| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Most evidence against Padilla will not be heard during trial |
| 2006-02-04 |
| The U.S. government claims alleged terror operative Jose Padilla admitted attending an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan and acknowledged plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" inside the United States or destroy apartment buildings with natural gas explosions in major U.S. cities. But none of that evidence, contained in Defense and Justice Department documents, is likely to be heard by a Miami jury when Padilla goes on trial in September on far less serious charges of conspiracy and providing material support to a terrorist organization. Padilla made those admissions to U.S. interrogators during the 3 1/2 years he was in military custody as an "enemy combatant," according to the government. Because he had no lawyer present and was afforded no constitutional rights during the questioning, most of what he said can't be used in civilian court and none of it is mentioned in a criminal indictment against him. "It's like the government is playing games," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor who specializes in national security issues. "The defense could raise these issues. The government is going to have to explain why they aren't going after much stronger charges." Padilla, 35, is a former Chicago gang member and Muslim convert with a lengthy criminal record who was arrested May 8, 2002 at O'Hare International Airport on a material witness warrant. A month later, President Bush designated him an "enemy combatant" who was described as plotting to use a "dirty bomb" in a major U.S. city. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, became the focal point of a fierce debate over the limits of presidential powers during wartime, focusing on how long the government could hold an American without bringing criminal charges. "It was a tactic to avoid the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution," said Jeffrey Harris, a Fort Lauderdale attorney who is president-elect of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The government has been trying to avoid scrutiny of the facts." The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to accept Padilla's case, which could produce a landmark ruling on that issue. If the high court does take the case, that could result in a delay of the Miami criminal trial, some legal experts say. Amid that debate, the Bush administration decided in November to drop the "combatant" designation and give Padilla what he sought for years: a chance to answer criminal charges in court. He is accused along with four others of taking part in a North American terror support cell that provided money, supplies and recruits for violent Islamic jihad worldwide. Charges of material support have been among the U.S. government's favorite legal weapons in the war on terror since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Prosecutors have won major convictions and guilty pleas - "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh and cells in Oregon, New York and Virginia among them - but also have lost some cases, including that of former Tampa college professor and alleged Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian. The material support law, first passed by Congress in 1996, was strengthened in 2001 by the Patriot Act. But winning convictions often depends on whether the person being accused of helping terrorists can be tied directly to any violent acts, legal experts and defense attorneys say. "If the government does not so tie him, this may weaken the case in the jury's eyes," said Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond. Evidence disclosed so far against Padilla includes a mujahideen application he allegedly filled out to attend the al-Qaida training camp and a series of telephone intercepts, most of them in Arabic, in which he and others are described as discussing jihad and how to travel to global hot spots. There is an oblique reference to Osama bin Laden in one telephone conversation and another making reference to Omar ibn al-Khattab, a now-dead leader of Islamic militants in Chechnya. Stephanie Pell, a Justice Department counterterrorism prosecutor, said in a recent court hearing that those snippets of conversation link Padilla to the violent acts allegedly committed by both of these terrorist leaders. "He was recruited to travel overseas to engage in jihad or armed confrontation," Pell said. Padilla's lawyers described the evidence as shaky at best and have questioned the accuracy of the Arabic translations of an estimated 50,000 telephone conversations. They also said there is no hard evidence that Padilla actually filled out the al-Qaida form and no statements attributed to him suggesting any terror plots. "The government is attempting to build a circumstantial case against this man after holding him for 3 1/2 years," said Michael Caruso, one of Padilla's attorneys. Alicia Valle, a spokeswoman for the U.S Attorney's Office in Miami, said "the evidence will come out at trial." She declined futher comment. Another issue that could disrupt the case against Padilla is the ongoing controversy over a secret National Security Agency program to monitor without court order the international communications of people inside the United States believed to have links to al-Qaida. Andrew Patel, another of Padilla's attorneys, said so far it appears that most of the intercepts in the Florida case were authorized by a court under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But if evidence surfaces that the NSA program was involved, lawyers could ask U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke to throw it out. Another challenge for federal prosecutors will be selecting a jury that can try the case fairly given the intense publicity that has surrounded Padilla, which included his arrival in Miami under heavy security that was covered on live television. "You're going to be hard pressed to find somebody who hasn't heard the name Padilla and read somewhere that he was the supposed dirty bomber," Silliman said. "Padilla is the government's worst nightmare as far as litigation." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #1 The man should have stood trial for treason during time of war. This is Taliban Johnny crap part II. You enforce the laws to insure others obey and think twice before acting in this manner. Why did the founding fathers put 'Treason' in the Constitution if they didn't think it was a crime? |
| Posted by: Ebbavins Flemp6662 2006-02-04 10:09 |