Izhar Khan Denied Bond by Federal Judge, Despite No New Evidence Being Released

Categories: Crime
izhar-khan-margate-protest.jpg
Photo by Mike Rice
Scene from the Margate mosque protest in June.
U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan decided not to grant bail to Izhar Khan -- who was the 24-year-old former imam of Margate's Masjid Jamaat Al-Mumineen mosque before his arrest in May on charges of supporting the Pakistani Taliban -- despite the feds releasing no new evidence against him.

His brother, Irfan Khan, and his father, Hafiz Khan, have also been charged in the case, and both were previously denied bond.

Despite Izhar Khan's attorney requesting bond between $250,000 and $300,000, his willingness to submit to electronic monitoring, and his intent to go back to the mosque in Margate as its imam, Jordan denied the request, citing Khan as a threat and a flight risk.

It's a confusing move from Jordan, who said a couple of weeks ago that he "needs to hear more evidence" before ruling -- and never hearing the evidence prosecutors said they had.

The evidence they presented didn't seem damning enough to keep Khan locked up throughout the trial.

In the federal indictment filed on May 12, prosecutors allege 27 "overt facts" against the six people charged.

Just two of those mention Izhar Khan:

7. On or about July 11, 2009, [Hafiz] Khan asked Izhar to collect from a donor in the United States money that Khan told Izhar had been approved for the mujahideen.

9. On or about July 16, 2009, Izhar caused $900 to be sent via wire transfer to [his sister] in Pakistan.

In a nutshell, Izhar Khan has been charged with conspiring to support the Pakistani Taliban for sending $900 to his sister, according to the feds.

Khan's defense says that the money was for a school that his father started in Pakistan and has nothing to do with terrorism.

He faces three counts of conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, which carry maximum prison sentences of 15 years each.


Follow The Pulp on Facebook and on Twitter: @ThePulpBPB.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
12 comments
twas
twas

The Packi"s and Indians run every motel, gas station, stop and shop etc in Floriduh.

There is a chinese restaurant on every corner.

Our Citgo gas stations are fueled by Chavez.

Time to do some house cleaning I would say.

StonedCEO
StonedCEO

Yes, such a shame he was arrested in the United States.  He, you, or I would certainly get much fairer treatment if accused of a crime in a Muslim ruled country.  Jesus, US Citizens have done far more time, in far wose conditions for kisiing in public.  F-this guy.

SMDrPepper
SMDrPepper

So much for freedom of religion and innocent until proven guilty. 

Virgil Starkwell
Virgil Starkwell

"You know you're a redneck when"....you post a comment like that on a website. That sounded like the official "White Trash National Platform". 

"Squeal like a pig, boy".

Zee Zee
Zee Zee

so, other governments lock up innocent people for nothing and because we hate them so much, we should try to be just like them? 

you are a complete imbecile.

Idontunderstandyourobjection
Idontunderstandyourobjection

I don't understand your post. The indictment indicates that he sent money to Pakistan 5 days after his father specifically asked him to collect money for the mujhadeen operating there.He has a 20 year old wife as well as other family ties in Pakistan.Therefore the court has deemed him a flight risk and denied bond.He has not been convicted of a crime or sentenced to prison. He has an attorney, and is being afforded the same rights as anyone else going through the U.S. judicial system.

Those who presume his guilt and call for his immediate deportation or punishment are in fact insulting our U.S. justice system. If a jury of his peers find him guilty, then by the law of the land, he is guilty. And if they find him not-guilty (doesn't even have to be "innocent") then he will and should be released with no further sanctions, punishments, or harassment hanging over his head. Otherwise, we might as well return to the lynchmob.

However, your post indicates that he is being denied freedom of religion and has been convicted prior to his trial, neither of which is indicated in this or any other media account I have read of this case. In fact, if you read todays account of the proceedings, you will see that up to fifty supporters filled the court room and all faced Mecca and got down on their knees and prayed during breaks in the day IN THE COURT ROOM!!!! God bless America (and that includes Allah, Buddha, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster) where such a blatant display of freedom of religion can occur and is STILL constitutionally protected (unless you have evidence of any of the spectators being arrested for praying or ANYONE arrested in this country SOLEY for being Muslim).

And he IS innocent until proven guilty, hence the upcoming trial to determine his guilt or lack thereof in accordance with our laws. If he is found not-guilty, regardless of his religion or even political dispositions, he will be freed.

So please explain to me why this whole procedure indicates "so much for freedom of religion and innocent until proven guilty" to you.

P.s. - I'm not saying that I agree with the judges decision to withhold bond, but I don't think that it was outlandishly unreasonable considering the young mans close family ties and wife in another country. I had an acquaintence denied bond on Marijuana distribution and money laundering charges  because he was born in Guatemala, even though he left when he was 6 and had only been back to the country ONCE in his whole life. The reasoning was that because he was in regular touch w his abuela, he might find a haven with her if he fled the country before trial. Reasonable? I didn't think so. Fair? Probably not. A hardship on his family? Undeniable. Within the Judges right as spelled out by the laws of our land? Absolutely.(I relate this anectdote as an illustration that having ties in another country is sometimes grounds to deny bond, and that it doesn't only happen to Muslims or Pashtuns.)

Ken Klein
Ken Klein

If the newspaper printed a few of the imam's "sermons" preaching jihad against the USA, I'll bet you there would be a tsunami of opinion about this lovely family.  Lucky for you, no one has printed what went ON in this (i hesitate to use the word) religious establishment.  When you pay for "mujaheedin" you are paying people to wage war/fight and last time I checked jihad against the allies of the USA is not legal here. 

Mr. Righteous, try simply bringing a Christian Bible onto the plane with you to Saudi Arabia and see how the *other half* views "freedom of religion".  Muslims have it pretty darn good here in the US and Europe.  If the Feds are all over this guy, given what we already know about the LOVELY family, I'm inclined to believe them over people like CAIR or apologists like you, any day of the week.

StonedCEO
StonedCEO

Most Americans pay dearly for our freedoms.  What does he pay for the freedoms you feel we owe him?  How much does his Mosque pay in property taxes every year?  ZERO!  What does he pay in taxes every year?  ZERO!  Most of us pay 20-40% of our income in taxes, and a good chunck of change in property taxes as well.  His family apparently saves that moeny and sends it to Al Quaida.   Personally, I'm cool letting him go.  Just put him on the next plane to any country in the middle east he chooses.  If he prefers to stay, he can sit where he is until he is 100% cleared of any wrongs against the country we pay for, that he would like to live freely in. 

Ken Klein
Ken Klein

Well, governments in the majority of Muslim nations, if you must seek clarification... YES.

Bubba The Wise
Bubba The Wise

Amongst all this discussion, I would like to thank you for your mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Virgil Starkwell
Virgil Starkwell

Have you heard or read his sermons, or are you talking out of your arse?

Idontunderstandyourobjection
Idontunderstandyourobjection

Mr. Klein, will you please tell me where I can hear recordings or read transcripts of these sermons preaching jihad against the United States?

Otherwise, aren't you jumping to conclusions in the same fashion as SMDrpepper without any evidence to back up your assertions?

Just as no evidence has emerged that this gentleman is being charged soley for being a Muslim, no evidence has emerged that he ever preached jihad against the USA (unless you can point me to some, hence my opening question to this post).

We have a judicial system in place in this country. So regardless of whether you are "inclined" to believe the feds, they must provide enough evidence of his guilt at trial, within the rules of the proceedings, to convince a jury of his peers of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Until this has happened, he must be presumed innocent by our judicial system (regardless of his conviction or exoneration in the court of public opinion). What CAIR, the federal government, or anonymous blog armchair lawyers think of the indictments is inconsequential as far as determining his guilt. The ONLY thing that matters in this case is whether the evidence is great enough to convict him under the rules and processes that govern our society.

Yes, sending money to finance terrorists is illegal. However, until it has been PROVEN in a court of law that he did so, you are wrong to make the assumption that accusation=guilt.

Please don't compare our great nation of laws with a third world dictatorship. What they do in Saudi Arabia should have even less bearing on our own judicial system than the opinions of CAIR or anonymous internet bloggers such as you, me, and SMDrpepper.

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Services

Loading...