A first look at US case against Padilla

The trial begins Monday in US court for the American – and alleged terror conspirator – held for five years.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the May 14, 2007 edition

Page 1 of 3

Miami - Jose Padilla has been held in solitary confinement for five years, enduring what experts say is some of the harshest treatment of any convicted criminal in the US. Yet he has not been convicted of a crime.

On Monday, federal prosecutors will attempt to convince 12 jurors that Mr. Padilla is a criminal and that he deserves to remain behind bars for the rest of his life. In their opening statement to the jury at the start of an expected four-month trial in federal court here, prosecutors will for the first time publicly reveal their blueprint for the government's case against Padilla.

His alleged crime: becoming a willing recruit to participate in a violent Islamic holy war. Specifically, Padilla, a US citizen who converted to Islam in the 1990s, is charged with signing a "Mujahideen Data Form" and attending an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. He also made comments on the telephone overheard and recorded by US intelligence officials that prosecutors say are evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

For their part, defense lawyers for Padilla Padilla and two codefendants will use their opening statements to the jury to present a different story.

Much of the government's case is based on innuendo and misunderstandings about Muslims, they have said. The government seeks to capitalize on fear and distrust of Islam in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Defense lawyers are expected to urge the jury to put aside any emotions about terrorism, keep an open mind, and carefully examine the character and quality of the government's evidence.

The Padilla trial is attracting international scrutiny, in part to see whether the high-profile terror trial will be conducted like any other public trial in federal court.

The case raises other questions as well.

Can the government make its case without jeopardizing sensitive intelligence sources and methods? Will the defense have a fair opportunity to investigate and challenge government methods in the war on terror used against their client?

Some legal analysts suggest that the criminal justice system isn't an appropriate forum to wage a war on terror. Others say the civilian court system is robust enough to prosecute terrorism suspects.

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page