The prosecutors trying Jose Padilla want to present “evidence” that is completely unrelated to anything Padilla is charged with. What’s worse is that the judge has approved it.
Judge Cooke agreed to a prosecution request to play for the jury a 1997 CNN taped interview with Osama bin Laden. Judge Cooke excised what she said were the most inflammatory 13 minutes from the 20 minute tape, so the jury will hear only 7 minutes of this manipulative terrorist spouting his self-serving narrative. The reason for the jury to review the 7 minutes of Osama is the prosecution has taped phone conversations between two of the defendants, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, celebrating the contents of the interview, even, according to prosecutor John Shipley, rejoicing over bin Laden’s incendiary words.
This is what is driving Padiila’s attorney, Andrew Natale a tad crazy. There is no evidence, repeat, no evidence that Padilla ever heard or saw the bin Laden interview. “How the heck can we defend against something he’s never seen, never discussed, never had anything to do with?” Natale asked. Good question.
Padilla is being tried along with two other defendants, but neither of them ever met Bin Laden.
How relevant is the bin Laden tape to the trial in Miami? It’s a 1997 CNN interview with bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan in late March of 1997. Obviously Padilla is not involved in the conversation. He wasn’t even involved in discussing it with Hassoun and Jayyousi years later. Padilla never saw the interview.
The case against Padilla must be incredibly weak if this stunt is the best the prosecution can come up with.