Miami bomb plot suspects "entrapped," lawyers say

How pleasant. A nice Jewish lawyer defending the people who want to murder him. I wonder if Mr. Levin sleeps well at night.

Are we going to make the same mistake we did with Moussaui and try these suckers in Federal/ criminal court?

These are enemies, not criminals.

Military court is the proper venue. We need to process the detainess in Guantanamo through military tribunals, not any other venue.

OT:

I got a word in edge-wise in the print media:
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/06.28.06/letters-0626.html

That's a high-circulation "free" weekly in the SF Bay Area. Of course very "liberal". But they printed my letter to them regarding an article which they ran about a proposed Islamic Studies department at Stanford University. From the letter:

"Stanford should indeed have an Islamic studies department. It is critical that all people learn the truth about this intolerant, primitive belief system and the threat to liberal democracy it poses."

For Robert and Hugh (and any other genuine scholars), there's an opportunity here. Stanford has about $9million set aside, but they haven't created the department yet. Maybe you should send in your resumes. :-)

Now the poor mo beilievers want to be found not guilty because they were lead to believe the way they believe by the Feds.........

Miami bomb plot suspects "entrapped," lawyers say...

Well, that does it! Release them immediately! They are obviously entitled to reparations!

Racism,that's what it is! Bigotry, pure and simple; isn't that right John Howard!?

Naturally, I sympathise completely with Mr Levin's views and share his feelings, along with those of all the halfwits and traitors in the MSM, the judiciary and the political elite. If these poor misunderstood little darlings want to blow up as many adults and children as they can possibly manage then, quite frankly, they've jolly well got every right to do so. I mean, their 'victims' could hardly be described as innocent, could they? We are all guilty and we have all got it coming to us, and no mistake.

Stands to reason, dunnit?

"Entrapped, entrapped, entrapped..."

I think Muslims doth protest too much re "set-ups", "frame-ups"-and "entrappment". People are thinking about these constant charges of "entrapment".

For entrapment to ahve any chance of succeeding as a defense, the defendant must show that he did not have a propensity to commit such an act. Tough as hell here.

Trapped like rats!

Next it will be racial profiling. They're always the victim, never the aggressor.

I have to second Hyman Roth's suggestion for Mr. Spencer and Hugh (and where is Rebecca lately?) that they get their CV's to Stanford immediately!

Soak up some of this dhimmi largesse and turn it back on the purveyors of p.c. poison.

This sounds like superb opportunity to both counter the academic delusional class and popularize the anti-jihad resistance movement.

A damned good bully pulpit!

Standford is a great campus and could use the leavening of some common sense and enlightened self-defense that is evident from the writings of Robert and Hugh and Rebecca.

A_Plague_On_-

The Supreme Court, tomorrow, issues it critical ruling on the permissability of having the jihadists at Gitmo, etc. be judged by military tribunals instead of in civilian courts.

My fingers (and every other appropriate body part) are crossed.

Let's hope they know that saying of a former justice on this same court:

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Entrapped is it! I've always wondered why we didn't set up a suicide bomber school somewhere, recruit all these idiots and then administer the final test. Achmed had to put on his practice vest, filled with dummy explosives, of course, and go out back of the barn and pull the lanyard just to show he had the determination to do it. Seems to me we could solve a lot of problems that way.

Say, that's another one to add to our profiling list:

- "youths"
- "males"
- "they were such nice people"

Good thing this lady has had her eye on well-socialized males under 35 for quite some time. With data like this, someone's gotta watch.

That is a great idea GaryK!
Come on in boys/youths/males, 1000 dollars a head to each of you. Here’s your chance to get back at those Evil Oppressor Infidels! Of course you understand we will need the 1000 up front and in cash.

Next it will be racial profiling. They're always the victim, never the aggressor.

.. and herein lies the grand deceptions of Islam. Muslims know that blood-thirsty and barbaric as Islam is, only a carefully crafted cover-up can get them by in this world. Besides, in Taquiyya, Kitman and Dawa, Islam has prescribed just that. Not only Islam traps Muslims (remember, no Muslim can leave Islam safely), it gives material to trap non-muslims, to grow their numbers. The end, not the means are important.

Islam is the real entrapment!

henry, yes, you laid out Islam quite cut-and-dry. Behind the smoke-screen of 'Peace' and 'Religion', Islam's barbarism is only matched by it's deception. Good observation!

and I bet the two guys were actually running a reverse sting on the fbi informant. they were going to go to the fbi about the informant once they had the evidence against him. spy vs spy scenario.

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses asks: "Are we going to make the same mistake we did with Moussaui and try these suckers in Federal/ criminal court? These are enemies, not criminals. Military court is the proper venue."

Not possible. Shortly after the war on terror started, the Bush Administration issued an Executive Order that stated that only non-citizens would be tried by military commissions.

It would have been extremely difficult to justify trying these men by military commissions anyway. They seem to be American citizens, and thus they enjoy all the protections of our Bill of Rights. And the rules that the Bush Administration have set up for military commissions differ so much from the body of Constitutional case law for civilian courts (such as the right to face your accuser and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence), that a defense attorney could argue that his client is not being treated in a manner consistent with the Bill of Rights.

The whole issue of military commissions has been a legalistic nightmare since Bush started the practice. In fact, we're expecting a Supreme Court ruling on its very Constitutionality this week.

I don't think we should snicker too hard at this explanation. It is possible that these were a bunch of small-time criminals willing to do contract violence for Al Qaeda, or simply pretending to be willing to do that and then abscond with the money. Their military style training seems almost to have been "for show." Maybe they were sincere would-be bombers, and too stupid to avoid attracting attention to themselves. But it looks to me like they were trying to impress their "al Qaeda" contact.

It doesn't take much to become a Muslim; all one has to do is to recite the "confession of faith." The world abounds with scams, and I would not put it past a small-time crook to "convert" for the sake of a place at the terror funding trough. After collecting the money, he could go away and hide, or even turn informant and collect more money from the other side.

I suspect that we will see instances of this in the future. Hopefully in such cases, intention to commit fraud under the pretense of planning mayhem will not persuade a jury. They'll go to jail where they'll be incorporated into the Muslim terror training camps of our prisons.

___
BTW, here's an interesting link that decribes the emergence of a powerful and violent non-state actor in Brazil's prisons. Something like this, with a jihad agenda, might be conceivable in the US.

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_5_25_06.htm

___
One Caliph to rule them all
One Caliph to find them
One Caliph to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them

In the dar al Islam where the shadow lies

profitsbeard--

The fact that Stanford is (apparently) dragging its feet on forming a department is perhaps comforting. I don't know about Stanford politics, but I would hope that if there are any remaining nooks and crannies in which the Liberal Arts hide then Stanford may be one of them.

Maybe it's wishful thinking though.

Hyman,

Bill Gates is one of the biggest benefactors of Stanford.

I believe he is on the board. His political understanding equals Peanut Khadr and Clintons.

I don't think he would support scholars like Spencer or Fitzgerald to teach the harsh realities of the cult of Islam, it is just against all their "why can't we all just get along"- mentality and their (false) belief that everything can be fixed with money, or that somehow 'lifting them out of poverty' would fix it...

"ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

I guess the new definition should be "i wanted to do break the law but now there's a way to get out of conviction" just like moslims to try to escape punishment from us infidels. yeah they're the victim alright.

These are the two things that are common throughout the world. Slinky lawyers and corrupt politicians.

Over here in India, there have been initiatives by several lawyers to reform their practice. The last two terrorists caught were not defended by any lawyer. The government was forced to get one of the prosecution to defend him. He botched the job.

play the race card, it is a common American tactic. it is a copout, some people just refuse to admit they are in trouble just because they commited a criminal act or just did something really stupid. don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

perish the thought that any black us muslim should be willing to commit a violent crime, since most of tehm converted in prison

Steven L - thanks for the input. I will watch for the Supreme Court results. I think that anyone pledging to do a 'full assault' on the United States in a military fashion, as these rejects planned to do, is an enemy regardless of whether they are citizens of the United States.

Enemies who train to do violent, military assaults and attacks on civilian targets in an organized fashion should be considered military combatants and should be tried in military court. They were organized and wanted to do jihad. The goal is military when attacking the FBI's Miami field office and when blowing up the Sears Tower in Chicago.

If we have to bring them up on treason and do it through a federal court, then let's do it, but this is not the proper venue, even if they are citizens of the United States.

We need to fry these treasonous traitors.

Steven L - the Supreme Court ruling is in.

Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials

Thursday , June 29, 2006

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Bush administration's anti-terror policies Thursday when it ruled that the president was out of line when he ordered military war-crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees who have not been declared prisoners of war.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

A huge question in this case was whether the Geneva Conventions applied to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration argued that these detainees were not prisoners of war and therefore, not eligible to treatment under the Geneva agreement.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."

The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."

The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Usama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

The administration said foreign terror suspects don't have the right to come into U.S. courts and demand all of the rights afforded to U.S. citizens under the legal system here but that they would be given some rights under rules for the tribunals. The justices said conspiracy was not an appropriate charge under the so-called "laws of war," under which the administration said it could set up the tribunals.

Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.

The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy joining Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Stevens in the majority. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia voted in the minority.

Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.

Thursday's ruling overturned that decision.

In his opinion, Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check."'

"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

Bush spokesman Tony Snow said the White House would have no comment until lawyers had had a chance to review the decision. Officials at the Defense and Justice Departments were planning to issue statements later in the day.

The administration had hinted in recent weeks that it was prepared for the court to set back its plans for trying Guantanamo detainees.

The president also has told reporters, "I'd like to close Guantanamo." But he added, "I also recognize that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous."

The court's ruling says nothing about whether the prison should be shut down, dealing only with plans to put detainees on trial.

"Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order," Kennedy wrote in his opinion.

Ret. Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, who just returned from Guantanamo Bay, said every government branch needs to be on the same page as to how to deal with terror suspect in the United States.

"the American people and the Supreme Court and the rest of people in the enlightened world ... have to decide for themselves, are we in a state of war or are we not in a state of war?" Scales said. "The enemy is using our confusion about the conditions in the world today to their advantage and ultimately, we're going to end up with innocent dead in Europe, the United States and elsewhere in the world."

The prison at Guantanamo Bay, erected in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, has been a flash point for international criticism. Hundreds of people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban — including some teenagers — have been there since 2002.

Three detainees committed suicide there this month, using sheets and clothing to hang themselves. The deaths brought new scrutiny and criticism of the prison, along with fresh calls for its closing.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

In his opinion, Breyer said, "Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check."'

"Indeed, Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Breyer wrote.

Okay - then Pres. Bush needs to get the authority from Congress.

A_Plague-

I think that ALL of the Gitmo detainees should be found hanged in their cells tomorrow morning in a coordinated mass-protest against this Supreme Court decision.

Why would they kill themselves over a ruling that seems to go in their favor?

Go try to figure these inscrutable jihadists.

Profitsbeard. okay - maybe in a more perfect world... :))

Bush needs to go to Congress and ask for the laws to set up the military tribunals. Let Congress explain to all of us why we don't need military tribunals. I hope President Bush hands the ball over to the Legislative Branch now and asks for the authority and then stops, waits and listens... as we all should.

Let the Congress have the chance to do the right thing. We'll be watching and listening.