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."

Comments

That is some damning testimony

[UnderScan]

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.

Re:Talaban != Government?

[elmegil]

Could someone explain why people are comparing the Talaban to Al Queda?

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.

Re:The Taliban is NOT Al Qaeda, thats the whole po

[cheezedawg]

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.

Re:Furthermore...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

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.

Weird

[autopr0n]

He obviously hasn't been shaving or something since he's been in jail. He hasn't always looked like that.

Re:US supported the Taliban too

[Moridineas]

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.

GUILTY plea, not an ALFORD plea.

[rjh]

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?

Re:Furthermore...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

If you're going to quote text, you ought to quote the relevant text: the definition of a person to whom the Third Geneva Convention applies.

Here's the main definition:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

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.