Originally Posted by Botnst
That's the problem with conspiracy charges. Usually depend on slimy informants' information and dancing with entrapment to make a case. The result is all sorts of conflicting information. Brings to mind a question that has nagged me over the years concerning conspiracies: How long should authorities let them develop before busting them? I'll bet the current trigger is prosecutorial judgment that believes the case can be won. In terms of law, that's not unreasonable.
But in terms of the polity, I think it's a bridge too near. I'd prefer that the conspiracy develop to the point of concrete plans, plausible means, and methods near at hand. From what I have seen of these consiracy busts the conspirators are stopped before they become a reasonable threat.
Just my opinion.
Completely agree. This is why we have had so few convictions. And most of the convictions are watered down pleas that amount to little more that "we gotta do something since we kept the guy here for 60 months".
I know there is a group that feels that the Gitmo Experience and DoJ are doing a whizbang job but so far we have only got headlines and when it gets to COLD HARD FACTS, those necessary items that the World's leading Democrazy* stands for when touting "Rule of Law" and "Constitution" and "Human Rights" , we have little more that a perp walk of misdemeanors.
We hold terrorists without benefit of counsel, without benefit of GC, without CMJ yet when their cases do come to light, five years after their incarceration their charges seem to be dropped [two this week] because of lack of evidence but a great press conference.
DoJ seems more interested in touting its successes to the press than to a jury, more interested in bumping up polling numbers rather than applying rule of law. And this is what we get. Big press, little action. Heck of a Job.