Five Miamians convicted of thought crimes

[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.

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).

They didn't have a plan, though...

 

[Care4all]

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?



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.

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

did you read the definition i just posted imm?

it says intent and and overt act to further this intent has to be committed to be charged with conspiracy....or found guilty....and it says simply ''planning'' it, does NOT count...

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.

The act must directly move toward commission of the crime and must be more than acts of planning or preparation.

i could be wrong, but pics could have been simple planning....and not an overt act, no matter how dispicable it may be....?

care

 

[manifold]

Why did the first two trials end in mistrials?

 

[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).

They didn't have a plan, though...

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.

It sounds like there was "a plan" that the Batiste folks bought in to. In that case, conspiracy law goes like this. If you make a decision to get into the conspiracy, you're in for a dime in for a dollar. All of the actions taken by others prior to you joining are imputed to you. All actions taken after you join are imputed to you. You may get out of the conspiracy before a criminal act takes place, but you are not out of the conspiracy just because you stop participating. You must make some act that removes you from the conspiracy.

So, if the AQ guy says, "I have a plan to blow up these buildings, will you help?" And, the response is "yes," then once somebody makes an overt act to carry it into effect, you have a conspiracy. In this case, the Batiste folks, at a minimum, went to the locations and took requested video of the targets. Even if they had only procured a car for the purpose of going there, that would have been enough for a conviction of on conspiracy. (Under conspiracy law).

 

[Care4all]

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).

They didn't have a plan, though...

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.

It sounds like there was "a plan" that the Batiste folks bought in to. In that case, conspiracy law goes like this. If you make a decision to get into the conspiracy, you're in for a dime in for a dollar. All of the actions taken by others prior to you joining are imputed to you. All actions taken after you join are imputed to you. You may get out of the conspiracy before a criminal act takes place, but you are not out of the conspiracy just because you stop participating. You must make some act that removes you from the conspiracy.

So, if the AQ guy says, "I have a plan to blow up these buildings, will you help?" And, the response is "yes," then once somebody makes an overt act to carry it into effect, you have a conspiracy. In this case, the Batiste folks, at a minimum, went to the locations and took requested video of the targets. Even if they had only procured a car for the purpose of going there, that would have been enough for a conviction of on conspiracy. (Under conspiracy law).

where does this fit in?

The ''overt act'' must directly move toward commission of the crime and must be more than acts of planning or preparation

what was 'MORE than acts of planning', with taking the photos Tech esq?

care

 

[Immanuel]

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?



here is what it says about conspiracy charges...

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

did you read the definition i just posted imm?

it says intent and and overt act to further this intent has to be committed to be charged with conspiracy....or found guilty....and it says simply ''planning'' it, does NOT count...

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.

The act must directly move toward commission of the crime and must be more than acts of planning or preparation.

i could be wrong, but pics could have been simple planning....and not an overt act, no matter how dispicable it may be....?

care

I'm not saying you are wrong. I only had time to skim your post and I am certain there are others, even on this site, that know more about this than I do. I was only given my 1.5 cents worth.

Immie

 

[Tech_Esq]

A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.

For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed.

Findlaw - Conspiracy

I think this is a better explanation of conspiracy.

Any act is sufficient, as it states above long as it proves they knew about the plan (blowing up the building) and intended to break the law (blow up the building), thus taking pics in furtherance of the planned crime, is sufficient to prove conspiracy.

Again, the issue is not whether the elements of criminal conspiracy are present, but whether the CI induced them to do it improperly.

 

[Ravi]

It sounds like there was "a plan" that the Batiste folks bought in to. In that case, conspiracy law goes like this. If you make a decision to get into the conspiracy, you're in for a dime in for a dollar. All of the actions taken by others prior to you joining are imputed to you. All actions taken after you join are imputed to you. You may get out of the conspiracy before a criminal act takes place, but you are not out of the conspiracy just because you stop participating. You must make some act that removes you from the conspiracy.

So, if the AQ guy says, "I have a plan to blow up these buildings, will you help?" And, the response is "yes," then once somebody makes an overt act to carry it into effect, you have a conspiracy. In this case, the Batiste folks, at a minimum, went to the locations and took requested video of the targets. Even if they had only procured a car for the purpose of going there, that would have been enough for a conviction of on conspiracy. (Under conspiracy law).

The "plan" only seems to exist in the mind of a store clerk who claims to have overheard them talking about a plot to blow up the Sears Tower.

The evidence, IMO, shows a group of misfits in a poor neighborhood jumping at the chance to be given $25,000 by some bozo that they thought they could scam. So therefore, IMO, the charge of conspiracy has too many holes in it to be believed.

Obviously I'm not the only one that had trouble with the case's believability since the two previous trials resulted in hung juries.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It sounds like there was "a plan" that the Batiste folks bought in to. In that case, conspiracy law goes like this. If you make a decision to get into the conspiracy, you're in for a dime in for a dollar. All of the actions taken by others prior to you joining are imputed to you. All actions taken after you join are imputed to you. You may get out of the conspiracy before a criminal act takes place, but you are not out of the conspiracy just because you stop participating. You must make some act that removes you from the conspiracy.

So, if the AQ guy says, "I have a plan to blow up these buildings, will you help?" And, the response is "yes," then once somebody makes an overt act to carry it into effect, you have a conspiracy. In this case, the Batiste folks, at a minimum, went to the locations and took requested video of the targets. Even if they had only procured a car for the purpose of going there, that would have been enough for a conviction of on conspiracy. (Under conspiracy law).

The "plan" only seems to exist in the mind of a store clerk who claims to have overheard them talking about a plot to blow up the Sears Tower.

The evidence, IMO, shows a group of misfits in a poor neighborhood jumping at the chance to be given $25,000 by some bozo that they thought they could scam. So therefore, IMO, the charge of conspiracy has too many holes in it to be believed.

Obviously I'm not the only one that had trouble with the case's believability since the two previous trials resulted in hung juries.

Please read my first post.

I'm not saying this is a slam dunk conspiracy. I'm saying the elements of the conspiracy are present. I didn't read that the defense is kicking much about that part. They are saying what I am, that I'm not sure the CI acted properly to prevent this from being entrapment. I would need to hear more evidence on that point.

 

[Nik]

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...

Considering it requires a lot more proof required based on the thoughts of individuals than hate crimes, according to some individuals here, this is a thought crime.

Of course its not actually a thought crime, since this (like hate crimes) are tied to a larger, non-thought based act, but realizing that would mean that some of these individuals would actually have to be consistent.

 

[catzmeow]

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.

Good points.

One thing to bear in mind is that a common defense strategy is to try the case in the news media since prosecutors are more strictly bound by what their agencies will allow them to say (cops, too).

Do I think they were criminals? Hell to the yes. I've worked in lovely liberty city, and it sure isn't any kind of tropical paradise. I suspect these guys were willing to say anything and do anything that would get them access to money and guns that they could use to rape, pillage and rob.

I'd tend to lump them more into the category of (slightly) organized crime, versus terrorists.

The problem I have with this case is the lack of evidence. A REAL conspiracy case generally has evidence that there was a tangible plan to commit crime. In this case, it appears that we tried these people for THINKING about committing a crime, rather than preparing and planning to DO it.

And I do have a problem with that, if this media report is accurate.

Sure, it might sound like I'm coddling terrorists here. But, the right to being innocent until proven guilty of a crime is a pretty serious one to me.

I've consistently defended the rights of people to say all kinds of crazy whacked out things (1st amendment) while being pretty hardcore on those who actually commit crimes.

In this case, I find myself being VERY ambivalent about what I've seen so far on the facts.

 

[catzmeow]

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).

But clearly, their plan was far from extensive. And, swearing an oath of allegiance to anyone, whether it's a street gang or the rotary club, is not a crime. YET.

 

[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.

Good points.

One thing to bear in mind is that a common defense strategy is to try the case in the news media since prosecutors are more strictly bound by what their agencies will allow them to say (cops, too).

Do I think they were criminals? Hell to the yes. I've worked in lovely liberty city, and it sure isn't any kind of tropical paradise. I suspect these guys were willing to say anything and do anything that would get them access to money and guns that they could use to rape, pillage and rob.

I'd tend to lump them more into the category of (slightly) organized crime, versus terrorists.

The problem I have with this case is the lack of evidence. A REAL conspiracy case generally has evidence that there was a tangible plan to commit crime. In this case, it appears that we tried these people for THINKING about committing a crime, rather than preparing and planning to DO it.

And I do have a problem with that, if this media report is accurate.

Sure, it might sound like I'm coddling terrorists here. But, the right to being innocent until proven guilty of a crime is a pretty serious one to me.

I've consistently defended the rights of people to say all kinds of crazy whacked out things (1st amendment) while being pretty hardcore on those who actually commit crimes.

In this case, I find myself being VERY ambivalent about what I've seen so far on the facts.

I agree with most of that. It is a far from compelling case. I think there is a prima facie case made, but little more than that I can see. Of course, in reading through the article, it did seem a bit slanted toward the defense, so maybe we haven't seen the prosecution's case in the best light.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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).

But clearly, their plan was far from extensive. And, swearing an oath of allegiance to anyone, whether it's a street gang or the rotary club, is not a crime. YET.

Yeah, I stayed away from the "oath of allegiance" aspect of this. I'm not real sure what that's supposed to mean in the context of proving this case. Maybe it's suppose to represent the affirmative act of joining the AQ conspiracy. Proof that they knew they were signing up with the bad guys and that they presumably know what AQ does for a living. Hopefully, that was used to make the larger point about knowledge and intent, not as a point in and of itself.

 

[Anguille]

The evidence, IMO, shows a group of misfits in a poor neighborhood jumping at the chance to be given $25,000 by some bozo that they thought they could scam. So therefore, IMO, the charge of conspiracy has too many holes in it to be believed.

Are these the same guys you paid to pave your driveway?

 

[William Joyce]

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

Matt Hale is sitting in supermax right now for roughly this: when an FBI undercover proposed that "I'm going to get rid of the rat," i.e. kill a judge, Hale responded, "Just leave me out of it."

This, apparently, was enough to convict him of "conspiracy" to kill a judge.

In other words, all an undercover need do is propose an illegal act, and if the target person doesn't, I don't know -- report HIM or affirmatively try to stop the act, he's guilty.

The point is that facts and law don't matter. Power does. The federal government is not going to let anyone it doesn't like go free. How ya like them apples? You might, but don't kid yourself that we live in a nation of laws any more than China, Cuba or the USSR.

Personally, I could give a shit. Let's just be open about what we're doing. If we want to lock up a scary-ass crew of black immigrants and ghetto kings because they flirted with al-Qaeda, let's just say that's what we're doing.

 

[Yurt]

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

Matt Hale is sitting in supermax right now for roughly this: when an FBI undercover proposed that "I'm going to get rid of the rat," i.e. kill a judge, Hale responded, "Just leave me out of it."

This, apparently, was enough to convict him of "conspiracy" to kill a judge.

In other words, all an undercover need do is propose an illegal act, and if the target person doesn't, I don't know -- report HIM or affirmatively try to stop the act, he's guilty.

The point is that facts and law don't matter. Power does. The federal government is not going to let anyone it doesn't like go free. How ya like them apples? You might, but don't kid yourself that we live in a nation of laws any more than China, Cuba or the USSR.

Personally, I could give a shit. Let's just be open about what we're doing. If we want to lock up a scary-ass crew of black immigrants and ghetto kings because they flirted with al-Qaeda, let's just say that's what we're doing.

why don't you give a shit? you seem to speak with passion on the issue...

 

[William Joyce]

I'm just saying, if we're going to stick people in prison for being suspicious, let's be honest about it instead of trying to act like they committed the actual crime of conspiracy to commit a crime. It would cut through a lot of bullshit. Some people wouldn't like the idea that you can stick people in jail for that, but that would give us all something to think about, right?

 

[Yurt]

I'm just saying, if we're going to stick people in prison for being suspicious, let's be honest about it instead of trying to act like they committed the actual crime of conspiracy to commit a crime. It would cut through a lot of bullshit. Some people wouldn't like the idea that you can stick people in jail for that, but that would give us all something to think about, right?

so you're saying conspiracy is a meadowmuffins crime?