Instapundit nails it on the Buffalo Six cases:

The FBI last fall arrested six Lackawanna, N.Y., men of Yemeni origin and charged them with conspiracy and aiding a terrorist organization. All six had been to Afghanistan in early 2001 for training by Al Qaeda. But prosecutors used dubious tactics to force the men into a plea-bargain admitting guilt to lesser charges. According to The Wall Street Journal, they threatened the defendants with "enemy combatant" status - meaning they could have been turned over to the military, deprived of counsel, and held incommunicado indefinitely. If I recall correctly, at least some of these guys are American.

Instapundit also links to this article in the Christian Science Monitor:

In other words, the government said, convict yourself or we will strip you of your rights and you can rot in jail. That doesn't sound like respect for due process and trial by jury.

Prosecutors also threatened to bring treason charges that carry the death penalty. That's hardball, but within bounds, since the defendants would have a lawyer and a jury trial.

The case is disturbing because it appears the evidence is weak. A former FBI official said surveillance showed no sign the men had hostile intent. The US attorney in Buffalo confirmed he has no evidence they were involved in a violent plot. Several of the men had quit the training, reportedly disillusioned with Al Qaeda.

In passing sentence, the judge should consider the coercive pressure brought on the men to plead guilty and mitigate their sentences.

We still have our doubts that, legally speaking, attending a training camp and listening to or meeting with a terrorist leader or even providing oneself as a soldier (as opposed to providing the services of others) constitutes providing "material support" under the statute. We don't think you can overlook the word "material." As we reported here, even the prosecutorial guidelines contained in the U.S. Attorney's Manual (9-91.100 , scroll down to Personnel and Training) seems to acknowlege this.

The 9th Circuit has declared portions of the law unconsitutionally vague. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will get the case soon and decide the issue--before Bush packs the Court with his right-wing ideologues.

Our full coverage of the case can be accessed here.