The New York Times has a piece today by Adam Liptak that makes for interesting reading. it outlines how conspiracy charges may be the way to put away terrorists and would-be terrorists early -- and for a very long time.

But the real innovation in Mr. PadillaÂ’s case, some legal experts said yesterday, was more subtle than those dueling talking points suggested. The Justice DepartmentÂ’s strategy in the trial itself, using a seldom-tested conspiracy law and relatively thin evidence, cemented a new prosecutorial model in terrorism cases.

The central charge against Mr. Padilla was that he conspired to murder, maim and kidnap people in a foreign country. The charge is a serious one, and it can carry a life sentence. But prosecutors needed to prove very little by way of concrete conduct to obtain a conviction under the law.

“There is no need to show any particular violent crime,” said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at Wake Forest University and the author of a recent law review article on conspiracy charges in terrorism prosecutions. “You don’t have to specify the particular means used to carry out the crime.”

I still believe these cases don't belong in the criminal justice system -- but if that is where we are ultimately forced to deal with terrorists, this looks good to me.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.