http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025569.php
April 7, 2009
“Unindicted co-conspirator in Hamas jihad funding case wants release of Muslim student found with explosives in car”
#
“CAIR seeks Megahed release; father: ‘No freedom for Muslims’”
News Channel 8 photo by JOE MARTIN
By ELAINE SILVESTRINI | The Tampa Tribune
Published: April 7, 2009
Updated: 02:48 pm
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1022/megahed-on-ice
“Megahed on ICE”
by Bill West
IPT News
April 10, 2009
SNIPPET: “Youssef Megahed, a 23-year-old former student at the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, last week was acquitted of federal explosives and related charges in U.S. District Court in Tampa. Those charges stemmed from Megahed traveling with a fellow Egyptian USF student in South Carolina in August 2007 with explosive material found in the trunk after a stop by local deputies. His confederate, Ahmed Mohamed, pled guilty to providing material support to terrorists after investigators discovered a how-to video on his computer showing wanna-be jihadis how to build remote control bombs out of simple toys so they might live to fight another day.”
SNIPPET: “Since removal proceedings are administrative/civil in nature, the rules of evidence are somewhat different and less restrictive than in criminal proceedings. The standard of proof (being found “removable”) in such proceedings is “clear, convincing and unequivocal” as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases. This is important because the level of proof required of the Government in removal proceedings is less than in criminal proceedings, though it is higher than in “normal” civil matters like a lawsuit.
They also are different because someone “found guilty” of a removal violation is ordered to leave the United States and, essentially, go back to where they were born - they cannot be sentenced to prison like they could be if convicted of a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this duality between deportation matters and criminal proceedings. There is no double jeopardy if an alien is subject to removal based on the same activity that may have also realized the alien being charged in criminal proceedings, even if those criminal charges resulted in an acquittal. The proceedings and violations are completely separate, even if based on the same underlying activity.”