Former Intel Engineer Pleads Guilty To Taliban Aid

theodp writes "Following up on an earlier Slashdot story, software engineer Maher "Mike" Hawash pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban, agreeing to testify against other suspects in exchange for the dropping of other terrorism charges. He will serve at least seven years in federal prison under the deal. In March, federal agents seized Hawash from a parking lot outside Intel Corp., where he worked, and held him as a material witness until charges were filed five weeks later."

shoulda shaved or something

[gfody]

look at him [foxnews.com].. I don't mean to come off as a racist or anything, but seriously. when you are in fact a terrorist, wouldn't it make sense to sharpen up a little, maybe try and cut down on the co-worker-thinks-im-a-terrorist-because-i-look-lik e-this factor?

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[leiz]

reminds me of Stallman...

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're asking him to go against his religious beliefs so that YOU can feel safer? (ok so he WAS a terrorist.. but not everyone with scrappy looking beards are, some are just trying to make a living like you and I)

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[PaxTech]

According to CNN, Hawash is a "naturalized U.S. citizen of Palestinian descent". I'm not sure how that makes Afghanistan "his country" to protect.

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[smithmc]

This guy simply wanted to go home, and protect his country from what he viewed as US aggression.

Hawash is a US citizen. This is his country. If he felt otherwise, what was he doing here?

Yeah, it's terrorism

[siskbc]

This guy simply wanted to go home, and protect his country from what he viewed as US aggression.

The Taliban is not a country. In fact, the Taliban has never been a country. They were not generally, in fact, Afghani - many (I believe most) were foreigners who simply took over, as 1) Afghanistan wasn't able to resist, and 2) they wanted a country in which to practice the most extreme version of Islam. So it would be a mistake to assume there was hardly anyone in Afghanistan who voluntarily supported the Taliban.

Second, this guy was Palestinian as pointed out. So he's not defending a country - he's committing acts of aggression against a country he does not like by aiding an extremely violent terrorist regime with a history of targeted violence against civillians.

That's terrorism in pretty much any book.

Slashdot moderation in action

[jamesmrankinjr]

Slashdot for you. The factually false post bashing the US gets +4 Interesting, while the corrections pointing out facts that put the US case in a more favorable light get no higher than +2.

Figures.
-jimbo

Weird

[autopr0n]

He obviously hasn't been shaving or something since he's been in jail. He hasn't always [freemikehawash.org] looked like that.

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[Moridineas]

Just FWIW, it's pretty much required for Muslim men to grow beards. Actually, the four legal schools disagree on specifics, but I think the agreed upon length of beard is one fist away from the face. It's more than tradition.

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[mnmn]

Is THIS the kind of people taking our tech jobs away?!?

Man I must have the wrong approach to looking for work. They are looking for diversifying. I'll put gay nymphomaniac Siberian on my resume.

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[Eric Seppanen]

Funny how the courtroom sketch [katu.com] of him doesn't look like that at all. Not really worth picking on Fox News, though. CNN and lots of other news sites are using the same photo with the evil beard.

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[Rolo Tomasi]

Dude, you don't wanna look pretty when you're in prison.

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[gfody]

at least they caught him before he was able to complete his mission and convince you guys to implement cpu serials numbers in the p4

I understand his feelings.

[Anonymous Coward]

I felt very much the same way he did.

Before 9/11 I was just an average minority guy. On 9/11, I was as shocked and devastated as everyone else. I spent hours in front of a TV with my co-workers wondering at the hugeness of it all and at the pain of it all.

But over the weeks that followed, things began to change.

I have always worn a little facial hair, and I have a dark complexion. I never thought twice about it, I thought I looked better with a little facial hair.

Well... After 9/11, I got accused by people I formerly thought I knew very well. Apparently many of them had no idea about my ethic background and were prepared to simply assume that everyone who wasn't white, black or chinese was Arabic. People would stop talking about 9/11 and the pain they felt when I came in the room. They would give me looks that I'll never forget.

I began to be accused in public places. People would actually yell out on busy streets: "Hey, check out the terrorist!" and people would catcall, throw drinks out of their cars at me, give me poor service at restaurants...

After 9/11, I began to realize that my "fellow Americans" actually hated my guts and wanted me dead. In fact, when I began to observe peoples' interactions with one another, I realized that much of the NAACP's lobby is actually right on the money... White America still wants minority people dead.

Once I came to this realization, it wasn't hard to begin to feel like I don't belong after all. Like maybe these aren't my people. When someone demanded to search me before letting me into their stupid little restaurant, it was easy to begin to feel as though I was betraying those who were like me if I was to allow myself to be searched or treated in this manner.

9/11 showed me that America is a hateful place. It proved that unlike in Europe (that Americans seem to hate with a passion), in America 3,000 white dead outweigh by a generous margin 3,000 Afghani dead or 3,000 Iraqi dead.

No, I'm not Arabic, either, or a Muslim. But I've been accused of as much umpteen times since 9/11 even though I was born here, and my parents were born here. That's right, accused. Being non-white is an accusation in the US.

So I can understand this guy's feelings after 9/11 because I had them too, and I wasn't even of the same heritage. And I, too, now wear a much longer beard than I ever did. Why? I suppose it's my little demonstration of anger at the way I was treated after 9/11.

Re:I understand his feelings.

[Pr3d4t0r]

As someone trying to make a case against prejudice and stereotypes, I found the following very interesting:

White America still wants minority people dead.

This is one the most aggravating posts I've seen on Slashdot in a while. In trying to show how you were pre judged because of your appearance, you go on to portray every white American as people who wish every minority would die!? Did you not learn anything about the stupidity of prejudice in your experiences?

No... No... No...

[powerlord]

Remember ...

dark middle-eastern looking men are Terrorists ... they hurt our economy by destroying resources, spreading fear, and general mayhem.

white balding men are Embezzalers and Stock Manipulators (for instance a certain umbrella organization or "canopy" group we can all think of), they hurt the economy by destroying competitors resources (money, clients, possible engagements/sales), spreading fear and ...

hmmm ... maybe you have a point :)

Re:No... No... No...

[enomar]

I'll take someone embezzling my money and manipulating my stock over someone killing me any day.

Re:Exactly, he looks like a terrorist so arrest hi

[nyseal]

Probably the same time they stop looking like middle eastern gentlemen at a time when the country gets attacked by them. Right or wrong, looks (and appearence) play a great role in identifying suspects. If the attack were carried out by middle aged, caucasion males with pension plans linked to a Mexico bank account, I would EXPECT to be at least questioned.

Re:Exactly, he looks like a terrorist so arrest hi

[York the Mysterious]

I seem to remember this one white guy that blew up this one federal building. Maybe it was too long ago for everyone to remember. I don't remember anyone breaking windows at white owned businesses after that. Do you?

camo? suspicious?

[RMH101]

I always look at people with buzz cuts and camo suspiciously. I don't *do* anything though. That would be dumb. They're the army...

Re:Exactly, he looks like a terrorist so arrest hi

[hazem]

Pretty lucky guess, if he's pleading guilty and that's all they had to go on when they picked him up.

Don't be so sure. I don't know if he is in fact guilty in this case, but people have been known to plead guilty when they are in fact innocent.

Here's a possible scenario. They pick him up on secret evidence and secret warrant, then hold him secretly with no access to a lawyer or his family. That's pretty scary right there.

Next, they tell you, "listen buddy, you look just like one of Osama's boys, so when we put you before a jury of your *peers*, they'll have no problem locking you away for the rest of your life being gang raped by muslim-hating white supremicists"... OR, if you plead guilty, we'll take it easy on you, put you in a nice prison, and you'll see your family in 7 years."

What does his lawyer tell him? Oh wait, he didn't have access to one for quite a while... in fact, nobody did.

What do you do given a choice like that?

Prosecutors have a lot of power in our system, particularly when they can frighten you into pleading guilty out of fear for what a guilty verdict means.

Re:shoulda shaved or something

[m00nun1t]

his hair is short and reasonably neat. Obviously been cut in the last month. If they aren't letting him near razors, whoever cut his hair could have shaved him.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Furthermore...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Actually, you are right. You wouldn't have been a terrorist. You'd have been a covert agent of an enemy power -- a spy. You would not have been held as a POW; you would have been held as an irregular combatant. Guess what? The Geneva conventions don't protect irregular combatants. Combatant nations are not legally bound to return irregular combatants to their countries of origin when conflict ends.

If you weren't shot out of hand, you'd have spent the rest of your life in a French jail, along with the other collaborators.

Re:Furthermore...

[EinarH]

Guess what? The Geneva conventions don't protect irregular combatants. Combatant nations are not legally bound to return irregular combatants to their countries of origin when conflict ends.

Wrong.

First; there is under international law in this area (the Geneeva Convention, which USA signed and ratified) any category as "irregular combatants" or the often used "unlawful combatant". Classifying a person as such a thing is actually in itself a violation of the Geneva Convention.
However there are categorys

Re:Furthermore...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

If you're going to quote text, you ought to quote the relevant text: the definition of a person to whom the Third Geneva Convention applies.

Here's the main definition:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The section goes on, but the subsequent passages either speak to edge cases.

Key is, a covert enemy agent meets none of the four tests for being a prisoner of war. In that case, there's no question about whether or not that agent is covered by the provisions of the Convention; he or she is not. Irregular combatants may or may not be, but generally would not be covered. The foreign combatants in Afghanistan directly associated with Al Quaeda were clearly not covered: they were not commanded by a responsible officer, they wore no distinctive signs, they concealed their weapons, and they did not conform to the standard laws and customs of warfare (including the Third Geneva Convention, which forbids the taking of hostages and direct attacks on civilians, both of which many of the GB detainees had done.)

In short, GB may be wrong, and is a PR disaster, but it is not illegal, no matter what HRW wants you to believe.

Re:Furthermore...

[jgalun]

It is a well-debunked myth that the US gave money to the Taliban before 9/11. See, for example:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html [spinsanity.org]

The US gave money to NGOs (humanitarian organizations) working in Afghanistan, not to the Taliban. Before 9/11, only 3 countries even recognized the Taliban, and the US was not one of them.

As for the UNOCAL pipeline myth, while it is true that there were such negotiations, they did not involve the US government, and occurred in 1999 - you know, before Bush was in power:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Jesus, people, try to check facts a little before you post, or mod.

The funny thing is, people were claiming that the war in Afghanistan was about oil, yet their only argument for that claim was that the US wanted this pipeline. Two years later, where's the pipeline?

Now people are claiming that the US invaded Iraq to get its oil. Yet oil production remains below pre-war levels, and the first shipment of oil did not go just to US firms, but was split with European firms as well (include France's TotalFinaElf).

Re:Talaban != Government?

[kfg]

That is correct. The Taliban != Government.

They were only recognized as such by three countries out of the whole wide world. It wouldn't take many guesses to get all three.

The Taliban was a revolutionary force seeking to oust the legitimate governement recognized by the rest of the world. They held no aspects of government control but operated territory under their sway ( which never even amounted to a clear majority of territory) under pure martial law. They had no civil police. No civil law for such civ

Re:Talaban != Government?

[elmegil]

Could someone explain why people are comparing the Talaban to Al Queda?

Because the Talaban sheltered Al Quaeda, provided them land to build training camps, and refused to give up their leadership even after the attacks of 9/11?

I think that their direct support of Bin Laden makes a clear case that they are culpable for terrorism. And I don't even agree with the war on Iraq or any of the dozens of stupid things the Feds have done in the name of defending us from terrorism.

Re:Talaban != Government?

[Sanity]

I think that their direct support of Bin Laden makes a clear case that they are culpable for terrorism

Yeah, those that trained Bin Laden should indeed be punished. Oh wait, that would be the CIA - I guess the world isn't black and white after all.

Re:Talaban != Government?

[Zoop]

Yeah, those that trained Bin Laden should indeed be punished. Oh wait, that would be the CIA - I guess the world isn't black and white after all.

Sigh. The world does have some gradation in shading, however.

Repeat after me: The CIA never funded Osama bin Laden.

He's a freakin' multi-billionaire, he didn't need the funds.

They funded other groups such as those led by Abdul Haq who cooperated with bin Laden in ousting the Sovs. However, those groups didn't agree with the Taliban, which Osama supported, and so most of them were killed or fled the country. In fact, Haq was killed when he went into Afghanistan to try to rally people around him. If you want to blame the CIA for something, try for not supporting Haq or hooking up with the military to get him out when he realized he was being surrounded.

The CIA has much to be ashamed of, you don't have to invent stuff because it helps your immediate rhetorical need.

Re:Talaban != Government?

[davecl]

The man said those that trained Bin Laden should indeed be punished. Oh wait, that would be the CIA .

The word was 'trained' not 'funded', and I don't know anyone who is denying that the CIA trained him.

So please address the point that was made, not the one you'd like to answer.

Re:Talaban != Government?

[Alex Belits]

Yes, Amerika is Savage and Evil (tm)! That's why with the ability to literally snap its fingers and destroy the entire planet or any portion (Country) thereof, it never has.

So can any country that possesses nuclear weapons, such as France, Russia, or China. Or even India. If someone did not notice, government of any of those countries is either few keypresses, or few months of missile-building away from turning Washington, DC and NYC into two holes in the ground, not to mention various other nasty things that can be done with existing nuclear weapons. I don't see any of those countries demanding to be treated as The Owners Of The Earth, or randomly attacking the rest of the world.

Re:Talaban != Government?

[elmegil]

The Taliban was put into government in Afghanistan by the USA

Umm...no. Bin Laden may have been trained by the US, but the Taliban were a Pakistani creation.

Even if it did, someone helping someone who helps terrorists is not a terrorist

And if you bothered to read anything else I've written in this, you'd know that I was not saying that Mike was or should be treated as a terrorist. Quite the opposite, in fact. It remains that asking "why would anyone consider the Taliban the same as Al Quaeda" is a real

From an Afghani slashdotter

[mnmn]

I will begin by trying to define 'terrorist'. Anyone who terrorizes anyone else is a terrorist. That means the US ventures in Vietnam and Iraq where they tried to intimidate the civilians to drop support to their governments is just as terrorist as say the USSR trying to invade Afghanistan. So a government can be a terrorist organisation and all current governments are except some small ones ruling city states without their armies. Next, the Taliban were a political group. They also represent an extremist thinking. They supported the Al Qaeda because of what they believed, not because they wanted to terrorize US citizens. They were terrorists because they terrorized Afghans. By the way Al Qaeda and the Taliban both killed more civilians in Afghanistan each, than Al Qaeda did on 9/11. They also fought for years trying to take over Afghanistan fully but never really did. One well-known former CIA chief testified in his book that the Taliban were created by US funds during the Soviet occupation years to create a strong religious resistance against USSR. Couple these facts with the fact that few people in Afghanistan ever supported the Taliban, and they were mostly composed of Pakistani army, that hardly makes the Taliban Afghan, let alone Al Qaeda. A terrorist to some is a freedom fighter to others. People in foreign countries who supported the Taliban were usually sincere to their own countries and never supported them as a Threat to America or Democracy. They never knew of the Taliban's antics within Afghanistan. A Pakistani-British kid raised in London was caught among the Taliban when the Americans came, and was interviewed. He joined because he thought he would be fighting the Russians defending Islam. He didnt know there would be cries of "Allah o Akbar" from both sides of the hill. Most people in Pakistan under the current Taliban propaganda still believe the Taliban should rightfully be in Afghanistan without knowing who the enemy is exactly. Such is the sorry state of affairs of the region. I will just ask everyone to:

1. Never hate anyone single-mindedly. Information is skewed in every media and the world out there can be radically different.
2. Never sling around a word without completely understanding its definition and checking how it applies to yourself. Words like WMD, terrorist and wacky are some.
3. never treat anyone like the plague because he supported someone else. Many people even in America still defend communism, many others have strong religious affiliations of all sorts. None of them are absolutely evil, and evil only lies in the eyes of the beholder.
4. never support any form of government to the extreme that you impose it on others. Face it, democracy is a total failure in poorer countries where people only vote for the person most seen on TV, which is the richest politician around. The communists were in the same shoes a few years ago.
5. never assume yourself, your country or your religion to be the center of gravity of humanity. The Germans tried that half a century ago. Ask them how they feel now. Anyone is a savage/terrorist/evildoer/moron/unintelligent to someone else.
6. never start a political debate on slashdot. Ever.
7. Profit!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Talaban != Government?

[PeteyG]

After 9/11/01 the US asked the government of Afghanistan if they had him, they replied that he was under their control and that they would turn him over, if the US was willing to provide proof that he had done something wrong.

Get your dick out of your ass. The Taliban were just bullshitting us. There was plenty of proof for extradition, and everyone knew it.

bin Laden was known by everyone to be the head of the terrorist organization that was dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible. They took responsibility for bombing the USS Cole, the two African embassies, and many other terrorist acts.

On Sept 11, I and quite a few other people around the world, when we thought about who to blame, thought first of Osama bin Laden.

Why? Because everyone in the fucking world knew he was the head of an evil international well-funded terrorist organization dedicated to killing Americans! (and based out of Afghanistan)

ps. mod parent down as flamebait. I can't believe I got sucked in.

Re:The Taliban is NOT Al Qaeda, thats the whole po

[cheezedawg]

The Taliban was a legit government

Woah, hang on there. The only country that recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan was Pakistan. Nobody else in the world thought they were a "legit" government, and they didn't even represent Afghanistan in the United Nations.

And they had a hell of a lot to do with Al Qaeda. They provided logistical support and gave aid to Al Qaeda, and they did so knowing that he was carrying out terrorist activities (here is the US's stance [usembassy.be] on the Taliban). Nobody really disputes this. Some people have even speculated that Bin Laden requested Mullah Omar's approval before any terrorist act.

Re:The Taliban is NOT Al Qaeda, thats the whole po

[Black Parrot]

> Why, then, didn't they give up bin Laden when we asked?

Because we didn't show them the evidence against him, just as we would have demanded of them if they wanted us to hand over one of our citizens.

OK, that was probably just an excuse on their part, but there's no reason we couldn't have observed the norms.

Treasonous criminal or not...

[Shenkerian]

Whatever else people will say about this guy, he did not get what he deserved. Everything after and including his arrest was fair and deserved, but the five weeks of being held as a material witness were complete bullshit. The officials abused the statute to hold him indefinitely and complete their case research. If it hadn't received the media attention it did, they probably would have held him longer before finally arresting him.

Re:Treasonous criminal or not...

[Jason Earl]

Exactly. Just because this guy really was a terrorist doesn't mean that the Feds will have fingered the right guy when the come to get you. If the Federales can't bust a criminal without giving them the benefit of due process then I would rather have that criminal out on the street. I would rather have seen Mike walk than to have the government hold him for several weeks without arresting him. Due process is part of what makes the U.S. a good place to live.

That being the case, this will probably work out in Mike's favor as it gave him the opportunity to be a "witness" instead of a suspect. Seven years in prison is a pretty lenient sentence for conspiring with terrorists.

Re:Treasonous criminal or not...

[Jason Earl]

Semantics. American citizens going out of their way to aid foreign terrorists are terrorists. I am all for due process, but I am also all for stringing up everyone involved with terrorists.

The fact that the Feds are willing to plea bargain with Mike means that he at least was involved enough with terrorists to implicate them in crimes. That's more than close enough to make him guilty in my book. Once again, the fact that he was dragged in as a "witness" almost certainly helped him get his plea bargain

Re:Treasonous criminal or not...

[elmegil]

See, he didn't even make contact with the Taliban, and there's no indication that he was interested in killing civilians--he wanted to aid them in the field against the military. So explain again what threat he was posing in those 5 weeks?

Re:Treasonous criminal or not...

[KrispyKringle]

Are you aware of the term "habeus corpus?"

People often say, "Yeah, but he was a terrorist! He has no rights! I have no sympathy. Do you really want this guy to go to trial and risk him being set free?"

Yes. He does have rights. As an American citizen, he is innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. He is an alleged terrorist. Quite a difference. And if you really think tearing to shreds the fundamental basis of our freedoms does a whole lot to protect them, you are very sadly wrong.

If the terrorists really want to destroy our way of life, all they have to do, at this point, is sit back and hope the Bush administration gets re-elected. Ashcroft's disdain for the rule of law--his disdain even for court orders he doesn't feel like complying with--shows him to be worse than just a silly ideologue. He has no conception of justice, no respect for the ideals he claims to be defending, and is more of a threat to our American way of life than any terrorist.

Wonder how much his 'defense fund' received

[A Commentor]

On his Free Mike Hawash site [freemikehawash.org], they still have paypal donations links, and statements about his 'innocence'. I wonder how much money they racked it.

you still don't know he isn't innocent

[Sanity]

With the threats they probably used against him he would probably have said that black was white if they wanted him to. The list of those that agree to pleas but later are proven innocent is longer than most people might imagine. Consider being given the choice of pleading guilty and serving 5 years, or fighting it out in what must at this point appear to him as a frighteningly hostile environment, and serving 20 - what would you do, guilty or not?

Re:Wonder how much his 'defense fund' received

[EinarH]

I don't know what you are insinuating, but yeah, they are probablly all in it only for his money.
Their whole life they planned this. All his friend thought this out; convincing Mike to support and fight for Taliban. Taking uni degrees and getting jobs in the communiyty close to him, lurking around him for the whole purpose of becoming his friends etc.

But it was all a giant scam; through the support side and the extremly lucerative Paypal system they planned to "rack in" money. Doing this they planned and

That is some damning testimony

[UnderScan]

From the news bit:
"You and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban. Is this true?" U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones asked Hawash during the hearing.

"Yes, your honor," Hawash replied.

I had really hoped that the US Gov was wrong for nabbing a US citizen. I had hoped that there would be a suite against the gov for violating civil rights.
But Damn!
This doesn't look good.

Rubbish

[Sanity]

That is no more damning than when a captured US soldier is forced to denounce the actions of their government by their captors. We have no idea what kind of threats were made against that guy before his "confession" was extracted.

Re:That is some damning testimony

[ameoba]

It doesn't really matter; Ernesto Miranda, of "Miranda Rights" fame, kidnapped a girl and raped her. Even though he was later re-tried and convicted, the Supreme Court decision set a legal precident.

While a convicted felon loses some of their rights, until the point of their conviction they've got all of their rights and should still be treated as such until a conviction is reached. Innocence or guilt are irrelevant when it comes to imporoper imprisonment.

Re:That is some damning testimony

[elmegil]

They still wrongfully abducted him. Sure it's "legal", but then so was wife beating for a long time.

As for his guilt, there is always the possibility that he took the most certain way out rather than gambling his innocence against 20 years in prison. Given the witch hunt atmosphere, he could rightly believe that even though innocent he couldn't prove it.

Oh, by the way, why didn't they abduct the other 6 people and hold them without charge for 5 weeks to forver too?

Re:That is some damning testimony

[cthugha]

This is an important point to remember, and one that is well illustrated by a little history.

In 1930s Stalinist Russia, hundreds of political prisoners were convicted of treason and either executed or carted off to the gulag. What is remarkable about these cases is not the fact that they happened, but the fact that the trials and subsequent convictions appeared to be conducted in accordance with proper forms and procedures. The accused would be afforded access to legal representation, but would then proceed to get up, in open court, and swear on their mother's grave that they were guilty of the most heinous treason when all they had possibly done was express the mildest dissent, often privately, or ended up in the wrong political faction. The Soviet regime was then able to deflect criticism of the suppression of dissent by simply pointing to the apparent fairness of their trial process, often with the assistance of Western apologists such as English QC D. N. Pritt.

The trick, of course, was worked before trial, during a period of a number of weeks (usually) when the accused was held incommunicado and subjected to severe psychological pressure and physical mistreatment (such as food and sleep deprivation, interspersed on occasion with outright physical torture) designed essentially to brainwash the unfortunate suspect into confessing. If necessary, threats were made against the suspect's family to induce a confession. This process was referred to by its architect, Soviet prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky, as "the conveyor", and it is the twentieth century's greatest testament to the need for access to criminal suspects at all stages of the judicial process, from arrest to conviction.

Until verifiable physical evidence of what Hawash is alleged to have done is produced, this confession convinces me of nothing other than that John Ashcroft, the man who ultimately bears responsibility for Hawash's treatment and prosecution, is just a latter-day Vyshinsky and a disgrace to his profession.

You know what's sad about this?

[Faizdog]

Soo many people had rallied around him because of the problems minorities (especially Muslim ones) face in today's conditions. Unfortunately because he has pleaded guilty, next time people will just assume the person is guilty, and they won't rally around the new person, even though he/she may be innocent.

Mark my words, there will be innocents who get caught up, and due to cases like this people will be reluctant to support them. Sad.

Re:You know what's sad about this?

[Fastball]

What the? The Feds arrested a guy for something incriminating. He admitted to it in a court of law. Guilty. Over.

Why does this mean innocents are going to go down? Jesus, can the Slashdot crowd get any more clueless? You people, which I somehow am one of, can't accept the fact that law enforcement has a purpose especially when it involves a "geek." Wake up and smell the latte, folks. The bad guys, and I'm not talking about the blackhats, aren't going to wear armbands and shirts with epaulets and stand opp

Remember kids...

[AvantLegion]

... Intel supports terrorism. Buy AMD.

The others

[heli0]

The other 5 that have been charged so far have all plead not-guilty. How many of them will change their plea now that Hawash has agreed to testify against them?

Why do most assume he is guilty?

[Frodrick]

After having weasel DOJ lawyers wave "possible life inprisonment" and "possible execution" in his face every day for the past 4 months - possibly even threatening to deport his family - of course he pleaded guilty to a 7 year sentence. They probably threatened to delay the trial that long and just leave him in jail - or send him to concentration camp X-Ray.

I, for one, don't know if he is guilty or innocent, but I sure-as-hell am not going to believe a plea bargain arragement. Most of you predicted that the Patriot Act would be used in exactly that way - to force plea agreements.

As far as I am concerned, the government's case remains unproven.

Re:Why do most assume he is guilty?

[TPFH]

This guy plead GUILTY to the charges against him - not lesser charges - not pleading out of fear. He made a full admission of guilt, and as part of such he would have had to allocute to his crimes in court. That is, tell in his own words, what he did. Noone forced his hand, noone pulled his strings and put words in his mouth.

Yes and no.
He plead guilty to One of the charges against him. One of the lesser of the charges against him.

Personally, I am a bit skeptical about the whole thing, owing a lot to the violation of Habeas Corpus, and the current political situation. From what I understand there are still thousands of people being held as "material witnesses" without charges being filed. I think the main reason they bothered to file charges against Hawash is that he had a bunch of friends who made a big fuss.

So what "Conspiracy Theory" am I proposing? That he was somehow threatened and told to plead guilty. Why? Because the "gubment", err the politicians are afraid of looking foolish nowadays and they need to convict someone, and a No Contest plea wouldn't cut it for the political side of things. I think part of plea barganing is that he had to plea Guilty and not just No Contest.

OK, I have the 11pm news on and they just quoted someone (I think Ashcroft) saying they hope this guilty plea will restrain critisism of the FBI. (Or something to that effect.)

Anyway, hypothetically let's assume that he really is guilty. If he was really a Political Islamist Terrorist he would be prepaired to die or to spend the rest of his life in jail for his beliefs. Therefore if he really is a terrorist then he is unlikely to cooperate in any way, let alone testify against his "fellow conspirators."

He just doesn't seem to fit the profile. He has a family and a good job at Intel. He had a happy life and a lot to loose.

Another thing that's bugged me about the "Portland Six/Seven" conspiracy theory is this: Supposedly their plan was to fly/travel all the way to Afganistan to fight American troops. Now, considering that they were already in the USA, wouldn't it have been a lot simpler to attack Americans in America if that was really their goal? or that they would travel to one of the most remote (and particularly hard to get to at the time) regions in the entire world.

Until I see/hear real evidence I will remain skeptical of the "gubment" thank you very much.

Conspiracy?

[FsG]

The whole thing reeks of a gov't conspiracy. At least, his friends and coworkers seem to think so [freemikehawash.org].

Wow

[dtfinch]

It's a good thing I didn't make a donation at http://www.freemikehawash.org/ when this first came out.

But guilty or not, it didn't seem right for him to be held in prison for several months without being charged, calling him a "material witness". One could say they forced his confession, because they admittedly weren't going to let him out until they heard what they wanted.

Re:Wow

[the-build-chicken]

There are others _still_ being held that way...if you're an american, do something about it...your government is holding people against the rules of your own constitution...not even granting them basic rights of the geneva convention (enemy combatants? what the hell is that?)...almost 2 years they've been locked up without even access to a lawyer and they're still haven't been charged with anything...if this is 'by the people, for the people'...then you have a lot of really cruel and hypocritical people in your country...for god sake...make some noise about this!

Let's focus on another part

[Bueller_007]

"...held him as a material witness until charges were filed five weeks later."

Is anyone else disturbed by this?

Don't you have a Bill of Rights?

[Snoopy77]

The FOX article was pretty light on but I'm guessing your new Patriot Act helped hold him for so long. Somewhere else on /. a poster said that a judge signed off on holding him as a material witness. Surely you guys have a seperation of powers? Your judiciary decides who's guilty and innocent on the facts available. Why is a judge deciding whether or not a man can be held without charge? Seems like a rubber stamp to me.

It seems like the executive is getting permission to do something from someone who does not have the power to give that permission. Yes, the legislature may have granted the judiciary the power but it does not fall under normal judicial powers, totally circumvents due process and, I would guess, would be unconstitutional.

Well at least he's better of that the guys living in dog kennels at Guantanamo Bay.

Re:Don't you have a Bill of Rights?

[Xeger]

Generally, a jury of one's peers decides guilt or innocence. The judge's job is to preside over the trial process, ensure all the rules are obeyed, and mete out a sentence. The judge's other job is to decide on the legality of certain police measures, and issue warrants when necessary.

Yes, in their role as the watchdog over the policemen's shoulder, judges can be both our friends and our enemies. Judges are people, and people are either good or bad. Good judges use their power wisely; bad judges abuse thei

GUILTY plea, not an ALFORD plea.

[rjh]

Please, please, please, for the love of Bob, people, think a little bit before you go about saying "he just plead guilty because he was looking at 20-to-life, we don't actually know what he did."

There's a special kind of plea you use when you're taking a conviction on lesser charges out of fear that you're looking at a much greater time if you're convicted on the original charges. It's called an Alford plea, closely related to a nolo contendre plea.

Nolo has been expressed in layman's terms as "I didn't do it, judge, and I'll never do it again!" You neither admit guilt nor protest your innocence. As a result, many judges refuse to enter nolo pleas; they demand that you either admit or deny responsibility, and if you insist on nolo a "not guilty" plea will be entered instead.

An Alford plea is a far different thing. An Alford, in layman's terms, is "Judge, I didn't do it, but I'm terrified of the original charges and I think they could convict me on it." An Alford plea allows you to formally and legally protest your own innocence, while at the same time stipulating that the government could convict you if it went the whole nine yards, and thus avail yourself of the plea bargain.

Mike Hawash didn't plead either nolo or Alford.

Mike Hawash plead guilty.

Guilty, as in "yes, Your Honor, I fucking did it! "

Could we please, please, please stop seeing these self-important, self-aggrandizing rants from Damn-the-Man slashdotters who don't even care to learn about the difference between a guilty plea and an Alford plea, and why it's so significant that Hawash didn't plead Alford?

Re:GUILTY plea, not an ALFORD plea.

[WhaDaYaKnow]

Could we please, please, please stop seeing these self-important, self-aggrandizing rants from Damn-the-Man slashdotters who don't even care to learn about the difference between a guilty plea and an Alford plea, and why it's so significant that Hawash didn't plead Alford?

Which lawyer did he get, to explain this theory (which I've never heard of as a foreigner that has lived in this country for a quite while) to him while he was not allowed to contact the outside world?

I don't consider a confession of someone who has not been allowed a proper trial worth anything.

Re:GUILTY plea, not an ALFORD plea.

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

There is not a chance in hell the the DOJ would have allowed a nolo or Alford plea in this case. If Hawash had agreed to anything other than a guilty plea, he'd by in Gitmo now (and for longer than 7 years, probably), without the feds bothering with specific charges. And as others upthread have written, probably his family would be rounded up for deportation in "secret evidence" against them.

Repeat after me: THIS IS NOT A NORMAL CRIMINAL CASE.

Because seven years is better than Gitmo?

[geekotourist]

Well, assuming in this case that he had access to a lawyer to tell him about Alford [something Padilla hasn't had access to: talking with a lawyer'd ruin his Stockholm-syndrome dependence on his interrogators- really, the gov't admitted this], the lawyer'd only tell him to do this if the lawyer was incompetent. He does have a lawyer, who probably told M.H. that he didn't have a choice. Why would the government allow Alford here? It would make the gov't look bad, and that isn't acceptable.

Quoting from the [oft referenced here but should be re-read. If you can read it without fear, why?] article on Why the Lackawanna 6 pled guilty [washingtonpost.com]:

"The federal government implicitly threatened to toss the defendants into a secret military prison without trial, where they could languish indefinitely without access to courts or lawyers.

That prospect terrified the men. They accepted prison terms of 6 1/2 to 9 years.

"We had to worry about the defendants being whisked out of the courtroom and declared enemy combatants if the case started going well for us," said attorney Patrick J. Brown, who defended one of the accused. "So we just ran up the white flag and folded. Most of us wish we'd never been associated with this case."

Yup, thats the system I learned about in civics class:

The government can choose to give you access to the Bill of Rights unless it really need you to be guilty. In that case the Posse'll just come on by to take you away. Oh, and when the BoR says that "persons" get these rights they really meant "upstanding uncriminal citizens-by-birth and taxpayers" so it doesn't apply to YOU.

Can some biologist please, PLEASE gene-mod a frog so that it'll actually hang out in ever-warming water so that I can use that cliched, false but I still want to use it proverbial frog in a pot analogy now?

killing the patient in order to save him

[73939133]

Hawash pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban. Prosecutors agreed to drop charges of conspiring to levy war against the United States and conspiring to provide material support for terrorism.

Plea bargains are a travesty of justice. Telling someone "we can prosecute you for a crime on which there is the death penalty, or you can plead guilty to a lesser charge" creates a grave risk of making the innocent plead guilty. This is really not all that different from the interrogation and torture techniques used by the inquisition or totalitarian governments. Furthermore, it allows the guilty to get away with lesser charges.

I think the utilitarian argument for these kinds of arrangements doesn't work: no matter how many criminals we catch through plea bargains or how many crimes we prevent, the cost of such arrangements--sacrificing a fair trial and a thorough, public examination of the charges and evidence--is just too high. Plea bargains are killing the patient in order to save him.

"You and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban. Is this true?" U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones asked Hawash during the hearing.

This, too, is rather chilling. It's not that conspiracy might not be a prosecutable crime under some circumstances, and maybe this is one of them. But in this phrasing, he didn't actually admit to doing anything, he was just "prepared to do" something.

Put the US Government on Trial too, eh?

[RevAaron]

While the Taliban was in power, the US gave quite a bit of aid and assistance to them. [womensenews.org] After all, they were our buddies- they were going to crack down on drugs! It's easy to turn a blind eye to everything and anything else that the US supposedly stands for, provided they tell us they'll crack down on opium production.

I mean, it's a well known fact that the US can never do any wrong- so, why is this guy going to jail?

Perhaps we should put this retarded administration on trial, along with the schmucks in previous administrations who thought it was a good idea to put a bunch of folks through Terrorism for Dummies, CIA Edition. Hell, perhaps we could even go so far as to look at our current actions- the CIA sponsors guerilla training like that given to our buddie Osama in a number of countries. You see, when the US wants something from some un-developed nationn we train a bunch of locals to despose the current dictator and put one in that is more to our liking... It's usually about getting some resource that the other guy didn't feel like sharing. Oil? COULDN'T BE!

USA! USA! USA!

I am leaving the US

[Sanity]

As an Irish citizen living in the US - I have decided that it is time to leave this country - it is starting to look, smell, and act as Germany did during the 1930s. I wish you Americans luck in regaining civilized justice in your broken country, if not, I hope that the EU will be accepting of political refugees from this brave but failed experiment.

Feds Coerce Guilty Pleas

[PizzaFace]

The Washington Post just ran a pair of articles on the Lackawanna Six [washingtonpost.com] and Jose Padilla [washingtonpost.com], American citizens who got associated with bad guys. The Lackawanna Six (and John Walker Lindh and now Mike Hawash) pleaded guilty to avoid the fate that befell Padilla. When the government didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a crime, they simply designated him an enemy combatant and carted him off to a military prison, with no right to trial or to a lawyer. Hawash, Lindh and the Lackawanna Six chose prison, even though the evidence against them was weak, because the alternative was indefinite solitary confinement and possibly even a death sentence from a military tribunal. So how meaningful were their guilty pleas?

We have laws in this country to punish treason, conspiracy, or any other crime these men committed. But citizens charged with those crimes have rights, like the right to be convicted by the government's evidence. So far, this administration has been unwilling to take the chance of letting a defendant exercise those rights.

Re:Remember when..

[Omnifarious]

They still were. Them happening to be right about him being a criminal doesn't excuse it. If you have all kinds of secrets from the people who are supposed to ostensibly be your boss (We, the people, remember?) you have to expect them to get really cranky and upset with you. The FBI had no business being so secretive about it all.

Re:Remember when..

[elmegil]

Exactly. It is not reasonable to hold people for weeks without charge, regardless. I think it's also interesting to note that a plea bargain may be what it says it is, or it may constitute a coerced admission (coerced by the alternative of losing even if you're right, and spending 20+ years instead of 7 in jail). Beyond all that, this guy utterly failed to actually provide any aid to the Taliban, and it seems unlikely that he'd undertake any "true" terrorism (I think there's some significant difference between attempting to be a mercenary for your cause in a battlefield and bringing the battlefield to civilians after all).

All that said, there's nothing for it but to accept the plea as presented until such a time as Mike recants it. And if he'd been successful, and caught on the field of battle, he would deserve having a book thrown at him as much as John Walker Lindh. But having failed at that, I think it's outrageous that he was facing the same or greater sentence than Lindh himself (20 years).

Re:Remember when..

[ramk13]

Remember when 'innocent until proven guilty' meant something?

I'm sure you'll change your tone if the government decides to 'own' you.

Re:Remember when..

[rcw-home]

When there is evidence, then you are guilty.

No.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is an addage that is appropriate when there is not any evidence available to support a charge.

"An adage" is a very peculiar way of describing the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land.

It has come time, imho, that combating terrorism has got to involve more prevention than reaction

The entire modern system of justice rests on the pillar of adjudication. Take that away and you have a mockery.

Re:Remember when..

[rot26]

yeah but... it's fairly common for innocent people to plead guilty to lesser charges if they and their lawyers are convinced that they're likely to be convicted of something significantly more serious if it goes to trial. (One was a drinking buddy of mine.)

I'm not saying that this is the case here (in fact, it doesn't look like it at all) but it does happen, and I think it's one of the larger flaws in our justice system.

Re:Remember when..

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly me. Of couse the end justifies the means.

Re:Remember when..

[shivianzealot]

Remember when the Feds snatching this guy from Intel was a big deal here at /.? When we all thought that the FBI was overstepping their bounds? When we all thought that they were wrong; that an Intel engineer couldn't possibly be guilty?

...owned.

You're not a lawyer, and niether am I, but I think it should be noted that in the US _justice_ system, regardless of innocence or guilt, a plea bargain is often going to be tempting in proportion to how likely you are to win a case (your legal re$ources vs. theirs). Really, as I recall (I have not RTFA, of course!) he was otherwise facing something like ten times this to life. What would you do, even if innocent?

Re:Remember when..

[Safety State]

Actually, the complaint was (and remains) that due process was not followed. Why should this matter? Because someone who is locked up, with no prospect for release and a possibility of deportation to a third-world nation for third-party torture, is much more likely to confess to crimes of which he/she is innocent.

And it does happen. People confess to crimes they didn't commit, often because the risk of being executed otherwise is too great. In return for a confession to lesser crimes than in the original accusation, government prosecutors will seek a less harsh sentence.

Due process exists for other reasons as well; if we go around imprisoning people for years before trial, you're right, there is no excessive penalty for those eventually sentenced to more time than served waiting for a trial. But all of the others who are eventually found innocent will have served time for no reason but your willingness to ignore their plight.

Re:Remember when..

[buck_wild]

If he really didn't commit the crime(s) then how can he offer up information via his buddies?

Re:Remember when..

[tapin]

If he really didn't commit the crime(s) then how can he offer up information via his buddies?

Devil's advocate, since I don't know much of anything about the case:

The exact same way Joe McCarthy got so many "communists" to testify against each other.

Re:Remember when..

[dbarclay10]

Remember when the Feds snatching this guy from Intel was a big deal here at /.? When we all thought that the FBI was overstepping their bounds? When we all thought that they were wrong; that an Intel engineer couldn't possibly be guilty?

The problem now is that we'll never know whether he's actually guilty, or whether he was forced into the plea. You can hope that he was, indeed, guilty, and that the FBI was quite right in bending the Constitution to keep him around until he finally admitted it. Or you c

The FBI --DID-- overstep their bounds

[SuperBanana]

Remember when the Feds snatching this guy from Intel was a big deal here at /.? When we all thought that the FBI was overstepping their bounds? When we all thought that they were wrong; that an Intel engineer couldn't possibly be guilty?

They still DID overstep their bounds. We have some laws in this country which provide protection to citizens from potential abuse of power by law enforcement. Such as locking someone up for weeks without pressing charges, denying them access to a lawyer, etc. There's also unreasonable punishment- I'd say spiriting someone off and denying you've done so to their family etc certainly qualifies.

Police are required to file charges within a certain, rather short period of time(24 hours? I forget), or let you go- one or the other. You can't just lock someone up, and THEN go looking for evidence of a crime; you have to FIRST find the evidence, THEN arrest them and THEN charge them with a crime.

I don't care if he was guilty- their actions are improper, unjust, and remind me more of, say, dictatorships and communist governments than the country that supposedly leads the "free world". Inefficiency in law enforcement is the price we pay for our freedom, rights, and protections. When we throw any of the three out the window, what's left to protect? One only need to look as far as 1980's eastern germany to see what road we are headed towards.

Re:The FBI --DID-- overstep their bounds

[Fastball]

I was going to mod you down, but decided to respond instead. We are not headed towards 1980's East Germany. Please, people, don't make overreaching statements like this. I agree that _sometimes_ law enforcement agencies break the rules. But that doesn't mean our women's swim team will also contend for Mr. Olympia next year.

Re:It's fucking war you stupid MONKEY.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

It's called the consitution. It's there to make sure that under no circumstances can the Government take away my rights as a citizen.

There's a fine line between cracking down on terrorism, and terrorising the citizens to crack down on terrorism.

Re:Funny.

[Omnifarious]

That IS funny, isn't it? But, Fox News couldn't possibly be being influenced by large corporations or politicians. They're a fair and balanced news source, they say so themselves!

Re:Funny.

[pkling]

According to the article: "In March, federal agents seized Hawash, 38, from a parking lot outside Intel Corp., where he worked, and simultaneously searched his home."

Note Intel Corp., where he worked.

Get your facts right. They report you discredit with FUD

Try again, this time think a bit

[gaijin99]

but wait its about someone we feel should be free. I guess the freedom thing wins out. Even though this guy is gulity.

The problem with the Hawash case was never his guilt or innosence, but the whole issue of how he was arrested in the first place.

Hawash was secretly arrested. With a secret warrent. Based on secret evidence. The feds wouldn't even admit that they had arrested him until eleven days had passed. He was not charged with a crime until he had been held for more than two months.

The Constitution specifically states that people get speedy trials. The police are not allowed to arrest people and hold them without pressing charges. That is one of the main things that's wrong with communist nations like China and Cuba. The whole idea of "find charges, then arrest" is central to real justice. "Arrest, then make up charges" is a sure sign of Stalin and his ilk.

Re:Try again your wrong

[Rares Marian]

I don't care if they thought Stalin was Jesus. Until they made any movement (like killing people, or stealing) they have a right to walk the streets like anyone else.

Wake up. There is such a thing as the outside world, and whether you like it or not it isn't part of any society, it just is regardless of what influence one person has on another.

I don't want a paradise on Earth. I want a place where I can live and learn things you'll never get trained or taught to do or understand. I want a place where I can test the world to see what's true and what isn't for myself. I exist dammit. I'm not just taking up space. I am. Therefore I will think. Therefore I will not be molded without prior agreement. As if Lieberman will get elected in 2004. HA!

Re:This is scarey

[Gorobei]

The interesting thing about this case is that he was a NATURALIZED CITIZEN. In exchange for citizenship, he had explicitly sworn an oath/affirmed that he had renounced allegiance to all foreign states.

When he decided to aid the Taliban, did he bother to publically declare that he had changed his allegiance? No!

If he had been born a US citizen, I'd cut him some slack and merely imprison him for the duration of hostilities. As a naturalized citizen, he deserves either deportation or more jail time for l

Naturalized Citizen...

[zenyu]

If he had been born a US citizen, I'd cut him some slack and merely imprison him for the duration of hostilities. As a naturalized citizen, he deserves either deportation or more jail time for lying during the naturization process.

Woah, first off I'm sure he gave his pledge of allegiance honestly. The USA was a very different country 14 years ago. It was a country where we tried and convicted Americans that promoted terrorsism like John Poindexter and Oliver North. Now one of those traitors is heading up

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:US supported the Taliban too

[Moridineas]

To clarify, this is a little right, but, imho, mostly wrong.

It is true that the CIA supported the Afghani mujahideen in the 80's. If you're interested, the word "mujahideen" is of an Arabic base and comes from the three letter radical j-h-d, with a rough meaning of struggle (one meaning of jihad is, literally, to struggle). A mujahid is someone who struggles/practices jihad. Mujahideen is the plural.

Anyway, off that tangent. Yes, the CIA funded Afghan mujahideen/freedom fighters in the 1980's. There was an Afghan govt later formed of those same mujahideen. It was not however, until 1996 that the Taleban seized Kabul and ousted the former Mujahideen govt.

Incidentally, Taleban comes from the Arabic radical t-l-b. A Talib is a student. Taliban, in pashto means students. The Taleban are the products of radical (and backwards!) madrasahs, religious schools, many of them in Pakistan. The allegation that the CIA funded the Taleban is totally incorrect. There were no doubt American arms under Taleban control, but you must remember that warlordism in Afghanistan is nothing new. You can go back thousands of years and little in Afghanistan has changed. Alexander the Great encountered very fierce resistance on his way to Central Asia. Warlordism and yet another meltdown of Afghan society in the 90's brought about the Taleban, NOT American support.

Re:I have never

[evn]

Given sufficient motivation innocent people DO plead guilty - it wasn't too long ago in soviet russia (no, I'm not making that tired joke) that Stalin killed millions - many of which were upstanding members of the community who confessed to crimes that never occurred. Look at just about any dictatorship and you'll find evidence of innocent people pleading guilty to criminal acts in order to avoid or end terrible punishments.

I'm not saying that America is a tyrannical dictatorship - I'll leave that as an e

Hogwash on Hawash

[watchful.babbler]

I have never seen so much disgusting anti-Americanism as I have in this thread. .... Innocent people do not plead guilty. ... This government is protecting YOU, if you don't like that protection then vote for someone who'll do it your way.

Whoa there! Aren't you the same person who played Thoreau [slashdot.org] in a different thread?

It's an open secret of law that innocent people plead guilty all the time. Consider, for example, the recent furor in Tulia, TX, where a police source went bad and turned in dozens of innocent people on drug distribution charges. Those people -- uniformly poor and African-American -- chose almost to the one to plead guilty to lesser charges. Governor Rick Perry is currently reviewing papers to dismiss all charges and convictions in that case.

Likewise, in Dallas, the local police department has come under intense fire for planting fake drugs on poor Latino residents, many of whom accepted plea bargains (usually due to inattentive defense counsel, a real problem down this way). Because evidence was moved upwards into the federal courts, even those cases are now under review as judges seek to determine which defendants were truly innocent of charges.

Then there are those quasi-Art. III courts, such as the IRS and immigration courts, where people frequently accept deals even though they may not be guilty at all.

Why do people do this? Simple: it takes time and money to fight in court. If you're hauled in front of an IRS judge on charges you're innocent of, you may still rationally accept a lesser penalty knowing that it's less money than hiring an experienced tax attorney. (I've got a former IRS prosecutor as a friend who quite cheerfully explains every trick up that particular profession's sleeve.) If you're poor, a minority, or an immigrant resident, you may not have the resources or even the knowledge necessary to fight a criminal charge when it comes down the pipe; your defense counsel, who's either a private attorney getting less than scale for his time on your case, or a public defender who has literally hundreds of other cases sitting on his desk, has no incentive to spend more time than is absolutely necessary on your case -- and cutting a deal with the prosecutor is the fastest way to dispose of a pending case.

Now, this doesn't obviate the fact that Hawash doesn't seem to be an innocent party. He's admitted to conspiracy to provide material support of a foreign terrorist organization, starting on October 20, 2001, two years after the official designation of the Taliban as an FTO and following the declaration of hostilities against the Taliban by the United States.

The information set out in the plea arrangement is pretty precise regarding his actions, and the end result is not particularly favorable for Hawash -- if the judge accepts the sentencing level set out in the agreement (and there's no guarantee he or she won't apply an upward departure), Hawash gets a minimum sentence of over eight years. Now, the prosecutors certainly dangled a much harsher sentence over his head, but the specifics in the agreement (such as Hawash going to China and attempting to cross the border into Afghanistan) are precise, and serious, enough that I can't see him being truly innocent in this case.

Nonetheless, just as I can remain conservative while damning every sentence from an Ann Coulter or Michael Savage, I can affirm my belief in Hawash's guilt while saying of your statement: wrong, wrong, naive, and wrong.

That's really discusting.

[autopr0n]

... you are a very bad person. You are hereby sentenced to seven years in a federal pound me in the ass prison.

You know, it's really sick that we make jokes like this. The constitution outlaws 'cruel and unusual punishment' but the threat of being corn holed is actively used as a deterrent, and not much is done to prevent it. I think homosexual rape probably qualifies as 'cruel and unusual'

Re:That's really discusting.

[sbszine]

Hear, hear. If I had mod points they would be yours.

There was a bill called the Prison Rape Reduction Act [aclu.org] put before congress, and I assume it was passed because it was jointly introduced. Whether the facilities respect it is another matter... they know what they're doing when they place new prisoners with rapists.

Re:Who's next?

[elefantstn]

Can we please stop modding up posters with zero knowledge of history or current events? Ronald Reagan compared the anti-Soviet mujahedin to the Founding Fathers, not the Taliban. The Taliban didn't even exist when he made that statement. Some members of the Taliban undoubtedly also served in the mujahedin, but to say they're equivalent is like saying Robert E. Lee's army was the equivalent of George Washington's.

Please, read something other than anti-Bush screeds before you post.