E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Pete Williams reports on Sulaiman Abu Ghaith's not guilty plea to charges of plotting to kill Americans in New York federal court.
A son-in-law of Osama bin Laden who served as an al-Qaida spokesman and warned Americans after Sept. 11 that “the storm shall not stop” pleaded not guilty Friday in a civilian court to plotting to kill Americans.
Handcuffed and in a blue prison suit, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith wore earphones to listen to a live translation of the hearing in a heavily guarded federal courtroom in Lower Manhattan, walking distance from the World Trade Center site.
He entered the plea through a court-appointed lawyer and was ordered to return to court April 8. Abu Ghaith himself spoke only twice, answering “Yes” when he was asked whether he understood the charge and whether he wanted representation.
Prosecutors disclosed that Abu Ghaith was captured Feb. 28 overseas and flown to New York the following day. They said he had yielded enough information after his capture to fill 22 pages. They did not give details of what he said.
Jane Rosenberg
Courtroom sketch of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith in New York federal court.
An indictment unsealed Thursday accuses Abu Ghaith of taking part in al-Qaida plots to kill Americans, both before and after the 2001 terror attacks. It describes him as such a close confidant that bin Laden summoned him for help on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001.
Abu Ghaith gave a speech after Sept. 11 and warned Americans that “the storm shall not stop, especially the airplanes storm” and suggested that Muslims and opponents of the United States should not fly or live in high rises.
Jordanian sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, told NBC News that Abu Ghaith was captured by Turkish officials in Ankara, where a court ruled that he had entered the country with a fake passport.
The Turkish government ordered him deported to Kuwait, where he was born, but arranged for him to travel through Jordan, where he was taken into custody by American law enforcement, the sources said.
NBC News exclusive: Iran was holding Abu Ghaith, U.S. officials say
Rep. Peter King of New York, a Republican who sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, announced the capture Thursday and credited the FBI and CIA.
Some Republican members of Congress expressed surprise that they had not been consulted, and said that Abu Ghaith should have been prosecuted as an enemy combatant and held by the military at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
They issued statements Friday denouncing the decision and saying that the Obama administration was weakening the nation by not having al-Qaida figures like Abu Ghaith detained and interrogated at military facilities.
“The administration risks missing important opportunities to gather intelligence to prevent future attacks and save lives,” Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire said in a statement.
In November 2009, the administration announced plans to try five people accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks in civilian court in New York. The White House backed off that plan a year and a half later after a political backlash.
Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, said civilian courts have “a pretty good, strong track record” in handling terrorism prosecutions. He cited the men convicted of trying to blow up an airliner in December 2009 and detonate a car bomb in Times Square in May 2010, both of whom got life sentences in civilian courts.
“It is the consensus view of the president’s national security team and of agencies all across the federal government that this is the best way to handle bringing Abu Ghaith to justice,” Earnest said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the Intelligence Committee, said she expected that Abu Ghaith would be put away for life.
“The bottom line is the federal criminal court system works,” she said.
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This story was originally published on Fri Mar 8, 2013 8:11 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
I think a 'deal' might be in the works. This guy might be singing like a canary. Military can't make deals like that. Suppose i'm looking for something that does make sense, because, trying this guy in New York doesn't make sense. If it's all 'Federal', then, he can be tried anywhere in CONUS.
Of course there is a deal in the works. With Obama moving this to New York, Ghaith can stop talking and demand classified documents that the government can't turn over. Obama and Holder can never prosecute this guy which was the intent.
So let's see .. a terrorist with direct ties to the highest echelon of al qaeda is given the protection of the legal system of the society that he wishes to destroy. Something isn't right here.
While if there had been an American in his camp, the American would have been taken out by a drone.
Considering Obama and Holder, this is obvious. It is almost as if Obama, Holder, and Ghaith have the same goal.
You think?
Just picture the day that his trial gets thrown out on a technicality and he is released onto the streets near you.....
Obama has just given terrorists a new way to enter the country..........
Every suspected terrorist tried in Fed court has been found guilty and punished. Only seven tried at Gitmo have been found guilty...and most got light sentences. I think Obama's record is pretty good.
We should send him for a visit to see his father-in-law.
I'm not getting the non-guilty position. Don't these meat heads want the publicity and desire martydom?
He looks like a filthy coward to me an should to his fellow murderers as well.
I would think it would make it look like "hey, I didn't do it"...
really amusing how these conservatives are for the rule of law....until they are against the rule of law. Every suspected terrorist tried in US courts has been found guilty. Only seven tried at Gitmo have been found guilty. Why are conservatives so afraid of our legal system?
Why are you supportive of this foreign terrorist being tried as if he were a common criminal who robbed your house? Are terrorists committing crimes against the US or are they criminals committing crimes against people? You seem to have decided that they are just common criminals and all of them should be brought before a judge with their lawyers, etc. I think they are enemies of our COUNTRY and thus get dealt with as such, not as criminals. There is no "fear" of our legal system, it is a disagreement over what the PURPOSE of our legal system is. It is NOT designed to deal with foreign enemies of our country, it is designed to deal with criminals.
You're either for the rule of law or you are not.
So, woodbutcher, where does the rule of law apply to the american that was "droned" to death? And, incidently, by the same administration that is now saying he needs a trial?
What I want and do not want for "rule of law" does not seem to matter, but the administration is allowed to be inconsistent. And you wonder why the mantra of "king obama".
So, you are either for the rule of law or you are not.
@Wood - I guess I'm still not being clear enough. WHICH rule of law are you talking about? News Flash! We do not send soldiers captured on the battlefield to federal court. We do not send soldiers accused of war crimes to federal court. That's because civilian criminal law does not apply to them. If you only believe in ONE rule of law then you would have to have EVERY soldier who fires their weapon in war brought up for a minimum of a hearing to determine if they fired their weapon legally. If they killed someone then they would have to have a hearing (at a minimum) before a judge or a grand jury to determine if it was self defense. THAT is the rule of law for CRIMINAL law. Notice we, nor ANY country in the world, does this. That does not mean I do not believe in the rule of law for civilian criminals. I simply ALSO believe in different laws applying to combatants, battlefields, and actions taken during war.
A US Citizen in Yemen accused of making propaganda for Al Qaeda is targeted and killed by a drone attack. No due process, no judge or jury involved. No trial and no Constitutional rights. It took the decision of just one man to order his death.
Now the son-in-law of Bin laden, not a US Citizen, who is accused of making propaganda for Al Qaeda is arrested, brought to the US, given a hearing, assigned a lawyer, will face a judge, will have the chance to face his accusers, if he loses he will have the right to file appeals.
Why aren't more of you outraged over this?
No. The guy in Yemen was beyond arrest or capture. This guy was in Turkey in a luxury hotel. Big difference in using forces to capture.
@Wood - No, it would have been DIFFICULT to capture or arrest him. They knew his location and they were tracking him. We are "friends" with Yemen and they have arrested people for us before, have even held people in jail for us. Why couldn't we have provided them the information so they could arrest him? What was the "imminent threat" when all they ever accused him of was spreading propaganda? No one has claimed that his finger was on a cell phone to blow up a bomb somewhere. And yet they claimed they HAD to kill him then and there, right now!
You are simply making excuses to justify letting one man, our President, have the power to unilaterally throw away the protections guaranteed every US citizen by the Constitution because of expediency. I do not accept that ANY President has that power nor should they EVER have it.
Okay, so you use force to capture the guy in Yemen and two or three spec ops are killed in the firefight. Does that make it worth not using a drone?
Can't use any. They are being saved for American citizens.
@Wood - Read what I wrote again "We are "friends" with Yemen and they have arrested people for us before, have even held people in jail for us. Why couldn't we have provided them the information so they could arrest him?"
So 1) I offered a solution to your response that has been used in the past in Yemen AND in other countries. 2) Based on your argument the police should never try to arrest anyone but should simply shoot them dead when they are spotted.
Your response just tries to change the argument however. The point isn't that capturing people is difficult and dangerous so we should or should not try. How dangerous was it for the Turks to grab this guy? Some of them could have been killed so should they have just called in a drone strike? The POINT is that our GOVERNMENT targeted an American CITIZEN for assassination and then killed him. In doing so they violated many of his guaranteed Constitutional rights and they based the reasoning on doing so that he was an "imminent threat" DESPITE his crime being that he was producing propaganda. They did not claim he was a bomber or even that he was responsible for developing plots to kill Americans. But just producing propaganda was enough for them to call him an "imminent threat" and kill him. THAT is the point of all this.
Again the faux outrage about due process....when the conservatives have consistently pursued policies of locking up 'alleged' terrorists in Gitmo for years without ANY kind of process. Croc tears or just a crock?
@Wood - Do you understand the difference between a criminal and someone attacking a country? From you posts it doesn't seem you are able to draw that distinction. A soldier on the battlefield is not a criminal for example and you don't send him off to have a trial if he is captured. You deal with him within the military system. Just like every country has done for hundreds of years.
Terrorists are not criminals. They are not attacking individuals, stealing their property for gain, they are attacking a COUNTRY. They are waging a WAR against a country. There is no country on Earth that takes people they are at war with and put them into their civilian criminal system when they are captured. Apparently they ALL get the difference, but you don't.
Then why hasn't Kin....I mean President Obama closed Gitmo as promised? Why hasn't he ordered Holder to either charge or release them?
just admit it wood...your real name is muhammed right?
On his next move Well he got a gun from a guard and was shot to death!!! End of story and it comes in under the budget $2 for bullets.
Due process?
woodbutcher, The process has been due for a long time.
nicely put Weaver, but you cannot argue with wood...he's a radical muslim himself.
not guilty????....that is so far beyond the ridiculous...it is just side-splitting hilarious that this donkey turd is in our hands now! Whoever "defends" this POS would be well advised to watch his back...lots of payback coming from many directions.
No one is defending him. But if you believe in "due process", then you have to provide due process, no exceptions.
dude...just shut up and move to Iran.
Gotta love these conservatives. If laughter is the best medicine, then the entire country should be extremely healthy. They complain about due process and then want this guy to be "shot while escaping". Gotta love it.
Nahhhhh...Most just don't like seeing a hostile "enemy combatant" being afforded more due process than American citizens;)
...and Obama and Holder want this guy cut loose. So, where is the middle?
I see a lot of people just want him killed. A common reaction to someone like this. BUT what if we can actually get reliable information out of him to help to further bring down al-qaida? You kill someone you loose that chance forever.
And I have seen comments about why he isn't in Gitmo because he isn't a person that represents a nation we are at war with. This is accurate according to US and International laws of war. And yes Gitmo is still "up and running" as someone commented, but until there is an entire cleaning of house of all personnel there, it will never serve as a reliable place to hold people and gain RELIABLE information. And again, Gitmo is only for persons who represent a nation we are in an armed conflict with. al-qaida is NOT a nation but a group. They have no sovereignty. It would be like someone declaring war on the KKK. The KKK is not a sovereign nation but an group of people.
If it were legal to declar war on a group of people, both nationally and internationally, there currently would be so many wars going on in the world that humanity could actually wipe itself out.
If you do not agree with the national and international wars of law, the you need to get involved (through the correct legal channels) and get them changes. After all, it is YOU who establish law in our country, and therefore internationally. Any non-involvement on your individual part is an endorsement of the things you are complaining about. Earn the right to complain.....get involved!
Why isn't Gitmo a reliable place to hold and get information from people? We already have been shown evidence that we HAVE gained important information from the people held there, including the first steps to getting Bin Laden.
You quantify those who are at war as being required to be part of a recognized nation's military, but that is incorrect. For hundreds of years there have been distinctions of those who are "soldiers" fighting for a nations army and those who are combatants but do not wear any country's uniform. Often, in the past, those not wearing uniforms were considered terrorists or spies and as such were offered NO protections and could be hung, shot, tortured, imprisoned, etc.
Today we call them enemy combatants and we DO provide them some protections. While not recognized by the Geneva Convention, they are still, in this country, given most of the same protections an enemy soldier in uniform would get. But just because they do not swear and allegiance to and wear the uniform of a specific country it does not mean they are not combatants engaged in hostilities, or even war, with a nation. Nor does it mean they cannot be dealt with through a military system that is designed to deal with combatants. Nor does it mean they must be treated as civilian criminals, like a common burglar.
As for how many "wars" are going on in the world at any one time, there are several dozen "conflicts" going on at any one time around the world and almost NONE of them are "declared wars". In none of them are the people engaged on either side of the conflict treated like the guy who stole the stereo from your car.
Waah waah waah, everyday the GOP b*tches about something else. Get down to work and do your job rather than find fault with everything the administration does. What a bunch of whiners we have in congress and the right wing of the GOP, you would think that they would be content that the loser was caught and if I lived in NYC I would want to very much be on that jury. I don't care where he is tried just so he is put in solitary confinement for the rest of his life with NO human contact.
The Dems wish the GOP would go away and let then destroy America. How's the GOP House working out for you?
He should not be on trial he is not a US citizen. Give him a military trial or just send him to Gitmo and weld the door shut. Obama spends way to much time and effort to appease the Muslims.
Cost: (1) Hellfire missle - $58,000.
Cost: (1) Show trial, complete with NY police, Federal Prosecutors, FBI, CIA, and an assortment of defense witnesses flown in from all over the world - Estimated 20-30 million dollars.
Any questions?
One hollow point between the headlights, under $1.
At $58K for the Hellfire and $30 million for the trial, wonder if Obama has figured out yet he could cut this guy loose and use the money to take our several thousand Americans with drones? Even create jobs building missiles and drones, carting off American bodies.
And not even affected by the sequestor. heh.
Here is the thing... There is no doubt that he is guilty but if the courts and jury follow the law he will have to be released because...
1: His threats were non-specific and couched in metaphor, storms, etc. He can easily testify that when he said storm he simply meant that war is always possible and that all sides should remember this.
2: He warned US citizens not to board planes. But of course he could say that the US State Department also made such warnings and so he was only wishing US citizens to be safe.
3: There is no direct evidence that he planned anything.
4: He is being tried in a US criminal court but I wager he was not read his rights at the time of his arrest.
5: His father in law was killed by US soldier illegally invading a foreign nation. This alone give him legal justification for fearing American justice and makes it even harder to justify not having read him his rights at the time of his actual arrest.
SO even thought is is guilty as sin under US criminal law there is no way that he can be found guilty.
As much as I want this guy to fry I actually hope he is found not guilty and released. Perhaps this will alert people to the madness that is Obama's civilian trial nonsense. Imagine the news coverage of him walking out of the court fully exonerated.
And then we can target him with a missile and fry his @$$!
I will be very pleased that we will be trying this scumpbag in a public arena for the entire world to see. It is not like we haven't prosecuted other terrorists in our court system. I am extremely happy and hopefull that we may be moving away from these military tribunals that we never near anything about.
Sure, we need to spend millions in taxpayer cash on trying these turds. Put a bullet in him and open the White House back up for tours.
.....or just stop flying to Vegas or Hollywood for "campaign" speeches. That's about a year's worth of open tours right there;)
Will he be tried by a jury of his peers?. Good luck on finding an unbiased jury.
That is a very good point happily.Wonder if the court would give him change of venue and where would that be.
Doesn't matter. The first time Ghaith demands classified information in public court, Obama and Holder will fold. Of course, they both knew this before they moved this guy to New York.
Screw due process, he is on film threatening US citizens and taking credit for 9/11. Take him to a room at the top of the highest building in New York City, lock him in the room, light it on fire and let him fry or jump. Let his last moments be experiencing the same terror that those trapped on 9/11 felt. Terrorists are not criminals !!
You know........THAT would be due process! Of course after a year of waterboarding and info gathering.
NO! Thats not me on the video declaring what a good job my father in law and I and all our friends did........ Solitary confinement for a lifetime.......and how many more crimes will be committed around the world in this azz clowns name.
Moving this to New York solves a bunch of problems for Obama and Holder. Obama has no intention of prosecuting this guy and Holders law firm specialized in defending and cutting loose these terrorists. This gives this terrorist the same rights as any other American. Obama gives Ghaith the legal out to stop disclosing information. Ghaith will be able to demand all classified information in public court related to his investigation and capture and t won't happen. Obama and Holder get this guy off and pat themselves on the back at the same time. They will never be able to prosecute him.
Is there much truth to the assertion that the Iranian government sent him out of the country as part of an 'under-the-table' agreement in order to reduce the threat of further sanctions?
It’s also not clear which set of rules ultimately applies. The U.S. Constitution, in what scholars call the Supremacy Clause, specifies that treaties like the Third Geneva Convention are part of the supreme law of the land. But the Constitution also recognizes the right of Congress to pass laws. Scholars are divided as to which authority trumps the other. So until the Supreme Court rules on the issue (and it is under no obligation to do so), there is no clear legal definition of an enemy combatant, lawful or otherwise.
Fear the government. They will not protect you unless you are on their side. Good PR if played right.
....seeing the concern from folks,.....it appears our President must have CHEATED while at Harvard,.....ain't to bright is he? Try this guy in TEXAS,....he'll get the death penalty,............in about 12 years after all the appeals.
He could get the death penalty in a New York Federal court too.