In an affidavit in the case against an Everett man, an FBI agent today gave the explanation for why a Boston cop and an FBI agent felt it important to confront Usaama Rahim in Roslindale yesterday: An 5 a.m. phone call, monitored by federal and local terrorism investigators, in which Rahim allegedly explained he didn't want to wait to travel out of state to behead a specific person, so was going to go out and kill one of the local "boys in blue."
A Boston Police officer and an FBI agent fatally shot Rahim, 26, in the parking lot of the CVS on Washington Street, near his Blue Ledge Drive apartment, shortly after 7 a.m. yesterday. Officials say the officers did not intend to arrest Rahim at that point, but that he came at them with a large knife, even after they told him repeatedly to drop the weapon.
In an affidavit filed in US District Court in Boston in the case against David Wright of Everett, a federal investigator also revealed that a third man met with Rahim and Wright on a Rhode Island beach on May 31 to discuss the planned beheading - for which he allegedly prepared by buying "three fighting knives," including an "Ontario Spec Plus Marine Raider Bowie fighting knife," and a sharpener on Amazon.com. In a phone call on May 26:
RAHIM advised WRIGHT that "I just got myself a nice little tool. You know it's good for carving wood and like, you know, carving sculptures ... and you know ..." WRIGHT and RAHIM then both began laughing. I believe that when RAHIM said "nice little tool" that was "good for carving," he was referring to the Marine Raider Bowie fighting knife that he had purchased the previous day.
The potential victim of the beheading - and that third man - were not identified, although press reports say the alleged intended victim was anti-Moslem activist Pamela Geller.
At a press conference on Tuesday, local and federal law-enforcement officials said they had had Rahim under 24-hour surveillance "for some time," which explains the urgency to talk to Rahim after he got off the phone with Wright yesterday morning.
According to the affidavit, Rahim and Wright talked around 5 a.m. on Tuesday. Rahim allegedly said he could no longer wait to go out of state to behead his original intended victim. Wright allegedly asked if he were "going on vacation" instead:
Yeah, I'm going to be on vacation right here in Massachusetts ... I'm just going to ah go after them, those boys in blue. Cause, ah, it's the easiest target and, ah, the most common is the easiest for me ...
Additionally, during this conversation, RAHIM revealed to WRIGHT that he planned to randomly kill police officers in Massachusetts either yesterday (June 2) or today (June 3). In response, WRIGHT advised him to prepare his will and leave "his possessions" to a named individual. ...
After discussing with RAHIM the plan to attack police officers, WRIGHT directed RAHIM to delete information from, and destroy, his Smartphone and wipe his laptop computer. Specifically, with regards to RAHIM's phone, WRIGHT instructed RAHIM:
WRIGHT: Make sure also, very important, make sure that, ah, at the moment that you decide to that you ah, delete, you delete ah, from your phone or you break it apart. Throw it down to the ground.
RAHIM: Yup.
WRIGHT: Get rid of it, before anybody gets it; make sure it's completely destroyed.
RAHIM: I will.
WRIGHT: Because, at the scene, at the scene, CSI will be looking for that particular thing and so dump it, get rid of that. At the time you are going to do it, before you reach your destination you get rid of it.
Because he allegedly told Rahim to destroy the phone, Wright was charged with one count of conspiracy, specifically, "to obstruct a federal investigation by destroying electronic evidence on Rahim’s smartphone."
The affidavit briefly discusses Rahim's death:
Shortly after this conversation, on June 2, 2015, RAHIM was on a public street in the Boston area, when he was approached by Boston Police Officers and FBI special agents. RAHIM took out one of the knives he had purchased from Amazon.com when he saw the officers and agents. One of the officers told RAHIM to drop his weapon and RAHIM responded, "you drop yours." RAHIM then moved towards the officers while brandishing his weapon, and he was shot by law enforcement.
Not long after, FBI agents went to Wright's Everett home for a chat, the affidavit continues:
During this interview, the agents asked WRIGHT about what had transpired at the Sunday meeting on the beach in Rhode Island. According to WRIGHT, at that meeting, RAHIM told WRIGHT and the third person that he was going to behead the intended victim in another state. WRIGHT indicated that he agreed with RAHIM's plan and supported it.
Wright is also known as Dawud Sharif Wright and Dawud Sharif Abdul Khaliq.
Innocent, etc.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
dvdoff, erik g and Swirlygirl should be ashamed...
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 1:35am
I hope Caroline Kennedy (sometimes Schlossberg, except when seeking office) considers the involved Boston Police officer and FBI agent for this year's "Profile in Courage" awards. The potential mayhem that was prevented is just unimaginable.
Ashamed of what, Fish?
By Brian Riccio
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 1:47am
Having an opinion in America? No one's shaming you for the fascistic nonsense you post sometimes.
Not unimaginable at all
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 2:43am
It's not unimaginable at all. Criminals murder people all the time. Sometimes with knives; sometimes with guns. Sometimes the police stop a dangerous criminal before he kills someone.Sometimes they don't.
All indications at this point seem to be that this was good police work and a justified shooting, but don't make it out to be some kind of miracle. Is there some reason why this particular incident is more worthy of a "profile in courage" award than any other incident in which police officers have confronted and disarmed a dangerous criminal?
Yes Bob, the 5 killed, 264 maimed in other Boston Muslim terror
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 2:48am
Yes Bob. History.
I don't follow your argument at all
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 3:06am
I don't follow your logic at all.
There were 51 murders in Boston in 2014. 5 by "Muslim terror." Were the other 46 somehow less significant?
Is a police officer who stops a Muslim criminal on his way to commit murder somehow more courageous, or doing more for public safety, than a police officer who stops a member of an Irish-American gang from South Boston on his way to kill a witness? or an ivy-league WASP doctor from Wellesley on his way home to murder his wife?
Bob, the murders done in the name of Islam tend to be mass
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 4:27am
Bob, the five Islamic murders that we know of in Boston were in 2013, not 2014, but let that go. Our police officers who merely don the uniform are courageous. That's not even in question. Joe Fitzgerald has a nice piece in today's Herald. History tells us that Muslim terror is different. While the murderous Wellesley doctor and Irish-American gang member are also despicable, the Islamic terrorists (WTC, Boston, Fort Hood, etc.) seek maximum impact using economy of force. Once again in this case, only a small amount of terrorists involved. The "Profile in Courage" award is worthy since, especially in this heated environment, the police officer and federal agent stopped the threat. Beheadings were prevented. Don't forget Oklahoma City, too. While the spoon-fed media has "concluded" that moron Timothy McVeigh was the mastermind, reporter Jayna Davis (now blackballed) exposed the Muslim connectioin.
I'm still not following you.
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 3:31am
If I understand your theory correctly, the marathon bombing guys are worse criminals than, say, they guy who shot up the theater in Colorado, or the guy who shot up the school in Connecticut, or the guy who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma, because.... ... there's where I lose the plot.
I'm not saying that one loser with a knife can't ruin someone's whole day, or even several someone's whole days, but let's not make this out to be the disruption of a major criminal enterprise here.
As I said, seems to be good police work, and a justified shooting, and they seem to have stopped a criminal who was on his way to commit murder. And that's certainly a good thing. But knock it off with the hype, please.
Eight facts about terrorism in the United States
By Anonymous
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 3:41am
washingtonpost:
Always follow the money
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 3:47am
People who want you to be scared, when the facts suggest otherwise, usually have an agenda.
Anon 3:41 am, they're now in power
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 4:33am
Of course terrorism is down. The terrorists of the 70's are now advising Obama and/or teaching college classes.
Bob, you seem unable to grasp the motivating element, Jihad. We agree "they (sic) guy who shot up the theater in Colorado, or the guy who shot up the school in Connecticut or the guy who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma" are terrible. Any officer involved in saving lives in those incidents deserves a commendation. Those atrocities didn't happen in the current climate of "questionable" police shootings, however. I have extra respect for our Boston Police officer and FBI agent who, despite the current climate, chose to put down this terrorist. Training takes over. Money we have well spent.
Obama is being advised by former members of the IRA?!
By Dan Farnkoff
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 7:21am
Now this is news.
And why, pray tell Fish
By Brian Riccio
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 8:40am
Do they want to commit Jihad on us? Do they hate our freedoms?
Haven't you read the news?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 9:45am
They want to force Irish gay marriage down his throat!
I have no problem understanding the motivating element
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 11:24am
I have no problem understanding the motivating element.
What I'm asking you for, repeatedly, and not hearing an answer, is some sort of explanation as to why a guy who kills because of jihad is somehow a worse threat than a guy who kills because he's bat-shit crazy, or because he wants my iPhone to feed his opiate addiction, or because he gets behind the wheel drunk?
If you actually read that
By anon
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 8:37am
If you actually read that article the misleading graph is taken from, you might come to the conclusion that the FBI should keep left-wing organizations under close scrutiny; they are responsible for the vast majority of attacks. The problem is that despite the lower number of attacks, Muslim terrorists are responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities.
Muslims all the way down, eh Fishy?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 10:29am
I'm sure that you are now going to tell us that you heard somewhere that this guy screamed "الله أكبر!" as he murdered my friend:
[img]http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2013...
Please stop
By anonamonster
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 5:44pm
When I was in 6th grade, a mentally unstable man entered my school with a 12 gauge shotgun with the intent of murdering innocent children. He demanded our principal lead him to the nearest classroom (mine), and thankfully, my principal - deciding it was either his life or the life of his students - took the gunman down a few dozen feet from my classroom. Having his own ribs broken in the process.
Unfortunately, what this individual did succeed in was murdering the school nurse with a shotgun blast to the back at point blank range.
*EDIT* I've cut out the emotional babbling in my original post that originally went here.
Do I now think all mentally disturbed people are going to try to kill me because of something that happened 20 years ago? No. That would be completely irrational.
Am I going to use her death as some sort of bizarre rebuttal to the notion that there may be a severe problem plaguing this world with the perversion of a certain religion and those who adhere to it (or perhaps something more tangible, like gun control)? Absolutely not, again, that would be irrational.
I would actually have complete respect for your point of view if you mentioned this woman without injecting yourself into it. Anyone who has died at the hands of a monster had a family and friends who now miss them - you are not special and unique, and her death has nothing to do with you.
Your case, unfortunately (and I'm not trying to downplay what happened, it is extremely sad and I honestly feel for your loss) is a statistical outlier. Despite what you're attempting to allude to - and quite poorly, might I add, as it is clouded by pure emotion - there is not some rash of Christian extremists marauding around the globe, raping and murdering non-Christians because of their beliefs.
Presently, the overwhelming majority of religious violence is at the hands of the following groups. No, I don't have a citation, but I do follow the news from various global entities and am able to use logic and reason:
Al Shabaab
Al Qaeda
Taliban
Hezbollah
Hamas
ISIS
Boko Haram
Notice any common thread? All extremists, yes. But even 0.5% of 1.5 billion is ALOT of bad apples.
Again, your point is?
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 3:49pm
Well, that would be interesting if the question were, "Which religions in the world are more violent than others?"
But that's not the question. The question is "How should the limited funds, talent, and attention of our public safety forces be allocated?"
And from that perspective, drunk driving, violent robberies committed by desparate opiate addicts, and murder sprees by bat-shit-crazy people are probably a higher risk to me, and a more effective use of my law enforcement dollar, than chasing after the lone wolf jihadi loser.
No, that's actually not the question.
By anonamonster
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 4:24pm
Bob, please do try to follow along.
It's absolutely exhausting to watch you jump headfirst into a subset of comments, make some assinine point that has nothing to do with the original intent of the conversation in the first place, and then have to imagine you smugly sitting behind your keyboard with some shit-eating grin on your face as if you made some sort of groundbreaking, salient point.
The focal point of this particular conversation, as far as I was concerned, was whether it was logical and/or rational to put Christian religious zealots on equal footing with Islamic religious zealots in terms of which particular brand of religious zealotry is wreaking the most havoc present day.
This is not about prioritizing the allocation of resources in terms of what is the greatest threat to life and proprety domestically. If it was, I would actually agree with you Alas, it is not. So your comment is at the very least out of scope, though probably more along the lines of utterly imbecilic.
Really?
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 8:03pm
Why isn't that the question? Isn't that the question we should be asking?
The question I should be asking
By anonamonster
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 9:04pm
The question I should be asking is why am I even debating you in the first place. You make my head hurt. It's like trying to herd cats. In a word, its impossible. Or impossible, as the French say.
When I ask my dog if she wants a treat, she sits politely and goes through her short repertoire of tricks. What she doesn't do is go jump up onto the kitchen counter and take a shit into the sink basin, or any other ludicrous array of actions you could possibly dream of that have absolutely nothing to do with her current task at hand.
But I digress, and I will reluctantly engage.
Do you think zero resources should be used to monitor these threats because the chance of it affecting any single person in a country of 320 million is minute? Should a blind eye be turned instead? Is there some magical percentage Bob Leponge would like to see be allocated? If so, how much?
Basically, do you have an end game or a feasible solution? Or are you just complaining and presenting contrarian arguments for the fun of it?
I'm a huge fan of rationality.
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 9:19pm
How do you think resources should be allocated?
I think resources should be allocated in proportion to the size of the risk and in proportion to the likelihood that expending resources is going to make a difference. Big risks should get big money. Small risks should get small money.
In that regard, my opinion differs sharply from that of most people, who seem to think we ought to expend resources in proportion to how scary the news coverage is.
You might recall last fall how people were being told to quake in their boots over fear of Ebola, how it was a terrifying threat, how we ought to slam shut our borders, disrupt international commerce, drop everything and devote all our national resources to fighting it, etc. At the time I was fond of asking people whether they thought Ebloa or Influenza was a bigger problem, and they would generally look at me as though I were insane, and say "Ebola, of course." When I pointed out that the number of Americans killed in an average year by ordinary influenza was somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000 depending upon the seriousness of that year's strain, whereas the number of people killed by Ebola was something like 4, the more rational would pause, thoughtfully, and say, "gee, I didn't know that." The less rational would accuse me of simply not understanding the world we live in.
I feel the same way about terrorism. There's a huge complex of media, military, and law enforcement interests that make a ton of money over keeping you scared about terrorism. Without a doubt terrorism is a risk, but it's not a big risk. In their most successful month ever, in history, September 2001, terrorists killed almost as many people on American soil as died in preventable motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle accidents are a bigger risk to me and to my family than terrorism. I think *some* money... significant money, even, should be spent mitigating the risks of terrorism, because it's a significant risk. But it's not in the top 10. So I think the big money should be spent elsewhere.
Atlanta Olympic Bombing killed how many?
By itchy
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 11:40am
Christian terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph was a mass murderer, too.
Wait, the Atlanta Bomber was in Rozzie?
By moxie
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 3:36pm
Missed that in the local coverage! I heard it was some Muslim guy name Rahim, affiliated with a local Mosque. (Am I allowed to use the "M" word, in your world?)
When did Eric Rudolph show up around here?
While the spoon-fed media has
By chaosjake
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 1:16pm
...okay, now we know you're just a nut.
You should be ashamed
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 9:44am
You use our Constitution like toilet paper to mop up after your ecstatic reaction to someone being killed by cops.
Attached a copy of the affidavit to the original post
By adamg
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 6:35am
And updated the original post with more details from it.
Great job by the feds. I
By anon
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 6:39am
Great job by the feds. I wonder if the third man was an informant and will never be named or it will be a fake name that they release
Well ...
By adamg
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 7:16am
The Globe already knows who he is, but isn't printing his name because he hasn't been charged yet. He's the guy whose home in RI was searched on Tuesday.
I don't want Freedom of Religion
By moxie
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 7:20am
I'd prefer Freedom from Religion!
I second the motion.
By MatthewC
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 12:58pm
I second the motion.
These assholes
By SC from JP
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 8:59am
Not only are they trying to kill innocent people. Now they're also making me feel sympathy for Pamela fucking Geller. Ugh.
Hmm.
By Sally
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 9:32am
Nope. No sympathy here.
Why?
By itchy
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 11:35am
All we have here is one murderous hater wanting to kill another murderous hater who would kill him if she wasn't so busy generalizing her murderous hating.
Needs to exist
By Bob Leponge
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 12:54pm
Pamela Geller is not a nice person, but she needs to exist. Protecting the freedom of speech of folks who are downright unlikeable is what creates a safe margin around the rest of us.
A really basic question. . .
By Rockie
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 9:54am
Why was the planned murder a terrorist plot and not a murder plot? What's the distinction?
Distinction
By Nobody
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 10:54am
You murder an individual
You terrorize a population
Crime vs. Hate Crime
By BostonDog
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 11:18am
It's terrorism if they planned the killing to scare the public and advance a political agenda as opposed to murder which is generally between two people/groups without the larger political goal.
So the difference is in the intent
By Rockie
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 12:35pm
Of the crime they intended to commit? And the FBI determined that intent from Facebook likes and wiretaps? (Do I have this right?)
So by this logic, mass shootings such as Columbine, Newtown, and Aurora wouldn't be considered terrorism because though they terrify the public they have no political motivation and/or the motivation is unknown?
I know it's obviously more complicated than that legally but just the basic distinctions are confusing to me.
I'm trying to understand why the plan to kill an individual police officer by 1 or 2 individuals unsupported by a terrorist group would be considered terrorism.
Yes
By BostonDog
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 2:41pm
IANA Prosecutor but that's the logic. In the cases you point out the murderer had mental health problems and wasn't trying to make a political point or was working on behalf of a larger organization which attempts to cause panic with the hopes of changing policy.
On a local level, a drug dealer who goes after another isn't doing so as part of a plot of cause panic -- at least not among the general public. Drug dealers & organized crime don't want national attention. Terrorists do.
Simple
By itchy
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 11:24am
Attack an NAACP office or women's health clinic in the name of God = murder plot.
Muslim plans to kill anyone = terror plot
Simply because he was a
By anon
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 11:25am
Simply because he was a radicalized extremist who was influenced by ISIS. And other obvious questions?
How do you define radicalized extremist?
By Mysterytrain
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 1:09pm
How did the FBI decide that
Because he's not white
By erik g
Thu, 06/04/2015 - 12:19pm
n/t
Pages
Add comment