Chicago, May 5 (Inditop.com) Pakistani-Canadian terror suspect Tahawwur Hussain Rana, who has pleaded not guilty to providing “material support” for the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, has now asked for “specific” details of alleged support he provided in terror acts.
So far the prosecution’s allegations in the superseding indictment have been “vague”, Rana’s lawyer Patrick Blegen said in a 10-page motion filed in a Chicago court and he needed specific details to be better prepared for trial.
Given the “complexity of the case”, Rana should be entitled to know “with specificity what material support he is alleged to have provided” to terrorism, he said.
The government, Blegen said, need not identify all of the evidence it will produce, but should point out what the allegations are, rather than hide behind the “vague and amorphous language of the statute”.
Each count in the superseding indictment against Rana lists that he provided material support to terrorism in the form of “personnel”, “tangible property”, “money”, “currency” and “false documentation, and identification”.
But neither the superseding indictment, nor the discovery provided by the government so far reveal what these things are, Blegen said. “There is no inkling of what these things might be.”
The superseding indictment alleges that Rana provided approval for the use of his immigration business office, sent emails, printed business cards and provided co-accused David Coleman Headley assistance with obtaining a visa for India.
While these items represent the alleged “false documentation and identification” charge, nothing in the indictment or in the government’s response identifies the personnel, tangible property, money or currency in detail, Blegen said.
In March, Pakistani-American Headley, pleaded guilty to helping plan the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Son of a Pakistani father and American mother, Headley changed his given name of Daoud Gilani two years before the attack to hide his Pakistani origin as he made several trips to India to scout targets for the attack.
Rana had in February asked the government to provide “a bill of particulars” specific details about the “material support and resources” he allegedly provided to terrorist plots.
The government argued that such a bill is not necessary because the superseding indictment provides more detail than required, and because it is providing extensive discovery.
