Al-Queda trained terror-dude jailed in Lodi, CA

[Damn True]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/09/MNG7GD5RNH1.DTL

Cripes...Lodi is only about 2hrs from San Jose.

[Changleen]

On these standards any American who has ever been in the army or a rifle range and travels to a Arab country would also be arrested by that country for 'terrorism'. :stosh:

[Damn True]

The following: "According to a seven-page FBI affidavit, Hamid Hayat, after failing a lie- detector test, admitted that he had spent six months in an al Qaeda-run camp in Pakistan where he trained to "kill Americans"

....is far more than enough to warrant an arrest. Not necessarily conviction, but an arguement could easilly be made for intent or conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.

[reflux]

On these standards any American who has ever been in the army or a rifle range and travels to a Arab country would also be arrested by that country for 'terrorism'. :stosh:
Isn't this on the same lines of how our "freedom" works?


If I had the patience to read the story, I would be more than happy to offer something worthwhile to this thread. Maybe I'll do it later...

[Toshi]

call me back if he actually gets convicted. as far as i'm concerned this govt and law enforcement regime is all about the initial press release...

[Changleen]

The following: "According to a seven-page FBI affidavit, Hamid Hayat, after failing a lie- detector test, admitted that he had spent six months in an al Qaeda-run camp in Pakistan where he trained to "kill Americans"

....is far more than enough to warrant an arrest. Not necessarily conviction, but an arguement could easilly be made for intent or conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.So the methods for "Killing Americans" differ from the methods of killing anyone else? Think about the spin put on the press release for one second...

[Changleen]

He went to a rifle range in Pakistan. He shot at pictures of George Bush. He's clearly not a 'terrorist' and the Feds themselves say they have absolutley no evidence he was even thinking about perpitrating an act of terror. What did you arrest him for again?

[Damn True]

Clearly? C'mon, pull your head out.
Are you that naieve, or are you so blinded by your hatred for all things American that you are unable to see why the Fed's can and should detain this clown for questioning?

If you buy a fishing licence it is a fair bet that you have an intent to go fishing.
If you attend welding school it is a fair bet that you have an intent to weld.
If you purchase 20lbs of weed, a scale, and a case of baggies it is a fair bet that you have an intent to sell the weed.
If you fly 1/2 way around the world and attend an Al Queda terrorist training camp it is a fair bet that you have an intent to put some of that training to work. He sure as hell wasn't just on a vacation.

In the United States, intent to comit a capitol crime is probable cause for arrest and conviction.

[Damn True]

So the methods for "Killing Americans" differ from the methods of killing anyone else? Think about the spin put on the press release for one second...


His words, not the FBI's.

[Toshi]

i bet you rooted for Big Brother when you read 1984, eh, true? i for one do not welcome our new thought police overlords.

[Changleen]

Clearly? C'mon, pull your head out.
Are you that naieve, or are you so blinded by your hatred for all things American that you are unable to see why the Fed's can and should detain this clown for questioning?I think you, in fact are being blinded by your hatred of all things un-american in this case...

If you buy a fishing licence it is a fair bet that you have an intent to go fishing.
If you attend welding school it is a fair bet that you have an intent to weld.
If you purchase 20lbs of weed, a scale, and a case of baggies it is a fair bet that you have an intent to sell the weed.Yes, but..
If you fly 1/2 way around the world and attend an Al Queda terrorist training camp it is a fair bet that you have an intent to put some of that training to work. He sure as hell wasn't just on a vacation.Please just think about what you said for a moment. Who decided that this was an "Al Queda terrorist training camp"? The Feds. How do you know he wasn't on vacation and decided to go shoot some stuff? You don't.

In the United States, intent to comit a capitol crime is probable cause for arrest and conviction.Yes, and as we have already said, the Feds themselves have said they have no evidence he intended to do so.

[Changleen]

His words, not the FBI's.Guess again: "According to a seven-page FBI affidavit," That's whats being quoted from, not him.

[jaydee]

Guess again: "According to a seven-page FBI affidavit," That's whats being quoted from, not him.


The affidavit says Hayat, a U.S. citizen, told interrogators that he wanted to carry out his attacks in the United States.

Did you somehow miss that part, or do just have selective attention deficit disorder? When you do your knee-jerk anti-American thing all the time, you just reduce the impact of anything insightful you might happen to say.

[MikeD]

Um, yeah. Changleen, you're really grasping here. While the dude, if the charges are true (which will pan out in a trial) was probably a minor player, there are ALL sorts of things he can and should be charged with (again, if there's sufficient evidence). Treason being one...that's providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy...you're certainly aiding enemies of the US by training in a camp run by those whose stated goal is bringing down the US government.

It's not the pinnacle of the 'war on terror,' (a term which still chafes me); it's minor at best and irrelevant at worst, but still needs to happen. I just don't think it's worth all the gloating we're going to do over it.

[ALEXIS_DH]

wait... about the "treason" charge...
thats a bit of a double standard... why any american that serves on a foreign army (israel) isnt charged with "treason" in an strict sense???

or what about americans that go an serve/train in some haredi anti-zionist organizations in israel?? (which could be seen as serving for an organization against an anti-US-ally)

[Changleen]

The affidavit says Hayat, a U.S. citizen, told interrogators that he wanted to carry out his attacks in the United States.

Did you somehow miss that part, or do just have selective attention deficit disorder? When you do your knee-jerk anti-American thing all the time, you just reduce the impact of anything insightful you might happen to say.I did actually miss that part. My Bad. Still, like they said, there is zero evidence he was actually trying to pull anything, or even thinking of it.

[fluff]

I did actually miss that part. My Bad. Still, like they said, there is zero evidence he was actually trying to pull anything, or even thinking of it.
On the basis of the information quoted there is clearly evidence that he was thinking about it.

Whether thinking about something should be considered a crime is a different discussion but he clearly was. Otherwise his statement makes no sense.

[Changleen]

On the basis of the information quoted there is clearly evidence that he was thinking about it.Ah, the thought police!

Whether thinking about something should be considered a crime is a different discussion but he clearly was. Otherwise his statement makes no sense.His statement as released by the Feds.

[fluff]

Ah, the thought police!

His statement as released by the Feds.
Do you actually bother to read anything?

These are the relevant words (in order):

quoted thinking whether crime different discussion

Apropos your post:

Still, like they said, there is zero evidence he was actually trying to pull anything, or even thinking of it.

Relevant words from your post:

zero evidence thinking

It appears that there is zero evidence of you thinking.

[Changleen]

Do you actually bother to read anything?

These are the relevant words (in order):

quoted thinking whether crime different discussion

Apropos your post:

Still, like they said, there is zero evidence he was actually trying to pull anything, or even thinking of it.

Relevant words from your post:

zero evidence thinking

It appears that there is zero evidence of you thinking.It appears you don't try to understand...

[fluff]

It appears you don't try to understand...
Please point out where I failed to try and understand that you said there was no evidence of the guy thinking of carrying out terrorist attacks in the US. If you can I will gladly try further to understand.

[Changleen]

Please point out where I failed to try and understand that you said there was no evidence of the guy thinking of carrying out terrorist attacks in the US. If you can I will gladly try further to understand.This is irrelevant. The point is he has been arrested for thinking of stuff. He has taken no action towards pursuing his goal after returning to the states. Do you understand that?

[fluff]

This is irrelevant. The point is he has been arrested for thinking of stuff. He has taken no action towards pursuing his goal after returning to the states. Do you understand that?

Yes, hence my statement: 'Whether thinking about something should be considered a crime is a different discussion '.

However, you stated 'there is zero evidence he was actually trying to pull anything, or even thinking of it'

I merely pointed out that he had in fact been thinking of it.

Whilst we clearly agree that it is dubious whether thinking about something should be considered a crime that was not what the post was about and that is the point you missed entirely.

[MikeD]

This is irrelevant. The point is he has been arrested for thinking of stuff. He has taken no action towards pursuing his goal after returning to the states. Do you understand that?

His very actions in training at the camp constitute a crime under US law.

Alexis, no one said anything about Israel because Israel isn't considered an enemy of the US. Al-Queada is a different story. You don't go for treason charges serving in the Aussie army, either. It's not 'foreign' that's the key; it's 'enemy of the US.'

MD

[MikeD]

PS Since I'm not a lawyer, maybe I'm wrong...here's a link we can examine.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

Section 3. Treason

Clause 1. Definition and Limitations

Treason

The treason clause is a product of the awareness of the Framers of the ''numerous and dangerous excrescences'' which had disfigured the English law of treason and was therefore intended to put it beyond the power of Congress to ''extend the crime and punishment of treason.'' 1283 The debate in the Convention, remarks in the ratifying conventions, and contemporaneous public comment make clear that a restrictive concept of the crime was imposed and that ordinary partisan divisions within political society were not to be escalated by the stronger into capital charges of treason, as so often had happened in England. 1284

Thus, the Framers adopted two of the three formulations and the phraseology of the English Statute of Treason enacted in 1350, 1285 but they conspicuously omitted the phrase defining as treason the ''compass[ing] or imagin[ing] the death of our lord the King,'' 1286 under which most of the English law of ''constructive treason'' had been developed. 1287 Beyond limiting the power of Congress to define treason, 1288 the clause also prescribes limitations upon Congress' ability to make proof of the offense easy to establish 1289 and its ability to define punishment. 1290

Levying War

Early judicial interpretation of the meaning of treason in terms of levying war was conditioned by the partisan struggles of the early nineteenth century, in which were involved the treason trials of Aaron Burr and his associates. In Ex parte Bollman, 1291 which involved two of Burr's confederates, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for himself and three other Justices, confined the meaning of levying war to the actual waging of war. ''However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war.'' Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. ''On the contrary, if it be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.''

On the basis of these considerations and due to the fact that no part of the crime charged had been committed in the District of Columbia, the Court held that Bollman and Swartwout could not be tried in the District and ordered their discharge. He continued by saying that ''the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases'' and concluded that no conspiracy for overturning the Government and ''no enlisting of men to effect it, would be an actual levying of war.'' 1292

The Burr Trial .--Not long afterward, the Chief Justice went to Richmond to preside over the trial of Burr himself. His ruling 1293 denying a motion to introduce certain collateral evidence bearing on Burr's activities is significant both for rendering the latter's acquittal inevitable and for the qualifications and exceptions made to the Bollman decision. In brief, this ruling held that Burr, who had not been present at the assemblage on Blennerhassett's Island, could be convicted of advising or procuring a levying of war only upon the testimony of two witnesses to his having procured the assemblage. This operation having been covert, such testimony was naturally unobtainable. The net effect of Marshall's pronouncements was to make it extremely difficult to convict one of levying war against the United States short of the conduct of or personal participation in actual hostilities. 1294

Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

The Cramer Case .--Since the Bollman case, the few treason cases which have reached the Supreme Court were outgrowths of World War II and have charged adherence to enemies of the United States and the giving of aid and comfort. In the first of these, Cramer v. United States, 1295 the issue was whether the ''overt act'' had to be ''openly manifest treason'' or if it was enough if, when supported by the proper evidence, it showed the required treasonable intention. 1296 The Court in a five- to-four opinion by Justice Jackson in effect took the former view holding that ''the two-witness principle'' interdicted ''imputation of incriminating acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness,'' 1297 even though the single witness in question was the accused himself. ''Every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses,'' 1298 Justice Jackson asserted. Justice Douglas in a dissent, in which Chief Justice Stone and Justices Black and Reed concurred, contended that Cramer's treasonable intention was sufficiently shown by overt acts as attested to by two witnesses each, plus statements made by Cramer on the witness stand.

The Haupt Case .--The Supreme Court sustained a conviction of treason, for the first time in its history, in 1947 in Haupt v. United States. 1299 Here it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason--defendant's harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile, and in obtaining employment in a defense plant--were all acts which a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Speaking for the Court, Justice Jackson said: ''No matter whether young Haupt's mission was benign or traitorous, known or unknown to the defendant, these acts were aid and comfort to him. In the light of this mission and his instructions, they were more than casually useful; they were aids in steps essential to his design for treason. If proof be added that the defendant knew of his son's instruction, preparation and plans, the purpose to aid and comfort the enemy becomes clear.'' 1300

The Court held that conversation and occurrences long prior to the indictment were admissible evidence on the question of defendant's intent. And more important, it held that the constitutional requirement of two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court does not operate to exclude confessions or admissions made out of court, where a legal basis for the conviction has been laid by the testimony of two witnesses of which such confessions or admissions are merely corroborative. This relaxation of restrictions surrounding the definition of treason evoked obvious satisfaction from Justice Douglas who saw in the Haupt decision a vindication of his position in the Cramer case. His concurring opinion contains what may be called a restatement of the law of treason and merits quotation at length:

''As the Cramer case makes plain, the overt act and the intent with which it is done are separate and distinct elements of the crime. Intent need not be proved by two witnesses but may be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding the overt act. But if two witnesses are not required to prove treasonable intent, two witnesses need not be required to show the treasonable character of the overt act. For proof of treasonable intent in the doing of the overt act necessarily involves proof that the accused committed the overt act with the knowledge or understanding of its treasonable character.

''The requirement of an overt act is to make certain a treasonable project has moved from the realm of thought into the realm of action. That requirement is undeniably met in the present case, as it was in the case of Cramer.

''The Cramer case departed from those rules when it held that 'The two-witness principle is to interdict imputation of incriminat ing acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness.' 325 U.S. p. 35. The present decision is truer to the constitutional definition of treason when it forsakes that test and holds that an act, quite innocent on its face, does not need two witnesses to be transfomred into a incriminating one.'' 1301

[MikeD]

The Kawakita Case .--Kawakita v. United States 1302 was decided on June 2, 1952. The facts are sufficiently stated in the following headnote: ''At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport; and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country. During the war, he reached his majority in Japan; changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States; served as a civilian employee of a private corporation producing war materials for Japan; and brutally abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work there. After Japan's surrender, he registered as an American citizen; swore that he was an American citizen and had not done various acts amounting to expatriation; and returned to this country on an American passport.'' The question whether, on this record Kawakita had intended to renounce American citizenship, said the Court, in sustaining conviction, was peculiarly one for the jury and their verdict that he had not so intended was based on sufficient evidence. An American citizen, it continued, owes allegiance to the United States wherever he may reside, and dual nationality does not alter the situation. 1303

Doubtful State of the Law of Treason Today

The vacillation of Chief Justice Marshall between the Bollman 1304 and Burr 1305 cases and the vacillation of the Court in the Cramer 1306 and Haupt 1307 cases leave the law of treason in a somewhat doubtful condition. The difficulties created by the Burr case have been obviated to a considerable extent through the punishment of acts ordinarily treasonable in nature under a different label, 1308 within a formula provided by Chief Justice Marshall himself in the Bollman case. The passage reads: ''Crimes so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and those institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society, are not to escape punishment, because they have not ripened into treason. The wisdom of the legislature is competent to provide for the case; and the framers of our Constitution . . . must have conceived it more safe that punishment in such cases should be ordained by general laws, formed upon deliberation, under the influence of no resentments, and without knowing on whom they were to operate, than that it should be inflicted under the influence of those passions which the occasion seldom fails to excite, and which a flexible definition of the crime, or a construction which would render it flexible, might bring into operation.'' 1309

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis, no one said anything about Israel because Israel isn't considered an enemy of the US. Al-Queada is a different story. You don't go for treason charges serving in the Aussie army, either. It's not 'foreign' that's the key; it's 'enemy of the US.'

MD

yup, but thats why i put the 2nd example.

there are americans linked to some haredi anti-zionist organizations... that would mean there are americans on jewish organizations located in israel that are against zionism (which by definition means being against a US-ally), who, at least in their minds, wish/plot to dissamble the zionist state of Israel (regardless of method)...

or about lori berenson, the american girl that belonged to a peruvian guerrilla, and supplied intelligence against "american imperialism"... whose terrorist organization has bombed US targets and US citizens..

[MikeD]

yup, but thats why i put the 2nd example.

there are americans linked to some haredi anti-zionist organizations... that would mean there are americans on jewish organizations located in israel that are against zionism (which by definition means being against a US-ally), who, at least in their minds, wish/plot to dissamble the zionist state of Israel (regardless of method)...

or about lori berenson, the american girl that belonged to a peruvian guerrilla, and supplied intelligence against "american imperialism"... whose terrorist organization has bombed US targets and US citizens..

Plotting against an ally of the US isn't treason to the US, nor is it a crime under any US law that I know of. Again, I'm not a lawyer or even an amateur.

Never heard of Berenson before, but her actions, if substantiated, do violate a number of US laws. Is she walking around free in the US or something? I fail to see how any of this shows how the US is doing the wrong thing in prosecuting the case we're discussing.

MD

[MikeD]

In reading the Supreme Court history of treason, the question seems to hinge on whether (I'm assuming the accusations are true...that this man went knowingly to an Al-Queada camp and trained towards a goal of attacking the US) Al-Queada's previous attacks on the US can define it as an 'assemblage of men' in a 'state of war' with the US. The definition of treason does NOT cover 'consipracy to commit' treason, as noted by Chief Justice Marshall.

However, since Al-Queada has, by its own declaration and by all reasonable evidence, repeatedly attacked the US and maintained a state of war with the US, joining Al-Queada or receiving its training means, yourself, entering into a state of war with the US....levying war, that is. You don't have to have participated in an attack or an assault to be considered part of this assemblage of men...you can be in the rank and file awaiting orders. Your act of war towards the US was made when you willingly joined the organization. And the 'assemblage of men' doesn't have to be entirely composed of US citizens; but any US citizens involved *can* be held to the charge of treason.

Similarly, your joining the organization and training towards its goals fits, not to mention the financing of such treason, under the 'aid' portion of 'aid and comfort' to the enemy.

Anyhow, even if treason doesn't hold (which in today's climate, I'm guessing it would), I'm sure there are numerous consipracy charges on which he can be tried.

Again, the embarrassing thing about this is likely to be the extent to which this one individual becomes a national outlet for frustration and anger. As if his capture or prosecution was really all that big of a deal and we're all so much better and safer for it.

To extend this to the larger picture, no, I don't think we can get anywhere near winning the 'war on terror' (gah, that grates to say) through means like this. This isn't how you either eliminate the root causes of the conflict OR simply destroy the enemy's ability and will to make war. But it's a necessary and microcosmic way of defending yourself from actual domestic attack. Just because it won't end the worldwide Islamic insurgency doesn't mean you shouldn't have this guy behind bars.

What, would you rather wait until he DID become part of a violent domestic action? Please don't tell me that this prosecution will go further in destroying the 'hearts and minds' campaign...NOT prosecuting him wouldn't help, either. We'd just be seen as weak and ineffectual, either in never finding him out in the first place, or as unwilling to actually do anything to an enemy we've exposed in our midst. There's a fight on here, whether I like it or not.

(I've erased some of what I wrote in an effort to keep this on the topic, rather than on how to win a fight against a worldwide Islamic anti-western insurgency. I hope you'll join me...although it seems that some of the readers here are unwilling to look at this incident itself, but rather apply their general disagreement with US strategy and foreign policy to this individual case.)

MD

[blt2ride]

As of right now, I believe the two are only being held on charges that they lied to law enforcement officials.

[MikeD]

As of right now, I believe the two are only being held on charges that they lied to law enforcement officials.

Yeah, that's what they're held on. Given what's in the affradavit, they're just holding them while 1) continuing the investigation against them and expanding it to any other players and 2) working up the exact charges on which to arraign them for the stuff to which they've already admitted. Picking the charges can be tricky...gotta find the ones which are most likely to stick.

MD

[N8]

One sleeper cell eliminated... more to go.

[MikeD]

One sleeper cell eliminated... more to go.

Um, yeah, keep it up. One day we'll get them all...oh, wait, no...we won't. Damn.

MD

[N8]

The TRUTH (http://www.truthusa.com/911news.html) will set you free!!!!

[WarEagle2K]

Clearly? C'mon, pull your head out.
Are you that naieve, or are you so blinded by your hatred for all things American that you are unable to see why the Fed's can and should detain this clown for questioning?

If you buy a fishing licence it is a fair bet that you have an intent to go fishing.
If you attend welding school it is a fair bet that you have an intent to weld.
If you purchase 20lbs of weed, a scale, and a case of baggies it is a fair bet that you have an intent to sell the weed.
If you fly 1/2 way around the world and attend an Al Queda terrorist training camp it is a fair bet that you have an intent to put some of that training to work. He sure as hell wasn't just on a vacation.

In the United States, intent to comit a capitol crime is probable cause for arrest and conviction.

Bravo!! Well said.

[Damn True]

This is irrelevant. The point is he has been arrested for thinking of stuff. He has taken no action towards pursuing his goal after returning to the states. Do you understand that?

Understand this.
The action of attending a terrorist training camp shows intent.
He was arrested while attempting to return to the US after attending said training.

More than enough justification under U.S. law (including pre 9/11 statutes) to detain him while under investigation.

[MikeD]

Understand this.
The action of attending a terrorist training camp shows intent.


That's not really the important thing...*attending* the camp is in itself aligning yourself with and providing aid to a group of people dedicated to and currently conducting armed operations to harm or destroy the government and people of the United States.

It's not just demonstration of intent, it's an actual criminal action in and of itself. Additionally, his US citizenship opens him to the crime of treason.

MD

Edit: Again, this is all supposing that the accusations in the affradavit, aside from the current charge of lying to the feds, hold in court and are sufficient to secure a guilty verdict. Big "ifs" there, but two confessions to that end go a long way towards helping it along. Of course, they're now going to claim coercion.

[Damn True]

That's not really the important thing...*attending* the camp is in itself aligning yourself with and providing aid to a group of people dedicated to and currently conducting armed operations to harming or destroying the government and people of the United States.

It's not just demonstration of intent, it's an actual criminal action in and of itself. Additionally, his US citizenship opens him to the crime of treason.

MD


You are correct sir.

[MikeD]

You are correct sir.

And your quote has pre-empted my chance to fully erase my bad editing of my post above... Caught in the act of bad sentence structure, I must now retreat.

MD

[Damn True]

And your quote has pre-empted my chance to fully erase my bad editing of my post above... Caught in the act of bad sentence structure, I must now retreat.

MD


Not to worry. I won't get pedantic about minor spelling or grammar gaffs.

[MikeD]

And by the way, treason has only been successfully upheld a handful of times in the history of the country.

Conspiracy to commit murder is probably a more realistic charge, still substantiated by his training (and potential 'membership' in AQ, for lack of a better term, IF that is proved in trial). Although I'm not sure if such conspiracy is proveable without a specific named target. There are also numerous laws about acts of public violence and terrorism, in which his AQ associations, substantiated by his willing participation in AQ training, would potentially involve him in conspiracy to commit.

We'll see how the lawyers sort it out. But this isn't a case of arresting someone for checking a book on Wahabism out from the local library, or speaking out vehemently against American policies in the middle east. It's far more than that. When you involve guns and military training, we're no longer talking about 'thought police.' It's 'reality police' time.

[Damn True]

And by the way, treason has only been successfully upheld a handful of times in the history of the country.

Conspiracy to commit murder is probably a more realistic charge, still substantiated by his training (and potential 'membership' in AQ, for lack of a better term, IF that is proved in trial). Although I'm not sure if such conspiracy is proveable without a specific named target. There are also numerous laws about acts of public violence and terrorism, in which his AQ associations, substantiated by his willing participation in AQ training, would potentially involve him in conspiracy to commit.

We'll see how the lawyers sort it out. But this isn't a case of arresting someone for checking a book on Wahabism out from the local library, or speaking out vehemently against American policies in the middle east. It's far more than that. When you involve guns and military training, we're no longer talking about 'thought police.' It's 'reality police' time.

Exactly. I s'pose this will be treated in a similar fasion as the AQ guys they arrested and convicted in upstate NY.

[pnj]

weren't these guys on the no fly list?

how does one get on that list and if they were, why were they allowed to fly?

[Damn True]

weren't these guys on the no fly list?

how does one get on that list and if they were, why were they allowed to fly?

That is how he was caught. He was detained overseas when he tried to board a flight into the US.
I haven't heard how he got out. Perhaps he wasn't on the no-fly when he left.

[Silver]

They should have waited until they actually did something. These guys will end up with a short term for the same thing Martha Stewart did, and they will end up as heroes to their cause. As of now, they haven't really done anything that militia kooks do all the time.

Now, the bigger question (perhaps for another thread) is why are there still al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan, which is supposed to be one of our staunchest allies in the war on terror?

[MikeD]

These guys will end up with a short term for the same thing Martha Stewart did

What, baking incredibly delicious spice-herb muffin balls??

MD

which is supposed to be one of our staunchest allies in the war on terror?

aaaahhahhahahahahahhahhhaaaahaahaaaha..heh..ha...* whew*, sorry.

Now tell me the one about the Saudis, too...that one always makes me laugh.

MD

[Toshi]

As of right now, I believe the two are only being held on charges that they lied to law enforcement officials.
indeed.

Terror allegations disappear from court filing (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0610/dailyUpdate.html)

who is playing the fool now?

:nopity:

[Damn True]

Now, the bigger question (perhaps for another thread) is why are there still al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan, which is supposed to be one of our staunchest allies in the war on terror?


Excellent point.

[Damn True]

indeed.

Terror allegations disappear from court filing (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0610/dailyUpdate.html)

who is playing the fool now?

:nopity:


Yes they removed the statements regarding specific targets. However the fact remains that the guy did attend an AQ training camp. That in itself is a punishable offense.

[MikeD]

indeed.

who is playing the fool now?

:nopity:

Hey, like I said multiple times, all my posts and the opinions therein were contingent on there being substantiation for the allegations in the affradavit... NONE of us, on any side of this argument, know the actual evidence presented against them for any charges, just what the G was telling us. Dismissing the charges outright as false is just as bad as instant condemnation.

Looks like some shoddy police work and/or sensationalizing on the G's part. Not good for the case...

MD

[reflux]

Yes they removed the statements regarding specific targets. However the fact remains that the guy did attend an AQ training camp. That in itself is a punishable offense.
How so? I need a little clarification on exactly what the charge would be. Please.

[MikeD]

How so? I need a little clarification on exactly what the charge would be. Please.

Here's a possibility: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries. IF, as I said before, the prosecution can prove that in attending this training, he was joining in a larger conspiracy by Al-Queada to harm the US Gov't or the population at large. Frankly, doesn't seem that hard to prove...you voluntarily go to boot camp at your own expense, you're 1) aligning yourself with their cause and being indoctrinated into the conspiracy and 2) providing aid to the conspiracy financially and through your potential material and personal support in the future.

Edit: By the way, Al Queada calls for a death sentence on anyone who serves with the US military, not to mention any other Americans it can kill, so it's not like this is a one-sided thing here. I'd say our process is a little more civilized, frankly, involving some sort of due process and rule of law. Say what you will...Patriot Act and all, we haven't simply shot them in the back of the head and moved on. There might be (are, depending on your perspective) things about the US legal system which aren't right, especially at the moment, and need fixing...but these guys are getting a chance to defend themselves in court.

Definition of the charge is below, and it's only an example...but I think it's a good fit for exemplary purposes. The Al-Queada plan, as publicly stated, indeed calls for acts of terrorism transcending national borders. Join this plan and you're part of a conspiracy to commit these acts.

From US Code, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332b
--------------
§ 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Prohibited Acts.—
(1) Offenses.— Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)—
(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or
(B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;
in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies.— Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).
(b) Jurisdictional Bases.—
(1) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are—
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
(B) the offense obstructs, delays, or affects interstate or foreign commerce, or would have so obstructed, delayed, or affected interstate or foreign commerce if the offense had been consummated;
(C) the victim, or intended victim, is the United States Government, a member of the uniformed services, or any official, officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, or of any department or agency, of the United States;
(D) the structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property is, in whole or in part, owned, possessed, or leased to the United States, or any department or agency of the United States;
(E) the offense is committed in the territorial sea (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon) of the United States; or
(F) the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
(2) Co-conspirators and accessories after the fact.— Jurisdiction shall exist over all principals and co-conspirators of an offense under this section, and accessories after the fact to any offense under this section, if at least one of the circumstances described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) is applicable to at least one offender.
(c) Penalties.—
(1) Penalties.— Whoever violates this section shall be punished—
(A) for a killing, or if death results to any person from any other conduct prohibited by this section, by death, or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
(B) for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
(C) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than 35 years;
(D) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than 30 years;
(E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more than 25 years;
(F) for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, for any term of years up to the maximum punishment that would have applied had the offense been completed; and
(G) for threatening to commit an offense under this section, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.
(2) Consecutive sentence.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this section; nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this section run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.
(d) Proof Requirements.— The following shall apply to prosecutions under this section:
(1) Knowledge.— The prosecution is not required to prove knowledge by any defendant of a jurisdictional base alleged in the indictment.
(2) State law.— In a prosecution under this section that is based upon the adoption of State law, only the elements of the offense under State law, and not any provisions pertaining to criminal procedure or evidence, are adopted.
(e) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.— There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction—
(1) over any offense under subsection (a), including any threat, attempt, or conspiracy to commit such offense; and
(2) over conduct which, under section 3, renders any person an accessory after the fact to an offense under subsection (a).
(f) Investigative Authority.— In addition to any other investigative authority with respect to violations of this title, the Attorney General shall have primary investigative responsibility for all Federal crimes of terrorism, and any violation of section 351 (e), 844 (e), 844 (f)(1), 956 (b), 1361, 1366 (b), 1366 (c), 1751 (e), 2152, or 2156 of this title, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall assist the Attorney General at the request of the Attorney General. Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with the authority of the United States Secret Service under section 3056.
(g) Definitions.— As used in this section—
(1) the term “conduct transcending national boundaries” means conduct occurring outside of the United States in addition to the conduct occurring in the United States;
(2) the term “facility of interstate or foreign commerce” has the meaning given that term in section 1958 (b)(2);
(3) the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning given that term in section 1365 (g)(3); [1]
(4) the term “territorial sea of the United States” means all waters extending seaward to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States, determined in accordance with international law; and
(5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that—
(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
(B) is a violation of—
(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii) through (v) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to wrecking trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2332f (relating to bombing of public places and facilities), 2339 (relating to harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism,[2] or 2340A (relating to torture) of this title;
(ii) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284); or
(iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505 (b)(3) or (c) (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved (relating to application of certain criminal laws to acts on aircraft), or section 60123 (b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.
----------

[Changleen]

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=w061157A

Few convictions on U.S. terror charges, statistics count lesser crimes

NEW YORK (AP) - The vast majority of convictions the U.S. administration cites as victories in the legal front of its anti-terror campaign are not related to national security, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

On Thursday, President George W. Bush urged renewal of the USA Patriot Act and boasted of the government's success in prosecuting terrorists.

Flanked by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush said "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects and more than half of those charged have been convicted," the Post said.

Those statistics have been used repeatedly by Bush and other administration officials, including Gonzales and his predecessor, John Ashcroft, to characterize the government's efforts against terrorism.

But the numbers are misleading at best, the Post said.

An analysis of the U.S. Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by the Post showed 39 people - not 200, as officials have implied - were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.

Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes, such as making false statements and violating immigration law, and had nothing to do with terrorism, the Post analysis shows. For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.

Taken as a whole, the data indicate the government's effort to identify terrorists in the United States has been less successful than authorities have often suggested. The statistics provide little support for the contention authorities have discovered and prosecuted hundreds of terrorists. Except for a small number of well-known cases - such as truck driver Iyman Faris, who sought to take down the Brooklyn Bridge - few of those arrested appear to have been involved in active plots inside the United States, the Post said.

Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism investigations in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them.

Just one in nine individuals on the list had an alleged connection to the al-Qaida terrorist network and only 14 people convicted of terrorism-related crimes - including Faris and convicted Sept. 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui - have clear links to the group, the Post said. Many more cases involve Colombian drug cartels, supporters of the Palestinian cause, Rwandan war criminals or others with no apparent ties to al Qaeda or its leader, Osama bin Laden.

But a large number of people appear to have been swept into U.S. counter-terrorism investigations by chance - through anonymous tips, suspicious circumstances or bad luck - and have remained classified as terrorism defendants years after being cleared of connections to extremist groups, the Post said.

For example, the prosecution of 20 men, most of them Iraqis, in a Pennsylvania truck-licensing scam accounts for about 10 per cent of individuals convicted - even though the entire group was publicly absolved of ties to terrorism in 2001.

"For so many of these cases, there seems to be much less substance to them than we first assume or have first been told," Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads the Washington office of Rand Corp., a think-tank that conducts national-security research, told the Post.

"There's an inherent deterrent effect in cracking down on any illicit activity. But the challenge is not exaggerating what they were up to - not portraying them as super-terrorists when they're really the low end of the food chain."

U.S. Justice Department officials said they have not sought to exaggerate the importance or suspected associations of those prosecuted in connection with terrorism probes and they argue the list provides only a partial view of their efforts.

Officials said all the individuals were first put on the list because of a suspected connection or allegation related to terrorism. Last week, they also said the department had tightened the requirements for including a case on the terrorism list.

Barry Sabin, chief of the department's counter-terrorism section, said prosecutors frequently turn to lesser charges when they are not confident they can prove crimes such as committing or supporting terrorism. Many defendants also have been prosecuted for relatively minor crimes in exchange for information that is not public but has proven valuable in other terrorism investigations, he told the Post.

"A person could not have been put on this list if there was not a concern about national security, at least initially," he said.

"Are all these people an ongoing threat presently? Arguably not...We are not trying to overstate or understate what we're doing. You don't want to put language or a label on people that is inconsistent with what they have done," the Post quoted him saying.
You can see why one is sceptical.

[genpowell71]

Here's a possibility: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries. IF, as I said before, the prosecution can prove that in attending this training, he was joining in a larger conspiracy by Al-Queada to harm the US Gov't or the population at large. Frankly, doesn't seem that hard to prove...you voluntarily go to boot camp at your own expense, you're 1) aligning yourself with their cause and being indoctrinated into the conspiracy and 2) providing aid to the conspiracy financially and through your potential material and personal support in the future.

Edit: By the way, Al Queada calls for a death sentence on anyone who serves with the US military, not to mention any other Americans it can kill, so it's not like this is a one-sided thing here. I'd say our process is a little more civilized, frankly, involving some sort of due process and rule of law. Say what you will...Patriot Act and all, we haven't simply shot them in the back of the head and moved on. There might be (are, depending on your perspective) things about the US legal system which aren't right, especially at the moment, and need fixing...but these guys are getting a chance to defend themselves in court.

Definition of the charge is below, and it's only an example...but I think it's a good fit for exemplary purposes. The Al-Queada plan, as publicly stated, indeed calls for acts of terrorism transcending national borders. Join this plan and you're part of a conspiracy to commit these acts.

From US Code, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332b
--------------
§ 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Prohibited Acts.—
(1) Offenses.— Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)—
(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or
(B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;
in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies.— Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).
(b) Jurisdictional Bases.—
(1) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are—
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
(B) the offense obstructs, delays, or affects interstate or foreign commerce, or would have so obstructed, delayed, or affected interstate or foreign commerce if the offense had been consummated;
(C) the victim, or intended victim, is the United States Government, a member of the uniformed services, or any official, officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, or of any department or agency, of the United States;
(D) the structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property is, in whole or in part, owned, possessed, or leased to the United States, or any department or agency of the United States;
(E) the offense is committed in the territorial sea (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon) of the United States; or
(F) the offense is committed within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
(2) Co-conspirators and accessories after the fact.— Jurisdiction shall exist over all principals and co-conspirators of an offense under this section, and accessories after the fact to any offense under this section, if at least one of the circumstances described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) is applicable to at least one offender.
(c) Penalties.—
(1) Penalties.— Whoever violates this section shall be punished—
(A) for a killing, or if death results to any person from any other conduct prohibited by this section, by death, or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
(B) for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
(C) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than 35 years;
(D) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than 30 years;
(E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more than 25 years;
(F) for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, for any term of years up to the maximum punishment that would have applied had the offense been completed; and
(G) for threatening to commit an offense under this section, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.
(2) Consecutive sentence.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of this section; nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this section run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.
(d) Proof Requirements.— The following shall apply to prosecutions under this section:
(1) Knowledge.— The prosecution is not required to prove knowledge by any defendant of a jurisdictional base alleged in the indictment.
(2) State law.— In a prosecution under this section that is based upon the adoption of State law, only the elements of the offense under State law, and not any provisions pertaining to criminal procedure or evidence, are adopted.
(e) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.— There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction—
(1) over any offense under subsection (a), including any threat, attempt, or conspiracy to commit such offense; and
(2) over conduct which, under section 3, renders any person an accessory after the fact to an offense under subsection (a).
(f) Investigative Authority.— In addition to any other investigative authority with respect to violations of this title, the Attorney General shall have primary investigative responsibility for all Federal crimes of terrorism, and any violation of section 351 (e), 844 (e), 844 (f)(1), 956 (b), 1361, 1366 (b), 1366 (c), 1751 (e), 2152, or 2156 of this title, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall assist the Attorney General at the request of the Attorney General. Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with the authority of the United States Secret Service under section 3056.
(g) Definitions.— As used in this section—
(1) the term “conduct transcending national boundaries” means conduct occurring outside of the United States in addition to the conduct occurring in the United States;
(2) the term “facility of interstate or foreign commerce” has the meaning given that term in section 1958 (b)(2);
(3) the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning given that term in section 1365 (g)(3); [1]
(4) the term “territorial sea of the United States” means all waters extending seaward to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States, determined in accordance with international law; and
(5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that—
(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
(B) is a violation of—
(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii) through (v) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to wrecking trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against...----------

I bet that took a long time to type huh? It was so long that ridemonkey made me shorten it by 311 charecters.

Pesonally, I think that the government is pushing this as a way to keep the Patriot act. None of us knows what the charges are. Who cares. The fact remains that I cant fault them for atleast trying to keep us safe from the bad guys. If they actually did go train with al queda then they need to meet the same fate that Frodo Baggins met in the movie Sin City.

[dhtahoe]

Best quote heard in awhile. "I love my country, but I fear my government". A "lost memo" from an FBI investigator was released this week. The memo contained infomation TELLING the White House that a KNOWN HIJACKING SUSPECT was headed towards the U.S. The suspect ended up being one of the pilots that hijacked one of the 9/11 planes. They knew he was coming, and let it happen. Lost memo my ass!!!

[genpowell71]

Best quote heard in awhile. "I love my country, but I fear my government". A "lost memo" from an FBI investigator was released this week. The memo contained infomation TELLING the White House that a KNOWN HIJACKING SUSPECT was headed towards the U.S. The suspect ended up being one of the pilots that hijacked one of the 9/11 planes. They knew he was coming, and let it happen. Lost memo my ass!!!

Thats old news big man. I read an article about that about 2 years ago in Kosovo.

[springfield1911]

Changleen:

Would you like us to buy a one way ticket to _____(fill in the blank with desired destination) to attend an Al Queda training camp and shoot a few rounds at the pic of our president? You'll fit right in.

In fact, I'm sure there is a turban waiting for you at this very moment...