Verdicts send mixed signals

Detroit Free Press: Tuesday's mixed verdicts in the nation's first trial of suspected terrorists since the Sept. 11 attacks will probably be good enough for the U.S. Justice Department to continue its aggressive investigations of Middle Eastern men. But it hardly seems to justify the closed proceedings, indefinite detentions and denial of rights that have been used in the larger anti-terror effort, as detailed in a report to Congress this week.
None of the four Arab immigrants who stood trial in U.S. District Court in Detroit was convicted of being a terrorist, but two were found guilty of conspiring to support Islamic extremists. A third was acquitted of that conspiracy, but convicted of conspiracy to engage in fraud and misuse of visas and other government documents. A fourth defendant was acquitted on all counts.
Long-term threat
The government said the four were part of a "sleeper cell" of terrorists, establishing themselves in the United States with long-term plans to carry out acts of terror. It is impossible to know what deterrent effect the verdicts may have on such "cells," but the government can certainly point to the absence of terrorist activity on U.S. soil since Sept. 11 to support its efforts.
Meantime, Arab-American men -- already "profiled" on the basis of national origin -- have all the more reason to feel the heat and think twice about some innocent activity that could get them in trouble, such as sending money home. The government's case against the pair convicted Tuesday of the most serious offenses was built in large part on the testimony of an admitted scam artist who is awaiting sentencing on unrelated fraud charges.
After a nine-week trial, jurors deliberated over nine days, indicating both the complexity of the case and how conscientious they were being. But the evidence upon which they acted suggests a climate post-Sept. 11 that worked in the government's favor, and will continue to do so unless and until it affects a larger segment of the population.