[bluey]

Padilla convicted of terrorism support - Yahoo! News

Padilla convicted of terrorism support

MIAMI - Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant, was convicted Thursday of helping Islamic extremists and plotting overseas attacks in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration's zeal to clamp down on terrorism.

Padilla, wearing a dark suit and wire-rimmed glasses, showed no emotion and stared straight ahead as he heard the verdict that could bring him a life sentence in prison. One person in the family section started to sob.

But it was hardly a complete victory for the government. When Padilla was arrested in the months following the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorities touted him as a key al-Qaida operative who planned to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city. That allegation never made it to court.

Instead, after a three-month trial and only a day and a half of deliberations, the 36-year-old Padilla and his foreign-born co-defendants were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas and two counts of providing material support to terrorists.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke set a Dec. 5 sentencing date.

The three were accused of being part of a North American support cell that provided supplies, money and recruits to groups of Islamic extremists. The defense contended they were trying to help persecuted Muslims in war zones with relief and humanitarian aid.

The White House thanked the jury for a "just" verdict.

"We commend the jury for its work in this trial and thank it for upholding a core American principle of impartial justice for all," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House. "Jose Padilla received a fair trial and a just verdict."

Estela Lebron, Padilla's mother, said outside the courthouse: "The winner is George Bush." Earlier in the courtroom, she said she felt "a little bit sad" at the verdict but expected her son's lawyers would appeal.

"I don't know how they found Jose guilty. There was no evidence he was speaking in code," she said, referring to FBI wiretap intercepts in which Padilla was overheard talking to co-defendant Adham Amin Hassoun.

Attorneys for Hassoun and the third defendant, Kifah Wael Jayyousi, both said they intended to appeal. There was no immediate comment from Padilla's lawyers.

"We're very disappointed," said Hassoun attorney Kenneth Swartz. "We were hoping for a different verdict."

Members of the jury declined interview requests from the media and were escorted out of the courthouse through a side exit by U.S. marshals.

Neal Sonnett, a prominent Miami defense lawyer who heads an American Bar Association task force on treatment of enemy combatants, said the verdict proves that the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is unnecessary to deal with terrorism suspects.

"This verdict once again demonstrates that federal courts are perfectly capable of handling terrorism cases," Sonnett said.

The charges brought in civilian court in Miami were a pale shadow of those initial dirty bomb claims in part because Padilla was interrogated in a military brig and was not read his Miranda rights.

Padilla's attorneys fought for years to get his case into federal court, and he was finally added to the Miami terrorism support indictment in late 2005 just as the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to consider President Bush's authority to continue detaining him.

Padilla, a Muslim convert from Chicago, had lived in South Florida in the 1990s and was supposedly recruited by Hassoun at a mosque to become a mujahedeen fighter.

The key piece of physical evidence was a five-page form Padilla supposedly filled out in July 2000 to attend an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan, which would link the other two defendants as well to Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization.

The form, recovered by the CIA in 2001 in Afghanistan, contains seven of Padilla's fingerprints and several other personal identifiers, such as his birthdate and his ability to speak Spanish, English and Arabic.

"He provided himself to al-Qaida for training to learn to murder, kidnap and maim," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Frazier in closing arguments.

Padilla's lawyers insisted the form was far from conclusive and denied that he was a "star recruit," as prosecutors claimed, of the North American support cell intending to become a terrorist. Padilla's attorneys said he traveled to Egypt in September 1998 to learn Islam more deeply and become fluent in Arabic.

"His intent was to study, not to murder," said Padilla attorney Michael Caruso.

James Cohen, criminal law professor at Fordham University, said the form likely cinched the case for many jurors.

"The fingerprints on the application, combined with the claim that Padilla's purpose was humanitarian when various Muslim charities are accused of being mere fronts for terrorism, adds up to a difficult defense," Cohen said.

Central to the investigation were some 300,000 FBI wiretap intercepts collected from 1993 to 2001, mainly involving Padilla's co-defendants Hassoun and Jayyousi and others. Most of the conversations were in Arabic and purportedly used code such as "tourism" and "football" for violent jihad or "zucchini" and "eggplant" instead of military weapons or ammunition.

The bulk of these conversations and other evidence concerned efforts in the 1990s by Hassoun and Jayyousi, both 45, to assist Muslims in conflict zones such as Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

Hassoun is a computer programmer of Palestinian descent who was born in Lebanon. Jayyousi is a civil engineer and public schools administrator who is a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Jordan. Jayyousi also ran an organization called American Worldwide Relief and published a newsletter called the Islam Report that provided details of battles and political issues in the Muslim world.

"It wasn't a terrorist operation. It was a relief operation," said Jayyousi attorney William Swor.

[Purple_alien]

Yeah, they were supposed to announce the verdict at 2pm. So I went to CNN on my phone. the "breaking news?" Jenna Bush is engaged. I was SO pissed I nearly threw my phone! talk about your news priorities.

[Kaminyu]

Central to the investigation were some 300,000 FBI wiretap intercepts collected from 1993 to 2001, mainly involving Padilla's co-defendants Hassoun and Jayyousi and others. Most of the conversations were in Arabic and purportedly used code such as "tourism" and "football" for violent jihad or "zucchini" and "eggplant" instead of military weapons or ammunition.

How do they know that these were code words, and not regular words?

What I'm also curious about, is what came first; the 5-page document or Padilla's arrest?

I think the whole thing with charging people for giving money to charities that fund terrorists is ridiculous, even if it were true. When con-men use false-advertising to dupe people into donating money to them (which they then use for nefarious purposes), it makes absolutely no sense to arrest the people who were conned. Leave it to the government to convince the sheeple into seeing conspiracies that aren't there, and ignoring ones that are.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;6243]

How do they know that these were code words, and not regular words?

From the context I should imagine

What I'm also curious about, is what came first; the 5-page document or Padilla's arrest?

The CIA had the 5 page document in 2001

Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant, was convicted Thursday of helping Islamic extremists and plotting overseas attacks in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration's zeal to clamp down on terrorism.

Since this suggest that he was arrested early 03, it seems as if the document came first

I think the whole thing with charging people for giving money to charities that fund terrorists is ridiculous, even if it were true.

So you consider supporting terroist is okay do you?

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

From the context I should imagine

Then it isn't even evidence. It's just conjecture.

The CIA had the 5 page document in 2001

Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant, was convicted Thursday of helping Islamic extremists and plotting overseas attacks in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration's zeal to clamp down on terrorism.

Since this suggest that he was arrested early 03, it seems as if the document came first

So what was the point on the initial false charges against him, and what was the hold up on charging him based on this document?

So you consider supporting terroist is okay do you?

Do you consider unknowingly giving money to con-men, to be the same thing as supporting them and to also be a criminal offense?

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;6416]

Then it isn't even evidence. It's just conjecture.

Call it what you like I was just trying to answer your query

So what was the point on the initial false charges against him, and what was the hold up on charging him based on this document?

I could only speculate and that seems to upset you so I'll not bother

Do you consider unknowingly giving money to con-men, to be the same thing as supporting them and to also be a criminal offense?

Well it supports them whether intentionally, or not, as to whether it's an offence that's depends on the pertinent law, ignorance of a law is not normal accepted as a defence

Kaminyu, why so touchy , have you been giving money to questionable charities?

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

I could only speculate and that seems to upset you so I'll not bother

Good. Your speculations are based on a foregone conclusion, and therefore, highly presumptive and narrow-minded.

Well it supports them whether intentionally, or not, as to whether it's an offence that's depends on the pertinent law, ignorance of a law is not normal accepted as a defence

So you believe people who were conned out of their money by con-men (who later use that money for illegal activity), should be considered as co-conspirators?

Here, let me give you an example:

An individual runs a business where people give him money to do mundane services for them. However (whether he does them or not), he uses the money to secretly engage in certain illegal activities.

In such a case, do you believe the people should be treated as "victims" or as "co-conspirators" of this individual?

Kaminyu, why so touchy , have you been giving money to questionable charities?

No (although I'm sure you'd like to think so), I just think the whole idea of holding people as "co-conspirators" for being conned out of their money (which later went to illegal activities) is hypocritical, when in other such cases, those who are conned, are seen and treated as "victims" instead.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;6597]

Good. Your speculations are based on a foregone conclusion, and therefore, highly presumptive and narrow-minded.

Really

So you believe people who were conned out of their money by con-men (who later use that money for illegal activity), should be considered as co-conspirators?

Here, let me give you an example:

An individual runs a business where people give him money to do mundane services for them. However (whether he does them or not), he uses the money to secretly engage in certain illegal activities.

In such a case, do you believe the people should be treated as "victims" or as "co-conspirators" of this individual?

I believe that people that break the law should be tried and if found guilty punished, that's the way it is in democracies, if you don't like it then perhaps you live in the wrong country.

No (although I'm sure you'd like to think so), I just think the whole idea of holding people as "co-conspirators" for being conned out of their money (which later went to illegal activities) is hypocritical, when in other such cases, those who are conned, are seen and treated as "victims" instead

Your repeating yourself

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Really

Yeah, but I'm sure you knew that already.

I believe that people that break the law should be tried and if found guilty punished, that's the way it is in democracies, if you don't like it then perhaps you live in the wrong country.

You still didn't answer my question. You're just making a general, vague statement, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Your repeating yourself

You're acting like a politician; you don't give any straight answers to direct questions, which are uncomfortable to answer.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;6802]

Yeah, but I'm sure you knew that already.

A pathetic comment , even for you

You still didn't answer my question. You're just making a general, vague statement, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Break a law and you deserved to be punished , what's vague about that, as to you question it was non applicable

You're acting like a politician; you don't give any straight answers to direct questions, which are uncomfortable to answer.

As I have said your question would not progress the discussion, it was just an attempt on your part to deviated from the basis of law in a democracy, I can understand your difficulty with that, but keep trying

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

A pathetic comment , even for you

A pathetic response, but yet somehow characteristic of you.

Break a law and you deserved to be punished , what's vague about that, as to you question it was non applicable

As I have said your question would not progress the discussion, it was just an attempt on your part to deviated from the basis of law in a democracy, I can understand your difficulty with that, but keep trying

The question I had, has to do with people giving money to charity organizations, which then supposedly turned around and gave that same money to terrorists, and therefore, it is both relevent, and pertinent to this discussion.

This has nothing to do with "breaking the law", since there's no law against giving money to charity organizations. If someone says they're a charity organization (and it later turns out they fund terrorists), that is the fault of the organization, not the people they duped into giving them money for their falsely-advertised "charity". That is why the charge of giving money to charities that fund terrorists, is a bogus one, and the fact that it was excepted, is a travesty of justice. Anyone with objective reasoning can see that.

This isn't democracy, it is authoritarianism. Your seemingly unconditional support for western authority, reflects that you really believe in the latter, not the former.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;7015]


Kaminyu this in what the guy was convicted of :

Instead, after a three-month trial and only a day and a half of deliberations, the 36-year-old Padilla and his foreign-born co-defendants were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas and two counts of providing material support to terrorists.

So as I have already told you "people giving money to charity organizations, which then supposedly turned around and gave that same money to terrorists, is not pertinent to the thread , it is of course pertinent to the usual stupid distraction which you inject to avoid facing reality

Now why don't you come down from the clouds and stop making a fool of yourself.Heck man I'm embarrassed for you

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

Kaminyu this in what the guy was convicted of :

Instead, after a three-month trial and only a day and a half of deliberations, the 36-year-old Padilla and his foreign-born co-defendants were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas and two counts of providing material support to terrorists.

So as I have already told you "people giving money to charity organizations, which then supposedly turned around and gave that same money to terrorists, is not pertinent to the thread , it is of course pertinent to the usual stupid distraction which you inject to avoid facing reality

Now why don't you come down from the clouds and stop making a fool of yourself.Heck man I'm embarrassed for you

"...two counts of providing material support to terrorists"

The three were accused of being part of a North American support cell that provided supplies, money and recruits to groups of Islamic extremists. The defense contended they were trying to help persecuted Muslims in war zones with relief and humanitarian aid.

"The fingerprints on the application, combined with the claim that Padilla's purpose was humanitarian when various Muslim charities are accused of being mere fronts for terrorism, adds up to a difficult defense," Cohen said.

How can you say it isn't pertinent, when it was one of the charges brought against him, and something he was convicted of?