Elonka wrote:
] ] A software engineer from Oregon pleaded guilty Wednesday
] ] to aiding the Taleban and now faces the likelihood of
] ] seven to 10 years in jail.
] ]
] ] The Justice Department says Maher Hawash, a naturalized
] ] American citizen of Palestinian descent, pleaded guilty
] ] to a charge of conspiring to supply services to the
] ] Taleban following the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York
] ] and Washington. He plead Not Guilty three months ago, May 6th. So which is it, guilty or no? Even if he plead Guilty, that doesn't necessarily mean he is. Having been held incommunicado, without habeas corpus rights and in solitary confinement for a month can leave you pretty "open to suggestion" if you get my drift. The latest plea is here: http://www.freemikehawash.org/0806plea.htm I think his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt. This was not a trial like we're used to. It's kind of odd how fast it went from "detained as a material witness" to "Guilty" so quickly. Found a comment on Slashdot that more or less sums up what I think, see below. =====================================================
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=73841&cid=6633119
===================================================== This is an important point to remember, and one that is well illustrated by a little history. In 1930s Stalinist Russia, hundreds of political prisoners were convicted of treason and either executed or carted off to the gulag. What is remarkable about these cases is not the fact that they happened, but the fact that the trials and subsequent convictions appeared to be conducted in accordance with proper forms and procedures. The accused would be afforded access to legal representation, but would then proceed to get up, in open court, and swear on their mother's grave that they were guilty of the most heinous treason when all they had possibly done was express the mildest dissent, often privately, or ended up in the wrong political faction. The Soviet regime was then able to deflect criticism of the suppression of dissent by simply pointing to the apparent fairness of their trial process, often with the assistance of Western apologists such as English QC D. N. Pritt. The trick, of course, was worked before trial, during a period of a number of weeks (usually) when the accused was held incommunicado and subjected to severe psychological pressure and physical mistreatment (such as food and sleep deprivation, interspersed on occasion with outright physical torture) designed essentially to brainwash the unfortunate suspect into confessing. If necessary, threats were made against the suspect's family to induce a confession. This process was referred to by its architect, Soviet prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky, as "the conveyor", and it is the twentieth century's greatest testament to the need for access to criminal suspects at all stages of the judicial process, from arrest to conviction. Until verifiable physical evidence of what Hawash is alleged to have done is produced, this confession convinces me of nothing other than that John Ashcroft, the man who ultimately bears responsibility for Hawash's treatment and prosecution, is just a latter-day Vyshinsky and a disgrace to his profession. ===================================================== | 
