Shahawar Matin Siraj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shahawar Matin Siraj is a Pakistani immigrant to the United States who was charged and found guilty of a bomb plot on Herald Square, Manhattan in 2006. His trial, United States v. Shahawar Matin Siraj, represented an effective action by the New York Police Department to uncover and foil terrorist plots inside the United States, but has also exposed an insensitivity and possible maliciousness by the police in their interaction with the Muslim community.

Contents 1 United States of America v. Shahawar Matin Siraj 1.1 Defense 1.2 Prosecution 1.3 Verdict 1.4 Response 2 References

[edit] United States of America v. Shahawar Matin Siraj

The trial, which received heavy media attention and was publicized in news reports since his arrest, was a long and arguably difficult trial. The four week trial, which was conducted in Brooklyn's Federal court, also represented a trial of civil rights in the wake of heightened police security following September 11th.

[edit] Defense

The defense alleged that Mr. Siraj was "entrapped" into plotting the crime, after incitement of hatred by the police informant. Using his hatred of America, they claimed, he was convinced into committing a crime against American civilians, which he would not normally have been inclined to do. Many jurors stated in anonymous interviews after the case that the "entrapment defense" was the most convincing in their hesitation to convict him. Although they had beliefs that the informant would have convinced and incited Mr. Siraj into plotting the crime, they did not have any tangible evidence.^[1]

They attacked the credibility of the prosecution's lead witness, Mr. Eldawoody, on grounds that he was paid a total of $100,000 for his work as an informer, $25,000 of which he received during the year he conversed with Mr. Siraj.^[2] It was the informant's salary, they argued, that kept him interested in the issue and encouraged him to bring Mr. Siraj into such a predicament. However, Mr. Eldawoody did not turn Mr. Siraj in for the pay, he claimed, but rather, as a good Muslim who believed that his faith was not one to be degraded into one of terrorism and violent activity. His compensation was for a tough job, he would argue, because he had to be circumspect in his demeanor to conceal his true identity. He is not likely to work for the NYPD again, simply because he may be recognized from the trial and/or his previous eavesdroppings.^[3]

The validity of the tapes was also a major issue, especially for jurors, who believed it may have been subject to review and censorship by the New York City Police Department, which was working alongside Eldawoody during his information-gathering visits. Because Eldawoody had frequent contact with the police during his time working as an informant, it was possible that the tapes were reviewed for incriminating content and may have been selectively edited--either by deletion or by Eldawoody himself--to leave out statements of encouragement and "entrapment" by Mr. Eldawoody that could have been critical proof for the defense.

[edit] Prosecution

The prosecutors, Todd Harrison and Marshall L. Miller, used digital recording from the defendant's conversations with Mr. Eldawoody, which were secretly made by the informant and handed to the police department as evidence. In these recordings, Siraj expressed excitement and pride in a plot to kill American civilians in Herald Square, which was strongly incriminating, albeit in a crime the defense felt was framed. The prosecution called their main witness, Mr. Eldawoody, who was the part-time police informant and a nuclear engineer used by the New York City's Police Department to infiltrate and eavesdrop on Islamic congregations around the city.

They attacked Mr. Siraj's credibility strongly because of many anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks he had made, some far before he had been encouraged into the bomb plot. These remarks, which would be regarded as reprehensible by the far majority of Americans, served to alienate the defendant as an ally to terrorist regimes and characterized him as a terrorist, despite the absence of weapons.^[2]

One of Siraj's friends testified against him as well. The individual, James Elshafay, was introduced to Eldawoody by Siraj and said he had every intention of carrying the act out if it had reached fruition.^[4] Elshafay, who is schizophrenic, was also a defendant in this case, but pled guilty to all charges and testified against his friend, leading the court to release him. Elshafay had actually stated that he was the intended bomber, while Siraj would be a lookout. According to Elshafay, Siraj did not want to bomb himself during the act, but he had talked with Elshafay and they had devised a plan where Elshafay would dress like a Hasidic Jew because "'Cause they know Jews aren't the ones doing it" and leave the bomb in a garbage can or under a bench, waiting to explode.^[5]

It was also highly suspect that Mr. Siraj was so encouraging of the terrorists, while claiming no allegiance to any group aside from the Islamic Thinkers Society and the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge. This has brought into question the nature of these groups as well, especially to the intelligence community, which has begun to bring these organizations into deeper investigation.

Mr. Eldawoody had many shocking statements from Siraj that were downright disgusting: "The mission was not completed on 9/11," he quoted Mr. Siraj as saying, because "Wall Street was not attacked."^[6]

[edit] Verdict

At least half the jury was leaning towards the "entrapment" defense early in the trial, but without criticial proof, they decided to dismiss the idea. That led them to reach a guilty verdict for all four charges brought against him, leading to four charges of bomb plotting and conspiracy. These convictions left out a major accusation, plotting to bomb a subway station, which could have led to a death sentence. Instead, he most likely will be held in prison for roughly 20 to 30 years.^[2]

The defense's lead Defense Attorney, Michael Stolar, was disappointed and highly critical of the implications this case had for the civil rights of New Yorkers with these tactics being used by the NYPD. It represented the court precedent for a "police state" that gave the police license to instigate and eavesdrop on unfairly targeted people, especially Arab-Americans, he claimed. He rejected any statements that this guilty verdict was a success in the war on terrorism, saying "any claims that are made by the Police Department that they have made the citizens of the city of New York safer by convicting Shahawar Matin-- they have not."^[2]

[edit] Response

There was little debate among the public on what verdict was correct. The majority of Americans, who view the threat of terrorism as a commonplace and persistent possibility following the devastation of September 11th, regarded this as a tremendous success by the police department.^[7]

This also demonstrated a greater efficiency by the NYPD after 2001 in its counterterrorism efforts. It originally had only about 20 officers working to combat terrorism before 9/11; since then, they now employ over a thousand.^[8] This has all been part of a protective measure led by Commissioner Ray Kelly to prevent any future attacks in New York. The investigative measures also include new eavesdropping and infiltration tactics, which employ immigrants such as Mr. Eldawoody, an immigrant from Egypt. They are able to interact with suspected terrorist individuals more easily and this case showed how convincing they may be when disguised. This has led to paranoia and distrust in the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge, which the defendant attended as well as mosques across New York City.^[9]

[edit] References

1. ^ Lee, Jennifer. "Entrapment Evidence Lacking, Jurors Say." The New York Times, May 25, 2006 pB7
2. ^ ^{a b c d} Rashbaum, William. "Guilty Verdict in Plot to Bomb Subway Station." The New York Times, May 25, 2006 pA1
3. ^ "One & Done is likely for Islam mole." New York Post (New York, NY), May 26, 2006 p17
4. ^ "Buddy: I was in on Bomb Plot." New York Post (New York, NY), May 10, 2006 p12
5. ^ "Ma, Can I bomb subway? - Plotter's Permission." New York Post (New York, NY), May 2, 2006 p18
6. ^ Rashbaum, William. "Undercover Officer Testifies in Bomb Plot Trial." The New York Times, May 18, 2006 pB7
7. ^ "How Many More?" New York Post. May 27, 2006 p22
8. ^ 19 January 2006 THE NEW YORKER. A REPORTER AT LARGE: THE TERRORISM BEAT By William Finnegan. "How is the N.Y.P.D. defending the city?" http://www.jclec.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=2&pop=1&page=0
9. ^ Rashbaum, William. "Window Opens on city tactics among Muslims." The New York Times, May 28, 2006 pA29