattered. Homegrown terrorism is amateur by definition; this does not lessen the threat.” (MS: Which is actually exactly what I said but you know reporters...)
Indeed, Ahmad has been linked to a network of terrorists overseas, including Britain’s Aabid Khan, an avid al-Qaeda supporter who recruited young Muslims and arranged their passage to Pakistan for terrorist training. Ahmad and Khan reportedly met in an online chat room, where they discussed getting paramilitary training for a growing number of recruits through Lashkar-e- Taiba, the group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Yet plans fell through, and Ahmad ultimately joined forces with Amara to begin molding a homegrown terror cell.
CSIS and the RCMP took the threat seriously. Gilles Michaud, the RCMP’s assistant commissioner and head of national security criminal investigations, says at the case’s peak, more than 200 people were assigned to the Toronto 18 probe, with funding and manpower pulled from other units.
Mr. Michaud sees the case as a game-changer, one that demonstrated the legitimate threat of terrorism on Canadian soil. It is not an entreaty for the public to be fearful, he says, but rather to be vigilant.
“It happens in Canada. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and think that there’s no threat in Canada,” Mr. Michaud said.
“We cannot also bury our heads in the sand and say, ‘Well, if there is one, the police and the service will get them.’ To think that way would be careless.”
Though the Toronto 18 moniker has stuck, the group could more accurately be described as the Toronto 11, since charges against seven of the accused were dropped early in the process.
Gavin Cameron, an expert on terrorism and security issues at the University of Calgary, says the group was comprised of “concentric rings” of members, the outer of which were only peripherally involved. He calls the initial 2006 sweep an exercise of due caution.
“It’s not something that is terribly comfortable in terms of what it says about individual liberties, but this is a situation where you really don’t want to have people wandering around who you think may be involved in terrorist activities,” Mr. Cameron said.
As the layers have been peeled back in the courtroom, the public has gained glimpses of a horrific plot fuelled by a group of primarily immature extremists who pulled pranks on one another, sniffed cocaine and smoked pot, and argued with girlfriends in the midst of a terrorist training camp in the dead of winter in Washago, where they simulated combat with paintball guns and staged phony videos of shooting a rifle.
It was in the confines of that camp that Ahmad delivered his now infamous “fall of Rome” speech, in which he called for the defeat of the western world. He began the speech by joking about how hungry he was after two weeks of camping, and how “weird” it would be to shower at home.
“The impression that one occasionally had as the evidence came out was that this actually wasn’t a terribly serious group,” Mr. Cameron noted.
As months passed, however, the plot appeared to pick up steam. The group splintered into two factions, one focused on storming Parliament, the other fixated on bombing Toronto. Amara built a test detonator, a prototype for truck bombs that would target the Toronto Stock Exchange, a CSIS site on Front Street and a military base.
The group also ordered several tonnes of ammonium nitrate through undercover police agent Shaher Elsohemy, and on the date of delivery, as Saad Khalid and Saad Gaya unloaded what they believed was the chemical from a delivery truck, police swept in.
It is difficult to assess what may have happened without police intervention, which curtailed planning at an early stage, Mr. Cameron said, noting the group’s aspirations may have exceeded their abilities.
“If the full attack had gone exactly as intended, I think you would be looking at Canada’s 9/11,” he said. “But whether this was a group that was capable of operationalizing the attack on the scale and with the sophistication that they aspired to do is a completely different question.”
Showing posts with label Toronto 18 frame up. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toronto 18 frame up. Show all posts
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
IMAGE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM IS IMPORTANT - TORONTO 18 CASE
*** From May 2009 but still very timely and relevant. MS ***
FROM: http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2009/may-2009/appearance-is-key-in-tackling-terrorism/
The conclusion of the trial of the three men accused of being co-conspirators of the 7/7 bombers means it is unlikely anyone is going to be convicted for that terrible crime.
Furthermore, the conclusion of the trial and a number of other recent events and trials in British counterterrorism all suggest one of two things: either the British government is chasing the wrong people, or the British legal system is unfit for purpose in effectively countering the terrorism the government thinks it is fighting.
This trial – part of the investigation, known as Operation Theseus, into the bomb attacks in London on 7 July 2005 – was the second against the group. The first ended in August when a jury was unable to reach a conclusion and were dismissed. Less than a month later there was the incomplete conclusion to the trial against a group accused of plotting to blow up a series of transatlantic airliners in August 2006 – seven of the men are now facing a re-trial. Then in December, a jury found only Dr Bilal Abdullah guilty of plotting with his now-deceased co-conspirator Dr Kafeel Ahmed for their part in a series of attempted car bombings in central London and at Glasgow international airport. His co-defendant, Dr Mohammed Asha, was cleared of any involvement, but is now facing deportation on visa issues.
And finally, last month, in a dramatic series of raids, police arrested a group of 12 mostly Pakistani students accusing them of being involved in a major "terrorist plot". The evidence, it turned out, was not there, and now nine of the men are facing deportation on visa issues.
For those of a conspiratorial bent, this will all provide much sustenance to the belief that much of this so-called terrorism is in fact alarmism targeting innocent Muslims. The reality, however, is that aside from the Pakistani students, in each case a jury found some elements of the plots credible and the men guilty. The problem, however, lies more in the presentational aspect of how these are played out in the arena of public debate – the only one that really matters when fighting an ideology as well as individual terrorist cells.
The presentational issue is that in all of the cases, the security services and government quite loudly proclaimed at various points that major terrorist rings had been broken up and arrested. However, when it came to trial, the evidence was found to be wanting and in some instances, after the individuals had been deemed innocent of terrorism charges, they were instead handed over to the borders and immigration agency. It does not really matter how valid their visa infringements might be, the appearance is that a vindictive and bitter state is pursuing these cleared individuals on any possible charge. Even in the cases of the re-trials, the fact that individuals were in the end completely exonerated of the charges against them does little to strengthen the government's hand.
The issues raised are multifarious: on the one hand, many of the initial indicators that a plot may be afoot come from the murky world of intelligence collection where information is never conclusive. Secondly, the current policy to not use intercept evidence in court, and the fact that often we are told to take at face value anonymous statements from intelligence agencies or sources that cannot be revealed further confuses matters. However, given the stakes – possible suicide attackers bent on killing as many innocent civilians as they can – the inclination is to err on the side of caution. But cases have occurred where police forces have gone in and not found enough incriminating evidence, leading to major public relations disasters.
The question is whether a better approach might be found, one that focuses on earlier disruption. The problem is that making the decision on what is acceptably dangerous or not is a very hard call to make. The UK has faced heavy criticism in the past where the balance was incorrect and this could easily take place again, but at the same time, the current efforts appear to be spending a lot of money with confused results. Continuing forwards in this mixed fashion is likely to produce mixed results at best.
The UK continues to face a long-term threat from violent terrorism. The question must increasingly be asked about whether we are actually pursuing the strategy to counter this in a coherent way. Given the fight is ultimately one that will take a long time to conclude and will involve persuading a section of society that its government is not at war with it, the fewer blunders that are made along the way that seem to support this narrative, the better.
FROM: http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2009/may-2009/appearance-is-key-in-tackling-terrorism/
The conclusion of the trial of the three men accused of being co-conspirators of the 7/7 bombers means it is unlikely anyone is going to be convicted for that terrible crime.
Furthermore, the conclusion of the trial and a number of other recent events and trials in British counterterrorism all suggest one of two things: either the British government is chasing the wrong people, or the British legal system is unfit for purpose in effectively countering the terrorism the government thinks it is fighting.
This trial – part of the investigation, known as Operation Theseus, into the bomb attacks in London on 7 July 2005 – was the second against the group. The first ended in August when a jury was unable to reach a conclusion and were dismissed. Less than a month later there was the incomplete conclusion to the trial against a group accused of plotting to blow up a series of transatlantic airliners in August 2006 – seven of the men are now facing a re-trial. Then in December, a jury found only Dr Bilal Abdullah guilty of plotting with his now-deceased co-conspirator Dr Kafeel Ahmed for their part in a series of attempted car bombings in central London and at Glasgow international airport. His co-defendant, Dr Mohammed Asha, was cleared of any involvement, but is now facing deportation on visa issues.
And finally, last month, in a dramatic series of raids, police arrested a group of 12 mostly Pakistani students accusing them of being involved in a major "terrorist plot". The evidence, it turned out, was not there, and now nine of the men are facing deportation on visa issues.
For those of a conspiratorial bent, this will all provide much sustenance to the belief that much of this so-called terrorism is in fact alarmism targeting innocent Muslims. The reality, however, is that aside from the Pakistani students, in each case a jury found some elements of the plots credible and the men guilty. The problem, however, lies more in the presentational aspect of how these are played out in the arena of public debate – the only one that really matters when fighting an ideology as well as individual terrorist cells.
The presentational issue is that in all of the cases, the security services and government quite loudly proclaimed at various points that major terrorist rings had been broken up and arrested. However, when it came to trial, the evidence was found to be wanting and in some instances, after the individuals had been deemed innocent of terrorism charges, they were instead handed over to the borders and immigration agency. It does not really matter how valid their visa infringements might be, the appearance is that a vindictive and bitter state is pursuing these cleared individuals on any possible charge. Even in the cases of the re-trials, the fact that individuals were in the end completely exonerated of the charges against them does little to strengthen the government's hand.
The issues raised are multifarious: on the one hand, many of the initial indicators that a plot may be afoot come from the murky world of intelligence collection where information is never conclusive. Secondly, the current policy to not use intercept evidence in court, and the fact that often we are told to take at face value anonymous statements from intelligence agencies or sources that cannot be revealed further confuses matters. However, given the stakes – possible suicide attackers bent on killing as many innocent civilians as they can – the inclination is to err on the side of caution. But cases have occurred where police forces have gone in and not found enough incriminating evidence, leading to major public relations disasters.
The question is whether a better approach might be found, one that focuses on earlier disruption. The problem is that making the decision on what is acceptably dangerous or not is a very hard call to make. The UK has faced heavy criticism in the past where the balance was incorrect and this could easily take place again, but at the same time, the current efforts appear to be spending a lot of money with confused results. Continuing forwards in this mixed fashion is likely to produce mixed results at best.
The UK continues to face a long-term threat from violent terrorism. The question must increasingly be asked about whether we are actually pursuing the strategy to counter this in a coherent way. Given the fight is ultimately one that will take a long time to conclude and will involve persuading a section of society that its government is not at war with it, the fewer blunders that are made along the way that seem to support this narrative, the better.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
TORONTO 18 ENTRAPMENT ARGUMENT OUT THE WINDOW - AGAIN.
FROM: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5i_nM1GY1NWXggMbz7Z02_j1BmTyg
BRAMPTON, Ont. — There is "virtually no evidence" to support a Toronto 18 member's claim he was entrapped by police, a judge ruled Tuesday in dismissing what he called the confusing and illogical testimony of Shareef Abdelhaleem.
Abdelhaleem's erratic demeanour on the stand was highly unusual, the judge said, calling the now convicted terrorist the "antithesis" of a good witness.
"He often launched into lengthy, rambling answers and raised his voice in an apparent attempt to convince all those listening to his evidence of the sincerity of his position," the judge said.
"At other times he mumbled and his voice would trail off into the barely audible range as if he was consumed by his inner thoughts and did not wish to share them at the moment."
Abdelhaleem's ramblings were "almost impossible" to follow in court, the judge said. Even when he reviewed the transcripts later Abdelhaleem's testimony was difficult to decipher and was not "logically persuasive," the judge added.
Abdelhaleem, 34, was found guilty last month of participating in a terrorist group and intending to cause an explosion. No conviction was entered at the time because his defence brought a motion seeking a stay on the basis of entrapment.
The judge ruled that Abdelhaleem's evidence fell far short of the test for entrapment - that police created a crime that otherwise wouldn't have occurred or that they induced the commission of a crime. Abdelhaleem acted as a "co-ordinator" in a bomb plot that would have caused death and destruction "so substantial that it is difficult to comprehend," the judge said.
"Nothing occurred which would induce an average person in the position of the accused, with strengths and weaknesses, to commit a crime as serious as this one."
Abdelhaleem's lawyer, William Naylor, said outside court that he thought his client's bizarre, confusing and often heated testimony "certainly" affected the judge's decision. However, Naylor added he thought his client did well on the stand, given the circumstances.
"He was in jail for 3 1/2 years before he got to speak to anybody in the public... so you don't have a lot of the social graces after 3 1/2 years in administrative detention," he said.
"My client's an emotional type. He bursts out. He just displays his emotions on his sleeve."
The prosecution said the public should be "very happy at what happened today."
"We always knew if we were patient, if we pursued the case, that truth and justice at the end of the day would win out," said Crown attorney Croft Michaelson.
Naylor had argued his client was "dragged in" to the Toronto 18 bomb plot by a former friend seeking revenge through his work as a police agent. Shaher Elsohemy was the only witness in the first portion of the trial.
The judge found that despite a rocky friendship with tensions between their two families, nothing Elsohemy did directed Abdelhaleem - who the judge called "quite cunning and deceitful" - toward criminal activity.
Much has been made of the approximately $4-million package RCMP offered Elsohemy to work as an agent and put him and his family in the witness protection program, but the judge noted Elsohemy had already provided valuable information willingly before that money was discussed.
The Crown contended Abdelhaleem was a willing and active participant in the plot to detonate massive bombs at the Toronto offices of CSIS, the Toronto Stock Exchange and an Ontario military base.
Abdelhaleem and 17 others who would come to be known as the Toronto 18 were arrested in the summer of 2006 and charged with terrorism offences. Several people, including Abdelhaleem, were charged in a plot to bomb military, intelligence and financial targets.
Abdelhaleem maintained he was an "outsider" in the plot who was just delivering messages back and forth between ringleader Zakaria Amara and Elsohemy, but that he tried to stay involved so he could create opportunities for sabotage.
Amara was sentenced to life last month.
Abdelhaleem alternatively argued that he inserted himself into the plot as a middle man so his friend Elsohemy wouldn't be seen associating alone with Amara, who they knew was under surveillance. The judge dismissed both contentions, saying the latter "amounts to a loud protest without the force of any real logic."
"The accused's position that he was only involved for the purpose of protecting his friend Mr. Elsohemy is nonsensical in the context of all of the evidence," the judge said.
"The evidence contains many instances where the accused took the initiative to advance the bomb plot."
The case returns to court on Friday to set a date for sentencing submissions.
BRAMPTON, Ont. — There is "virtually no evidence" to support a Toronto 18 member's claim he was entrapped by police, a judge ruled Tuesday in dismissing what he called the confusing and illogical testimony of Shareef Abdelhaleem.
Abdelhaleem's erratic demeanour on the stand was highly unusual, the judge said, calling the now convicted terrorist the "antithesis" of a good witness.
"He often launched into lengthy, rambling answers and raised his voice in an apparent attempt to convince all those listening to his evidence of the sincerity of his position," the judge said.
"At other times he mumbled and his voice would trail off into the barely audible range as if he was consumed by his inner thoughts and did not wish to share them at the moment."
Abdelhaleem's ramblings were "almost impossible" to follow in court, the judge said. Even when he reviewed the transcripts later Abdelhaleem's testimony was difficult to decipher and was not "logically persuasive," the judge added.
Abdelhaleem, 34, was found guilty last month of participating in a terrorist group and intending to cause an explosion. No conviction was entered at the time because his defence brought a motion seeking a stay on the basis of entrapment.
The judge ruled that Abdelhaleem's evidence fell far short of the test for entrapment - that police created a crime that otherwise wouldn't have occurred or that they induced the commission of a crime. Abdelhaleem acted as a "co-ordinator" in a bomb plot that would have caused death and destruction "so substantial that it is difficult to comprehend," the judge said.
"Nothing occurred which would induce an average person in the position of the accused, with strengths and weaknesses, to commit a crime as serious as this one."
Abdelhaleem's lawyer, William Naylor, said outside court that he thought his client's bizarre, confusing and often heated testimony "certainly" affected the judge's decision. However, Naylor added he thought his client did well on the stand, given the circumstances.
"He was in jail for 3 1/2 years before he got to speak to anybody in the public... so you don't have a lot of the social graces after 3 1/2 years in administrative detention," he said.
"My client's an emotional type. He bursts out. He just displays his emotions on his sleeve."
The prosecution said the public should be "very happy at what happened today."
"We always knew if we were patient, if we pursued the case, that truth and justice at the end of the day would win out," said Crown attorney Croft Michaelson.
Naylor had argued his client was "dragged in" to the Toronto 18 bomb plot by a former friend seeking revenge through his work as a police agent. Shaher Elsohemy was the only witness in the first portion of the trial.
The judge found that despite a rocky friendship with tensions between their two families, nothing Elsohemy did directed Abdelhaleem - who the judge called "quite cunning and deceitful" - toward criminal activity.
Much has been made of the approximately $4-million package RCMP offered Elsohemy to work as an agent and put him and his family in the witness protection program, but the judge noted Elsohemy had already provided valuable information willingly before that money was discussed.
The Crown contended Abdelhaleem was a willing and active participant in the plot to detonate massive bombs at the Toronto offices of CSIS, the Toronto Stock Exchange and an Ontario military base.
Abdelhaleem and 17 others who would come to be known as the Toronto 18 were arrested in the summer of 2006 and charged with terrorism offences. Several people, including Abdelhaleem, were charged in a plot to bomb military, intelligence and financial targets.
Abdelhaleem maintained he was an "outsider" in the plot who was just delivering messages back and forth between ringleader Zakaria Amara and Elsohemy, but that he tried to stay involved so he could create opportunities for sabotage.
Amara was sentenced to life last month.
Abdelhaleem alternatively argued that he inserted himself into the plot as a middle man so his friend Elsohemy wouldn't be seen associating alone with Amara, who they knew was under surveillance. The judge dismissed both contentions, saying the latter "amounts to a loud protest without the force of any real logic."
"The accused's position that he was only involved for the purpose of protecting his friend Mr. Elsohemy is nonsensical in the context of all of the evidence," the judge said.
"The evidence contains many instances where the accused took the initiative to advance the bomb plot."
The case returns to court on Friday to set a date for sentencing submissions.
Monday, February 1, 2010
TORONTO 18 ENTRAPMENT HEARING (RE: AGENT # 2) ENDS
FROM: http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Toronto+plotter+addresses+court+entrapment+hearing+ends/2510137/story.html
In a "controlled experiment," a Superior Court judge Monday granted bomb plotter Shareef Abdelhaleem permission to personally address the court on the last day of his entrapment hearing.
Abdelhaleem, a member of the so-called Toronto 18 terrorist group, had already testified on his own behalf, but suggested he could deliver final arguments more effectively than his lawyer because he knew the "nuances of the data."
Both the judge and defence agreed it was a "bad idea," but ultimately allowed Abdelhaleem to press forward.
During a passionate address lasting the better part of an hour, Abdelhaleem argued his role as a middleman in the bomb plot was manufactured by RCMP agent Shaher Elsohemy, whose testimony made up the bulk of the Crown's case.
"The agent created that role. It didn't exist before," Abdelhaleem said.
His argument, wide-ranging and difficult to follow at times even for the judge — who repeatedly asked for clarifications — centered on a pair of meetings between Abdelhaleem and Elsohemy in the spring of 2006, weeks before authorities swooped in to foil the bomb plot.
During the first meeting in April, before Abdelhaleem had committed to join the terrorist group, Elsohemy "induced" him to attend a separate meeting with plot leader Zakaria Amara, Abdelhaleem suggested.
"He came to me and he said please be there so that I will not be photographed with Amara," Abdelhaleem said, noting he became a "sacrificial lamb" by agreeing to act as a go-between for Amara and Elsohemy. The goal, he said, was to protect the identity of Elsohemy, who had a young family.
Prior to that date, the court has heard, Abdelhaleem opposed the bomb plot, believing it to be Islamically unsound.
Before another scheduled meeting with Amara in May, Abdelhaleem said he urged Elsohemy not to attend because of the aforementioned concerns for his friend's safety.
"We fought for an hour," Abdelhaleem said, noting this refuted the Crown's theory that he was a "willing collaborator and trusted confidante" in the bomb plot. Rather, he emphasized, he was drawn in as a middleman through his association with Elsohemy.
"I couldn't have been in the middle for my sake. That doesn't make logical sense," a seemingly agitated Abdelhaleem told the court.
Abdelhaleem also attacked the Crown's theory that he was a key player in the bomb plot because he initiated orders for explosive chemicals through Elsohemy, who was posing as a source for such materials.
Abdelhaleem argues he was simply conveying messages from Amara.
In various police intercepts of conversations, however, Elsohemy is heard asking Abdelhaleem questions to the effect of: "How much ammonium nitrate do you want?"
Abdelhaleem said he believed it was understood that "you" referred to Amara. In retrospect, he says, it was a clear attempt by Elsohemy — who was wearing a wire — to implicate Abdelhaleem as a leader.
"It was one of his tricks to try to implicate me," said Abdelhaleem, who has testified Elsohemy harboured a grudge for a past fight between their families. "It was so obvious."
The Toronto 18 terrorism plot involved detonating powerful truck bombs at the Toronto Stock Exchange, the CSIS regional office in Toronto and a military base between Toronto and Ottawa. The scheme was foiled in June 2006 after an extensive police investigation.
In a "controlled experiment," a Superior Court judge Monday granted bomb plotter Shareef Abdelhaleem permission to personally address the court on the last day of his entrapment hearing.
Abdelhaleem, a member of the so-called Toronto 18 terrorist group, had already testified on his own behalf, but suggested he could deliver final arguments more effectively than his lawyer because he knew the "nuances of the data."
Both the judge and defence agreed it was a "bad idea," but ultimately allowed Abdelhaleem to press forward.
During a passionate address lasting the better part of an hour, Abdelhaleem argued his role as a middleman in the bomb plot was manufactured by RCMP agent Shaher Elsohemy, whose testimony made up the bulk of the Crown's case.
"The agent created that role. It didn't exist before," Abdelhaleem said.
His argument, wide-ranging and difficult to follow at times even for the judge — who repeatedly asked for clarifications — centered on a pair of meetings between Abdelhaleem and Elsohemy in the spring of 2006, weeks before authorities swooped in to foil the bomb plot.
During the first meeting in April, before Abdelhaleem had committed to join the terrorist group, Elsohemy "induced" him to attend a separate meeting with plot leader Zakaria Amara, Abdelhaleem suggested.
"He came to me and he said please be there so that I will not be photographed with Amara," Abdelhaleem said, noting he became a "sacrificial lamb" by agreeing to act as a go-between for Amara and Elsohemy. The goal, he said, was to protect the identity of Elsohemy, who had a young family.
Prior to that date, the court has heard, Abdelhaleem opposed the bomb plot, believing it to be Islamically unsound.
Before another scheduled meeting with Amara in May, Abdelhaleem said he urged Elsohemy not to attend because of the aforementioned concerns for his friend's safety.
"We fought for an hour," Abdelhaleem said, noting this refuted the Crown's theory that he was a "willing collaborator and trusted confidante" in the bomb plot. Rather, he emphasized, he was drawn in as a middleman through his association with Elsohemy.
"I couldn't have been in the middle for my sake. That doesn't make logical sense," a seemingly agitated Abdelhaleem told the court.
Abdelhaleem also attacked the Crown's theory that he was a key player in the bomb plot because he initiated orders for explosive chemicals through Elsohemy, who was posing as a source for such materials.
Abdelhaleem argues he was simply conveying messages from Amara.
In various police intercepts of conversations, however, Elsohemy is heard asking Abdelhaleem questions to the effect of: "How much ammonium nitrate do you want?"
Abdelhaleem said he believed it was understood that "you" referred to Amara. In retrospect, he says, it was a clear attempt by Elsohemy — who was wearing a wire — to implicate Abdelhaleem as a leader.
"It was one of his tricks to try to implicate me," said Abdelhaleem, who has testified Elsohemy harboured a grudge for a past fight between their families. "It was so obvious."
The Toronto 18 terrorism plot involved detonating powerful truck bombs at the Toronto Stock Exchange, the CSIS regional office in Toronto and a military base between Toronto and Ottawa. The scheme was foiled in June 2006 after an extensive police investigation.
Friday, December 25, 2009
SAAD GAYA ASKS FOR LENIENCY
*** Saad Gaya received 12 years with 7 1/2 years credit for pre-trial custody leaving him with 4 1/2 years. MS ***
Former Mac student accused in terror trial apologizes, asks for leniency
December 23, 2009
Isabel Teotonio
Toronto Star
BRAMPTON, Ont. — An Oakville man who confessed to being part of a homegrown terror cell that was plotting to blow up truck bombs in Toronto apologized to a Brampton court on Wednesday for his “shameful crime.”
Addressing the court at the end of his sentencing hearing, Saad Gaya said he was “extremely grateful” the scheme “did not progress any further” and asked for leniency.
“Some people believe that I must have been driven by a dark ideology of hatred, nihilism and destruction,” said the member of the so-called Toronto 18, requesting people not brand him a “terrorist.”
He said he was “politically naive” and believed the group’s actions would result in Canada withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
Gaya, 22, said he didn’t know the intended targets were the Toronto Stock Exchange and the downtown offices of Canada’s spy agency.
He said he initially thought a police station was the target, but was later told it was a military base around the Greater Toronto Area, adding he believed no one would be hurt.
Gaya is among 18 people charged in 2006. He was arrested while unloading a delivery truck filled with three tonnes of bags marked ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
The plot involved using three times more ammonium nitrate than was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people.
Gaya has pleaded guilty to belonging to a terrorist group and intending to cause an explosion that would likely cause serious bodily harm.
The Crown is seeking a sentence of up to 18 years. The prosecution has argued Gaya was a willing participant and should have known a plot involving three tonnes of explosives would have caused serious harm or death — and if not, he was willfully blind.
But the defence argued Gaya was duped and didn’t know the plan was to unleash a series of explosives deadlier than the London subway bombings of 2005.
If the judge rules there was intent to kill, the defence suggested a sentence in the range of 9 to 15 years. If there was no intent, an appropriate sentence would be five to eight years, says the defence.
According to a psychiatric report by Drs. Steven Cohen and Lisa Ramshaw, Gaya’s motivation for joining the group “did not flow from antisociality, impulsivity or psychopathy.
It stemmed from “his religious beliefs, his sympathy toward the suffering ”limbs“ of the Muslim nation and in his perceived sense of duty to stand up to the Canadian government toward change in foreign policy.”
While there is no evidence the former McMaster University science student poses a significant risk to himself or others in the short-term, the doctors noted that based on his past behaviour “risk over the long-term period cannot ruled out.”
*** Did not know whether it was a police station or military base but thinks no one would have been killed? And this is the same guy who got 90's in class then a scholarship to MacMaster in Engineering and yet, did not think anyone would die in a 1-ton bomb explosion. Riiiiiight. ***
Try this version from the Toronto Sun:
Terrorist pleads for leniency
'Irrational decision' to aid T.O. plot
By IAN ROBERTSON, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: 24th December 2009, 3:43am
BRAMPTON -- A "Toronto 18" recruit in a terror plot labelled the Battle of Toronto -- a plan to bomb the CSIS building, the Toronto Stock Exchange and a military base -- apologized yesterday for betraying his fellow Canadians.
Appealing for leniency at a pre-sentencing hearing, Saad Gaya, 22, said: "What I was a part of was absolutely wrong.
"Not only have I let myself down, but I have also let down everyone whom I have ever been associated," the slender science student who was raised in Oakville and Toronto read in a clear, steady voice.
Apologizing "for my irrational decision," he told Mr. Justice Bruce Durno: "I should have realized I was playing with fire.
"I was young and politically naive."
Insisting he was not raised in a "hate-filled environment" or brainwashed, Gaya said: "This is not why my parents sacrificed and worked so hard for and this is not what my teachers and professors dedicated their time for."
Arrested in June 2006 after helping unload two tonnes of fertilizer bought for use as explosives, Gaya pleaded guilty in September to intending to cause an explosion to benefit a terrorist group.
PULL TROOPS
Prosecutors have quoted al-Qaida-inspired organizer Zakaria Amara telling recruits bombings would influence Canada to pull troops from Afghanistan.
During final submissions, prosecutor Croft Michaelson said Gaya was "perhaps a naive man perhaps upset by events overseas," who showed "a willingness to participate in urban terrorism.
"He was prepared to wage war on the country of his birth," the Crown attorney said.
Quoting from an interrogation transcript, Michaelson said Gaya told a detective Amara promised he would become "a hero, like in the eyes of God," that preparing bombs was "our duty."
Lawyer Paul Slansky said his client would have quit if he thought people would die.
SUICIDE BOMBERS
Amara, 24, who pleaded guilty in October to knowingly participating in a terrorist group, plus intending to cause an explosion to benefit a terrorist group, intended to turn his team into truck-driving suicide bombers.
Two psychiatrists warned that Gaya -- whose parents and about 40 men and women sat silently throughout the proceedings -- might participate in future extremist violence, Michaelson said.
"He was motivated by his religious beliefs and his sympathy over the suffering limbs of the Muslim nation," he said, quoting the psychiatrists.
"That's the definition of an extremist," Michaelson said, asking Durno for a 17-year sentence.
Saudi-born Saad Khalid, 23, of Erin Mills, who was also arrested after unloading the fertilizer, was previously sentenced to 14 years.
Slansky argued Gaya should get a lower term since his involvement was less.
Gaya will be sentenced Jan. 18 -- the same day as Amara.
Others, whose names cannot be published yet, await trial.
IAN.ROBERTSON@SUNMEDIA.CA
Former Mac student accused in terror trial apologizes, asks for leniency
December 23, 2009
Isabel Teotonio
Toronto Star
BRAMPTON, Ont. — An Oakville man who confessed to being part of a homegrown terror cell that was plotting to blow up truck bombs in Toronto apologized to a Brampton court on Wednesday for his “shameful crime.”
Addressing the court at the end of his sentencing hearing, Saad Gaya said he was “extremely grateful” the scheme “did not progress any further” and asked for leniency.
“Some people believe that I must have been driven by a dark ideology of hatred, nihilism and destruction,” said the member of the so-called Toronto 18, requesting people not brand him a “terrorist.”
He said he was “politically naive” and believed the group’s actions would result in Canada withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
Gaya, 22, said he didn’t know the intended targets were the Toronto Stock Exchange and the downtown offices of Canada’s spy agency.
He said he initially thought a police station was the target, but was later told it was a military base around the Greater Toronto Area, adding he believed no one would be hurt.
Gaya is among 18 people charged in 2006. He was arrested while unloading a delivery truck filled with three tonnes of bags marked ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
The plot involved using three times more ammonium nitrate than was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people.
Gaya has pleaded guilty to belonging to a terrorist group and intending to cause an explosion that would likely cause serious bodily harm.
The Crown is seeking a sentence of up to 18 years. The prosecution has argued Gaya was a willing participant and should have known a plot involving three tonnes of explosives would have caused serious harm or death — and if not, he was willfully blind.
But the defence argued Gaya was duped and didn’t know the plan was to unleash a series of explosives deadlier than the London subway bombings of 2005.
If the judge rules there was intent to kill, the defence suggested a sentence in the range of 9 to 15 years. If there was no intent, an appropriate sentence would be five to eight years, says the defence.
According to a psychiatric report by Drs. Steven Cohen and Lisa Ramshaw, Gaya’s motivation for joining the group “did not flow from antisociality, impulsivity or psychopathy.
It stemmed from “his religious beliefs, his sympathy toward the suffering ”limbs“ of the Muslim nation and in his perceived sense of duty to stand up to the Canadian government toward change in foreign policy.”
While there is no evidence the former McMaster University science student poses a significant risk to himself or others in the short-term, the doctors noted that based on his past behaviour “risk over the long-term period cannot ruled out.”
*** Did not know whether it was a police station or military base but thinks no one would have been killed? And this is the same guy who got 90's in class then a scholarship to MacMaster in Engineering and yet, did not think anyone would die in a 1-ton bomb explosion. Riiiiiight. ***
Try this version from the Toronto Sun:
Terrorist pleads for leniency
'Irrational decision' to aid T.O. plot
By IAN ROBERTSON, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: 24th December 2009, 3:43am
BRAMPTON -- A "Toronto 18" recruit in a terror plot labelled the Battle of Toronto -- a plan to bomb the CSIS building, the Toronto Stock Exchange and a military base -- apologized yesterday for betraying his fellow Canadians.
Appealing for leniency at a pre-sentencing hearing, Saad Gaya, 22, said: "What I was a part of was absolutely wrong.
"Not only have I let myself down, but I have also let down everyone whom I have ever been associated," the slender science student who was raised in Oakville and Toronto read in a clear, steady voice.
Apologizing "for my irrational decision," he told Mr. Justice Bruce Durno: "I should have realized I was playing with fire.
"I was young and politically naive."
Insisting he was not raised in a "hate-filled environment" or brainwashed, Gaya said: "This is not why my parents sacrificed and worked so hard for and this is not what my teachers and professors dedicated their time for."
Arrested in June 2006 after helping unload two tonnes of fertilizer bought for use as explosives, Gaya pleaded guilty in September to intending to cause an explosion to benefit a terrorist group.
PULL TROOPS
Prosecutors have quoted al-Qaida-inspired organizer Zakaria Amara telling recruits bombings would influence Canada to pull troops from Afghanistan.
During final submissions, prosecutor Croft Michaelson said Gaya was "perhaps a naive man perhaps upset by events overseas," who showed "a willingness to participate in urban terrorism.
"He was prepared to wage war on the country of his birth," the Crown attorney said.
Quoting from an interrogation transcript, Michaelson said Gaya told a detective Amara promised he would become "a hero, like in the eyes of God," that preparing bombs was "our duty."
Lawyer Paul Slansky said his client would have quit if he thought people would die.
SUICIDE BOMBERS
Amara, 24, who pleaded guilty in October to knowingly participating in a terrorist group, plus intending to cause an explosion to benefit a terrorist group, intended to turn his team into truck-driving suicide bombers.
Two psychiatrists warned that Gaya -- whose parents and about 40 men and women sat silently throughout the proceedings -- might participate in future extremist violence, Michaelson said.
"He was motivated by his religious beliefs and his sympathy over the suffering limbs of the Muslim nation," he said, quoting the psychiatrists.
"That's the definition of an extremist," Michaelson said, asking Durno for a 17-year sentence.
Saudi-born Saad Khalid, 23, of Erin Mills, who was also arrested after unloading the fertilizer, was previously sentenced to 14 years.
Slansky argued Gaya should get a lower term since his involvement was less.
Gaya will be sentenced Jan. 18 -- the same day as Amara.
Others, whose names cannot be published yet, await trial.
IAN.ROBERTSON@SUNMEDIA.CA
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
NO ENTRAPMENT IN TORONTO 18 CASE
*** Posted as an FYI since some people still don't get it. To be fair, this only applies to the youth proceedings but the message applies broadly to the remaining accused also. MS ***
http://www.thestar.com/article/607827 (Published On Wed Mar 25 2009)
No entrapment, judge rules in terrorism case
Police mole vindicated as court clears actions with accused youth
After years of "trash talk" and criticism for infiltrating an alleged homegrown terror cell, police mole Mubin Shaikh said he felt vindicated after a judge yesterday ruled that he acted appropriately and did not entrap one of the accused youths.
"My life has revolved around this point of entrapment and a lot of people have come out to say a lot of bad things about me," said Shaikh, referring to comments that have surfaced online in the Muslim community and within mosques.
"I knew right from the beginning that I was doing the right thing. ... I didn't put my neck out for the community to trash me," Shaikh said outside the courthouse, adding he "put up with a lot of trash talk."
The 33-year-old man said he was pleased the judge noted in his ruling that he believed Shaikh was motivated by his "moral and religious convictions."
When delivering his decision in a Brampton court, Superior Court Justice John Sproat did not read his 53-page ruling, but did state, "There has not been any entrapment and there has not been any abuse of process."
Shaikh's status at a terrorist training camp in December 2005 came under unusual scrutiny, given the unprecedented nature of this landmark case involving 14 men and four youths. The suspects, known as the Toronto 18, were charged in 2006 with belonging to a cell plotting to detonate truck bombs.
To date, four adults and three youths have had their charges stayed. The remaining youth, who is now 21, was found guilty of terrorism-related offences in September, but his lawyers brought forth a motion alleging he was lured into the group by Shaikh and should have the charge stayed.
In his ruling, Sproat said the winter camp had already been planned before Shaikh infiltrated the group and that the youth was invited by the alleged ringleaders.
"The camp would have been much the same had Shaikh not attended," wrote Sproat. "The information and indoctrination presented to (the accused) was not influenced or affected by any state action."
Sproat also noted Shaikh had limited contact with the teen after the camp, which was when his involvement intensified by shoplifting for the group and attending a second camp.
Defence counsel Mitchell Chernovsky and Faisal Mirza had argued that by taking on the role of a trainer, encouraging their client to perform better and training him in the use of a firearm, Shaikh was teaching the teen how to be a criminal.
They portrayed their client at the time as an impressionable 17-year-old convert to Islam desperate for acceptance and religious guidance.
But Sproat ruled the teen's age was "not much of an impediment to understanding the simple truth that a handgun was being fired, military-style exercises were being conducted and (the alleged ringleader) was exhorting the attendees to kick off a battle in which they would kill and perhaps be killed."
Crown prosecutors John Neander and Marco Mendicino argued that at the time of the camp, Shaikh was working as a confidential informer for the RCMP and only became an agent in February 2006.
They also portrayed Shaikh as someone who tried to moderate the tone of the camp and encouraged the teen to seek appropriate religious guidance.
Lawyers are due to return to court on April 7 to argue whether the teen should be sentenced as an adult or youth. If sentenced as an adult, he could face up to 10 years in prison.
Ten adults have yet to stand trial and Shaikh is expected to be the Crown's main witness.
*** The youth was sentenced to basically, time served and was released thereafter. SIX await trial now (four plead guilty). MS ***
http://www.thestar.com/article/607827 (Published On Wed Mar 25 2009)
No entrapment, judge rules in terrorism case
Police mole vindicated as court clears actions with accused youth
After years of "trash talk" and criticism for infiltrating an alleged homegrown terror cell, police mole Mubin Shaikh said he felt vindicated after a judge yesterday ruled that he acted appropriately and did not entrap one of the accused youths.
"My life has revolved around this point of entrapment and a lot of people have come out to say a lot of bad things about me," said Shaikh, referring to comments that have surfaced online in the Muslim community and within mosques.
"I knew right from the beginning that I was doing the right thing. ... I didn't put my neck out for the community to trash me," Shaikh said outside the courthouse, adding he "put up with a lot of trash talk."
The 33-year-old man said he was pleased the judge noted in his ruling that he believed Shaikh was motivated by his "moral and religious convictions."
When delivering his decision in a Brampton court, Superior Court Justice John Sproat did not read his 53-page ruling, but did state, "There has not been any entrapment and there has not been any abuse of process."
Shaikh's status at a terrorist training camp in December 2005 came under unusual scrutiny, given the unprecedented nature of this landmark case involving 14 men and four youths. The suspects, known as the Toronto 18, were charged in 2006 with belonging to a cell plotting to detonate truck bombs.
To date, four adults and three youths have had their charges stayed. The remaining youth, who is now 21, was found guilty of terrorism-related offences in September, but his lawyers brought forth a motion alleging he was lured into the group by Shaikh and should have the charge stayed.
In his ruling, Sproat said the winter camp had already been planned before Shaikh infiltrated the group and that the youth was invited by the alleged ringleaders.
"The camp would have been much the same had Shaikh not attended," wrote Sproat. "The information and indoctrination presented to (the accused) was not influenced or affected by any state action."
Sproat also noted Shaikh had limited contact with the teen after the camp, which was when his involvement intensified by shoplifting for the group and attending a second camp.
Defence counsel Mitchell Chernovsky and Faisal Mirza had argued that by taking on the role of a trainer, encouraging their client to perform better and training him in the use of a firearm, Shaikh was teaching the teen how to be a criminal.
They portrayed their client at the time as an impressionable 17-year-old convert to Islam desperate for acceptance and religious guidance.
But Sproat ruled the teen's age was "not much of an impediment to understanding the simple truth that a handgun was being fired, military-style exercises were being conducted and (the alleged ringleader) was exhorting the attendees to kick off a battle in which they would kill and perhaps be killed."
Crown prosecutors John Neander and Marco Mendicino argued that at the time of the camp, Shaikh was working as a confidential informer for the RCMP and only became an agent in February 2006.
They also portrayed Shaikh as someone who tried to moderate the tone of the camp and encouraged the teen to seek appropriate religious guidance.
Lawyers are due to return to court on April 7 to argue whether the teen should be sentenced as an adult or youth. If sentenced as an adult, he could face up to 10 years in prison.
Ten adults have yet to stand trial and Shaikh is expected to be the Crown's main witness.
*** The youth was sentenced to basically, time served and was released thereafter. SIX await trial now (four plead guilty). MS ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
