Did you read the full article? The surveillance had been going on for 4 years. Planning to inflict terror. They were arrested on terrorism related charges in Britain.
Prosecutors don't tend to level charges without significant evidence. Just because it wasn't all laid out in an MSNBC.com article doesn't mean they have no evidence.
"possessing reconnaissance plans for the U.S. institutions and notebooks containing information on explosives, poisons, chemicals and related matters "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."
Maybe these were going to be used for terrorism. But with the information we get from reading the article, there's an equal chance that these were intended for blowing open a vault or being used for sabotage. Did they say anything about notes or recorded messages stating or even subtly indicating their terrorist intentions in the article? I don't see any there.
"Prosecutors don't tend to level charges without significant evidence. Just because it wasn't all laid out in an MSNBC.com article doesn't mean they have no evidence."
Of course they don't. But reading one MSNBC.com article doesn't automatically make us judge and jury. Innocent until proven guilty, it's the American way! Right?