I was recently approached by the mother (Laila Yaghi) of Ziyad Yaghi, who is one of the so-called "Raleigh jihad group." She friended me on Facebook and asked me if there is anything I can suggest to help her to help her son. She also pointed me to this Facebook Group.
I accepted her as a "friend" on Facebook and joined the Group so I could attempt to flesh out more of what is going on and to ascertain whether or not justice is being served, etc.
On that group, I left some links and requested to see, if available, the Indictment against the defendants. The Group was supplied with this link.
Apparently, that is not the latest Indictment (which I briefly cover below).
I also suggested to Ziyad's despondent mother that she get in contact with Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights and provided her a link to do that, which she subsequently did. Michael Ratner is an expert in the field and knows many other experts as well. If she has been gagged by the government but not via a court order, I told her that she might want to contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. Lastly, I asked her if her son had undergone a polygraph test. I didn't receive a response to that (yet; perhaps she didn't notice that in her state of depression).
In addition, here are these Wikipedia links (such as they are):
And there's this site: Free Ziyad Yaghi.
My view of the first Indictment (linked to above) is as follows:
It sounds mighty weak to me. "Failed in their attempt" actually could mean that they didn't do anything and didn't intent to. Also, "coded conversation" is a Zionist invention so that they can "interpret" anything to mean anything to further their agenda.
I'm stating these things from the presumption-of-innocence perspective (innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of doubt).
Now, "terrorism" in the mundane sense, is completely in the eye of the beholder. What the indictment suggests is that the United States is the sole arbiter of who may do what, where, when, and why. If the actions and inactions are in the furtherance of the neocon agenda, then it's ostensibly legal. We can all see from the indictment that Daniel Patrick Boyd was a "freedom fighter" when he was fighting the Soviets but now supposedly is a conspirator to do "terrorism" simply because his cause is supposedly (the indictment doesn't deny it) still to defend the exact same people in Afghanistan and elsewhere he defended before and against the exact same force, which is foreign, imperial, anti-Muslim domination. I am not making a statement here as to his guilt or innocence but only about the blatant double-standard of the "law" in this case.
Who exactly were these men and boys planning to harm? If they were sectarians doing the bidding of those of the U.S. military's Surge in Iraq or now Afghanistan or Pakistan, they would be heroes in the eyes of the neocons (at least until the neocons turn to rend them once the immediate enemy of the neocons had been vanquished) and not conspirators to commit murder.
Mind you, I'm a total pacifist. I don't hold with violent this, that, or the other. I'm not interested in engaging in giving aid and comfort to anyone of violence in his violence but only to do unto to others as they ought to all be doing unto each other, his brothers and sisters, for we are all supposed to be one family of human kind.
Also, guns are not illegal in the United States. It is my understanding that assault rifles, so long as they are not modified to fire as machine guns but left so that only one round may be fired per trigger-pull, are not illegal to own by those who are not forbidden under the Brady background-check system. Even there, people are legally allowed to buy firearms at gun shows where background checks have not been mandated (I'm not up to date on all the legalities on this issue, so correct me if I'm wrong about this).
What I read from the Indictment are various quotations (showing that the actual words of the defendants are available) but then statements in the Indictment as to what a defendant thought but without any verbatim quotation to substantiate the supposition. Unless there is exact language to backup the claim, the Indictment is engaging in pure speculation. Of course, there is such a thing as the preponderance of evidence, all of which can be circumstantial and remain subject to interpretation.
The Indictment alleges that it is illegal to practice "military tactics and the use of weapons on private property." That's ridiculous.
The Indictment, unless there is hard evidence not contained in the Indictment, is interpreting all the actions of the defendants as meaning that they were going to do things while those actions are subject to other interpretations, wherein enters the shadow of doubt of which I spoke above.
As nearly an aside, why has a defendant's name been whited out? Seeing blanks in spots in the Indictment is not confidence building.
Most importantly, the Indictment focuses upon Daniel Patrick Boyd. Even if Daniel Patrick Boyd had in mind to do any of the things alleged in the Indictment, that in and of itself proves nothing about Ziyad Yaghi's specific intentions. The government would have to show with hard evidence that Ziyad knew of, and agreed with, a criminal plan and was intending to carry it out. The Indictment says Daniel Patrick Boyd was planning to meet up with others, but (unlike in other areas of the Indictment) it provides zero evidence, in that it fails to layout any grounds for reasonable suspicion, especially rising to the level where the defendants should face trial. If there is evidence that Daniel Patrick Boyd planned to meet up with Ziyad in Israel and Daniel did lie about that, that does not mean that Ziyad was asked by the government about it and also lied. Ziyad is not responsible for what Daniel Patrick Boyd did or didn't do, plan, or say. This is the issue of guilt by association.
I would be interested to know more about the Grand Jury attorneys (George E. B. Holding, Barbara D. Kocher, and Jason Kellhofer) in terms of their ideology(s) vis-a-vis Zionism.
announced on Sept. 24, 2009 by United States Attorney George E. B. Holding. Is that available online in-full? The FBI mention things that appear to be more damning, but without seeing the Superseding Indictment and background, alleged evidence, and without hearing the testimony of the defendants, etc., it's impossible to render them guilty as charged or even suspect enough to merit trial.
"Later, in October 2006, defendant Ziyad Yaghi allegedly departed the United States for Jordan to engage in violent jihad." What is the government offering up as evidence to support this statement?
After writing all of the above, I happened upon "Support Daniel Boyd's Blog: In support of Daniel Patrick Boyd, and his co defendants" (which I saw later is linked to from within the Wikipedia article). It appears that all of the same common-sense questions I've raised have occurred to others.
I want to make clear here that I don't hold with Ronald Reagan. I didn't hold with him when he was President, and I don't now hold with what was his ideology when he walked the Earth. That's said, the points made on that website are much the same as the case I've made above (without prejudice). There can be no doubt that all the shifting and mixed signals sent out by the government of the United States is a root cause for many of the problems now facing the defendants and even the whole world.
Is Daniel Patrick Boyd guilty of not understanding the nature of that shifting in terms of what he may do and say both privately and publicly? The answer to that is a clear yes. Has he been in error concerning all the weaponry and training? Again, the answer is a clear yes from my Christian perspective that I hold is ultimately the right perspective for eternity. Is the government right in holding Daniel Patrick Boyd to account for Daniel's errors in discernment at such a subtle and nuanced level? Is it fair to expect people to understand how to be jerked around by the herky-jerky foreign and domestic policies and practices of the Empire? It is not, not without clear intervening language, which has never been forthcoming from the government because that government lacks the mind capable of imparting such subtleties and nuances to render them in stark and unambiguous contrast with the past.
Lastly, I am not an attorney under the secular/mundane law. I am not practicing that kind of law here (as it is understood by non-Christians). I am giving my political and religious view in accordance with the movement of the Holy Spirit of truth.
There is a movement afoot (always) to gag people who aren't in sync with the current administration or even the vestiges of prior administrations, as occurs with court appointees and others throughout the government. Currently, the term war is used to describe the amorphous, militant, and extrajudicial actions of the United States and others, most notably NATO. However, the United States is most definitely not in a constitutionally declared war against anyone. No formal and proper and legal (under the Constitution) Declaration of War now stands. The Authorization to Use Force does not rise to that level, and it was specific to those who supposedly (under the official federal conspiracy theory) committed 9/11.
I'm bringing this up because there are those within the government and without constantly who are seeking to outlaw all politically and/or religiously grounded and motivated dissent. There are those who seek to reenact the reprehensible Alien and Sedition Acts, and specifically the Sedition Act. Dissent, under that law, is construed to be intimidation of the government by the dissenter and therefore unlawful and punishable. One was not to be allowed to scandalize the government, no matter how scandalous the acts of that government.
Slander and libel are complicated areas of law. If you are interested in delving into the intricacies of that ever-moving target, I suggest that the Electronic Frontier Foundation currently is an excellent source. Public figures, such as the prosecuting attorneys in this case are subject to the free political speech of dissenters against the policies and practices of the current administration. There are limitations though, as in the case of the "legally" declared war, where aiding and abetting the clearly defined enemy is an offense. Even then though, we are not precluded under the law from being compassionate.
We also have conscientious objectors status in the United States as well on account of the Free Exercise of Religion clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (link included for your general edification - no blanket endorsement implied or intended as to the text of the Wiki article or the clause in the Constitution, etc.).
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)