Terrorism Investigative Techniques—Syed Ahmed

With the arrests of the 17 Canadian alleged terrorists last week, much has been made in the press about possible ties with that group to Georgia Tech student Syed Ahmed, who is apparently still be held at an undisclosed location. He personally is back in the news today, after his attorney filed a motion to suppress Mr. Ahmed’s statements to the FBI “or make the government abide by the alleged agreement not to prosecute him.”^[1]

What is detailed in the motion is an object lesson in how “helping yourself” rarely ends up doing that; it is one of the oldest tricks in the FBI’s playbook, and yet, one of the FBI’s most successful ploys.

According to the motion, it is alleged that “an FBI agent and a task force investigator who questioned Ahmed on March 10 at his Atlanta apartment told him that as long as he told the truth he would not be arrested. He said one of the investigators told Ahmed that he, too, was a Muslim and used that to get a statement from [Mr.] Ahmed, saying "Allah does not want you to go to jail …I want you to help us. Obviously, that is why we are talking to you." ^[2]

As has been discussed before, Mr. Ahmed has been charged with providing material support to terrorists.

If true, the assistance would surely help Mr. Ahmed at the time of sentencing, but he likely assumed that, when the FBI told him that he would not be arrested if he told the truth, they were likewise telling him the truth, and that he wouldn’t even have a sentencing issue. It is usually a mistake to assume that; while it is a crime for an individual to make a false statement to an investigator, even an “exculpatory no,” there is no serious bar on the government lying to a suspect during an “interview.”

For good measure, Mr. Ahmed’s lawyer is “insist[ing] that the government be forced to say whether the National Security Agency used its power to obtain phone records for [Mr.] Ahmed or conduct other electronic surveillance of him without a warrant.”^[3]

With yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling however, taking a very large sledgehammer to the exclusionary rule which was developed to address the penalty for violations of the Fourth Amendment, the outcome and solutions to Mr. Ahmed’s motions are very much in doubt.

---

[1] AP NewsBreak: Student Says He Was Duped in Terrorism Probe, AP (via AccessNorthGA.com), Jun. 15, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.