Miami Imam Will Plead Not Guilty to Aiding Terror Group, Lawyer Says

After a hearing in Federal District Court here, Khurrum Wahid, the lawyer for the imam, Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan, pleaded with the community not to prejudge his client.

Mr. Khan, the leader of the Miami Mosque in west Miami, was charged along with two of his sons and three other people with providing material assistance to the Pakistani Taliban from 2008 to 2010.

“The public may have preconceived notions,” Mr. Wahid said. “I would ask the public to keep an open mind, and remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in this country.”

As he sat in the jury box’s first row in Magistrate Judge Barry L. Garber’s courtroom, Mr. Khan, who has a long, snow-white beard and wears thick, black-rimmed glasses, appeared frail and confused (the proceedings were translated in Mr. Khan’s native Urdu). On at least two occasions, Mr. Khan tried to say something to court personnel and he struggled to walk to the lectern to face the judge.

He suffers from a heart condition, failing eyesight and diabetes, his lawyer said. “We’re very concerned about his health,” Mr. Wahid said.

One of Mr. Khan’s sons, Izhar Khan, 24, the imam of a mosque in Margate, Fla., sat near his father in the jury box. Both men appeared in court for the first time since their federal indictment was unsealed late last week. Neither man entered a plea.The indictment says the defendants conspired to provide material support to a conspiracy to murder, maim and kidnap people overseas, including planning to funnel at least $50,000 to the Pakistani Taliban.

The Pakistani Taliban, which the State Department has named a terrorist organization, took responsibility for a suicide attack in Pakistan on Friday that killed more than 80 cadets from a government paramilitary force.

Of the 50 largest terrorism cases in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, about 70 percent have involved financing or other support for terrorist groups, according to the Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law.

But in a number of high-profile cases, prosecutors have discovered that proving material support for terrorist organizations is a challenge, legal experts say.

Family and friends of the Khans have asserted that all money sent to Pakistan was intended to help poor family members and support a madrasa in northwest Pakistan.

But legal experts say the fact that cash contributions might have been intended for humanitarian purposes is no longer a defense to supporting terrorism because money is so easily transferred.

“The key difficulty in prosecuting cases under this provision is proving that the contribution was made ‘knowingly,’?” said Victor Comras, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer and former State Department official who writes frequently about Al Qaeda and terrorism financing cases.

Mr. Comras said that in past cases against accused terrorism financiers, prosecutors have struggled to prove intent unless they have clear evidence like recorded statements.

According to the indictment, a tape-recorded phone conversation has Mr. Khan calling for an attack on the Pakistani Assembly similar to a suicide bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan, on Sept. 20, 2008.

Prosecutors say that in another phone conversation, Mr. Khan “declared his wish that God kill 50,000” American soldiers.

Mr. Khan’s lawyer declined to discuss the specific charges.

In recent years, prosecutors have had mixed success in terrorism-financing prosecutions.

The prosecution in Dallas of the Holy Land Foundation, accused of supporting the Palestinian militant group Hamas, is one example. Several defendants were acquitted in 2007 at the first trial, which ended in a mistrial for others. During a retrial in 2008, prosecutors won guilty verdicts against the Holy Land Foundation and five individuals for giving more than $12 million to Hamas, which the United States designated as a terrorist organization in 1995.

Three of those indicted last week in Miami are still in Pakistan. The fourth is Irfan Khan, the 37-year-old son of Hafiz Khan who appeared on Monday in federal court in Los Angeles.

Since the charges were publicized on Saturday, the Miami Mosque, known as the Flagler Mosque, has received two telephone threats, said Nezar Hamze, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in Pembroke Pines, Fla. On Monday evening, a van was parked in front of the mosque bearing a sign that said it should be burned down.

“This is the type of backlash that occurs,” Mr. Hamze said. “We are telling the community to remain on alert.” The police have set up a 24-hour presence at both mosques, he added.

A pretrial detention hearing for Hafiz Khan and Izhar Khan is scheduled for May 23.

View the original article here

Thorny Issues Surround Military Terror Tribunal at Guantanamo

 Peter Fedynsky | New York ?April 15, 2011

Attorney General Eric Holder gestures during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, where he announced plans to try avowed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged henchmen before a military commission, April 4, 2011

The Obama Administration recently reversed a decision about the trial venue for alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He and four alleged co-conspirators now face justice in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, not a civilian federal court on the U.S. mainland. There is controversy over how the decision was reached and its possible legal ramifications.

Attorney General Eric Holder said earlier this month that he opposes a military tribunal for Mohammed. But Holder said he finally agreed to a military tribunal only reluctantly because of Congressional resistance to a federal civilian trial.

“I know this case in a way that members of Congress do not. I've looked at the files. I've spoken to the prosecutors. I know the tactical concerns that have to go into this decision, so do I know better than them? Yes. I respect their ability to disagree, but I think they should respect the fact that this is an executive branch function,” said Holder.

In January, lawmakers passed a law prohibiting the use of federal funds to transfer defendants from Guantanamo to the United States. Holder acquiesced, saying the administration cannot allow further delay of the trial, because family members of 9/11 victims have waited nearly a decade for justice.

Alexander Santora, is the father of firefighter Christopher Santora, who perished in the 9/11 attacks. "We should be in the sentencing stage, we should have been in the sentencing stage when they shut it down, and here we are starting from square one. It just boggles my mind," he said.

Critics say a military tribunal could actually delay justice. Hina Shamsi, Director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said military tribunals have lower standards that do not meet U.S. constitutional and due process requirements. ?

“Because they have lesser protections with respect to admission of secret evidence, admission of hearsay evidence, and in some circumstances evidence that has been obtained through coercion, they’re going to be challenged on structural and evidentiary grounds as well,” said Shamsi.

Defendants convicted in military trials have the right of appeal, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The process can take many years.

Annemarie McAvoy, adjunct law professor at Fordham University, said certain civilian due process procedures are not feasible in terror trials. One is the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

“In the United States, you have a right to an attorney. How can you get an attorney to Afghanistan on a battlefield within an hour or a day? You can’t. Especially an attorney who is familiar with whatever the process is in the United States and who can speak the particular language that that person speaks,”?? she said.

McAvoy adds that unlike civilian trials, military tribunals can present evidence without the suspect knowing how it was obtained in order to protect intelligence sources.

“In the United States, the problem is, you also have a right to all of the information without any sort of filter for whether it’s national security information or not, which means that in the U.S. system, on our grounds, that could really hurt us,” said McAvoy.

McAvoy said a terror trial in New York also exposes the city to additional risks of attack. Shamsi disagrees.

“Hundreds of terrorism cases have been tried in the federal courts without posing undue risk to American security," Shamsi said. "In fact, it’s the kind of risk that the American judicial system and security system knows well how to address, as shown by the fact that these trials have taken place.”

Adding to McAvoy’s concerns about security issues are complaints by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg about the city's cost of securing the trial.? Shamsi counters that Guantanamo exacts a price, nonetheless, by damaging America’s global image, because President Obama promised to close the controversial facility. ?

These are some of the thorny issues underpinning the trial of Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators. Holder said it was unclear whether the suspects could be sentenced to death if they pleaded guilty in military court.

* Required By using this form you agree to the following: All comments will be reviewed before posting. Be aware - not all submissions will be posted. VOA has the right to use your comments worldwide in any VOA produced media. Terms & Conditions