Sameera Casmod | sameerac@radioislam.co.za
01 August 2023 | 10:00am SAST
2 min read

Picture: Times Herald-Record

In a judicial ruling, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon has ordered the release of three men known as the Newburgh Four, who were sentenced to 25 years in prison for their alleged involvement in a government-orchestrated bombing plot targeting a New York synagogue in 2010. The judge accused the FBI of inventing a conspiracy and manipulating the suspects, leading to accusations of entrapment.

The Newburgh Four, consisting of David Williams, Onta Williams, and Laguerre Payen, had become stark examples of homegrown terror in the media, with prosecutors portraying them as extremely violent individuals embracing opportunities for terrorism. However, their relatives and legal advocates have long maintained that they were entrapped by the government.

The case raises serious questions about the government’s role in creating and foiling fake terror plots. The suspects were allegedly lured into the plot by Shahed Hussain, an FBI informant with a history of deception and criminal activities. Critics argue that the FBI’s actions amounted to classic entrapment, leading to the creation of a false narrative portraying the men as sophisticated international terrorists committed to jihad against the United States.

Alicia McWilliams McCollum, the aunt of David Williams and a fervent advocate for the men’s release, passionately accused the government of manufacturing the crime and highlighted the devastating impact on families. Tragically, Alicia passed away last year, never witnessing the momentous ruling that followed.

The ruling offers a glimmer of hope for the three men set to be released within 90 days. Lawyers Kathy Manley and Stephen F. Downs from the Coalition for Civil Freedoms, a group challenging pre-emptive prosecution and post-9/11 targeting, surveillance, and criminalisation of Muslim communities, hailed the decision as a step towards justice.

Stephen Downs emphasised that this case could serve as a precedent to challenge similar instances where individuals were potentially wrongfully prosecuted and given harsh sentences. He stressed the need for continued efforts to dismantle the assumption that these cases were genuine, exposing the government’s policy of creating cases when real terrorists were absent.

John James Cromitie, the fourth man convicted in the case, is expected to seek compassionate release as well. The case could mark a turning point in dismantling the government’s questionable tactics employed after 9/11, which demonised Muslim communities while purportedly countering threats.

While the ruling provides a ray of hope for the Newburgh Four, it also opens the door for ongoing scrutiny of other cases that may have been similarly influenced by FBI informants and tactics. As activists, lawyers, and concerned citizens rally behind the call for justice, the spotlight now shines on the need to reevaluate and rectify past injustices, upholding the principles of fairness and integrity in the legal system.

As the legal community grapples with the implications of this ruling, the case of the Newburgh Four serves as a poignant reminder of the potential consequences of government overreach and the importance of safeguarding individuals’ rights, regardless of their background or beliefs. The journey towards justice may have just begun, but the ruling marks a significant milestone on the path towards accountability and redressing the harm caused by questionable practices in counterterrorism efforts.

Listen to the full interview sourced from Democracy Now.