Monday, June 25, 2007

They love Osama

That's the prosecution theme in the Jose Padilla trial.

It started in opening. And it continued yesterday with the government calling al Qaeda expert Rohan Gunaratna. This is all leading up to the government playing a CNN interview with Osama bin Laden, which Judge Cooke already has said portions can be played.

So can this evidence link any of the defendants to any al Qaeda attacks? According to Jay Weaver:

None of the evidence presented in the Miami trial links the three men to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks or any other alleged al Qaeda attacks during the previous decade.

It's not even clear to me why this expert or the CNN tape is relevant to the charges in this trial. The CNN tape is relevant, the government says, because two of the defendants (not Padilla) watched it and discussed it. Hmmmm. Think about that for a second. You better start thinking about the shows you watch or the websites you visit.

As for Padilla's argument that he only was captured on tape a couple of times, here's Curt Anderson describing the re-direct of the government's case agent:

On Monday, he also said Padilla likely spoke with Hassoun on many more occasions than the seven substantive telephone intercepts on which his voice appears. They met at a mosque in Florida, Kavanaugh said, and also used letters and human couriers to communicate.

Huh? "Likely"? What does that mean? Where's the actual proof? Isn't that what the tapes are for? They recorded hundreds of thousands of calls, but they "likely" spoke on other occassions not captured?

But they loved Osama.

For me, the real controversy is how to spell al Qaeda (Miami Herald spelling). Or is it al Qaida (AP spelling). Blogger doesn't like either spelling.


Anonymous said...

Not very responsible to simply laugh this case off by saying the "real controversy" is how to spell Al Qaeda. You may not agree with the case or with the government's tactics in dealing with the threat of terror, but the concern is real, both here and around the world. This administration has mishandled the response to the September 11 attacks in many ways, but the handling of the response does not mean that there was or is no threat. There are plenty of victims (and victims' families) around the world who would be astounded by your cavalier and frivolous attitude.

David Oscar Markus said...

Anonymous, obviously I was not making light of Sept. 11 or the victims of terror. I was having fun with the parties' maneuvering in the Padilla trial, which has absolutely nothing to do with Sept. 11.

Marcos Daniel Jimenez said...

David you know I am fond of you and your blog, but I disagree with you on this one. But for 9-11, this trial would not exist. The aim of the trial, in part, is to help prevent, at least in some small way, another 9-11. Every terrorism case since 9-11 has everything to do with 9-11. But I do not believe that you were being frivolous.

Anonymous said...

Our esteemed former United States Attorney shows a generous spirit in giving the blog host the benefit of the doubt regarding his frivolousity. That generosity was misplaced as proven by the new Dore "fun quote" section. Truly serious matters deserve serious treatment.

janinsanfran said...

Your commenters seem to be endorsing the concept of thought crimes -- criminalizing notions that have no relation to any discernible acts. I guess 9/11 really did change everything, including the the entire trajectory of the development of freedom under law.

David Oscar Markus said...

The nice thing about the internet is that no one is required to visit any web site containing material that he or she finds objectionable. Anonymous, if you are incapable of drawing the distinction between vigorously supporting efforts to make this nation a safer place and having fun with the day to day goings on in a lengthy trial, perhaps this is not the blog for you. I happen to believe that free, varied, and light-hearted discourse of even the most serious matters is one of the very freedoms, core to this nation's strength, that the government purports to be protecting through this prosecution. In my view, if it has become wrong to engage in this sort of banter, then the terrorists have already won. That's my opinion (and one to which I am quite comfortable signing my name). How come you are not comfortable enough with your own views to sign your name to yours?

Marcos, first let me thank you for responding and doing so with your name. We disagree -- what does this trial have to do with 9/11? The government claims that the events Padilla and his co-defendants engaged in were way before 9/11. The indictment doesn't mention 9/11. And the judge has not permitted the government to argue that it is connected to 9/11.

Anonymous said...

I hope that one day, islam takes over the entire world. They deserve to have it ya know. Theres like a billion muslims in the world, unlike the fist of 300 million stupid americans. If i never have to visit that country, if i never have to buy thier consumer goods again, id be happy. You should worry about china and the chinese. They are way more dangerous than al keida ever could be. And hey, they already took over the world too. Stupid fkn americans. Thats what you get, when you pay assembly line workers $35.00 an hour plus plus with their benifits. Dont you know ppl all over this planet live in shit all the fkn time.??? America makes me sic, and i hope 100 planes blow up the entire country and leave nothing but flat ground tfor allah, and the rest of the muslims to pray. you make me sic. Id do 20 in gitmo inoccent before i ever took arms up for america. Bush is a fuckin shame, and so are all the rest of the americans that believe him. The world was your oyster, but not anymore. Now everyone on this planet wants you dead, and so do I. Bless Allah. And FUCK USA. Ass holes fkn sons of bitches dictating the world what to do. Ha!! Get your own fkn oil. You all make me sic. I hate you and all america, but atleast I m not alone....

Anonymous said...

cudos. and im american!!!