Jury in Miami Terror trial jury decides a blown up Sears Tower was the only way to convict

HUH?

Yet Another Troubling Terror Trial
By Joel Mowbray
Thursday, January 31, 2008

Given that hard evidence is often scarce in trials of unsuccessful terrorists, federal prosecutors in Miami no doubt felt fortunate to be trying defendants who participated in a ceremony pledging allegiance to al Qaeda—which was captured on video.

The defendants took surveillance photos of government buildings. The leader of the cell admitted requesting from an apparent terrorist financier boots, uniforms, vehicles, machine guns and $50,000. Just in case the reason for the request was unclear, Narseal Batiste stated—on tape—that it was for creating an “Islamic army” to wage a “full ground war” and commit an attack that would be “as good or greater than 9/11,” such as blowing up the Sears Tower.

It wasn’t enough. They weren’t convicted.

In a stunning defeat for common sense, a Miami jury last month couldn’t convict seven defendants on a single of the 28 total charges. One man, who had moved to Atlanta months before the arrests and had severed ties with the group, was acquitted entirely. The jury deadlocked on all charges brought against the other members of the “Liberty City Seven.”

Though prosecutors are re-trying the remaining defendants soon, odds of success the second time around seem dicey. Put simply, it appears that several jurors were determined to acquit, no matter the evidence.

That's a condemning idea.

A dismissed juror—who was shown the door near the midpoint for reading a police pamphlet outside the courthouse on terrorism during the trial—explained that he was favoring acquittal for that very reason. “They were playing ninja,” said Eldon Brown. “These guys were living in the movies. They were completely out of touch with reality.”

What does that have to do with the crime?

Then there’s the inherent problem of prosecuting unsuccessful terrorists: By definition, they never actually have succeeded.

Juror Michael Silva clearly didn’t feel threatened by the defendants, explaining after the trial, “It was not like [prosecutors] had evidence of somebody planting explosives.” Silva did not state that he pushed for a universal acquittal, but Agron said that a different juror kept insisting during deliberations that explosives being planted or something similar would have been necessary.

Never mind that one of the charges brought against each of the defendants—conspiracy to support al Qaeda—required no imminent attacks or anything beyond an agreement to support bin Laden’s network. Swearing an oath to al Qaeda clearly satisfies that requirement, but the defendants also took reconnaissance photos of government buildings—more than enough under the law to convict on the conspiracy charge.

What level of proof would thus be needed to break up a plot ahead of time, arrest the conspirators, and convict them? Is it necessary to wait until the plan is carried out? Does that mean the 19 mass murderers of 9/11 could have only been convicted by americans AFTER they took control of the aircraft?

How realistic would it have seemed if we HAD acted on intelligence then, and the 9/10 prosecution was making the case that america was going to be attacked by religious lunatics with boxcutters, and that it was terrorism?

How much more necessary does this make the slippery slope of taking terrorists outside the field of battle as enemy forces and just stick them away in some hole?

It appears some jurors thru their irresponsible behavior are in fact inspiring the kind of action we have seen in places like Chile in the past.

So, terrorists out there, make sure you include some really stupid people in your plots, that way you can just claim you were playing ninja, and other morons will set you loose.

Who on the prosecution vetted that jury?

Move the trial to lower Manhattan. Maybe those folks will be able to envision the results from the plans.