This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at

Dirty bomber wannabe Jose Padilla's lawyers leak wiretap info to NYTimes in attempt to bias jurors

January 26, 2007


U.S. District Judge Marcia C. Cooke had made the lawyers of dirty bomber wannabe Jose Padilla sign papers "barring the disclosure of certain evidence" after one of his three lawyers gave The NYTimes 7 wiretap transcripts which in violation of a court order. She did take legal action against them.

Michael Caruso, one of Padilla's legal team which includes Anthony Natale and Orlando Decampo admitted that one of them had leaked the tape, telling the Judge:

"It was a simple misunderstanding, an honest mistake, and it has been rectified. Your honor can rest assured that this matter is an an end. There have been no further disclosures."

According to the Florida Sun Sentinel:

"…Prosecutors had wanted Cooke to put the lawyers under oath and begin a formal investigation, with U.S. Attorney Brian Frazier terming the action an "outrageous" attempt to influence public perceptions of the case,including those of potential jurors. Adding rhetorically "what was the point? It wa clearly calculated to influence the jury of public opinion and try this case there…"…."It was a deliberate violation…".,0,397044.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

The judge's intervention was prompted by the January 4th NYTimes article by Deborah Sontag tellingly headlined :

"In Padilla Wiretaps Murky view of Jihad case".

Sontag used the transcripts provided by Padilla's lawyers were to misleadingly imply that the government's case was flawed.

She wrote that

"Some 230 phone calls form the core of the government's case, including 21 that make reference to Padilla, prosecutors said. But Padilla's voice is heard only on 7 calls. And on those seven , which The Times obtained from a participant in the case , Padilla does not discuss violent plots…"

MIM:Further documents not mentioned by Sontag reveal that Padilla had a reason not to discuss ‘violent plots; on the phone and had expressed worries about wiretapping.

Sontag's disingenuous claims were followed by a Times editorial which was headlined "Imperial Presidency 2.O" which began:

"The New York Times reported last week about the sorry excuse for a criminal case that the administration whipped up against Jose Padilla…".

MIM: The claim by Padilla's lawyers that the provision of the wiretaps transcripts to the NYTimes "was a misunderstanding" defies credibility especially in the light of the newspapers June 2006 role in exposing a surveillance program for terror financing which caused an outcry from the government and calls by Representative Peter King for legal action action the paper on charges of treason.

The NYTimes went ahead with the disclosure despite government appeals that it would damage national security interests and alert the terrorists.

President Bush called called the papers perfidy "a disgraceful act which does harm to the nation".

Deborah Sontag's premise that there is something "murky" in the government's case against Padilla is refuted by the evidence about his extensive connections to the international jihad network in articles which can be found by a simple Google search and in articles like "Florida Trail of Terror".

The NYTimes use of the Padilla wiretap transcript shows that they have once again opted to undermine national security and promote the Islamist perception that the U.S.government are the agressors. and jihad plotters are the victims.

Ironically it is the U.S, Constitutional safeguards which protect the NYTimes right to harm national security that provided taxpayer funded lawyers who have enabled Padilla to change his legal status from enemy combatant to civil defendant thus ensuring a protracted court battle aimed at undermining the government's ability to take effective action against terrorism suspects.

Deborah Sontag, The New York Times, and Padilla's lawyers actions will be duly noted by both terrorists and legal Islamists, who will be emboldened as a result.,,-6369222,00.html

January 22, 2007, 4:54 PM EST

Prosecuters say Padilla defense leak to NYTimes could taint jury

by Curt Anderson AP legal affairs writer

MIAMI -- The leak of transcripts of Jose Padilla's intercepted telephone conversations by a defense lawyer to The New York Times violated a court order and could jeopardize selection of an impartial jury, federal prosecutors said Monday.

"There is no question that the disclosure was calculated and deliberate, with the effect of exposing potential jurors to evidence before it is introduced at trial, when both sides will have the opportunity to argue its significance," prosecutors said in court papers.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke has scheduled a hearing Wednesday on the issue, the latest in a string of complications to arise in the case of the man accused of being an al-Qaida operative.

Padilla, a 36-year-old U.S. citizen and former Chicago gang member, is charged with being part of a North American cell that provided cash, supplies and recruits to Islamic extremists. Originally accused of plotting a radioactive dirty-bomb attack after his 2002 arrest, Padilla was designated an enemy combatant by President Bush and held without criminal charge at a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years.

He was added to an existing Miami terrorism-support case in late 2005 during a legal battle over the president's wartime detention powers. The dirty-bomb allegations are not mentioned in the Miami indictment.
Three Miami-based public defenders representing Padilla _ Michael Caruso, Anthony Natale and Orlando do Campo _ admitted in court papers that "one of Jose Padilla's counsel" provided the transcripts to a Times reporter for a story published Jan. 4. The lawyer responsible was not identified.

Padilla is also represented by New York attorney Andrew Patel, but his name does not appear on the document acknowledging responsibility for the leak.

The seven transcripts were covered by a June 21, 2005, order by the judge prohibiting dissemination of "sensitive" evidence. The transcripts were declassified telephone intercepts on which Padilla's voice is heard that were obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Prosecutors contend that their disclosure violates Florida Bar and American Bar Association rules governing attorneys' professional conduct. Penalties for such violations vary greatly, from jail time in extreme cases to a judicial reprimand.

The defense lawyers said in their own court papers that disclosure of the transcripts was "born of confusion" about the judge's order. Because the 2005 order had been replaced in 2006, not everyone on Padilla's team understood that the rules regarding sensitive material still applied.

Prosecutors, however, cast doubt on the argument, noting that Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell Killinger said in a letter when the transcripts were turned over to the defense on Jan. 23, 2006, that they were "sensitive discovery materials" covered by the judge's original order.

Prosecutors accused defense lawyers of "whipping up a media frenzy" that could taint the pool of prospective jurors.

A spokeswoman for the Times declined to comment. None of the four defense lawyers responded to e-mail messages seeking comment about the latest government claims.

The Padilla trial had been scheduled to start Monday but was delayed until April, in part to allow time for a mental competency evaluation. Two mental health experts hired by Padilla's lawyers say he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his long isolation in military custody and is unable to adequately assist in his own defense.

Padilla's lawyers claim he was tortured while in the brig and are seeking dismissal of the charges on that basis. Pentagon and Department of Justice officials have denied those claims.

This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at