Mistrial Is Latest Terror Prosecution Misstep for U.S.
By ADAM LIPTAK and LESLIE EATON
New York Times
There was a time when federal prosecutors would consistently win terrorism prosecutions.
From 1993 to 2001, prosecutors in Manhattan convicted some three dozen terrorists through guilty pleas and in six major trials.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the government’s track record has been decidedly spottier, and its failure to obtain a single conviction on Monday in its terrorism-financing prosecution of what was once the nation’s largest Islamic charity was another in a series of missteps and setbacks.
The comparisons are in some ways unfair, as the earlier prosecutions were for completed acts of violence — like the first World Trade Center attack or the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Africa — or for conspiracies that were relatively close to fruition.
The recent ones have often relied on the less colorful charge that the defendants had given “material support” to a terrorist organization. That shift is itself reflective of a conscious change in Washington’s law enforcement strategy, to prevention from punishment.
But some scholars and former prosecutors say the government should have known better than to bring some of its recent failed cases and that a lack of selectivity and judgment, along with a reliance on stale evidence and links to groups not at the core of the current threat, may be harming the effort to combat terrorism.
The pre-9/11 cases brought in Manhattan, said Peter S. Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, “reflected U.S. attorneys and federal prosecutors at their best, using their discretion, bringing cases when they had strong cases and declining to bring them when they were weak.”
(Continued here.)
New York Times
There was a time when federal prosecutors would consistently win terrorism prosecutions.
From 1993 to 2001, prosecutors in Manhattan convicted some three dozen terrorists through guilty pleas and in six major trials.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the government’s track record has been decidedly spottier, and its failure to obtain a single conviction on Monday in its terrorism-financing prosecution of what was once the nation’s largest Islamic charity was another in a series of missteps and setbacks.
The comparisons are in some ways unfair, as the earlier prosecutions were for completed acts of violence — like the first World Trade Center attack or the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Africa — or for conspiracies that were relatively close to fruition.
The recent ones have often relied on the less colorful charge that the defendants had given “material support” to a terrorist organization. That shift is itself reflective of a conscious change in Washington’s law enforcement strategy, to prevention from punishment.
But some scholars and former prosecutors say the government should have known better than to bring some of its recent failed cases and that a lack of selectivity and judgment, along with a reliance on stale evidence and links to groups not at the core of the current threat, may be harming the effort to combat terrorism.
The pre-9/11 cases brought in Manhattan, said Peter S. Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, “reflected U.S. attorneys and federal prosecutors at their best, using their discretion, bringing cases when they had strong cases and declining to bring them when they were weak.”
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
This is a BIG story.
The UK International Tribune has a better rundown of what actually happened.
The jury had been deliberating since October and had one juror replaced during deliberations. On Thursday that they had reached verdicts, but their decision was sealed because Judge A. Joe Fish, who was presiding over the case, was out of town. When Monday's session began, the decision was unsealed with an announcement in the court that three former leaders of the group had been found not guilty. But some of the jurors said that was incorrect, prompting Judge Fish to poll the full jury. In all, three of the 12 then said the verdicts had been read incorrectly. Mohammed El-Mezain, was found not guilty of most of the charges against him.
This goes to the heart of the warrantless wiretap controversy.
Was the government unable to prove its case since much of the investigation when they had to rely on the pre-9/11 practices ?
Was there evidence that the government did not present because they did not want to reveal secrets? Or was some of the evidence not presented because it was obtained illegally?
Did they do anything wrong if the US did not declare Hamas a terrorist organization until after the monies were collected and distributed ?
Did someone get the jury results after it was sealed on Thursday and influence the jury to reconsider their verdict?
Will the US government ever be able to prosecute cases involving terrorist-related activities? Hence, the concern with prosecuting detainees.
Post a Comment
<< Home