Daniel Boyd, his two sons, and four other suspects will remain behind bars pending their trial on terrorism charges. A federal court judge determined this week that the suspects were a flight risk and a danger to society, and ordered them held. The detention hearing offered a few glimpses into what federal prosecutor may offer as evidence when the case goes to trial.

The information released during the hearing was interesting, but not compelling. Not yet, anyway. Chatting about jihad is not enough to arrest someone on federal charges. Legally purchasing firearms is never grounds for arrest. While suggestive, Boyd's arms cache is no doubt equalled by a few local gun nuts. Participating in mujahideen training camps in the late 80s, early 90s could never be construed as terrorist activity per se, since the US helped fund some of them.  The Gaza trip is the only compelling evidence so far.  Lord knows meeting Abdullah Azzam is a laughable offense. If knowing Azzam is a security risk, then some of the men I worked with over the years should have never been given clearances. Boyd clearly has the Salafist-Jihadist creds. He knows the ideology, but it is difficult to tell from the little we know whether he has a grasp of the shariah, which represent an entirely different kind of "knowing" in these cases.

Granted, this was a detention hearing and the prosecutors need only convince the presiding federal judge that the defendants are a flight risk or a possible danger to the community. They succeeded, and the "NC7," as they are called, will remain in prison for now.  As the months drag on, information will come out about the gang's activities.  I will be curious to see how much comes out about their online activity. 

This case -- particularly Boyd's biography -- may offer counterterrorism analysts their first look at the substance and history of organized Salafist-Jihadism in the United States. However, it also represents the first substantial litmus test for US-based Islamist groups. Will they support the legitimate prosecution of the case, or will they go on to characterize the NC7 as hapless victims of non-Muslim aggression? I'm pessimistic.

We could be witnessing the beginning of a future radicalization movement in the United States: Al Qaeda (ver. 4.0).

Update on Aug 10, 2009 at 22:37 by Marisa Urgo

Correction: Aaron was kind enough to remind me that I should never quote a source from memory. The NC7 indictment actually contains three charges of weapons violations, including Counts Three, Four and Five.

While I'm on the topic, I thought some readers may be interested in reading "support" sites that are popping up here in the U.S., including:

http://supportdanielboyd.wordpress.com/

http://supportboyd.blogspot.com/