home

Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing?

By TChris, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 01:34:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

After the FBI arrested Hamid Hayat and his father Umer, President Bush declared that their arrests were part of the government's effort to "bust up these terrorist networks." Ten months later, as separate juries deliberate at the end of their trials, residents of Lodi are unconvinced that there was ever a terrorist cell in their midst. (Additional TalkLeft background is here.)

"I think people have gone 'Oh, it turned out not to be a big deal. It turned out not to be a terrorist cell,'" Mayor Susan Hitchcock said.

The government's fear-mongering was based on the word of -- you guessed it -- a less-than-credible informant.

The informant testified that he told FBI agents he had seen Osama bin Laden's physician and two other terrorists living in Lodi during the late 1990s. At the time, the men were wanted for attacks in the Middle East and Africa.

Defense attorneys and terrorism experts said it was highly unlikely they would have been in the United States, a point prosecutors conceded later in the trial.

The FBI's initial investigation went nowhere.

The investigation of Lodi's Pakistani community was started to see if Muslim-owned businesses were illegally sending money to terrorism groups abroad. That part of the four-year investigation ultimately fizzled, and the Hayats were the only people charged.

So what did the government come up with after four years?

The government said Hamid Hayat attended the al-Qaida training camp in 2003 during a two-year visit to Pakistan and returned to the U.S. to await orders. He faces up to 39 years in prison if convicted of providing material support to terrorists and three counts of lying to the FBI. His father faces 16 years if he is convicted of lying about the camps to protect his son.

The validity of confessions stemming from "marathon" interrogations is the key issue in a case that lacks other credible evidence of guilt. Both juries adjourned for the weekend without reaching a verdict.

< DNA Reform in Florida Encounters Resistance | Drug War Harms More Than 100,000 Students >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    Oh, Lord, chucked in Lodi again.

    Re: Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 05:43:12 PM EST
    charliedontsurf1 beat me to it. I was just going to use a different euphamism for 'stuck';-) There are a lot of things wrong with these cases, including the fact that the prosecutors are making mutually exclusive arguments between the 2.

    Re: Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    Yeah, I thought of some other euphemisms meself, Sailor, but I thought better of it. Let's just say chucked wasn't my first choice.

    Re: Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 15, 2006 at 08:58:32 PM EST
    But I think we are in dire need of a credible clearthinking revival these days.

    Re: Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 16, 2006 at 05:45:17 AM EST
    et al - So you contend that both men lied when they confessed.

    Re: Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 06:40:36 AM EST
    Actually, PPJ, if you were subject to 'marathon' interrogation sessions, you might end up saying what your questioners want to hear. Also, there is the question of the sighting of an Al Qaeda member at Islamic services in Lodi by the informant, which sighting has been discredited by governmental agents on the witness stand under defense questioning. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    Re: Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 09:08:23 AM EST
    So you contend that both men lied when they confessed.
    I don't believe they confessed, in the sense used here, and I don't believe their statements should have been allowed since their rights were violated.
    James J. Wedick, who has said the FBI bungled various aspects of the case against Umer Hayat and his son, Hamid, will not be allowed on the stand because his testimony had ''the potential for confusing the jury, wasting time and presenting needless cumulative evidence,'' U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. said Friday. Wedick, a 34-year FBI veteran, was prepared to testify that agents relied too heavily on informant Nassem Khan and mishandled the interrogation of the Hayats, which led to their confessions. [...] Wedick also would have testified that the FBI agents never told the Hayats they were free to walk away from the interrogations; that agents did not take into account the Hayats' education, language skills and mental capacity; and that agents' improper use of family and religion during questioning could have led to invalid confessions, Griffin told the judge.
    Re: Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 17, 2006 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    Glad to see TL finally covering this trial. It's been a sham. The videotaped "confession" of Hamid Hayatt was released by the judge & excerpts are available at the link. Local tv aired some of them. When asked about security at the training camp he's alleged to have attended, the FBI agent prompts: "Kalishnikoff's right?" He responds talking about sticks, casting about 'til he remembers the phrase: "no, cricket bats." Hamid was interrogated for 11 hours straight; 5 were taped. By the end, he's exhausted, asking if he can have a bed to lie down on. "You realize, Hamid, you're goign to jail." (paraphrased quotes from memory) More: Anatomy of an FBI Interrogation: Lodi terror trial Lodi "terror cell" - Prosecutors fail to delay trial - Jury selection starts Tuesday A Nation of Snitches? al Zawahiri sighting doubted-Lodi trial Lodi Terror Trial Update Words of a juror, who was dismissed at defense' request, after hearing the bulk of the gov't's case:
    "Beyond a reasonable doubt hasn't been proven at this point," the 39-year-old Clabaugh said in a hallway interview with reporters. "It's not very clear-cut." "I felt like he was being badgered" by FBI agents, Clabaugh said of the confession. "I felt like he was giving them information because they refused to believe he didn't know anything. "It seemed like the agents fed names to him. It didn't seem like he actually volunteered anything," . . . With respect to the Khan recordings of Hamid Hayat, Clabaugh said, "I got a picture of a young kid who wanted to impress an older man, but it doesn't mean those were things he would actually follow through on. link
    Lodi Trials: Much Ado About Nothing? | 8 comments (8 topical)