"Furtherance of Terrorism" charges dropped against RNC 8

[NoStateofMind]

http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_12107307

Terrorism charges have been dropped against eight defendants accused of conspiracy to commit riot and property damage during the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

The Ramsey County attorney's office said this morning that it would file amended complaints in the cases of the men and women known as the "RNC 8." The charges of conspiracy to commit riot and conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property will remain, but other charges of conspiracy to commit riot and conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property "in furtherance of terrorism" will be dismissed.

"We believe the terrorism charges would have been a distraction at trial," said Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner. "Dismissing those charges will help us focus on the core illegal conduct that occurred."

The terrorism law was enacted in 2002 by the state Legislature. It provides longer sentences for felony crimes that involve premeditation and violence to persons or property and which are intended, among other things, to intimidate the public and disrupt the right of lawful assembly, the county attorney said.

In this case, however, the state's sentencing guidelines provide for stayed prison sentences with jail time, fines and other sanctions as possible conditions of probation. The eight defendants would not face longer prison sentences if convicted under the terrorism sentencing enhancement.

A hearing is coming up on May 26th the article states. The "domestic terrorism" charges were a farce to begin with, glad to see them dropped.

 

[sandorski]

"Furtherance of Terrorism" makes me chuckle. "Furtherance" just sounds like a made up word.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The "domestic terrorism" charges were a farce to begin with, glad to see them dropped.

The more impoirtant question is, are the laws in place appropriate, or are they excessive and at risk to be abused in other situations?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The "domestic terrorism" charges were a farce to begin with, glad to see them dropped.

The more impoirtant question is, are the laws in place appropriate, or are they excessive and at risk to be abused in other situations?

No, and probably yes.

Did we really need new terrorism laws after 9/11? Did we really need to redefine or even more accurately define "terrorism?" Of course not. It's ironic though, Bush said the attacks were "an act of war," yet all these new terms and laws were defined and created for dealing with domestics. Never mind the fact that the government had every single piece of information they needed to prevent the attacks from happening.

 

[Double Trouble]

I don't think charges of furtherance of terrorism make sense in this case, but the other charges are appropriate and will hopefully lead to nice long prison sentences for those involved.

 

[Lemon law]

It somewhat reminds me of the Chicago 7 trial under ole Judge Julius Hoffman that ended up being a total farce in 1969. Here we are 40 years later with an extra conspirator. I can hardly wait until 2049 when we will be talking about the XXXX 9 conspiracy trial.

Actually I would much prefer to be the Lemon Law gang of three, me, myself, and I know exactly how to conspire and be that voice in the wilderness crying bullsh!t.