* United States v. Ahmed (N.D. Ohio)
Another very interesting material support/conspiracy prosecution, resulting in two guilty pleas yesterday.
The defendants were cousins from Chicago who between 2004 and 2007 were involved in a plot to attack US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The interesting aspect of the case is its prevention-oriented, early-intervention nature. It appears from the press release that the men did not have a particular plot in mind and were not involved with a specific terrorist organization, but rather that they were attempting on their own initiative to receive firearms training and other training that they might then put to use against US forces overseas in some unspecified way in the future.
The charge of conviction, was conspiracy to provide material support—including themselves as personnel—knowing or intending that the support would be used (by themselves, presumably) to commit a predicate crime of attacking US troops overseas. This charge (18 USC 2339A) was used in a similar manner in the Hayat prosecution (Lodi, California), in which the defendant was convicted of providing himself as material support in connection with an unspecified attack that might take place in the future (in that case against civilians in the US, rather than troops abroad).