Padilla Trial Takes a 'Star' Turn
Dirty-bomb suspect turned enemy combatant turned alleged terror conspirator Jose Padilla has morphed once again: Now, according to the government, he was a "star" al-Qaeda recruit. "He was disciplined. He was secretive. He was committed" to kill, federal prosecutor Brian Frazier told jurors Monday during closing arguments in the conspiracy and terror support trial of Padilla and two co-defendants winding down in Miami. "We know where they stand," Frazier said.
I'm sure the grand new designation -- a star! -- comes as a great surprise to the people who knew Padilla when he was a common street punk unable to distinguish himself in any way other than by consistent failure to achieve any legitimate life goals. And it might come as a surprise to you since Padilla was allegedly a "star" in 2000 yet apparently never came close to being part of the 9/11 plot. But I am equally sure that defense attorneys in the case are not surprised that their government counterparts have decided to try to raise Padilla's profile at the end of this long case.
Padilla's attorneys have deliberately tried to have their client lie low during the trial -- they didn't present any evidence on his behalf -- hoping that jurors might take out their frustrations at the two other men who face life in prison if convicted. The attorneys for those men have put on a defense.
The idea is that jurors would perhaps be more willing to blame the recruiters and not the recruit when they begin to try to make sense of this case. By elevating Padilla to "star" status, the feds are trying to signal to jurors that he wasn't some young kid who didn't know better but rather a willing and eager "true believer" in the cause, one willing to murder, kidnap and maim.
Invoking the specter of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, Frazier told jurors that the trio followed chapter and verse the al-Qaeda terror manual as they prepared to wage a violent jihad against Western interests. Padilla himself was the "material support" provided to aid the cause, Frazier said, and the only plausible explanation for the relationship between the men, and the way they communicated, was that they were part of a terrorist sleeper cell and thus criminals. Use your common sense, Frazier told the panel, and you'll surely agree that the men are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In my experience covering criminal trials, the side which uses the phrase "use your common sense" usually prevails, and that's the way I'd be betting here. What's more likely? That these three guys were dabbling in relief efforts overseas while praising Islamic warriors, or that they were wannabe Islamic warriors who figured that a few relief efforts here and there might just throw off the feds?
That doesn't mean the case against the men is particularly impressive or bulletproof. The link between cause and effect -- what the government says the men did and what effect it had overseas -- is tenuous. And relying upon this idea that the men were talking in code ("football" being "terrorism," for example) is an awfully thin string to hang a life-in-prison case upon.
We'll soon see. This afternoon the defense attorneys will start taking cracks at the government's theories and I'll bring you the highlights either later today or early tomorrow.
By Andrew Cohen |
August 13, 2007; 12:28 PM ET
Previous: Down to the Wire in the Jose Padilla Case |
Next: Through the Looking Glass at the Padilla Trial
Posted by: Chris M | August 13, 2007 04:05 PM
"Star" sounds like an overstatement based on what I've read about this case. But "common sense" still says it's a strong case for conviction of providing material support to terrorists. You seem more accepting of the government's case than you were a few weeks ago. Don't tell me you've decided not to buy the bit about him going over there to study the Koran.
Posted by: ExAUSA | August 13, 2007 04:21 PM
The government's case is so weak, Padilla's lawyers didn't even put on a defense. Sounds like they're pretty confident they are cruising to an acquittal, and the only way to mess that up would be to waste the jury's time.
Posted by: Ronbo | August 13, 2007 11:48 PM
The American justice system is a good example of irrational behaviour at its worst. Nobody can have any confidence in the way Americans treat people that they do not like. The presumption seems to be: lock suspects up just in case they are dangerous.
It is a vindictive and neurotic system. This is as bad as 'reds under beds'. I guess your vindictiveness started with the Salem witch hunts. Wasn't there a presumption in WWll that Japanese Americans would be traitorous and that they should be locked up? The wheel has gone around and you are back to where you always go. America is the land of vigilantes. They liked the idea of lynching people before the show trial.
Posted by: Robert James | August 14, 2007 10:01 AM
"Use your common sense" sounds more like a plea to the jury to "see it our way" rather than a cogent argument built on fact. If they had a strong case, he'd have said something like "look at the evidence".
In my experience, when people ask me to use my common sense it's because I already have and decided they are likely full of crap. I think the problem here is that the government never expected to have to bring this man to trial, so they didn't wait long enough for him to commit an actual crime. That can really impeded the stampede to put a human being in a metal cage for the rest of his life.
To bad for them, he probably is dangerous, he probably would have become an AQ terrorist if given an opportunity, but the standard is "reasonably doubt" not "seems likely".
Posted by: Dijetlo | August 14, 2007 12:23 PM
it's has become quite obvious that the govt. really doesn't have a case. the feds believe that they can convict people with "rumour mill" hypothesis. padilla will probably still be convicted of something by a group of "scared conspiricy theorists", but the primary basis for the arrest of padilla, i.e. the dirty bomb plot, flew out the window long ago. as far as the fingerprints are concerned, i seem to recall a portland, oregon attorney arrested by the govt. based on finger print evidence. with the current record of the f.b.i. on evidentiary testimony i would find it difficult at best to believe what they testify to a convict an individual on this basis. and in closing, goiong to egypt is not a crime and since there are no actual witnesses as to the claim that padilla was hypothetically at an al-qaeda training facility in afghanistan, just ecactly what is the case against him? i'm not defending terrorism, but i am very fearful of a govt. which detains individuals for 3 yrs. based on flimsy evidence of this type. al-qaeda has all too often been tossed around as a blanket terminology for any one who disagrees with u.s. policy. it has grown quite stale in it's usage and the govt. needs to present "hard facts" as opposed to theories when prosecuting anyone; u.s. citizen or not.
Posted by: lonewolf | August 14, 2007 01:39 PM
Dijetlo, most jurisdictions instruct juries specifically and explicitly to use their common sense and their experience in life. I haven't seen the jury instructions in this case but it's standard. You should expect that your government will ask juries to do that, and to follow the law, in seeking guilty verdicts against persons who the government believes are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of federal offenses.
Posted by: ExAUSA | August 14, 2007 05:27 PM
The government (read Bush Administration) already got what it wanted out of Padilla -- re-election in 2004. Anything above that is simply icing on the cake. All you hvae to do is look at the shifting rationale for Padilla's arrest, detention, interrogation (some would say torture), and now indictment and trial. No mention of a dirty bomb at trial, but that was enough to get the "security moms" demographic in 2004.
I hope that the jury is able to set irrational fear aside while deliberating and come to a just verdict.
Posted by: Nellie | August 15, 2007 10:24 AM
Nellie, how can you say that, it's standard to "instruct" juries explicitly to guess (with some evidence) someone else's situation with their own anecdotal experience and use their "common sense".
Posted by: Al | August 15, 2007 12:56 PM
That said, I think/hope Andrew means that the side that usually prevails can AFFORD to say "use your common sense" because its case is otherwise solid, not that there is this great faith in the people's common sense shaped by popular conventionality as a basis to sentence.
Posted by: | August 15, 2007 01:00 PM
Jose the Diva
Posted by: | August 15, 2007 01:02 PM
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! iajpmyecsfdbz
Posted by: iggjkjgsws | August 25, 2007 08:48 AM
Thanks for this site!
dppzioede5
Posted by: tawqazhnbt | August 25, 2007 10:01 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Padilla a star but the 19 men who committed the horrors of 9/11 were just called, in effect, naive kids by Bush.