Playboy and the Padilla trial

This blog has covered Playboy and the law in the past.

Now Playboy has been mentioned in the Padilla trial (via the Miami Herald):

The Jose Padilla terror trial turned light for a moment on Tuesday when a defense lawyer attacked the credentials of a government witness while questioning him about his post-9/11 interview with Playboy magazine.

Attorney William Swor lost his bearings as he tried to ask international terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna about a passage in the November 2002 interview.

''You were not the centerfold,'' Swor quipped, as the dozen Miami-Dade federal jurors laughed.

''It's very important that it was the article on terrorism,'' countered Gunaratna, a Singapore university professor who was born in Sri Lanka. He said he had explain to his mother that former President Jimmy Carter had once done an interview with the "dirty magazine.''

Swor finally got around to asking Gunaratna what he meant when he told Playboy that sometimes the U.S. should ''terminate'' clandestine agents when ''black ops'' run their course. Swor insisted it was a ''euphemism'' for ``kill.''

Gunaratna strongly denied the accusation.

And here's the AP:

Swor repeatedly probed Gunaratna's credentials and previous testimony for inconsistencies. At one point, Swor brought up a November 2002 interview Gunaratna gave to Playboy magazine for a terrorism article in which he criticized the U.S. for being unwilling to "terminate" undercover operatives if things go bad.

"By terminate, you mean kill, right?" Swor said.

"It means you don't work with them any longer," Gunaratna said.
Swor responded skeptically. "You're not just going to give him a pink slip and say, 'See you around,'" he said.

In one of the day's lighter moments, Gunaratna said he wanted the record to show that the Playboy article was on terrorism and had no connection to pornography.

"They might be wondering if I posed naked for Playboy," Gunaratna said, adding that he had a difficult time explaining to his mother how he wound up in the magazine.

Ah, yes. I'm sure the jury was wondering if Gunaratna posed naked for Playboy because he looks a lot like Oona O'Connell.

I hope the jury doesn't get any ideas for dress up from the Playboy mention.

I think the most interesting news is that the Government is set to rest by the end of the week. I wonder how much of a defense there is going to be (if any).

Okay, okay, here's another picture of Oona (which we got from Abovethelaw).

Two very interesting articles from today's papers:

1. Jay Weaver covers the Chuckie Taylor case and explains that the accuser's ID is going to be released:

For months, Miami prosecutors and defense lawyers representing the son of former Liberian president Charles Taylor have wrestled over one main issue: the identity of the man who accused the younger Taylor of torturing him five years ago in a police agent's home in Liberia.
Prosecutors have wanted the information kept a secret for the victim's safety; Taylor's attorneys have sought its disclosure to mount a defense for a September trial in federal court.
Thanks to a recent judge's order, Charles ''Chuckie'' Taylor Jr. and his defense team are finally going to learn his accuser's name.
But there's a catch. Taylor is only allowed to see the alleged victim's name. His lawyers cannot give him ''any tangible materials'' identifying his accuser. Nor can Taylor, who is in federal custody, disclose the accuser's name without his lawyers' approval.
And, his identity cannot be made public by either side until trial.
The strict rules about the alleged victim's name are yet another uncommon development in the unique Miami case against Taylor, a 30-year-old U.S. citizen born in Boston and raised in the Orlando area. It is the first U.S. prosecution of a human-rights violation committed in a foreign country.

2. Vanessa Blum has this article about Padilla co-defendant Amin Hassoun. Blum details how Hassoun is the focus of the government's case and that in the wiretapped calls "Padilla comes across as an almost peripheral figure." Here's a bit more:

In private, Hassoun's views were something less than neighborly.On a 1996 call played for jurors, Hassoun can be heard fuming over a photo published in an Islamic newsletter of a Muslim man shaking hands with Hillary Clinton."The only way to deal with those people is with the sword," he says.Hassoun's lawyers are the first to concede their client's words were sometimes offensive. But that, they say, does not make him a terrorist."He may have ranted and raved, he may have a big mouth, and yes, he did engage in provocative, passionate and political speech, but at all times he did so to help protect and defend Muslims under attack," attorney Jeanne Baker said in her opening remarks to the jury.Hassoun; Padilla, 36; and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, 45, are charged with taking part in a terror cell that sent money, equipment and human recruits to support violent Islamic groups overseas. All three have pleaded not guilty.Though Hassoun and Padilla both initially were arrested just weeks apart in 2002, Padilla's case has drawn more attention because of the "dirty bomber" label and high-profile legal challenges to his 3 ½ year detention without charges at a U.S. Navy brig.

Fun Padilla coverage in the NYTimes

Sunday's New York Times covers some of the craziness occurring in the Jose Padilla trial. Here we go with some highlights:

Mr. Padilla looks relaxed most days, only seldom betraying tension when his jaw muscles twitch or his shoulders hunch in his business suit. He laughs softly when his lawyers joke, and he smiles at his mother when she comes to court on Fridays. He seems to follow the tortuous proceedings closely, but what he is thinking is anyone’s guess.

What kind of joke could you make to a guy who was held without charges or any real human contact for three years? And isn't it always "anyone's guess" as to what a defendant is thinking?

Where Mr. Padilla eats lunch is one mystery of the trial, . . .

That's a mystery of the trial? Well, here you go -- he's eating in the holding cells in the courthouse. And he usually gets a horrible bologna and cheese sandwich.

. . . but a far larger question looms: What must the jurors be thinking? . . . (One can imagine the jurors in deliberations, arguing over whether “eating cheese” means waging jihad or enjoying a chunk of Gruyère.)

Ah, we're back to wondering what others are thinking... I'm willing to bet a lot of money that no juror utters the word Gruyere. Any takers?

Since the trial began on May 14, their own lives have sometimes proved more dramatic than the case. One juror’s sister died of cancer last week; she wept during a break the next day, prompting Judge Marcia Cooke to dismiss court early. Another was injured trying to stop a car thief; he was excused.

Judge Cooke is very considerate. The jurors must absolutely love her. I know the lawyers do.

Several times now, the five women and seven men have shown up in color-coordinated outfits. One day, the men dressed in blue and the women in pink. On July 3, the first row wore red, the second white and the third blue, leading bloggers to wonder whether they were worrisomely frivolous or unified — or so patriotic as to condemn all accused terrorists.

I've been picking on the reporter a bit, but now I sorta like her. She mentions our scoop on the jurors wearing colors to court. Why no shout out!! Come on!!

The most interesting things almost always happen when the jurors are not around. That is when the lawyers complain to Judge Cooke, often bitterly, about each other’s conduct and plans. Once in a while they even fix each other with death stares, as if summoning a voodoo curse.

Now this is good stuff. Maybe I should start a new poll -- who has the best death stare in the trial? Please discuss!

Tensions erupt so often that some days it seems the jurors are filing out to their break room every few minutes. The lawyers have fought over whether the government could use the term “violent jihad” (no), whether it could show jurors a CNN interview with Osama bin Laden (yes) and whether the cross-examination of a witness could last longer than direct questioning.

They complain of insufficient warning about exhibits and accuse each other of prejudicing the jury.
“Your honor, this is insanity,” John Shipley, an assistant attorney general, said last week, complaining about a late-night e-mail message he received from one of Mr. Hassoun’s lawyers.

Some more interesting stuff, but time to pick on the reporter a little again. "Assistant Attorney General"? Nope. Try again. Shipley is an Assistant United States Attorney. But I do like the quote. STOP THE INSANITY!

Judge Cooke usually listens patiently [when the lawyers bicker out of the presence of the jury] while the jurors do who-knows-what — coordinate their outfits, perhaps — in the break room. But last week she blew up at Jeanne Baker, a lawyer for Mr. Hassoun, calling her “disrespectful” after Ms. Baker talked over a government objection.
“Tell the jurors to take 10 minutes,” Judge Cooke said, adding, “I’m taking 10 minutes.”
She adjourned court early that day. There are still weeks to go.

Oh boy. Doesn't sound good for Baker. To get Judge Cooke angry, you really have to mess something up.... Even though I picked at the article, I enjoyed it. It's interesting to cover a trial with good lawyering on both sides...

More thoughts on the Padilla jury

As detailed below, a bunch of different blogs are commenting on the Padilla jury. And we have had some interesting comments too. A person who claims to have been on the Libby jury has written in:


J said...
On the Libby jury, we all wore red on Valentine's Day. This jury is wearing red white and blue for the Fourth of July. It wasn't a sign of anything then and it should not be read as one now. It's simply a way to relieve the tension and boredom of being in the courtroom for all those hours. It's hard to keep up, believe me, when it's summer and you're thinking about what to put on the grill rather than what a poor case the government is putting on.
1:04 PM


Interesting. I'm swamped right now so I can't comment further, but I will try to get to it this weekend.

Happy birthday SDFLA blog

It's been two great years doing this blog. We started Fourth of July weekend two years ago, and since then readership has shot up (last year we were averaging about 175 hits a day, now we are up to well over 300 per day), a bunch of other local blogs have started to cover the courts, and we continue to have fun doing it.

Here is our first post, arguing that the President should appoint a Floridian to the Supreme Court (apparently, he didn't listen!).

And here is our one year anniversary post.

Our second year anniversary post, about the jurors dressing up in the Padilla trial, has gotten a bunch of attention. Thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy, the Wall Street Journal legal blog, Rumpole, Discourse, The National Review, TalkLeft, and a bunch of others for linking to that post. Our numbers are way up because of it...

Dress up day...

So, I thought I was being extremely festive today... not only did I dress up my four year old daughter in red, white, and blue for camp, I even wore a red tie to work. That's nothing though.

In the Jose Padilla trial, jurors showed up today all dressed up. Row one in red. Row two in white. And row three in blue. I'm not kidding.

And this isn't the first time the jury has dressed up. A week back, all of the jurors (save one) wore black.

So what do you make of this. On the one hand, the jury might just be having some fun. This is a long trial and it's not a one hour Law and Order show. It's boring.

Perhaps the jury is unified, which might be a poor sign for the defense. If everyone is thinking the same way at such an early stage, defense lawyers get nervous. Or the prosecution might be concerned because this is obviously a happy jury. Happy juries during a terrorism trial might not be good.

The trial is in recess until next Monday so the lawyers will have plenty of time to make themselves crazy over what all this means.

Any thoughts?

Happy Fourth of July!

UPDATE -- Curt Anderson says that in addition to the black and the red, white, and blue, last Friday all the women wore pink and the men blue. What is going on? Anderson also details how the government expert Rohan Gunaratna was scolded by Judge Cooke today for appearing on CNN yesterday. Dan Christensen and Jay Weaver explain here that the expert is under attack by the defense.

The Government Strikes Back

From all accounts, this past week was the Government's strongest in the Jose Padilla trial. Its expert witness, Rohan Gunaratna, supposedly did a very nice job on direct. Cross-examination will take a while, and with Court in session on Monday and Tuesday only this week, he will likely be on the stand for the next two weeks. Here's the AP on Gunaratna ("A prosecution terrorism expert testified Friday that a form purportedly filled out by Jose Padilla was identical to those used by al-Qaida for recruits to its premier al-Farooq training camp in Afghanistan.").

To top it off, jurors also saw Padilla co-defendant Adham Amin Hassoun in shackles outside the courtroom. Hassoun's lawyers weren't too happy. Mistrial denied.

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.

Caruso on cross

Lead Jose Padilla lawyer, Michael Caruso, cross-examined the lead FBI agent today and by all accounts, did a ton of damage.

The agent conceded that Padilla never used any of the code words that the other defendants had used. And he admitted that Padilla was focused on learning Arabic and memorizing the Koran. Some examples from the AP article:

Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla ever was heard using what prosecutors say were code words for violent jihad, such as "picnic," "smelling fresh air" or "eating cheese."
"No, he does not," Kavanaugh replied.

***

Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla was ever overheard discussing jihad training.
"No jihad training that I've seen," Kavanaugh said.

***

"He's not referring to anything here but studying Arabic, correct? Study means study, right?" Caruso asked.
"That's what they're talking about," Kavanaugh testified.

More on Caruso's cross from the Miami Herald here.

This isn't the first time that the defense has scored points on cross. See here and here and here and here. My wife says boring (but she's watching a rerun of Brothers & Sisters, so what does she know!). I say fascinating.

Back to the Padilla trial

The Padilla trial was back in action yesterday.

According to the AP, "William Swor sought to prove his client Kifah Wael Jayyousi was driven to charity by his compassion for his fellow Muslims, not to supporting terrorism, a defense that began last week."

The Herald also covered the defense cross of the agent here:

''It's clear from Dr. Jayyousi's state of mind that he was concerned about getting relief to the Chechnyans in Russia,'' said defense lawyer William Swor, citing one FBI-intercepted phone call in March 1995.
''He made such statements,'' FBI Special Agent John T. Kavanaugh Jr. acknowledged under cross examination.
Kavanaugh has been on the witness stand for the past two weeks in the terror trial against Jayyousi, Adham Amin Hassoun and Jose Padilla, asserting the three Muslim men used code words such as ''tourism'' for ''jihad'' to conceal their true militant mission.

And Vanessa Blum has this very interesting article about Jose Padilla's conversion to Islam, which occurred while he was in the Broward County Jail. After he converts and is released, he gives a radio interview which Blum obtained and covers. Definitely worth a read, but here's a snippet:

Upon his release from jail, Padilla called Islamic organizations out of the Yellow Pages seeking a Koran, the holy text of Islam.He also took a job at a Taco Bell in Davie. The manager, Mohammed Javed, who was Muslim, finally gave him a copy of the Koran, Padilla says. Javed could not be reached for comment.
"I stuck to the book and just read and read and read," Padilla says. "I read it once and then I went back and read it twice."Javed invited him to attend a South Florida mosque. When Padilla saw the clothing and the worshipers' turbans, he recalled his vision."I said 'yes' this is it," Padilla says. "This is what the Almighty wants me to be."At the end of the interview, the host asks Padilla for his advice to non-Muslims."Don't believe all the propaganda that is being portrayed out there about Islam, about terrorism and extremists," Padilla replies.

More Padilla and Wilk stuff

1. Jose Padilla's voice was heard again today in Court. Apparently that's newsworthy.

2. The AP's request (earlier coverage here) for same day access to the tapes played by the Government was denied, but the Court gave the media next day access.

3. The Miami Herald has written about the lead prosecutor and lead defense lawyer in Kenneth Wilk's trial. Here's the story about Assistant U.S. Attorney John Kastrenakes and here's the one on Bill Matthewman.


on the left is Bill Matthewman's picture from the Herald article and on the right is John Kastrenakes' picture from the Herald article

Judge Cooke keeps jurors happy...

... according to the NY Times:

The trial is expected to last months, and Judge Cooke has taken pains to keep jurors happy — letting them take Monday off, for example, because one is getting married over the weekend and wants a break.

The tapes have been playing and there has been lots of dispute as to what an FBI agent could "translate":

The intercepted calls, many in Arabic, are crucial to the government’s case. But on the surface, they seem to have nothing to do with terrorism — one caller, for example, tells Mr. Hassoun of plans to go on a picnic and smell fresh air.
All week, defense lawyers fiercely protested the government’s plan to let an F.B.I. agent who led the investigation tell jurors his interpretation of such words, so-called code for terrorist activities. The agent, John T. Kavanaugh Jr., testified that the defendants spoke in code because they suspected their calls were being monitored.
Judge Marcia G. Cooke responded to the defense by limiting what Mr. Kavanaugh could say about the conversations and telling the jurors his interpretations were nonexpert opinions.

Friday, jurors heard Jose Padilla's voice for the first time:

Mr. Padilla mumbled and chuckled throughout the conversation played Friday, sometimes calling Mr. Hassoun “bro.” Mr. Hassoun appeared impatient, asking Mr. Padilla if he was “ready.”
“Inshallah, brother,” Mr. Padilla replied, using the Arabic for “God willing” and urging Mr. Hassoun to have patience. “You know, it’s going to happen.”

Trial resumes Tuesday.

Case changes focus

Prosecutors have changed the focus of the trial from Jose Padilla to Kifah Wael Jayyousi. Here's the AP report on how it started:

A Muslim convert testified Tuesday that he grew suspicious and distanced himself from the leader of an Islamic charity after an associate returned from war-torn Chechnya with part of a leg missing from a land mine explosion.
Jeremy Collins, 33, said he worked at American Worldwide Relief that was headed by Kifah Wael Jayyousi, who is on trial along with alleged al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla and an another man on charges of contributing to Muslim extremist causes worldwide. All three face life in prison if convicted.
“It was just chaos. There was no relief work,” Collins said he learned from his associate. “There seemed to be more fighting than relief work.”

Collins’ testimony focuses on Jayyousi’s years in San Diego, well before Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3½ years as an enemy combatant, came on the scene.
Questions about the organization also were raised when the group’s $20,000 satellite telephone was shut down in early 1996 at the request of the Russian government, said Collins, who was the organization’s then-vice president.

AP files motion in Padilla case

A tipster tells me that the AP has filed a motion requesting access to the tapes that the government is going to play for the jury in the Jose Padilla case. The government says that the press can have them a day after the jury hears them. More to follow...

More news and notes

1. A former federal prosecutor, Ilona M. Holmes, turned state court judge does *not* like cell phones in her courtroom. ASA Imabel Ocasio gets 10 hours of community service for her phone going off. Ouch. Here's the Sun-Sentinel story.

2. Snitch testimony outside the presence of the jury in the Jose Padilla case. Why is the government calling these types of witnesses? Here's the LA Times on how it went for prosecutors:

In testimony that appeared to backfire for the prosecution, an ex-convict who attended the same mosque as terrorism suspect Jose Padilla testified Thursday that he himself had considered going abroad for training to become an Islamic holy warrior, as Padilla allegedly did.Herbert Atwell, 38, was the second prosecution witness to characterize the alleged actions of Padilla and two codefendants not as terrorism but as acts of altruism in helping Muslims under siege in foreign countries.
***
Inarticulate and at times surly under questioning by defense lawyers, Atwell conceded that he offered to testify against Padilla and Hassoun in hopes of getting out of prison. He said he was never promised any special consideration in return for supplying the government with accounts of what occurred at the Sunrise mosque, which he said he attended most evenings in the late 1990s."He was asking for money and for the brothers to be mujahedin fighters," Atwell recalled of Hassoun. "On several occasions he always had mujahedin fighters from all over the world — Chechnya, Palestine."The prosecutors seemed surprised when Atwell, under questioning by Baker, said he had considered becoming a holy warrior."I was thinking about going to be a mujahedin fighter myself," he said. "My wife was pregnant. If she wasn't pregnant, I would probably have gone to be a mujahedin fighter too."Asked whether he had wanted to become a terrorist, Atwell vehemently replied no. He said that the media now portrayed mujahedin as terrorists but that at the time they were simply Muslims coming to the aid of fellow believers.Atwell said Padilla "never talked that much" and that he remembered him mostly because of the Spanish-language Koran he would often read. Padilla is a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent.Atwell will be brought back to testify before the jury Monday.But his credibility as a witness is in question. Judge Cooke noted that Atwell adamantly insisted he saw photos of Padilla and Hassoun on an NBC News broadcast in 2002, when Hassoun was not yet charged with a crime and no connection with Padilla had been made."These two things cannot be allowed to exist together in a truthful universe," she said of the witness' statement after he had left the courtroom. She added that she was curious how the prosecution would "deal with his credibility."Atwell reportedly has five felony convictions, including aggravated assault and battery of his now ex-wife. He contradicted himself repeatedly about what he could recall, depending on whether he was answering a question from the defense or prosecution.

Now I wonder whether the defense should have just waited to cross him in front of the jury. Will the government still call this guy?

3. Some advice for Rumpole: Don't blog about your own cases. See here.

Weekend reading...

Hope everyone had a nice holiday weekend.


The Wilk jury continues its deliberations tomorrow. The prosecution cannot be happy that they are still out and that they didn't come back quickly. The defense can't be happy that they were home over a long weekend where they would be pressured by family and friends to get it over with and convict. Ahhh, the stresses of having a jury out deliberating. There is nothing worse...

The Christian Science Monitor has been doing a very nice job covering the Padilla trial. Here's an article about the other two defendants in the case, Adham Hassoun and Kifah Jayyousi. And the article covers this fun exchange:


In testimony last week, FBI translator Majed Sam acknowledged that it was up to him to decide which conversations to translate. But he said he pursued no FBI agenda. "My goal is to translate everything in as accurate English as I can," he told the jury.
During cross-examination, Jayyousi defense lawyer Marshall Dore Louis asked Mr. Sam whether he was familiar with the American term "to cherry-pick."
"It means selecting what you want to select," Mr. Louis said.


Yes," Sam agreed.
At the conclusion of his cross-examination, Louis returned to that theme. He asked if Sam was familiar with other American terms: paint with a broad brush, stereotype, prejudice, bigotry.
Sam answered that he was familiar with each term.
The move appeared to be an effort to encourage the jury – made up of three African-Americans, four whites, and five Latinos – to closely scrutinize whether the government was using stereotypes and prejudice against Muslims to try to win convictions.
Later when the jury was excused for the day, Assistant US Attorney Russell Killinger complained to the judge about Louis's questions. "They were totally improper and uncalled for," he told US District Judge Marcia Cooke.
"I was a little surprised myself," the judge said.
Louis said he didn't mean to imply the translator was himself bigoted. His questions were intended to highlight the way the government is presenting its case.
"That's [an] argument" that can be presented later in the trial, the judge told Louis. "This witness didn't deserve those kinds of questions," she said.
Jeanne Baker, a lawyer for Hassoun, disagreed. "There is a right we have to advance our themes," she said.
Judge Cooke said the questions crossed the line into impermissible argument. "Everyone is on notice," she said.

Dore Louis has been no shrinking violet in this trial....

And here's the AP covering Judge Cooke, with only nice things to say of course...

Round (week) one goes to...

... the prosecution or the defense?

You would expect that the first week of the Jose Padilla trial would be an overwhelming victory for the prosecution, but there has been a lot of debate about who has taken week one. The Chicago Tribune called the prosecutors "frustrated" with some of the inroads defense lawyers have made with their witnesses, most notably the training camp witness.

The Miami Herald today has two separate articles -- one by Jay Weaver saying: "Like savvy Hollywood directors, federal prosecutors opened the Jose Padilla terrorism trial in Miami with a grabber -- his alleged application to join al Qaeda."

The other by Ana Menedez, concluding: "Now the government must persuade jurors that the man who filled out his al Qaeda application as its No. 1 Slacker was really a dangerous terrorist. What emerged in week one was a slightly different picture: that of a former gang member adrift in the world. 'The Immigrant' admitted he hadn't worked in the military field and couldn't list any combat experience. From the application, he seems not so much a terrorist as the ultimate underachiever, the kind of guy who'd admit to carpentry skills, but would modestly leave blank the question asking him to list his 'intellectual abilities.' Maybe he just didn't want the job."

To get back to my theme for this trial -- This is why we need cameras in federal court. It's impossible to form your own opinion about what's really going on because we can't see it. We have to rely on newspapers which have all sorts of different opinions. Why no cameras?

And just for your enjoyment -- Slate now has this Padilla quiz. Take it.

More compelling testimony in Padilla trial

Today, a member of the "Lackawanna Six'' terrorist group testified in general about al-Qaida training camps and how one could get admitted to such a camp. Prosecutors will argue that Jose Padilla followed those procedures. This witness, however, could not link Padilla to the camps.

From the AP: Prosecutors say Goba's testimony is critical because it describes for the jury what went on at the al-Farooq camp, which the government claims Padilla attended in summer 2000. It also links the defendants to the al-Qaida terrorist group, even if indirectly.``Is it possible to just show up at one of the camps?'' asked prosecutor Brian Frazier.``No,'' Goba replied.``You had someone to help you _ someone known and trusted by al-Qaida,'' Frazier continued.``Yes,'' Goba said.But Goba said under questioning by defense lawyers that his intent was only to prepare to defend Muslims in areas where they were oppressed and persecuted, not to commit murder or other crimes. He said he never became a member of al-Qaida.``Are you now, or have you ever been, a terrorist?'' asked Padilla attorney Michael Caruso.``No,'' Goba replied.

Padilla's prints

Yesterday, the government and defense debated the significance of Jose Padilla's fingerprints on an al-Qaida training camp application. His prints are found only on the first and last pages, so the defense was able to establish that it was consistent with Padilla being handed the form. To add to their theory, the prints weren't tested until August 2006, after he was already in the brig for quite some time. If he was asked about the form in the brig, he may have handled it. Of course, the government will argue that the prints demonstrate that it was Padilla who filled out the form. Here's the AP coverage of the testimony.

Today, one of the New York men who pleaded guilty to terrorism support charges is expected to testify. Yahya Goba has said he filled out an identical form for the same al-Qaida training camp Padilla is accused of filling out a form for. Goba is serving a 10-year prison sentence and is cooperating with federal prosecutors.

Tom Langston?

That's the name used by the CIA agent who testified in disguise during yesterday's proceedings in Jose Padilla's trial. Jay Weaver reports:

The man who appeared in Miami federal court on Tuesday hid his identity as a CIA officer by using the alias ''Tom Langston'' and wearing a discreet disguise -- black-rimmed glasses along with a closely cropped beard.
Testifying as a witness in Jose Padilla's terror trial, he told jurors that only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, an unnamed man in Afghanistan gave him a blue binder with dozens of documents.
Among them: a five-page form written in Arabic that would eventually lead federal investigators to conclude that Padilla had applied to join the al Qaeda terror network.

Here's the AP and the Sun-Sentinel report on the bizarre beginning to the trial.

They let this guy testify in disguise and I can't even bring my phone into the courtroom (it has a camera and is allowed in the building and in every other courtroom) or my briefcase (because it had a newspaper in it). I understand we need security but the lawyers are officers of the court.

My prior coverage of the disguise ruling can be read here. Judge Cooke has had another run-in with a witness wanting to wear an odd item to court. I loved how she handled that one!