U.S. v. Harrison Jack: A Typical Terrorism Case Turned On Its Head
With the next status conference still set for October 5, 2009, at 11 a.m., here are excerpts from Denny Walsh's front-page
Sacramento Bee, 9/26/09 piece on the status of U.S. v. Harrison Jack after the dismissal of General Vang Pao:
There is no other post-9/11 prosecution like it. It stands the typical terrorism case on its head:
American citizens charged in an indictment invoking the little-used Neutrality Act with conspiring to attack Laos, a foreign country at peace with the United States.
* * *
Charges against the marquee defendant, storied Hmong patriarch Vang Pao, were dropped by the government last week after admissions that the evidence against him was lacking.
Now, the defense will shift its focus to a theory that an undercover agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives – code named "GunSlinger" – was really the man behind the plot.
"At that time, when this ATF agent showed up, there was no scheme, there was no plan, there was no conspiracy and there was no capacity to hatch one," Vang's attorney, John Keker, argued in court in May. "The only weapon (the agent) didn't offer to get was a nuclear weapon."
All agree a trial is still years away.
The defense plans to ask U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. to dismiss the case or at least suppress evidence, partly because of what it contends are lies by the agent.
