“...There is a huge difference between thinking about a crime, and conspiring to commit a crime...”

Shall we then incarcerate a writer and his editor for planning to the most minute detail a heist or a murder?

Shall we jail a couple of guys in a bar who drunkenly figure out how they’d off their boss?

And may I remind you that the supposed “conspiracy” in which Padilla was involved dealt with “dirty” bombs, even though he had no way to get uranium or any other radioactive material, AND that the government wisely dropped that idea.

Finally, I wonder who is harmed in any way by a detailed PLAN to commit a crime which was never destined for fruition?

I’m sorry, but so called “conspiracy” laws are nothing more than society making up a crime they CAN prosecute so as to GET someone who manages some way to thwart their laws.

Murder? easy. Attempted murder? same thing: perp committed an act which was LIKELY to result in the death of a victim, and only good fortune or bad aim kept the intended victim alive. CONSPIRACY to commit murder? Good luck. If you have the good fortune to get a completely STUPID jury, you might win a conviction, but not if there is one intelligent member of the jury and a defense lawyer smart enough to show any “conspiracy” law for the sham it is.

Think about it: if one man plans a crime but doesn’t do it, nothing can happen; if TWO men plan the same crime, but give up on it, and one of the men rats out the other, there is now a CONSPIRACY charge filed against the accused? How childish; it’s like something thought up by a seven year old.

I’m pretty sure that conspiracy laws were passed so as to “get” mafioso who otherwise were innocent because they always had hirelings do the dirty work and therefore had no discernible connection to the actual crimes committed. Conspiracy laws ought NEVER be applied to crimes uncommitted.

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

And what did shouting “fire” have to do with any of this?

And by the way, I don’t recall Saddam ever committing a terrorist act; he was tried for murder and convicted, and had no right to appeal. If we lose a war to someone before George Bush dies, HE might be tried, convicted, and executed in much the same way, being responsible for so very many wrongful deaths, including those of the people who died in the restaurant in Iraq when they bombed it to murder a Saddam who wasn’t there. If you win the war, it’s collateral damage; if you lose, it’s murder.

There is a huge difference between thinking about a crime, and conspiring to commit a crime.

Conspiracy to commit mass-murder is no more a thought-crime than yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is an expression of free speech.

NYT editorial: “...After all that, there was still some good news yesterday: a would-be terrorist will be going to jail. And the Bush administration was forced, grudgingly and only at the very end, to provide him with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution...”

If you believe that “thought crimes” ought to be punishable by incarceration and even death, then this is a fine verdict for you. Padilla was guilty of a crime much worse than “terrorism plotting,” if THAT could be a crime, and it was one of stupidity and ought, as Kurt Vonnegut said, be punished by execution, but I don’t hold with punishing people for their bad thoughts.

Putting this man in jail for getting together with some other stupid people and TALKING about what they MIGHT one day actually DO, is no different from putting people in jail for planning a bank robbery and deciding after all that it’s too risky and therefore NOT robbing the bank. If a married couple sits in the privacy of their own home and discusses killing a neighbor for having an ugly yard or making an ugly smell or making ugly noises, and the couple decides NOT to kill the neighbor, or even decides to kill him but never buys the gun with which to complete their plan, then how is it possible to try them and convict them of merely THINKING about something?

Every man who looks at a pretty woman and has carnal thoughts about her would be guilty of “thought rape,” and every dirty old man who looks with pleasure on the innocence and beauty of a young child could be jailed for pedophilia, when he (or she) never TOUCHED a single child in his life.

I just don’t hold with a legal system wherein the jury decides what the defendant did or ought to be able to think and then votes to jail him or kill him on the basis of what he THOUGHT rather than what he DID.

I can see that the purchase of massive quantities of fuel oil and fertilizer might be evidence that a perp is planning a murderous act, and I can only hope that the discovery of such a purchase would trigger action on the part of our police to PREVENT a crime, but I’m not willing to go the next step and jail the perp for life for a bomb he never made.

Think about it: buying a gun would be a crime if you EVER once thought about using your gun to settle an issue with your neighbor.

I tend to believe that what deters crime is the fact that the possible perp decides that he cannot “get away with it,” and therefore he gives up on the idea of committing the crime. I don’t deny that it is probably wrong even to CONSIDER murder or assault, but so far we have managed to avoid jailing people in America for what they THINK rather than what they DO.

Until now, that is.

“Mr. Padilla and two co-defendants of Arab descent were charged with conspiring to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas.”

Now there’s a shocker.

He’s luckier than President Saddam Hussein !