generalspeaking

He's Really A Good Boy

And because he's such a good lad, he'll get another chance to prove just how good he is. His religion-moderate family and friends, after all, have reason to believe that he's the person they believe him to be; they have much invested in him emotionally.

That he chose to deviate from the moderation that his family presented living in a free and democratic pluralist society, taking for himself instead a path that led directly to betrayal of his country's values, and a violation of the civil contract, may speak to the impetuosity of youth, but it may also speak to a hidden devotion that he may be ready to re-assume in the future.

Violent sedition is a serious charge to be levied against anyone. That a citizen of a country would take it upon himself to lend himself to the machinations of an international cabal of terror is a fearsome indictment of that individual's character and state of mind. Justice Bruce Durno, in sentencing 23-year-old Saad Khalid, expressed his opinion that "He was not someone who just sat waiting for his next assignment without providing input".

He played a vital role in the covert activities, in an interwoven relationship from Canada and the United States, to London and Pakistan and other parts of the world where the allure of fanatical jihadism elicited support from action-ready Muslim youth. The judge gave this man, an admitted terror recruit, seven years' credit for time served since his arrest in 2006. Banning him from possessing firearms or explosives, for life.

For his crime of plotting to blow up government agencies, creating havoc and death, exulting with his fellow conspirators at their Ontario-based training camp that "God is Great" and they were ready to commit themselves to terror, he may be released on parole in two years' time. Unsurprisingly, his lawyer claims "He's perfectly happy with the outcome". As well he might be. An admitted terrorist given the kindly benefit of the doubt that he is done with terrorism.

That he plans to turn his attention to university studies, to making something of himself other than a terrorist. And of course he will never again seek to possess firearms or explosives. As though, conspiring to commit murder and mayhem one does not surreptitiously acquire those items. His former international colleagues have also been placed on trial, some of whom were given far lengthier sentences for their conspiring to terrorism.

Denmark, Bosnia, Bangladesh also had their cells, all of which were entangled as co-conspirators with the aspirants in Britain, Canada and the United States. One of whom, a frequent visitor to Toronto, encouraged them to visit Laskar Tayiba-operated training camps in Pakistan. Because the Toronto 18 (now reduced to 9) were apprehended at an early stage of their developing plans to wreak destruction and carnage, the Toronto Stock Exchange, a CSIS office, and a military base were not bombed, as planned.

Mr. Khalid, on his release, will be free to continue studying his terror texts such as The Book of Jihad, and The Virtues of Jihad, and to continue assembling bomb-making ingredients. Or, he and his colleagues may choose to follow the route more frequently travelled, of investing their futures in less problematical occupations, becoming rueful and yet responsible members of the society they live within.

No one but he knows whether his testimonial expressed his inner self, or whether he parroted words written by his skilled lawyer: "To begin with I would like to make it clear I was not motivated by a hate of Canada, Canadians, democracy or Canadian values of freedom, civil liberties and women's rights. I was instead motivated by issues of disagreement on Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and I had thought that I could make a difference."

Difference? Might there be an explanation for that? And might Saad Khalid be encouraged to elucidate on his 'issues of disagreement" with respect to Afghanistan? Does the Taliban and al-Qaeda model of governance appeal to him so urgently? And if so, does that not go against the grain of his statement respecting "Canadian values of freedom, civil liberties and women's rights"?

Just asking.

Labels: Conflict, Government of Canada, Justice

posted by Pieface @ Friday, September 04, 2009