One step away from thought crime

[Andre II]

The 'Justice' Department’s strategy in the trial itself, using a seldom-tested conspiracy law and relatively thin evidence, cemented a new prosecutorial model in terrorism cases. The central charge against Mr. Padilla was that he conspired to murder, maim and kidnap people in a foreign country. (...) But prosecutors needed to prove very little by way of concrete conduct to obtain a conviction under the law. "It is a pretty big leap between a mere indication of desire to attend a camp and a crystallized desire to kill, maim and kidnap," said Peter S. Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University who has also written on conspiracy charges in terrorism prosecutions. The conspiracy charge against Mr. Padilla, Professor Margulies continued, "is highly amorphous, and it basically allows someone to be found guilty for something that is one step away from a thought crime."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/us/nationalspecial3/18legal.html?_r=5&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login

[Vincardog]

1. IT helps to have a defendant who is insane and unable to participate in his defense.

Mr. Padilla actually believed it was his duty to help mr. Boosh defeat the terrorists.

[Romulox]

2. Not a lawyer, but...

I don't this is any different than any other conspiracy charge. The crime of conspiracy only requires:

A. Agreement
B. Illegal Goal
C. Knowledge, Intent, and Participation
D. Overt Act

As for the "thought crime", it's a bit of a canard. The entire basis of the Anglo-American jurisprudence is that a person's mental state can determine whether behavior is a crime at all, and if so, the severity of punishment. E.g. self-defense vs. murder, 1st vs. 2nd degree.

[HuffleClaw]

3. from what i've read it WAS a 'thought crime'

and so were a bunch of other of their 'terror prosecutions', the vacation video one comes to mind in particular.