Justice delayed
The 2007 conviction of Hamid Hayat on terrorism charges was riddled with doubts from the start.
He was initially accused of being part of a terrorist cell out of a Lodi mosque. The Justice Department later admitted that no such cell existed.
He was accused of giving material assistance to al Qaeda at a training camp in Pakistan. The evidence of the camp at his trial consisted of yearsold satellite images. The evidence of his involvement consisted of his own statements, including recorded conversations with an informant who was paid $230,000. Hayat insisted that his role amounted to washing vegetables and peeling onions.
The prosecution asserted in closing statements that Hayat had “a jihadi heart.” Among the evidence presented at trial: his collection of magazine and newspaper articles.
In an interview with the Atlantic after the trial, the jury’s foreman acknowledged doubts about whether Hayat was a genuine threat, but said he unwilling to take any chances in an age of terrorism. He stated that it was “absolutely” better to risk convicting an innocent man than to exonerate a guilty one when it comes to terrorism.
That is not the way justice is supposed to be applied in this nation.
But perhaps more than anything, Hayat’s case was haunted by credible arguments that he was not given a competent defense. Among the issues: his defense’s failure to present alibi witnesses for Hayat. That conclusion that something was terribly wrong with this case was corroborated by a federal judge in Sacramento last month who overturned the conviction, leading to Hayat’s release from an Arizona prison after 14 years behind bars.
The rush to judgment against Hayat was reflective of the frenzied suspicions against Muslims that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, with justice sometimes a casualty of fear and discrimination.