They Always Get Their Man

Cohen: Despite No Mention Of Victims, Bodies Or American Targets, A Jury Speedily Convicted Jose Padilla

(CBS)  Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

---

The government today got what it wanted and fought so relentlessly to achieve when a federal jury convicted former "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla of participating with two other men in a terror conspiracy in the years before the Twin Towers fell. Now, after five years of tortuous legal wrangling and dubious constitutional maneuvers, the feds can at last claim victory in their long-running tango with the man who was first introduced to us on television in 2002 as the "face of terror."

All three defendants, Padilla and his two confederates, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, were convicted of all three charges against them and each now faces the possibility of spending the rest of their lives in federal prison, probably the Supermax facility in Colorado which seems to house the most sinister terror suspects our country has been able to convict over the years. They certainly can and will appeal these verdicts but their chances of winning on appeal are as slim as were the odds that the feds were going to allow any of these guys to walk out of court had they been acquitted.

With stunning speed — they deliberated for less than a day and a half after a trial that lasted three months and involved three defendants and mountains of complex evidence — the seven men and five women of the jury signaled definitively that they believe the narrative federal prosecutors had offered them in bits and pieces and through evidence that was not nearly as strong as expected: The trio walked and talked like terrorists during the 1990s, tied themselves to terror-related causes, and otherwise found themselves in the wrong places, like Afghanistan, at the wrong time — when Osama bin Laden was hanging out there with a nascent al Qaeda.

It apparently did not matter to these jurors that none of the facts alleged against the defendants took place after Sept. 11, 2001 (or at all during the 21st century), and that no people were ever murdered or injured as a result of any of the conversations that took place between the conspirators. In fact, no specific people ever were mentioned as possible targets — certainly not any Americans here at home. It was a case without victims or bodies.

It was a case without a specific target. It was a case from the 1990s that was tried more than a decade later — and yet tried with stunning success.

Jurors learned that of the more than 300,000 intercepted telephone conversations reviewed by federal authorities, only seven involved any conversations between Padilla and the other men. They convicted him anyway. They learned that the feds never thought enough of the trio to indict and prosecute them before 2000, when the surveillance ended. They convicted them anyway. They learned that there were questions about the validity of the terror camp application form that Padilla was said to have signed — the clearest proof that he actually attended the training camps. They convicted him anyway.

While fairly noble and not entirely illogical, the defense theme — don't let prosecutors force you to look at pre-9/11 conduct through the lens of the post-9/11 present — was an abysmal failure in the eyes of these jurors. They didn't want to hear explanations about context and perspective. They were not interested in nuances.

You knew the men were in trouble when during closings arguments, one of the defense attorneys had to explain to jurors how they should interpret the laughter one of the defendants displayed during one of the wiretapped phone calls. If you are focusing upon such little battles at the end of the case, chances are you are going to lose the war.

And when you try to convince a group of Americans that three zealous Muslim men were essentially forming their own little version of the Red Cross — or the Red Crescent — to fight against infidels overseas, it's usually going to end as badly as it did for these defendants.

Few people who have followed this case closely were surprised by the guilty verdict. But almost everyone was shocked at the speed with which jurors were willing to end this long, hard-fought, often-nasty trial.

The verdicts mean that government tribunes now can declare that three dangerous criminals have been taken off the streets — having become dangerous in 2004 when they weren't in 2000 — and that the ranks of the terrorists have been thus depleted. The feds no longer have to figure out creative and extrajudicial ways to put Padilla on ice; they no longer have to apologize for bringing such a paltry case against the man after having raised him to up terror star status when they rushed onto the airwaves back in 2002 to label him a "dirty bomber."

What is the lesson in all of this? It depends entirely upon your point of view. For me, these verdicts are a reminder that the government usually gets its man, by hook or by crook, and that the feds were banking on precisely this sort of a sympathetic jury when they changed from Padilla Plan A (hold him as an "enemy combatant" until someone told them they couldn't) to Padilla Plan B (bootstrap him to an existing, low-level terror cell case that never would have made headlines otherwise). It's good to the be King; good to be able to figure out a detour around a road block raised by the Constitution; good to have options against men who have none.

So now Padilla, finally, will go away, this time probably for good. But his legal legacy will last long after people forget who he is or what he did (or, more accurately, what he did not do). He is a dirty bomber who never bombed, a conspirator who only rarely conspired, a terror supporter whose support was so minimal that it never worried law enforcement officials at the time he was offering it.

The government got its man, a fellow the evidence suggested was more "slow" than a "star." The only judgment left is whether, in the end, it all was worth the effort.

[alanrobisch]

veteran 71 you have the language of the gutter and your arguments have no support worth replying to. When you actually have something to say other than slinging insults come back

[dovey01]

I am of the belief that terrorist are not entitled to due process. David Pearl did not get due process neither did the three marines nor the two South Koreans. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. I believe we should still shoot traitors.

[bcderick]

This article is clearly about hate. The author hates America and wants to see people suffer and die. Then, of course, he could blame it all on George Bush. Which is the point. Hatred. Does he care about preventing terrorism? Absolutely not. He implicitly demands it.

[rafterman1]

What happened to America? We used to be a nation of honor. Now, we have droves of Americans willing to give up their principles just to (think) they are being made safe. They used to say you can take their guns from their cold, dead hands. Now they would hand them over in an instant if Bush told them it would make them safe.

Isn''t it strange that a large number of pro-Constituiton people (neocons call us "idiots" I guess) are also veterans? Isn''t it also strange that a large number of vets are also against torture? Actually, it''s not strange at all. Veterans get it, that it''s about the principle. Neocons (most of whom are vets) think it''s about everything BUT your principles. A life without principles is a sad life.

[rafterman1]

===So, you''''d prefer a few folks got killed, and then you''''d feel better, I guess. God, what an idiot===

So go cower in the corner and hand over your rights because we got attacked. What a coward. Changing your principles because you are afraid. Neocons keep saying how the terrorists "hate our freedom". Well, they can''t defeat us, so what better way to get to us than to make us change our way of life because of them. They hate our freedom, so they watch as Americans take that freedom away from themselves, with the full support of cheerleaders like you. You are al queda''s great ally.

[rafterman1]

===..and you are suppose to be a marine??????????????????????????????????
??????????????!!!!!!!!!! listen here..our enemies are conducting an UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE===

USMC Oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Notice the part about defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. That includes domestic enemies like politcians like Bush who pee on the Constitution. And that includes YOU if you try and subvert the Constitution.

[russhusted]

So, you''d prefer a few folks got killed, and then you''d feel better, I guess. God, what an idiot

[libsluvsuvs]

He was captured in Chicago in 2002, not Iraq or Afghanistan. An American citizen, arrested on American soil and held for three years with no lawyer and tortured. That may be your idea of America but it isn''''t mine. I''''m sure the North Korean justice system would welcome people like you and Mudrose.



Posted by Rafterman1 at 07:20 PM : Aug 17, 2007
+ report abuse

****************

..and you are suppose to be a marine????????????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!
listen here..our enemies are conducting an UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE..they are not coming with tanks, jets nor do they wear dog tags nor do they wear uniforms...they are here in this country ACTING AS students, doctors...etc etc..then we all know from there what they do...OR DO YOU??
Atta lived in the east coast..so if he was captured its not an enemy combatant???? my god!!what do you need??another oliver stone movie to tell you what is going on in the world??

[alanrobisch]

What it seems bothers Mr cohen is that we tried a person who apparently in the opinion of the jury violated the law. I can understand the concern with the idea of considering an american citizen an enemy combatant. Yet whether delayed or not he got a trial and I saw no statement that the trial was unfair. It seems that Mr cohen doesn''t like the results not the method and he infers that the govt always convicts. He must be kidding. How many truly evil men members of the mafia have gone free because our system of justice has been subverted by bribes et cetera or the case simply couldn''t be proven .

[macmurph1]

And now CBS_Oliver can devine the thoughts of jurists! He knows that right wing rage will follow them throughout their lives and eventually kill them all.

Since you are all knowing, can you share the winning lottery numbers with me?

[macmurph1]

You liberals just can''t be happy. You want terrorists tried as criminals. When that happens you cry foul. It must miserable living your pathetic lives.

[macmurph1]

Show me the proof he was "tortured". Someone, please, show me. Oh, I forgot, Padilla said HE was tortured. Good enough for me. Free the poor soul. He is innocent, like all the detainees in GITMO and our criminal justice system. Don''''t they all claim their innocense? I say let em'''' all go. Their word is good enough for me.

[macmurph1]

Show me the proof he was "tortured". Someone, please, show me. Oh, I forgot, Padilla said HE was tortured. Good enough for me. Free the poor soul. He is innocent, like all the detainees in GITMO and our criminal justice system. Don''t they all claim their innocense? I say let em'' all go. Their word is good enough for me.

[macmurph1]

Show me the proof he was "tortured". Someone, please, show me. Oh, I forgot, Padilla said HE was tortured. Good enough for me. Free the poor soul. He is innocent, like all the detainees in GITMO and our criminal justice system. Don''t they all claim their innocense? I say let em'' all go. Their word is good enough for me.

[rafterman1]

==="In contrast, Clinton''''''''s favorable numbers have dropped a bit. She is now viewed favorably by 45%. That%u2019s the first time all year her ratings have dipped below the 47% mark. Clinton''''''''s unfavorables have always been high and are currently at 52%. " - Rasmussen August 16th===

Despite being one of the most polarizing people in the country, Hillary still has better numbers than Bush''s. Hilarious.

[rafterman1]

===he was a DETAINEE as a ENEMY COMBATANT===

He was captured in Chicago in 2002, not Iraq or Afghanistan. An American citizen, arrested on American soil and held for three years with no lawyer and tortured. That may be your idea of America but it isn''t mine. I''m sure the North Korean justice system would welcome people like you and Mudrose.

[perception5]

Libs read and weep..

Come on Hillary Rotten-Clinton I''''m loving the odds for a GOP landslide in 2008. Romney/Huckabee!

Now for some fresh numbers on Hillary: (love it!)


"In contrast, Clinton''''s favorable numbers have dropped a bit. She is now viewed favorably by 45%. That%u2019s the first time all year her ratings have dipped below the 47% mark. Clinton''''s unfavorables have always been high and are currently at 52%. " - Rasmussen August 16th

This is going to force CBS (Clinton Broadcasting Station) to rachet up the Anti-GOP Propaganda machine. Yep the liberal staff of jounalists for CBS (Corrupt Broadcasting Station) will have their work/LIES cut out for themselves.

[libsluvsuvs]

Posted by Rafterman1 at 05:22 PM : Aug 17, 2007
+ report abuse

****

here let me make it very simple..those 3 years....he was a DETAINEE as a ENEMY COMBATANT..after that..he was tried as an american citizen who has betrayed his country..AS A DETAINEE ENEMY COMBATANT..you can be detained..you are in the mercy of the military process..and after 3 years..he is still alive..in one piece..healthy..what else do you want explained?

[rafterman1]

===i think when he means by FAIR TRIAL is a verdict he wants.===

You think the ends justifies the means, no matter how much dishonor you reap, so there''s no point talking to you. The verdict was fair, the way they got to it (torture, no lawyer for three years) was not. It was worse than unfair, it was UNAMERICAN.

[libsluvsuvs]

Posted by Rafterman1 at 05:06 PM : Aug 17, 2007
+ report abuse

*****

you claim to be a marine..now what would you do with an enemy combatant who is in the process of ripping you a new one???do you let him go or do you squeeze intel from him to KNOW WHAT IS THE PLAN??? are you sure you were a marine???you seem to be pretty soft and emotional towards this whole warfare. your argument is pretty weak.

like I said. 3 years are like days in this kind of process specially for the military or the govt..YOU DONT LIKE IT...tough but that is how it goes..even worse if the democrats are in office