Friday, June 23, 2006

McNabb in the News (6/23/06)

Senior Principal Douglas McNabb has been quoted in an article in London’s Independent newspaper about the recent refusal of the House of Lords to hear the appeals by Ian Norris and the NatWest Three.
Lawyers point out that Britain has a different legal culture when it comes to white-collar crime and fines are far more common here than jail sentences. The highest corporate sentence of 14 years in prison went to Abbas Gokal, who was found guilty in 1997 for his role in the collapse of BCCI. In the US, sentences of 164 years are possible in theory (though 35 years would be served).



Douglas McNabb, a US extradition specialist, said the NatWest trio could face 23 years in jail if their final appeal fails and they are extradited to Houston, and even if they were found not guilty on fraud charges, they could be tried on related money-laundering charges.[1]


[1] Julia Kollewe, , The Independent (UK), Jun. 23, 2006.

Terrorism—Sears Tower

One of the two most recognizable skyscrapers in Chicago is named as a potential target in news reports about the arrests of seven individuals in Miami.[1] According to officials, the alleged plot to destroy the Sears Tower and other US buildings, such as an FBI office in Miami,[2] was started by individuals who “were mainly Americans with no apparent ties to al-Qaida or other foreign terrorist organizations.”[3] According to some news accounts, there were five US citizens and two foreigners, including a Haitian, who were involved in the plot.[4] One of the people was arrested in Atlanta, Georgia.[5]

Late yesterday, a raid was carried out at a warehouse in Miami’s Liberty City area, where they “removed a metal door with a blowtorch and arrested [the] seven people.”[6] It seems that an undercover FBI agent had infiltrated the group by posing as “an Islamic radical.”[7]

More details about the individuals are expected to be disclosed at news conferences later today.[8]

According to neighbors, though, the individuals appeared to be in their teens and 20s, and they slept in the warehouse, “running what looked like a militaristic group. … ‘They would come out late at night and exercise,’ [said one neighbor.] ‘It seemed like a military boot camp that they were working on there. They would come out and stand guard.’”[9] Other neighbors described the men as Muslims who “had tried to recruit young people to join their group,” and others said that men “’seemed brainwashed. … They said they had given their lives to Allah.’”[10]

Another man, who calls himself Brother Corey and claims to be a member of the group, says that the warehouse was a place of worship and that they call themselves the “Seas of David.”[11] He hastens to add that the group is peaceful and “that the group studies the Bible and has ‘soldiers’ in Chicago but is not a terrorist organization.”[12] He also said that they “study Allah.”[13]

For all the drama, however, US authorities insist that neither Chicago nor Miami were at any imminent risk.[14] The alleged plot seems to have been in very early planning stages and “no weapons or explosives had been seized from the searched location.”[15] A senior federal law-enforcement source told the Chicago Tribune that “[t]he suspects had ‘aspirations’ but ‘no means’ to attack the Sears Tower or other buildings.”[16] Instead, they believed that “they ‘were doing [the attacks] in conjunction with al Qaeda’ but were really dealing with undercover law enforcement.”[17]

Due to the fact that the alleged plot never got beyond planning stages, the government is bringing charges against the individuals. If the charges include a conspiracy charge under , the government will have prove not only that the individuals conspired to commit an offense against the United States, but also that some overt act was taken to effectuate the object of the conspiracy. That may be difficult to prove because, so far, no weapons have been found. The government, however, may try to argue that the alleged paramilitary training was the required overt act.

If, however, the conspiracy charges are brought under different statutes, such as (a) (use of certain weapons of mass destruction), there is no overt act requirement. Under this statute, any person who conspires to use a weapon of mass destruction against any person in the United States can be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A weapon of mass destruction under this statute has a more expansive definition than many people realize; as we mentioned when we discussed , the term includes bombs, grenades, and greater-than-.50-caliber firearms.[18]

Update: news about the indictment is trickling out. According to the AP, the four-count indictment states that “a young man identified as Narseal Batiste, beginning in November 2005, recruited and trained the others ‘for a mission to wage war against the United States government,’ including a plot to destroy the Sears Tower.”[19] Furthermore, Mr. Batiste allegedly “met several times in December 2005 with a person purporting to be an al-Qaida member and asked for boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios, vehicles and $50,000 in cash to help him build an ‘Islamic Army’ to wage jihad.”[20] It also said that Mr. Batiste said he would use his “soldiers” to destroy the Sears Tower.[21] Brother Corey is therefore probably going to regret mentioning that there were soldiers in Chicago.

Update 2: The indictment can be found here.





[1] Kelli Kennedy, , AP (via Yahoo!), Jun. 23, 2006.
[2] Peter Whoriskey, , Wash. Post, Jun. 23, 2006.
[3] Kennedy, supra note 1.
[4] , AFP (via Yahoo!), Jun. 23, 2006.
[5] , CNN.com, Jun. 23, 2006.
[6] Kennedy, supra note 1.
[7] AFP, supra note 3.
[8] Kennedy, supra note 1.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Sam Knight et al., , The Times (London), Jun. 23, 2006.
[14] Kennedy, supra note 1.
[15] Whoriskey, supra note 2.
[16] Michael Tackett, , Chicago Tribune, Jun. 23, 2006.
[17] David Ovalle, et al., , Jun. 23, 2006.
[18] 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(c)(2)(A).
[19] Mark Sherman, , AP (via Yahoo!), Jun. 23, 2006.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Terrorism Definition—Canada

As we have pointed out from time to time, part of the problem with prosecuting is the definition of the term. For example, we a couple of months ago, that Turkey has taken a very expansive approach to the definition, including such activities as carrying pictures and banners, or shouting slogans.

Canada is now exploring the idea of “proposing amendments to Canada’s terrorism laws that would broaden the definition of terrorism.”[1] Specifically, Justice Minister Vic Toews would change “the definition of terrorism under s.83.01 of the Criminal Code by deleting the requirement that acts or omissions be carried out ‘in whole or in part for political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause.’”[2] This would have a drastic effect. As the law stands now terrorism is defined as a violent act that is committed with those purposes, and which is intended to intimidate the public, or to compel a person or organization to do to refrain from doing any act.[3] Thus, stripping out that language, would make any violent and intimidating act, an act of terrorism.

And that is not an unintended consequence. “The reason for dropping what is now an essential ingredient in making an act or omission one of terrorism is that criminal organizations could be prosecuted under Canada’s terrorism laws. The Hells Angels were specifically mentioned as a group that would [be] highlighted for prosecution under [the] revamped terrorism law.”[4]

Comparing gang activity to terrorist activity is a growing activity, and Minister Toews stated that “the water is muddied between gangs and terrorist organizations, which [allegedly] now partner internationally to finance their nefarious activities. … ‘We are dealing with crime that has international ramifications and that terrorist organizations are often working together with gangs in order to raise money.’”[5]

So, from a rational standpoint, perhaps it makes sense to take ideology out of the equation when defining terrorism; a population is no less-terrorized if the terror is committed with absence of any particular ideological bent. But terrorism’s definition is somewhat akin to the Supreme Court’s obscenity bon mot: we know it when we see it, and there is something fundamentally unsound in equating gang violence to ideological warfare, and using the same definition to describe both acts. Accusing a person of terrorism should only be done when the act justifies it, not when it is politically expedient to do so.



[1] Arthur Weinreb, , Canadian Free Press, Jun. 22, 2006.
[2] Id. (emphasis in original).
[3] Criminal Code Act R.S. c. C-46 (1985).
[4] Weinreb, supra note 1.
[5] Kathleen Harris, , 24 Hours (Vancouver), Jun. 21, 2006.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Jose Padilla—More Evidence Requested

The long and circuitous path of ’s prosecution has entered yet another interesting phase. US District Court Judge Marcia Cooke has ordered federal prosecutors to “turn over more detailed evidence to back up allegations that [Mr.] Padilla and two co-defendants conspired to kill, injure, or kidnap people overseas as part of a global Islamic network.”[1]

Mr. Padilla’s lawyers are arguing that the federal indictment against him and the others “is ‘very light on facts.’”[2] According to the attorney for Adham Amin Hassoun, one of the co-defendants, “The government has to tell us: What are these acts they conspired to commit?”[3]

Judge Cooke has “ordered the government to flesh out its charges by providing defense lawyers with names of unindicted co-conspirators, broad descriptions of intended victims of alleged acts of violence and specifics about [Mr.] Hassoun allegedly made about the meaning of phone calls intercepted by the government.”[4] AUSA Brian Frazier countered the order by saying that substantial information has been turned over already, and by asking “What is terrorism but a random act of violence? It means anyone could be a victim at any time.”[5] It seems to be an argument that Judge Cooke agreed with, because she denied the request “for the name of any actual or intended victims, saying those committing terrorist attacks might not know who they were setting out to harm.”[6]

The government has until July 3 to turn over the information, and it is “not clear how forthcoming the government will be in response to the judge’s order”[7]

In related news, one Mr. Padilla’s co-defendants, Mr. Hassoun, is seeking to suppress evidence seized by the FBI from his home, “saying the FBI ‘frightened and intimidated’ his wife before seizing a handgun and other key evidence such as documents in Arabic and videotapes.”[8] The search occurred during Mr. Hassoun’s arrest “on an immigration violation on June 12, 2002,” and the FBI claims that his wife “freely consented in writing to the search.”[9]

Generally, when a person is coerced into consenting to a search, that is seen as an invalid search, and the evidence is typically excluded.[10]



[1] Curt Anderson, , AP (via Miami Herald), Jun. 21, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Vanessa Blum, , South Florida Sun-Sentinel (via Contra Costa Times), Jun. 20, 2006.
[7] Id.
[8] Anderson, supra note 1.
[9] Id.
[10] Cf. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424 (1976).

Labels: