Najibullah Zazi Indicted in New York, Transfer is Imminent

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: Najibullah Zazi (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump and Update: The New York Defendant, Iman Ahmad Afzali, has been ordered released on 1.5 million bail. His friends and relatives will be posting real property.

Najibullah Zazi has been indicted for conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction in New York. He will be transferred imminently. CBS' Rick Sallinger called this the other day.

The new charge carries a possible life sentence, and the sentencing guidelines provide for a life sentence. The one-count Indictment is here and the Memorandum Suppporting Detention is here.

It contains new details alleging Zazi purchased large amounts of chemicals in Aurora, CO, rented a hotel suite on two occasions where they believe he tested them and made phone calls inquiring about instructions. [More...]

The memorandum states the notes were found in an e-mail account Zazi gave them consent to search for (undoubtedly during his voluntary interview.) Interestingly, when they searched Zazi's house they found his laptop -- the one that had been in his rental car in New York that they say they searched legally -- but the hard drive had been removed.

CBS reports Mohamed Zazi will be released today and that the condition of home monitoring has been removed.

< Rahm's Leverage Is With Blue Dogs, Not The CPC | Pelosi Rejects President Snowe's Trigger Proposal >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Najibullah Zazi Indicted in New York, Transfer is Imminent | 63 comments (63 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Case Broken Without Torture (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by bob h on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:01:59 PM EST

as far as anyone can tell. What do you think of that, Dick and Liz Cheney?

: I'm thinking waterboarding was (2.00 / 0) (#51)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:32:40 PM EST

not necessary.. and it wasn't used just as it wasn't needed or used in the vast majority of the other situations.

I like tinfoil... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by magster on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:25:25 PM EST

but I've had a case against Folsom, and I just get the sense that he's a lawyer who saw this as an opportunity to make a name for himself and pick up more business. There's a lot of competition in the Denver attorney market for new cases.

How'd he raise a 1.5 million dollar bail? (none / 0) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:01:53 PM EST

Ah (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:02:57 PM EST

Stupid me. Keep reading next time.


Still--a good question. (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:50:18 PM EST

The parents are putting up their (none / 0) (#12)
by nycstray on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:53:27 PM EST

Queens home.


I didn't realize residential property (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:55:25 PM EST

in Queens had such a high FMV.


Certain parts of Queens (none / 0) (#17)
by nycstray on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:00:53 PM EST

could. 1 bdrm condo's in my 'hood were "starting at $499,000!" at one point. Don't know if they still are though. My friends and I were cracking up over them due to our low rents.


That, and it may be that they didn't (none / 0) (#19)
by scribe on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:07:53 PM EST

have to put up cash bond, but rather were able to buy a bail bond. The premium for such a bail bond would not be $1.5 mil, and likely could be financed with a mortgage on the family home (and the homes of a couple other family members for extra security).


Reminding me yet again of the (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:27:52 PM EST

white-haired mom from NE who put up her home on behalf of her accused multiburlar son, who failed to show for afternoon session of preliminary hrg. Talk about the color draining from a person's face.


Once upon a time, I represented a party (none / 0) (#43)
by scribe on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:05:17 PM EST

adverse to a knucklehead from the local Arab-American community. That guy was a knucklehead because he was a knucklehead, not because he was Arab-American, BTW.

In any event, he was such a knucklehead that his father-in-law put ads in the local newspaper of that Arab-American community to the effect of "he's a knucklehead and has dishonored me, my family and particularly my daughter. We're having nothing to do with him and you should take our example to heart before you do, too."

Ran him out of town, basically. And he hasn't been heard from in this town in a good 8 or 9 years.

I think the same will obtain here (though in reverse), in that this defendant is a prominent member of a relatively tight-knit community and will not be jumping a ship or a plane anytime without half the world picking up a phone and dropping a dime on him, if only to protect his family from losing everything.


Feds don't seem to think (none / 0) (#46)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:14:39 PM EST

this particular knucklehead -- ie, the father -- had all that much to do with whatever junior was cooking up. They wouldn't have been OK with any kind of bond if they did.


It would seem that the imam (none / 0) (#53)
by scribe on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:09:53 PM EST

allegedly got a visit from the NYPD (which, it seems, was stomping on the FBI's turf) who allegedly showed him some pictures and asked him some questions, and then the imam allegedly later turned around and called Zazi and allegedly wanted to know what teh NYPD wanted to talk to him about.

In that context, given that the imam was allegedly working for the FBI as an informant, arguably the imam was gathering information for the FBI to pass it along in his alleged informant role.

When the operation got blown - seemingly because of the NYPD's bigfooted stomping around - the FBI turned around and had the imam arrested for allegedly lying to them. I would bet that at some point in the future, the imam will be offered a very generous plea deal, to a misdemeanor or even a pass and a "it was all a misunderstanding".


Er, well, the imam (none / 0) (#57)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:39:27 PM EST

certainly blew the investigation apart prematurely by notifying the object of it, didn't he? Don't know what he's being accused of lying about, but it strikes me as more than possible he told the cops he didn't know Zazi, and then turned around and phoned him up lickety-split.


: I don;t think the charge is (none / 0) (#60)
by scribe on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:57:57 PM EST

"lying to the NYPD". The charge, IIRC, is "lying to the federal government."

I suppose in a way (none / 0) (#3)
by magster on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:07:00 PM EST

we can thank Zazi's lawyer for helping bring a potential terrorist to justice while providing a high profile tutorial to defense attorneys everywhere on what not to do.

NBC states that Zazi rented hotels in Denver with stoves attempting to purify beauty supply chemicals to a more explosive form for a formula that has been used in overseas terrorist explosions.

I'm not really fond of the idea of (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:51:13 PM EST

chemical experiments in hotels. Scary.


: Seriously . . . (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by nycstray on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:55:08 PM EST

could they at least use their own kitchens, preferably in a single family detached structure?

What is a "potential terrorist"? (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:07:45 PM EST

Sounds an awful lot like thought crime.


Creating, or attempting to create, (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:15:23 PM EST

the precursors of a bomb, is not at all thought crime, imo.


No... (none / 0) (#29)
by kdog on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:30:16 PM EST

but that just makes you a potential bombmaker...we don't call General Electric a potential terrorist organization because they make bombs.


kdog, you never cease to amaze me. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:33:48 PM EST

: We've all got our pet concerns:)... (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:44:43 PM EST

The terrorist fear train is pretty crowded, much more roomy on the police state fear train, I've got a whole car to myself:)
I am preparing to eat some major crow on this one when its all said and done...we'll see at trial, assuming its not all kept a secret from us.

GE hasn't attacked the WTC.... (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:43:39 PM EST

nor is likely to,


Exactly. Potential, conspiracy, kinda the same, (none / 0) (#35)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:43:45 PM EST

No?

has been indicted for conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction

Now I gotta look up... (none / 0) (#40)
by kdog on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:58:51 PM EST

the legal definition of weapon of mass destruction, do peroxide bombs rate?

Weapons of mass destruction refers to any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious physical harm through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors,a weapon involving a disease organism or biological agent ,or a weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

I'm not so bold as to google peroxide bomb...don't need g-men knocking on the door...but it doesn't sound like they rate as WMD's, just a regular weapon.


: To quote someone or other (none / 0) (#44)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:07:48 PM EST

I guess it depends on what the meaning of is is.
From wiki:

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:
(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above.
(2) Poison gas.
(3) Any weapon involving a disease organism.
(4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.
This definition derives from US law, 18 U.S.C. Section 2332a[16] and the referenced 18 USC 921.
[17] Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[18] pipe bombs,[19] shoe bombs,[20] cactus needles coated with botulin toxin,[21] etc. have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

Well if you've purchased the chemicals (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:17:01 PM EST

and rented the hotel room you may only be guilty of "thought crimes" which is as you've said a scary step in prosecution- but at the same time what are authorities supposed to do-- I mean what if Tim Mcveigh had been caught with 2 tons of fertilizer a Ryder truck, and 1000 gallons of Diesel, but the fuel and fertilizer weren't mixed- you do know he's a militia member with military experience in explosives though- would you just let the guy go.

I mean I think there have been so downright absurd terror prosecutions- ranging from entrapment- the guys who wanted to take down the Sears Tower with the idea planted by a mole, to the absurd- the guy planning to take down the Brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch, but that doesn't mean that every plot is false or overblown- those guys in NC and this guy seem to have gone well beyond the basic planning stage- now I could be totally wrong and I will apologize and man up if I am, but at the moment this looks more like a guy caught before something terrible happened than it does a case of a guy who wanted to do something bad but was to incompetent to do so on his own.


Agree. With the proviso (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:29:51 PM EST

incompetency is not a valid defense. Is it?


: No its not (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:48:23 PM EST

I just think on things like the Brooklyn Bridge Plot the sheer adsurdity of it should have kept things close to the vest- sure you can't let the guy go- after it doesn't take a room temperature IQ to open fire in a shopping mall but you also shouldn't play it up like some sort of dire threat to our National Security.

I totally hear you... (none / 0) (#33)
by kdog on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:35:31 PM EST

this guy could have been planning nastiness beyond our imaginations, or he could be a clown being set-up...I just won't take the governments word for it, ever.

I worry we're at the point where thought is enough to get you locked up...that can never be the case, or the joint ain't worth protecting.


He made, or tried to make, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:45:01 PM EST

bomb precursors.

That's not thought, that's action.


Allegedly... (none / 0) (#48)
by kdog on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:22:50 PM EST

I ain't takin' the FBI's word for it, I hope we get to see and hear all of the evidence at trial.


: Of course. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:56:56 PM EST

The combo of peroxide and acetone (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by magster on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:27:51 PM EST

is the formula for the bomb used in the Madrid bombings. Triacetone tripertoxide (TATP). Zazi allegedly was trying to strengthen the concentrations of both in his hotel rooms, did internet searches for how to buy both chemicals on the internet in both Colorado and New York, and had recipes on his computer and was soliciting help and expressing frustration at his inability to make the explosive. There's enough there for some sort of big crime.


: [cringe!] (none / 0) (#63)
by Fabian on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 06:02:59 PM EST

And a longing for the chem lab stocked with quality ingredients and a proper hood.
I can't imagine trying to conduct precise chemical reactions with poor quality reagents. Too likely to botch the process, with who-knows-what results.

That's about right, pal. (none / 0) (#20)
by scribe on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:08:17 PM EST

I don't know if he's actually guilty (none / 0) (#21)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:09:41 PM EST

I have a really hard time not agreeing with what his defense attorney did- its completely against the ethics of his chosen profession- but if Zazi was actually planning some sort of attack that could have left scores dead or wounded its seems like it would have been even more unethical for his attorney to have sat on this info- its not like he told the man about prior actions- he told him or the attorney discovered pending crimes that could have caused harm.


: Which, at least under CA code of (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:31:25 PM EST

ethics, is not attorney/client privilege.

I have nothing good to say about Zazi's (none / 0) (#4)
by scribe on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:27:17 PM EST

defense counsel's performance as it does, in fact, appear that he allowed Zazi to talk his way into a jail cell for the rest of his life.

Cooking beauty chemicals on stoves in hotel rooms? How, exactly, would the feds have known about that if it hadn't come out of Zazi's own talks with the feds?

The sad part of it is, as in every legal malpractice case involving a criminal defense attorney, that the attorney's first line of defense is "my former client was guilty as hell and has no reason to be suing me because he was guilty as hell".

So, chances are, Folsom gets replaced by counsel skilled in serious criminal cases and goes back to divorces, DWIs and closing house sales, but not before making it almost impossible for skilled counsel to get anything remotely resembling a result favorable to the defendant.

about those chemicals (none / 0) (#5)
by Dadler on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:39:15 PM EST

if it occured as reported, i would assume the gov't could find those hotel rooms and test them, as these chemicals, most likely, would leave residue on walls, lampshade, bedding, etc.


They did test and residue (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by nycstray on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:49:19 PM EST

was found in the stove vent. Sounds like his computers and other searches/surveillance gave them a fair amount of info. I just skimmed the PDF, but they have receipts and video etc


: Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:19:45 PM EST

not to suprising that they found residue- its how most non-accident meth labs are found, people need to understand that "cooking" chemicals is fricking moronic.

Answer and question (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:49:42 PM EST

Someone alerted the Feds when it happened?
Question.

Assuming that he did it, and assuming he told the Feds, what is your problem?


Well (none / 0) (#25)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:21:54 PM EST

generally- selling out ones client is considered pretty freaking unethical.


: I see your point but (2.00 / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:58:47 PM EST

that has nothing to do with my question.

Feds had already been (none / 0) (#47)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:18:57 PM EST

following him for a while. When he twice rented hotel rooms in his own town of residence, they went in after he'd left and easily found chemical residue of bomb-making materials.


: And they were on the look out for (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by nycstray on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:27:35 PM EST

the materials before he started talking, iirc. They were reporting what people should be looking out for etc here. (I wasn't paying super close attention, but I think they even mentioned a smell to beware of?)

Is Folsom setting up incompetency (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:32:15 PM EST

of counsel on writ of habeaus corpus? Not a new concept.


: That assumes Obama won't (none / 0) (#41)
by scribe on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:00:00 PM EST

just throw Zazi into a hole from which no one ever returns, lay the authority on the AUMF (just like Bushie did) (A23 of the local edition and not in your national edition), and tell habeas counsel to pound sand (just like Bushie did, too).

For those, like Zazi, (none / 0) (#6)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:47:44 PM EST

who are studiously perfecting their technique to kill a bunch of innocent people, I think having an attorney like Fulsom is actual justice.

He did X, the consequence for X is Y.

Even Bernie Madoff understands that.

This is a criminal defense site! (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:52:43 PM EST

Really? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:56:50 PM EST

I thought it was the Public Option site.


: Actually, this is a critique of (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:57:51 PM EST

all things Ezra Klein site.

: LMAO (none / 0) (#45)
by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:07:55 PM EST

funny

Talking to the feds (none / 0) (#49)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:23:52 PM EST

I'm beginning to think Zazi wasn't being naive or stupid by doing this but knew the jig was up for him and was stalling for time for his co-conspirators to cover their tracks and/or beat it altogether. He may also have imagined he could figure out what the Feds knew and didn't know by stringing them along.

Meanwhile, this (white) guy does not get (none / 0) (#56)
by scribe on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:28:01 PM EST

portrayed as a terrorist, even though he allegedly thought he was setting off what he allegedly thought was a truck bomb in the truck he had just allegedly parked front of the federal courthouse in Springfield when he dialed in a number from a cell phone.

While being driven away by an undercover FBI guy.

Man arrested for alleged terror plot (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:42:18 PM EST

Man arrested for alleged terror plot to blow up federal courthouse
Comments
September 24, 2009
BY DAVE McKINNEY Springfield Bureau Chief
SPRINGFIELD -- A Downstate man has been arrested on terrorism-related charges for an alleged scheme this week to blow up the federal courthouse in the state capital, federal prosecutors announced today.
Acting U.S. Attorney Jeffrey B. Lang said that Michael C. Finton, of Decatur, Ill., who also uses the name "Talib Islam," was arrested on charges of attempted murder of federal employees and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

Attention-getting nick name. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:56:54 PM EST

: Very catchy. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 04:05:12 PM EST

After 14 hours of questioning... (none / 0) (#64)
by magster on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 06:43:40 PM EST

...Folsom was all over the local news channels. Combine that with some sugar coated assurances by the FBI, and Folsom keeps going in.

Jacob, please do not cast (none / 0) (#65)
by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 07:48:30 PM EST

your conspiracy theories as fact. I just deleted one of your comments. This is not the site to spread gossip or speculation on. I do not believe for an instant Mr. Folsom was working for the prosecution. Those kind of unfounded, damaging and potentially libelous accusations are not allowed here.

Calling his judgment into question is one thing. Personal attacks on him is another and will not be allowed. Please do that on one of the other sites you post on. Thanks.