With friends like Governor Richardson, who needs enemies!

We all know you believe in their innocence, but myself and most people I talk to, can't get over one thing. If they weren't guilty, why didn't they go directly to the police or lawyer or FBI when the provoceteur{sp} first contacted them. Don't say they were ignorant foreigners. Knowing right from wrong is universal. That's the problem most of us have.

In response to doggbreth: Good question. The answer is the agent provocateur didn't approach them with the idea of laundering money, but of being friends, of talking about Islam, and of helping the pizza-shop-owner with a loan for his business. Only later did he insinuate that he was dealing in arms and that's where his money came from. He buttered them up first. But I agree, when Hossain saw a missile launcher he should have called the police, and if he had been charged with dereliction of his civic duty for not doing so, he should have been found guilty. Alas, that's not what he was charged with. He was charged with laundering money and
providing material support for terrorists. That seems to me grossly unfair, to set up a guy like that and then send him to prison for 15 years for it. ... Carl Strock
P.S. doggbreth???

So, ah, you believe there is such a thing as a thought-crime?? These hapless guys acted (if you call it that) only after being almost pushed over the cliff by their own government. It's disgraceful, and the Founders would be appalled.

This whole "terrorism" thing has become a scam to allow the government to gain more and more control over the citizens, and to provide phoney cover for interventions in other countries.

There is no question in my mind that Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain were targeted because they are Muslim men. They are innocent. I base my opinion on reading news articles and court documents about this case.

I suggest that anyone who wants to know more about Yassin Aref read his book, Son of Mountains, or visit his website, http://www.yassinaref.com.

It is difficult for me to find sympathy for the two Albany Muslims who let themselves be talked into illegal actions, which they might not have committed left to their own. The fact is that the provocateur found fertile ground with the two, and the consequence is punishment for not having had the principles to say no. What is different here than a case where a 15 year old woman vamps an adult male and succeeds in seducing him. The adult male is still guilty of statutory rape, and if prosecuted and convicted deserves the punishment. BTW, I agree with you on the scenery and costumes for Tristan and Isolde, and for the interminable boredom of the opera. I have that version on tape and have watched it several times wondering why some rave about it. I still haven't figured it out. Do not, however, write Richard Wagner off. His operas tend to be long, but I found sitting through Tannhauser, Die Walkure, and Lohingrin, all of them very long, most rewarding. (Sorry about the lack of umlauts, but I haven't figured out how to insert them.)

ehgauss: Fertile ground is not an actionable offense, last time I looked. Your analogy to statutory rape is specious. Remember the Duke lacrosse case, where the prosecutor knew all along that there was NO EVIDENCE of rape, yet went forward anyway? Now THAT's a US government official I'm sure to trust. Last time I looked there, he was disbarred and barely escaped criminal charges. (And your Tristan and Isolde commentary here in this discussion isn't in need of umlauts--or, rather, it isn't umlauts that you require, good and arrogant sir.)

The only fertile ground that existed in the Aref-Hossain case was in the rat's programmed instructions to save his own skin, the FBI's novel-writing attempt, and the US prosecutor's willingness to use public smear and ethnic profiling to create terrorists where there were none, since the existence of the JTTF in Albany, the capital of New York, had to be justified somehow--in short, in the mind of the GOVERNMENT, not the victims. Thought-crime isn't in the penal code. (Do double-check Orwell's 1984, since we're discussing novels). In addition, if you had been reading the news of the basis of the appeals, you would see that the definition of money laundering is hardly graven in stone, and is currently before the Supreme Court for review. And hey, what about that secret evidence? Did the jury have all the evidence? Did the judge flat-out tell the jury that it didn't have all the evidence, that it wasn't likely it would ever get all the evidence--but that was to be "no concern of theirs?" I think there's a pesky old document, the Constitution, and that even more annoying document, the Bill of Rights, that guarantees a defendant the right to confront all the evidence against him--except, of course, for "national security" reasons, defined and delineated by the very same government that encouraged the witch hunt of two Muslim immigrants with dark skin and beards who had NEVER been afoul of the law in all their years here, smearing them, ruining them, and then imprisoning them. I thought the US invaded Iraq to take down a dictator who did the very same thing?

Fellow Americans: QUESTION the government before you rush to judgement. It's OK to do that; you have permission; that's part of being a free citizen of this country. Get all the information, and if something doesn't jive, ask why, and why not? Unlike the government, I didn't make my information up, upon which I base my conclusion that these men are innocent. I read it, researched it, it's there in the evidence. Stop reflexing from fear. One day it might be your kid, or your brother, or you who's in the line of fire of an agent provocateur. Who you gonna call? Your friendly neighborhood FBI agent?

We Muslims, came to this country to escape such persecution, with the hope to re-establish dignity in our lives, and hope to build futures for our families...Please, I invite you to write to them these innocent men, directly. If you do not find shame at the miscarriage of justice, which has been done to them, then you are among either, 1)the unfortunate, who do not appreciate the loss of your own liberties; or 2) among the ruthless, who perpetuate fear mongering for a livelihood...Please, in the Name of God, FREE: Aref and Hossain.

So your point is that it was only his first offense. I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure that won't fly.

Suppose I was approached by an undercover officer in the guise of an attractive prostitute. Suppose also I give in to temptation and for cultural reasons bring along, say, Father Flannigan to oversee the whole affair. Now, unless I'm governor of a large and populous state, apart from the Flannigan weirdness I'm guilty of nothing more than solicitation of a prostitute. A lengthy stint in federal prison would hardly fit my crime. So too do the sentences of the 2 Albany men seem similarly disproportionate. The government should be persuing active criminals, not trying to trick people into committing crimes and then prosecuting these same people for having been tricked. It's just all so contrived.