Najibullah Zazi: Colorado Charge Dropped, Bond Denied, Will Be Transferred to NY

Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer today denied bond for Najibullah Zazi on the New York Indictment charging him with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. He granted the request filed by the Government yesterday to dismiss the Colorado false statements charge. Arguing against bond, AUSA Tim Neff told the Court:

"(The evidence) suggested the defendant was intent on making a bomb and being in New York on 9/11 for the purpose of using such an item."

His lawyer, Arthur Folsom, argued the opposite:

"He was there on September 11. The entire time on September 11 and nothing happened," Folsom said.

Having denied bond, the Court ordered Zazi transferred to New York to face trial on its Indictment. The Colorado case is over as to him. The false statement charge against his father, Mohammed Zazi, is still pending. The next hearing in that case is October 9. The elder Zazi was released on bail yesterday.

< Mandates Minus PO = Dem Political Suicide | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No surprises, to my eye. (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:27:00 AM EST
    Including the contents of the arguments.

    I missed the 9/11 part. kdog? (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:34:56 AM EST

    Me too, news to me. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    Maybe it's all a big coinky-dinky? He had no idea of the relevance of the date when he chose it for his visit to NY?

    That's 9/11/09 (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:43:10 AM EST
    not 9/11/01.

    The government employees seem to be seriously getting into the numerology of things, almost to the point of fetishism.


    iirc (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    he came here on the 10th, but left again on the 12th when things started heating up for him. From what I read, it didn't sound like he planned something on the 11th, (but perhaps he did have plans?) but that he learned shortly after his arrival he was being watched, so he bought a plane ticket and left on the 12th. He was supposed to turn in the rental car on the 14th, but don't know if he was planning to stay or what. And according to local news, they did find backpacks and detonators etc in searches here. I don't think I've heard anything on the local news re 9/11 plans

    Boy - that no-fly list really worked, too (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    seeing as how he was able to buy a plane ticket (one-wy, I bet) at the last minute and get on a plane without getting rousted.

    How much you wanna bet he paid cash for his plane ticket, too?


    Maybe they didn't bother because (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    he was already being watched in NY and CO? One hopes they gave his luggage a good once over . . .

    That's what they'll say, now. (none / 0) (#13)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    It would be more interesting to see whether that actually was what they did, before the press got interested.

    I got crow on the stove Oc.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 01:05:48 PM EST
    once all the allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a jury of his peers I'll start chowing down...it is certainly sounding like the dude was up to no good in light of all the new allegations released.

    And if the authorities obeyed the law with all the searches and taps by obtaining valid warrants, and everything is on the up and up, I'll be the first to say good job, as much as it pains me to praise the authorities.


    Add... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    I must say though a life sentence without a functioning "weapon of mass destruction" to be found sounds excessive to me...but what else is new with our sentences:)

    I'm a little confused (none / 0) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:52:56 AM EST
    I'm not a lawyer, but how can you charge a person for something that didn't happen?

    conspiracy (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 12:08:39 PM EST
    the crime of conspiracy is entering an agreement to commit an unlawful act. All it takes is engaging in an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. (In federal drug cases, there isn't even a requirement that an overt act be committed.)

    So Zazi is charged with agreeing with others to use a bomb (now called "a weapon of mass destruction"). Buying chemicals and having bomb-making instructions are overt acts in furtherance of the agreement.

    Unlike the false statement charge, where venue is in the district where the statements were made, venue in the conspiracy case is proper in any district in which any of the coconspirators committed an overt act. Zazi's trip to NY, and the failed attempt by others believed to be working with him to rent a truck, is enough for venue there since authorities are alleging both were done to further the object of the conspiracy.


    This seems to have escaped Mr. Folsom (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    If I were a particularly vicious federal prosecutor, I would use Folsom's oral argument on his client's behalf as an admission of the crime.  The feds actually might be doing Zazi a favor by changing his venue to NY;  he'll get a new lawyer.

    No new lawyer (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 01:06:49 AM EST
    Folsom is staying on the case, see my latest post.

    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    Excellent explanation. (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    So, it could have stayed in Denver... (none / 0) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 02:11:43 PM EST
    ...since he committed the "overt act" of purchasing the alleged bomb making materials and performed testing of said materials here?

    yes, they could have indicted (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 05:16:21 PM EST
    on the bomb charge in either place. Since they don't want to try the case in two places, and expect more arrests in New York but not Colorado, it makes sense to move the case to NY.

    So, how long... (none / 0) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    ...before hydrogen peroxide is locked up behind a counter like Sudafed and one has to be fingerprinted and put on a database to obtain it?  

    I could see them doing it with (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    the HP you use for hair color (will terrorists now enroll in beauty school?), but isn't the first aid version weaker?

    Next, the feds will tell us we can spot (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    potential terrists by looking for bleached-blonde surfer dudes and dudettes.

    Or something.

    The funny-looking kinda-foreign people we were supposed to watch for and suspect today are the guys subleasing coffee and lunch pushcarts - no one knows who they are tand the permit owners ... <shudder> sublease the permits to these strange furrin guys trying to make a living.  This, because Zazi went to a coffee cart and ... used to work at one.


    Or guys with "lots of girlfriends" (none / 0) (#20)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    Two agents wanted to know whether anyone had been in asking to buy quantities of hydrogen peroxide, said Karan Hoss, chief executive of California-based Beauty Supply Warehouse.

    Sales-transaction records showed two, the first on July 25 -- a dozen 32-ounce bottles of Clairoxide Clear Liquid Developer, made by Clairol. On Aug. 28, the same person bought six bottles of a similar product the FBI identified as Ms. K Liquid 40 Volume. The product may actually be made by a company called MSK.

    A clerk remembered asking the man, who he described as talkative, why he needed so much of a woman's beauty product, Hoss said. "I have a lot of girlfriends," the man replied.


    Perhaps he had 72 bleach blonde girlfriends who all happened to be virgins?


    10% Hydrogen Peroxide (none / 0) (#21)
    by TexasYellowDog on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 05:16:01 PM EST
    You can't make a bomb from the 10% hydrogen peroxide in Clarioxide.  Otherwise we would be in real trouble--just pick up a few bottle of Clairoxide and nail polish remover, then blow up your neighborhood.  I am really tired of reading about making bombs from ordinary household chemicals in the news media.  Industrial strength hydrogen peroxide is common, but you can't get it a Sally Beauty Supply.  Sounds like this guy is just another idiot, and eventually, we will find out who was really running him.  I hope it's not the FBI again.

    H2H2 (none / 0) (#24)
    by TexasYellowDog on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 09:30:56 PM EST
    H2H2?  Some source you picked.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:13:25 PM EST
    has been deleted. Do not reprint chemical recipes here. Please use common sense.

    Oy. Fer cripe's sake. (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:52:22 PM EST
    What I posted - and as I very clearly explained - was akin to:
    Ingredients for an atomic bomb:

    [snip] [snip]


    [snip] [snip].

    Fer cripe's sake.



    OK. (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:55:38 PM EST
    Prove you can't make a bomb by starting with 10% peroxide.

    fwiw, there are dozens and dozens of websites that show that you can...


    Please do not prove it (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 26, 2009 at 01:04:30 AM EST
    This website is not going to used or cited as one that provides instructions on explosives. It's about legal issues involved in the case.