Terrorism suspect floats gambler defence

[capricorn]

Mohamed Harkat is a Muslim refugee from Algeria facing charges that he is a terrorist sleeper agent. At his trial, his lawyers argued he can't be an Al-Qaeda agent because he's a compulsive gambler and gambling is un-Islamic.

Harkat said he lost thousands of dollars playing mainly blackjack at the Lac Leamy Casino in Gatineau, Que. He gambled every cent he had, raiding his savings and deposit account.

---

Harkat's gambling has become an important issue in the case against him, with the defence arguing that an obsessive gambler who once ended up in jail, does not fit the profile of a typical sleeper agent who necessarily must attract little attention. They also argue the behaviour is un-Islamic, and very much out of character for what one would expect of an extremist. But the government says gambling is an addiction that anyone could have.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Call+gambling+addict+sleeper+agent+Harkat/2514574/story.html

It seems to me it's not uncommon for Muslims to have human frailties. How will Judge Noel receive this defence?

If he loses his case, he faces deportation to Algeria where he says he will be captured and tortured. The trial continues.

[eyeball]

In 2002, he was declared a national security threat and detained under a security certificate...

The fact judge Noel has let the trial get this far probably doesn't bode well.

As far as I'm concerned that's all the evidence he needs to float to be declared innocent.

Edited February 3, 2010 by eyeball

[capricorn]

I'm not sure why you think the fact that the Judge is going ahead and hearing the case is a sign that the security certificate will be nullified and the accused set free. That is what you're saying isn't it?

[Gabriel]

...his lawyers argued he can't be an Al-Qaeda agent because he's a compulsive gambler and gambling is un-Islamic.

That is certainly a ridiculous defense. If anything, I'd expect a terrorist to have all sorts of things wrong with him/her.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Gabriel

[capricorn]

An interesting question is where did this gas station attendant and pizza delivery guy get the thousands he lost gambling?

On October 4, 1997, he was interviewed by CSIS, and was accused of using the alias "Abu Muslima", which he denied.[20] In 2004, he recanted his denial and admitted using the name in Pakistan.[21] He became addicted to gambling, and lost several thousand dollars - prompting authorities to ask where he'd gotten the money in the first place.[22] He stated that a man named Wael, who was a mutual friend with Harkat's close friend Abdel Mokhtar, had come to Canada with $60,000 to start a business; and had liked Harkat and offered to loan him $10,000 and then an additional $8,000 to open an antique store and a gas station. He also stated that the money was from Mokhtar, rather than Wael.

Harkat also rode to Toronto with Omar Khadr's father, presumably while Papa Khadr was in the country to receive medical care at our expense. This encounter was, well, all coincidental.

While attending prayers at the Ottawa Mosque on Northwestern Avenue, he met Mohamed el-Barseigy who was looking for somebody to share his apartment. Accepting el-Barseigy's offer of a drive back to Toronto, Harkat was introduced to Ahmed Said Khadr who was also in the van traveling to Toronto. Harkat has said that Khadr was silent during most of the trip, and his only advice to Harkat was "tell the truth to immigration authorities", a claim the Federal Court justice ruled was "inherently implausible and incredible".[18] They never met again after the 5-hour drive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Harkat

[CANADIEN]

The fact judge Noel has let the trial get this far probably doesn't bode well.

As far as I'm concerned that's all the evidence he needs to float to be declared innocent.

The legality or legitimacy of the security certificates has nothing to do with the man's guilt or innocence. If he is guilty, he is guilty.

As for the gambling defence... His lawyer is welcome to use it, but I doubt seriously it will be considered seriously.

[eyeball]

The legality or legitimacy of the security certificates has nothing to do with the man's guilt or innocence. If he is guilty, he is guilty.

If guilt is based on the contents of a security certificate alone it will never be legitimate legal, maybe, but certainly not legitimate - not in the ethical manner Canadians used to expect from their government.

[CANADIEN]

If guilt is based on the contents of a security certificate alone it will never be legitimate legal, maybe, but certainly not legitimate - not in the ethical manner Canadians used to expect from their government.

Tge security certificate is based on suspicion or evidence that a person poses a danger, not the other way around.

[eyeball]

Tge security certificate is based on suspicion or evidence that a person poses a danger, not the other way around.

Not the other way around what?

These things are suspicious because the evidence they contain and the way evidence is gathered/generated is secret. It's the certificates that pose the greatest danger.