Free Ali Al-Timimi

August 31, 2008

Jonathan Turley

Filed under: Jonathan Turley — sandboxarea @ 9:15 pm

Professor at The George Washington University School of Law

Prior to leading Ali’s appeal, Professor Turley commented on Dr. Al-Timimi beliefs on Armageddon and the US Government’s case. In the truest form of defending the US Constitution, Professor Turley said that “it is never about the defendants. It was not about the racist fantasies of Brandenburg. It certainly is not about the apocalyptic fantasies of Al-Timimi. It is ultimately about us and who we are. With Al-Timimi’s conviction, we face that moment of self-definition again as his articles of speech become the test of our own articles of faith”.

Known for exposing state and federal violations of a defendant’s rights in the court room as a means by which the government can coerce a jury, Professor Turley was critical of the Government’s court room conduct. When prosecutors intimidated the jury with one of Dr. Al-Timimi’s writings authored years after Ali’s alleged criminal speech, Professor Turley commented: “The relevance of such statements is questionable, but the potential prejudicial impact could not be more clear”.

Advertisements

Islamic Knowledge

Filed under: Islamic Knowledge — sandboxarea @ 9:15 pm

In addition to his scientific background, Ali possesses a background in Islamic studies. In 1987, he was the recipient of a scholarship to study theology at the Islamic University of Medina, Saudi Arabia. While living in Medina, Ali furthered his studies with the great scholars of the Prophet’s mosque.

Due to his passion for learning, Ali quickly progressed in his studies and is recognized as one of the few Muslim experts in the US in the field of Islamic Theology and Philosophy. He has taught both Theology and Quranic studies at the university level.

For over 15 years Ali has delivered hundreds of Islamic workshops and lectures locally and around the world.

PhD in Computational Biology

Filed under: PhD in Cancer Research — sandboxarea @ 9:15 pm

On December 1, 2004, Ali successfully defended his dissertation on “Chaos and Complexity in Cancer” and was awarded a Doctorate of Philosophy in Computational Biology. He also holds undergraduate degrees in both Biology and Computer Science.

In a recently published article about Ali, Curtis Jamison– Ali’s dissertation director at George Mason University– said Ali’s innovations in computational biology pointed to a significant breakthrough in cancer research. Ali was hired by the University to design a computer system that coordinated the research of several universities. While he was at George Mason, Ali published or co-published a dozen scientific papers.

Ali loved to discuss ideas, Jamison said, and at no point did he find an Islamic influence in his views, much less a religious extremism.

Who is Dr. Ali Al-Timimi

Filed under: About Ali — sandboxarea @ 9:14 pm

Dr. Ali Al-Timimi is a first generation American.

Born in 1963, Ali was raised in Washington DC. His parents immigrated from Iraq to America in the 1950’s. A cancer researcher and an expert on Islamic theology and philosophy; on July 14, 2005 Dr. Al-Timimi was unjustly sentenced to life in US prison plus 70 years for speaking about Islam.

Labels and Libel

Filed under: Labels and Libel — sandboxarea @ 12:54 pm

Newspeak

 

211 and 187 are just numbers. But make sure you never joke with a California Highway Patrol officer about a “one-eight-seven” during a traffic stop. You probably won’t make it home in one piece. Words have power and words can sometimes have a hidden meaning.

The government lawyers frequently employ a set of code words to describe Ali. Even a year prior to his indictment the government started a smear campaign against Ali by planting stories in the media about him. Unfortunately, members of the press were all too willing to parrot the government’s descriptions.

I wanted to highlight how the use of certain words can prejudice the listener. As I discussed in “Judge Me, Judge Me Not“, the Magistrate who authorized Ali’s search warrant could only rely on the government’s characterization of Ali. To secure the warrant, the government used the special words: Islamic group, military training, and WMD (weapons of mass destruction).

As none of those descriptions were truthful, we should perhaps label them as Words of Malicious Deception. The goal was to not only to secure a Magistrate’s signature… but to begin Ali’s trial in the media. Irrespective of your opinion of any specific newspaper or journalist, the fact remains that democracies need journalist to tell the truth. In fact, Congress enacted laws to ensure that the US press would not be manipulated by the CIA. And the much discussed reporter shield law might further strengthen our democracy.

 

In this post, I wanted to focus on the use of cul-de-sac which was used by the Washington Post to describe the location of Ali’s house. If we look at the other description used to characterize Ali’s home, the reporter described it as a “brick townhouse”, located on “Meadow Field Court”, which is “near” a huge shopping center called “Fair Oaks Mall”, which is located “in Fairfax” which is one of the wealthiest suburbs in America. 

 

So, the use of cul-de-sac provides no additional clarification to the reader. You might say that the reporter was just being thorough. Hummm. That’s sooo… September 10 thinking. The intent was to slyly communicate that Ali had a siege mentality much like various American militia members who build bunkers in their homes.

Ali lived in a residential community which contained over 100 townhouses. You know, with the typical layout were you’re sandwiched by your neighbors… the type where the neighbor’s cat hops over the adjacent deck… because you treat it better.

 

So did Ali live in the cul-de-sac area of the property… no. Ali lived at the corner before you get to the cul-de-sac. Why? Dislike of French words? Maybe that’s why he never lived in New Orleans with all those Rues. Does it mater? Only if you’re trying to lend credence to the government’s “WMD” absurdities.

 

So did the reporter intentionally mislead the readers be weaving the cul-de-sac lie into the WMD story line? What do you think? If so, it was masterfully done. Perhaps I should renew my Washington Post subscription if not for the truth then at least for the fiction writing.

Woodward and Bernstein preserve us!

August 28, 2008

Cone of Silence

Filed under: Cone of Silence — sandboxarea @ 3:46 am

 

Can You Hear Me Now?

Can You Hear Me Now?

 

Shhhh. Don’t let the defense know… or the press. This is just for you. Wink, wink. You’re special. We can trust you today and maybe tomorrow. Oh and we’ll tell you in the future that we lied to you in the past but you’ll be able to overlook that. We’re the GOVERNMENT and we decide if and when we’ll tell you the truth and which parts of it. We’re the GOVERNMENT and we control the narrative of Ali’s story, don’t we.

Most people know that the government has a bad habit of over classification… even those things that were once unclassified or declassified can get reclassified… just because. One of the consequences of this is that it enables government employees to cover up crimes, negligence, or waste. If the boss can cover up his mistakes no matter how egregious then why can’t a grunt? 

In Ali’s case, the government lawyers applied and continue to apply 3 types of control over information. Of course, we’re talking about the unethical and perhaps criminal means of information control. These tactics undermine the judicial process and consequently negate the protections of the Constitution.

The first tactic used by the government is to reclassify documents already disclosed in previous trials. As we will discuss in the post “Out of Sequence Prosecutions”, for the government to win in Ali’s case and many of the related cases, the government had to isolate the defendants into arbitrary trials so that it could deny access to information through claims of relevance. Additionally, it had to conduct the trials in an incongruent sequence so that the court, press, jury, and more importantly the defendants would always be off-balance and have to defend against wild accusations “statements of fact” that were made in previous trials in which they could not defend themselves since they were not part of those proceedings.

 

Here’s an example of a topic which was declassified in the Paintball trial and then reclassified in Ali’s case:

 

 

The second technique of inappropriate information control used by the government is to use broken English linguistic barriers in their responses:

 

After consulting a smart 5th grader, we found out that “… no information not provided…” really means: “I found stuff at the NSA but I don’t want to say so. So I’m going to try to confuse you.

This is known as the “no, not, but” dialect of American English.

A more truthful response would be: “As you know, the Appeals Court ordered me to investigate if the NSA or any other group within US Government failed to disclose information. Today I declare that the US Government failed to disclose information.” Then the court and defense would work with the government to determine if the undisclosed information was relevant. Instead the government pissed on the role of the court determined that the information was previously given to the defense during the pre-trial phase. Continuing to piss on the court Continuing its analysis, the government also qualified that the information to which it is referring only relates to “entitled” information which is also “discoverable”. The government prefers to make its own determination if evidence is “discoverable” and if the defense is “entitled” to it.

Though this invalidates 100s of years of American and British Law; in Alexandria this is known as bypassing the Court in Discovery and Entitlement or as the kids will learn this semester in Law School: Going from the “D”-to-the-“E” without starting at the “C”. 

 

So why would the government use this amount of obfuscation? A smarter 5th grader explained that the government presented during pre-trial only what appeared to be from a domestic source (that is, the FBI). Since the government lawyer found information at the NSA, that means that the NSA was also performing domestic monitoring of the Paintballers and Ali and maintained its own files. So, the government lawyer had to move the focus to the entitlement aspect and speak in the “no, not, but” style now famous in Alexandria.

 

The third technique used by the government to circumvent its legal obligation of discovery is to provide classified information to the judge directly without the government lawyers, defense lawyers, or even the court clerks having access to the information.

 

 

After using this technique and making a mockery of the US legal system for 4 years, the Court recently declared:

 

 

 

Of course the government also uses other techniques to hide the truth by forgetting to answer questions, answering the wrong questions, saying that other people in the future will answer the questions, etc but the above-mentioned 3 techniques seem to be the most damaging to the legal profession, the responsiblity of representing the Government of the United States, and the American way.

August 27, 2008

Judge me, Judge me not

Filed under: Judge Me, Judge Me Not — sandboxarea @ 8:45 pm
Take a sad song and make it better

Take a sad song and make it better

It’s one of the tenets of the US style of government: an independent federal judiciary. Federal judges are to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Congress. Checks and balances are woven into the system.

Though there are several types of judges and courts, it is important to understand the American legal process to understand how a group of men from the government gamed the legal system and committed a fraud on the courts.

Judges are appointed in different roles: a magistrate issues warrants, reviews arrests, and performs other pre-trial tasks. A district judge is a trial judge for a specific geographic location. An appellate judge is tasked to make a ruling –in conjunction with a small group of other appellate judges– on the “correctness” of a conviction or if a specific legal issue has to be addressed during a trial if– for whatever reason– the trial judge is incapable of making that decision. Sometimes the trial is delayed until resolution by the appellate court. We’ll skip talking about the FISA or Supreme Courts in this post.

In Ali’s case, a Magistrate granted an FBI’s request to search Ali’s house. Each affidavit presented to a magistrate requires that the FBI agent swears an oath that the search and seizure request is based on truthful and factually information. Unlike other systems such as those derived from the French judicial process, the magistrate is not an active participant in the investigative or intelligence gathering process. His decision is solely based on the information presented in the government’s request and the oath of the law enforcement personnel.

In Washington DC, the holiest of holies is not the Supreme Court where you are able to hear the Justices debate many of the cases (and perhaps one day see live coverage of the judicial process in action). In the nation’s capital the FISA Court rules supreme. Only this secret court– housed within the Justice Department– is empowered by Congress to bypass many of the protections conferred by the Constitution “in the name of national security”. The FISA Court is perhaps the most agreeable court to the government’s position.

Nonetheless, it was shocking to many when the Court disclosed that the FBI presented falsified affidavits to it on at least 75 instances:

So scamming your way to a warrant– or 75– ain’t that hard. So let’s now analyze the affidavit presented to the Magistrate to obtain the warrant to raid Ali’s house. We’ll use the Washington Post’s summary of the affidavit:

You have all the prerequisites to con a Magistrate and the press:

  1. Anonymous tips… check
  2. Running an Islamic group… check
  3. Conducting military training… check
  4. Lives in a cul-de-sac… check
  5. WMD (weapons of mass destruction)… check

Perhaps the Washington Post’s fact checker was absent or the Feds are using time travel: let’s get this straight… the FBI agents are sitting around in “late 2002” when they get these anonymous tips about Ali. They pounce and look on the Internet and see that Ali will comment has commented about the Shuttle in a few months… in 2003… in the future.

Riiiiiight. That was the script for the movie called Minority Report where Tom Cruise was a special pre-cognition cop in Washington DC. In that movie as well as in Ali’s tragic story, someone gamed the system for their personal benefit while everyone thought that the checks and balances inherent in the system would have protected them… who would have thunk?

So if we continue to believe the fictional account sworn statements of the government, then obviously the agents should have worn Hazmat (hazardous material) protective clothing and used SWAT. Errr, ahh… oops someone forgot to tell the rank and file before the raid… just jeans and tee-shirts and no guns drawn.

In other posts we’ll analyze the other points in the affidavit.

We’ll look at the importance of describing Ali as living in a “cul-de-sac” and some other gibberish statements in the post “Labels and Libel

August 22, 2008

Retroactive Continuity

Filed under: Con and Retcon — sandboxarea @ 10:55 pm

 

Pick a timeline--they're all fake

Pick a Reality... there're all fake

 

Retcon– or retroactive continuity– happens all the time in the world of fiction especially in long running stories. It’s happened in the BBC Doctor Who serial, the Superman graphic novels, and the 80’s soap opera Dallas. It’s when the back story of a character needs to be changed because some historical facts don’t add up… or a new writer comes up with a “better history”.

Though it’s just fiction, you feel cheated because you’ve been lied to.

In the fiction of Dallas, Patrick Duffy was never in danger even though his character “Bobby” was dreamt away for a year. But in Ali’s real world story, he has not faired well. The creative writers of Ali’s story are the government’s lawyers who change the events of his case with each retelling of the narrative.

If they can’t con a listener with one version of events, they will conveniently substitute “alternate truths” to make their case. If you explore the alternate versions of the government’s case against Ali, you will realize that either the government has committed a fraud upon the court or that parallel universes actually exist and intersect in the body of Ali.

 

One con version of events by the story writers government lawyers is found in a Supreme Court brief relating to some of the Paintballers. The brief relates to the mathematics of gun sentencing and whether the government is allowed to charge a person multiple times for using the same gun. Though unrelated to Ali, the fiction writers government lawyers create a new history of Ali which can only be understood as a means to prejudice the Justices in case Ali winds up in their Court. This is an old trick which worked well during the trial of the Paintballers and will be discussed in the post “Judge me, Judge me not“.

 

A Supreme Con

A Supreme Con

 

In this timeline, the government fiction writers lawyers claim that Ali was preaching violence in 1999 and this caused the Paintballers to train.

 

But at Ali’s trial, the government tells a different story: one in which Ali “turned radical after the events of 9/11”.  This version of the story is marginalized in the brief but is still present. You’ll find it just a few paragraphs later as seen in the next snippet:

 

 

 

So why the retcon?

 

There are 2 major reasons. First, the government wants to create it’s own sentencing rules beyond those established by Congress or in common use by courts across the country. Consequently, they rewrite Ali’s history to scare the Court into believing that if it doesn’t comply with the government’s views, then armed groups will run wild. Do you think that the government really cares if a Paintballer will spend 185 years in prison or just 135 years? 

 

The second goal of this brief is to make Ali a marked man with the Justices. In the Paintball trial, Ali was mentioned more frequently then some of the Paintballer defendants. This poisoned both the judge and press against Ali to such a degree that the judge kept asking the prosecutors “who is Ali? Who is Al-Timimi”? And when sentencing the Paintballers, the judge proclaimed that Ali was once a moderate but turned into a radical. So when Ali was arrested and he didn’t have a lawyer, that same judge said that she didn’t care and that his trial would begin in a few months anyway. When asked to recuse herself as perhaps being prejudiced against Ali, she refused. 

To see how the press has been biased against Ali, read the posts in the category “Labels and Libel“.

As with previous trials, the government’s goal is to prejudice both judges and the press so that every future outcome is one in which the government has previously pissed on established the truth. No need for investigative journalists. No need for inquisitive judges. The government’s talking points should be sufficient. What’s your fax number?… that’s alright, they already have it.

 

So even though this brief was about Khan, the government never misses an opportunity to depict Ali as the focal point. All events are described in terms of Ali:

As with all good works of fiction, the reader has to scratch the surface to find the real story. So either Ali is the nexus of all realities or the government is a master of the Con and Retcon.

August 12, 2008

Elisa F. Kantor

Filed under: Elisa F. Kantor — sandboxarea @ 12:33 am

New Threats, Old Problems: Adhering to Brandenburg’s Imminence Requirement in Terrorism Prosecutions

Of late, several Muslim citizens in the Virginia and DC area were convicted of conspiring to commit terrorist acts against the United States. In these and other similar cases, the government appears to have changed its approach to prosecuting terrorism from one of crime solving (by finding and convicting after the fact) to one of prevention (by finding and convicting before the alleged act occurs).

Most recently, Ali Al-Timimi was sentenced to life in prison because he told a group of Muslim men to go to Afghanistan and fight with terrorist forces following the attacks of September 11. Federal prosecutors alleged that Al-Timimi had incited his listeners to engage in unlawful acts against the United States, and that because he had encouraged the men to train with terrorist forces, he was responsible for their crimes. In order to prosecute Al-Timimi’s speech, the government must satisfy the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio test by proving that the expression was directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and was likely to incite or produce such action.

In Al-Timimi’s case, however, the important requirement of imminence was not met. The men to whom Al-Timimi spoke did not arrive at terrorist training camps until weeks later, demonstrating that Al-Timimi’s speech was not immediate enough to pass the Brandenburg standard. Al-Timimi’s case is therefore troubling as precedent, because it indicates that the government may circumvent the imminence requirement of Brandenburg in the context of domestic terrorism prosecutions.

This Note argues that it is essential to adhere to Brandenburg’s imminence requirement. This Note demonstrates that Al-Timimi’s speech was not imminent under the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, and discusses the reasons why a Muslim imam’s speech must not be prosecuted unless it passes the Brandenburg test. The Note also discusses the larger implications for failing to adhere to the imminence requirement in the war on terror. A strict defense of Brandenburg’s temporal element is essential because will protect the American public from speech that escalates the threat of domestic terrorist activity while guarding speech that deserves to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

 

George Washington Law Review, Vol. 76, p. 752, 2008 George Washington Law Review, Vol. 3, 2008 ELISA F. KANTOR, George Washington University

December 28, 2007

Address to write to

Filed under: letters — P, Bruv @ 10:46 am

You can write to Dr. Ali at the following address:

Ali al-Timimi
Alexandria Detention Center
2001 Mill Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
USA

« Previous Page

Blog at WordPress.com.