Three quarters of cases forwarded to Justice Department are dismissed for lack of evidence.
The Justice Department prosecuted just 14 cases this year -- nearing pre 9/11 lows.
Todays news a familiar story: Judge in Michigan dropped all charges against three Texas men of Palestinian descent originally thought to be terroristswho had purchased many cell phones.
2006-09-06 09:15:12 · 7 answers · asked by murphy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush is the one who says terrorist threats are growing and spreading -- not my claim.
Not talking about "terrorists" held in Gitmo in Cuba. Talking about FBI investigations of terror suspects here in US sent to the Justice Department for prosicution.
2006-09-06 10:34:43 · update #1
Partly because so many of the arrests are premature, just in case they turn out to be threats. So, people are rounded up with insufficient evidence, as a precautionary measure.
The other problem is that there are so many legal violations in the way evidence is being gathered, that much of the evidence cannot be used. Because law enforcement refuses to follow the laws, they are in the end causing more problems because the charges cannot withstand the constitutional violations involved.
2006-09-06 09:18:33 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the Law Enforcement community is not following the law in regards to the collection of evidence. They have to build a case they can not say this guy was acting strange so tap his phone and if he says something out of the way we must arrest him. It does not work that way. I think that most of the stuff we hear about is hipe and propaganda they want us to think we are not safe and people feed on this fear. In reality 9/11 was a horrible tragic day but if you look at what it has done to this country in the terms of its goals I would say it was very, very effective. Effective because the goals of terrorism is to put people into fear and they have done just that
Terrorism is a crime and not a military function. If it were a military function they would have only attacked military targets. All of the victims on 9/11 were Homicide victims and we should have allowed for evidence gathering at the scene of the crime and let the investigators do their jobs and let the cards fall where they would have. We had the whole world on our side until we decided to go to Iraq. I think had we done a proper investigation we would have been able to arrest more people and have more trials and we would not be in the shape we are in today.
2006-09-06 17:00:56 · answer #2 · answered by dlee_75 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The premise of your question is wrong. Terrorism is not "up." Since 9/11 terrorism deaths or destruction are zero. That means terrorism has not happened.
I suspect that none of the "facts" cited in your question are true. The US government does not want to try terrorists. This issue has been decided on by the Supreme Court. Congress is supposed to legislate military tribunals. Until that is done, terrorists in captivity will not be tried.
2006-09-06 16:21:27 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terrorism is one of those things that you can talk about and pretend you know about but there is no way anybody knows how many of them their are.
Bush knows this so basically he can make up any story he wants to.
His 'war on terror' could literally go on for 100 years without any attacks just because he says so... I think that is a main reason he doesn't want to catch B. Laden.
2006-09-06 16:21:26 · answer #4 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's because our judicial system sucks, not because there are any lack of terrorists. That's why terorist combatants should NOT be tried like some common gang banger.
2006-09-06 16:49:37 · answer #5 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gitmo.
These are war criminals. the rules of war are different then criminal prosecution.
2006-09-06 16:20:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's what I'd like to know .
2006-09-06 16:17:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋