Paintballing ninjas must be terrorists pt. III

[bmags]

They might've won round one and two, but keep on fightin' the good fight!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/us/24mia...6YSlwC+e2sIDpHw

 

Six Suspects Will Be Tried a Third Time in Sears Plot

 

By CARMEN GENTILE

Published: April 24, 2008

MIAMI — Federal prosecutors said Wednesday that they would try for a third time to convict six men accused of conspiring to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago and join the ranks of Al Qaeda.

 

Judge Joan A. Lenard said the next trial would proceed in “the late fall or early winter.”

 

In the previous trials, government lawyers contended that the men — Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Burson Augustine, Rotschild Augustine, Naudimar Herrera and Stanley G. Phanor — wanted to wage a “ground war” against American citizens and had pledged their loyalty for Islamic extremism to F.B.I. informants posing as members of Al Qaeda.

 

Defense lawyers asserted that their clients had been goaded into making radical remarks and vows of allegiance by the informants. Testimony in the trials revealed that an F.B.I. search of the group’s headquarters in the Liberty City neighborhood of Miami yielded no weapons or evidence of preparation for a large-scale attack.

 

In his appeal for a third trial, the prosecutor Richard Gregorie recalled how Mr. Batiste had been heard in taped conversations saying he “wanted to kill all the devils,” a reference to Americans, prosecutors say. “The United States has decided it is necessary to proceed one more time,” Mr. Gregorie said.

 

At the first trial, which ended in December 2007, a seventh defendant, Lyglenson Lemorin, was acquitted, and the jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision about the remaining six. A second trial ended last week with jurors again unable to decide.

 

On Tuesday, Mr. Herrera was released on $50,000 bond. Rotschild Augustine, an illegal immigrant, was denied bond. The other four had not filed applications for bond.

 

Prof. Jonathan Turley of George Washington Law School, a critic of the Bush administration’s handling of terrorism-related cases, said that by seeking a new trial the government was hoping to justify “previous headlines” about evidence — including wiretaps and informant reports — presented by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales after the suspects’ arrest in June 2006.

 

“These are the types of prosecutors Las Vegas is built on,” Mr. Turley said. “They keep returning to the table with the same losing hand.”

 

[StrangeSox]

Heard in an interesting take on this on NPR a few weeks ago. Basically, the earlier they catch plots like this, the harder it is to prove anything in court. So early detection and prevention is good in some sense, but it lets the plotters walk.

[southsider2k5]

Heard in an interesting take on this on NPR a few weeks ago. Basically, the earlier they catch plots like this, the harder it is to prove anything in court. So early detection and prevention is good in some sense, but it lets the plotters walk.

 

Or you can let them blow it up and have all of the evidence you need! Its a no win situation.

[StrangeSox]

Or you can let them blow it up and have all of the evidence you need! Its a no win situation.

 

Right, that was their point. You can't just let them go on and on right up until the point of execution, because you can never be 100% sure when that is and if you miss it, you're going to be in for a lot of pain.

[Balta1701]

Right, that was their point. You can't just let them go on and on right up until the point of execution, because you can never be 100% sure when that is and if you miss it, you're going to be in for a lot of pain.

But the problem with that is...is it against the law to talk about these things? How far do things get before they get against the law? If I posted something here about how a group of people were planning a terror attack (note, to the NSA Guys reading this, this is a political discussion and not a planned terror attack), is that sufficient? If we start naming targets, is that enough? If we name targets and suggest a date and how we'll pull it off, is that enough? How do you tell a real plot from one that is made up by a bunch of crazy people. We all know this nation has more than enough crazy people who go around talking about stuff that they'd never actually do, hell even put plans to paper about how they'd actually do it, but can you arrest them for that?

 

Edit....and of course, then what happens if their entire confession and case is built on info obtained under torture?

[bmags]

I have a hard time believing the federal gov't couldn't convict someone of plotting terrorism unless their claims we're pretty weak. And when they are paintballing ninjas.