Legal Commentary

Times Untroubled by Terror Informants

By Ethan Brown

A recent Times piece on the informant at the center of alleged
Bronx synagogue terror plot is filled with uncritical thinking on the role of informants in terrorism cases.

The reporters acknowledge the centrality of the informant to the government's case--"The government case revolves significantly around the work of an informant who facilitated the men’s desire to mount a terrorist attack"--as well as the importance of informants in other terror cases since 9-11.[More...]

But the reporters do not discuss the problematic role informants have played in these cases: namely, in most cases the informants, not the defendants, hatch the the plots.

And the reporters do not examine the equally problematic legal strategy of preemptive indictments whereby terror suspects are charged for their intentions and not their actions.

Worst of all, the reporters seem to argue that the federal government's success rate in convicting defendants in these terror cases means that the cases against them are strong. The reporters fail to note that the conviction rate in federal court is astoundingly high--it's around 90 percent--or that convictions of defendants is terror cases are highly likely when the government makes huge media spectacles out of these indictments.

Better, more critical and skeptical coverage of terror indictments, please.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on May 23, 2009 (boomark / email).