3 Charged With Planning Attacks in Iraq (News conference at 1:30 PM EST)

Breitbart (AP) ^ | 2/21/2006 | staff

[wjersey]

CLEVELAND

A federal grand jury has indicted three Ohio men on charges of planning attacks on U.S. military personnel in Iraq, according to an indictment.

The three men, who all lived in Toledo within the last year, were arrested over the weekend, said Assistant U.S. Attorney David Bauer in Toledo. The indictment was unsealed Monday.

They were to be arraigned in federal courts in Cleveland and Toledo on Tuesday afternoon.

The suspects recruited others to train for a violent holy war against the United States and its allies in Iraq, the indictment said. The group traveled together to a shooting range to practice shooting guns and studied how to make explosives, the indictment said.

[VRWCmember]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...

Eavesdropping on conversations (whether by phone, email, or smoke signal) with known or suspected foreign terrorists is not unreasonable.

[GrandEagle]

No matter how you want to reason away your position, a "reasonable" search Constitutionally requires a warrant.

Remember, we won't always have a good king.

[VRWCmember]

I'm afraid we will have to disagree on that matter. There are plenty of times when probable cause is adequate for a search, and the process of getting a warrant would prevent an opportunity to conduct an effective search.

[GrandEagle]

Actually we don't disagree. Only when the "probable cause" is because the government wants to look. If we stretch "probable cause" to mean just because I want to, then we have handed the terrorist the victory by eliminating our government.
Probable cause: White guy, wearing Jeans and green shirt just robbed bank. Police see white guy wearing green shirt and call for him to stop. He runs into house.
Not probable cause:White guy, wearing Jeans and green shirt just robbed bank. Police stake out department store that sells green shirts. Guy buys green shirt and goes home. At 2:00 am police break down front door to look for money.

The Constitution is very clear, there is virtually no wiggle room. The government can't just go poking around to see what they can find.

I understand that there are some who believe that the end justifies the means, but as I've pointed out before, the KGB actually caught some bad guys, but that doesn't mean I want my government to operate that way.

When there are no rules, then there are NO rules. "We the people" have set the rules that we want our government to operate by in our Constitution.
I've beat this horse to death and I understand that as long as it is a Republican who does it, a lot of folks around here don't care. I do.

Still very Cordially,
GE

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

I think I see where we disagree.

You posted the fourth amendment which starts "The right of the people..."

I read that to mean that there is a definition of "the people" somewhere before this amendment. The pre-amble says "We the People of the United States", I believe that is the definition of "the people". You seem to extend that to not only people who were born here, not only to people who have become naturalized citizens, you are extending that to people outside of the USA, who may have never set foot on the soil of the USA. I reject that assuption, especially after those people are joined with those who attacked this nation on Sept 11 2001 and many other dates.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"That can't possibly be true because we never hear about it and we know that muslims are all the same. Plus, I'm sure someone here knows better and will quote the koran or hadith and tell us that muslims aren't allowed to turn in their muslim neighbors. Hence, the people you're talking about aren't muslims. They're muslim impersonators. And btw, you must be muslim yourself and just lying to us infidels."

Bwahahahaha. That is funny.

I don't know about those you were replying to, but I caught the sarcasm right away.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"No matter how you want to reason away your position, a "reasonable" search Constitutionally requires a warrant."

According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

That is not always the case.

[GrandEagle]

you are extending that to people outside of the USA, who may have never set foot on the soil of the USA.
Possibly we don't disagree.
I'm not sure where this assumption came from, it is not so. The Constitution is an agreement by the people between the States as to what authority the Federal Government has. Technically, it doesn't apply to D.C. or any other possession with the exception of certain amendments that state it's provisions apply to possessions.
It doesn't apply to anyone outside the 50 states.
A case could be made that it applies to legal aliens while inside the states, but it would take specific reading of the wording of each provision to see if it applied to people under the jurisdiction of, or citizens of.
I could care less how much we bug, tap, invade privacy of, or otherwise monitor those outside our country. Actually that is wise and prudent.
I probably should qualify "i could care less" a bit. There are some boundaries that would make us look very bad to our friends and could create a diplomatic nightmare - on those I would advise caution, but unless it violates a duly ratified treaty that we have with the nation, it certainly does not violate our Constitution. You could even make a case that if a citizen places a call, email,etc. to a location outside our Country, that the Constitutionally emphasized "right" to privacy would be void. That could be a valid discussion.

I will simply repeat a previous post with regard to warrants.

Actually we don't disagree. Only when the "probable cause" is because the government wants to look. If we stretch "probable cause" to mean just because I want to, then we have handed the terrorist the victory by eliminating our government.
Probable cause - no warrant necessary: White guy, wearing Jeans and green shirt just robbed bank. Police see white guy wearing green shirt and call for him to stop. He runs into house.
Not probable cause - warrant necessary: White guy, wearing Jeans and green shirt just robbed bank. Police stake out department store that sells green shirts. Guy buys green shirt and goes home. At 2:00 am police break down front door to look for money.

The Constitution is very clear, there is virtually no wiggle room. The government can't just go poking around to see what they can find.

I understand that there are some who believe that the end justifies the means, but as I've pointed out before, the KGB actually caught some bad guys, but that doesn't mean I want my government to operate that way.

When there are no rules, then there are NO rules. "We the people" have set the rules that we want our government to operate by in our Constitution.
I've beat this horse to death and I understand that as long as it is a Republican who does it, a lot of folks around here don't care. I do.

Again, Very Cordially,
GE

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

Thank you for posting # 168.

I am seeing a little more on this discussion.

First of all, I am under the impression that the phone and e-mail intercepts are brought about by information obtained by arrests and searches of Al Queda operations in other counties. We know the e-mail addresses and phone numbers and monitor them based on that. In that case we are talking probable cause is already established. A warrant may assist, but this is a war situation, not a crime and even in crime, a warrant is not necessarily required.

If there is evidence that there are intercepts that are not based on Al Queada searches and arrests, that would not involve the war, and would need to be looked at in a completely different manner.

Also, the intercepts are only when the communication involves within the US and outside the US. I have no problem with any of this.

There are other circumstances that I would look at in a completely different manner. Just not here.

[piasa]

Warrants aren't needed for efforts to obtain information used in war- they are only relevent in obtaining evidence for use in court.

The wiretapping at issue here isn't to garner information for use in courts. It's used to garner information for use on the battlefield. Warrants do not apply on a battlefield.

I know the press has made an effort to make it sound like we're wiretapping people inside the US in order to get around their legal defense- hence the press's grossly inaccurate terminology "domestic spying," and the implication that warrantless wiretapped info is going to be used to unfairly convict some schmuck. But the wiretapping the press has been whining about is eavesdropping on overseas conversations where one end of the line is on foreign soil and can be tapped by just about anyone and any country without any warrants precisly because there is no way for one country to enforce privacy laws outside its own shores when calls get transmitted through other countries. It seems stupid for us to require an elected, term-limited government to obtain the permission of a small cadre of nonelected judges with lifetime appointments just to get the privilege of listening into international calls that the rest of the planet already has free access to.

[GrandEagle]

We know the e-mail addresses and phone numbers and monitor them based on that. In that case we are talking probable cause is already established.

I am glad that we continued the discussion. It would appear that we are pretty much in agreement. The only point (and I'm not sure our differences aren't just semantics) that I would make it that I didn't find any differences between war time and not war time. There are no Constitutional issues in monitoring "traffic" outside the US even when we are not at war.
As an example, say someone is country X mentions an assassination plot against our President with someone here in the US. This traffic is intercepted. To me there is some subjective issues. If the discussion is along the lines of "Ok Joe, Fred will meet you at the XXX in two hours to carry out the plan." I would say hands down that this is probable cause to go now and search both Joe and Fred regardless of citizenship status.
If, however, the conversation is along the lines of "Ok Joe, meet up with Fred and Sam next Friday and discuss the plans."
Situation #1: Joe is a US Citizen: A case could me made that this is probable cause, however a judge may rule against the government. In this case, I would think that a warrant is needed.
Situation #2: Joe is not a US citizen: Honestly I wouldn't care what the government did. Just to keep the Government in check though, I would have to see if the clause applies to "citizens" or "those under the jurisdiction of".

I am not an "ends justifies the means" person. Now, it doesn't sound like you are either. Some of the changes I think were necessary to keep up with technology. For example a warrant for the persons communications not a specific phone number, email address, etc. Technology has changed such that these changes make sense.

I thank you for being cordial in our discussion - that is not always the case when discussing such "hot button" issues.

Cordially,
GE

[GrandEagle]

The Constitution makes no distinction between war and peace with regard to search warrants.
It also makes no distinction based on how the information is used.

Cordially,
GE

[weegee]

BUMP. A crime defined in the Constitution.

[txhurl]

index bump

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

I also want to thank you for the discussion. I think, in the end we are probably very close in theory about how things should work, it may be the details we diagree about. I know that I learned a few things during this discussion.

Thanks again for the conversation.

Jane

[EBH]

Just a bit of follow-up from last week. The more and more of this stuff that comes out...the more I think northern Ohio is a hotbed. Funny to think that people in my area could be in real danger. I keep adding to these little snippits to my profile page and the dots keep getting connected.

I'd keep an eye on the Amawi investigation in Cleveland. Amawi had been living in Toledo, but moved to Cleveland and was arraigned in Cleveland. Why keep an eye on this particular case? Possible links to the ring at the Islamic Center of Cleveland, I wonder if this guy was in charge of making the travel arrangements once the ICC had all the fake documents in place?

---

Posted on Sat, Feb. 25, 2006

Documents from Muslim charity seized during terror arrests
Associated Press
TOLEDO, Ohio - Documents seized by federal agents suggest that two of three Muslim men accused of plotting to kill American and allied soldiers may have ties to a Muslim charity suspected of funneling money to the militant organization Hamas.

Federal agents seized an invoice from the charity, known as KindHearts, from a travel agency where defendant Mohammad Zaki Amawi worked.

Agents also took a KindHearts binder from an address where defendant Marwan Othman El-Hindi lived.

Lists of items seized were filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Toledo.

(excerpt) http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/13962280.htm

[freeperfromnj]

2) Their intent was to commit terrorist acts in Iraq moreso than in America.

An indication that the "fight them over there" strategy appears to be working

[EBH]

New Information Emerges about Terrorism Suspects
Feb 23, 2006, 06:21 AM EST

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4537992&nav=0ReA

TOLEDO -- News 11 did some digging and came up with new information about Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi, and Wassim Mazloum. Federal agents linked the three men -- all of whom have Toledo ties -- to a terrorist plot. They appeared in federal courts in Toledo and Cleveland Tuesday on terrorism-related charges.

Amawi has dual citizenship in the US and in Jordan, where he was arrested. His last known address was an apartment near Hill Avenue in Toledo.

Amawi's brother, who does not want to be identified, said Mohammad is a talented artist and a sensitive man, not a terrorist. "We're going through a very, very difficult time," he said, "and I believe if my brother can hear my voice, keep the faith. They have nothing on him. I'm quite sure they have nothing. You're innocent."

Family members also say Mohammad worked as a travel agent at AZ Services and Travel in west Toledo. Justin Covyaw, manager of AZ Services and Travel, told News 11 Mohammad left the company in August 2005.

Marwan Othman El-Hindi is a naturalized US citizen, and is also from Jordan. The FBI says he was in the process of moving from a Mayo Street address to a home on Suder Avenue when he was arrested.

Beth Geer lives across the street from the Suder Avenue home. "You never know, I guess," she said. "You never know what your neighbor is going to be."

We've learned that El-Hindi was arrested in 2001 in Oregon, Ohio, for receiving stolen property after pills were stolen from a Kroger store. That charge was later dismissed.

News 11 also uncovered these facts: El-Hindi worked as an Imam, a Muslim cleric, at the Toledo Correctional Facility for three months in 2003 -- and a company called European Medical Studies and Services names El-Hindi as its CEO, and lists a post office box in Toledo. The FBI would not say if information from the company's Web site played a role in its investigation.

Neighbors say El-Hindi, his wife, and several children were mysterious. Beth Geer told News 11, "They didn't associate with anyone. The children didn't play with anyone. You very seldom saw them actually outside."

Wassim Mazloum is a student at the University of Toledo. He operates a car lot on Reynolds Road. The FBI believes the lot was a cover -- providing a way to travel to Iraq on so-called business. But investigators believe Mazloum was actually planning terrorist strikes with the other two men.

Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Wassim Mazloum are due back in a Toledo federal courtroom on Friday for a detention hearing. For now, the suspects are being held without bond.

Count on News 11 to bring you more information as this story develops.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking the keyword or topic Israel.

---------------------------

[EBH]

Article published Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Family describes terrorist suspect as a sensitive artist


This drawing by Mohammad Zaki Amawi depicts an Arab woman in robes carrying a water vessel. The suspect's relatives say they have been devastated by the charges.
( THE BLADE/AMY E. VOIGT ) http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS16/602220369/-1/RSS

Zoom | Photo Reprints


By LUKE SHOCKMAN
BLADE STAFF WRITER


Clutching sketches that her son drew, the mother of Toledo terrorist suspect Mohammad Zaki Amawi tearfully defended him yesterday.

"He's a very sensitive boy. Never he have gun or anything," she sobbed in broken English as she showed the sketches of a woman drawn by her 26-year-old son. "If he see a sad movie, he start crying."

Another son, one of Mr. Amawi's brothers in a family of five boys, said the family has been devastated by the accusations.

"It's totally not true," he said of the charges in a federal indictment that Mr. Amawi plotted with two others to wage a "holy war" against U.S. soldiers.

Mr. Amawi's brother said he had no idea who the other two men identified in the indictment are.

"We don't know what to do," said the brother, who said he and his mother would not comment if their names were used. The family, who live near Hill Avenue and Reynolds Road in southwest Toledo, said they had no idea who to call, or if they needed an attorney.

The brother said the family learned of Mr. Amawi's arrest through the media. He said he last spoke by phone with his brother, who was in Jordan, on Friday and there was no indication anything was wrong.

Behind an apartment door with a heart-shaped "Welcome" sign, Mr. Amawi's brother, his mother, and two other women mingled. One of the women held a small boy who had a runny nose and smiled and chattered as the family spoke.

As he stood in the apartment, the brother said Mr. Amawi had moved to Jordan last year to find a wife and settle down. His brother hoped to start a business, possibly an Internet cafe, to make ends meet because he didn't think his artwork would pay the bills.

The brother said he assumed Mr. Amawi was still in Jordan, where the family's father also lives. But he said federal authorities told the family yesterday that Mr. Amawi had been arrested in Jordan and flown back to Cleveland.

Mr. Amawi's brother said his brother was born in Washington, and is an American citizen. The family lived in the Washington area for some time, but moved to Toledo about five years ago. He said his brother used to work at a travel agency in Toledo and at one time attended the University of Toledo.

"He's a good guy," he said of Mr. Amawi. "I'm really shocked [by the accusations]."

Nearby, at an apartment building where Mr. Amawi used to live, a former manager and now tenant of the building said she knew Mr. Amawi, whom authorities said was a citizen of Jordan as well as the United States who lived in Toledo before leaving for Jordan in August, 2005.

"He kept to himself. He was kind of quiet," said Lori Nungester. "He was kind of a strange bird. I did talk to him once and he got pretty upset about the war. He thought the whole thing was stupid."

That's true, Mr. Amawi's brother said. His brother did think the war in Iraq was a mistake. However, he said that doesn't mean his brother was a terrorist, just that he was opposed to the war.

There was no indication yesterday that Mr. Amawi had any prior criminal record. He was convicted of three traffic citations in Toledo Municipal Court: speeding violations in 2001 and 2005 and a motor vehicle and motorcycle brakes citation in 2001.

Contact Luke Shockman at:
lshockman@theblade.com
or 419-724-6084