Five Miamians convicted of thought crimes

[Ravi]

Did the group need weapons, vehicles, uniforms, money? Batiste seemed mostly interested in getting money for himself and his impoverished crew.The team of defense attorneys consistently trashed the government's case as a ''setup,'' labeling the FBI informants as ``con men.''
A DAMNING OATH
In the end, perhaps the most compelling factors were evidence that Batiste and his followers took oaths to al Qaeda and shot surveillance video of target sites, such as the FBI building in North Miami Beach and the federal courthouse in downtown Miami.

Five members of Liberty City Six guilty in terror plot - South Florida - MiamiHerald.com

Anyone that thinks terrorists have uniforms either needs professional help or is a con man trying to get money.

 

[Xenophon]

Thought crimes?

They wanted to blow up US landmarks.

 

[Anguille]

When Haitians go off the deep end, they really go off it big time!

 

[Gunny]

Did the group need weapons, vehicles, uniforms, money? Batiste seemed mostly interested in getting money for himself and his impoverished crew.The team of defense attorneys consistently trashed the government's case as a ''setup,'' labeling the FBI informants as ``con men.''
A DAMNING OATH
In the end, perhaps the most compelling factors were evidence that Batiste and his followers took oaths to al Qaeda and shot surveillance video of target sites, such as the FBI building in North Miami Beach and the federal courthouse in downtown Miami.

Five members of Liberty City Six guilty in terror plot - South Florida - MiamiHerald.com

Anyone that thinks terrorists have uniforms either needs professional help or is a con man trying to get money.

For all the bitchers and whiners that the 9/11 hijackers could have been stopped, this would be the perfect example of the reaction from certain elements on the left had they been arrested before they murdered 3000 people.

Lose-lose deal, eh Ravi?

 

[catzmeow]

At the FBI's direction, he introduced Batiste to the second informant, a more polished Middle Eastern man who posed as an al Qaeda representative. He insinuated his way into Batiste's group by proposing that al Qaeda could help Batiste on his mission to blow up the Sears Tower if Batiste could return the favor by assisting al Qaeda in a scheme to destroy several FBI buildings.

The informant's plan was a piece of fiction, however, designed to see how far Batiste would go with his militant ambitions. He peppered Batiste with questions about logistics for his mission: Did the group need weapons, vehicles, uniforms, money? Batiste seemed mostly interested in getting money for himself and his impoverished crew.

The team of defense attorneys consistently trashed the government's case as a ''setup,'' labeling the FBI informants as ``con men.''

A DAMNING OATH

In the end, perhaps the most compelling factors were evidence that Batiste and his followers took oaths to al Qaeda and shot surveillance video of target sites, such as the FBI building in North Miami Beach and the federal courthouse in downtown Miami.

But when FBI agents arrested the men nearly three years ago at their warehouse in Liberty City, they found no weapons of mass destruction, no terrorism blueprints and no radical literature.

''We were really about helping the community,'' Herrera, the lone acquitted defendant, said outside the courthouse. ``It wasn't until this informant came into the picture that things changed. All we wanted from him was money. It was a like a dangling carrot.''

This really seems a lot like entrapment to me, and not a lot like a real conspiracy to commit crimes.

 

[Yurt]

Did the group need weapons, vehicles, uniforms, money? Batiste seemed mostly interested in getting money for himself and his impoverished crew.The team of defense attorneys consistently trashed the government's case as a ''setup,'' labeling the FBI informants as ``con men.''
A DAMNING OATH
In the end, perhaps the most compelling factors were evidence that Batiste and his followers took oaths to al Qaeda and shot surveillance video of target sites, such as the FBI building in North Miami Beach and the federal courthouse in downtown Miami.

Five members of Liberty City Six guilty in terror plot - South Florida - MiamiHerald.com

Anyone that thinks terrorists have uniforms either needs professional help or is a con man trying to get money.

For all the bitchers and whiners that the 9/11 hijackers could have been stopped, this would be the perfect example of the reaction from certain elements on the left had they been arrested before they murdered 3000 people.

Lose-lose deal, eh Ravi?

aint that the truth

hasn't AQ declared war on the US and is in active war with the US? so pledging an oath to an enemy that has sworn to destroy, has destroyed landmarks in the past and then taking photos (recon) is somehow thought crimes???

i guess ravi thinks conviction of conspiracy is a conviction to a thought crime too...

 

[Harry Dresden]

i have thought crimes all day long....well to some they may be.....like every time a see a real hot looking girl.....what goes through the mind at the time....

 

[Ravi]

At the FBI's direction, he introduced Batiste to the second informant, a more polished Middle Eastern man who posed as an al Qaeda representative. He insinuated his way into Batiste's group by proposing that al Qaeda could help Batiste on his mission to blow up the Sears Tower if Batiste could return the favor by assisting al Qaeda in a scheme to destroy several FBI buildings.

The informant's plan was a piece of fiction, however, designed to see how far Batiste would go with his militant ambitions. He peppered Batiste with questions about logistics for his mission: Did the group need weapons, vehicles, uniforms, money? Batiste seemed mostly interested in getting money for himself and his impoverished crew.

The team of defense attorneys consistently trashed the government's case as a ''setup,'' labeling the FBI informants as ``con men.''

A DAMNING OATH

In the end, perhaps the most compelling factors were evidence that Batiste and his followers took oaths to al Qaeda and shot surveillance video of target sites, such as the FBI building in North Miami Beach and the federal courthouse in downtown Miami.

But when FBI agents arrested the men nearly three years ago at their warehouse in Liberty City, they found no weapons of mass destruction, no terrorism blueprints and no radical literature.

''We were really about helping the community,'' Herrera, the lone acquitted defendant, said outside the courthouse. ``It wasn't until this informant came into the picture that things changed. All we wanted from him was money. It was a like a dangling carrot.''

This really seems a lot like entrapment to me, and not a lot like a real conspiracy to commit crimes.

Yeah...this case is responsible for my second thoughts on hate crime legislation.

 

[Care4all]

it seems like entrapment to me as well, Catz....but I am certain we don't have the entire story in this short article....

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm a bit divided, I guess I would have to hear all of the facts of the case. What is presented in the press appears to be presented in the light most favorable to the defense. The crime of conspiracy requires collusion....check. That the collusion was to carry out a felonious act.....check and that the group took some material act to carry out the conspiracy.....in this case that is what is at issue.

The defense will argue that they were improperly induced to carry out the material act, video taping targets etc, by the CI that was working for the FBI.

The prosecution would argue that the defendants already had the plan, they only wanted for money to carry their plans into effect. The FBI merely removed that obstacle from their plans and allowed them to move forward with their plans.

The argument for the prosecution's case is that if the group had actually found an al Qaeda guy instead of the FBI, then they would have committed whatever acts the al Qaeda guy asked them to. They were just there first.

The defense's argument has to be that these guys were just dupes. They had no REAL plan. They talked a lot of shit and they were disaffected, but relatively harmless and definitely broke. They were of no danger to anyone until the FBI came along and threw gas on the smoldering embers. Since they were poor, they were ready to do anything for the money. The FBI really directed all of the acts they took to carry out the so-called conspiracy.

I think the "were all just dupes" argument is just too damned convenient. If it sounds too convenient, it probably is. Until proven otherwise by more evidence, I'm thinking this is a good conviction.

 

[Yurt]

At the FBI's direction, he introduced Batiste to the second informant, a more polished Middle Eastern man who posed as an al Qaeda representative. He insinuated his way into Batiste's group by proposing that al Qaeda could help Batiste on his mission to blow up the Sears Tower if Batiste could return the favor by assisting al Qaeda in a scheme to destroy several FBI buildings.

The informant's plan was a piece of fiction, however, designed to see how far Batiste would go with his militant ambitions. He peppered Batiste with questions about logistics for his mission: Did the group need weapons, vehicles, uniforms, money? Batiste seemed mostly interested in getting money for himself and his impoverished crew.

The team of defense attorneys consistently trashed the government's case as a ''setup,'' labeling the FBI informants as ``con men.''

A DAMNING OATH

In the end, perhaps the most compelling factors were evidence that Batiste and his followers took oaths to al Qaeda and shot surveillance video of target sites, such as the FBI building in North Miami Beach and the federal courthouse in downtown Miami.

But when FBI agents arrested the men nearly three years ago at their warehouse in Liberty City, they found no weapons of mass destruction, no terrorism blueprints and no radical literature.

''We were really about helping the community,'' Herrera, the lone acquitted defendant, said outside the courthouse. ``It wasn't until this informant came into the picture that things changed. All we wanted from him was money. It was a like a dangling carrot.''

This really seems a lot like entrapment to me, and not a lot like a real conspiracy to commit crimes.

how do you figure? the article indicates that batiste already had his own mission and that he helped the informant to further help his own cause...

 

[Immanuel]

Thought crimes?

They wanted to blow up US landmarks.

Not according to the article.

According to the article all they were attempting to do is swindle some cash out of Al Qaeda. But, you know what? If you are going to play those kinds of stupid games you get what you deserve.

Whether or not they actually meant to do any of those crimes, they conspired to commit them and for that they appear to be guilty. You can't conspire to kill your spouse and then when you find out you were talking to an undercover agent claim you were only kidding. From the sounds of the article, these guys deserve whatever sentences they get.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

Thought crimes?

They wanted to blow up US landmarks.

Not according to the article.

According to the article all they were attempting to do is swindle some cash out of Al Qaeda. But, you know what? If you are going to play those kinds of stupid games you get what you deserve.

Whether or not they actually meant to do any of those crimes, they conspired to commit them and for that they appear to be guilty. You can't conspire to kill your spouse and then when you find out you were talking to an undercover agent claim you were only kidding. From the sounds of the article, these guys deserve whatever sentences they get.

Immie

i dunno....i am not certain that an OVERT ACT on their part, to commit the crime took place which has to in most states to get a conspiracy charge?

Overt Act

An open, manifest act from which criminality may be implied. An outward act done in pursuance and manifestation of an intent or design.

An overt act is essential to establish an attempt to commit a crime. It is also a key element in the crime of Treason and has become a component of federal and some state criminal conspiracy laws. It also plays a role in the right of Self-Defense.

An attempt to commit a crime is an offense when an accused makes a substantial but unsuccessful effort to commit a crime. The elements of attempt include an intent to commit a crime, an apparent ability to complete the crime, and an overt act. An overt act is an act that is performed to execute the criminal intention and will naturally achieve that result unless prevented by some external cause. The act must directly move toward commission of the crime and must be more than acts of planning or preparation.

here is what it says about conspiracy charges...

Conspiracy Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Hutchinson

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.

Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed. For example, one who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary.

Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act. It differs from solicitation in that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be committed by one person alone.

Conspiracy also resembles attempt. However, attempt, like solicitation, can be committed by a single person. On another level, conspiracy requires less than attempt. A conspiracy may exist before a crime is actually attempted, whereas no attempt charge will succeed unless the requisite attempt is made.

The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime.

According to some criminal-law experts, the concept of conspiracy is too elastic, and the allegation of conspiracy is used by prosecutors as a superfluous criminal charge. Many criminal defense lawyers maintain that conspiracy is often expanded beyond reasonable interpretations. In any case, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys alike agree that conspiracy cases are usually amorphous and complex.

 

[manifold]

I don't know enough about the facts to have a strong opinion one way or the other. But I'm going to make the bold assumption that they were convicted by an impartial jury. In which case the jury was obviously convinced that they were guilty of the criminal charges.

But to suggest that this has anything at all in common with hate crimes seems to me to be...retarded.

 

[Immanuel]

Thought crimes?

They wanted to blow up US landmarks.

Not according to the article.

According to the article all they were attempting to do is swindle some cash out of Al Qaeda. But, you know what? If you are going to play those kinds of stupid games you get what you deserve.

Whether or not they actually meant to do any of those crimes, they conspired to commit them and for that they appear to be guilty. You can't conspire to kill your spouse and then when you find out you were talking to an undercover agent claim you were only kidding. From the sounds of the article, these guys deserve whatever sentences they get.

Immie

i dunno....i am not certain that an OVERT ACT on their part, to commit the crime took place which has to in most states to get a conspiracy charge?

Overt Act

An open, manifest act from which criminality may be implied. An outward act done in pursuance and manifestation of an intent or design.

An overt act is essential to establish an attempt to commit a crime. It is also a key element in the crime of Treason and has become a component of federal and some state criminal conspiracy laws. It also plays a role in the right of Self-Defense.

An attempt to commit a crime is an offense when an accused makes a substantial but unsuccessful effort to commit a crime. The elements of attempt include an intent to commit a crime, an apparent ability to complete the crime, and an overt act. An overt act is an act that is performed to execute the criminal intention and will naturally achieve that result unless prevented by some external cause. The act must directly move toward commission of the crime and must be more than acts of planning or preparation.

here is what it says about conspiracy charges...

Conspiracy Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Hutchinson

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of the agreement.

Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed. For example, one who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary.

Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act. It differs from solicitation in that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be committed by one person alone.

Conspiracy also resembles attempt. However, attempt, like solicitation, can be committed by a single person. On another level, conspiracy requires less than attempt. A conspiracy may exist before a crime is actually attempted, whereas no attempt charge will succeed unless the requisite attempt is made.

The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime.

According to some criminal-law experts, the concept of conspiracy is too elastic, and the allegation of conspiracy is used by prosecutors as a superfluous criminal charge. Many criminal defense lawyers maintain that conspiracy is often expanded beyond reasonable interpretations. In any case, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys alike agree that conspiracy cases are usually amorphous and complex.

That last part is "according to some criminal-law experts". I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that these guys were playing a game that they should not have been playing. It seems to me that they were conspiring to commit the crime and even it they had no intent on following through with it, my limited understanding is that does not excuse the conspiracy.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I don't know enough about the facts to have a strong opinion one way or the other. But I'm going to make the bold assumption that they were convicted by an impartial jury. In which case the jury was obviously convinced that they were guilty of the criminal charges.

But to suggest that this has anything at all in common with hate crimes seems to me to be...retarded.

But he didn't suggest it was a hate crime. He said, "thought crimes" and that is a scary thought. Getting arrested for thinking about committing a crime? Very scary indeed.

Immie

 

[manifold]

I don't know enough about the facts to have a strong opinion one way or the other. But I'm going to make the bold assumption that they were convicted by an impartial jury. In which case the jury was obviously convinced that they were guilty of the criminal charges.

But to suggest that this has anything at all in common with hate crimes seems to me to be...retarded.

But he didn't suggest it was a hate crime. He said, "thought crimes" and that is a scary thought. Getting arrested for thinking about committing a crime? Very scary indeed.

Immie

Fair enough. But since they did far more than merely "think" about it, we can safely dismiss that as bullshit. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Ravi]

Except they were ferried around town by the "terrorist" and supplied with a camera to take pictures of buildings that it wasn't illegal to take pictures of to begin with.

Other than swearing allegiance to AQ...which as far as I know is no more of a crime if you don't act on it than swearing allegiance to the KKK, I can't see what they actually did to deserve a conviction.

But I guess the third time is a charm...this was their third trial.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The overt act is not at issue. They committed the overt act when they video taped the FBI building, if nothing else. It doesn't take much to make an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy.

The issue is whether the actions of the CI induced them to take the actions they took.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Except they were ferried around town by the "terrorist" and supplied with a camera to take pictures of buildings that it wasn't illegal to take pictures of to begin with.

Other than swearing allegiance to AQ...which as far as I know is no more of a crime if you don't act on it than swearing allegiance to the KKK, I can't see what they actually did to deserve a conviction.

But I guess the third time is a charm...this was their third trial.

The innocent taking pictures of a building is not a crime.

If you have a plan to blow up the building and you are taking pictures of the building to aid in your planning of that, then it's a crime in that it is an overt action in the furtherance of a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act (or whatever).