WEINGARTEN.CA
The 19th Member of the Toronto 18: Ehsanul Sadequee
August 7th 2009
In the world we’ve inherited since 9/11, it seems the fear of terrorism is more prevalent than the prospect of a credible, tangible threat to our collective safety. That observation may prove true once again this month when the trial of Ehsanul “Shifa” Sadequee wraps up.
The suspected criminal has languished in an Atlanta federal penitentiary since 2006, when he was arrested in Bangladesh before being delivered to the FBI shortly after. One may think that such heavy-handed international co-ordination is surely a tactic reserved for the most ruthless of terrorists, but the evidence against Sadequee hardly paints him as one. To summarize the case against Sadequee, he is accused of providing material support for terrorism. That accusation is apparently supported by the fact that he socialized through an Islamic website, translated religious texts online and lied to authorities about the details of a bus trip he took to Toronto. The most serious accusation is that he filmed amateur video of Washington D.C. landmarks and distributed the footage via the internet.
Government lawyers do not claim there was ever a plot to attack Washington D.C. They accuse Sadequee of using the footage to gain credibility with terrorist organizations overseas, apparently by demonstrating his ability to come within close proximity of popular landmarks. While Sadequee manages to demonstrate the prowess of your average suburbanite tourist videographer, the contentious part of this evidence is that the footage eventually found its way into the hands of Younis Tsouli, a British man convicted of providing propaganda videos for al-Qaeda in Iraq.
This is where Sadequee’s connection to “terrorism” becomes murky. Whether or not Sadequee intentionally sent the videos to Tsouli, this case raises the issue of “guilt by association”. If there is nothing illegal about filming tourist landmarks, in and of itself, can sending that video to another individual constitute a crime? Can the state prove that Sadequee’s intention was to build credibility, and can they prove Sadequee knew Tsouli’s interest in propaganda videos went beyond Britain’s freedom of speech laws? The answer to these questions could spell an end to the presumption of innocence.
Sadequee and Tsouli are linked through a website called At-Tibyan Publications, where Tsouli administrated and Sadequee contributed mainly by translating religious texts and scholarly articles. There are also chatroom transcripts which have proven to contain little more than teenage banter and youthful immaturity. Many articles are available on the website, but they don’t seem to promote radicalization or hatred. Still, the government contends that these articles had the potential of falling into the hands of “radicals” who visit similar websites. Should harmless material be allowed posted online if there is a possibility that “the bad guys” will then use it for their own ends? If not, how do we regulate which websites promote radicalization, and which ones simply provide a resource for academics? The distinction is a difficult one to make.
For example, during Sadequee’s trial, both defense and prosecution relied on expert testimony to determine whether or not Tibyan is a legitimate academic resource. What’s ironic is that both experts’ credentials are partly derived from the fact that they frequently visit sites such as Tibyan and the Muslim Brotherhood which, in a sense, does validate the sites as legitimate resources for academics. Defense witness Fawaz Gerges testified he’s previously used Tibyan as a convenient source for translated scholarly articles. Meanwhile, prosecution witness Evan Kohlmann admits that he trolls Islamic websites for evidence of extremism. But while a cursory glance at websites such as Tibyan and the Muslim Brotherhood don’t yield any obvious examples of radicalization, Taliban propaganda and suicide bombing videos can easily be found on Kohlmann’s website. Prosecution witness Kohlmann even admits that he has had personal contact with associates of Osama Bin Laden, and has arranged the filming of a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. With such a blurred distinction between radicals, academics, and everyone in between, convicting somebody on terrorism charges simply because of their online activity seems a frightening and risky notion.
But Sadequee’s online activity might not be the subject of so much debate, were it not for an interview he had with FBI agents at New York’s JFK airport in 2005. During a stopover on his way to Dubai, Sadequee was the target of a “ruse” (in the words of the interrogating agent), during which investigators told Sadequee that passengers had complained about his suspicious activity aboard the first leg of his flight from Atlanta. This was not true of course, and there was no suspicious activity. But the authorities at JFK used this scenario as a basis to question Sadequee about a trip he had taken to Toronto several months earlier. After questioning him about the Toronto trip under false pretenses, Sadequee was reciprocally untruthful. He told the FBI that he had traveled to Toronto alone, when in fact, Sadequee had gone with Syed Ahmed Haris. At one time, such dishonesty towards a police officer would warrant little more than a fine or perhaps, in extreme circumstances, a short stint in prison. In Sadequee’s case, it was enough to have him rendered from Bangladesh to the U.S. and tried on terrorism charges. To put things in perspective look at the case of Martha Stewart, who was convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to the government. While her sentence amounted to 5 months in a minimum security prison, Sadequee’s charges fall under anti-terror laws, and have him facing up to 60 years in jail.
Also interesting to note is that while Sadequee was being questioned, investigators at JFK searching his luggage found some things that the media has been quick to latch onto: a map of Washington D.C. and two CD’s which are widely reported to have been “hidden in the lining of Sadequee’s suitcase”. This discovery has been repeated widely throughout the majority of reports about Sadequee, helping in part to characterize him as a person with something to hide - a “terrorist”. But alas, it is the fear that propels public opinion.
Court transcripts clearly reveal that the items were not actually “hidden”, but tucked in a normal zippered compartment. And what was on one of the CD’s? Something that very many young men are guilty of watching – (legal) pornography. The other disc was indecipherable, and the map of Washington D.C. can be explained by the recent trip that Sadequee and Haris took. For the media to point to these items as though they are evidence of terrorism should frighten many, for the ability of the media to influence public opinion and ultimately the fate of accused terrorists is very distinct. It is surely true in the case of Ahmad El-Maati. He is one of a group of Canadians rendered to Syria for years of torture at the hands of Syrian intelligence. The “frightening” piece of evidence that landed him on the radar of Canadian and U.S. intelligence? A tourist map of Ottawa.
This combination of “evidence” has resulted in years of solitary confinement for Sadequee, which appears to be wearing on his mental health. Court transcripts indicate that Sadequee has repeatedly asked for an exorcist, and he has stated in court his belief that he’s been the subject of a government program to “enter a demon or a spirit” into him. Further exacerbating Sadequee’s apparently fragile mental state is the physical violence that has been inflicted on him while awaiting trial at the USP (United States Penitentiary) in Atlanta.
In October of 2008 while handcuffed in a visitation room, Sadequee was head-butted by an inmate who also threatened to kill him. It is not clear if prison guards were present or if they had left the two inmates unattended, but either way it displays an egregious level of negligence on the part of USP. According to court transcripts, Sadequee’s attacker is Brian Richardson. It is not clear what Richardson was convicted of in the first place to land him in USP, but according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website, his release date is 2053, a lengthy sentence typically not reserved for pickpockets. What’s more is that prior to his attack on Sadequee, Richardson was indicted for committing a “heinous, cruel and depraved” murder in prison, during which he allegedly stabbed and strangled another prisoner. The incident has prevented Sadequee from coming out of his cell in recent months.
Why would such a violent inmate be allowed anywhere near Sadequee? Generally, the reason for indefinitely leaving terrorism suspects in solitary confinement is out of concern for their safety. Stranger still are allegations by Sadequee’s family that in the weeks leading up to the attack, Richardson - despite being an indicted murderer - was allowed to accompany Sadequee during his usually solitary recreation time, leading Sadequee to file unsuccessful motions in court to reveal the identities of any jailhouse informants. Repeated calls to USP over several days have not been answered, with no available voicemail box to leave a message.
As Sadequee’s trial wraps up in an Atlanta courthouse this month, he has chosen to legally represent himself. As good a paralegal as Sadequee may be, the overwhelming influence of the media and the seemingly endless budget of government prosecutors will surely have an advantage, especially with the public’s laissez-faire attitude. Recent reports even indicate that jurors in his trial have been caught sleeping during testimony.
It seems unfortunate that in our post-9/11 world, the harmless and banal can be characterized as dangerous and frightening. In Canada, the case of the “Toronto 18” is a good example of this. The only conviction in that case so far resulted in a young man being sentenced to two years of jail time. Although the unidentified young man (he was a youth at the time) was unaware of any terrorist plot, the fact that he stole walkie-talkies from a department store was enough to earn him the label of “Canada’s shoplifting terrorist”. Is it any wonder then that Sadequee has been vilified for visiting “Toronto 18” suspects during his Toronto visit in 2005? This month we will see if Sadequee’s intentions were just as harmless, or more importantly, if it even matters in our post-911 world.