Closings arguments are expected for three NATO protesters who are being tried in a case that raises questions about what constitutes a terrorist.
Thursday’s arguments are expected to address charges that the three activists plotted Molotov cocktail attacks at NATO’s 2012 summit in Chicago. One purported target was to be President Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters.
The trial is a test case for rarely used Illinois terrorism laws. More than 30 states passed such laws after 9/11 in largely symbolic bills because federal prosecutors typically try terrorism cases.
Cook County prosecutors say the three suspects are savvy anarchists who were bent on setting parts of Chicago ablaze. But the defense says they are not terrorists, arguing they were too drunk to have seriously considered plots suggested by undercover police.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
One Response
Why prosecute someone for “terrorism” when the same act is also a variety of serious crimes (e.g. murder, arson, etc.) all of which are either to prove to jury. It is virtually impossible to prove a motive, which is why deliberately killing people or blowing up buildings is illegal regardless of why you want to do it.
All the attempts to take ordinary mayhem and give it a “sexy” name such as “terrorism” or “hate crime” backfire since if the prosecutor fails to prove to motive, the jury may return a “not guilty” under the theory that since the prosecutor couldn’t prove his “theory” of the case, he can’t be believed about the rest of it.