Militant Islam Monitor > Satire > Hayat lawyers claim Al Qaeda ice cream man and son "no flight risk"- although father is prominent figure in Pakistan
Hayat lawyers claim Al Qaeda ice cream man and son "no flight risk"- although father is prominent figure in Pakistan
August 17, 2005
MIM: What part of "my father runs a madrassah and my son trained with the Taliban while on vacation in Pakistan" didn't the lawyers understand?
Lawyers for Lodi Al Qaeda ice cream man Hamid Hayat and son Umer based their disingenuous 'no flight risk' claim on the basis of junior's having wife and children in Lodi - which begs the question as to how many wives and kids both father and son might have left behind in Pakistan.
As was seen in the case of the 3 Lodi Muslims expelled from the US- they went back to their wife and kids but had been in the US for years without them. which shows that having wife in kids in Lodi would conversely be no guarantee that the Hayats would not flee. More importantly Dr. Daniel Pipes wrote that Hamid Hayat's father as "Pakistani royalty" and a prominent member of Jamaat Ulema Islam party .
Qari Saeed-ur-Rehman, chief cleric of Jamia Islamia seminary, speaks about his grandson, Hamid Hayat, during an interview with the Associated Press at his madrassah in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. (Associated Press)
"To be honest with you, the silence tells you that there's more going on. The silence is telling." Stamos and others are questioning the intentions of an Islamic school that had been proposed by one of the arrested imams.
Lawyers seek reduction in bail for Lodi Muslims
(08-16) 14:50 PDT Lodi (SF Chronicle) --
Attorneys for a Lodi father and son accused of lying about the son's alleged participation in an al-Qaeda terrorist camp in Pakistan want a judge to reduce the men's bail, arguing that they would not be a danger or flight risk if released.
A motion filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento states that the case against Umer Hayat, 47, and his 22-year-old son Hamid Hayat, was weakened by the government's recent decision to deport two Muslim clerics working in Lodi.
The FBI says the clerics, Mohammad Adil Khan, 47, and Shabbir Ahmed, 39, wanted to recruit terrorists and were to relay mission orders to Hamid Hayat from an alleged extremist in Pakistan.
"It is disingenuous for the government to argue that (the) defendant must remain in custody while others with seemingly direct ties to Osama bin Laden are set free," Umer Hayat's attorney, Johnny Griffin, wrote, referring to the allegations.
U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott, who is prosecuting the Hayats, declined to comment today through a spokeswoman at his Sacramento office.
The motion requests that a bail hearing be held Monday, although prosecutors can ask for another week to prepare.
Federal agents in June arrested the Hayats along with Ahmed, Khan and Khan's 19-year-old son on alleged immigration violations. All five men have denied being involved with terrorism.
Khan, his son and Ahmed recently agreed to be deported to their homeland of Pakistan, though Ahmed has not yet left.
Immigration officials said the deportations were a victory in the case because they would protect Americans, but an attorney for the two clerics said the government would have prosecuted them if it had evidence of terrorist ties.
The FBI said in a court affidavit in June that Hamid Hayat admitted, then denied, having attended a "jihadist training camp in Pakistan for approximately six months" more than a year ago, while Umer Hayat admitted paying for his son's flight and giving him an allowance of $100 a month.
The Hayats' trial has been postponed until at least October. Griffin, the defense attorney, argues in his bail motion that Umer Hayat spoke "during stressful, protracted, and confusing interview sessions with FBI agents. Significantly, the FBI has no independent corroborating evidence that (the) defendant knew of, visited, or observed terrorist training camps."
Griffin wrote that Umer Hayat is not likely to flee because he has a wife and four children in Lodi, co-owns two small houses — which would be used to secure bail — and has lived in one of the houses since 1985.
He should not be incarcerated for a lengthy period when he has been charged only with lying, the motion says.