Sweden charges man over 2014 killing of Jordan pilot in Syria
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) -Swedish prosecutors pressed charges on Tuesday against a man on suspicion of war crimes and terrorism over the murder of a Jordanian air force pilot who was burned to death in Syria a decade ago.
The Swede, named in court documents as Osama Krayem, 32, has previously been convicted of involvement in attacks in Paris in 2015 and in Brussels in 2016.
The Islamic State militant group, which once imposed a reign of terror over millions of people in Syria and Iraq, captured Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kasasbeh in December 2014 and later published a video of him being burned alive in a cage.
The Swedish Prosecution Authority charged Krayem with gross war crimes and terrorism, the indictment showed.
"Krayem, together with and in agreement with other perpetrators belonging to IS, killed/deprived Muath al-Kasasbeh of his life," the authority said in the indictment.
It said Krayem had forced the pilot to the cage and that he also posed for a camera, knowing the footage would be dispersed as a manifestation of a plan and ideology advocated by Islamic State.
Krayem's Swedish lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Krayem has been temporarily transferred to Sweden from France to stand trial at the Stockholm district court.
Islamic State controlled swathes of Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2017, and was defeated in its last bastions in Syria in 2019.
Under Swedish legislation, courts can try people for crimes against international law committed abroad.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Syrian teen charged in failed terror attack on Taylor Swift concert
A Syrian teen has been charged with helping to try to carry out a bloodbath bomb attack on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna last summer, according to authorities. The juvenile suspect, only identified as 'Mohammad A,' aided a fellow extremist by translating Arabic bomb-making instructions and hooking him up with an online Islamic State militia contact to plan the would-be terror attack at Ernst Happel Stadium, German prosecutors alleged Friday. 'Mohammad A has adhered to the ideology of the terrorist organization Islamic State (IS) since April 2024 at the latest,' a statement from the prosecutor general said. Advertisement The juvenile suspect, only identified as 'Mohammad A,' helped a fellow extremist plan a would-be attack on a Taylor Swift 'Eras Tour' Ernst Happel Stadium in Vienna last summer, authorities said. Getty Images for TAS Rights Management From mid-July to August 2024, the Syrian teen allegedly coordinated with a young Austrian suspect who was planning to unleash chaos at one of Swift's massive 'Eras Tour' concerts before the plot was foiled. Police have already made multiple arrests tied to the suspected terror cell. Three men, ages 19, 18, and 17, were previously taken into custody in Vienna. Advertisement News of the thwarted attack prompted the cancellation of Swift's three sold-out Eras shows in the city starting Aug. 8, 2024. A man arrested in the plot holds two machetes, which were weapons the fiends allegedly planned to use in addition to bombs. APA/AFP via Getty Images The suspects had planned to drive a bomb-filled car into the crowd outside the venue to kill 'as many people as possible' and had reportedly just been hired by the venue to work security. They allegedly wanted to also attack fans with machetes, security officials previously said. Advertisement Authorities believed the teens were radicalized online. Austria's coalition government agreed on a plan earlier this month to enable police to monitor suspects' secure messaging to thwart future planned militant attacks, ending what security officials have said is a rare and dangerous blind spot for a European Union country. Mohammad A's exact age has not yet been released. With Post wires
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
Sean ‘Diddy' Combs ‘might be cooked' on key sex crime charge, experts say, as jury preps for deliberation
Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking and racketeering trial came to a close after seven weeks on Friday as the rapper's defense team and prosecution completed closing arguments. Both sides saw wins and losses throughout the trial, but experts claimed Diddy 'might be cooked' on one specific charge as the jury prepares to deliberate. After his arrest in September 2024, the 'Last Night' singer was charged with sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Former Danity Kane singer and Diddy protégé, Aubrey O'Day, has been following the trial and isn't sure what the outcome will be. While she personally believes the rapper is 'guilty of all the charges,' the musician isn't sold on the prosecution's case in court. 'The rational, justice side of me that leads a good amount of what I do nowadays says the answer should be what was proven by the prosecution, the law, and that's conflicting to what I want personally,' she told Extra. 5 The jury is about to deliberate on Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking and racketeering trial. Getty Images 5 Experts claimed Diddy 'might be cooked' on one specific charge. REUTERS She noted: 'I don't know if the prosecution proved [Diddy's crimes] without a doubt, though.' During closing arguments, prosecutors argued that Diddy ran an alleged criminal enterprise with full control. They pointed out that the jury heard testimony, saw texts, viewed bank records and heard audio showing the rapper committing crime after crime for decades. According to the prosecution, the government showed that Diddy didn't take no for an answer. Up until today, Diddy was able to get away with crime because of his money and power, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Slavik said. 'That stops now.' Here's where experts say things stand for each charge against Diddy with the jury about to deliberate. 5 Sean 'Diddy' Combs listens as prosecutor Maurene Comey makes her closing arguments during Combs' sex trafficking trial in New York City. REUTERS Transportation to Engage in Prostitution As to the transportation to engage in prostitution charge, an expert told Fox News Digital, Diddy might be in trouble. 'The sex workers were very clear about their role and their purpose for being transported across state lines; it was for sex and not something else,' criminal defense attorney Eric Faddis explained. 'Diddy might be cooked on this charge.' However, the defense did find a way to show the jury a different explanation in an attempt to undermine the government's argument. 'Defense got an employee of one of the companies to say that Diddy was just buying the escorts' time and not any sexual performance, which the jury could use as a basis to acquit Diddy on the transportation charges,' Faddis, a founding partner of Colorado-based Varner Faddis, said. 5 Evidence photos depict Diddy's collection of lingerie. Department of Justice 'Diddy might be cooked on this charge.' Eric Faddis, criminal defense attorney Racketeering Conspiracy The jury is unlikely to find Diddy not guilty of racketeering, criminal defense attorney John W. Day told Fox News Digital. 'The only thing Diddy and his team can hope for is a miracle where the jurors don't buy the government's claim that this was racketeering and that Diddy was the head of a criminal empire dedicated to fulfilling his desires,' the founder of New Mexico-based law practice, John Day Law, explained. 'A defense win is more likely if the jurors are conflicted on the racketeering charges and can't reach a unanimous verdict. That could lead to a hung jury on one or more of the charges. But the jurors spent the entire trial waiting to see how Diddy's lawyers rebutted the massive case against him, and they merely rested without putting on any witnesses. That leaves the jury picking through the government's case to see if this really rises to racketeering, and if not, they may hang or acquit on some of the charges – but it's unlikely.' 5 'The only thing Diddy and his team can hope for is a miracle where the jurors don't buy the government's claim that this was racketeering,' John Day Law, founder of a New Mexico-based law practice, said. REUTERS According to the legal expert, the prosecution 'presented overwhelming evidence' that Diddy 'presided over this little kingdom of criminal activity designed to make him happy – and made a compelling case to the jury that this met all the elements of racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation for prostitution.' 'The prosecution can withstand an acquittal or a hung jury on some of the counts, but the prosecutors really need a conviction for racketeering to claim total victory,' Day added. 'Again, that can be a difficult charge to convict on if the jurors don't buy the theory that this entire business empire was engaged in sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. But the defense needed to have convinced at least one juror that the case wasn't there, and that witnesses were lying to save their own necks. And that's a tough sell to a jury that spent weeks listening to horrific testimony about Diddy and his empire.' Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud or Coercion Things aren't as clear-cut on the sex trafficking charge, one expert told Fox News Digital. Diddy was accused of sex trafficking two of his ex-girlfriends, Cassie Ventura and Jane, who testified under a pseudonym. The prosecution claimed the rapper transported both women across state lines and then forced them to have sex with male escorts while he watched. 'On cross-examination, both Cassie and Jane admitted to willingly participating in some of the 'freak offs,' which could cause the jurors to wonder if all of the romantic encounters may have been consensual,' Faddis noted. 'Both Cassie and Jane admitted to voluntarily ingesting drugs before the 'freak offs,' which may undercut the prosecution's coercion argument.' The criminal defense attorney did note that Cassie and Jane both gave 'compelling, evocative testimony detailing physical abuse and financial coercion.'
Atlantic
12 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump's One-and-Done Approach to Military Force
Weeks before he ended his first term, in December 2020, President Donald Trump was outraged that leaders in Tehran had announced plans to accelerate its nuclear program. He had a simple question: Why don't we just bomb Iran? His advisers walked him through the options but cautioned that such an operation would likely result in the downing of American planes and the start of a regional war. Trump dropped the idea. 'He didn't want to leave a shit sandwich for his successor,' a former official told us. 'He also recognized it wasn't time yet.' Last weekend, with Iranian defenses worn to a nub by days of Israeli attacks, the time finally came. The surprise assault by B-2 bombers, which dropped 30,000-pound 'bunker-buster' bombs onto underground enrichment facilities, marked the most dramatic military action that Trump has ordered in either of his terms as president. The attack showed how Trump's attitudes toward the use of force have evolved as he has grown more confident in his instincts as commander in chief and surrounded himself with advisers disinclined to challenge him. But it also reflected what hasn't changed: Trump is willing to embrace serious risk in approving military operations, so long as it's in a discrete burst rather than a sustained campaign. The president described the weekend bombing as a one-off that 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program, not the start of a larger war. If any Trump doctrine for military action does exist, it is perhaps best understood as the One-and-Done Doctrine. 'Trump likes to think he can fire a bullet and leave the O.K. Corral, that the first move is decisive and the end of activity,' Kori Schake, the director of defense and foreign-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing writer at The Atlantic, told us. It's not clear, however, that one attack will be enough. Assessments of the operation's impact on Iran's nuclear capability are divided, and Tehran is already vowing to push ahead, suggesting that additional U.S. action may be required if a diplomatic solution isn't reached. During his first term, Trump railed against the 'endless' and 'forever wars' he had inherited, clashing repeatedly with his top security advisers as he sought to end counterinsurgent missions and pull troops from allied nations as part of his 'America First' agenda. He also demonstrated willingness to deploy military force at significant moments, lobbing cruise missiles at Syria after chemical-weapons attacks, intensifying the air campaign against the Islamic State, and authorizing high-stakes operations such as the commando raid targeting ISIS boss Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the drone strike killing Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani. Trump took office in 2017 boasting that he knew better than 'the generals.' But just days into the job, the first military operation he authorized—a hostage-recovery raid in Yemen—went badly awry: A Navy SEAL and numerous civilians were killed, and a $70 million aircraft was destroyed. Other ventures were more successful: Trump oversaw a surge in progress in the campaign against ISIS, which began under President Barack Obama, as U.S. war planes beat back the militants in Syria. But when the advances slowed, Trump began to push for an end to the American presence—much to the chagrin of his military advisers. The turn revealed Trump's discomfort with sustained campaigns that didn't show measurable results, or that carried any whiff of a quagmire. In Afghanistan, the president pressed for a negotiated exit after the initial surge in military action he authorized—including the bombing of drug labs and the use of an explosive dubbed the 'Mother of All Bombs'—failed to yield decisive results. All the while, Trump was feuding with some of his closest military aides. Jim Mattis, the Marine general who served as Trump's first defense secretary, resigned in protest in 2018 after having attempted to block what he viewed as dangerous actions by the president. Mattis even defied demands from then–National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster for the Pentagon to send options for striking Iran. Trump also railed against historic arrangements he believed exploited American generosity, including U.S. support for NATO and the presence of American troops in places such as Germany and South Korea. One outside adviser said that characterizing Trump as an isolationist misses the mark. 'He has a pretty well-established history of dramatic short bursts of kinetic action, but not sustained military involvement in things,' the adviser told us. He suggested a precedent in President Andrew Jackson, who embraced nationalism and economically motivated expansionism for 19th-century America. Trump 'doesn't have an ideology, but if you had to try to sum it up, it's more Jacksonian than isolationist or anti-interventionist,' the adviser told us. Many of the president's advisers told us they believe that his blunt, tough-guy talk and his unpredictable tendencies—akin to Richard Nixon's 'madman theory'—have been effective in establishing deterrence with foreign adversaries. But Trump's volatility has also at times frustrated his own advisers. In 2019, he made an eleventh-hour decision to call off a planned retaliatory strike on Iranian missile batteries in response to the country's downing of a large U.S. drone over the Strait of Hormuz. The decision was based on an estimate of potential casualties on the ground in Iran that one military official said was wildly inaccurate. Then–National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were aghast at the choice to call off the strike, which they believed was proportionate and would deter future attacks. 'He's capable of changing his mind right up until the very end, and when he's finally decided that the decision has been carried out and he can't reverse it, it's very stressful for him,' Bolton told us. He said the recent Iran strikes tracked with the president's preference for stand-alone, epic actions: 'It fits with his short attention span, and it fits with the fact he doesn't have a philosophy; he doesn't have a grand strategy.' When Bolton worked in the first Trump administration, he was frequently at odds with the president. This time around, Trump has few people questioning his calls. Even those who are leery of foreign entanglement have fallen in line to support the strikes. Vice President J. D. Vance, for instance, has led the charge in recent days in messaging that the Iran operation was not about regime change, but rather the more narrow goal of debilitating the country's nuclear program. Vance is 'going to be supportive of whatever the president wants to do, and there's never going to be any daylight between the two of them, even privately,' the outside adviser told us. Marco Rubio, now serving as secretary of state and national security adviser, has been 'very deferential' to Trump, the adviser added. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, meanwhile, has kept to his position's traditional lane, laying out the intelligence but not pushing any particular policy actions. 'If he is putting his thumb on the scale one way or the other, then people aren't going to trust his intelligence,' the adviser told us. The White House is adamant both that Trump gets the advice he needs and that he never gets his decisions wrong. 'President Trump has assembled a talented, world-class team who evaluate all angles of any given issue to provide the President a fulsome view,' White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly wrote to us in an emailed statement. 'Ultimately, the President evaluates all options and makes the decision he feels is best for the country—and he has been proven right about everything time and again.' Retired General Frank McKenzie, who commanded U.S. forces in the Middle East when Trump targeted Soleimani, noted that the most dire possible scenarios following the Soleimani strike and after those on the nuclear sites haven't borne out—at least so far. That may be because, in his view, Trump has accrued more credibility than other American presidents when it comes to threatening Iran. 'He's got a verifiable, auditable trail. He struck Iran twice; no other American president has done that,' McKenzie told us. Trump's Iran operation marked an unexpected deviation from what has been his administration's second-term focus on negotiations. Trump has said he wants diplomatic deals that not only halt Iran's nuclear ambitions but also end the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond. Now Trump may have more leverage in those talks. 'This guy really wanted a negotiation, and now he's done his one-and-done, and he wants to go back to negotiations,' Ian Bremmer, who leads the consultancy and research firm Eurasia Group, told us. One of Trump's more curious moves since returning to office was his decision to authorize a weeks-long air campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Biden administration had occasionally struck military targets in Yemen but had judged that the Houthis were unlikely to drop their tactic of attacking commercial and naval vessels, no matter what kind of military beating they received. Trump abruptly halted the campaign and declared victory in May, even though the Houthis retain significant military capability and vowed to continue their assaults on Israel. But Trump had moved on. That may not be so easy if Iran resumes its nuclear activity or continues to support proxy militant groups throughout the Middle East. 'You're going to have a hard time ignoring Iran,' the former official told us, 'and it's going to be much harder to change the subject.'
