“Cell phone terrorists”: charges dropped
posted at 10:53 am on September 7, 2006 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
The three Palestinians arrested on suspicion of buying hundreds of cell phones to use in terror plots have been released, all charges dropped.
BAY CITY, Mich. — A federal judge threw out conspiracy and money laundering charges Tuesday against three Texas men who originally were accused of planning terrorism, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to bring them to trial.
U.S. District Court Magistrate Charles Binder released Louai Othman, 23, his brother Adham Othman, 21, and their cousin Maruan Muhareb, 18, all of Mesquite, Texas, after a preliminary hearing.
The three were arrested Aug. 11 after buying large numbers of prepaid cell phones at a Wal-Mart store in rural Caro, about 80 miles north of Detroit. Michigan charges against the men were thrown out last month.
“I guess their ordeal is done,” said defense lawyer Abed Ayoub of Dearborn, who represents the three men.
Tuscola County authorities said they were alarmed by the hundreds of cell phones they said were found in the men’s van and by images of the Mackinac Bridge on their digital camera.
But the FBI and state police later said there was no imminent threat to the 5-mile-long span linking Michigan’s two peninsulas and no information linking the Othmans and Muhareb to known terrorist groups.
Their lawyer tossed up the usual canard of “ethnic profiling,” as if it’s not common sense that the vast majority of terrorists are young Muslim males. That’s a fact that CAIR and its acolytes must deal with, but won’t.
The thing this case doesn’t answer is what the gentlemen were up to. There’s a lack of evidence to prosecute them, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were buying up hundreds of Tracfones and modifying them. There was a purpose behind that action. What was it? It could be simple phone fraud, or something worse. We don’t know.
It also does not change the fact that press disclosures of secret intelligence programs help the enemy adjust to our tactics.
Bottom line: You can’t fight terrorism as a purely criminal justice matter. You’re always going to be a step behind, because CJ is reactive and not proactive, and because the rules of evidence run to the advantage of the accused. And you’ll have judges putting their own spin on an area that rightly belongs to the commander in chief. Don’t take my word for it–look what Hamdan has already done to the war effort. SCOTUS decided, without precedent, to grant illegal enemy combatants Geneva status, in effect establishing a treaty with al Qaeda that we will respect but the enemy will not. Not elected politician would have made that choice, because he wouldn’t have retained office in his next election. But the unelected judges can bend the war to their own liking, if we fight terrorism as a CJ matter.
Terrorism isn’t a criminal justice matter. It’s a war. It’s a pity so many people still, five years after 9-11, have yet to internalize that basic, first clue.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Can’t they be charged with fraud or something then? Modifying and reselling cell phones shouldn’t be legal.
JamesVersusEveryone on September 7, 2006 at 11:26 AM
I think the illegality stems from the fraud/theft issue. Apparently you can modify a cell phone to make it work on networks without authorized service, which I guess is akin to cable theft in the grand scheme of things. Not a huge crime, in other words, but something that can get you prosecuted if you’re caught doing it.
Bryan on September 7, 2006 at 11:45 AM
Actually, they’re American citizens.
I don’t think there’s any doubt about whether or not it was ethnic profiling. Isn’t the issue whether not ethnic profiling (or rather, profiling in general) is an acceptable police tactic? I content that profiling is necessary… the police don’t have enough time to consider every single person a suspect in every single situation.
They didn’t actually modify the phones… they just bought them.
It’s different than cable theft. It doesn’t involve theft of any kind. It is the equivalent of buying a Montblanc pen refill and cutting it so that it fits in a cheap Pilot pen. Or, it is like buying a third-party ink refill for your printer. The cell phones are so cheap because they’re “locked in” to specific network. Out of the box, you can’t use them on any other network. With modification, they can be used on any network. The phones are handicapped — like how a Microsoft Xbox can only play games approved by Microsoft or how HP printers can only run on HP ink. These kids were allegedly going to modify the phones and remove the handicap, making the phones more useful and therefore more valuable. You still have to pay for cell phone service… you’re just not locked in to a specific carrier.
We signed the convention. We bound ourselves. If it’s not working out, we need to step out of the convention.
Purely? No. What about partially? The criminal justice system worked with Zacarias Moussaui, Akmed Ressam and Timothy McVeigh. Obviously the American CJ system doesn’t work for Taliban thugs and al Qaeda operatives fighting in caves in Afghanistan, but should every instance of a Muslim being suspected of a crime in America be a military matter?
Pretend you’re Bush. You find out that a couple of Muslim kids in middle America bought a bunch of cell phones. It is known to local authorities that a popular way to make money with cell phones is to buy them, improve them, and sell them. Your move: air strike, secret CIA prison in eastern Europe, or criminal charges?
Mark Jaquith on September 7, 2006 at 12:05 PM
REMEMBER, MAKE SURE THERE IS NO BACKLASH AGAINST THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY!!!
BirdEye on September 7, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Actually, if you modify a phone so that it can ride service that you’re not paying for, that’s theft.
You can editorialize on my posts all you want to, Mark, but please address the facts once in a while. Theft is theft. You may not like it that there’s an illegal way to modify a cell phone, but if you modify it to steal service, you’re committing a crime. It isn’t terrorism, but it’s still a crime. It’s certainly not an “improvement,” as you mischaracterize it. That kind of thing is another exhibit in why libertarian absolutists can’t be trusted and don’t make sense. Your “improvement” damages the property rights of other people or corporations.
And please, we are not bound to honor the Geneva rights of people who don’t qualify for them and are not signatories to the Conventions. Al Qaeda is not a signatory, and its entire war strategy is composed of nothing but war crimes and acts that abet those war crimes. Go read the Conventions for yourself and note what constitutes lawful combatants and what doesn’t. Until you do that, you’re talking out your hat. Or somewhere else.
Bryan on September 7, 2006 at 12:42 PM
For some reason, I’m thinking that these guys will not have any problems with the IRS.
Wasn’t the explanation of the actions as legal activity that the prepaid provider was selling the phones at a loss believing that the phones were sufficiently disabled that they could not be used with other providers?
rw on September 7, 2006 at 1:32 PM
Yes, but of Middle East descent. Which has been the consern in Britain, Spain, and shall I go on?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but there has been a pattern of current events with males ages
1816-40 of Middle East descent and dare I say, Muslim.As usual, it a Bush analogy with ridicules summations much like the Democratic call for Rumsfeld removal. Nice twist Eh?
Bottom line, It’s suspicious behaviour
Better to error on the side of caution rather than wait till a news worthy event and obituaries.
Kini on September 7, 2006 at 1:33 PM
Bryan, it’s not theft of service to modify a cell phone so that it works with another network, provided that you sign up for service with that network and pay for it.
There is a popular business model, often referred to as the ‘razor’ model: You sell the razors (printers, video game consoles, cell phones) at a reduced price, possibly even at a loss, in anticipation of profits from the blades (ink/toner cartridges, individual games, cell service).
Sometimes, there is an explicit contract binding the customer to, for instance, use a particular cell carrier’s service for two years. When no such contract terms are agreed to by the customer prior to purchase, they cannot be part of the sale; the customer is free to disregard the business model, and purchase blades etc. from other providers.
I don’t use the brand of prepaid cell phone that these guys were buying up, but do have another brand. The price of a battery for one of these phones is about 3x what I paid for the phone. I have never bought a battery for my phone; if a battery wears out I just buy another phone and grab the battery out of it, or switch my service to the new phone.
The Monster on September 7, 2006 at 2:09 PM
Agreed, but that’s not what’s happening. The phones are modified so they can work with other service providers assuming you buy service with that other provider. It changes the phones from being Cingular-only or Verizon-only phones into network neutral phones. You still have to pay, you just aren’t locked in to any one specific company. The rest of your comment is based on the assumption that the issue is theft of service — it isn’t, and I wouldn’t condone it if it were. I’m not an anarchist, I just think that if you buy something, you should be able to use that thing for whatever legal purpose you want. As with phones, the same should be true of putting third-party ink in your printer or third-party parts in your car. A company shouldn’t be able to dictate what you do (again, legally) with a product that you own. This is, of course, different if you sign a contract or if you are leasing the equipment.
Regarding the Geneva Convention, I point to the SCOTUS:
Afghanistan is a signatory.
Mark Jaquith on September 7, 2006 at 9:25 PM
>Afghanistan is a signatory.
And what terrorist has claimed citizen rights from Afghanistan?
Do terrorists claim a nation? (Besides claiming Israel, of course…)
ricer1 on September 8, 2006 at 12:18 AM
Comment pages: