Making Sense of Jihad

Jailbirds Still

Despite the best efforts of the local ACLU branch and other anti-American groups, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain (aka the Moussed Mujahideen*), will remain behind bars:

The U.S Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of Yassin Aref, 37, and Mohammed Hossain, 53, who were sentenced last year to 15 years each in prison for their roles in a fake plot to attack the Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations in New York with a missile.

Both appealed their convictions of money-laundering and conspiring to provide material support to the Pakistan-based Islamic militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed, which is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

The federal appeals court rejected all the defense's arguments, including that the men did not know missiles were involved.

"The evidence sufficed for a jury to conclude that Aref intended to aid in preparing a missile attack on American soil," the ruling said, concluding the same for Hossain.

During the 2006 trial, the two were found to have laundered $50,000 from an FBI informant who said he worked for the militant group.

*Why are they "moussed"?  At the time of their arrest, both men were wearing the traditional Salafist beards and flowing robes.  In the interim between arrest and trial, someone advised a more, er, western look:  trimmed beards, suits, and well-coiffed hair.

Case Closes on the Moussed Mujahideen

Yassin Aref and Mohamed Hossain were both sentenced to 15 years in prison this past week.  The sentence wasn't long enough, but it will do.  Case closed. 

However, the case is not closed on the Albany Times-Union, the city's only major newspaper.  The editorial and "news" staff showed their true left-wing biases during this case, and more so during the past week then during the past 18 months combined. 

In an editorial timed for release on the day of the sentencing hearing, Times-Union editors decried the sting operation:

One thing above all should be on the mind of Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy today as he goes about sentencing two Albany men for the crimes of money laundering and conspiring to aid terrorism.  It's that the ultimate crime here, selling a shoulder-fired missile to terrorists, never occurred.

If the attack had occurred would the Times-Union editors feel better about the case? Never mind. The editors then go on the ignore inconvenient facts like Aref's association with an avowedly terrorist organizations like the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (aka Ansar al-Islam) by painting a portrait of two hard working but -- alas! -- hapless refugees:

Justice will be served nonetheless if these men, who escaped countries where injustice is commonplace, and who previously lived honorable lives in the United States, are treated appropriately. Mr. Aref and Mr. Hossain are entitled to consideration of what kind of lives they might have continued to lead if they had never been lured into a sting operation.

Government prosecutors brought out more evidence of past associations with known terrorist groups, than the Times-Union editors use here to prove that either man would lead the kind of angelic life that they claim they would.  However, they ignore their own responsibility to prove (with facts) their own assertions.  But facts should never get in the way of a good victim's narrative, even when the narrative is fictitious.

Meanwhile, the Times-Union's combed-over communitarian Fred Liberian let loose his inverted, condescending vision of America as he blames the Aref and Hossain convictions on a collective, national hysteria from which smart people like him are immune:

A manufactured threat to our national safety concocted by a paranoid federal justice system at a very bad time in our history. A time when we put our brains, common sense and compassion on the shelf and opted instead for blindly striking out at anything that remotely resembles our enemy.

And he's so smart that he even knows more than American special forces and Marines on the ground in Iraq:

American intelligence in Iraq. An oxymoron to begin with. That was it, you know. That was the only reason the FBI and other Justice Department personnel created this elaborate phony missile sting in the first place was a name and an address. The FBI was determined to get Aref. Whether he did anything wrong or intended to do anything was immaterial. Hossain was trapped in the net set for Aref.

Poor Fred's inverted world sees "hope" in the conviction of Scooter Libby, but only darkness and doubt in the conviction of two men who were more than happy to launder money in a plot to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat in the US.  You get where I'm going with this.  He's a freaking moonbat, and I can only have so much fun with him before it gets tedious.  However, I'm not done with his bosses at the newspaper.

I did a search of an archive of Times-Union articles to find out whether the editorial staff has maintained a consistent opinion on sting operations like the one used to nab Aref and Hossain. The short answer: no.  For the most part the paper had covered local operations targeting prostitution, petty crimes, and suspected mafioso.  None of these stings has ever earned the attention of Time-Union editors decrying crimes that have never occurred. 

And so I'm left to believe that the Times-Union editors have no problem with prostitutes, petty criminals, and Italian-Americans being arrested, tried and convicted of "fictitious" crimes.  It's only Muslims -- even those closely associated with blood-thirsty terrorist groups responsible for the murder of thousands of Kurds -- who earn their twisted sympathies.

To that I say:

Pucker up, Gentlemen, and kiss my Italian-American ass.

No New Trial for the Moussed Muj

A federal court judge rejected a request for a new trial for Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, and as far as I can tell they will be sentenced on March 8, 2007.  Defense attorneys say that are going to appeal, but I'm not sure whether appeals procedures can postpone sentencing.

It doesn't matter, because after a fair conviction in a trial of their peers and some time in prison, I'm sure Aref and Hossain have given up on trimming the beard, moussing the hair, and lookin' all infidel like.  They are "moussed" no longer. 

Perhaps the most entertaining part of this most recent Times-Union article is its headline:  "2 Terror Defendants Lose Bid for New Trial." [emphasis mine] 

The original AP headline is, "Judge rejects new trial for Albany mosque leaders."  This is much more accurate.  The news editors at the Times-Union altered the AP headline to something inaccurate, and quite frankly, misleading.  Aref and Hossain were convicted.  They are no longer defendants.  Apparently this is lost on the Times-Union where from the start the reporting has clearly focused on painting a picture of Aref and Hossain as victims.

If its coverage of the Aref-Hossain trial is any indication of its general reporting then I can say that the Albany Times Union is clearly run by a bunch of leftist wack-a-doodle editors. If the main newspapers in places like Albany are this bad I can only imagine what it's like in other mid-size cities with only one newspaper.

I feel sorry for the thinking people of Albany.

Moussed Mujahideen Update

Convicted terrorist, IMK member, radical Islamist, and terrorist camp visitor Yassin Aref has a friend in Fred LeBrun, the combed-over lefty columnist at Albany's Times-Union newspaper.  Fred's Friday column is an exemplar of lefty delusions, unmitigated arrogance, dime-store psychoanalysis, and a willful disregard for the facts.  The best part of the article is the fact that Fred writes it with all the conviction of someone who truly believes what he's writing.

Fred begins by equating a single law enforcement effort with a McCarthy-era "witch hunt" and WWII-era Japanese internment camps (I couldn't make this up):

Someday we'll look back on the present national paranoia over terrorism and the excesses done in its name with the same national embarrassment that Americans feel for Sen. Joe McCarthy's communist witch hunts of the 1950s and our appalling treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Our lefty genius continues:

Someday.

Apparently, this someday won't come soon enough to rescue poor Yassin and Mohammed from being sentenced for the crimes for which they were fairly tried and reasonably convicted by a jury of their peers. However, this isn't good enough for Fred, who sees something unfair in a sting operation even though sting operations have been an integral part of organized crime and other law enforcement investigations for decades:

But not anytime soon, and certainly not before Yassin M. Aref, the former imam at an Albany mosque, and Mohammed M. Hossain, a pizza shop owner, are sentenced on Feb. 12.

A federal jury convicted the pair of a varying number of counts in an FBI money laundering sting operation with terrorist overtones involving a phony missile launcher. They each face 25 years in jail.

"Terrorist overtones."  Not the real thing.  Just a plot to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat in New York, but that really has nothing to do with terrorism.

There are motions before the court to throw out the conviction, but since the judge tipped his pro-prosecution hand during the trial, they will come to naught. And the inevitable appeal will stutter along. But given the dismal times for due process in our vaunted system of justice, the chances of reason, of common sense, prevailing over hysteria and hellbent ideology are slim.

A year-long undercover operation, followed by a methodical and professional prosecution, including two seasoned, professional defense attorneys and a professionally management court-room trial are here described as the practice of hysteria over reason.  The implication here is that Aref and Hossain are victims of our hysterical response to, you know, all this terrorism stuff.  Which our genius tells us doesn't really exist.

History will see these two as victims. Not innocents, but victims. Of this I am utterly convinced. Small comfort for them, or their families. They have 10 children between, all under the age of 13.

Oh, I see, it's about the children.  Well, I guess someone has to think about the children.  Apparently, the fathers weren't thinking about them when they agreed to launder money for a would-be assassin.  Aref  certainly wasn't thinking about the children when he visited the terrorist training camps in Iraq.  They were making ricin in some of those camps.  What was he thinking?  He certainly didn't consult with his friend Fred.

This case should never have seen a courtroom. Because once the mesmerizing ingredients were brought into a trial -- the convoluted and selective translations, a glib informant avoiding 15 years in jail and the exploitation of our fears and anxieties over global terrorism by prosecutors, -- the results were predictable.

Fred's lefty disdain for his fellow Albanites is in full bloom here.  He tells us the case should never have come to trial, because the evidence would obviously "mesmerized" the jury.  Apparently Albany is a community of knuckledraggers, unable to discern good evidence from bad.  They need the likes of Fred to be the arbiter of all things fair and right in the world.  And what would Fred decree?  He would say that Aref and Hossain should have never been arrested in the first place, because it wasn't about their agreement to launder money for a would-be assassin.  It was really a government conspiracy to exploit "our fears and anxieties." 

The trial had remarkably little to do with Aref and Hossain. This was not our federal court system's finest hour, or the FBI's, either.

He's right.  The trial had nothing to with the two defendants.  Prosecutors were looking for an existential conclusion to their efforts

From the beginning, the feds knew better. Up front, the Justice Department in Washington admitted that this case was not all that strong or the defendants all that dangerous.

Pure lefty fantasy.

But the FBI put a lot of resources and a lot of money, time and ego into a complicated sting that took months and months and leaps of faith to swallow. So the feds wanted a couple of scalps for all their efforts. They got them.

Oh, yeah. Because the FBI's counterterrorism has nothing else to do but satisfy their egos by wrongfully convicting a pizza shop owner in Albany.   Fred, you're a genius.  I would have never thought about that.  Silly me, I thought it was because they were willing to provide material support for a terrorist act on US soil.  Oh, I forgot.  There is no terrorist threat to the US.  That's just the fruit of our collective hysteria that only you and your lefty friends can recognize.

What's this?  Fred senses an inconsistency in his theory.

But that still begs the question of why the feds pursued this prosecution with such zealousness, even after recognizing as they must have that Aref and Hossain never posed any threat to our national security.

Why, Fred?!  Tell us!

It seems there was an ulterior motive, also reflective of our times. Sending a chilling message through the American immigrant Muslim community.

So you see, it had nothing to do with a life-risking, undercover operation.  It had nothing to do with Aref and Hossain's willingness to support an act of terrorism on US soil.  It had nothing to do with Aref's direct and substantiative connections to some of the world's most vile terrorist leaders.  Or his lying about it. No. Fred figured it out.  The FBI wanted to send a message!

--- I feel my sarcastic alter-ego surfacing --

He's right, you know.  Our Albany genius has uncovered the truth!  I've got to come clean now that he knows.  When I worked at the FBI I participated in super-duper top secret meetings in a damp basement room of the J. Edgar Hoover Bldg.  Under a single, dangling light bulb, analysts like me would take out our flasks of hard liquor, and FBI agents smoked cigars and we would randomly chose innocent American Muslims from the top-secret Innocent American Muslim Phonebook.  We would then show the names to the New York money people who (as you know) control us.  And they would tell us how we should proceed with the plan.  You know, Fred, the plan.  The plan has nothing to with stopping terrorism on US soil, it's about sending chilling messages to innocent American Muslims.  Yeah, that's why I went through a months-long personal and professional background check and a fucking "character" polygraph, so I can sit around and send chilling messages to Muslims.

-- Sigh!  --

Is this fool what passes for local commentary in New York's capital?  I feel sorry for the people of Albany. Is there's no one else to kill a tree for?

Moussed Mujahideen Update

Lawyers for Yassin Aref and Mohammad Hossain (aka the Moussed Mujahideen) have filed an appeal on their conviction, and continue to receive ample assists from local and national media.  Aref, frequently described as a "refugee,"* and Hossain, described as a "mosque leader," were convicted in October 2006 on conspiracy and money laundering charges after a government informant convinced the men to assist him in a plot to murder a Pakistani diplomat.

The New York Times (unavailable online) predictably implies entrapment:

Two mosque leaders convicted after being caught in a 2004 F.B.I. sting involving a fictional terror strike have filed court papers asking a judge to set aside the verdicts or grant them new trials.

In the defense motion filed this week ahead of sentencing in February, attorneys argue that the jury didn't understand that Aref supposedly didn't understand the informant's requests for money laundering services.  Get it?

"Yassin Aref never understood that the loan was intended to launder money, or to 'legalize money,' thus he never understood that his witnessing the loan could in any way aid (the informant) in violating the law," Kindlon wrote in his motion. "Mr. Aref never had any intent to aid JEM ... there is a complete lack of proof that he understood any connection between his witnessing the loan, and (the informant's) discussions of helping JEM."

However, during the trial, Aref admitted to and was proven to have been a member of  Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (IMK), a radical Sunni Islamist group  headed by Mullah Krekar before Krekar establish Ansar al-Islam.  This connection is never fully described in media reports.  Quite often what you read are non-sequitors like this from this regional paper:

On Aug. 5, 2004, Mohammed Hossain, another of the mosque’s founders, and Yassin Aref, the mosque’s imam, were arrested after a yearlong FBI sting. Hossain is being tried for 27 counts including money laundering and knowingly providing aid to terrorist groups. Aref faces the same 27 charges, as well as three other counts. These allege that Aref lied about his affiliation with the political group Islamic Movement of Kurdistan and that he also lied about his knowing Mullah Krekar, the founder of Ansar Al-Islam, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.

Aref worked in the Syria-based offices of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (IMK) in the 1990s.  It's possible that he was the janitor or baby-sitter at the IMK office; however, it's far more probable that he had a more significant position and was familiar with the group's recruitment and fund-raising efforts.  IMK was funded with money from Gulf-based donors and other sources.  It would be naive to believe Aref had never heard or understood the concept of money laundering before 2004.

That said it was the discovery of his name in address books and contact lists found at several terrorist training camps (described in the Albany Times Union as "encampments," as if they were legitimate military facilities) -- including Zarqawi's Kurmal poison-training facility -- that caught the attention of American authorities after the invasion of Iraq. 

Meanwhile, Aref's admitted connections to Kurdish terrorists are frequently downplayed, like this howler from the AP:

Aref, a 36-year-old Kurdish refugee from northern Iraq, was also found guilty of lying to FBI agents about having known Mullah Krekar, a suspected terrorist leader.

I guess Al-P doesn't want to prejudge Krekar, after all, he's a refugee*, too.

*The word as it's used here is pure liberal pathos, connoting a generalized victimhood for foreigners and providing the mental picture of "huddle masses yearning to breathe free." In reality, it's more often used as a legal loophole by foreigners who want an easy-in to Western countries like the US and Canada, and sometimes terrorist use "refugee" status as a way to infiltrate Western countries. 

Moussed No More

I celebrated the conviction of Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain with the Snoopy dance.  It was a single, tiny bright spot in a rather depressing period in our fight against radical Islam.   With Pakistan's capitulation in the NWFP, with the US losing its will in Iraq, hearing that a small terrorism case based out of Albany resulted in a thorough and unambiguous conviction was a moment worth a glass of wine and an extra "thank you" to The Man Above.

There was little or no response in the national mainstream media.  And the local response was odd to say the least.  Times-Union, Albany's largest local newspaper, commemorated the event with a bizarre, paranoid political cartoon that implied a crooked government sting was to blame for Aref and Hossain's enthusiasm for laundering money for a planned terrorist attack with a surface-to-air missile.

The event passed without much discussion or acclaim in the blogs, but like a Wal-Mart for decrepit Marxist ideologies, the terrorist rights industry has reached the most remote areas of the country, even Albany (note: I'm joking about the Albany part).   The industry itself has no real purpose beyond protesting anything they perceive to be a grievance.  Exactly what those grievances are changes with the moment, but a counterterrorism trial guarantees some kind of conspiracy/grievance narrative worth protesting.

There would be some entertainment value to all this carrying-on if it wasn't so sad.  The fact is Aref and Hossain are radical Islamists who support the global imposition of shariah law.  Aref has admitted being a member of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (IMK), a terrorist group with direct ties to Al Qaeda and a notorious reputation for brutality.  If their movement succeeded, they would have imposed a Taliban-like government in northern Iraq.  None of this matters to free-love, religion-hating, aging, self-righteous anger-mongers who appear to hate the fruits of Western peace and prosperity so much, that they're willing to commit cultural suicide for a slogan: 

It's the "slyer virus" described by Mark Steyn soon after 9-11:

If we are as ashamed as we insist we are—of ourselves, our culture and our history—then inevitably we will invite our own destruction. If Western civilization is really something to apologize for, then surely the sooner all our cities are flattened the better it will be for the world. In that sense, aside from anything else, September 11, 2001 was a call to moral seriousness. We know now what is at stake.

Around the world, there are certain societies that function and those that don’t. The ones that work have certain things in common. The ones that don’t reject some or all of those features, disdaining explicitly the rule of law, property rights, free expression, and representative government, thereby additionally depressing economic activity, technological innovation, foreign investment, education, and the arts. For the people running these loser states, this grim soiled laundry list is necessary to maintain the regime. For those observing from the West, it is in the nature of multicultural man, generous to a fault, to regard these aberrations as just another “alternative lifestyle”—lesbianism, vegetarianism, totalitarianism, whatever.

And epitomized by the Canadian "peace activist," Diana Ralph, who along with her "wife," offered to shelter Al Qaeda terrorist Hassan Almrei.  According to the Canadian federal judge's finding in Almrei's case:   

[423]  The relationship between Dr. Ralph and Mr. Almrei began after she offered her home to him. She testified that she speaks (and has for the last while) to him daily on the telephone and visits him weekly. She sends him books and magazines. She regards him as a son and claims that in many ways, she knows him better than her biological son. It became clear to her, “very quickly”, what a wonderful man he is. When she first met him, he carried some endemic assumptions about Jews, but never treated her badly. He has welcomed Dr. Ralph’s wife as his other mother, and accepts that it is up to God to judge people. Dr. Ralph assesses Mr. Almrei to be totally honest.

[424] I am not at all satisfied that Dr. Ralph possesses the requisite objectivity or necessary impartiality to stand as the primary supervising surety. She has had no experience with Mr. Almrei except when he was in a highly-regulated and controlled environment. I do not fault her positive and protective views regarding Mr. Almrei, nor do I suggest that a surety must assume a purely neutral attitude. However, I find Dr. Ralph’s judgment to be clouded by her political beliefs. I am not convinced that she appreciates the onerous task that she has offered to assume. For example, when questioned as to her knowledge of the Arabic language, she candidly stated that she did not understand Arabic. However, in her view, it is of no moment because she would not listen in on Mr. Almrei’s telephone calls in any event.

[425]  Dr. Ralph describes herself as a law-abiding citizen except in matters of civil disobedience. She has previously encountered difficulty in this area. I have no idea how she defines the term “civil disobedience”. More importantly, I am not confident that she exhibits respect for the Court, as an institution, given her comments on the hearing of this application (June 28, 2005 transcript, p. 273). Respect for the Court and its orders, in my view, is a condition present to credible presentation of oneself as a surety. Otherwise, how can the Court be confident that the surety will endeavor to ensure that its orders are honored. I am not convinced that law enforcement personnel, in the absence of an appropriate surety, can ensure compliance with the Court’s order.

Questions from the Jury

The jury deliberated through a 2d day today in the Albany case of Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain.    Albany Times-Union reports on a jury foreman request for clarification on one of the indictments and the testimony of an FBI agent.  It appears that Aref admitted to being a member of IMK to an FBI agent on the night of his arrest.  He had a different story for the jury:

Early Wednesday afternoon, the jury foreperson sent a note to U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Mc- Avoy asking for clarification on a charge near the end of the 30-count indictment. The charge accuses Aref of lying to the FBI when he was asked whether he was a member of an Iraqi political group, the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan.

A couple hours later, the jury requested to hear the testimony of a young FBI agent who was in the room with Aref on the night of his arrest in August 2004. During the overnight interrogation, said the agent, Aref admitted working for the IMK but said he was not a member.

Special Agent Zachary Delecki, under cross-examination by Aref's attorney, Terence L. Kindlon, recalled that Aref said he worked at the IMK office in Damascus, Syria, as a driver, cleaner and office helper. Aref testified last week that he was not a member of IMK, and would not join any political party, because it would be in conflict with his religious beliefs.

"Certain Valid Suspicions"

The case against Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain went to the jury today.  Local TV news caught up with one of the alternate jurors, but they guy had little to say.  And all we can do now is cross our fingers and hope the jury room contains at least one atom of sense. 

I hate lawfare, and I hate it for this reason.  Jury trials for radical Islamists mean nothing to them.  They don't recognize our laws and see their own behavior in the context of something greater than our laws.  However, they ruthlessly exploit our system of justice to undermine it, by compelling law enforcement to change its tactics (in the name of political correctness) while simultaneously planning for the day when those laws no longer apply and the "sun of Islam rises from the West." 

According to the Times-Union, defense attorneys ended with a flourish:

Aref was characterized by Kindlon as a poet, family man and spiritual leader who grew up in northern Iraq under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Luibrand said Hossain was a hardworking business owner who was leading an innocent life until the informant started working on him. Kindlon compared this prosecution to the conviction of a black man for rape in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

"The government went out and decided to snag a couple of Middle Easterners," he said.

In a related article, sympathizing journalist Brendan Lyons was shocked! by the judge's instructions to the jury yesterday when he made mention of something deeper at work in the case:

A federal judge, citing no specific reason, told a jury Monday that the FBI had a valid reason to target the leader of an Albany mosque who is on trial for terrorism-related charges.

U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy gave his cryptic instruction to jurors on the last day of testimony in the case. It came after prosecutors and defense attorneys had argued privately about how much the jury should know about why agents zeroed in on the 36-year-old Kurdish refugee in an FBI sting case.

A federal law enforcement official had told the Times Union previously that their interest in Yassin M. Aref, who is the jailed leader of a Central Avenue mosque, stemmed from his name and Albany address allegedly being found in three suspected terrorist strongholds during the war in Iraq. Details of those raids were included in federal prosecutors' trial briefs, but there has been no testimony about the encampments during the 4-week-old trial.

"That is not an issue for your consideration ... and it can't factor into your deliberations," McAvoy told the panel, which is scheduled to hear attorneys' summations in the case today. "The FBI had certain valid suspicions."

Aref, a man whose name was found at "terrorist strongholds" in northern Iraq.  So what if his name was on a sign-in sheet at the Khurmal poison training facility?  Whatever, man.  He can't be all that bad.  He's a poet.

UPDATE

Western Resistance also notes the completion of the trial, and adds a few lines about Aref's "poetry:"

Diary evidence from Yassin Aref linked him to Mullah Krekar, the founder of terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, which has ties with al Qaeda. Assistant US Attorney William Pericak has stated that one of these diary entries stated that is was time "to take the war to America and Israel."

Another of Aref's writings listed by the prosecutors was a poem from Dec 1999 that included the lines: "Raise the Jihad sword ... Raise the Koran with blood ... So we can bring back the freedom for ourselves and the entire people of this Earth."

Moussed Mujahideen Defense

The Albany Times Union continues its advocacy for the Moussed Mujahideen first by attempting to legitimize defense attorney's accusations that Evan Kohlmann wasn’t qualified to testify.  Repeating that old “Doogie” nickname, Time Union reporter Brendan Lyons reported in detail an exchange that supposedly displayed Kohlmann’s lack of credentials.  As Andrew Cochran at Counterterrorism Blog explains, the defense attempt failed miserably…again:

The defense attorneys filed a motion to disqualify Evan, which led a reporter covering a case to ask Marvin Miller, one of the defense attorneys in the multi-defendant "Virginia jihad" case, about Evan. Miller aimed his best verbal volley at Evan and, indirectly, every federal judge before whom Evan has testified: "He is young. He doesn't have experience. He's never done any original research... He runs off at the mouth and a lot of judges won't control him the way they will other witnesses."

If you follow terrorism trials, you'll understand why Mr. Miller is a little hyper-sensitive about Evan. In the "Virginia jihad" case of Ali Chandia this year - the one in which Mr. Miller lost, with his client going to jail - the government presented a 12-page document opposing Miller's motion to exclude Evan, and the judge agreed with the government.

Prosecutors rested their case, and then Aref took the stand in his defense.  Another Times Union piece details his account of the difficult life he and most Kurds experienced after the first Gulf War:

In 1983, when Aref was a teenager, he said he awoke one night in the cramped room where seven of his family members slept and he searched for his brother, who was getting violently ill outside. Under the threat of death, Iraqi forces had prohibited any travel at night then, and Aref said his brother died before they could get him to a hospital the next day.

Four years earlier, his 9-year-old sister died from health complications in the poverty-ravaged village.

Eventually, Aref said, he and his family were forced to roam Iraq's mountainous borders with millions of other Kurds fleeing Saddam's forces.

"They kill people just because they were talking Kurdish language," he said, his English noticeably improved since his arrest in August 2004. "I was one of three million and a half people, and I left my home."

Aref also talked about the two dominant Kurdish political parties and their splintered efforts to create a Kurdish state and usurp Saddam's dictatorship.

None of this excuses the fact that his name was found on a sign-in sheet at Zarqawi's Kurmal poisons training camp. 99% of the Kurds who suffered in those years never decided to hang with radical Islamist groups,  but what the heck...The Times Union does describe his testimony about his unfortunate close association with, er, Mullah Krekar:

Aref admitted working for IMK, but said it was only out of desperation after a college friend offered him the job at a time when he'd lost another one. But he denied government assertions that he was part of IMK's power structure, noting that two of his brothers are members of a rival political party.

The most notorious former member of IMK, Mullah Krekar, left the organization several years ago and formed a violent Iraqi terrorist organization, Ansar al Islam, which has been responsible for suicide bombings and other attacks across Iraq. Aref admitted he met Krekar in Syria, but said it was only in passing when he visited IMK's Damascus office.

"I didn't know him personally," Aref said. "He was famous person."

One of 30 counts contained in the indictment against Aref accused him of lying to an FBI agent about whether he knew Krekar.

Where have we heard that one before?  Don't you love the Times-Union obfuscation of Ansar al-Islam? The group was just sorta-kinda founded a few years ago.  Whenever, dude.  Actually, Krekar founded the group around 2000, and it was quite active well into the US occupation in 2003.  As a matter of fact, it was sheltering Zarqawi and helped him establish his poison training facility at Khurmal.  It was also one of the first groups to claim responsibility for a car bomb in Iraq. 

Well, the love fest continued on Friday, Aref's second day on the stand:

Yassin M. Aref, a Kurdish refugee who moved to the United States in 1999, said his speaking skills have gradually improved, especially during the past year as he has been confined to a jail cell where he's used a dictionary and books to improve his English language comprehension.

But nearly three years ago, when a fellow mosque member asked him to be a witness for a loan, Aref said, he had no idea the man providing the money, a Pakistani immigrant, was masquerading as an illegal arms dealer. All of their conversations took place in broken English.

"The word 'ammunition' never I hear about," said Aref, who spoke no English when he moved to Albany under a United Nations refugee program. "I don't know he's trying to misguide me."

This is actually a clever defense, and one that can be used on a provincial Kurd, probably more than, say, a well-traveled, hyper-educated Arab.  I hope the prosecutors have planned for the No Habla Englaise defense.  If Aref walks, you'll be seeing it a lot more in these trials.

------------------------------------------
Why "moussed"?

Moussed Mujahideen on Trial

Albany courtroom drama began last week for Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossein (aka the "Moussed Mujahideen"), defending themselves against federal money laundering charges.   

The jury heard testimony from Shahid "Malik Hussein," the FBI informant who posed as a terrorist wishing to launder money through Hossein's business in order to fund an assassination attempt on Pakistan's ambassador to the US.  Federal prosecutors showed the jury tapes of the business dealings between Hussein and the suspects:

Prosecutors also had a fellow Kurd testify about Aref membership in the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan, working for a time in the group Damascus office.  Aref also caused a fuss with an act of witness intimidation (Capital 9 News downplays the event):

There was also some drama in the courtroom Thursday. Aref jumped up out of his seat smiling and waving hello to the witness who identified him as being part of that political group -- an obvious cultural divide between those who are conducting the trial and the defendants.

Albany news outlets have been fawning all over the two, portraying them as hapless victims of a ruthless government sting. Aref is regularly described as a "refugee."  Hossein is described in this Times-Union report as "Bangladeshi immigrant had committed no crimes, paid his taxes, worked numerous jobs and saved enough money to buy a couple of rundown houses in Albany that he fixed up and rented for income." 

Fred LeBrun, a columnist for the Times-Union all but proposed marriage to the suspects last week:

In other words, Hossain never sought to break the law or become involved in any way with terrorism. When the fast-talking informant produced a supposed surface-to-air missile at a private meeting, Hossain had to be told what it was. According to the government's own videotape at the trial, all the inflammatory terrorist rhetoric came from the informant, not from Hossain. If anything, Hossain looks like a guy humoring someone he believed to be a wealthy businessman who was going to make him a desperately needed loan.

By Islamic custom and law, Hossain needed a witness to the financial transaction. He called his imam, Yassin M. Aref, to be the witness and that eventually led to charges against Aref. Even though Aref was never present when the supposed missile was around, we're now told Aref was really the fellow the feds were trying to nab in the first place, apparently on the basis of foreign intelligence. Intelligence that in recent years has also inspired little confidence, or less.

So now we're up to our earlobes in the government's interpreting what all this means through a host of difficult-to-understand witnesses, conflicting translations, contradictory statements and confusing video footage. And a constant parading of the bogus surface-to-air missile for the jury to contemplate.

Talk about an inflammatory piece of evidence inappropriately brandished, beginning the day after the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Straight up, if the defendants were not a couple of swarthy Middle Easterners who fit the profile, this case would be a laugher. But to the contrary, for reasons that have little to do with Aref and Hossain, I fear what can happen here is no laughing matter at all. Justice is on trial.

I openly wonder if they can even get a fair trial

Capital News 9 has a sympathetic report on evidence of Aref's association with the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (note: I see no decent information on the group, this BBCNews report is about as good as any of them).  Its offshoots include Ansar al-Islam and the Kurdistan Islamic Union. A Capital News 9 reporter also tells us what to think about Thursday's proceedings when the government admitted into evidence audio tapes of Aref's sermons:

A translator read each word of the translation the government may be using to show an inclination toward radical Islamic thought -- including statements like, "We should sacrifice our lives for the sake of the religion."

But the speeches, in their long sermon-like ways, when put in context are more about Aref's preaching against Kurds leaving their homeland for places like Europe and America, which he does call "the house of infidels."

The "speeches" clumsily mentioned here actually are sermons.  The "house of infidels" mentioned here is probably the Islamic concept of the "dar ul harb," or the "house of war."  Skippy, the Cap 9 reporter, (watch the video, you'll see what I mean) doesn't tell us what context we're supposed to put this in, but that doesn't stop him.

The lefty local press can boo-hoo for these men as much as they want.  If the government can prove Aref lied about his affiliations the verdict won't matter; he's a goner.  Aref will be deported back to Kurdistan, much like fellow Kurd, Sam Malkandi, recently deported for known connections to senior Al Qaeda ground commander, Tawfiq bin Attash. 

Deportation may prove to be the best motivator for Aref to start talking.

A Love Letter to Yassin

It appears that Mr. Aref can count a local pundit (with a goofy-looking mustache) as a personal fan:

We should brace ourselves for quite a government spectacle in federal court, designed to get us all worked up over terrorism, real and imagined.

Even though Aref does not stand accused of any terrorist act, or planning one, or consorting with terrorists. Keep in mind he was not present during the sting when a missile launcher was shown to his co-defendant, nor did Aref stand to make a nickel. From the government's point of view, nevertheless Aref is a sort of terrorist sympathizer. Aref and his attorney deny this utterly, claiming Aref is nonviolent, pro-American and not what the government claims at all.

U.S. Attorney William Pericak says he's ready for a trial that should take about three weeks. Defense attorney Kindlon, of course, will be careening north after defending Christopher Porco down in Goshen.

If the two sides hold true to form, we can expect the government to fill in the many spaces in a diary kept by Aref, who is from Kurdistan, to paint him as someone who met with known terrorists and therefore by extension is of the same ilk.

Kindlon pretty much outlined the defense strategy in his detailed refutation of the government's case in the latest bail motion.

He asserts that the government's case is "a shameful tapestry of lies designed to confuse anyone who reads it into accepting a fantasy world of government paranoia." He's claiming deliberate mistranslations and distortion have depicted Aref as a mythical bogeyman.

The government accuses Aref of connections to Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam.  Apparently, Mr. LeBrun doesn't remember that Al Qaeda is at war with the US, and actually has attacked us in the past.   But let's not confuse the man, because he knows better.  US prosecutors are just getting us all worked up, against, you know, terrorism, "real or imagined."

Moussed Mujahideen Update

The national MSM recently covered the Albany case of Yassin Aref and Mohammad Hossein with cue-the-ominous-music boilerplate regarding a federal judge's dismissal of a motion requesting release of information on government sources and methods, er, classified information regarding possible NSA activity:

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Yassin Aref, an imam at an Albany mosque who is accused of laundering money for an FBI informant posing as an arms dealer.

Aref wanted the government to say whether any of the evidence against him had been gathered through the warrantless electronic surveillance program, which has been challenged by some civil liberties groups.

He asked the court to force the NSA to reveal details of the program, rule it illegal and toss out evidence gathered from it. The New York Civil Liberties Union joined Aref's motion.

Much of the legal debate over the request has been conducted under a shroud of secrecy because of the program's classified nature, with key court documents available only to those with security clearance.

New York Law Journal recently profiled the Albany case, but the judge's ruling can be found at the US 2d Circuit Court of Appeals website:

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find each of them to be without merit.  For the foregoing  reasons, Aref’s petition is in part dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and denied in remaining part.  NYCLU’s motion to intervene is denied as moot and its petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

----------------------------------------------
UPDATE

Why "Moussed"?  Answer.

Albany Watch

Mr. Aref better keep his infidel suit pressed, he and his buddy Mohammad Hossain are going to trial:

U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy said there was sufficient evidence for a trial. He also refused to grant separate trials for the men, who have pleaded not guilty.

Aref, 35, a native of northern Iraq's Kurdish area, immigrated to the United States with his family in 1999. Hossain, 50, a native of Bangladesh who owns an Albany pizzeria, is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Prosecutors maintained that they were willing participants in criminal activity, while the defense argued Monday that the men were entrapped.

The FBI informant allegedly told the men that some $50,000 they held for him was from the sale of a missile that would be used to kill a Pakistani diplomat in New York City. The men say they never believed the business deal was part of a terrorist plot.

If convicted of all charges, Aref faces up to 470 years in prison and $7.25 million in fines while Hossain faces 450 years in prison and $6.75 million in fines. Aref remains in jail awaiting trial. Hossain is free on bail and declined to comment leaving court.

They are accused of attempting to provide support to Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan-based group listed by the federal government as a terrorist organization.

Of the two suspects, Hossain is free, but Aref remains jailed.  The local FOX News affiliate carried an interview Aref's attorney gave with local news.  He gave the usual boo-hooing account of how terrible it is in jail for his client, whined about how much of the evidence is still classified, and hinted that it may be a long time before the case goes to trial. 

The most entertaining aspect of this -- or any of these trials, really -- is the marked transformation of the suspects' appearance from "good" Muslims with long beards, skull caps, and flowing robes into respectable looking infidels, suits, hair gel, etc. 

There's more coverage here, here, and here (with an excellent video archive).