U.S. Soldier Pleads Guilty to Attempting to Provide Material Support to ISIS

[Solomon2]

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
​

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, August 29, 2018

U.S. Soldier Pleads Guilty to Attempting to Provide Material Support to ISIS​

Ikaika Erik Kang, 35, a Sergeant First Class in the U.S. Army stationed at Schofield Barracks, pleaded guilty today in federal court to four counts of attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Kang was indicted on terrorism charges on July 19, 2017. As part of a plea agreement reached with the United States, Kang agreed to serve 25 years in prison and at least 20 years, and up to life, of supervised release. Kang will be sentenced on Dec. 10, by Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway. If Judge Mollway accepts the plea agreement at that time, the 25-year term of imprisonment will be binding.

The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Kenji M. Price for the District of Hawaii, and Special Agent in Charge Sean Kaul of the FBI’s Honolulu Field Office.

“Kang swore to defend the United States as a member of our military, but betrayed his country by swearing allegiance to ISIS and attempting to provide material support to the foreign terrorist organization,” said Assistant Attorney General Demers. “With today’s plea, he will be held accountable for his crimes. I want to thank all of the agents, analysts and prosecutors who are responsible for this case.”

“This Office will vigorously prosecute anyone who attempts to provide material support to terrorists who seek to spread fear and cause mayhem in our communities through senseless acts of violence,” said U.S. Attorney Price. “The prosecutors and law enforcement agencies who brought the defendant to justice in this case work shoulder-to-shoulder, every day, promoting our national security interests and keeping our communities safe.”

“This is the first case in the State of Hawaii where someone was convicted of attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization,” Special Agent in Charge Kaul. “This should serve as reminder that even though we are 2,500 miles from the U.S. Mainland, these crimes can and do happen everywhere. I would like to personally thank the United States Attorney’s Office, the Unites States Army, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Honolulu Police Department, and the entire Joint Terrorism Task Force Community here in Hawaii for bringing this investigation to a successful conclusion. Today, our community is a safer place due to their tireless efforts.”

According to court documents and information presented in court, Kang became sympathetic to ISIS by at least early 2016. He regularly watched ISIS propaganda videos online, including videos that depicted ISIS members violently executing civilian and military victims. Kang made numerous statements in support of ISIS, expressed a desire to join ISIS, and spoke approvingly about committing acts of violence. At the time, Kang made these statements, he owned an AR-15-style assault rifle and a pistol, both of which he kept at his residence on Oahu. Kang was under ongoing physical surveillance by law enforcement from the beginning of the investigation until the time of his eventual arrest.

In late June and early July of 2018, Kang met numerous times with undercover FBI agents who he believed had connections to ISIS. He provided them with sensitive, non-public military documents, some of which were classified at the SECRET level, which he intended that they later provide to ISIS. The documents included, among other things: classified air traffic control documents that describe call signs, aircraft types, route points, directives, mission procedures, and radio frequencies; the U.S. military’s “weapons file,” which describes all the armament capabilities of the U.S. armed forces; details about a sensitive mobile airspace management system used by the U.S. military; and documents containing personally identifiable information of U.S. service members.

Kang later provided the undercover agents with a commercially purchased small aerial drone, a military chest rig, and other military-style clothing and gear. Kang described how ISIS could operationally utilize the drone to track U.S. troop movements and gain tactical advantage by evading American armored vehicles. Kang then met two additional undercover FBI personnel, one who purported to be a high-ranking ISIS leader, or “sheikh,” and another who played the role of an ISIS fighter. Kang lead them in a hand-to-hand military combatives training session using his weapons, in order to train the purported ISIS member in fighting techniques. The sessions were video-recorded, with the understanding that the video would be taken back to ISIS-controlled territory and used to train other ISIS fighters in hand-to-hand combat and weapons techniques.

On July 8, 2017, Kang swore an oath of loyalty, known as “bayat,” to ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in a ceremony conducted by the purported ISIS sheikh. After the ceremony, Kang kissed the ISIS flag. Kang then said that he wanted to get his rifle and go and fight; just go to downtown Honolulu and Waikiki strip and start shooting. Kang was subsequently arrested and taken into custody.

This case was investigated by the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Honolulu; the FBI; and the U.S. Army, Criminal Investigative Division, and was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kenneth M. Sorenson and Marc A. Wallenstein of the District of Hawaii, and Trial Attorney Taryn M. Meeks of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.


National Security Division (NSD)
USAO - Hawaii

Press Release Number:
18-1127
Updated August 29, 2018​

@hassamun

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Duplicity being exposed?

On this day in 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower ends his presidential term by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex.

His remarks, issued during a televised farewell address to the American people, were particularly significant since Ike had famously served the nation as military commander of the Allied forces during WWII. Eisenhower urged his successors to strike a balance between a strong national defense and diplomacy in dealing with the Soviet Union. He did not suggest arms reduction and in fact acknowledged that the bomb was an effective deterrent to nuclear war. However, cognizant that America’s peacetime defense policy had changed drastically since his military career, Eisenhower expressed concerns about the growing influence of what he termed the military-industrial complex.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex

 

[Solomon2]

Duplicity being exposed?

On this day in 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower ends his presidential term by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex.

His remarks, issued during a televised farewell address to the American people, were particularly significant since Ike had famously served the nation as military commander of the Allied forces during WWII. Eisenhower urged his successors to strike a balance between a strong national defense and diplomacy in dealing with the Soviet Union. He did not suggest arms reduction and in fact acknowledged that the bomb was an effective deterrent to nuclear war. However, cognizant that America’s peacetime defense policy had changed drastically since his military career, Eisenhower expressed concerns about the growing influence of what he termed the military-industrial complex.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex

Totally unrelated to the thread topic, but a good reminder that slavish obsequience to the military and its "needs" is a danger to the nation it purports to serve:

"...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together..."
link

 

[KAMDEV]

Totally unrelated to the thread topic, but a good reminder that slavish obsequience to the military and its "needs" is a danger to the nation it purports to serve:

"...In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together..."
link

These things are for functioning democracies .

 

[Solomon2]

These things are for functioning democracies .

It's for people who want to achieve and keep a functioning democracy. Citizens must evaluate and if necessary defy the self-interested wishes of the military, those who enrich themselves from it, and even the government (at least, their loyalty to misbehaving officials, elected and unelected), lest citizens lose both security and liberty.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

These things are for functioning democracies .

Safe to exclude India then.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

It's for people who want to achieve and keep a functioning democracy. Citizens must evaluate and if necessary defy the self-interested wishes of the military, those who enrich themselves from it, and even the government (at least, their loyalty to misbehaving officials, elected and unelected), lest citizens lose both security and liberty.

You are aware that the very thing that President Eisonhower warned against has come true. Today United States has become dominated by the military-industrial complex.

 

[Solomon2]

You are aware that the very thing that President Eisonhower warned against has come true. Today United States has become dominated by the military-industrial complex.

The m-i complex doesn't "dominate" the U.S. but they do have influence in specific areas like foreign military aid - something Trump is trying to change by cutting down on subsidized U.S. weapons sales to foreign countries that provide little to the U.S. in return, or actively use such funds to frustrate U.S. policy goals.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The m-i complex doesn't "dominate"

I beg to differ. The very thing Ike ws concerned about took place. Probably by about 1970s.

 

[Solomon2]

I beg to differ. The very thing Ike ws concerned about took place. Probably by about 1970s.

Ike was concerned because Kennedy won office in part by inflating the Soviet threat. Eisenhower knew this, and knew that Kennedy was keen on increased military spending for U.S. nuclear weapons at home and U.S. military engagement abroad. During WWII the profits of arms manufacturers were regulated but not in 1960 - indeed, the tax system was quite dysfunctional and favored industry.

The development of the Great Society, tax reforms, the growth of the U.S. non-defense sector, and the trimming back of the U.S. space program after Apollo all contributed to reducing the influence of the military-industrial complex in U.S. gov't decision-making - except in the field of foreign military assistance, as no effective institutional barrier existed to it (and only a few political ones).

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Ike was concerned because Kennedy won office in part by inflating the Soviet threat. Eisenhower knew this, and knew that Kennedy was keen on increased military spending for U.S. nuclear weapons at home and U.S. military engagement abroad. During WWII the profits of arms manufacturers were regulated but not in 1960 - indeed, the tax system was quite dysfunctional and favored industry.

The development of the Great Society, tax reforms, the growth of the U.S. non-defense sector, and the trimming back of the U.S. space program after Apollo all contributed to reducing the influence of the military-industrial complex in U.S. gov't decision-making - except in the field of foreign military assistance, as no effective institutional barrier existed to it (and only a few political ones).

Compare the budgets of UK and US.


UK - Defence 6%

USA - 16% on defence another 4% on veterans totaling 20%.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

 

[Solomon2]

Compare the budgets of UK and US.

U.K. comparison? Can't see how that's relevant.

Pie charts are a better illustration. You came up with this:

Now look at this:



You can clearly see that defense, under the Kennedy Administration, was a much larger slice of the federal budget pie. The introduction of the Great Society programs initiated greater "guns vs. butter" debates in the press and U.S. congress, resulting in proportionately less influence for the military-industrial complex.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

You can clearly

There was a point. 1960s was the height of the Cold War. There was the very real threat of Soviet Russian T-32s rolling over Western Europe. Even as late as 1980s we used to get regular public education broadcasts on TV as to what to do in even of a Soviet nuclear attack. Cuban Missile Crisis printed all over the broadsheets. The very existence of the western order was at stake. Soviet Union along with the Warsaw Pact represented a real threat. So to use stats from that era and compare them with today is rather disingenous me thinks.

The point I was making was at nearly 20% of US budget going on defence or defence related matter means the gross effect of this is huge on US society. Think of the defence contract jobs, companies and the military itself. a huge portion of US economy and society is vested in defence. This makes for a massive political influence that weighs on the USA. A good example of this is Trump wanted to pull out of Afghanistan but since coming into power and facing the intertia of the military/industrial complex which also has tentacles into US media has changed his tune. The shadow of the Us military and the vast industrial complex that keeps it ticking looms large on the US political and economic scene.

And by the way back in early 1960s 25% of UK's budget went into defence in recognition of the threat we faced from USSR. It has now shrunk to 6%.