*** Read and see for yourself by following the link. MS ***
FROM: http://www3.thestar.com/static/toronto18/index.html
Showing posts with label toronto 18 bomb plot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label toronto 18 bomb plot. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
TORONTO 18 CASE WITH JURY
*** 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.”
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.”
SIKH TERRORISM & TORONTO 18 - TRANSNATIONAL RELIGIOUS TERRORISM
FROM: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/unimaginable/3173002/story.html
The more we learn about the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, the more the Canadian security establishment takes a beating. That’s expected. There was plenty of bungling, misjudgment and poor communication.
Surveying the intelligence 25 years later, it’s pretty clear that Sikh fanatics were going to attack a civilian passenger jet. Yet Canadian officials just didn’t get it. Among the signs of nonchalance: Security agents surreptitiously followed Sikh extremists into a British Columbia forest where the latter were practising the detonation of explosives. The security agents didn’t bother to bring cameras, and never properly identified one of the suspects.
Canada messed up, bigtime, and consequently more than 300 people died when Fight 182 exploded over the Atlantic. If we really want to make sense of what went wrong, however, it’s important to recognize that this security failure was a shared one. The problem wasn’t just bureaucratic incompetence.
When Sikh extremism first began to attract attention, few people, in government or out, in Canada or elsewhere, really understood the global danger it represented — not Sikh extremism per se, but the danger of radical-nationalist-religious movements.
Terrorism had been around for a long time, but it was almost always of the secular political variety. Political terrorism had its own rules of engagement. As Brian Jenkins, a pioneer of terrorist studies, once put it, terrorists didn’t want a lot of people dead but rather a lot of people watching.
Political terrorism was largely about propaganda. The early European anarchists had as their motto propagande par le fait, propaganda by deed, meaning that the primary purpose of violence was to publicize a cause. Anarchist assassins felt that they could best attract attention by targeting prominent industrialists or political leaders.
That was more or less the model throughout most of the 20th century. In the 1970s, the Quebec separatists who formed the FLQ calibrated their violence to maximize the propaganda value, killing a provincial cabinet minister and kidnapping a British diplomat.
Same with the Palestinian Arabs, known as Black September, who disrupted the 1972 summer Olympics. Black September was secular and political, unlike Hamas today which is religious and fanatical. Black September didn’t blow up a shopping mall, hotel or even a synagogue, but instead went after Israeli athletes in Munich — a heinous crime, to be sure, but the point is Black September was discriminating in its violence. The Irish Republican Army used to warn authorities in advance of attacks, consistent with a goal of creating propaganda rather than maximizing civilian casualties
There were certain conventions surrounding terrorism. Should Canadian authorities have realized those angry Sikhs in B.C. represented a new kind of terrorist, whose objective was in fact to maximize civilian casualties?
The shift from old-style political terrorists, whose aim was to attract attention, to the “new” religious terrorists, whose aim was to kill as many of the enemy as possible, caught governments off guard, not just Canada’s.
Even the U.S., in the 1960s and ’70s, had little insight. Historian Walter Laqueur has noted that during this period, CIA documents on terrorism were surprisingly unsophisticated. Terrorism wasn’t something that much concerned the agency, not just because the Cold War was more pressing but because “terrorists” were still viewed in many places as freedom fighters pursuing political liberation. No one yet conceived of terrorists as indiscriminating mass murderers.
Today, of course, mass-casualty terrorism is the norm and has changed the way security officials operate. But 25 years ago that wasn’t the case, and security officials operated differently. It’s unfortunate that Canada had to be one of places where the hard lesson was learned.
The transformation happened because terrorists began dehumanizing their enemies in a way that hadn’t been seen before. This is especially clear with Islamic terrorists who don’t seem particularly interested in persuading the enemy of anything, only destroying him. It also corresponds to the way radical Sikhs, religious fanatics in their own right, were thinking when they set out to massacre women and children on Fight 182.
Laqueur has written that “persecution mania” plays an important part in the new terrorism: the group feels “so isolated and so powerless vis-à-vis an omnipotent enemy that every weapon seem(s) permissible to have a chance in unequal combat.” The implications of this are clear to us today, thanks especially to 9/11, but they wouldn’t have been 25 years ago. It’s hard to understand a phenomenon until you actually encounter it.
Canada’s security apparatus is still not as strong as it could be, but look how far it has come. In 1985, agents couldn’t even properly do surveillance. Today, agents are not just identifying and monitoring suspected terrorist cells, but thoroughly infiltrating them, as with the Toronto 18 case.
The chief lesson of Air India is that we must be prepared to imagine the unimaginable.
Leonard Stern is the Citizen’s editorial pages editor. E-mail: lstern@thecitizen.canwest.com
The more we learn about the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, the more the Canadian security establishment takes a beating. That’s expected. There was plenty of bungling, misjudgment and poor communication.
Surveying the intelligence 25 years later, it’s pretty clear that Sikh fanatics were going to attack a civilian passenger jet. Yet Canadian officials just didn’t get it. Among the signs of nonchalance: Security agents surreptitiously followed Sikh extremists into a British Columbia forest where the latter were practising the detonation of explosives. The security agents didn’t bother to bring cameras, and never properly identified one of the suspects.
Canada messed up, bigtime, and consequently more than 300 people died when Fight 182 exploded over the Atlantic. If we really want to make sense of what went wrong, however, it’s important to recognize that this security failure was a shared one. The problem wasn’t just bureaucratic incompetence.
When Sikh extremism first began to attract attention, few people, in government or out, in Canada or elsewhere, really understood the global danger it represented — not Sikh extremism per se, but the danger of radical-nationalist-religious movements.
Terrorism had been around for a long time, but it was almost always of the secular political variety. Political terrorism had its own rules of engagement. As Brian Jenkins, a pioneer of terrorist studies, once put it, terrorists didn’t want a lot of people dead but rather a lot of people watching.
Political terrorism was largely about propaganda. The early European anarchists had as their motto propagande par le fait, propaganda by deed, meaning that the primary purpose of violence was to publicize a cause. Anarchist assassins felt that they could best attract attention by targeting prominent industrialists or political leaders.
That was more or less the model throughout most of the 20th century. In the 1970s, the Quebec separatists who formed the FLQ calibrated their violence to maximize the propaganda value, killing a provincial cabinet minister and kidnapping a British diplomat.
Same with the Palestinian Arabs, known as Black September, who disrupted the 1972 summer Olympics. Black September was secular and political, unlike Hamas today which is religious and fanatical. Black September didn’t blow up a shopping mall, hotel or even a synagogue, but instead went after Israeli athletes in Munich — a heinous crime, to be sure, but the point is Black September was discriminating in its violence. The Irish Republican Army used to warn authorities in advance of attacks, consistent with a goal of creating propaganda rather than maximizing civilian casualties
There were certain conventions surrounding terrorism. Should Canadian authorities have realized those angry Sikhs in B.C. represented a new kind of terrorist, whose objective was in fact to maximize civilian casualties?
The shift from old-style political terrorists, whose aim was to attract attention, to the “new” religious terrorists, whose aim was to kill as many of the enemy as possible, caught governments off guard, not just Canada’s.
Even the U.S., in the 1960s and ’70s, had little insight. Historian Walter Laqueur has noted that during this period, CIA documents on terrorism were surprisingly unsophisticated. Terrorism wasn’t something that much concerned the agency, not just because the Cold War was more pressing but because “terrorists” were still viewed in many places as freedom fighters pursuing political liberation. No one yet conceived of terrorists as indiscriminating mass murderers.
Today, of course, mass-casualty terrorism is the norm and has changed the way security officials operate. But 25 years ago that wasn’t the case, and security officials operated differently. It’s unfortunate that Canada had to be one of places where the hard lesson was learned.
The transformation happened because terrorists began dehumanizing their enemies in a way that hadn’t been seen before. This is especially clear with Islamic terrorists who don’t seem particularly interested in persuading the enemy of anything, only destroying him. It also corresponds to the way radical Sikhs, religious fanatics in their own right, were thinking when they set out to massacre women and children on Fight 182.
Laqueur has written that “persecution mania” plays an important part in the new terrorism: the group feels “so isolated and so powerless vis-à-vis an omnipotent enemy that every weapon seem(s) permissible to have a chance in unequal combat.” The implications of this are clear to us today, thanks especially to 9/11, but they wouldn’t have been 25 years ago. It’s hard to understand a phenomenon until you actually encounter it.
Canada’s security apparatus is still not as strong as it could be, but look how far it has come. In 1985, agents couldn’t even properly do surveillance. Today, agents are not just identifying and monitoring suspected terrorist cells, but thoroughly infiltrating them, as with the Toronto 18 case.
The chief lesson of Air India is that we must be prepared to imagine the unimaginable.
Leonard Stern is the Citizen’s editorial pages editor. E-mail: lstern@thecitizen.canwest.com
Friday, June 18, 2010
TORONTO 18 CASE - INTERATIONAL LINKS
*** Too bad that 4 years had to pass - and for a false narrative to have taken hold by armchair pundits who pronounced verdicts even before the trial began! NOW - 4 years later - the public will start to hear more of what they should have been given the first time: the truth. MS ***
FROM: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/18/toronto-18-jury.html
Toronto 18 details emerge as jury sequestered
What the jury didn't get to hear about Fahim Ahmad
A jury in Brampton, Ont., has started to deliberate in the latest trial for those accused in the Toronto 18 extremist plot case.
The jurors were sequestered Friday after the judge finished instructing them in the case presented against the two accused, Steven Chand and Asad Ansari. Both were charged with participating in a terrorist group, and Chand faces a further charge of counselling to commit fraud over $5,000 for the benefit of a terrorist group.
Until the moment the jury went out, a sweeping publication ban had prevented media from reporting any details of the case other than what was said in the courtroom in this trial. That included any details of past convictions and evidence in previous Toronto 18 trials.
One of the names that came up repeatedly in past trials was that of the self-acknowledged leader of the group, Fahim Ahmad. Admad was to have been tried along with Chand and Ansari on charges of participating in a terrorist group, instructing people to carry out activities for a terrorist group and a weapons offence.
But on May 10, he made a surprise about-turn. In the middle of his trial on terrorism charges he abruptly reversed himself and pleaded guilty. What the five-woman, seven-man jury had heard about Ahmad to that point was hair-raising enough.
Untold details of plot
In hundreds of hours of taped phone intercepts and secretly recorded conversations with police mole Mubin Sheik, Ahmad spoke enthusiastically of building an arsenal of high-powered weapons, including AK-47s and M-16s, and of attacking Canadian targets such as the Pickering nuclear power plant in Ontario and storming Parliament in Ottawa to "cut off some heads."
What the jury and the Canadian public didn't hear about was the story of Ahmad's ties to international terrorism.
Before turning his attention to building a Canadian al-Qaeda style terrorist cell, Ahmad was plotting acts of terrorism with alienated young Muslim men like himself in the United States, the United Kingdom and perhaps beyond.
One of those young men was Aabid Khan, who was an al-Qaeda supporter and recruiter living in Bradford, England. According to British security analyst Sajan Gohel, Khan was no foot solider, he was a plotter who put together terrorism cells on the internet.
Khan was arrested by British anti-terrorism police at Manchester International Airport on June 6, 2006, just four days after the RCMP busted the Toronto 18.
Khan was returning from one of his frequent trips to Pakistan. On his laptop computer and on 53 harddrives found at his home, police discovered what a British prosecutor later referred to as a library of violent Jihadi videos and Islamist propaganda tracts. Amongst the videos police discovered was an edited two-minute feature shot at a Canadian winter indoctrination and military training camp organized by Ahmad and by Toronto 18 co-leader Zakaria Amara at Washego, Ont.
U.K. police also found hundreds of hours of saved chats between Khan, Ahmad and other members of the Toronto 18.
Met in a chat room
Ahmad first met Kahn in 2003 in an internet chat room called Clear Guidance. The site was frequented by angry, young Muslim men — and by 2004 Ahmad had posted over 700 messages.
Other Clear Guidance members included Yanous Tsouli. The internet moniker Tsouli chose to give himself was Irhabi 007. Irhabi is Arabic for terrorist. The reference to 007 is an allusion to the fictional, over-sexed British secret agent James Bond.
Tsouli was the son of a Moroccan diplomat living in east London. Tsouli was an internet genius with close ties to al-Qaeda in Iraq. When a London SWAT team burst into his apartment on Oct. 21, 2005, to arrest him he was building a new website called YouBombit.com. The website was a do-it-yourself guide for wannabe terrorists that featured bomb-making recipes and instructions on how to make suicide vests.
Amongst the videos Tsouli planned to put up on the website were what the FBI alleges were surveillance videos of possible targets in Washington, D.C. The videos were shot by two of Fahim Ahmad's associates from Atlanta.
Ehasnul Islam Sadequee and Syed Haris Ahmed were also Clear Guidance regulars. In March 2005, Sadequee and Haris Ahmed travelled to Toronto to visit Fahim Ahmad and his growing band of recruits.
Over the next week, the young men talked about potential targets and the need to get paramilitary training in Pakistan. In transcripts of internet chats introduced at his trial at Blackfriars Court in London, England, Aaabid Khan told Fahim Ahmad he could arrange to get them paramilitary training with Lashkar Tayiba, the group behind the Mumbai attacks.
Aabid Khan was also in Toronto that week. At his trial, Khan insisted he had come to marry Fahim Ahmad's sister-in-law, a 19-year-old woman named Saima Mohamed, not to plot terrorism. Saima was also committed to the Jihadist cause.
In transcripts of internet chats included in the evidence at Khan's trial, Saima Mohamed tells him of her desire to become a suicide commando. In a written letter she tells him: "The more I think about my goal in life, the more vivid my goals become. Whether it's exploding prisons or freeing Muslim prisoners … Let it be a martyrdom operation."
She tells Khan that although her sister Mariyam disapproves of her ambition to become a martyr, Fahim has given her his approval. Mohamed was never arrested. She declined several interview requests from CBC News but in a letter from her lawyer Faizel Kutty, he stated that she does not espouse violent views. He also reminded the CBC being young can be a difficult and confusing period.
Aabid Khan and Fahim Ahmad's plan was to rent basements apartments in Toronto where their most-committed internet recruits could live for a month and bond before leaving for Pakistan to get paramilitary training with Lashkar.
After training they would return to Toronto, choose targets and then disperse to stage spectacular acts of terrorism in at least four countries. But as Ahmad was out searching for cheap apartments to rent, the plan began to fall apart.
Grew impatient
Ahmad began to grow impatient with Khan, who wanted to move slowly. Ahmad also had trouble getting his hands on the $5,000 he calculated he would need to go to Pakistan. After splitting with Khan, Ahmad and his friend Zakaria Amara turned their attention to Canada and building an al-Qaeda type cell in Toronto.
In August 2008, Aabid Khan was convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
In 2007, another Clear Guidance regular, Mersad Bektasavic, received a 15 year, four-month sentence from a Bosnian court for plotting an attack in Europe. When Bektasevic was arrested, police found a suicide vest and 18 kilograms of factory-made explosive in his apartment.
In June 2009, American Syed Haris Ahmed was found guilty of material support for terrorism in the U.S. and sentenced to 12 years. Later that year, his friend Ehsenul Mohamed Sadequee was found guilty on four terrorism charges and sentenced to 17 years followed by 30 years of supervision. In the indictments of both men, Fahim Ahmad is named as a co-conspirator.
Fahim Ahmad has pleaded guilty to four charges. He is facing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. As a result of his guilty plea, the jury is no longer involved in Ahmad's case. He will be sentenced in Federal Court in Brampton, Ont., by Justice Fletcher Dawson later this summer.
FROM: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/18/toronto-18-jury.html
Toronto 18 details emerge as jury sequestered
What the jury didn't get to hear about Fahim Ahmad
A jury in Brampton, Ont., has started to deliberate in the latest trial for those accused in the Toronto 18 extremist plot case.
The jurors were sequestered Friday after the judge finished instructing them in the case presented against the two accused, Steven Chand and Asad Ansari. Both were charged with participating in a terrorist group, and Chand faces a further charge of counselling to commit fraud over $5,000 for the benefit of a terrorist group.
Until the moment the jury went out, a sweeping publication ban had prevented media from reporting any details of the case other than what was said in the courtroom in this trial. That included any details of past convictions and evidence in previous Toronto 18 trials.
One of the names that came up repeatedly in past trials was that of the self-acknowledged leader of the group, Fahim Ahmad. Admad was to have been tried along with Chand and Ansari on charges of participating in a terrorist group, instructing people to carry out activities for a terrorist group and a weapons offence.
But on May 10, he made a surprise about-turn. In the middle of his trial on terrorism charges he abruptly reversed himself and pleaded guilty. What the five-woman, seven-man jury had heard about Ahmad to that point was hair-raising enough.
Untold details of plot
In hundreds of hours of taped phone intercepts and secretly recorded conversations with police mole Mubin Sheik, Ahmad spoke enthusiastically of building an arsenal of high-powered weapons, including AK-47s and M-16s, and of attacking Canadian targets such as the Pickering nuclear power plant in Ontario and storming Parliament in Ottawa to "cut off some heads."
What the jury and the Canadian public didn't hear about was the story of Ahmad's ties to international terrorism.
Before turning his attention to building a Canadian al-Qaeda style terrorist cell, Ahmad was plotting acts of terrorism with alienated young Muslim men like himself in the United States, the United Kingdom and perhaps beyond.
One of those young men was Aabid Khan, who was an al-Qaeda supporter and recruiter living in Bradford, England. According to British security analyst Sajan Gohel, Khan was no foot solider, he was a plotter who put together terrorism cells on the internet.
Khan was arrested by British anti-terrorism police at Manchester International Airport on June 6, 2006, just four days after the RCMP busted the Toronto 18.
Khan was returning from one of his frequent trips to Pakistan. On his laptop computer and on 53 harddrives found at his home, police discovered what a British prosecutor later referred to as a library of violent Jihadi videos and Islamist propaganda tracts. Amongst the videos police discovered was an edited two-minute feature shot at a Canadian winter indoctrination and military training camp organized by Ahmad and by Toronto 18 co-leader Zakaria Amara at Washego, Ont.
U.K. police also found hundreds of hours of saved chats between Khan, Ahmad and other members of the Toronto 18.
Met in a chat room
Ahmad first met Kahn in 2003 in an internet chat room called Clear Guidance. The site was frequented by angry, young Muslim men — and by 2004 Ahmad had posted over 700 messages.
Other Clear Guidance members included Yanous Tsouli. The internet moniker Tsouli chose to give himself was Irhabi 007. Irhabi is Arabic for terrorist. The reference to 007 is an allusion to the fictional, over-sexed British secret agent James Bond.
Tsouli was the son of a Moroccan diplomat living in east London. Tsouli was an internet genius with close ties to al-Qaeda in Iraq. When a London SWAT team burst into his apartment on Oct. 21, 2005, to arrest him he was building a new website called YouBombit.com. The website was a do-it-yourself guide for wannabe terrorists that featured bomb-making recipes and instructions on how to make suicide vests.
Amongst the videos Tsouli planned to put up on the website were what the FBI alleges were surveillance videos of possible targets in Washington, D.C. The videos were shot by two of Fahim Ahmad's associates from Atlanta.
Ehasnul Islam Sadequee and Syed Haris Ahmed were also Clear Guidance regulars. In March 2005, Sadequee and Haris Ahmed travelled to Toronto to visit Fahim Ahmad and his growing band of recruits.
Over the next week, the young men talked about potential targets and the need to get paramilitary training in Pakistan. In transcripts of internet chats introduced at his trial at Blackfriars Court in London, England, Aaabid Khan told Fahim Ahmad he could arrange to get them paramilitary training with Lashkar Tayiba, the group behind the Mumbai attacks.
Aabid Khan was also in Toronto that week. At his trial, Khan insisted he had come to marry Fahim Ahmad's sister-in-law, a 19-year-old woman named Saima Mohamed, not to plot terrorism. Saima was also committed to the Jihadist cause.
In transcripts of internet chats included in the evidence at Khan's trial, Saima Mohamed tells him of her desire to become a suicide commando. In a written letter she tells him: "The more I think about my goal in life, the more vivid my goals become. Whether it's exploding prisons or freeing Muslim prisoners … Let it be a martyrdom operation."
She tells Khan that although her sister Mariyam disapproves of her ambition to become a martyr, Fahim has given her his approval. Mohamed was never arrested. She declined several interview requests from CBC News but in a letter from her lawyer Faizel Kutty, he stated that she does not espouse violent views. He also reminded the CBC being young can be a difficult and confusing period.
Aabid Khan and Fahim Ahmad's plan was to rent basements apartments in Toronto where their most-committed internet recruits could live for a month and bond before leaving for Pakistan to get paramilitary training with Lashkar.
After training they would return to Toronto, choose targets and then disperse to stage spectacular acts of terrorism in at least four countries. But as Ahmad was out searching for cheap apartments to rent, the plan began to fall apart.
Grew impatient
Ahmad began to grow impatient with Khan, who wanted to move slowly. Ahmad also had trouble getting his hands on the $5,000 he calculated he would need to go to Pakistan. After splitting with Khan, Ahmad and his friend Zakaria Amara turned their attention to Canada and building an al-Qaeda type cell in Toronto.
In August 2008, Aabid Khan was convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
In 2007, another Clear Guidance regular, Mersad Bektasavic, received a 15 year, four-month sentence from a Bosnian court for plotting an attack in Europe. When Bektasevic was arrested, police found a suicide vest and 18 kilograms of factory-made explosive in his apartment.
In June 2009, American Syed Haris Ahmed was found guilty of material support for terrorism in the U.S. and sentenced to 12 years. Later that year, his friend Ehsenul Mohamed Sadequee was found guilty on four terrorism charges and sentenced to 17 years followed by 30 years of supervision. In the indictments of both men, Fahim Ahmad is named as a co-conspirator.
Fahim Ahmad has pleaded guilty to four charges. He is facing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. As a result of his guilty plea, the jury is no longer involved in Ahmad's case. He will be sentenced in Federal Court in Brampton, Ont., by Justice Fletcher Dawson later this summer.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
TORONTO 18 TRIAL - CROWN CLOSING ARGUMENTS
FROM: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/09/toronto-18.html
Closing arguments from the Crown were heard in a Brampton, Ont., courtroom on Wednesday for the last two men accused of plotting attacks on Parliament and other Canadian sites.
Steven Chand, 29, and Asad Ansari, 25, are both charged with knowingly participating in a terrorist group that media and authorities have dubbed the Toronto 18.
Chand is also charged with counselling to commit fraud over $5,000 for the benefit of a terrorist group.
Speaking in Ontario Supreme Court, Crown attorney Croft Michaelson said evidence presented in court over the past few months proves a terrorist group existed and that the two men were actively involved in it.
He pointed to the accused's presence at a camp in Washago, Ont., in December 2005, which the Crown alleges was organized to recruit members to the group.
Croft alleges the men discussed what Canadian sites would be good to bomb and proposed targets like nuclear stations and Parliament.
He told the jury the men had weapons and ammunition and that one member of the group even built a detonator.
The Crown reminded the jury that to convict the men, they have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the charges against them but that doesn't mean the Crown has to prove the case with absolute certainty.
During the trial, Ansari testified in his own defence, saying he was not an active participant in the group and was not aware of any plans to bomb high-profile targets in Toronto and Ottawa.
His lawyers have argued that what he had to say should be given more weight than any of the other testimony or evidence presented.
Closing arguments from the Crown were heard in a Brampton, Ont., courtroom on Wednesday for the last two men accused of plotting attacks on Parliament and other Canadian sites.
Steven Chand, 29, and Asad Ansari, 25, are both charged with knowingly participating in a terrorist group that media and authorities have dubbed the Toronto 18.
Chand is also charged with counselling to commit fraud over $5,000 for the benefit of a terrorist group.
Speaking in Ontario Supreme Court, Crown attorney Croft Michaelson said evidence presented in court over the past few months proves a terrorist group existed and that the two men were actively involved in it.
He pointed to the accused's presence at a camp in Washago, Ont., in December 2005, which the Crown alleges was organized to recruit members to the group.
Croft alleges the men discussed what Canadian sites would be good to bomb and proposed targets like nuclear stations and Parliament.
He told the jury the men had weapons and ammunition and that one member of the group even built a detonator.
The Crown reminded the jury that to convict the men, they have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the charges against them but that doesn't mean the Crown has to prove the case with absolute certainty.
During the trial, Ansari testified in his own defence, saying he was not an active participant in the group and was not aware of any plans to bomb high-profile targets in Toronto and Ottawa.
His lawyers have argued that what he had to say should be given more weight than any of the other testimony or evidence presented.
Monday, June 7, 2010
ASAD ANSARI - NOT ACTIVE MEMBER of TORONTO 18?
FROM: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/07/toronto-18-accused-ansari-not-an-active-member-trial-hears/
Asad Ansari, one of the final two accused in the “Toronto 18″ terrorism case, was unaware of the group’s bomb plot and did nothing intentionally to further it, a Superior Court jury heard on Monday.
In his closing address, defence lawyer John Norris said while there was evidently a terrorist group in operation between 2005 and 2006, Mr. Ansari was not an active participant — despite attending a winter training camp in Washago, Ont.
“Nothing that Mr. Ansari did has crossed the line into criminality,” Mr. Norris said. The court has heard Mr. Ansari viewed the camp as a simple bonding exercise, and was not present for some of the darker activities, such as group leader Fahim Ahmad’s speech calling for the destruction of western society.
There is no evidence Ahmad, described as a “big talker,” ever revealed his terrorist ambitions to Mr. Ansari, the jury heard, though the two often discussed Mideast politics in the aftermath of 9/11. This is because Ahmad, who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges last month, knew he would not be able to recruit Mr. Ansari, Mr. Norris contended.
“Mr. Ansari wouldn’t be recruited to his cause because he disagreed with [Ahmad] and made no secret of that,” Mr. Norris said.
Michael Moon, counsel for the second remaining accused, Steven Chand, will deliver his address next, followed by the Crown.
This is the first jury trial in Canadian history to deal with terrorism charges.
Asad Ansari, one of the final two accused in the “Toronto 18″ terrorism case, was unaware of the group’s bomb plot and did nothing intentionally to further it, a Superior Court jury heard on Monday.
In his closing address, defence lawyer John Norris said while there was evidently a terrorist group in operation between 2005 and 2006, Mr. Ansari was not an active participant — despite attending a winter training camp in Washago, Ont.
“Nothing that Mr. Ansari did has crossed the line into criminality,” Mr. Norris said. The court has heard Mr. Ansari viewed the camp as a simple bonding exercise, and was not present for some of the darker activities, such as group leader Fahim Ahmad’s speech calling for the destruction of western society.
There is no evidence Ahmad, described as a “big talker,” ever revealed his terrorist ambitions to Mr. Ansari, the jury heard, though the two often discussed Mideast politics in the aftermath of 9/11. This is because Ahmad, who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges last month, knew he would not be able to recruit Mr. Ansari, Mr. Norris contended.
“Mr. Ansari wouldn’t be recruited to his cause because he disagreed with [Ahmad] and made no secret of that,” Mr. Norris said.
Michael Moon, counsel for the second remaining accused, Steven Chand, will deliver his address next, followed by the Crown.
This is the first jury trial in Canadian history to deal with terrorism charges.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
TORONTO 18 - VICTORY FOR CROWN AND MOLES
FROM: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/766501--victory-for-crown-and-moles
Federal prosecutors have scored their biggest win to date in the so-called Toronto 18 terror case. On Tuesday, a Brampton judge ruled that an RCMP mole paid $4 million for his part in unravelling a plot to blow up buildings in downtown Toronto was not an agent provocateur.
With that ruling, 34-year-old Shareef Abdelhaleem, who had already been found guilty of taking part in the bomb plot, was formally convicted of terrorism.
The question of the role played by police moles has hung over this affair since June 2006, when 18 Muslim Canadian men and boys were swept up and charged under Canada's new anti-terror laws.
At the time, there was considerable suspicion, particularly within parts of the Muslim community, that RCMP mole and former Air Canada flight attendant Shaher Elsohemy had induced some of the accused into committing criminal acts they otherwise would not have contemplated.
These suspicions were fuelled by the fact that the Mounties agreed to pay Elsohemy and some members of his family up to $4 million so they could relocate under the witness protection program.
As the judge noted Tuesday at the end of a three-week hearing into whether Abdelhaleem had indeed been entrapped by police, the mole originally asked for $15 million.
All of this was going on in 2006, at a time when some in the U.S. were accusing Canada of being soft on terrorists. It was also a time when the threat of stricter border controls threatened to derail a Canadian economy dependent on trading goods back and forth across the international frontier.
In that context, the high-profile arrests of the 18 seemed unusually convenient.
Over time, the case swung back and forth. When the Crown abruptly cancelled a preliminary hearing and, in effect, dropped all charges against seven of the 18, the case appeared to wobble.
It recovered somewhat when, in the only other trial to date, a judge found one young man guilty of terrorism. But that finding was mitigated when the trial judge immediately released the man, saying his time in pre-trial custody was sufficient.
Last year, the government's credibility received a major boost when three of the four charged in the Toronto bomb plot pleaded guilty.
That left it to Abdelhaleem, the fourth accused bomb plotter, to take on the mole at trial.
As the judge said Tuesday in his 42-page ruling, the defendant did not do very well.
In testimony marked by confusion, Abdelhaleem argued that he had inserted himself into the plot partly to protect his old friend Elsohemy and partly so he could sabotage the scheme it if it went too far.
The judge said he found those arguments "nonsensical ... inconsistent with common sense ... without the force of any real logic."
Curiously, Abdelhaleem – who took over his own defence at one point – never tried to argue during his testimony that the mole had entrapped him, which was the point of the entire hearing.
That failure, as well as his rambling style on the stand (the judge called him "the antithesis of an impressive witness") virtually guaranteed a victory for the Crown.
Which is what occurred Tuesday. Federal prosecutors were so pleased that they broke their self-imposed silence to talk to the media.
"The public should be very happy about what happened today," lead prosecutor Croft Michaelson told reporters outside the Brampton courthouse. "Truth and justice won out."
Federal prosecutors have scored their biggest win to date in the so-called Toronto 18 terror case. On Tuesday, a Brampton judge ruled that an RCMP mole paid $4 million for his part in unravelling a plot to blow up buildings in downtown Toronto was not an agent provocateur.
With that ruling, 34-year-old Shareef Abdelhaleem, who had already been found guilty of taking part in the bomb plot, was formally convicted of terrorism.
The question of the role played by police moles has hung over this affair since June 2006, when 18 Muslim Canadian men and boys were swept up and charged under Canada's new anti-terror laws.
At the time, there was considerable suspicion, particularly within parts of the Muslim community, that RCMP mole and former Air Canada flight attendant Shaher Elsohemy had induced some of the accused into committing criminal acts they otherwise would not have contemplated.
These suspicions were fuelled by the fact that the Mounties agreed to pay Elsohemy and some members of his family up to $4 million so they could relocate under the witness protection program.
As the judge noted Tuesday at the end of a three-week hearing into whether Abdelhaleem had indeed been entrapped by police, the mole originally asked for $15 million.
All of this was going on in 2006, at a time when some in the U.S. were accusing Canada of being soft on terrorists. It was also a time when the threat of stricter border controls threatened to derail a Canadian economy dependent on trading goods back and forth across the international frontier.
In that context, the high-profile arrests of the 18 seemed unusually convenient.
Over time, the case swung back and forth. When the Crown abruptly cancelled a preliminary hearing and, in effect, dropped all charges against seven of the 18, the case appeared to wobble.
It recovered somewhat when, in the only other trial to date, a judge found one young man guilty of terrorism. But that finding was mitigated when the trial judge immediately released the man, saying his time in pre-trial custody was sufficient.
Last year, the government's credibility received a major boost when three of the four charged in the Toronto bomb plot pleaded guilty.
That left it to Abdelhaleem, the fourth accused bomb plotter, to take on the mole at trial.
As the judge said Tuesday in his 42-page ruling, the defendant did not do very well.
In testimony marked by confusion, Abdelhaleem argued that he had inserted himself into the plot partly to protect his old friend Elsohemy and partly so he could sabotage the scheme it if it went too far.
The judge said he found those arguments "nonsensical ... inconsistent with common sense ... without the force of any real logic."
Curiously, Abdelhaleem – who took over his own defence at one point – never tried to argue during his testimony that the mole had entrapped him, which was the point of the entire hearing.
That failure, as well as his rambling style on the stand (the judge called him "the antithesis of an impressive witness") virtually guaranteed a victory for the Crown.
Which is what occurred Tuesday. Federal prosecutors were so pleased that they broke their self-imposed silence to talk to the media.
"The public should be very happy about what happened today," lead prosecutor Croft Michaelson told reporters outside the Brampton courthouse. "Truth and justice won out."
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.
FEDS APPEAL TORONTO 18 SENTENCE
FROM: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/766018--federal-prosecutors-to-appeal-toronto-18-sentencing
Federal prosecutors announced Monday that they are appealing the 12-year prison sentence of Saad Gaya, one of the so-called “Toronto 18” members accused of plotting terrorist bombing attacks in 2006.
Gaya, a 22-year-old Oakville man, pleaded guilty in September to participating in a terrorist group that planned on bombing significant Toronto landmarks and a military base off Highway 401.
On Jan. 18, Superior Court of Justice Bruce Durno sentenced him to 12 years in prison but credited him for the 7 ½ years he served in presentencing custody. This means Gaya will ultimately serve an additional 4 ½ years in jail and may be eligible for parole in just over a year from now.
Crown prosecutors sought a harsher sentence for Gaya and on Monday, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada announced it is appealing to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
According to the court filing, prosecutors are alleging Gaya’s sentence was “not proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender,” and that Durno “erred in principle” by not ordering Gaya to serve at least half of his sentence before becoming eligible for full parole.
The notice also alleges Durno was wrong to conclude that a statement Gaya gave to police after his arrest amounted to cooperation that could mitigate his sentence.
The Crown also contends the judge “unduly emphasized” the principles of rehabilitation and specific deterrence.
When reached Monday, Gaya’s lawyer Paul Slansky said the sentence was “well within the range of appropriate sentences” and criticized the appeal as lacking “merit.”
“It was a well-reasoned decision,” he said of Gaya’s sentence. “Certainly, there’s no legitimate basis for the grounds of appeal as far as I’m concerned.”
Slansky said he’s been in contact with Gaya’s family, who “obviously” did not agree with the appeal.
He refused to speculate as to why prosecutors were pursuing the appeal but said he had a few hunches.
“You may want to consider, however, that there are other people who are still charged, still potentially to be found guilty,” Slansky said. “(The prosecutors) may want to take a position with respect to sentencing because it may impact others yet to be found guilty or sentenced.”
Gaya was being held at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton, but Slansky said he believes he has recently been moved to a penitentiary.
Federal prosecutors announced Monday that they are appealing the 12-year prison sentence of Saad Gaya, one of the so-called “Toronto 18” members accused of plotting terrorist bombing attacks in 2006.
Gaya, a 22-year-old Oakville man, pleaded guilty in September to participating in a terrorist group that planned on bombing significant Toronto landmarks and a military base off Highway 401.
On Jan. 18, Superior Court of Justice Bruce Durno sentenced him to 12 years in prison but credited him for the 7 ½ years he served in presentencing custody. This means Gaya will ultimately serve an additional 4 ½ years in jail and may be eligible for parole in just over a year from now.
Crown prosecutors sought a harsher sentence for Gaya and on Monday, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada announced it is appealing to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
According to the court filing, prosecutors are alleging Gaya’s sentence was “not proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender,” and that Durno “erred in principle” by not ordering Gaya to serve at least half of his sentence before becoming eligible for full parole.
The notice also alleges Durno was wrong to conclude that a statement Gaya gave to police after his arrest amounted to cooperation that could mitigate his sentence.
The Crown also contends the judge “unduly emphasized” the principles of rehabilitation and specific deterrence.
When reached Monday, Gaya’s lawyer Paul Slansky said the sentence was “well within the range of appropriate sentences” and criticized the appeal as lacking “merit.”
“It was a well-reasoned decision,” he said of Gaya’s sentence. “Certainly, there’s no legitimate basis for the grounds of appeal as far as I’m concerned.”
Slansky said he’s been in contact with Gaya’s family, who “obviously” did not agree with the appeal.
He refused to speculate as to why prosecutors were pursuing the appeal but said he had a few hunches.
“You may want to consider, however, that there are other people who are still charged, still potentially to be found guilty,” Slansky said. “(The prosecutors) may want to take a position with respect to sentencing because it may impact others yet to be found guilty or sentenced.”
Gaya was being held at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton, but Slansky said he believes he has recently been moved to a penitentiary.
Monday, February 1, 2010
TORONTO 18 : ENTRAPMENT MOTION CONCLUDES
*** Blah blah blah - the Judge is no fool - he knows what entrapment is and I assure you, he will rule accordingly. MS ***
FROM: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/83257497.html
BRAMPTON, Ont. - The lawyer for a man found guilty of terrorism offences says his client was entrapped by a police agent and "dragged in" to the Toronto 18 plot.
Shareef Abdelhaleem, 34, was found guilty of participating in a terrorist group and intending to cause an explosion. No conviction was entered though because his defence brought a motion seeking a stay on the basis of entrapment.
In his closing submissions today William Naylor says police agent Shaher Elsohemy was acting out of vengeance in getting his former friend Abdelhaleem involved in the plot.
The judge reminded Naylor he must prove that the police induced Abdelhaleem to get involved, and Naylor said the evidence is "subtle."
Elsohemy testified that Abdelhaleem was opposed to the plan at first, but after he underwent heart surgery he agreed to it.
FROM: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/83257497.html
BRAMPTON, Ont. - The lawyer for a man found guilty of terrorism offences says his client was entrapped by a police agent and "dragged in" to the Toronto 18 plot.
Shareef Abdelhaleem, 34, was found guilty of participating in a terrorist group and intending to cause an explosion. No conviction was entered though because his defence brought a motion seeking a stay on the basis of entrapment.
In his closing submissions today William Naylor says police agent Shaher Elsohemy was acting out of vengeance in getting his former friend Abdelhaleem involved in the plot.
The judge reminded Naylor he must prove that the police induced Abdelhaleem to get involved, and Naylor said the evidence is "subtle."
Elsohemy testified that Abdelhaleem was opposed to the plan at first, but after he underwent heart surgery he agreed to it.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
TORONTO 18 BOMB PLOT : DEFUSION VS CONFUSION
FROM: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/757193--accused-in-toronto-18-planned-to-derail-bomb-plot-court-hears
Shareef Abdelhaleem testified Thursday morning that he purposely positioned himself as the middleman of a potentially deadly terrorist plot because he wanted to learn key details about it in case he decided to sabotage it.
The member of the so-called Toronto 18 said he was as an “outsider”, and not part of the ‘bombing club,’ which he said was made up of mastermind Zakaria Amara and undercover police agent Shaher Elsohemy, who was to supply bomb making material.
The 34-year-old told the Brampton court that he did not agree with Amara’s plan to put metal chips in bombs, so as to maximize casualties, which is why he considered sabotaging the plan.
“Amara wanted to do some outrageous things, put nails and shards and everything else, I was the one who told him not to,” said Abdelhaleem.
“I don’t know what I was going to do, I had no plan… If I heard any of that stupidness about putting shards…. I was going to sabotage it somehow.”
But in order to sabotage the plans, Abdelhaleem said, he needed intimate details about it. That’s why, he explained, he wanted to be present at meetings between Amara and Elsohemy, so he could learn details such as the address of the warehouse where the ammonium nitrate fertilizer was to be delivered.
“I just knew at that point, if I had the address I’d be at an advantage,” Abdelhaleem told the court, arguing he was entrapped by his friend turned police agent. “If I were to intervene, I'd know where the store was.”
The Mississauga man said he even made suggestions about how to store the fertilizer, such as removing it from its original packages and transferring it into garbage bags, placing the bags inside cardboard boxes and stacking them high.
But again, he said that was in the event he decided to derail the bomb plot, perhaps by running a humidifier in the warehouse, which would ruin the fertilizer, making it useless for explosives.
Abdehaleem also testified that he never asked his father for a fatwa, or religious ruling, to justify blowing up buildings in downtown Toronto.
In earlier proceedings, Elsohemy testified that Abdelhaleem had said his father had told him it was Islamically acceptable to launch a terror attack in Canada.
But Abdelhaleem testified that he told Elsohemy, on two occasions, that his father never issued a fatwa, saying he knew his father was against terrorism.
One week ago, Abdelhaleem was found guilty of participating in a 2006 explosives plot to bomb the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Toronto offices of Canada’s spy agency and a military base off Highway 401.
Before a conviction is registered, the judge must rule on whether Abdelhaleem was entrapped.
Abdelhaleem was among 18 people charged in the summer of 2006 with belonging to a cell that organized terrorist training camps and planned to blow up buildings with three tones of ammonium nitrate.
Last week, Amara was sentenced to life in prison.
The hearing continues.
Shareef Abdelhaleem testified Thursday morning that he purposely positioned himself as the middleman of a potentially deadly terrorist plot because he wanted to learn key details about it in case he decided to sabotage it.
The member of the so-called Toronto 18 said he was as an “outsider”, and not part of the ‘bombing club,’ which he said was made up of mastermind Zakaria Amara and undercover police agent Shaher Elsohemy, who was to supply bomb making material.
The 34-year-old told the Brampton court that he did not agree with Amara’s plan to put metal chips in bombs, so as to maximize casualties, which is why he considered sabotaging the plan.
“Amara wanted to do some outrageous things, put nails and shards and everything else, I was the one who told him not to,” said Abdelhaleem.
“I don’t know what I was going to do, I had no plan… If I heard any of that stupidness about putting shards…. I was going to sabotage it somehow.”
But in order to sabotage the plans, Abdelhaleem said, he needed intimate details about it. That’s why, he explained, he wanted to be present at meetings between Amara and Elsohemy, so he could learn details such as the address of the warehouse where the ammonium nitrate fertilizer was to be delivered.
“I just knew at that point, if I had the address I’d be at an advantage,” Abdelhaleem told the court, arguing he was entrapped by his friend turned police agent. “If I were to intervene, I'd know where the store was.”
The Mississauga man said he even made suggestions about how to store the fertilizer, such as removing it from its original packages and transferring it into garbage bags, placing the bags inside cardboard boxes and stacking them high.
But again, he said that was in the event he decided to derail the bomb plot, perhaps by running a humidifier in the warehouse, which would ruin the fertilizer, making it useless for explosives.
Abdehaleem also testified that he never asked his father for a fatwa, or religious ruling, to justify blowing up buildings in downtown Toronto.
In earlier proceedings, Elsohemy testified that Abdelhaleem had said his father had told him it was Islamically acceptable to launch a terror attack in Canada.
But Abdelhaleem testified that he told Elsohemy, on two occasions, that his father never issued a fatwa, saying he knew his father was against terrorism.
One week ago, Abdelhaleem was found guilty of participating in a 2006 explosives plot to bomb the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Toronto offices of Canada’s spy agency and a military base off Highway 401.
Before a conviction is registered, the judge must rule on whether Abdelhaleem was entrapped.
Abdelhaleem was among 18 people charged in the summer of 2006 with belonging to a cell that organized terrorist training camps and planned to blow up buildings with three tones of ammonium nitrate.
Last week, Amara was sentenced to life in prison.
The hearing continues.
TORONTO 18 BOMB PLOT : COCAINE VS AMMONIUM NITRATE
FROM: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/756935--walkom-no-saint-but-no-hardliner-either?bn=1
By his own admission, Toronto 18 terrorist Shareef Abdelhaleem is a cokehead and a wastrel.
The last time he paid income tax (which, as far as he can remember was about seven years ago), the 34-year-old Mississauga man earned $357,000 doing freelance computer work. But, he told a Brampton court Wednesday, he spent most of that on the luxuries of life – "drinking, drugs, women."
As a teenager, he was kicked out of his home several times. He spent four years in a University of Toronto computer science program but never graduated.
Oh yes. And, as he acknowledged in court, he took part in plans to blow up buildings in downtown Toronto – all of which earned him a guilty verdict last week in this judge-only trial.
Abdelhaleem is the first of the so-called Toronto 18 terror group to testify in court. The picture he presents of himself (which jibes with the one given last week by the Crown's chief witness against him) is anything but black and white.
He is certainly no hard-eyed Islamist ideologue. Some of the 9/11 bombers were said to have adopted Western vices as a guise. Not Abdelhaleem. His vices were genuine. Well before he became involved in the bomb plot, he said, he was a druggie. On the days leading up to a serious 2006 heart operation, he continued to take cocaine even though he feared this might cause surgical complications.
After his operation and while the bomb plot was being prepared, he said, he would go on regular cocaine binges, speeding along for a few days until he crashed from exhaustion. Then he would start all over again.
He popped prescription painkillers until his doctor cut him off. The high they gave him, he told the judge, "was pretty good."
But at the same time, he was hardly an innocent. He knew about convicted bomb plot mastermind Zakaria Amara's plans to wreak havoc but didn't tell the police. "I'm not a rat. Period." he explained.
Nor did he think Amara was just playing games. As he told the court, he assumed the worst – that Amara would go through with his plans and that many would die.
In what might seem a bizarre twist of logic, he said he tried to convince Amara and fellow plotter Shaher Elsohemy (who, in the end, turned out to be an RCMP mole) to set off smaller 100-kilogram bombs rather than the one-tonne versions they were contemplating.
The reason, he told court, was that this would allow Amara to "get it out of his system" without doing too much damage.
The entrapment hearing taking place this week is to determine whether the RCMP, through its agent Elsohemy, encouraged Abdelhaleem to commit a crime.
The court has already heard that after Elsohemy became involved, the RCMP decided to move their counter-terror operations into high gear by providing the plotters not only with apparent bomb-making materials but with a place to store them. The Mounties also directed their mole to pressure the plotters into acting quickly.
On Wednesday, Abdelhaleem testified that the mole asked him to rent a house that could be used to make bombs. The defendant said he pretended to go along with the idea but had no intention of following through. As he explained, he didn't want to have his signature on a rental form for a bomb factory – he wasn't that stupid.
However, the main defence he articulated was that – except perhaps for his failure to notify police – he didn't think he was doing anything illegal. Referring to his role as the intermediary between the plot leader and the mole, he called himself a mailman ... strictly there passing messages ...
In Abdelhaleem's mind, as long as he confined himself to this middleman job, he'd be on the right side of the law. "I wasn't doing anything," he told the court. "I didn't think mere words were a crime."
By his own admission, Toronto 18 terrorist Shareef Abdelhaleem is a cokehead and a wastrel.
The last time he paid income tax (which, as far as he can remember was about seven years ago), the 34-year-old Mississauga man earned $357,000 doing freelance computer work. But, he told a Brampton court Wednesday, he spent most of that on the luxuries of life – "drinking, drugs, women."
As a teenager, he was kicked out of his home several times. He spent four years in a University of Toronto computer science program but never graduated.
Oh yes. And, as he acknowledged in court, he took part in plans to blow up buildings in downtown Toronto – all of which earned him a guilty verdict last week in this judge-only trial.
Abdelhaleem is the first of the so-called Toronto 18 terror group to testify in court. The picture he presents of himself (which jibes with the one given last week by the Crown's chief witness against him) is anything but black and white.
He is certainly no hard-eyed Islamist ideologue. Some of the 9/11 bombers were said to have adopted Western vices as a guise. Not Abdelhaleem. His vices were genuine. Well before he became involved in the bomb plot, he said, he was a druggie. On the days leading up to a serious 2006 heart operation, he continued to take cocaine even though he feared this might cause surgical complications.
After his operation and while the bomb plot was being prepared, he said, he would go on regular cocaine binges, speeding along for a few days until he crashed from exhaustion. Then he would start all over again.
He popped prescription painkillers until his doctor cut him off. The high they gave him, he told the judge, "was pretty good."
But at the same time, he was hardly an innocent. He knew about convicted bomb plot mastermind Zakaria Amara's plans to wreak havoc but didn't tell the police. "I'm not a rat. Period." he explained.
Nor did he think Amara was just playing games. As he told the court, he assumed the worst – that Amara would go through with his plans and that many would die.
In what might seem a bizarre twist of logic, he said he tried to convince Amara and fellow plotter Shaher Elsohemy (who, in the end, turned out to be an RCMP mole) to set off smaller 100-kilogram bombs rather than the one-tonne versions they were contemplating.
The reason, he told court, was that this would allow Amara to "get it out of his system" without doing too much damage.
The entrapment hearing taking place this week is to determine whether the RCMP, through its agent Elsohemy, encouraged Abdelhaleem to commit a crime.
The court has already heard that after Elsohemy became involved, the RCMP decided to move their counter-terror operations into high gear by providing the plotters not only with apparent bomb-making materials but with a place to store them. The Mounties also directed their mole to pressure the plotters into acting quickly.
On Wednesday, Abdelhaleem testified that the mole asked him to rent a house that could be used to make bombs. The defendant said he pretended to go along with the idea but had no intention of following through. As he explained, he didn't want to have his signature on a rental form for a bomb factory – he wasn't that stupid.
However, the main defence he articulated was that – except perhaps for his failure to notify police – he didn't think he was doing anything illegal. Referring to his role as the intermediary between the plot leader and the mole, he called himself a mailman ... strictly there passing messages ...
In Abdelhaleem's mind, as long as he confined himself to this middleman job, he'd be on the right side of the law. "I wasn't doing anything," he told the court. "I didn't think mere words were a crime."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
CANADA'S SPIN ON HOMEGROWN TERRORISM
FROM: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/canada/100126/homegrown-extremism
TORONTO, Canada — A man found guilty of Canada’s biggest terrorist conspiracy since the 9/11 attacks seems to have given new meaning to the term “homegrown” extremist.
Shareef Abdelhaleem was found guilty last week of being a key player in a plot for mass murder on the streets of downtown Toronto, Canada’s financial capital.
The twist comes from evidence that Abdelhaleem’s inspiration did not solely come from extremist interpretations of Islam. It also came, the court heard, from the practices of high-rolling Wall Street investors.
The plan was to blow up a truck packed with explosives in front of the Toronto Stock Exchange, another in front of the headquarters of Canada’s spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and a third at a military base.
“The potential for loss of life existed on a scale never before seen in Canada,” Justice Bruce Durno said last week, while sentencing another of the accused ringleaders, Zakaria Amara, to life in prison.
The plot was stopped by Canada’s national police force, the RCMP, which paid two Muslim civilians to infiltrate the group of conspirators. The infiltrator who befriended Abdelhaleem received about $4 million for his work, which included a new home and identity under the witness protection program.
The infiltrator helped arrange a sting that saw the plotters buy a truckload of fake ammonium nitrate. Police arrested two of them in June 2006 as they unloaded the material, which, if it had been real, could have been used for a bomb. Sixteen others allegedly involved in the conspiracy were arrested minutes later.
The group became known as the Toronto 18. The infiltrator testified that Abdelhaleem, now 34, hoped the Al Qaeda leadership would eventually endorse the carnage as “an act of Al Qaeda in Canada.”
The plot came with a U.S. connection: In March 2005, two Georgia residents traveled to Canada to meet some of the Toronto 18 members. Ehsanul Islam Sadequee and Syed Haris Ahmed were convicted in American courts last summer of supporting terrorism in the U.S. and abroad.
In Toronto, four people were accused of being at the heart of the bomb plot — Abdelhaleem, Amara, Saad Gaya and Saad Khalid. All have been found guilty. Abdelhaleem, however, has not been convicted. His lawyer has introduced a motion to stay the case, which would see his client walk free, on the grounds of entrapment.
The others were accused of taking part in a jihad training camp in a wooden area north of Toronto, where they practiced shooting at targets with paintball guns and a handgun. Seven have had charges against them stayed or dropped, four face trials this spring, the rest were found guilty.
Fourteen of those arrested were young adults and four were under 18 years old. All were either born in Canada or spent most of their lives here. By any definition, they were homegrown. As an RCMP report recently noted, they communicated “in a sort of ‘hoser-gangsta’ patois,” and repeatedly proclaimed their love of Tim Horton’s doughnuts and the beauty of rural Ontario.
In many ways, they mirrored the profile of European or American jihadists. Some were marginalized or naive suburban youths influenced by extremist websites and angered by Western wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the plight of Palestinians.
Khalid, now 23, was shaken by personal trauma. When he was 16, he returned home from school to find his depressive mother dead, submerged in the bathtub. He turned to Islam for comfort, eventually hanging out with youths who held extremist views.
Amara, a Canadian citizen, was the lost, troubled type. Born to a Cypriot mother and a Jordanian father, he was baptized a Christian but turned to a fundamentalist brand of Islam while living in the Toronto bedroom community of Mississauga.
He married when he was 18 and became a father a year later. He dropped out of university to support his family and got a job pumping gas. His defense lawyer said he turned to extremism to get over the divorce of his parents and escape the drudgery of his life.
After pleading guilty last week, Amara apologized and read an “open letter to Canadians” in court: “I deserve nothing less than your complete contempt.”
The twist in the homegrown profile comes from Abdelhaleem. At the time of his arrest, he was a computer engineer with a six-figure salary driving a BMW. That in itself isn’t unusual: Some extremists have come from affluent backgrounds.
Also typical was evidence that he wanted change through violence; namely, getting the Canadian government to pull its troops out of Afghanistan. What made him different is evidence that he wanted to profit financially from the bombings.
The police agent who befriended him testified that Abdelhaleem said he wanted to attack the Toronto Stock Exchange, cause markets to plunge and make money by selling stocks “short.”
This is the Wall Street alchemy where investors profit by betting that stock prices will decline. Abdelhaleem, the agent testified, wanted to use the money to fund future terror attacks in New York and Chicago.
There were suspicions that “short-selling” occurred with airline stock prior to the 9/11 attacks. The Security Exchange Commission investigated but found no evidence.
Short-sellers on Wall Street were widely criticized for making a fortune by betting on the recent market collapse, helping to bring down Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers, and precipitating the latest recession.
Some might argue that when it comes to economic sabotage, Abdelhaleem learned from the real professionals. If so, he’s as homegrown as they come.
TORONTO, Canada — A man found guilty of Canada’s biggest terrorist conspiracy since the 9/11 attacks seems to have given new meaning to the term “homegrown” extremist.
Shareef Abdelhaleem was found guilty last week of being a key player in a plot for mass murder on the streets of downtown Toronto, Canada’s financial capital.
The twist comes from evidence that Abdelhaleem’s inspiration did not solely come from extremist interpretations of Islam. It also came, the court heard, from the practices of high-rolling Wall Street investors.
The plan was to blow up a truck packed with explosives in front of the Toronto Stock Exchange, another in front of the headquarters of Canada’s spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and a third at a military base.
“The potential for loss of life existed on a scale never before seen in Canada,” Justice Bruce Durno said last week, while sentencing another of the accused ringleaders, Zakaria Amara, to life in prison.
The plot was stopped by Canada’s national police force, the RCMP, which paid two Muslim civilians to infiltrate the group of conspirators. The infiltrator who befriended Abdelhaleem received about $4 million for his work, which included a new home and identity under the witness protection program.
The infiltrator helped arrange a sting that saw the plotters buy a truckload of fake ammonium nitrate. Police arrested two of them in June 2006 as they unloaded the material, which, if it had been real, could have been used for a bomb. Sixteen others allegedly involved in the conspiracy were arrested minutes later.
The group became known as the Toronto 18. The infiltrator testified that Abdelhaleem, now 34, hoped the Al Qaeda leadership would eventually endorse the carnage as “an act of Al Qaeda in Canada.”
The plot came with a U.S. connection: In March 2005, two Georgia residents traveled to Canada to meet some of the Toronto 18 members. Ehsanul Islam Sadequee and Syed Haris Ahmed were convicted in American courts last summer of supporting terrorism in the U.S. and abroad.
In Toronto, four people were accused of being at the heart of the bomb plot — Abdelhaleem, Amara, Saad Gaya and Saad Khalid. All have been found guilty. Abdelhaleem, however, has not been convicted. His lawyer has introduced a motion to stay the case, which would see his client walk free, on the grounds of entrapment.
The others were accused of taking part in a jihad training camp in a wooden area north of Toronto, where they practiced shooting at targets with paintball guns and a handgun. Seven have had charges against them stayed or dropped, four face trials this spring, the rest were found guilty.
Fourteen of those arrested were young adults and four were under 18 years old. All were either born in Canada or spent most of their lives here. By any definition, they were homegrown. As an RCMP report recently noted, they communicated “in a sort of ‘hoser-gangsta’ patois,” and repeatedly proclaimed their love of Tim Horton’s doughnuts and the beauty of rural Ontario.
In many ways, they mirrored the profile of European or American jihadists. Some were marginalized or naive suburban youths influenced by extremist websites and angered by Western wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the plight of Palestinians.
Khalid, now 23, was shaken by personal trauma. When he was 16, he returned home from school to find his depressive mother dead, submerged in the bathtub. He turned to Islam for comfort, eventually hanging out with youths who held extremist views.
Amara, a Canadian citizen, was the lost, troubled type. Born to a Cypriot mother and a Jordanian father, he was baptized a Christian but turned to a fundamentalist brand of Islam while living in the Toronto bedroom community of Mississauga.
He married when he was 18 and became a father a year later. He dropped out of university to support his family and got a job pumping gas. His defense lawyer said he turned to extremism to get over the divorce of his parents and escape the drudgery of his life.
After pleading guilty last week, Amara apologized and read an “open letter to Canadians” in court: “I deserve nothing less than your complete contempt.”
The twist in the homegrown profile comes from Abdelhaleem. At the time of his arrest, he was a computer engineer with a six-figure salary driving a BMW. That in itself isn’t unusual: Some extremists have come from affluent backgrounds.
Also typical was evidence that he wanted change through violence; namely, getting the Canadian government to pull its troops out of Afghanistan. What made him different is evidence that he wanted to profit financially from the bombings.
The police agent who befriended him testified that Abdelhaleem said he wanted to attack the Toronto Stock Exchange, cause markets to plunge and make money by selling stocks “short.”
This is the Wall Street alchemy where investors profit by betting that stock prices will decline. Abdelhaleem, the agent testified, wanted to use the money to fund future terror attacks in New York and Chicago.
There were suspicions that “short-selling” occurred with airline stock prior to the 9/11 attacks. The Security Exchange Commission investigated but found no evidence.
Short-sellers on Wall Street were widely criticized for making a fortune by betting on the recent market collapse, helping to bring down Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers, and precipitating the latest recession.
Some might argue that when it comes to economic sabotage, Abdelhaleem learned from the real professionals. If so, he’s as homegrown as they come.
TORONTO 18 PLOT : JIHAD AS OPPOSED TO TERRORISM ?
FROM: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/01/27/toronto-18-plotter-says-jihad-different-from-terrorism.aspx
"Toronto 18" bomb plotter Shareef Abdelhaleem was against terrorism and felt like an "outsider" when his friends discussed the topic in the months leading to his 2006 arrest, a Superior Court judge heard this morning.
Abdelhaleem was testifying at an entrapment hearing in Brampton to determine whether police conduct in his case constituted an abuse of process. The 34-year-old software developer was found guilty last week of participating in a terrorist plot to detonate powerful truck bombs at the Toronto Stock Exchange, the CSIS regional office on Front Street and a military base between Toronto and Ottawa.
A seemingly agitated Abdelhaleem talked interchangeably about his cocaine habit, his troubled relationship with his father and his contact with police agent Shaher Elsohemy, who helped foil the Toronto 18 plot.
Wearing a dark shirt and neat beard, a slumped Abdelhaleem spoke quickly and often trailed off into mumbles.
He told the court he believed in a strong distinction between jihad, which has "certain rules of engagement," and terrorism.
"Terrorism is a guy that is blind to all these rules. Pissed off and willing to do anything. It's not right," Abdelhaleem told the judge.
His testimony continues.
"Toronto 18" bomb plotter Shareef Abdelhaleem was against terrorism and felt like an "outsider" when his friends discussed the topic in the months leading to his 2006 arrest, a Superior Court judge heard this morning.
Abdelhaleem was testifying at an entrapment hearing in Brampton to determine whether police conduct in his case constituted an abuse of process. The 34-year-old software developer was found guilty last week of participating in a terrorist plot to detonate powerful truck bombs at the Toronto Stock Exchange, the CSIS regional office on Front Street and a military base between Toronto and Ottawa.
A seemingly agitated Abdelhaleem talked interchangeably about his cocaine habit, his troubled relationship with his father and his contact with police agent Shaher Elsohemy, who helped foil the Toronto 18 plot.
Wearing a dark shirt and neat beard, a slumped Abdelhaleem spoke quickly and often trailed off into mumbles.
He told the court he believed in a strong distinction between jihad, which has "certain rules of engagement," and terrorism.
"Terrorism is a guy that is blind to all these rules. Pissed off and willing to do anything. It's not right," Abdelhaleem told the judge.
His testimony continues.
Monday, January 25, 2010
CSIS QUESTIONED AGENT #2'S MOTIVATION - TORONTO 18
FROM: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100125/national/terror_trial
BRAMPTON, Ont. - A police agent who testified against a former friend found guilty of terrorism offences may have had motivations other than his principles, court heard Monday.
Shaher Elsohemy was the only witness in the first part of the trial of Shareef Abdelhaleem, who was found guilty last week of plotting to bomb financial, intelligence and military targets as part of the Toronto 18 terrorist group.
Though Abdelhaleem was found guilty he was not convicted, as the defence has brought forward a motion seeking to stay the case on the basis of entrapment. Court began hearing evidence in the entrapment motion Monday as defence lawyer William Naylor questioned Elsohemy's handler at CSIS.
Elsohemy had been in contact with CSIS for several months about Abdelhaleem before becoming an RCMP agent given a compensation package worth up to nearly $4 million.
Elsohemy's CSIS contact had written in a report that something more than just principles was behind Elsohemy giving information about Abdelhaleem to Canada's spy agency, court heard.
"(Elsohemy) does not forget an enemy easily," the CSIS contact wrote in his report.
"It appears that he does not brush old contacts or unresolved disputes under the carpet," the contact testified in court after Naylor asked for elaboration.
Elsohemy has testified that in exposing the plans of the failed terror attack he wasn't motivated by the money, but by a desire to be a moral, responsible Canadian citizen.
Court has previously heard Elsohemy and Abdelhaleem were friends until Abdelhaleem went to police after he suspected Elsohemy's brother of shattering the windshield of his BMW.
Elsohemy testified two weeks ago that Abdelhaleem was "aggressive" about the matter and that Elsohemy ended the friendship because Abdelhaleem was making increasing threats about the situation.
The contact's reports also suggested CSIS was interested in Elsohemy's friendship with Abdelhaleem because Abdelhaleem was close with Zakaria Amara, who was sentenced to life last week in the plot to bomb the CSIS building in Toronto, the Toronto Stock Exchange and an Ontario military base.
They began talking again after Abdelhaleem sent Elsohemy an instant message saying he was thinking about going "back home" - Abdelhaleem was born in Egypt - to do his "ultimate duty."
Shortly thereafter was when Elsohemy began talking to CSIS.
Court also heard that Elsohemy reported to the CSIS contact that Abdelhaleem refused to store explosives at his house and that he was at first opposed to bombing the Parliament buildings, saying he feared it "would do more harm than good for Muslims."
Elsohemy testified earlier that Abdelhaleem objected to the plot when it was revealed to them by Amara, but that Abdelhaleem became excited at the prospect of profiting from an attack on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The CSIS contact's report from March 23, 2006 quotes Elsohemy as saying he thought Abdelhaleem was "too addicted to creature comforts" to suffer or die for a cause, as he interpreted Abdelhaleem's "ultimate duty" comment to mean.
Naylor spent much time discussing a reference in the contact's notes that Elsohemy had fabricated a claim of mental distress against Air Canada, where he was on disability leave from as a flight attendant, and that he hoped to get a big disability payout.
When asked about the veracity of this statement, the contact replied that it wasn't important to him for security purposes, so he wouldn't have put much emphasis on the precise details of that situation in his report.
Abdelhaleem and 17 others were charged in June 2006 with terrorism offences. A youth was previously found guilty, five men have pleaded guilty, seven have had their charges dropped or stayed and four others are set to go on trial in March.
BRAMPTON, Ont. - A police agent who testified against a former friend found guilty of terrorism offences may have had motivations other than his principles, court heard Monday.
Shaher Elsohemy was the only witness in the first part of the trial of Shareef Abdelhaleem, who was found guilty last week of plotting to bomb financial, intelligence and military targets as part of the Toronto 18 terrorist group.
Though Abdelhaleem was found guilty he was not convicted, as the defence has brought forward a motion seeking to stay the case on the basis of entrapment. Court began hearing evidence in the entrapment motion Monday as defence lawyer William Naylor questioned Elsohemy's handler at CSIS.
Elsohemy had been in contact with CSIS for several months about Abdelhaleem before becoming an RCMP agent given a compensation package worth up to nearly $4 million.
Elsohemy's CSIS contact had written in a report that something more than just principles was behind Elsohemy giving information about Abdelhaleem to Canada's spy agency, court heard.
"(Elsohemy) does not forget an enemy easily," the CSIS contact wrote in his report.
"It appears that he does not brush old contacts or unresolved disputes under the carpet," the contact testified in court after Naylor asked for elaboration.
Elsohemy has testified that in exposing the plans of the failed terror attack he wasn't motivated by the money, but by a desire to be a moral, responsible Canadian citizen.
Court has previously heard Elsohemy and Abdelhaleem were friends until Abdelhaleem went to police after he suspected Elsohemy's brother of shattering the windshield of his BMW.
Elsohemy testified two weeks ago that Abdelhaleem was "aggressive" about the matter and that Elsohemy ended the friendship because Abdelhaleem was making increasing threats about the situation.
The contact's reports also suggested CSIS was interested in Elsohemy's friendship with Abdelhaleem because Abdelhaleem was close with Zakaria Amara, who was sentenced to life last week in the plot to bomb the CSIS building in Toronto, the Toronto Stock Exchange and an Ontario military base.
They began talking again after Abdelhaleem sent Elsohemy an instant message saying he was thinking about going "back home" - Abdelhaleem was born in Egypt - to do his "ultimate duty."
Shortly thereafter was when Elsohemy began talking to CSIS.
Court also heard that Elsohemy reported to the CSIS contact that Abdelhaleem refused to store explosives at his house and that he was at first opposed to bombing the Parliament buildings, saying he feared it "would do more harm than good for Muslims."
Elsohemy testified earlier that Abdelhaleem objected to the plot when it was revealed to them by Amara, but that Abdelhaleem became excited at the prospect of profiting from an attack on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The CSIS contact's report from March 23, 2006 quotes Elsohemy as saying he thought Abdelhaleem was "too addicted to creature comforts" to suffer or die for a cause, as he interpreted Abdelhaleem's "ultimate duty" comment to mean.
Naylor spent much time discussing a reference in the contact's notes that Elsohemy had fabricated a claim of mental distress against Air Canada, where he was on disability leave from as a flight attendant, and that he hoped to get a big disability payout.
When asked about the veracity of this statement, the contact replied that it wasn't important to him for security purposes, so he wouldn't have put much emphasis on the precise details of that situation in his report.
Abdelhaleem and 17 others were charged in June 2006 with terrorism offences. A youth was previously found guilty, five men have pleaded guilty, seven have had their charges dropped or stayed and four others are set to go on trial in March.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
SHAREEF ABDELHALEEM - GUILTY ...
FROM: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/01/21/abdelhaleem-guilty-verdict132.html
Toronto 18 member Shareef Abdelhaleem has been found guilty of participating in a bomb plot, but his lawyer will try to put the case on hold by alleging the Crown acted improperly in its investigation.
The defence elected to call no evidence Thursday at Abdelhaleen's trial on charges he participated in a terrorist group and intended to detonate bombs, a spokesman for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said Thursday.
As such, the court found the Crown established Abdelhaleem's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Dan Brien said.
However, a conviction wasn't entered against Abdelhaleem, 34, and the defence is seeking to have the case stayed on the basis of entrapment. Arguments on the entrapment motion are expected Monday.
Bill Gillespie, the security correspondent for CBC News, described the defence move as complicated and designed to reduce Abdelhaleem's punishment.
"If he was to win the argument, then he would not be sentenced, or his sentence will be reduced," Gillespie said.
The defence is expected to argue that if it hadn't been for an RCMP informant, Abdelhaleem would never have gone as far as he did with the plot. The entrapment argument can only be made in the case of a guilty verdict, Gillespie said.
"He can't argue entrapment until he's found guilty of something."
Abdelhaleem and 17 others were arrested in 2006 and charged with terrorism offences. They came to be known as the Toronto 18.
The Crown's only witness, Shaher Elsohemy, was a friend of Abdelhaleem's. He became a police agent and infiltrated the terror cell, which plotted to detonate one-tonne truck bombs at the Toronto offices of CSIS, the Toronto Stock Exchange and an unspecified Ontario military base, court heard.
It is not clear if the defence team will name Elsohemy in the entrapment hearing or another informant, Mubin Shaikh.
Zakaria Amara, 24, the mastermind behind what a judge called the "spine-chilling" plot, was convicted earlier this week and sentenced to life in prison, the stiffest penalty for a terrorist offence, although he could seek parole as early as 2016.
It was the first time the maximum sentenced was handed down under Canada's anti-terrorism laws.
Elsohemy testified that Abdelhaleem initially balked at the bomb plot, saying it was not correct under Islam. Then he became excited at the prospect of profiting from an attack on the stock exchange, Elsohemy said.
The informant testified Abdelhaleem sought the advice of his father, Tariq Abdelhaleem, an engineer who ran an Islamic school, about carrying out a terrorist attack on Canadian soil.
Tariq issued a fatwa, or a religious ruling, that such an action would be "acceptable," placating Abdelhaleem's moral objections, Elsohemy testified.
Abdelhaleem at times had various suggestions for the plot, such as spreading the three bombs over three days instead of detonating them the same day, Elsohemy said. By the fourth day of bombs, Abdelhaleem said, people would be afraid to leave their houses, Elsohemy recalled.
Court heard that Abdelhaleem's view of the plot differed from that of Amara, who wanted to exact "maximum casualties."
Abdelhaleem argued for setting off the bomb at the stock exchange at 6 a.m., when fewer people were around, whereas Amara thought it should happen at 9 a.m., Elsohemy testified.
Abdelhaleem floated several other "more logical" targets if the only intention was to kill people, including: Square One Shopping Centre in Mississauga, Ont., a football or soccer game, or a factory, where the food could be poisoned, Elsohemy said.
Toronto 18 member Shareef Abdelhaleem has been found guilty of participating in a bomb plot, but his lawyer will try to put the case on hold by alleging the Crown acted improperly in its investigation.
The defence elected to call no evidence Thursday at Abdelhaleen's trial on charges he participated in a terrorist group and intended to detonate bombs, a spokesman for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada said Thursday.
As such, the court found the Crown established Abdelhaleem's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Dan Brien said.
However, a conviction wasn't entered against Abdelhaleem, 34, and the defence is seeking to have the case stayed on the basis of entrapment. Arguments on the entrapment motion are expected Monday.
Bill Gillespie, the security correspondent for CBC News, described the defence move as complicated and designed to reduce Abdelhaleem's punishment.
"If he was to win the argument, then he would not be sentenced, or his sentence will be reduced," Gillespie said.
The defence is expected to argue that if it hadn't been for an RCMP informant, Abdelhaleem would never have gone as far as he did with the plot. The entrapment argument can only be made in the case of a guilty verdict, Gillespie said.
"He can't argue entrapment until he's found guilty of something."
Abdelhaleem and 17 others were arrested in 2006 and charged with terrorism offences. They came to be known as the Toronto 18.
The Crown's only witness, Shaher Elsohemy, was a friend of Abdelhaleem's. He became a police agent and infiltrated the terror cell, which plotted to detonate one-tonne truck bombs at the Toronto offices of CSIS, the Toronto Stock Exchange and an unspecified Ontario military base, court heard.
It is not clear if the defence team will name Elsohemy in the entrapment hearing or another informant, Mubin Shaikh.
Zakaria Amara, 24, the mastermind behind what a judge called the "spine-chilling" plot, was convicted earlier this week and sentenced to life in prison, the stiffest penalty for a terrorist offence, although he could seek parole as early as 2016.
It was the first time the maximum sentenced was handed down under Canada's anti-terrorism laws.
Elsohemy testified that Abdelhaleem initially balked at the bomb plot, saying it was not correct under Islam. Then he became excited at the prospect of profiting from an attack on the stock exchange, Elsohemy said.
The informant testified Abdelhaleem sought the advice of his father, Tariq Abdelhaleem, an engineer who ran an Islamic school, about carrying out a terrorist attack on Canadian soil.
Tariq issued a fatwa, or a religious ruling, that such an action would be "acceptable," placating Abdelhaleem's moral objections, Elsohemy testified.
Abdelhaleem at times had various suggestions for the plot, such as spreading the three bombs over three days instead of detonating them the same day, Elsohemy said. By the fourth day of bombs, Abdelhaleem said, people would be afraid to leave their houses, Elsohemy recalled.
Court heard that Abdelhaleem's view of the plot differed from that of Amara, who wanted to exact "maximum casualties."
Abdelhaleem argued for setting off the bomb at the stock exchange at 6 a.m., when fewer people were around, whereas Amara thought it should happen at 9 a.m., Elsohemy testified.
Abdelhaleem floated several other "more logical" targets if the only intention was to kill people, including: Square One Shopping Centre in Mississauga, Ont., a football or soccer game, or a factory, where the food could be poisoned, Elsohemy said.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
TORONTO 18 BOMB PLOT - EVIL OR ?
*** Ah yes, logic and and philosophy. It is however, not correct to assume an evil person does not (or cannot, will not) have good in them. At the risk of a bad example heck, Darth Vader - in the end - overcame the evil within. There is a lesson.
All sin and fall short of the Glory of God, let us exploit good within people shall we? : ) MS **
FROM: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/19/jonathon-narvey-evil-is-as-evil-does.aspx
Are we so lost that those who we most trust to know the difference between right and wrong can’t see evil when it’s staring us in the face?
I never went to law school. I’m guessing courses in logic and philosophy are not a requirement of obtaining a degree in that field. Paul Slansky, lawyer for Saad Gaya, 22, of the terror group known as the Toronto 18, responds to a sentencing verdict of his client:
“Terrorism is a heinous and evil crime, but not necessarily everyone who commits a heinous and evil crime is himself evil.”
Huh? We are not judged guilty in court or by a higher power merely for evil thoughts, at least not in a democracy. We are judged for our actions. When you do evil things, you are an evil person. No need to sugar-coat it.
By the same token, when a person does good things, this indicates they’re a good person. A bit less abstractly, when a trained professional fixes the plumbing, we call this person a “plumber”. People who make art are “artists”. We are what we do. It’s that simple.
When a group of fanatics tries to kill a bunch of innocent people, we don’t care that these failed criminals give to charity or have good hygiene or are loving parents. Rational people understand that these people are evil, if that word has any meaning, and that they deserve to be locked up. Close the door, turn off the lights and throw away the key.
In any case, it seems Canadian law simply cannot cope with the scale of the threat presented by people aiming to take down the Toronto Stock Exchange, the CSIS building and a military base. The mastermind is in prison for life — which by our oddball rules means he could be out in six years. The rest of the crew are also getting sentences reduced for jail time already served.
Just thinking here, but let’s low-ball the number of people who could have been killed by these maniacs at 100. It’s arbitrary — it could just as well be 500, or 1000, or 5000, but at least we’ve got a number. Now, what kind of sentence do you give someone guilty of 100 separate attempted murders?
I’d have to hope that even in Canada, that might at least add up to the equivalent of a real sentence of life in prison.
National Post
All sin and fall short of the Glory of God, let us exploit good within people shall we? : ) MS **
FROM: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/19/jonathon-narvey-evil-is-as-evil-does.aspx
Are we so lost that those who we most trust to know the difference between right and wrong can’t see evil when it’s staring us in the face?
I never went to law school. I’m guessing courses in logic and philosophy are not a requirement of obtaining a degree in that field. Paul Slansky, lawyer for Saad Gaya, 22, of the terror group known as the Toronto 18, responds to a sentencing verdict of his client:
“Terrorism is a heinous and evil crime, but not necessarily everyone who commits a heinous and evil crime is himself evil.”
Huh? We are not judged guilty in court or by a higher power merely for evil thoughts, at least not in a democracy. We are judged for our actions. When you do evil things, you are an evil person. No need to sugar-coat it.
By the same token, when a person does good things, this indicates they’re a good person. A bit less abstractly, when a trained professional fixes the plumbing, we call this person a “plumber”. People who make art are “artists”. We are what we do. It’s that simple.
When a group of fanatics tries to kill a bunch of innocent people, we don’t care that these failed criminals give to charity or have good hygiene or are loving parents. Rational people understand that these people are evil, if that word has any meaning, and that they deserve to be locked up. Close the door, turn off the lights and throw away the key.
In any case, it seems Canadian law simply cannot cope with the scale of the threat presented by people aiming to take down the Toronto Stock Exchange, the CSIS building and a military base. The mastermind is in prison for life — which by our oddball rules means he could be out in six years. The rest of the crew are also getting sentences reduced for jail time already served.
Just thinking here, but let’s low-ball the number of people who could have been killed by these maniacs at 100. It’s arbitrary — it could just as well be 500, or 1000, or 5000, but at least we’ve got a number. Now, what kind of sentence do you give someone guilty of 100 separate attempted murders?
I’d have to hope that even in Canada, that might at least add up to the equivalent of a real sentence of life in prison.
National Post
ANOTHER GUILTY PLEA - AMIN DURRANI
*** Now if only a few more realized the error of their ways and fessed up - finally after years and after several guilty pleas, a few jail terms, one life sentence and a partridge in a pear tree.
Time served - he could be out as early as when the clock strikes 12 midnight.
And the AGENTS are the one's who have to leave their city, leave their friends so that these guys can get back out on the street? Wonderful. MS ***
FROM: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/753287--toronto-18-member-pleads-guilty?bn=1
Another member of the so-called Toronto 18 has pleaded guilty to participating in a terrorist group.
Amin Mohamed Durrani admitted Wednesday in a Brampton courtroom that he also participated in several training camps organized for the group.
Justice Bruce Durno sentenced him to 7.5 years but with credit for time served, the aspiring engineer must only spend one more day in custody and could be released after midnight.
“There are very, very serious aggravating factors,” Durno said. “There were deadly plans discussed and a target. Weapons were involved.
“It's clear he wasn't at the top … but it's clear he also wasn't at the bottom.”
It wasn't until intercepts were ruled admissible that his guilty plea was made, Durno said.
Durrani admitted he participated in the first camp between Dec. 18 and Dec 30, 2005 at Washago, Ont., where he helped train some of the younger members of the group.
He admitted he was part of the advanced group that set up the camp.
He also travelled with the leaders of the group to scout out a permanent base for their camp in northern Ontario. A rental house would have been used to store weapons and act as a safe house.
In addition, he was instrumental in planning another training camp in Rockwood, Ont., in May 2006 for younger recruits.
Durrani and others were training for what was called the “Battle of Toronto” — a terrorist plan to use three U-Haul trucks filled with fertilizer explosives to destroy several downtown buildings and surrounding areas.
In pleading guilty, Durrani admitted he was well aware of what the group planned to do, including cutting off the heads of various government officials.
“It is what I want to do,” Durrani said when asked if he had been pressured by anybody to plead guilty.
As part of his sentencing, he will submit his DNA to the national databank and is prohibited from possessing weapons for life.
Crown attorney Clyde Bond told the court that Durrani played a significant role as a member of inner circle of the group.
He was in on advanced planning of the Washago training camp and acted in a supervisory role. He actively participated in the search for a permanent base to train and store weapons.
He had extremist religious views until the time of his arrest, Bond noted, and was willing to leave his wife and family for the cause.
Bond had asked for a 7.5-year sentence.
Durrani apologized for his actions, telling the court what he did was done as part of his youthful “curiosity.”
“I did make a mistake. I was 19. I completely and fully realize what mistake I made,” he said.
“It's as if I feel I was stupid. What has been done is done and I have to live with it.”
He said he hopes to start a new life when he's released, and hopes to become an engineer.
“I want you to know my extremist views were out of curiosity,” he said. “I was young. I now realize that is not the way.
“(The) years in jail have made me realize this.”
Time served - he could be out as early as when the clock strikes 12 midnight.
And the AGENTS are the one's who have to leave their city, leave their friends so that these guys can get back out on the street? Wonderful. MS ***
FROM: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/753287--toronto-18-member-pleads-guilty?bn=1
Another member of the so-called Toronto 18 has pleaded guilty to participating in a terrorist group.
Amin Mohamed Durrani admitted Wednesday in a Brampton courtroom that he also participated in several training camps organized for the group.
Justice Bruce Durno sentenced him to 7.5 years but with credit for time served, the aspiring engineer must only spend one more day in custody and could be released after midnight.
“There are very, very serious aggravating factors,” Durno said. “There were deadly plans discussed and a target. Weapons were involved.
“It's clear he wasn't at the top … but it's clear he also wasn't at the bottom.”
It wasn't until intercepts were ruled admissible that his guilty plea was made, Durno said.
Durrani admitted he participated in the first camp between Dec. 18 and Dec 30, 2005 at Washago, Ont., where he helped train some of the younger members of the group.
He admitted he was part of the advanced group that set up the camp.
He also travelled with the leaders of the group to scout out a permanent base for their camp in northern Ontario. A rental house would have been used to store weapons and act as a safe house.
In addition, he was instrumental in planning another training camp in Rockwood, Ont., in May 2006 for younger recruits.
Durrani and others were training for what was called the “Battle of Toronto” — a terrorist plan to use three U-Haul trucks filled with fertilizer explosives to destroy several downtown buildings and surrounding areas.
In pleading guilty, Durrani admitted he was well aware of what the group planned to do, including cutting off the heads of various government officials.
“It is what I want to do,” Durrani said when asked if he had been pressured by anybody to plead guilty.
As part of his sentencing, he will submit his DNA to the national databank and is prohibited from possessing weapons for life.
Crown attorney Clyde Bond told the court that Durrani played a significant role as a member of inner circle of the group.
He was in on advanced planning of the Washago training camp and acted in a supervisory role. He actively participated in the search for a permanent base to train and store weapons.
He had extremist religious views until the time of his arrest, Bond noted, and was willing to leave his wife and family for the cause.
Bond had asked for a 7.5-year sentence.
Durrani apologized for his actions, telling the court what he did was done as part of his youthful “curiosity.”
“I did make a mistake. I was 19. I completely and fully realize what mistake I made,” he said.
“It's as if I feel I was stupid. What has been done is done and I have to live with it.”
He said he hopes to start a new life when he's released, and hopes to become an engineer.
“I want you to know my extremist views were out of curiosity,” he said. “I was young. I now realize that is not the way.
“(The) years in jail have made me realize this.”
VINDICATION FOR RCMP AGENT IN TORONTO 18 CASE
FROM: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/20/vindication-for-an-undercover-informant/
by Michael Friscolanti on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:46am - 0 Comments
When his testimony wraps up sometime in the coming days, the man once known as Shaher Elsohemy will step off the stand and disappear back into the arms of the witness protection program. For obvious reasons, nothing about his new life can be revealed. Not his fake name. Not his whereabouts. Nothing. But one thing is absolutely certain: when he does leave the witness box and return to location unknown, he can walk away a happy man—vindicated, finally, after all these years.
Until last week, when he showed his face for the first time since 2006, Elsohemy was famous for two things: helping the RCMP topple the worst of the so-called “Toronto 18,” and being paid millions of dollars in the process. For more than three years, the Mounties’ star informant had to stay hidden in the shadows and keep his mouth shut while countless fellow Muslims attacked his credibility. They called him a traitor. A rat. A money-hungry snitch who deserves to “suffer in this life and the next.” More than one defence lawyer accused him of concocting lies in order to line his pockets.
Today, the truth could not be clearer. Elsohemy was not motivated by dollar bills, and the terrorist plot he helped unravel was very, very real.
Although 18 people were rounded up in the raids of June 2, 2006, only four were accused of conspiring to set off a trio of explosions in southern Ontario. It was Elsohemy who infiltrated that core group, shared their deadly plans with police, and helped orchestrate the sting operation that brought them down. Three of the four have since pleaded guilty, including the confessed ringleader, Zakaria Amara (who now insists he no longer subscribes to the radical Islamic ideology that fuelled his murderous fantasies).
On Monday, with the RCMP’s prized asset safely tucked away in a nearby room, Amara was handed the harshest sentence possible: life behind bars. The punishment ensures the aspiring truck-bomber will stay in prison until the day he dies, or the day the National Parole Board decides he is no longer a threat. The judge’s words, read to a packed courtroom, confirmed what Elsohemy has long known. “What this case revealed was spine-chilling,” Justice Bruce Durno said. “The potential for loss of life existed on a scale never before seen in Canada. It was almost unthinkable.”
Back on the witness stand Tuesday morning, Elsohemy clarified some facts about the other lingering issue: his hefty compensation. As first reported in Maclean’s, the self-made businessman negotiated an unprecedented deal with the Mounties that guaranteed his family up to $4 million in cash, cars and houses for abandoning their identities in the name of national security. William Naylor, who represents Shareef Abdelhaleem—the fourth and final bombing suspect—tried to suggest during cross-examination that Elsohemy jumped at the chance to profit from his undercover exploits. His strategy flopped. Badly.
It turns out Elsohemy was co-operating with Canada’s spy agency, free of charge, as far back as January 2006, more than five months before the bust. Discussions about compensation only began in mid-April, when CSIS shared their well-placed mole with the Mounties—and the cops asked him to work as an agent, testify in court, and leave his entire life behind. “I was asked to think about it and come back at another date and talk about numbers,” Elsohemy said. “The cost of relocation and the suffering myself and my family had to go through was mentioned in the negotiations. The value of the work was also mentioned in the negotiations. They were separate issues, but they were both used in the negotiations.”
He kicked off the bargaining with a request for $15.4 million, arguing that his family deserves a “comfortable lifestyle” and that “the value of the investigation, i.e., stopping the terrorist act, would be worthy of that amount if there was no damage to life or property.” When the Mounties balked, Elsohemy did not abandon the investigation. He continued to provide crucial information to anti-terror detectives, and never once threatened to walk away.
According to documents viewed in court, after more than two weeks of talks both sides settled on a figure worth up to $3.99 million, including $1 million in “pure awards” ($500,000 for Elsohemy, $250,000 for his parents, and $125,000 for each of his brothers). The deal also listed a number of conditional amounts, including tens of thousands of dollars to cover debt repayment, dental work, and furniture purchases.
But as Elsohemy pointed out on the stand, his family actually received less than $3.99 million. Some of the items promised by the RCMP included an “up to” clause (ie. up to $900,000 for a new house, up to $750,000 for the loss of his business, a travel agency that specialized in tours to Egypt). That doesn’t necessarily mean his current home cost $900,000, or that his company was worth exactly $750,000. It just means that the Mounties refused to exceed that amount. “That number has not been used in totality even up until today,” he testified. “I’m not sure how much was used and how much was not.”
When asked to reveal the precise amount his family has received, Elsohemy repeated that he simply wasn’t sure. “Honestly, I have never calculated the numbers myself.” In fact, the first time he heard the $4 million figure was when he read it in Maclean’s in 2007.
Whatever the final tally, many Canadians would agree that it was worth every penny. If Amara and his underlings managed to set off his remote-controlled detonators, hundreds, if not thousands, would have perished in the blasts. Instead, only a handful of lives—the seven members of the Elsohemy family—have been altered forever.
by Michael Friscolanti on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:46am - 0 Comments
When his testimony wraps up sometime in the coming days, the man once known as Shaher Elsohemy will step off the stand and disappear back into the arms of the witness protection program. For obvious reasons, nothing about his new life can be revealed. Not his fake name. Not his whereabouts. Nothing. But one thing is absolutely certain: when he does leave the witness box and return to location unknown, he can walk away a happy man—vindicated, finally, after all these years.
Until last week, when he showed his face for the first time since 2006, Elsohemy was famous for two things: helping the RCMP topple the worst of the so-called “Toronto 18,” and being paid millions of dollars in the process. For more than three years, the Mounties’ star informant had to stay hidden in the shadows and keep his mouth shut while countless fellow Muslims attacked his credibility. They called him a traitor. A rat. A money-hungry snitch who deserves to “suffer in this life and the next.” More than one defence lawyer accused him of concocting lies in order to line his pockets.
Today, the truth could not be clearer. Elsohemy was not motivated by dollar bills, and the terrorist plot he helped unravel was very, very real.
Although 18 people were rounded up in the raids of June 2, 2006, only four were accused of conspiring to set off a trio of explosions in southern Ontario. It was Elsohemy who infiltrated that core group, shared their deadly plans with police, and helped orchestrate the sting operation that brought them down. Three of the four have since pleaded guilty, including the confessed ringleader, Zakaria Amara (who now insists he no longer subscribes to the radical Islamic ideology that fuelled his murderous fantasies).
On Monday, with the RCMP’s prized asset safely tucked away in a nearby room, Amara was handed the harshest sentence possible: life behind bars. The punishment ensures the aspiring truck-bomber will stay in prison until the day he dies, or the day the National Parole Board decides he is no longer a threat. The judge’s words, read to a packed courtroom, confirmed what Elsohemy has long known. “What this case revealed was spine-chilling,” Justice Bruce Durno said. “The potential for loss of life existed on a scale never before seen in Canada. It was almost unthinkable.”
Back on the witness stand Tuesday morning, Elsohemy clarified some facts about the other lingering issue: his hefty compensation. As first reported in Maclean’s, the self-made businessman negotiated an unprecedented deal with the Mounties that guaranteed his family up to $4 million in cash, cars and houses for abandoning their identities in the name of national security. William Naylor, who represents Shareef Abdelhaleem—the fourth and final bombing suspect—tried to suggest during cross-examination that Elsohemy jumped at the chance to profit from his undercover exploits. His strategy flopped. Badly.
It turns out Elsohemy was co-operating with Canada’s spy agency, free of charge, as far back as January 2006, more than five months before the bust. Discussions about compensation only began in mid-April, when CSIS shared their well-placed mole with the Mounties—and the cops asked him to work as an agent, testify in court, and leave his entire life behind. “I was asked to think about it and come back at another date and talk about numbers,” Elsohemy said. “The cost of relocation and the suffering myself and my family had to go through was mentioned in the negotiations. The value of the work was also mentioned in the negotiations. They were separate issues, but they were both used in the negotiations.”
He kicked off the bargaining with a request for $15.4 million, arguing that his family deserves a “comfortable lifestyle” and that “the value of the investigation, i.e., stopping the terrorist act, would be worthy of that amount if there was no damage to life or property.” When the Mounties balked, Elsohemy did not abandon the investigation. He continued to provide crucial information to anti-terror detectives, and never once threatened to walk away.
According to documents viewed in court, after more than two weeks of talks both sides settled on a figure worth up to $3.99 million, including $1 million in “pure awards” ($500,000 for Elsohemy, $250,000 for his parents, and $125,000 for each of his brothers). The deal also listed a number of conditional amounts, including tens of thousands of dollars to cover debt repayment, dental work, and furniture purchases.
But as Elsohemy pointed out on the stand, his family actually received less than $3.99 million. Some of the items promised by the RCMP included an “up to” clause (ie. up to $900,000 for a new house, up to $750,000 for the loss of his business, a travel agency that specialized in tours to Egypt). That doesn’t necessarily mean his current home cost $900,000, or that his company was worth exactly $750,000. It just means that the Mounties refused to exceed that amount. “That number has not been used in totality even up until today,” he testified. “I’m not sure how much was used and how much was not.”
When asked to reveal the precise amount his family has received, Elsohemy repeated that he simply wasn’t sure. “Honestly, I have never calculated the numbers myself.” In fact, the first time he heard the $4 million figure was when he read it in Maclean’s in 2007.
Whatever the final tally, many Canadians would agree that it was worth every penny. If Amara and his underlings managed to set off his remote-controlled detonators, hundreds, if not thousands, would have perished in the blasts. Instead, only a handful of lives—the seven members of the Elsohemy family—have been altered forever.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
MORE DETAILS ON TORONTO BOMB PLOT AGENT #2 COSTS
*** Again, I remind everyone that this is a drop in the bucket compared to how much Canada would have lost. YOU try cutting off everyone you know - uproot your whole family - tell 'em all to start over again - with new identities THEN come tell me how much YOU want in compensation. There's SEVEN people involved here folks - try not to be so envious (cardinal sin it is). Good for you Agent #2, you did what very, very few Canadians would ever even contemplate doing. MS ***
FROM: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5idLisXu6ZqmWi7mqP7Dy-JI_vjaQ
BRAMPTON, Ont. — An RCMP informant central to disrupting a plot to bomb several targets in Ontario initially requested $15 million in compensation from the Mounties, court heard Tuesday.
Shaher Elsohemy was in his second week of testimony at the trial of his former friend Shareef Abdelhaleem, who has pleaded not guilty to participating in a terrorist group and intending to detonate bombs. The explosions were to occur outside the Toronto Stock Exchange, at CSIS offices in Toronto and an Ontario military base in what's known as the Toronto 18 terror plot.
The ringleader Zakaria Amara, 24, was handed the stiffest sentence Monday under Canada's terrorism laws - life - though he can seek parole in 2016.
Abdelhaleem's lawyer William Naylor has said both publicly and in court that the compensation for Elsohemy's work to infiltrate the plot and for putting him under witness protection was $4.1 million, but documents Naylor showed in court Tuesday revealed Elsohemy was offered up to $3.99 million.
But when Elsohemy first discussed money with the RCMP in April 2006 - he had been meeting with CSIS agents before becoming a paid RCMP agent - he asked for $15 million, but was told that amount was too high.
"That was my highest level I started negotiating with," Elsohemy acknowledged Tuesday under cross-examination from Naylor.
"It was more what they asked me to go through... The cost of relocation and the suffering that myself and my family has to go through."
Elsohemy testified last week that his participation in the police operation wasn't motivated by money, but by a desire to be a moral, responsible Canadian citizen.
Abdelhaleem, 34, and 17 others were arrested and charged in the summer of 2006 in what Amara's sentencing judge characterized as a "spine-chilling" plot that but for the intervention of Abdelhaleem and another police agent would have been "the most horrific crime Canada has ever seen."
Elsohemy confirmed he received a payout of $500,000 and his parents and two brothers also received a total of $500,000.
The remaining $2.99 million consisted of money to cover costs for Elsohemy and several family members - including his wife and daughter - to relocate. Some of the figures were decided upon as fixed amounts, while the RCMP offered up to a certain amount for other costs, court heard.
Naylor showed the court documents itemizing the various amounts. The fixed costs were listed as: $750,000 for the loss of Elsohemy's business, $100,000 for Elsohemy's two cars, $100,000 for "start-up" including furniture, $200,000 in a category that had been blacked out on the document, $75,000 for his parents' cars, and $40,000 for his parents' debts. They also included $30,000 for his youngest brother's car, $100,000 for start-up for his youngest brother, $100,000 for his older brother's debts, $30,000 for his older brother's car and a further $150,000 under another blacked out category.
The RCMP compensation package also included offers of: up to $900,000 for Elsohemy's home, up to $40,000 for dental work for his wife, up to $50,000 to cover his debts, up to $300,000 for his parents' home and up to $25,000 for his youngest brother's debts, the documents showed.
It's not clear if Elsohemy and his family used all of the "up to" money, some of it or none.
The total amount offered differs drastically from what the other RCMP informant received after helping to snag the group. Mubin Shaikh received $300,000 from the Mounties.
Elsohemy has previously testified that Amara revealed his bomb plot to Elsohemy and Abdelhaleem at a restaurant and that Abdelhaleem initially objected to it, but later became excited at the prospect of profiting financially from an attack on the stock exchange
FROM: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5idLisXu6ZqmWi7mqP7Dy-JI_vjaQ
BRAMPTON, Ont. — An RCMP informant central to disrupting a plot to bomb several targets in Ontario initially requested $15 million in compensation from the Mounties, court heard Tuesday.
Shaher Elsohemy was in his second week of testimony at the trial of his former friend Shareef Abdelhaleem, who has pleaded not guilty to participating in a terrorist group and intending to detonate bombs. The explosions were to occur outside the Toronto Stock Exchange, at CSIS offices in Toronto and an Ontario military base in what's known as the Toronto 18 terror plot.
The ringleader Zakaria Amara, 24, was handed the stiffest sentence Monday under Canada's terrorism laws - life - though he can seek parole in 2016.
Abdelhaleem's lawyer William Naylor has said both publicly and in court that the compensation for Elsohemy's work to infiltrate the plot and for putting him under witness protection was $4.1 million, but documents Naylor showed in court Tuesday revealed Elsohemy was offered up to $3.99 million.
But when Elsohemy first discussed money with the RCMP in April 2006 - he had been meeting with CSIS agents before becoming a paid RCMP agent - he asked for $15 million, but was told that amount was too high.
"That was my highest level I started negotiating with," Elsohemy acknowledged Tuesday under cross-examination from Naylor.
"It was more what they asked me to go through... The cost of relocation and the suffering that myself and my family has to go through."
Elsohemy testified last week that his participation in the police operation wasn't motivated by money, but by a desire to be a moral, responsible Canadian citizen.
Abdelhaleem, 34, and 17 others were arrested and charged in the summer of 2006 in what Amara's sentencing judge characterized as a "spine-chilling" plot that but for the intervention of Abdelhaleem and another police agent would have been "the most horrific crime Canada has ever seen."
Elsohemy confirmed he received a payout of $500,000 and his parents and two brothers also received a total of $500,000.
The remaining $2.99 million consisted of money to cover costs for Elsohemy and several family members - including his wife and daughter - to relocate. Some of the figures were decided upon as fixed amounts, while the RCMP offered up to a certain amount for other costs, court heard.
Naylor showed the court documents itemizing the various amounts. The fixed costs were listed as: $750,000 for the loss of Elsohemy's business, $100,000 for Elsohemy's two cars, $100,000 for "start-up" including furniture, $200,000 in a category that had been blacked out on the document, $75,000 for his parents' cars, and $40,000 for his parents' debts. They also included $30,000 for his youngest brother's car, $100,000 for start-up for his youngest brother, $100,000 for his older brother's debts, $30,000 for his older brother's car and a further $150,000 under another blacked out category.
The RCMP compensation package also included offers of: up to $900,000 for Elsohemy's home, up to $40,000 for dental work for his wife, up to $50,000 to cover his debts, up to $300,000 for his parents' home and up to $25,000 for his youngest brother's debts, the documents showed.
It's not clear if Elsohemy and his family used all of the "up to" money, some of it or none.
The total amount offered differs drastically from what the other RCMP informant received after helping to snag the group. Mubin Shaikh received $300,000 from the Mounties.
Elsohemy has previously testified that Amara revealed his bomb plot to Elsohemy and Abdelhaleem at a restaurant and that Abdelhaleem initially objected to it, but later became excited at the prospect of profiting financially from an attack on the stock exchange
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
