PEORIA, Ill., April 30, 2009
Terror Suspect Al-Marri Pleads Guilty
Man, Who Was Held Without Charge For 5 Years, Admits Al Qaeda Link
-
This Jan. 16, 2009 photo released by the International Committee of the Red Cross via his lawyer Andy Savage, shows Ali Al-Marri at the Charleston Naval Brig in Charleston, S.C. Al-Marri pleaded guilty April 30, 2009 to training in al Qaeda camps and coming to the United States in connection with the 9/11 plot. He will be sentenced June 30. (AP Photo/ICRC via Andy Savage)
Ali al-Marri, 43, admitted to one count of conspiring to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. A second charge of providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization was dropped.
Al-Marri faces up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine at his July 30 sentencing, though he will be credited for 18 months spent in civilian custody. His attorneys say they'll argue that he should get credit for the time spent in military custody, too - more than five years.
“That is an issue that has not been determined yet," Sharon Paul, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois told CBS News.
“This will be a key issue at sentencing,”’ al-Marri attorney Jonahtan Hafetz, of the ACLU told CBS News. “We will argue he deserves credit at least for every day and more given the brutality of his conditions.”
In the case of one-time “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla, the federal judge factored the three-and-half-years he was harshly detained as an “enemy combatant” prior to his transfer back to the criminal justice system.
Padilla was sentenced in January 2008 to 17 years for his conviction on conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist group, and he currently resides as the federal “Supermax” in Colorado. The government, which had asked for 30 years, has appealed his sentence as too light.
"Without a doubt, this case is a grim reminder of the seriousness of the threat we, as a nation, still face," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement Thursday. "But it also reflects what we can achieve when we have faith in our criminal justice system and are unwavering in our commitment to the values upon which this nation was founded and the rule of law."
Al-Marri's attorneys said their client, a married father of five from Qatar, chose to plead guilty to avoid the risk, if found guilty, of spending 30 years in prison.
"We thought (the plea) was the right approach to take based on the evidence the government allowed us to review over the last several weeks," attorney Andy Savage said outside the federal courthouse in Peoria.
When the judge asked al-Marri how would plead, the diminutive Bradley University graduate, seated at a table with his lawyers, paused briefly before answering without emotion, "guilty."
Al-Marri admitted he trained in al Qaeda camps and stayed in al Qaeda safe houses in Pakistan between 1998 and 2001, where he learned how to handle weapons and how to communicate by phone and e-mail using a code.
He also admitted meeting and having regular contact with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and with Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who allegedly helped the Sept. 11 hijackers with money and Western-style clothing.
Al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, was arrested in late 2001 while studying at Bradley in Peoria after federal authorities alleged he was tied to organizers of the 2001 attacks.
The Bush administration declared al-Marri an "enemy combatant" in 2003 and held him without charges for more than five years at a Navy brig in South Carolina. His attorneys say he was tortured there.
The "enemy combatant" designation was dropped when he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Illinois. He was moved to a federal prison in Pekin, Ill., just outside Peoria, in March, and remains there.
Holder said President Barack Obama ordered him to review the al-Marri case shortly after Obama took office in January.
Al-Marri got a bachelor's degree in business management administration from Bradley in 1991, then went to work for a bank in Qatar. The government said he met with Osama bin Laden in the summer of 2001 and was sent to the U.S. to help al Qaeda operatives carry out post-Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Al-Marri obtained a student visa and returned to the U.S. the day before terrorists crashed two hijacked passenger planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From U.S.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 39 CommentsPosted by stryker54
Probably the same reason you do shrieker54. Limited vocabulary, limited intellect, repeating what you hear on the tube, yadayadayada
All you folks want to do is bash America when you bash any POTUS. whether you voted for them or not, you shouls get behind the President. I didn't vote for Obama, but i do stand behind him whether his actions or policies I agree with or not. United We Stand, Divided We Fall.
TJ, You do not believe they are either fair or balanced because you do not like their positions and you do not like what they cover. Is hannity fair and balanced? NO, but, he does not pretend to be, yet, he does permit the other side to be voiced which does not happen on Olberman. Further I find the coverage so very biased on ABC, NBC and CBS if for no other reasons than A. So positive coverage of Obama for past 2+ years. We all have wrinkles. and B. Failure to cover the other side of issues where there IS a clear otherside.
1. Rabid support for abortion including usurpation of states rights on the issue. (Freedom of choice act)
2. Support for the Union Right to Harrass bill ( Card Check) which is completely in variance with the American Ideal of Private Voting.
3. Support for Gay Rights.
4. Support for outrageous spending. (3 times Bushes 8 year total in 3 + monts)
5. Yes, there are many socialist programs starting with Health Care. Do not care to get into the argument now and it includes many levels. I do not support the Bail out--certainly not to the level it has gone. Did not support Bush on this issue either.
6. Illegal immigration issue. (Note, I do support a guest worker with emphasis on guest, meaning you return to your country when the work is done.) The problem of guest populations in massive numbers goes back at least to the Isrealites in Egypt. Europe is certainly a great example of what happens when you do not control your immigration.
7. Mealymouthed ness internationally.
8. Support of Palestinians. (Again, huge issue w/ multitude of wrinkles, suffice it to say, the Arabs WANT the conflict. The issue could have been resolved decades ago.
Disagreement on these issues w/ Obama have zero to do w/ the fact he is Black. To me, the only saving grace of his election was the fact Americans--and that means white america--was color blind enough to vote for a Black man.
The minority of the conservatives disagreement is based on his color. It is based on his politics.
One final thing. Why shouldn't he release his real, full Birth Certificate? He gives his political enemies grounds to question his right to even run for the office. Simply releasing his birth cert w/ place of birth would take 90 percent of the air out of the sails of those who beat that drum. You all thought Bush was into secrecy, this guy and his crew are ten times that.
So TJ, to call these valid policy disagreements "racist" just is not so. Racist is when I question he right to be president based on his heritage. Racist is when I say, "See, he is black, therefore the things he does are stupid." This is not the argument the vast majority of conservatives are making. We really do not care about his race. We do care about his policies.
Posted by tj217-2009 at 10:00 AM : May 1, 2009
Granted there are a few that throw around the term muslim when speeking of Obama and,deserved or not, it is due to his fathers family being muslim. That being said the vast majority of criticism is due to his policies and not his race. It is a widely used tactic of the left to accuse those who disagree with them of being racisits or bigots when they in fact, as demonstated by the verbal attacks against anyone that disagrees with them,re bigots.
Will Obama give amnesty to Osama Bin Laden or Taliban's Mullah Mohamed? Why not, since he wants amnesty for the world's most ruthless terror group. Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is working to save the Tamil Tiger terrorists. The front organizations for these terrorists financed Obama's and Clinton's presidential campaigns. Research TRO, Tamil Foundation and Tamils for Obama - all fronts for the Tiger terrorists and you'll find their terror links and associations to the current US administration.
The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wants a ceasefire for the LTTE terrorists that will enable the Tamil terrorists to recruit more civilians from their hostages, rearm and return with more terror attacks on civilians.
WANTED FOR AIDING AND ABETTING TERRORISM:
WANTED posters inform the public of terror connections to the West
http://www.mawbimanews.com/2009/04/most-wanted.html
British Foreign Secretary Miliband cited for terror affiliations and hidden political agenda
Miliband and Bernard Kouchner, his French counterpart, has been wasting time trying to bully Sri Lanka into a cease-fire to help the Tamil Tiger terrorists survive. The LTTE community in Britain and France paid these politicians to represent the world's most ruthless terror group in the guise of a humanitarian intervention. So Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner went to Sri Lanka to shed crocodile tears and show their LTTE voting block back home that they are doing everything possible to save terror!
Sri Lankan minister launches angry attack on David Miliband
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/srilanka/5252225/Sri-Lankan-minister-launches-angry-attack-on-David-Miliband.html
A spokesman for Mr Miliband said "I take some exception to the suggestion that the Prime Minister, David Miliband, Bernard Kouchner, Hillary Clinton or the ministers of the G8 and European Union are motivated in this by electoral politics rather than genuine humanitarian concern".
This was in response to Sri Lanka's Defense Minister's statement "When Prabhakaran [the LTTE leader] killed so many innocent civilians, no foreign minister came or put pressure on the LTTE. Where was Mr Miliband? What happened to him? Was he sleeping? We're just wasting our time with these dignitaries and VIPs coming to this country over and over again because of your internal problem to satisfy their [Tamil] diaspora," he said.
Well said Mr. Defense Minister. Thank you for standing up to tyranny. We need more such stand-up public officials right here in the United States of America!
If these Western powers did have humanitarian concerns, why would Britain, France, Canada, US and EU/ G8 let the LTTE terrorists collect funds in their countries, run operations, purchase massive amounts of deadly weapons and kill thousands of civilians for the past 30 years, right under their watch? Think about it. Even now they are not doing anything substantial to stop the LTTE or its future criminal activities. The Tamil Tiger terrorists have this kind of fire power and capabilities thanks to the support of the international community, where blood-money can buy almost an endless amount of weapons and politicians. That is a fact that all these concerned nations can never deny.
Meanwhile, today the Sri Lanka Navy destroyed three Tiger suicide boats and killed 23 Sea Tigers.
http://www.colombopage.com/archive_09/May1155218CH.html
Posted by tj217-2009 at 9:10 AM : May 1, 2009
Bush received at least as much criticism as Obama. Is that because of his race or because of disagreement with policies?
TJ. Again, you need to learn to discuss issues w/o the use of words like "Idiot, Lame, Stupid etc." You lose credibility.
Part of the problem with the use of the word "Torture" is the lack of definition. Is anything unpleasant torture? I do not think so. Are there times where candy works better than vinigar? Absolutely AND usually. Mostly, interrogation is a mind game. Sometimes, you get tougher people and the need is more immediate. The relatively small amount of number of people who had harsh methods used is testament to that.
A lot of those in isolation are there because of their behavior. In ALL penal institutions, you are punished for behavior. We have isolation cells in virtually all of our prisons. Is that torture? For people who need company it certainly is. But, you do not start there, you wend your weary way there.
Now, I must be off.
It goes on. There ARE counter arguments to every point. We should Man up, or Woman up as the case may be and listen to them. We may not change, but, the arguments are there and are often valid. You CAN have valid points on both side of an issue. In the end, we balance all the points and come to a decision.
Do you honestly believe reporting on Obama has been anything other than adulation since he started running? The media dumped their darling Hillary and jumped on his bandwagon as soon as he announced. This has been a love fest from the beginning. Compare the type questions asked of Bush with questions asked of Obama. Antagonistic/friendly and supportive.
Your position on Olberman is interesting to me. You feel those emotions towards him because he expresses your opinions. That is my entire point. Everything you said about Fox is true in reverse for Olberman especially and for ABC, CBS and NBC. It is all about information control. There are two ways you do this. By WHAT your report and by what you DO NOT report.
The point I am making is we have to examine what comes out and what does not come out against the counterpoints. Just screaming hate at ideas you disagree with and slavishly parrotting the ideology you support takes you nowhere.
The question of torture is valid. However, the worst the americans have done does not reach the point where most of our enemies start. Virtually every pilot in the AF and many more have gone through, albiet not for so long, the same things this guy did.
But, there is also the question of punishing those who seek to destroy us. Do not make heros (a word which has really lost meaning in recent years--Die of AIDS and you are a "hero", become a fireman or policeman or a soldier and you are a "Hero." Heroism is tied to action, not position.) of evil people. (I am not going to argue this guy's evilness or holiness because I do not know that much about the specifics.) However, the apologists for America's enemies at the ACLU would never push him to plead guilty if there were not significant reason for them to believe he was guilty as charged. Seems to me the arguments in this guys favor are supportive of what he did as much as anything else. That is very sad.
And on Bush, Saddam and Osama.
Was Saddam part of 911? No. Was he actively engaged in terrorism? You Betcha! Iraq has been a haven for ME terrorists for decades. Every Palestinian Suicide bomber's family got 30k from Iraq despite their financial straights. His own people were murdered at the rate of several hundred thousand. He had had and still wanted WMD. No, there were a million reasons to go to war w/ Iraq. The problem always was and continues to be "What does the dog do with the car when he catches it?"
Off to earn the pennies to fill the pot w/ beans folks.
Posted by tj217-2009 at 7:46 AM : May 1, 2009
============================
Were you not keeping up with the events leading up to Saddam Hussein's overthrow? Allow me to refresh your memory. In the early 90's, Iraq (led by Saddam Hussein) invaded Kuwait. After he was driven back out, the UN agreed to allow him to remain in power, UNDER THE CONDITION that he must be willing for UN inspectors to enter his country upon request. After 9/11, when intelligence revealed Saddam Hussein may be storing WMD, the UN inspectors went to have a look and Saddam refused to comply. After WEEKS of a standoff, during which we extended his "deadline" again and again, he still would not allow the inspectors to come in, and the UN was forced to remove him from power. If he would have let the inspectors come in he would still be in power. Quit trying to make the war in Iraq a 9/11 issue. Saddam simply refused to comply with the terms by which he was allowed to remain in power after his invasion of Kuwait.
1. RE Fox news. Political contributions from Fox News guys ran 70 percent democratic and 30 percent republican. NBC (I believe) was virtually 100 percent Democratic. CBS was 90 percent Democratic and I think it was ABC did not participate in the survey. (I might be a bit off on the numbers, but, they are close. Also, one of the three did not report and I think it was ABC, but, the point is accurate. All four lean left in terms of the political idiology of the staff and reporters. Fox just leans less left.) Whle the COMMENTATORS are obviously biased, they are up front about it and there is no duplicity about where they stand. Truthfull, I do not much care for S. Hannity, but, his points are often well taken. Same W/ Bill O'reilly. A glaring difference between these shows and their left-wing counterparts is the opposing view is almost always given SOME time. Compare to Obama's headquarters, NBC. Olberman (apples to apples) is violently leftwing and brings on only sycophants. The news coverage (as opposed to commentary) is much broader on FOX than the the three big ones. I sit here watching when a controversial issue comes up saying, "OK, let's talk about _____as that is a key counterpoint, and it just never comes. Another piece of journalistic fluff supporting the current Regime.
All that to say, you guys who hate FOX so much seem to hate having a counter-argument presented. Rather than listen to the argument and ask, "Does this make sense?" You scream with indignation over the mere presentation of the argument. That is just not healthy. As a matter of fact, it smacks of totalitarianism be it facist or communistic.
Have you seen ANY presentation of ANY negative reporting on the Gay Rights movement or lifestyle on ANY network, FOX included? Have you seen any presentation of Pro-Life arguments on any of the networks other than FOX (and pretty little there)? Forget the tax funded NPR which makes NBC look right wing.
So, all of that to say to you left wingers. Are you so insecure in your political, moral and life philosophy that you can not handle counterpoint and argument without invective?
Also, I am eagerly waiting for the big three to give some negative coverage to the current president. Surely they do not believe everything he has done has been perfect, wise and just? But, as that unbiased guy Chris Matthews said, "We owe it to him to make him successful." Why? Did they owe it to Bush? No! The press has priviledge for that very reason. Independence. I will make point two in a seperate note.
Kinda like, we just say Obama was born in hawaii and then pretend we looked into it.
Posted by promaclaura
promaclaura - You make a very good point. We must realize that not everyone is grounded in reality. It is like blaming the rape or robbery victim for being raped or robbed. People often lose sight of reality, especially when it doesn't fit in with their perception of how something should be.
Former military officers Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell had an "important role in developing what became the CIA's torture program," Jameel Jaffer, an attorney with the ACLU, told ABC News.
These two men are real american heros!
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 39 Comments