Posted on 06/21/2006 11:35:11 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(AP) MIAMI -- A federal judge ordered prosecutors to turn over more evidence to back up allegations that Jose Padilla and two co-defendants conspired to kill, injure or kidnap people overseas as part of a global Islamic terrorist network.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke said Tuesday she agreed with claims made by defense attorneys that the indictment against Padilla and the others accused of aiding al Qaeda is "very light on facts" that would link the defendants to specific acts of terrorism or victims.
"We are so shooting in the dark," said Jeanne Baker, one of the attorneys representing defendant Adham Amin Hassoun. "The government has to tell us, what are these acts they conspired to commit?"
Hassoun, Padilla, Kifah Wael Jayyousi and two others who are in custody overseas are charged with being part of a North American terror support cell that provided money, recruits and supplies to al Qaeda and other violent Islamic extremist organizations. All have pleaded not guilty, with trial scheduled for this fall.
Cooke ordered the government to flesh out its charges by providing defense lawyers with names of unindicted co-conspirators, broad descriptions of intended victims of alleged acts of violence and specifics about false statements Hassoun allegedly made about the meaning of phone calls intercepted by the government.
Prosecutors argued that most of the specifics were being turned over already, mainly in the form of more than 225 key phone intercepts. There were 80 specific illegal acts alleged in the indictment, said Brian Frazier, an assistant U.S. attorney.
"What is terrorism but a random act of violence? It means anyone could be a victim at any time," Frazier said.
Earlier Tuesday, another federal judge heard arguments from Hassoun's lawyers seeking to suppress evidence seized by the FBI from his Broward County home in 2002, saying the FBI "frightened and intimidated" his wife before seizing a handgun and other key evidence such as documents in Arabic and videotapes.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Brown did not indicate when he would rule the motion.
Padilla was designated an "enemy combatant" and held for 3½ years without charge by the Bush administration shortly after his May 2002 arrest. He was accused then of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a major U.S. city.
Padilla was added as a defendant in the Miami terror support cell case last year amid a legal struggle over President George W. Bush's authority to hold him indefinitely. The Miami indictment does not mention the "dirty bomb" allegations.
Is this Judge Marcia Cooke a Clinton appointee?
See? That's why it would be GREAT idea to treat POWs at Gitmo like civilian criminals. /HEAVY sarc
Nope... appointed by none other than GWB himself.
http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3053
Cooke, Marcia G.
Born 1954 in Sumter, SC
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
Nominated by George W. Bush on November 25, 2003, to a seat vacated by Wilkie D. Ferguson; Confirmed by the Senate on May 18, 2004, and received commission on May 18, 2004.
The demand that a plan targeting specific individuals be disclosed is preposterous.
Did the September 11th terrorists know the names of any of the people they murdered?
Ack! What a mistake to make. But, then, GWB is not infallible...like the Pope.
I feel nothing but contempt for Padilla. I do however differ in opinion with you on how it should be handled. I think that dirtbags like Padilla deserve due process of law as much as everyone else. To do otherwise cheapens our legal system and rightfully allows our foes to accuse us of railroading defendants. Our legal system should remain fairly blind to politics, the media and the national mood.
There needs to be solid evidence of a crime on american soil. Performing an act deemed legal in a sovereign foreign country, while obviously morally wrong, does not constitute a crime in our country.
If the entire federal bureacracy cannot to produce enough clear evidence to convict this man (without judicial misadventure), he should go free. I would rather see that or see a victim's family member shoot him dead in the street than have our legal system perverted just to get him.
Vigilantism belongs in the streets, not the legal system.
That's not the issue. Afghanistan under the Taliban was not a legitimate sovereign state and aiding and abetting terrorists overseas - no matter how legal it may be in the terrorists' locale - is an illegal activity for any US citizen to engage in, no matter the time or the place.
Just so you understand, Afganistan was a sovereign country. There was a time when our own state department hosted the Taliban on a diplomatic visit to the states. OBL was even given a grand tour of our domestic oil fields in hopes of collaboration on economic development. That POS walked around on American soil and our tax dollars paid for it!
Regardless of whether you admit that Afganistan was a sovereign country, the possibility of getting witnesses from the camp to willingly testify about him is pretty close to nil. You can't convict on hearsay, even if we all know it is true.
If the evidence exists to support a conviction, he should be convicted. If it is not there, evidence should not be contrived, nor should our 2 century old constitution be sacrificed to get him. That document is one very important thing that separates us from a totalitarian regime.
The US State Department never granted diplomatic recognition to the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Ever. Almost no country ever did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.