U.S.

NATO protesters convicted on non-terrorism charges

Prosecutors painted the three as dangerous anarchists; defense said officers goaded them into molotov cocktail plot

Brian Church (L), 20, Brent Vincent Betterly (C), 24 and Jared Chase, 24, are seen in these handout photos from the Chicago Police department released on May 19, 2012.
Chicago Police Department/AP.

A jury on Friday acquitted three NATO summit protesters – the so-called NATO 3 – of breaking Illinois' rarely tested state terrorism law, but did convict them on lesser arson counts.

Prosecutors described the men – Brian Church, Jared Chase and Brent Vincent Betterly – as dangerous anarchists who were plotting to throw Molotov cocktails at President Barack Obama's campaign headquarters and other Chicago sites during the 2012 summit.

Undercover officers infiltrated the group and the men were arrested before the summit began.

Meanwhile, defense lawyers scoffed at the portrayal of their clients as terrorists, describing them as drunken goofs who were goaded into the Molotov cocktail plot by the officers.

Undercover officer Mehmet Uygun admitted he was the first to raise the idea of Molotov cocktails on the day the men were arrested, offered his bandana to use as wicks for the explosives and then cut it up into strips for them, the Chicago Tribune reported.

The defendants seemed to be nervous Friday as the jury, which deliberated for more than seven hours, filed in. Church, 22, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; Chase, 29, of Keene, N.H.; and Betterly, 25, of Oakland Park, Fla., had pleaded not guilty to material support for terrorism, conspiracy to commit terrorism and other several non-terrorism charges, such as arson.

As court adjourned, supporters of three lingered in court, some crying and hugging and showing their disappointment that the still-serious convictions could send the men to jail for years. A sentencing date has been set for Feb. 28.

The question of when a planned protest becomes conspiracy to commit terrorism was the focus of much of the trial, which was seen as a major test whether states should more often take the lead in trying terrorist suspects.

'Trivializing' the term

Nearly all terrorism cases are filed in federal court, though many states passed terrorism laws after 9/11 in what are seen as largely symbolic gestures.

Prosecutor Tom Biesty argued that two weeks of testimony from undercover police officers and secret recordings proved the out-of-state activists conspired to attack the campaign office in Obama's hometown, Mayor Rahm Emanuel's home and police stations.

In his closing Thursday, defense attorney Thomas Durkin ridiculed the notion the three were terrorists.

Reaching into an exhibit box, Durkin lifted a slingshot that was among the items the activists brought to Chicago. Holding it up to jurors, he said mockingly, "A weapon of mass destruction. Tools of terrorism, for sure."

The outcome of the trial would be closely watched, Durkin said, precisely because many share his belief that prosecutors were overzealous in slapping the label "terrorism" on the alleged crimes.

"This case is a big deal, don't kid yourself about that," he told jurors. "If these people can be labeled terrorists, we are all in trouble."

Defense attorneys say the officers posing as activists egged on the three, who were frequently too drunk or too high on marijuana to take any meaningful steps planning attacks.

Biesty rejected the portrayal of the defendants as naive and detached. He cited wiretap recordings in which Chase is heard talking about dropping a firecracker into a bottle of gas and saying, "If you put one of those in a bottle and throw ... You cover 'em in a ball of fire."

"Not drunken bravado – cool and calculating," the prosecutor said.

As terrorism cases are almost always filed in federal court, Illinois prosecutors haven't said why they chose to charge the men under the state's statute.

Defense attorney Michael Deutsch said prosecutors brought the ominous-sounding terrorism charges to make a splash in the media. In so doing, he said, they had "trivialized" the menace of actual terrorism.

Though Illinois and 35 other states passed terrorism laws after the 9/11 attacks, few of the states' statutes have ever been used, according to New York's Center on National Security at Fordham University.

Al Jazeera and The Associated Press

Find Al Jazeera America on your TV

Get email updates from Al Jazeera America

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Get email updates from Al Jazeera America

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Join the Conversation