Lodhi found guilty - first terrorism conviction (2 Viewers)

[Tom Ruprecht]

Lodhi guilty of terror plot

Natasha Wallace
June 19, 2006 - 2:12PM


A man accused of planning to blow up the national electricity grid or a Sydney defence site has been found guilty of serious terror offences.

Faheem Khalid Lodhi, 36, is the first person in the country to be convicted of planning a terrorist act and faces a maximum penalty of life in jail.

Before he was arrested, Lodhi had gathered maps, chemicals and recipes for poisons and homemade bombs to carry out his plan.

Before delivering its verdict just after 2pm today, the NSW Supreme Court jury of six men and six women had deliberated for five days.

The jury had previously indicated it could not reach a verdict after the seven-week trial, but was ordered to push on.

As evidence Lodhi was planning the attack, the prosecution relied on several documents seized during ASIO raids in October, 2003, at the Lakemba home where Lodhi lived with his wife, Aysha Hamedd, and from his desk at his workplace in the city.

They included a so-called "terror manual", a 15-page, handwritten document in Lodhi's native Urdu language with numerous recipes for explosives and poisons that he had obtained from the internet. Lodhi said he was just curious and had paid little attention to it.

The prosecution also produced a list of chemical prices Lodhi had sought, maps of the national electricity grid he had bought and aerial photographs he downloaded from the internet of three Sydney defence sites, Holsworthy Army Base, Victoria Barracks and HMAS Penguin at Mosman.

Police also seized DVDs and CDs of jihadist doctrine and terror training.

The prosecution also alleged that Lodhi was in close contact with French terror suspect Willy Brigitte while the latter was in Sydney and had used a false name to open a mobile phone account to call Brigitte.

Lodhi had offered various explanations for the documents - the chemical list was for an export company he was planning, the maps a marketing tool for another planned venture to send generators to Pakistan and the aerial photographs were for his resume as he had worked on each of the defence sites in the past.

He also gave false personal details for the chemical and map inquiries but said it was a mistake.

Lodhi was found guilty of three terror-related charges, one of which carries life and two a maximum of 15 years' jail.

These charges were that he collected maps of the Australian electricity supply system in preparation of a terrorist act (15 years), that he sought information on chemical prices for the use of explosives for a terrorist act (life), and that he possessed a document with information on the manufacture of poisons and bombs in preparation for a terrorist act (15 years).

He was found not guilty of one charge of downloading aerial photographs of Sydney defence sites in preparation of a terror act (15 years).

He still faces five charges of making a false or misleading statement to ASIO.

The devout Sunni Muslim, who emigrated from Pakistan in 1998 for a better life, repeatedly denied being a terrorist, saying that killing innocent people was not part of Islam.

"This country is my country. These people are my people," he told the court.

Justice Anthony Whealy remanded Lodhi in custody to face sentencing submissions on June 29

From SMH http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/lodhi-guilty-of-terror-plot/2006/06/19/1150569264287.html#

 

[banco55]

Too bad he's a citizen. We can't ship him back to pakistan.

 

[turtleface]

although terrorist wannabes need to be jailed to protect the public, I just hope that innocent people aren't convicted. Although I'm no terrorist sympathiser, I can't help but be reminded of incidents like the Guilford 4 disgrace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_4

But of course those who are truly psycho need to be dealt with severely.

 

[katie_tully]

Congratulations, that's what, one instance 31 years ago due to corrupt policing?

...

 

[amisha_amisha]

he is innocent

 

[syera]

he is innocent

yeah.. they just need someone to use to scare the whole nation.

 

[banco55]

yeah.. they just need someone to use to scare the whole nation.

Yeah because terrorism plots by Islamic nutcases in western countries are vanishingly rare. You probably think Mossad was responsible for 9/11.

 

[Snaykew]

The farmers better watch out. They might get done for terrorism for ringing up about chemicals and using google which is used to search for bomb making material!

Google + Google Earth = terrorist

But really, there's no hard evidence unless they're holding back something. It's all really pitiful.

 

[_dhj_]

Yeah because terrorism plots by Islamic nutcases in western countries are vanishingly rare. You probably think Mossad was responsible for 9/11.

It is quite rare though. I think nobody has died from terrorism on Australian soil, but our civil liberties have been attacked by crazy anti-terrorist laws.

 

[SashatheMan]

The farmers better watch out. They might get done for terrorism for ringing up about chemicals and using google which is used to search for bomb making material!

Google + Google Earth = terrorist

But really, there's no hard evidence unless they're holding back something. It's all really pitiful.

do you think people should only be convicted when they have all the explosives and are about to detonate them? Dont you think precautions are better then , letting the situation get out of hand?

i am happy he was found guilty.

 

[banco55]

It is quite rare though. I think nobody has died from terrorism on Australian soil, but our civil liberties have been attacked by crazy anti-terrorist laws.

Do you think there might be a connection between having tough anti-terrorism laws and there not being a terrorist attack on australia? Recent arrests would suggest that there might be.

 

[breaking]

he is innocent

what the fuck are you basing that on?

 

[_dhj_]

Do you think there might be a connection between having tough anti-terrorism laws and there not being a terrorist attack on australia? Recent arrests would suggest that there might be.

Which recent arrests? The existing laws (before new anti terrorism legislation) provided asio with sufficient powers to arrest terror suspects. The new draconian measures are not needed.

 

[SashatheMan]

what the fuck are you basing that on?

she is just trying to defend islam. time after time we see islamic terrorists planning terrorist attacks, in the name of god, but that doesnt get through her thick head that they are actually muslims and they are trying to carry out the attacks in the name of god. she would do anything to try to defend a violent, extremist just to make islam sound peaceful.

 

[banco55]

Which recent arrests? The existing laws (before new anti terrorism legislation) provided asio with sufficient powers to arrest terror suspects. The new draconian measures are not needed.

There's a group of 5 or more who were arrested this year and the anti-terrorism laws were passed before the start of this year I think? I don't know if they used those laws specifically but I'd be interested to know.

 

[_dhj_]

There's a group of 5 or more who were arrested this year and the anti-terrorism laws were passed before the start of this year I think? I don't know if they used those laws specifically but I'd be interested to know.

Yes you are right and in that case the new laws weren't called upon. I mean obviously terrorism is a threat but we should not overreact to it. The real impact of terrorism is the panic and fear it causes rather than the actual loss of lives, and I think the enactment of the new laws showed that the government panicked and acted in an irrational and disproportionate manner.

 

[banco55]

Yes you are right and in that case the new laws weren't called upon. I mean obviously terrorism is a threat but we should not overreact to it. The real impact of terrorism is the panic and fear it causes rather than the actual loss of lives, and I think the enactment of the new laws showed that the government panicked and acted in an irrational and disproportionate manner.

It's not just the lives lost. Have a look at what happened to the US stock market after 9/11. I wouldn't understimate the fear/terror a bombing on the sydney train system would cause for example or a bombing in a nightclub. People are unlikely statistically to become victims of violent crime. That doesn't mean we don't expend a lot of resources trying to stem violent crime.

 

[_dhj_]

It's not just the lives lost. Have a look at what happened to the US stock market after 9/11. I wouldn't understimate the fear/terror a bombing on the sydney train system would cause for example or a bombing in a nightclub. People are unlikely statistically to become victims of violent crime. That doesn't mean we don't expend a lot of resources trying to stem violent crime.

It's not about how much resources we're spending on fighting terrorism but about how we're doing it. If the consequences of the response outweigh its benefits, the response is obviously a poor one.

 

[Snaykew]

do you think people should only be convicted when they have all the explosives and are about to detonate them? Dont you think precautions are better then , letting the situation get out of hand?

i am happy he was found guilty.

Do you think people should be convicted of crimes with little evidence as Lodhi? I'm only discussing it from the legal point of view. Does the legal system require less and less quality of evidence to convict people?

I'd prefer it if he had chemicals in possession then get busted. Right now, he has nothing to suggest FIRMLY that he was planning an attack. Bomb making information? Haha, google it. Aerial photographs of defence sites? Google-Earth. I fricken electricity grid map? -_- He bought it, so I'm assuming its publicly avaiable.

I'm only argueing from a legal point of view, so all those "omg you terrorist lover" types can piss off. If he was planning to attack Australia, he can rot in jail, if he wasn't, then innocent is innocent and that evidence did not convince me.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[banco55]

Do you think people should be convicted of crimes with little evidence as Lodhi? I'm only discussing it from the legal point of view. Does the legal system require less and less quality of evidence to convict people?

I'd prefer it if he had chemicals in possession then get busted. Right now, he has nothing to suggest FIRMLY that he was planning an attack. Bomb making information? Haha, google it. Aerial photographs of defence sites? Google-Earth. I fricken electricity grid map? -_- He bought it, so I'm assuming its publicly avaiable.

I'm only argueing from a legal point of view, so all those "omg you terrorist lover" types can piss off. If he was planning to attack Australia, he can rot in jail, if he wasn't, then innocent is innocent and that evidence did not convince me.

Given that jury deliberations went on for 5 days it seems llike it was a close call. But given the totality of the evidence I think they were right to convict. It seems very coincidental that this guy has HANDWRITTEN bomb recipes etc., uses false names to try and acquire chemicals that have bomb making as one of their possible uses, jihadist videos, the electrical grid map etc. and contact with a known terrorist. The problem is assume these laws weren't in place ASIO can't keep him under surveillance ad infinitum. If he was a non-national we could just deport this idiot. Frankly I wish we could strip this idiot of his citizenship after he's finished his jail term and deport him back to Pakistan.