I don’t see how we could have deported him to Egypt in any case, as he was expelled from Egypt after his trial for conspiracy in the Sadat assassination (even though he was acquitted).
Since then, he was mostly living in Afghanistan (working with the Islamist mujaheddin, and the CIA btw, in the fight against the Soviet occupation) until he was sent to New York to organize jihadists in the US.
Sure, let’s deport Abdel-Rahman back to Afghanistan! There are lots of his followers there who’ll be real happy to see him, too!
Kind of a tangent, but wouldn’t the aquittal make him deportable? I would think that the Egyptians might have been happy to have him in one of their prisons, squeezing whatever they could out of him before he died of it. Surely he knew things about people still in Egypt they would have been eager to learn. Of course, he might have been a bit too hot of a potato if a more anonymous prisoner could provide the same info. under duress.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this analysis, but I think it is worth considering just how much of a stretch “material support for terrorism” really was in this case.
She was convicted under a statute which defines “material support” as “means currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials” (18 U.S.C. Section 2339A).
The statute also requires that she intended or knew the act would harm people and that people actually died as a result of her actions.
The prosecution argued that the support she provided was personnel (i.e. herself). That’s pretty ridiculous. I also do not see anywhere in the written opinion that outlines how she met the last two elements.
Couldn’t we fit this guy with some kind of radio transponder/homing beacon? that way, we send him packing…to Afghaniostan…where he meets up with all his old buddies. Then BINGO, the device sends out a signal to a helicopter gunship, which launches a HELLFIRE missile! The rest is…history!
I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think Egypt will be willing to take him back at present. Things were somewhat different back in the days of the ceasefire between the Egyptian government and the Egyptian Islamic militant organizations back in 1999:
But now that Abdel-Rahman has questioned or condemned the ceasefire, it’s not clear to me that Egypt would be willing to take him back even if the US would release him. As you say, he’s a pretty hot potato, and I think it could be a serious threat to Egyptian stability to have him locked up in an Egyptian prison. And if he died under torture in an Egyptian prison…fan, meet shit; shit, fan.
I agree. I think the"material support of terrorism" charge may not stick on appeal. Also interested to see how the Court will address the “Special Administrative Measures” when considered in light of attorney client privilege, and possibly even under the First Amendment. I’d like to read the briefs on appeal…
Sorry, but could someone explain what it is she did that was aiding a terrorist?
From the New York Law Journal
"Her most “potentially lethal” action, Judge Koeltl said, was in June 2000, when she read a press release to a reporter indicating that the sheik was withdrawing his support for a “cease-fire” or cessation of attacks against the Egyptian government. "
I’m not at all sure I follow how a lawyer reading out a press release from their client is aiding a terrorist?
Well, at least three people (sheik, her, interpreter) is a conspiracy, no? That does look like someone providing “personnel”. And was she not aware of the content of those messages? Did those messges not involve acts of violence? Did she not at least entertain the possibility they could lead to bodily harm?
It’s quite clear she knew she was breaking the law (though obviously not the trouble she was getting herself into with this one). Considering her actions in the most generous possible light, it was an act of civil disobedience related to what she felt was a constitutional issue. Those who commit such acts, I rather think by definition, ought to be prepared to do some time. 28 months for her ethical breaches alone seems pretty light, if you ask me.
