Sunday, October 28, 2007

Should Liberty City 7 jury hear from "radicalization" expert?

Yes, says Judge Lenard who is going to permit the government expert Raymond Tanter to testify as to how regular people become terrorists. From Vanessa Blum's article in the Sun-Sentinel:

The federal government's leading expert witness in its terrorism case against seven Miami men will take the stand this week to answer what may be the most pressing question facing law enforcement since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: How do ordinary individuals become terrorists?

In what will be the first testimony of its kind in a U.S. terrorism trial, Raymond Tanter is expected to tell jurors that most would-be terrorists start off as unremarkable individuals seeking a sense of belonging and purpose within an extremist group.Prosecutors want Tanter, a political science professor at Georgetown University, to tell jurors the seven defendants accused of plotting to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago fit that profile and were on a path likely to end in violence.

Tanter's testimony is based on a theory called the radicalization process. It is important to the government's case because the defendants — who have no Middle Eastern roots, mostly grew up in South Florida and practiced a blend of religions — may not fit jurors' notions about terrorists.Defense lawyers tried unsuccessfully to block Tanter from testifying, describing his theories as unscientific and too new to be considered reliable.


Anonymous said...


South Florida Lawyers said...

Is their case that bad?

Anonymous said...

Next the government will put on witnesses to testify that blacks become drug dealers because...or Jews become communists because...or a defendant is guilty because he was on the road that one day would lead to his becoming...GAY!

I am going to call an expert in my next drug trial where there is a scintilla of evidence to suggest the police made up a portion of a confession to testify as to the radicalization of talk about the process by which they arrive, ready for trial in the SD of FL, to say anything to gain a conviction because the ends justify the means.

Anonymous said...

If anyone wants to know how an ordinary person can become a terrorist, just hang out in the FDC lobby when an attorney is trying to get in.

Anonymous said...

Is the govt witness the same kook who works with the Iran Policy Committee and is a strong supporter of the Iranian Communist MEK (Rajavi Cult) terrorists?

The MEK committed many atrocities in Iraq in 1991, such as the massacre of large numbers of unarmed Kurds. The MEK committed a terrorist act in New York City. In September 2002, President Bush's background paper for his remarks to the United Nations listed the MEK as one of three Saddam Hussein-supported terrorist groups operating in Iraq.

In October 1997, the State Department designated the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

I hope he is cross examined on these issues.

Anonymous said...

Let's get this thing moving---

WTF with the State Dept. issuing immunity to the Blackwater Guys?

"WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 — State Department investigators offered Blackwater USA security guards immunity during an inquiry into last month’s deadly shooting of 17 Iraqis in Baghdad — a potentially serious investigative misstep that could complicate efforts to prosecute the company’s employees involved in the episode, government officials said Monday.

The State Department investigators from the agency’s investigative arm, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, offered the immunity grants even though they did not have the authority to do so, the officials said. Prosecutors at the Justice Department, who do have such authority, had no advance knowledge of the arrangement, they added."

Now we know they need to send the case to the SD Fla., where the Justice Dept. will have no problem finding a prosecutor who is more than willing to not enforce the word of another law enforcement officer.

Which do you guys think is worse: The fact that the State Dept. gave a bunch of cowboys immunity or, that the Justice Dept. will go back on the deal in the face of public pressure?