CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* July 26, 2016 Court of Appeals Order directs that Ali Al-Timimi remand will include consideration of Supreme Court 2015 “due process” ruling relating to vagueness of crime

Posted by DXer on August 4, 2016

Ali Al-Timimi



9 Responses to “* July 26, 2016 Court of Appeals Order directs that Ali Al-Timimi remand will include consideration of Supreme Court 2015 “due process” ruling relating to vagueness of crime”

  1. DXer said

    Former Metro police officer [Nicholas Young] caught in terrorism sting fails to win lighter sentence (former Northern Virginia police officer who sent $245 in google play cards to Syrian fighter to spend another 10 years in prison)


    Dang, AUSA Kromberg. Remind me not to send Yazid Sufaat a Christmas card or share royalties on a book on Al Qaeda’s anthrax program without getting advance approval.


    The author “Anonymous” explains in the new book “Warning” that President Trump likes pictures in his briefings, not words. A former DIA analyst working on Amerithhrax up until August 2003 (JV) taught a seminar at Yale where he explained to students that a memo briefing the president should be limited to 2 pages. They have a lot of responsibilities and issues to handle.

    To be sure, Presidents are very busy — in Trump’s case he spends a lot of time golfing, campaigning and hanging out in his bathrobe tweeting insults at the folks who want him removed from office. Before 9/11, President Bush was spending a lot of time in Texas chopping wood. President Obama was a golfer but likely was a big reader, having been President of the Harvard Law Review, which required a lot of reading.

    In support of this blog, although we tried to stick with pictures over words, my graphic artist went a little crazy with pictures and went way over length, to be sure.

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

    Fortunately, I wasn’t paying him. Some federal agency was. (I never identified or pressed him on the agency in case it ran afoul of someone’s sensibilities — plus, I appreciated the free help). CIA? DIA? FBI? NCIS? Beats me.


    AUSA Kromberg sure handles a range of interesting cases. Someone might check with him as to the status of the Ali Al-Timimi proceeding.

    A one-woman crime spree’: Con woman charmed boxers, executives and manicurists

    “It’s a mystery federal agents have been trying to solve for years. When Cheah’s daughter married at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington in 2015, FBI agents were watching. Kromberg is a national security prosecutor, and according to a person familiar with the investigation, authorities initially suspected Cheah had ties to Chinese intelligence.

    According to court records, the woman born Siew Im Cheah entered the U.S. from Malaysia on a visitor’s visa under the name Sau Hoong Lee in 2001.”

  2. DXer said
    Home » Alexandria, VA News » Judge questions terror convictions…
    Judge questions terror convictions after high court ruling

    By The Associated Press April 19, 2018 5:54 pm

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A federal judge is weighing whether to toss out some counts of conviction in four terrorism cases after a Supreme Court ruling struck down a similarly worded law this week.

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a law allowing deportation of some immigrants who commit crimes because the law was unconstitutionally vague about what crimes would prompt deportation; the four terrorism defendants argue they were convicted under a law that was similarly vague about describing a “crime of violence.”

    On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria issued orders demanding the government show cause why she shouldn’t vacate the convictions obtained more than a decade ago against what prosecutors called a “Virginia jihad network,” which used paintball games in the woods near Fredericksburg as a means of training for holy war. Several group members traveled to Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks with the goal of joining the Taliban in Afghanistan. At trial, several said they were persuaded to go when the group’s spiritual leader, Ali Al-Timimi, said after Sept. 11 that the world was on the verge of an apocalyptic battle between Muslims and nonbelievers.

    Al-Timimi, of Falls Church, was convicted of soliciting treason, among other counts, and sentenced to life in prison.

    Others convicted include Seifullah Chapman, who is serving a 65-year sentence. Chapman, a former Marine, traveled to Pakistan before the Sept. 11 attacks to train with a group called Lashkar-e-Taiba. After the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, he ended his training and returned to the United States.

    Masoud Khan, on the other hand, traveled to Pakistan after Sept. 11 to join Lashkar, which group members believed was the best way to get necessary training to join the Taliban. Khan is serving a life sentence.

    The fourth defendant affected by Brinkema’s order, Ismail Royer, is already out of prison after serving more than a decade. He struck a plea deal in which he admitted helping some group members make contact with Lashkar.

    If Brinkema does indeed strike the convictions related to crimes of violence, it is possible several of the defendants could receive significantly reduced sentences. Other counts of conviction would remain in place, but the defendants could receive new sentencing hearings. In several instances it was the convictions for using firearms in a crime of violence, or serving as an accomplice to the use of firearms in a crime of violence, that required the imposition of such lengthy sentences. Those are the counts now in jeopardy.

    Brinkema has already said she objected to being required under federal law to impose sentences she considered “draconian” and suggested she would have preferred to impose sentences of only 10 years against Chapman and Khan.

    Chapman and Khan already had their sentences reduced once before. Those reductions occurred in 2005 after the Supreme Court tossed out mandatory sentencing guidelines.

    Al-Timimi’s case, in particular, has been bogged down in appeals for more than a decade since his 2005 conviction. His lawyers have accused the government of withholding evidence connected to Anwar al-Awlaki, who was an imam in northern Virginia back in 2001 and later went on to become an Al-Qaeda leader killed in a 2011 drone strike. Defense lawyers contend that in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, al-Awlaki may have been working as a government informant, and they have been seeking information on what they say is a suspicious visit al-Awlaki paid on Al-Timimi in 2002.

    Al-Timimi’s lawyer, Jonathan Turley, said Thursday that he is appreciative the court took action based on the Supreme Court ruling. “We are eager to address this issue and the other issues,” he said.

    Copyright © 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

  3. DXer said

    Motion Hearing now set for 11/18/2016 at 09:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 600 before District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. (clar, ) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

  4. DXer said

    Ali Al-Timimi has moved for acquittal on a couple of counts. In an October 27, 2016 Order, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that only issues of law were raised and that oral argument would not aid resolution. The government has 14 days to respond and defendant has 7 days to file a reply.

  5. DXer said

    Weapons of Mass Destruction: A General Discussion, by Laino Soszynski

    Click to access Retos_WMD_Publication.pdf

    • DXer said

      Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, favors a less interventionist foreign policy — which would avoid pissing folks off.

      Here is a very funny interview that I recommend regardless of your politics or views on foreign policy and national security.

  6. DXer said

    Vogel, Kathleen M. “Aftershocks of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks.” Biological Threats in the 21st Century: The Politics, People, Science and Historical Roots. 2016. 211-237.

  7. DXer said

    GOP Sen. Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Donald Trump (Commentary)

    Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 21, 2016. In an op-ed published in The Washington Post, Collins explains why she will not vote for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. (Evan Vucci / AP)
    Print Email
    By The Washington Post
    on August 09, 2016 at 11:11 AM, updated August 09, 2016 at 11:12 AM

    • GOP Sen. Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Donald Trump (Commentary)

    Susan Collins, a Republican, represents Maine in the Senate.

    By Susan Collins | The Washington Post

    I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.

    When the primary season started, it soon became apparent that, much like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Trump was connecting with many Americans who felt that their voices were not being heard in Washington and who were tired of political correctness. But rejecting the conventions of political correctness is different from showing complete disregard for common decency. Trump did not stop with shedding the stilted campaign dialogue that often frustrates voters. Instead, he opted for a constant stream of denigrating comments, including demeaning Sen. John McCain’s, R-Ariz., heroic military service and repeatedly insulting Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

    With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Trump as unworthy of being our president.

    My conclusion about Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president.

    Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his … ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so.
    The first was his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, a shocking display that did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. I kept expecting Trump to apologize, at least privately, but he did not, instead denying that he had done what seemed undeniable to anyone who watched the video. At the time, I hoped that this was a terrible lapse, not a pattern of abuse.

    The second was Trump’s repeated insistence that Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge born and raised in Indiana, could not rule fairly in a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage. For Trump to insist that Judge Curiel would be biased because of his ethnicity demonstrated a profound lack of respect not only for the judge but also for our constitutional separation of powers, the very foundation of our form of government. Again, I waited in vain for Trump to retract his words.

    Third was Donald Trump’s criticism of the grieving parents of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq. It is inconceivable that anyone, much less a presidential candidate, would attack two Gold Star parents. Rather than honoring their sacrifice and recognizing their pain, Trump disparaged the religion of the family of an American hero. And once again, he proved incapable of apologizing, of saying he was wrong.

    I am also deeply concerned that Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.

    I had hoped that we would see a “new” Donald Trump as a general-election candidate — one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no “new” Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.

    At the same time, I realize that Trump’s success reflects profound discontent in this country, particularly among those who feel left behind by an unbalanced economy and who wonder whether their children will have a better life than their parents. As we have seen with the dissatisfaction with both major-party nominees — neither of whom I support — these passions are real and the public will demand action.

    Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party’s nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person. I revere the history of my party, most particularly the value it has always placed on the worth and dignity of the individual, and I will continue to work across the country for Republican candidates. It is because of Trump’s inability and unwillingness to honor that legacy that I am unable to support his candidacy.

  8. DXer said

    The Opinion Pages | Campaign Stops

    I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.

    By MICHAEL J. MORELLAUG. 5, 2016

    During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

    I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.

    No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.

    Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.

    I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.

    I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.

    Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.

    I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”

    In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.

    These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.

    The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.

    President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.

    Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

    In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.

    Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which so clearly contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative that our fight against terrorism is a war between religions.

    In fact, many Muslim Americans play critical roles in protecting our country, including the man, whom I cannot identify, who ran the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center for nearly a decade and who I believe is most responsible for keeping America safe since the Sept. 11 attacks.

    My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president.

    Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: