Bush's spin prompted rally against verdict

First published: Saturday, November 18, 2006 in the Times Union

On Nov. 3, the Times Union published a photo of a rally held in support of Mohammed Hossain and Yassin Aref, Muslim men convicted in an FBI sting operation. No article accompanied the photo, so readers did not learn why the demonstrators support the men.

The demonstrators pointed out that the Bush administration used flawed and faked intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that the same politicians who authorized the invasion authorized the prosecution of Hossain and Aref -- citing, by way of justification, nothing more than a brand new mixture of flawed and faked intelligence.

The demonstrators stated that to validate its unconstitutional and historically unprecedented power grab after 9/11, the administration needed to make sure the fear level of the American people stayed high.

It had to convince them that there were terrorist plots being hatched all over the country, and that administration diligence was rooting them out. Few if any actual plots being discovered, the administration felt it had to manufacture them.

The Albany sting fits a game plan we've seen played out scores and scores of times: Law-abiding people are deceived by the FBI into committing acts they think are legal, then the acts are cleverly spun by the authorities and portrayed as illegal and terror-related.

The demonstrators support Hossain and Aref because the Bush administration long ago forfeited its credibility, and its motives do not deserve even the benefit of the doubt.

STEVE TRIMM

Albany

============================================================================

(Unprinted letter)

Dear Editor,

Regarding the Muslim trial and a letter to the editor recently published in a local paper, I quote, "The FBI did exactly what it was supposed to do-protect U.S. citizens from those who live among us and seem to be like us".

This attitude just leaves me speechless. But unfortunately it seems to prevail. Some of my own friends sound the same. I think these two men should have been acquitted. Maybe the jury could have had that thought too at some point but I heard something the other night that made sense to me. Even though a jury can acquit in these trials, they most often feel they need to convict, at least of something, "just in case", to err on the side of caution.

Going back to the letter writer, she doesn't know these men except through the eyes of the government. And they don't "seem to be like us". In my opinion, they seem better. What we've done to Muslims in this country is criminal . These men came to the US to be part of it, to be able to care for their families, to get a break, to get away from poverty and suppression, to be free and to have peace. The FBI by it's own admission, made translation errors in Aref's journal , errors that may well cost lives. It was an error that started this whole case. And there were errors caught by a third party translator. Where is the original prosecutor? It makes you wonder. We say Aref was in a terrorist camp. We describe it as such, but prove it wasn't a refugee camp. We have no idea at all what he went through as a Kurd over in Iraq under the thumb of Saddham.and I think the FBI could care less. They want a case.

Mohammed said he thought the missile looked like a piece of plumbing. Well, it certainly does to me too and I thought so right away. So that makes two of us. I have a cast iron pipe sitting in my own backyard behind the shed, taken out of an old home that my husband and I remodeled, maybe a home something like one of Mohammed's.If he wanted to lie about that missile, he could have come up with a more predictable or more thought out response. But he claimed what in my opinion was a first impression, a gut reaction- the missile looked like a piece of plumbing to him.. And I doubt for a minute that either Mr. Cole or Mr. Paracek, the prosecutor ever had the experience of fixing up an old run down house or of getting their hands dirty or maybe even knowing what a cast iron pipe looks like. So for Mr Paracek to say that because Mohammed fixes house and therefore should know better than to say the missile looked like a piece of plumbing tells me he never saw this side of reality. And what else did he or Mr Cole presume to know these men were thinking? Do they even want to know? Or is the case more important than the truth? These are lives that have been ruined. And if the government translator admitted one mistake and were caught by a third translator making other mistakes, what else were they wrong about? What else did we not hear about? Oh, so much classified information, we'll never know. The whole thing would be a joke if it weren't so tragic.

Sincerely

Margaret Murtagh,

Rotterdam, NY

================================================================================

Lift the blindfold of anti-Muslim prejudice.

First published: Sunday, November 26, 2006 in the Times Union

As people who followed the tragedy of Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain and wondered how these men could have been convicted, we find the letter to the editor "Trial shaped views of what Islam allows,"(November 10) to be inaccurate, intolerant and illuminating.

The writer asserts that "two men were shown what they thought was a ground-to-air missile." The evidence included video of an FBI informant holding up a missile launcher in the presence of Mr. Hossain. Mr. Aref was not present; he never laid eyes on the device. It is not clear what Mr.Hossain thought he had seen.

The writer also presumes to speak on behalf of "the larger community." His damning conclusion -- "the local version of Islam permits" respect for people who would keep "collective silence about the existence of a mass death dealing instrument."

We read this with dismay. Yet by jumping to this biased conclusion perhaps the letter reveals a part of how these men could be convicted of participating in a plot that otherwise would never have been their idea, a fake plot concocted by our own government.

Let us lift the blindfold of anti-Muslim prejudice. We call upon our larger community to review the facts carefully and to get to know the people of the local Muslim community.

We are convinced you will find that we have witnessed a great travesty, a great injustice, and discover that our Muslim neighbors and friends are human beings worthy of our respect and support.

Andrew D. Coates, MD, John Morris, MD

Fourteen other people also signed this letter. The authors are supporters of the Muslim Defense Committee. www.nepajac.org

Trial of Imam Aref reveals more than a few kinks in the court case

First published: Monday, November 13, 2006 in the Times Union

Thanks for your coverage of the trial of Imam Aref and a member of his mosque. I sat through many days of the trial, and news of the release of the convicted FBI informant in the underlying sting operation stirs lingering questions.

I watched a hard-working jury pay attention to often difficult-to-understand evidence. I thought of the many other detainees the U.S. holds elsewhere, who don't get a jury trial or even to see the charges against them.

Still, I cannot figure out why, after reviewing the evidence against him, the FBI continued to prosecute the imam. Nor can I understand why the jury convicted him. The secretly taped conversations between Mr. Aref and the informant, including requested religious counseling, revealed a sincerely devoted, patient spiritual leader.

Three times during a conversation about Islam, the informant asked if it was OK to support a particular political organization. Three times the imam said that he had heard of the group from TV, but didn't know enough about it to answer him. The imam was clear that Islam must be followed in America.

He told the informant that he may not earn money to send to the poor (which Allah wants) by selling alcohol in his shop. Muslim customs, however, such as male dominance over women, may change in America.

The imam also clearly instructed the informant to obey American laws. He said that they promised to do so on their visa applications, and Muslims must keep their promises.

As for the loan he thought he was witnessing, the imam insisted it be put in writing. Further, he told the informant that while he would insist on its repayment, he was going to advise his friend to lower the amount he was borrowing.

Why would a terrorist want a written record? Wouldn't the amount to be laundered from the sale of a terrorist weapon be a sum certain and irrelevant?

I heard nothing anti-American or political in hours of evidence against Mr. Aref, nor anything showing that the imam thought the transaction was connected to weapons or terrorism.

Perhaps sting operations involving proof of what someone is thinking rather than doing should profoundly disturb us all.

Even more frightening would be to believe that the jury thought the government had secret evidence against the imam that could not be revealed. The court had received and relied on secret information to deny Mr. Aref's previous motion to dismiss.

Neither Mr. Aref nor defense counsel (who had security clearances) could see the government's evidence against the motion. Astoundingly, the court denied the motion and issued an opinion in blank! What then was the jury to think, when the judge told it that the government had good reason to suspect the imam?

The sting still stings.

SARAH BIRN

Delmar

Verdict doesn't reflect evidence, testimony

First published: Friday, November 17, 2006 In the Times Union

I read Fred Barney's letter in the Nov 10 Times Union. I, too, am a member of the larger community who, except for one day of the FBI sting trial, heard and saw every bit of evidence and testimony presented to the jury. And I will tell you that it goes beyond all human reason and logic that the jury, based on the evidence and testimony presented, could reach the conclusion it did.

There was so much indifference, lack of sensitivity and understanding of cultural practices and customs, and misinterpretations of the various languages involved that in truth it created more doubt and less fact as to the intent and belief of the defendants. Nothing of substance was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

DAVE CAPONE

Schenectady