A couple points on that.
Dude! What you are saying there is roughly an admission that some of the accused are being held without evidence to support the charge! And if it comes out later, the timing of this new evidence, those held in the interim have a solid deprivation of rights claim.
Not that "our" government is above this, but the fairy tale the government pedals to the rubes is that you can;t be held without evidence that constitutes evidence of committing a crime.
The other point is that you've only attempted to justify holding the Cossacks.
“Dude! What you are saying there is roughly an admission that some of the accused are being held without evidence to support the charge!”
No, I am not privy to all the evidence that the authorities have, I am just speculating on what else they might need to prove their case in court. For all I (or you) know, they may already have that. It certainly would not be unusual for the police or feds to have undercover agents or confidential informants already in place in these organizations to give them that kind of information.
“And if it comes out later, the timing of this new evidence, those held in the interim have a solid deprivation of rights claim.”
How so? Evidence must be disclosed in discovery. There is no deprivation of rights as long as that is done, and we certainly aren’t past that deadline yet.
“Not that “our” government is above this, but the fairy tale the government pedals to the rubes is that you can;t be held without evidence that constitutes evidence of committing a crime.”
Well, there are different standards of evidence that come into play. To arrest someone, you only need a “reasonable suspicion” that they were involved in a crime. To indict them, you need a higher standard than that, and to convict, an even higher standard. So you can certainly be held in custody for a crime if the government does not necessarily have enough evidence to convict you.
“The other point is that you’ve only attempted to justify holding the Cossacks.”
I think you mean Bandidos, and yes, I think the government’s case is strongest against them (and their support clubs), from the evidence and testimony we’ve seen so far, simply because they organized the event. So, naturally, it is going to be easier to make the case that the Bandidos planned for this to happen, since they made the arrangements that set things in motion.
However, the Cossacks and their support clubs did take some actions that don’t look good either and could be used as evidence for conspiracy on their part too. I just don’t think that is going to be as easy for the government to demonstrate that to a jury’s satisfaction.