NATO activists' lawyers blast Ill. anti-terror law

CHICAGO – Attorneys for three men facing terror-related charges for allegedly plotting to use Molotov cocktails on President Barack Obama's campaign headquarters during the NATO summit last month blasted Illinois' anti-terrorism statute Tuesday, saying it is too broad. Defense attorneys spoke to reporters after a hearing in which prosecutors declined to reveal additional details about the case. Federal prosecutors handle most terrorism cases in the U.S., and the three activists are the first people to be charged under an Illinois law adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Defense attorney Thomas Durkin says there's a reason the state law hasn't been used before. "It's a stupid statute," he said. "It is overblown and vague. ... You can be charged with terrorism by destroying a beehive." Durkin's comments came after a hearing at which prosecutors told a judge they were not ready to show defense attorneys the formal indictment. Defense lawyers say they have seen almost none of the evidence against their clients, who were arrested days before the NATO summit started and are also accused of plotting attacks on police stations. During the two-minute hearing, Durkin told Judge Adam Bourgeois, Jr., that he didn't understand why prosecutors weren't willing to turn over the indictment, which likely includes more detail on the investigation. "I don't either," the judge responded. "But that's the way they are doing this. ... It seems a little strange." The judge did not order prosecutors to turn the indictment over to prosecutors, but they must do so when the three are arraigned on July 2. Speaking to reporters after Tuesday's hearing, Durkin conceded prosecutors were not obligated to make the indictment public yet, but he said it would have been appropriate given media interest in the case.

www.foxnews.com...

This is pretty sad. These kids being arrested and the prosecutors not showing the evidence. What is going on they are being charged for something and they arent allowed to see what evidence is going to be presented? This is just a hint at what is going to come in the future.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin


To be fair, they don't really have to straight away, and it says almost no evidence. "almost no" is the defence lawyer's opinion, maybe he's implying there isn't much evidence to go on, he could be trying to make a point about the evidence they have against them.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin


If I recall, the so called terrorist equipment, was none other than a home brew beer making kit! No wonder the prosecuters want to hide what they say is evidence!

reply to post by seeker1963


Yeah I remember that. It seems they want to convict people without evidence now with just a whispered word of terrorist