Today five of the seven would-be terrorists known as the Liberty City Seven were convicted of various terrorism related crimes including conspiring to provide material support to an act of terrorism and conspiring to wage war against the United States. They face sentences of up to 70 years in prison. A sixth accused member of the group was acquitted of all charges and charges against the seventh were previously dropped.
During the course of a three month trial which came after two mistrials, prosecutors were able to successfully convince a jury of their guilt based on thousands of hours of wiretaps from a lengthy investigation of the conspiracy to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and government buildings in the Miami area.
In 2006, Narseal Batiste recruited other poor and disaffected men of Haitian ancestry in poverty-ridden Liberty City Florida, into a small private army to make war on the United States, inspired by the success of al Qaeda on 9/11. The group was known as the Seas of David and drew its philosophy from the Moorish Science Temple of America, a militant black-muslim group which was a precursor of the Nation of Islam.
The ultimate downfall of the conspiracy came through their efforts to seek funding from terrorist networks in the Middle East, which drew the attention of federal agents who had two informants pose as representatives of al Qaeda to draw out the conspirators and reveal details of their plans.
Although characterized as a "sleeper cell" by prosecutors, no evidence was introduced that the men had any contact with or relationship with any existing terrorist organizations, and while they clearly had the intent to do harm, their plans never reached the point where they posed any real danger to life of property.
The defense argued that the case was essentially based on entrapment because the informants encouraged the conspirators in the development of their plans and offered them money to fund their terrorist operation. They argued that the plot would never have amounted to anything more than talk had the federal agents not become involved.
Sentencing for Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Burson Augustin and Rotcschild Augustine is scheduled for July 27th. Community activists in the Miami area continue to protest the case as a politically motivated miscarriage of justice.
Article comments
1 - Lumpy
70 years seems like a lot for chanting I love osama while wearing a funny hat.
2 - roger nowosielski
So Dave,
It's not quite clear to me which side you're taking in this article. Lumpy seems to think that a seventy-year prison sentence is excessive.
In that case, Lumpy, I'm glad you're coming around on human rights issues. That's good to know.
3 - Dr Dreadful
I don't think Dave is taking a side, Roger. It's marked as a news piece, not opinion.
4 - roger nowosielski
Well, it's too noncommittal then to my taste. I would think that his libertarian streak would make him think the judgment is excessive. Certainly Lumpy thought so.
5 - Clavos
Well, it's too noncommittal then to my taste.
Roger, news is supposed to be "noncommittal."
One of the big objections millions of people have with contemporary "news reports" is that they're NOT noncommittal, but should be.
6 - roger nowosielski
Well, perhaps because it's so unlike Dave to be doing "straight reporting" - he had trained us so well - that I find the article odd. Lacking climax is the right phrase.
7 - Dave Nalle
Roger, I've done plenty of straight reporting. It was easy on this one, because I'm not convinced either way. We'll see what kind of sentences the jury comes up with. I certainly have very little sympathy for the terrorists in this case. They may be idiots and dupes, but they were certainly willing participants and if they'd been competent who knows what harm they might have done.
Dave
8 - Doug Hunter
Yeah, the article doesn't provide adequate information to make a judgement about the sentencing. If someone had the intent, motive, means, and opportunity to commit a 9/11 like attack and evidence supported the idea that it was imminent then 70 years would be appropriate. If it was just talk and rough planning or entrapment or just a way to get funding for something then 70 years seems a bit excessive.
9 - Dr Dreadful
I think it's a bit over the top if the most the DOJ can prove is intent.
Consider a group of kids fantasizing about robbing a bank. They talk about it, research famous bank robberies and maybe even go to the extent of obtaining public-domain maps and plans of the bank and stake it out making logs of when the security truck makes pickups and when the manager arrives and leaves. It's still just a fantasy... until Johnny 'Fingers' DiCabrizio hears about it, figures they'd make useful patsies and gives them guns and money to finance the heist. That's the point where they'd be getting into how-do-you-like-your-new-cellmate-Bubba-whoops-I-appear-to-have-dropped-the-key-down-that-grating territory.
Still, 70 years would be excessive if they never actually went through with it.
10 - Clavos
Isn't advocating the violent overthrow of the government a treason offense? And weren't these mopes doing just that? I understand that what they were nailed for was plotting to bring down the Sears tower, but I believe their stated ultimate goal was overthrow of the USA -- whether or not they actually could accomplish it is immaterial -- its advocacy is treason.
11 - Dave Nalle
Clavos, I think there's a significant difference between advocating the overthrow of the government and actual acts of treason, and that's the problem here.
Dave
12 - Dr Dreadful
Indeed. By that measure, Clavos, our own Pablo and Joel are arguably traitors.
Besides, isn't the overthrow of a government when it is no longer just one of the founding principles of the US?
13 - pablo
This article contains enough half truths as to be truly absurd. The facts of this case to any one of above average intelligence shows clearly that these poor dupes were urged on by their FBI handlers and in fact entrapped, which is clearly unconstitutional and morally repugnant.
14 - pablo
12 - Dr Dreadful
You said: "Indeed. By that measure, Clavos, our own Pablo and Joel are arguably traitors"
Care to explain that comment Dread? The answer is yes I do take offense at it, particularly when I have never advocated treason or treasonous behaviour, unlike so many of our elected officials have. I feel an explanation is in order, however given that the user interface is now so LAME, I doubt this post will even be seen by you.
Btw not that any of you are wondering, the reasons for my absence of late on this blog site is due to the terribly unfriendly user interface that blogcritics uses now. The reasons being too innumerable to name, and are quite obvious as well.
I also admit to finding the vast majority of commenters on here to be dull and uninspiring. Should this site ever choose to actually give a fuck what the writers and readers think about the new interface and change it to a more user friendly one, I will be back. I am not holding my breath.
15 - roger nowosielski
I'm aware it all that, Pablo; and I do miss your absence. I still have your email, and I'll be in touch once my situation becomes clearer.
16 - El Bicho
"a treason offense""
Don't you mean treasonous, Clavos?
Pablo, if the new interface has caused you to appear less often, what's the motivation to change it?