Slashdot Mirror
Former Intel Engineer Pleads Guilty To Taliban Aid
theodp writes "Following up on an earlier Slashdot story, software engineer Maher "Mike" Hawash pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban, agreeing to testify against other suspects in exchange for the dropping of other terrorism charges. He will serve at least seven years in federal prison under the deal. In March, federal agents seized Hawash from a parking lot outside Intel Corp., where he worked, and held him as a material witness until charges were filed five weeks later."
From the news bit:
"You and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban. Is this true?" U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones asked Hawash during the hearing.
"Yes, your honor," Hawash replied.
I had really hoped that the US Gov was wrong for nabbing a US citizen. I had hoped that there would be a suite against the gov for violating civil rights.
But Damn!
This doesn't look good.
yeah but... it's fairly common for innocent people to plead guilty to lesser charges if they and their lawyers are convinced that they're likely to be convicted of something significantly more serious if it goes to trial. (One was a drinking buddy of mine.)
I'm not saying that this is the case here (in fact, it doesn't look like it at all) but it does happen, and I think it's one of the larger flaws in our justice system.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
But they did mention that he worked for intel. Quoted from FoxNews.com Article: "In March, federal agents seized Hawash, 38, from a parking lot outside Intel Corp., where he worked, ..." (Re: "...Fox News fails to mention that he worked for Intel", hackwrench)
That is correct. The Taliban != Government.
They were only recognized as such by three countries out of the whole wide world. It wouldn't take many guesses to get all three.
The Taliban was a revolutionary force seeking to oust the legitimate governement recognized by the rest of the world. They held no aspects of government control but operated territory under their sway ( which never even amounted to a clear majority of territory) under pure martial law. They had no civil police. No civil law for such civil police to enforce.
When outside military forces entered Afghanistan they did so in support of the recognized legitimate government which still held the northern portion of the country and said government's military forces bore the brunt of the fighting.
KFG
Because the Talaban sheltered Al Quaeda, provided them land to build training camps, and refused to give up their leadership even after the attacks of 9/11?
I think that their direct support of Bin Laden makes a clear case that they are culpable for terrorism. And I don't even agree with the war on Iraq or any of the dozens of stupid things the Feds have done in the name of defending us from terrorism.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I agree, the whole plea bargain thing should be done away with. Either they have the goods on you or they don't, and you should either take the rap or not. Plea bargaining may save the system resources but it also creates a huge hole in the system for (a) innocents to fall into, and (b) actual criminals to slip through to lighter sentences. And of course, once you plea you are forever guilty - innocent people don't cop, as they say. The whole thing stinks.
The Taliban was a legit government
Woah, hang on there. The only country that recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan was Pakistan. Nobody else in the world thought they were a "legit" government, and they didn't even represent Afghanistan in the United Nations.
And they had a hell of a lot to do with Al Qaeda. They provided logistical support and gave aid to Al Qaeda, and they did so knowing that he was carrying out terrorist activities (here is the US's stance on the Taliban). Nobody really disputes this. Some people have even speculated that Bin Laden requested Mullah Omar's approval before any terrorist act.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Actually, you are right. You wouldn't have been a terrorist. You'd have been a covert agent of an enemy power -- a spy. You would not have been held as a POW; you would have been held as an irregular combatant. Guess what? The Geneva conventions don't protect irregular combatants. Combatant nations are not legally bound to return irregular combatants to their countries of origin when conflict ends.
If you weren't shot out of hand, you'd have spent the rest of your life in a French jail, along with the other collaborators.
The whole thing reeks of a gov't conspiracy. At least, his friends and coworkers seem to think so.
I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
"All this comes courtesy of.. FoxNews! The most factually solid news organization ever..."
It is actually an AP story. If you go to GoogleNews you will find the same story reprinted verbatim at hundreds of sites.
"I'm inclined to believe he was bullied into this plea deal."
That is what happens with most criminal defendants. He faced a maximum of 20 years. By agreeing to plead guilty they dropped a few of the charges and the sentence was reduced to 7 years. Not much different then what you would find in most cases.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
See, he didn't even make contact with the Taliban, and there's no indication that he was interested in killing civilians--he wanted to aid them in the field against the military. So explain again what threat he was posing in those 5 weeks?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
You mean like America did exactly the same thing for Bin Laden when Russia was in Afghanistan or have you forgot that already?
They were commiting doing the same things then but to Russia but no that doesn't count does it?
If another country was funding our freedom fighters while we were boing occupied and then after we got freedom turned around and tried to take our freedom from us so that our freedom fighters attcked them I wouldn't turn around and hand them in?!?!?!?
America funded Bin Laden to get rid of Russia (Imagine of they got control of the middle east with all that oil!) and made promises they didn't plan on keeping. Russia leaves and America goes back on it word. You have a large well funded group of people that have been stabed in the back and people got supprised when the reacted?!?!?
I know what they did was wrong but try and imagine what you'd do if you were in that possition.
He obviously hasn't been shaving or something since he's been in jail. He hasn't always looked like that.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Mike doesn't get to choose the plea.
Dying in defense of the Taliban in a general sense is not criminal in any manner. His answer to the question does not establish guilt for what he'd been accused.
"Co-"conspirators had already been named. Mike is just being required to provide testimony against them in exchange for lenience against him. This does not mean he "has" any information which establishes his or their guilt.
We will never know if Mike is guilty due to the plea bargain. I read the affadavit the case is based on -- it is very clear the government's case rested on smoke and mirrors more than any thing else.
The U.S. government overstepped its bounds by holding a citizen without counsel, habeas corpus, charges, etc, etc, for 5 weeks.
According to this article, in the prosecution of the "Buffalo Six", they plead guilty mainly because the government was threatening to declare them "Enemy Combatants". In such a case, they could be held without trial indefinitely in solitary confinement, or face a military tribunal and possible execution.
Or you can do 7 years (less, with good behavior) knowing you are innocent. What would you do?
First; there is under international law in this area (the Geneeva Convention, which USA signed and ratified) any category as "irregular combatants" or the often used "unlawful combatant". Classifying a person as such a thing is actually in itself a violation of the Geneva Convention.
However there are categorys , such as mercenaries, who are not accorded the full protection of the Third Geneva Convention. But, and here comes the crucial part: If there is any doubt whether someone is a POW, an independent court must decide their status.
In this case I'm not shure wheter he is in any way "covered" by the Geneva Convention as the article is not very extensive on information.
But the US government don't have a very good track record when it comes to following the GC.
For example in the Guantanamo Bay case, since the status of the prisoners is unclear (POW or not POW) the case should have been decided by an independant court such as a court in Switzerland, Sweden or any other national court in a country that is not a part in the conflict.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Umm...
- Iraq was not in the name of terrorism, it was in the name of preventing proliferation of WMD
- The Taliban was put into government in Afghanistan by the USA
- Aiding and abeting terrorists does not make them culpable
- Even if it did, someone helping someone who helps terrorists is not a terrorist
Just a few clarifications..."But everyone should know everything." -markab
No.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is an addage that is appropriate when there is not any evidence available to support a charge.
"An adage" is a very peculiar way of describing the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land.
It has come time, imho, that combating terrorism has got to involve more prevention than reaction
The entire modern system of justice rests on the pillar of adjudication. Take that away and you have a mockery.
Just FWIW, it's pretty much required for Muslim men to grow beards. Actually, the four legal schools disagree on specifics, but I think the agreed upon length of beard is one fist away from the face. It's more than tradition.
Or maybe you're just lucky? It's a well-documented fact that Arab (and Arab-looking) people were openly mocked, derided, and attacked in some areas.
And, to be perfectly honest, did you ever consider that it was maybe the fact that you shaved that made the difference? In my personal experience, people tend to respond more negatively to bearded individuals (why I keep fairly clean-shaven).
Some reading material: Hate crimes after Sept. 11. Fortunately, the reported number went down after a bit, but this clearly shows that there was an rash of attacks after the WTC and Pentagon were attacked.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
apparently so does the Associated Press, since they wrote the story...
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
To clarify, this is a little right, but, imho, mostly wrong.
It is true that the CIA supported the Afghani mujahideen in the 80's. If you're interested, the word "mujahideen" is of an Arabic base and comes from the three letter radical j-h-d, with a rough meaning of struggle (one meaning of jihad is, literally, to struggle). A mujahid is someone who struggles/practices jihad. Mujahideen is the plural.
Anyway, off that tangent. Yes, the CIA funded Afghan mujahideen/freedom fighters in the 1980's. There was an Afghan govt later formed of those same mujahideen. It was not however, until 1996 that the Taleban seized Kabul and ousted the former Mujahideen govt.
Incidentally, Taleban comes from the Arabic radical t-l-b. A Talib is a student. Taliban, in pashto means students. The Taleban are the products of radical (and backwards!) madrasahs, religious schools, many of them in Pakistan. The allegation that the CIA funded the Taleban is totally incorrect. There were no doubt American arms under Taleban control, but you must remember that warlordism in Afghanistan is nothing new. You can go back thousands of years and little in Afghanistan has changed. Alexander the Great encountered very fierce resistance on his way to Central Asia. Warlordism and yet another meltdown of Afghan society in the 90's brought about the Taleban, NOT American support.
why don't you tell me who you believe attacked the ... Bali nightclub full of Australians and that hotel in Indonesia a few days ago?
I think you'll find that in both cases, it was Jemaah Islamiah, which, while being a terrorist group, is only linked to Al Qaeda because now *all* terrorist groups are linked to them. Its an easy catch-all for the media and government to say that Osama is behind everything - helps convince people that he is a bad man. I'm not disputing that he's a bad man, but do you seriously think that he said to the JI people "hey, why don't we bomb the Marriot hotel in Jakarta?" I don't and wouldn't.
Oh and dont forget that of the 202 people killed in Bali, only 88 were Australian and about half of them were Indonesians, but I guess in the world of worthy and un-worthy victims, an Indonesian life isn't as important as an Australian or other "western" life.
Please, please, please, for the love of Bob, people, think a little bit before you go about saying "he just plead guilty because he was looking at 20-to-life, we don't actually know what he did."
There's a special kind of plea you use when you're taking a conviction on lesser charges out of fear that you're looking at a much greater time if you're convicted on the original charges. It's called an Alford plea, closely related to a nolo contendre plea.
Nolo has been expressed in layman's terms as "I didn't do it, judge, and I'll never do it again!" You neither admit guilt nor protest your innocence. As a result, many judges refuse to enter nolo pleas; they demand that you either admit or deny responsibility, and if you insist on nolo a "not guilty" plea will be entered instead.
An Alford plea is a far different thing. An Alford, in layman's terms, is "Judge, I didn't do it, but I'm terrified of the original charges and I think they could convict me on it." An Alford plea allows you to formally and legally protest your own innocence, while at the same time stipulating that the government could convict you if it went the whole nine yards, and thus avail yourself of the plea bargain.
Mike Hawash didn't plead either nolo or Alford.
Mike Hawash plead guilty.
Guilty, as in "yes, Your Honor, I fucking did it! "
Could we please, please, please stop seeing these self-important, self-aggrandizing rants from Damn-the-Man slashdotters who don't even care to learn about the difference between a guilty plea and an Alford plea, and why it's so significant that Hawash didn't plead Alford?
You're not alone...
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Yeah, those that trained Bin Laden should indeed be punished. Oh wait, that would be the CIA - I guess the world isn't black and white after all.
Sigh. The world does have some gradation in shading, however.
Repeat after me: The CIA never funded Osama bin Laden.
He's a freakin' multi-billionaire, he didn't need the funds.
They funded other groups such as those led by Abdul Haq who cooperated with bin Laden in ousting the Sovs. However, those groups didn't agree with the Taliban, which Osama supported, and so most of them were killed or fled the country. In fact, Haq was killed when he went into Afghanistan to try to rally people around him. If you want to blame the CIA for something, try for not supporting Haq or hooking up with the military to get him out when he realized he was being surrounded.
The CIA has much to be ashamed of, you don't have to invent stuff because it helps your immediate rhetorical need.
yet they can't arrest (except in rare circumstances, such as them witnessing a crime) someone without the court giving a warrant
Quoted from the Geneva Convention
Somewhere else in the Convention text there is something about the how the Parties shall "seek to establish impartial tribunals etc". I could not find this and I'm not 100% shure on this point, but that what i reckon from reading the text a couple of years ago.We could always argue what a "Competent tribunal" is, but I'm pretty shure that any tribunal consisting only of people only from the US Military or from a US court would be outside the ramification of the Geneva Convention as such a tribunal would violate the Conventions on the impartial point.
So far USA has ignored all this and still claims that the prisoners at GB are "unlawful combatants".
Humans Right Watch wrote a nice letter to Condoleezza Rice ripping apart her arguments that she still continues to spread on various press conferences.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Here's the main definition:The section goes on, but the subsequent passages either speak to edge cases.
Key is, a covert enemy agent meets none of the four tests for being a prisoner of war. In that case, there's no question about whether or not that agent is covered by the provisions of the Convention; he or she is not. Irregular combatants may or may not be, but generally would not be covered. The foreign combatants in Afghanistan directly associated with Al Quaeda were clearly not covered: they were not commanded by a responsible officer, they wore no distinctive signs, they concealed their weapons, and they did not conform to the standard laws and customs of warfare (including the Third Geneva Convention, which forbids the taking of hostages and direct attacks on civilians, both of which many of the GB detainees had done.)
In short, GB may be wrong, and is a PR disaster, but it is not illegal, no matter what HRW wants you to believe.
What's debatable? American soldiers are still getting killed. Iraq still isn't "liberated", and the Bush regime keeps increasing their estimates of how long that will take. (Oh, and Saddam is still around. And we still haven't found those pesky "weapons of mass destruction" that are the Bush regime's excuse for its illegal war.) How is this "over"?
Since IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 , and since 9/11 is not news, there's no reason for anyone to be showing footage of 9/11 victims. Unless, of course, they're engaing in pure propaganda.
Priceless! You are obviously squarely in the middle of the Fox News target demographic: ignorant and uninformed.
(Free clue: ignorant. See defintion 2.)
Anyway, regarding this case: like the raisethefist.com case discussed yesterday, the plea bargain deal makes any admission questionable.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I get the impression that the "geek" crowd would be a perfect place for a terrorist to lay low. Don't need a social life. Access to technology. Co-workers and comrades whose principles (or lack thereof) dismiss responsibility and reality. Simply perfect.
I've worked with him extensively in the past. He's written one of the authoritative books on multimedia programming. I've sat in meetings where he laid out the pioneering groundwork for gaming on the PC platform (he wrote up a Sonic the Hedgehog port to the PC to convince the suits to take PC gaming more seriously). He's the lead architect of MMX. And he was also the lead engineer for MPEG when he worked at Xing. Yes, he's a geek. But he hardly lays low. He's heavily invested in his community, coaching Little League and doing runs for cancer research. And here's the kicker - he's got numerous Jewish friends. He used to work in Israel, and several of his Jewish friends would drop by to have lunch (and beer) with us every so often. That's right - this dangerous terrorist (born in the Palestinian Occupied Terriroties, no less) conspires and associates with people with last names such as Goldberg and Levin. Food for thought, ladies and gents. At the time I was working with him, he was taking night classes at the local community college in modern Hebrew. He's always wanted to bridge communications between Jews and Palestinians. These are not the actions of a radical fundamentalist. Just thought I'd get out a little personal impression of the guy in the midst of everyone who doesn't know him personally. Take it for what it's worth to you.
I think that those that do not shave for relgious reasons (of the Abrahamic religions) do so because they follow the many rules listed in Leviticus.
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
It is a well-debunked myth that the US gave money to the Taliban before 9/11. See, for example:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html
The US gave money to NGOs (humanitarian organizations) working in Afghanistan, not to the Taliban. Before 9/11, only 3 countries even recognized the Taliban, and the US was not one of them.
As for the UNOCAL pipeline myth, while it is true that there were such negotiations, they did not involve the US government, and occurred in 1999 - you know, before Bush was in power:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm
Jesus, people, try to check facts a little before you post, or mod.
The funny thing is, people were claiming that the war in Afghanistan was about oil, yet their only argument for that claim was that the US wanted this pipeline. Two years later, where's the pipeline?
Now people are claiming that the US invaded Iraq to get its oil. Yet oil production remains below pre-war levels, and the first shipment of oil did not go just to US firms, but was split with European firms as well (include France's TotalFinaElf).
The man said those that trained Bin Laden should indeed be punished. Oh wait, that would be the CIA .
The word was 'trained' not 'funded', and I don't know anyone who is denying that the CIA trained him.
So please address the point that was made, not the one you'd like to answer.
Ditch the link to Foxnews and read this story on the case from The Oregonian, the local paper in Portland.
According to CNN, Hawash is a "naturalized U.S. citizen of Palestinian descent". I'm not sure how that makes Afghanistan "his country" to protect.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
This guy simply wanted to go home, and protect his country from what he viewed as US aggression.
Hawash is a US citizen. This is his country. If he felt otherwise, what was he doing here?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Can we please stop modding up posters with zero knowledge of history or current events? Ronald Reagan compared the anti-Soviet mujahedin to the Founding Fathers, not the Taliban. The Taliban didn't even exist when he made that statement. Some members of the Taliban undoubtedly also served in the mujahedin, but to say they're equivalent is like saying Robert E. Lee's army was the equivalent of George Washington's.
Please, read something other than anti-Bush screeds before you post.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Randy weaver isn't dead, you stupid fuck.
My basic opinion is that warlordism has always been in Afghanistan, and it's not going away any time soon.
i stan, khazakhstan...and if you want some more etymology, in Farsi (Persian) the "blank of blank" construction is called an Idafa and goes "Blank-i Blank". 'Uzbek-i Stan' is Land of the Uzbeks. "Afghan-i Stan" is land of the Afghans.
;)). The US sees this as perhaps a restart of Soviet aggression. Who comes next? Iran?
If you're asking my opinion of the US involvement me in the 1980's it is this. We shouldn't have done anything. The Afghans would have kicked the Russians out anyway. Look at the British in the 19th century--one of the best armies ever created, organized, and completely willing to kill. They got their butts kicked out of Kabul with TERRIBLE losses, civilian and otherwise. The poem I think it's "Go to your God like a solider" by Kipling shows a little bit about what Afghanistan was like.
Anyway though, I also think that it was a mistake to not attempt to rebuild Afghanistan after our involvement. But look at the situation now. It's an uphill battle. It would have been no better then (if not impossible due to Russian control of Central Asia), and let's face it, it's not terribly in the US interest to rebuild a country that's probably never going to be worth shit. (miserable climate, landlocked, few resources, tribalism and warlordism, etc).
Also, I do agree that Afghanistan was never important--this was just a proxy battle between the US and Russia. Well actually, Afghanistan WAS important to Russia. Oh good, I'm glad I remembered to talk about this. What's the reason Russia invaded Afghanistan? No one seems to ask this (thinking it obvious?) myself included, and the reasons that I have found are that Afghanistan even then was such an unstable country and radical that it was creating problems for Russia in the relatively docile Central Asia states (those would be the "Stans"--turkmenistan,uzbekistan,kyrgyzstan,tajik
Back to the Russians, the Russians felt it was in their best interest to invade Afghanistan (like I mentioned earlier, a country with basically NOTHING worth invading for--other than the bountiful poppy fields
tough questions, and of course now we have hindsight..
Actually, the CIA can be blamed for not thinking about what would happen after they secretly supplied hundreds of millions of dollars in arms and training to the radically Islamic groups in Afghanistan.
It was the greatest CIA covert success in history, but the CIA then forgot about all those weapons and training and the ideologies controlling them. They can most certainly be blamed for that.The "shadow of a doubt" standard could almost never be met. A shadow of doubt is very easy to cast.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Absolutely true.
... say ... "evidence".
My comment was mostly in fun, agreeing with the initial poster that "profiling" certainly exists (and as much as I hate to admit it, it also one of the most basic forms of "looking for a suspicious character"). The danger comes when it is used independantly of other tools like
Of course the other part was a bit of pandering (i admit), that all of the "white-collar" crime that is being hyped in the media (Enron & Anderson for instance) is hurting the U.S. economy in ongoing ways that are being ignored.
We both agree that someone killing you is bad, usually its called murder.
If someone is stealing my money to make themselves rich, its usuall called Theft (or in the case of some of these CEO's I might say Assault). While certainly not in the same class, they both sound like crimes to me.
(and as an FYI I live in New York and was working just a few blocks away from the WTC. Perhaps I just tend to have a much blacker sense of humor than I should. Hope I didn't offend.)
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Ah, the old $43 million lie.
Robert Scheer wrote a column for the L.A. Times claiming that the US Government made a $43 million gift to the Taliban. Compare his column to the actual atatement from the State Department, which makes it clear that the aid (which was mostly in the form of wheat) was given directly to the people of Afghanistan, bypassing the Taliban. The only remotely Taliban-friendly thing in the statement was a brief mention of the Taliban's decision to ban poppy cultivation; the aid was partly intended to help the farmers affected by the ban.
I have very few good things to say about the Bush administration. This is one of them.