Congratulations to our friend and fellow NACDL member James Thomas on the acquittal of his client on the terrorism charge in the Detroit sleeper cell terror case. This is the first national terrorism case to make it to a jury.

Ahmed Hannan, 34, was acquitted of conspiracy to support terrorism, and was found guilty of the non-terror-related charge of conspiracy to engage in fraud and misuse of visas, permits and other documents. He was acquitted on two other fraud counts. Two of the other three defendants were convicted on the terrorism charge. A fourth defendant was acquitted entirely.

The Government alleged the four defendants were part of a sleeper cell, and had conspired to get weapons and fake identification for religious zealots and blow up U.S. targets. Defense lawyers argued the government had twisted innocent actions into something much more sinister. You can read a synopsis of the case here.

From the Washington Post, March 27 (available on lexis.com):

"These guys were of Arab descent, and they were immediately suspect," said James Thomas, Hannan's lawyer....The case has become nationally significant, because the Detroit suspects are the first to face terrorism-related charges before a jury.

Several other cases have ended in plea agreements, such as those of the Buffalo Six and James Ujaama.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear argument tomorrow on Zacarias Moussoui's claim that the Government has to allow him to interview captured Al Qaeda suspect (and alleged 9/11 coconspirator) Ramzi Binalshibh because Binalshibh has information that would show Moussaoui was not part of the 9/11 conspiracy with which he is charged. If convicted of that conspiracy, Moussaoui could get the death penalty.

Documents released today show that the trial judge, Lonnie Brinkema, has previously found that Binalshibh's testimony "could undermine the government's prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui and possibly prevent his execution."

The Justice Department has previously said Mr. bin al-Shibh, a Yemeni in his 30's, was the go-between for Mr. Moussaoui and the Sept. 11 hijackers.

But it is seeking to deny Mr. Moussaoui access to Mr. bin al-Shibh as a defense witness, asserting that an interview would endanger national security secrets and interrupt the government's campaign to pre-empt new terrorist attacks.

Judge Brinkema said in her opinion that in trying to deny Mr. Moussaoui access to captured terrorists , the Justice Department was seeking a "categorical, `wartime' exemption" to the Constitution's Sixth Amendment protections of criminal suspects, including their right to seek testimony from witnesses who might help prove their innocence.

She made clear she believed there was no such exemption, saying, "When the government elected to bring Moussaoui to trial in this civilian tribunal, it assumed the responsibility of abiding by well-established principles of due process. The government's good-faith interest in protecting national security does not categorically override a defendant's right to a fair trial."

In comments that could be referring to Mr. bin al-Shibh, Judge Brinkema said she was "fully satisfied" that testimony from at least one Qaeda figure now in American custody would be "both material and exculpatory" if believed by Mr. Moussaoui's jury.

We have written about Binalshibh and his relationship to Moussaoui since Binalshibh's capture. You can access all our posts here.

If the Government loses, it will likely drop its federal prosecution of Moussaoui and have him tried before a military tribunal. This was supposedly Ashcroft's showcase trial, the one that would establish that the U.S. could try terrorists in civilian courts.

The government and others boasted that Moussaoui would receive swift justice in an open courtroom as a showcase for the world about the fairness of the U.S. judicial system. Now those same people say privately that the system has been turned on its head.

Some more egg on Ashcroft's face with the outcome of this - Portland, Oregon terror case:

Eight months ago, Sheik Mohamed Abdirahman Kariye, 41, was arrested at the airport in Portland, Ore. while he and his family were waiting to catch a flight.

Agents said at the time that a check of his luggage revealed traces of explosive residue, and he was linked to a number of allegedly pro-Taliban worshipers at the mosque, which The Oregonian said Friday was attended by the most fundamentalist members of Portland's Muslim community.

Here's the final outcome: 5 years probation and a $1,000. fine for "for fudging an application for state health insurance" by "falsifying his income in order to enroll in a health insurance program for low-income Oregon residents."

Kariye's lawyer had this to say after the sentencing:

"Shame on Washington," Cohen told reporters outside the Portland courthouse. "This is an administration with a lot of flair and no substance."

Matt Taibbi writes in the New York Press of his near encounter with Ascroft and the Buffalo Six and the Unocal cases. We won't give away the acid part, go read, but we'll quote Matt's Buffalo Six (now Seven) case thoughts:

So a kid from a Buffalo ghetto travels to Afghanistan, visits a terrorist training camp and comes home. Before he commits any crime, he goes to jail for 10 years. Even the government admits there was no overt violent crime here: "Material assistance to a foreign terrorist organization" was stretched to include the purchase of a uniform at the camp. But if an American company goes overseas and for six years invests millions of dollars and uses slave labor and torture to build some miserable gas pipeline–committing not one crime, but many hideous violent crimes, at a systemic level–it shouldn’t even be sued, according to our attorney general.

Just this week, a seventh Lackawanna suspect, Jaber Elbaneh, was indicted by the Justice Department. He’s overseas somewhere. There would have been an eighth named Kamal Derwish, but he was killed last year in a CIA missile attack in Yemen. In Iraq and everywhere else, the whole world has been informed that it is subject to U.S. law. With a few exceptions."

On the injustice front today, Reuters reports on the upcoming military tribunals and asks, Fair Trial or Kangaroo Courts?

Donald Rehkopf, co-chair of the military committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, called the planned military commissions ``an embarrassment to democracy.''

``This is a show. It's a kangaroo court of the worst sort,'' he said, describing the rules as crafted to guarantee convictions, compel guilty pleas and make it as easy as possible to get the death penalty.

``I was actually shocked at how one-sided these rules were,'' said Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. ``Even a military tribunal I don't think has to be this biased and unfair toward the defendant.''

We like this guy already.

Military trials of terrorism suspects should be public to ensure that the world sees the proceedings as fair, said the Air Force officer appointed as chief defense lawyer for the tribunals.

Col. Will Gunn said Thursday that he would push for any such trials to be as open as possible. "I see that as in the best interest of the nation as a whole," Gunn told reporters at the Pentagon. "We will be judged from the world community on whether or not the process was fair and just."

Now that the chief prosecutor and chief defense counsel for any upcoming military tribunal trials are set, the issue turns to staffing the offices with capable prosecutors and defense counsel. While there is no shortage of volunteers for the prosecution side, not a single civilian lawyer has applied to be a defense lawyer.

No, it's not because defense lawyers don't wan't to represent these particular individuals.

Don Rehkopf, a Rochester lawyer who is co-chairman of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' military law committee, said in a telephone interview that the military rules were so stacked against the defense that few civilian lawyers would want to apply.

"It would be unethical for any attorney to agree to the conditions they've set," Mr. Rehkopf said. "You have to agree to waive the attorney-client privilege so that the government can monitor your conversations. It's a total farce."

See our post from yesterday about the conditions placed on civilian defense lawyers representing defendants in military tribunal proceedings, and the ethical problems they pose.

The Pentagon today released the names of the chief prosecutor and defense lawyer for the upcoming Military Terrorism Tribunals.

Army Col. Frederic Borch III has been named acting chief prosecutor and Air Force Col. Will Gunn has been designated as acting chief defense counsel, Pentagon officials said. Borch and Gunn were scheduled to brief reporters later on Thursday.

On May 2, the Pentagon published the rules that would apply in military tribunal trials.

These have drawn harsh criticism from some legal experts who argue that the rules were crafted to make winning convictions and getting the death penalty as easy as possible.

They point to a series of restrictions placed on defense lawyers -- including monitoring of all conversations with defendants -- and a lack of guidelines for what charges could bring the death penalty. ``To some extent, these things are not set up to give a fair trial, but set up to compel guilty pleas out of people,'' said Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.

We have major problems with the process. The rules provide that those being tried have a right to have a civilian lawyer represent them along with the provided military lawyer. But there are a host of unreasonable conditions attached.

After two months of testimony, closing arguments began today in the Detroit terror trial. Arguments will resume Tuesday. The defense says the prosecution's case is built on lies. The Governement's star witness was discredited. Enough for the jury to acquit? We'll stay tuned.

Viet Dinh, the chief architect of the USA Patriot Act, the legislation that greatly expanded law enforcement agencies' powers to track terrorists, submitted his resignation to the White House, administration officials said. He plans to return to teaching at Georgetown University's law school. Check out PatriotWatch for details.

And don't miss Rumsfeld Rankles in which lawyers, particularly Neal Sonnett of Miami, blasts the plans for military tribunals for, among other things, its gag order effect. Some of our thoughts are here and and all our posts on military tribunals are here.

We are still in New York doing graduation festivities, apartment furnishing and other family related stuff. We have to leave now to do some Court TV (1 to 3 pm EST). Tonight is an NYU block party on E. 4th Street, and then we're going to a play directed by Woody Allen. So posting will still be sporadic, not to mention our hotel room has a 28.8 modem (and the business center wants $10 per half hour for high speed.) Blogging via dialup modem is just too time consuming to make it worthwhile. So bear with us a few more days, and check out the great sites on the right.

Zacarias Moussaoui's standby counsel wrote in a brief that Moussaoui was not part of Al Qaeda's 9/11 plans--rather he intended to participate in an offensive after 9/11 --in another country. A hearing will be held June 3 on Moussaoui's motion to interview Ramzi Binalshibh unless a compromise is worked out beforehand.

If the hearing happens, the appeals panel said attorneys could argue in public about whether the appeals court has jurisdiction in this pretrial stage; whether the executive branch's powers necessitate reversal of the lower court's decision in favor of access; and whether a defendant's normal right to potentially favorable information applies to an enemy combatant held overseas.

Stay tuned.

The United States has charged more than 30 people with providing material support to terrorist organizations. Legal Times journalist Siobhan Roth provides a status update on the cases.

Of the law, which carries up to 15 years in prison, Roth says

It has snared a Manhattan defense lawyer, a Florida professor, the "American Taliban," six in New York, four in Detroit, and, just last week, former Intel Corp. software engineer Maher "Mike" Hawash.

In addition to a providing a roundup of the cases, Roth says the Justice Department may make a move to strengthen the statute--through Patriot Act II.

The act [PA II] authorizes the executive branch to revoke U.S. citizenship for anyone convicted of providing material support to terrorists. The Justice Department said that the legislation was being discussed "at a staff level."

We've written extensively on the material support of terrorism law and cases, including this entry. More coverage is available in our Terror Trials Archives on the right.