Fahad Hashmi Pleads Guilty on Eve of Trial

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:21:55 PM EST
Tags: Fahad Hashmi, Guantanamo, MCC (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Accused al-Qaeda terror suspect Fahad Hashmi, extradited from the UK in 2007 and held in solitary at MCC in Manhattan for three years pleaded guilty today to one count of providing material support to terrorists. Both sides agreed to a sentence of 15 years. three other counts were dropped. Hashmim would have faced a maximum of 70 years if convicted on all counts.

Hashmi is a 30-year-old U.S. citizen who was born in Pakistan; grew up in Flushing, Queens, where his family still lives; and received his B.A. from Brooklyn College and his master's from London Metropolitan University. At Brooklyn College, in 2002, Hashmi was a student of mine in a seminar on civil rights. [More...]

A critic of U.S. foreign policy and its treatment of Muslims, he held the rather optimistic view that you could change people's minds by talking and arguing with them. He could often be found in the hall before and after class debating other students. For my seminar, he wrote a research paper on the abridgement of the civil liberties of Muslim-American groups in the United States after 9/11. Now it is his rights that have been violated.

Hashmi's torture didn't end when he arrived in the U.S. The conditions he was housed in at MCC were abominable.

If the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, what is the impact of forced isolation? Medical testimony presented in his case in federal court concluded that after 60 days in solitary people's mental state begins to break down. That means a person will start to experience panic, anxiety, confusion, headaches, heart palpitations, sleep problems, withdrawal, anger, depression, despair, and over-sensitivity. Over time this can lead to severe psychiatric trauma and harms like psychosis, distortion of reality, hallucinations, mass anxiety and acute confusion. Essentially, the mind disintegrates.

That is why, under international standards for human rights, extended isolation is considered a form of torture and is banned. The conditions and practices of isolation are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Convention against Torture, and the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Wednesday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Fahad Hashmi Pleads Guilty on Eve of Trial | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Of what (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by lentinel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:07:53 AM EST

is he accused?

What is "material support"?
What "material support" does he admit to providing?

Did he plead guilty after being tortured - as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Convention against Torture, and the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination?

Reading the article above and the link provided, none of these questions are answered.

I don't know whether to feel that a dangerous guy has been taken off the streets, or another injustice has been perpetrated by our government in the name of protecting us.

Join the club lentinel.... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:10:28 AM EST

who knows who or what to believe anymore...these are strange days.


: I (none / 0) (#26)
by lentinel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:00:43 PM EST

have begun not to believe anything coming from the government.
Everything seems to be agenda driven.
I don't see a difference between this administration and the last one in that regard.

It really isn't complicated (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:10:16 AM EST

or hard to understand..... or at least to me. And I am no lawyer and didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

2339A. Providing material support to terrorists
Definitions.-- As used in this section--
(1) the term "material support or resources" means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including 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 (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
(2) the term "training" means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and
(3) the term "expert advice or assistance" means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.

if lentinel didn't mean (none / 0) (#11)
by Jen M on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:22:24 AM EST

specifics of this case then I want to know the specifics.

How did this guy break this law. And did the confession come before or after the coercion.


According to the NY Daily News (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jbindc on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:46:44 AM EST

"Hashmi allegedly sheltered an Al Qaeda operative who organized training camps in Pakistan - and let him use his cell phone to arrange meetings with other alleged terrorists.
Hashmi was also charged with giving the same man $300 and helping him store rain ponchos and socks collected for Al Qaeda soldiers.

Prosecutors claimed he also joined the New York chapter of the radical Al Muhajiroun, which advocated the overthrow of Western society."


: Well.... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by lentinel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:59:17 PM EST

"allegedly"
"was charged with..."
"Prosecutors claimed..."
So I ask:
To which of these alleged charges that prosecutors claimed he did, did he confess to?
And if he did confess, was it after being tortured?

: thank you (none / 0) (#19)
by Jen M on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:09:41 AM EST

for an actual answer

Well I have given (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:41:20 AM EST

a link and excerpts to what material support is and he has plead guilty to providing material support.

So that seems pretty plain to me.

I think he got off very light. Seventy years WOP seems better to me for helping terrorists.


Thanks... (none / 0) (#24)
by lentinel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:55:00 PM EST

I was referring to the specifics.
Of what specifically was he accused of doing?
Did he agree to plead guilty after enduring what the world community designates as torture?


The answer is already in the thread ... (none / 0) (#27)
by nyrias on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:54:50 PM EST

Here it is again:

------------------------------
Judge Loretta A. Preska asked whether he was pleading "because you are in fact guilty?"

"Alhamdulillah," he said, or Praise be to God, and then added, "Yes."

He acknowledged, under questioning by Mr. Ruhnke, that in 2004, while he was a graduate student in London, he knew that a man staying with him was planning to deliver outdoor gear like ponchos, sleeping bags and waterproof socks to Al Qaeda for use in Afghanistan.

Mr. Ruhnke asked whether Mr. Hashmi knew that the United States considered Al Qaeda a terrorist organization.

"Yes, I did," Mr. Hashmi said.

He also acknowledged lending the man $300 to buy a plane ticket to carry the gear to South Waziristan, an area of western Pakistan, for use by Al Qaeda.

Judge Preska asked, "Did you understand, Mr. Hashmi, that those actions were unlawful?"

"Yes," he replied.
----------------------------------

We do NOT know if he was tortured or not but the specifics of the crime is quite clear.


OK (none / 0) (#28)
by lentinel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:19:10 PM EST

He knew that a guy "staying with him" intended to deliver ponchos, sleeping bags and waterproof socks...

He lent the guy $300 to buy a ticket to deliver the ponchos, sleeping bags and waterproof socks to Al Qaeda.

Thanks for clarifying what "material support" means.

I know it's serious, but it seems that they tortured the guy for three years to get him to confess to lending a guy some money to deliver some socks and raincoats.


There are two issues here ... (none / 0) (#30)
by nyrias on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:31:18 PM EST

1) whether the person actually committed the acts described here. If so, he is guilty, very clearly i may add, of providing material support to Al Qaeda. You can debate the LEVEL of support but there is no doubt it is support if he committed these acts.

To be fair, his total support is worth a couple of hundred dollars .. or may be even close to $1k max. While it is not a great deal of money, it is not nothing. People probably will feel different if these few hundred bucks is being used to buy a gun or a bomb. To me, money is money. Buying Al Qaeda ponchos & sleeping bags means that Al Qaeda can free up money somewhere else to buy guns & bombs.

2) whether he is tortured and hence cast doubts on the proofs of whether these acts are committed.

I have no clue about (2) but i assume he has a lawyer and his lawyer did not raise the issue with the judge.

Plus, he admitted everything in front of a judge. Presumably he is NOT tortured before nor after this admission (when pleading guilty).


: Torture (none / 0) (#32)
by lentinel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:44:47 PM EST

Presumably he is NOT tortured before nor after this admission (when pleading guilty).

The story states that he was extradited from the UK in 2007 and held in solitary at MCC in Manhattan for three years.
That is torture.

Thanks Jim... (none / 0) (#14)
by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:54:43 AM EST

I have my answer...if somebody gave him a pen at Brooklyn College they could be the next defendant.

I can't call this sound law, no matter how well intentioned.


Come on man (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:15:32 AM EST

Kdog, if someone gave him a pen, no. They would not have violated the law.

Now, if they gave him a pen so he could write the check for the $300 he gave and if they knew the third person was a terrorist then, yes.

Go back and read the description and the comment on what he said in court and what he did. The guy is guilty. He's lucky he only got 15, I'd put him in for the full 70.


I can't make that leap Jim... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:23:12 AM EST

you could be right, or this guy could be broken from isolation, willing to say anything to get outta MCC.


You are confused between two issues. (none / 0) (#31)
by nyrias on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:34:34 PM EST

Issue 1: whether the law itself is good. I would say providing a few hundred dollars to Al Qaeda is BAD. That means Al Qaeda can free up the same amount of money somewhere else to buy guns and what-not. I think the law itself is clear, and I certainly think people who provide for terrorist should be punished.

Issue 2: whether THIS guy is tortured and cop to something he did not do.

I have no clue about issue (2). If he indeed did what admitted to, he should be locked up for a long long time. If not, if he is coerced to make that statement, he should be free. I have no evidence pointing one way or another.


I hear ya man... (none / 0) (#33)
by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:58:38 PM EST

I'd sure like to believe they caught a guy out to support killing people, but over 3 years in solitary is shady as hell. Why can't we do it right?


: I would feel a lot more comfortable ... (none / 0) (#34)
by nyrias on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:45:07 AM EST

supporting his plead if everything is by the book.
3 yr of solitary confinement does taint anything the accused has to say.
Does anyone know if there are other evidence (physical, or other witness testimony) to collaborate these charges?
My stance is that if he really did it (3 yr of solitary confinement not withstanding), then he should be sentenced hard. But I do not believe a pure confession is sufficient proof just because of the circumstances he is under.

material support to terrorists was the charge (none / 0) (#1)
by diogenes on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:51:30 PM EST

"...A critic of U.S. foreign policy and its treatment of Muslims, he held the rather optimistic view that you could change people's minds by talking and arguing with them..."
They didn't charge him with providing material support to a think tank, after all. And he did plead guilty, preferring that to taking his chances with even a bench trial.

: seriously (none / 0) (#3)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:14:13 PM EST

I mean I guess as someone who has had close relatives threatened by terrorists I might not be objective, but I have a hard time squaring his support for terrorists with his belief in talking as a vector for change. Its like hearing about how the Scott Roeder was a "good christian man. "

Oy! (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:05:09 PM EST

Tragic, imo. One of our own.

What's the crime here? (none / 0) (#4)
by mcl on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:25:19 PM EST

"Material support" seems such a vague phrase that I doubt it can be defined meaningfully. Also, it's very problematic to accuse someone of [vague undefined felony] in regard to some group that the government gets to unilterally define as "terrorists."

Let's turn this around: you're having dinner with friends and you mention that you donated to PETA because you oppose vivsection of animals, and you support PETA's goals of getting rid of unnecessarily cruel animal experimentation.

Now let's say the government defines PETA as a "terrorist organization." Presto! Change-o! You're now guilty of providing "material support for terrorists." 70 years for you. Into the steel cage! Gitmo for you!

Does anyone see the horrible danger here...?

Incidentally, if you think the government classifying PETA as "terrorists" is far-fetched, think again -- under the drunk-driving C student and his torturer sidekick, they did.

: Good questions... (none / 0) (#8)
by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:05:40 AM EST

sounds like a shady law to me too. If somebody gave him a pen in class over at Brooklyn College, is that material support for terrorists?

: Well ... (none / 0) (#23)
by nyrias on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:14:26 AM EST

if PETA does carry out bombing, then your money is going to terrorist activity and you SHOULD be jailed for 70 years.
The real question is whether the LIST of designated terrorist organization is maintained appropriately and that information is available so people can check before they donate money.
In THIS case, Al Qaeda is OBVIOUSLY a terrorist organization and any reasonable person would agree.
Do you know for a fact that there are groups on the list that they should not be?

: Apparently... (none / 0) (#29)
by lentinel on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:21:55 PM EST

"material support" means that he lent a guy $300 to deliver ponchos, sleeping bags and waterproof socks to Al Qaeda.

On a technical point of view (none / 0) (#5)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:28:47 PM EST

I'm actually quite interested on how Hashmi's isolation violates the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination- on its face, unless they're alleging that Hashmi was incarcerated due to profiling then I'm not sure how this is possible.

And Peter King still serves in congress (none / 0) (#6)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:31:17 PM EST

but then again it was always cool to back Christian Religious terrorists. Honestly, I think I'd be okay with this sort of crackdown on material support if it was equally applied- if you give aid or comfort to a clinic bomber you go to jail, if you sent money or hosted a benefit for the IRA- its time serve a sentence, etc.

: I am all for it .... (none / 0) (#21)
by nyrias on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:11:18 AM EST

Our government does maintain a list of "official" terrorist organization, does it not?
If so, do we know for a fact that christian terrorists, white supremacy groups and all the other domestic groups are not on the list?
May be they are and it is as illegal to support those groups. It is just that there is less news about them.

From the plea... (none / 0) (#15)
by lawstudent on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:01:59 AM EST

From the NYTimes

Judge Loretta A. Preska asked whether he was pleading "because you are in fact guilty?"

"Yes," he replied.

I better pay closer attention... (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:16:29 AM EST

to who I and my roomies let crash on the couch..."Sure, you can sleep it off here...you're not giving away ponchos are ya?"

Better do a background check on any homeless people before I drop a quarter in their cup too.


you SHOULD pay attention to ... (none / 0) (#20)
by nyrias on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:08:34 AM EST

who you are friends with.

In THIS case, it seems to be quite clear that he KNOWINGLY provides money & support to Al Qaeda by HIS answer to the judge, if you take it as face value.

Loaning $300 to friend without knowing how it is going to be spent would be an adequate defense in this case. However, as least by his own admission in front of a judge, he DID know the stuff is going to Al Qaeda.


: Yeah (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:12:28 AM EST

After the trials, all those who knowingly voted for Bush and Cheney will also be liable... and sending them money? well providing material support, to start with..