Would a suspected terrorist be offered bail?

Assuming this happens in the US . . . If the subjects are only deemed persons of interest and merely interviewed they are free to go at any time. Only if there is probable cause would they be arrested/charged and presented before a court of record--that's when the question of bail/bond arises, and is decided by the court.

Short answer is no way would they get bail. Slightly longer is they are not qualified for bail for three different reasons. First is if anyone was killed, they are subject to the death penalty under Federal law. People charged with a capital crime are not released on bail. Second is the likelihood of them running. If they are terrorists, they have friends, as well as money. High degree of risk that they are going to run. Third is dangerousness. Terrorists are among the most likely people to kill again.

Unless I thought I might learn something during the bail hearing, as their attorney I'm not even going to waste my time asking.

The day planner, as described, is not enough to justify an arrest warrant. The US Attorney would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Most likely, the Feds would set up a watch on the four suspects, try to get somebody to make friends with them, and start developing real evidence. Remember that manpower is not an issue in this type of case.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

Anberlin said:

Hello! I have tried to research this, but I can't find anything.

In my story, there are four men who plot and execute a terrorist attack (three bombs set up across a city).

All along there were a couple of teenagers who tried to get the police involved. They found out that it was going to happen, but with the way that everything played out, they lost their credibility early on and no one would listen to them.

When the day comes that the bombs explode, Police and DHS and anyone else involved, know who to pick up.

There is no proof, though. There is nothing except for a day planner with a vague code to link these guys to the crime.

My plot depends on these guys being released on bail or because charges have not yet been filed yet because there is no evidence that these men did what they did. These men aren't the kinds of people that anyone would suspect of being terrorists. I only need them to be released for a week (although even just a night or two might even be enough). I don't care if they are picked up again fairly soon after that.

Is it plausible for suspected terrorists to be released on bail? Is there any scenario at all where that would happen? The amount of the bail isn't really a big deal because one of the men is quite wealthy.

Click to expand...

As I understand your scenario, sounds like there should be some evidence - the teenagers alerted people, presumably for a reason.

If they're arrested, for blowing up bombs in three cities, no I wouldn't think they'd get bail, and charges would be there. If they're not arrested, they're not.

Anberlin said:

Thanks everyone for the help!

There really isn't any evidence other than the planner. The perpetrators of the crime have been one step ahead and cleaning up behind themselves. The only reason the teens know anything is because they've been poking around and overheard an incriminating conversation. They put the rest of the pieces together loosely and not entirely accurately.

So, could it plausibly be a couple of days after the attack before they are arrested or brought in at all?

I kind of assumed that they would have been picked up immediately after the attacks and held for 24 hours and questioned. When the FBI/DHS/whoever realizes that they aren't going to get anything out of them and don't have any evidence, they would have to let them go and collect evidence to make the arrest.

Let me know if I am completely off base here.

Click to expand...

You're off base. First, that's evidence. Second, no, if they think they're guilty, they're not letting them go, especially once the perpetrators know the cops/feds are on to them. They'd find some charge or other before letting them walk out the door.

Okay, you're missing a lot of the details here necessary to give you a good answer. Let me see if I understand this.

Four man are plotting to blow up something, and are overheard by two teens. The teens go to the police, who listen to them, and do some level of investigation and determine that the information is not credible and that the four men are not a risk. You don't want to know how many people fall into this category. The older brother of the Boston bombers fell into this category. This fact was known by the Feds after the bombing. The Feds did not talk to him.

The bombs go off, and somehow, the Feds think it's these four. I have no idea why the Feds think this. Somehow a planner owned by one of the four magically appears. And the two teens are talking to the police again??? Are the kids any more credible now than they were?

What causes the Feds to want to talk to these four? Let me repeat, the number of people who have been investigated for possible ties to terrorism and determined not to have ties to terrorism is huge.

The Feds will eventually talk to everybody who has been investigated, but it's not a high concern until other evidence has been dealt with. The bomb explosions need to be processed, video has to be looked at, witnesses interviewed. Again, look at the Boston bombers investigation.

The Feds seem to be waiting until they have a good case before talking to the suspects. These conversations nearly always end with an arrest. The Feds seem to be waiting to make sure the cases are ironclad. As far as I know, the Feds are 100% success rate on their arrests.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

How about something as simple as they can't find them. The bombers do what you need them to do, and then they are arrested.

Okay, this is simple to solve.

Starting point is that the authorities acquire millions of bits of information every day. There's always an issue of indexing. If you don't pick the right words, you won't find something. Think about the problems you can have with web searches.

Chances of this popping up quickly in a search of the records is slight. Unless the officer who talked to the kids is looking. Then he knows what to look for.

Or if you really want to make this impossible to find, have the cop who talks to the kids determine that the kids' story is complete crap and he doesn't file a report.

That takes care of the record. Now we have the two people who know, the cop and the kids. You can get rid of the cop by deploying him to Afghanistan. That way it's going to take a while for him to receive the information and then some more time to get in touch with his former police department and help them find the record. If you want to, you can get rid of the police officer by killing him in a car wreck. That can really expand the amount of time it takes for the police to find the report.

Now we only have the kids left. Obviously they're going to be down at the police station yammering for attention, saying they told Officer So and So all about this. Once the police have the kids' name, the report should be easy to find. So why don't the kids go down to the police? I don't have enough information to speculate why they wouldn't go to the police, but I'm sure you can think of something.

You can control how fast the police find their record.

But you have a major problem that you may not have noticed. Kids break into guy's office and go to police. Kids apparently confess to breaking into the office. WHY AREN'T THEY ARRESTED??? Why aren't the bad guys, who no one knows are bad, screaming bloody murder? How come the planner isn't returned to them?

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

We have a real example of this going on right now. That neighbor of the San Bernadino shooters, who knew about the shooters' plans, is being held without bail on the grounds that he's a danger to the community.

Anberlin said:

Is it plausible for suspected terrorists to be released on bail? Is there any scenario at all where that would happen? The amount of the bail isn't really a big deal because one of the men is quite wealthy.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is plausible. There are many scenarios in which they would be released, as others have pointed out.

Write it the way you want it to be and revise later if it seems too easy.

The answer to your question is a big no. They won't have bail. What I suggest is they break out of being held in a prison, that way it adds more excitement. If you can't put it in because it is already compleated then either a lot of revising or just have them not be convicted yet.

I really doubt that if there is enough evidence to connect them to a terrorist bombing to arrest them, they wouldn't get bail. The political blow-back to everyone concerned would be career-ending, particularly if they then jumped bail.

If you need to get them arrested, can you find something they did illegal, but not clearly related to the bombings? Maybe they were involved in a car accident, or shoplifted something that was used to make the bomb (but the authorities don't know that for sure).

terrorism? nope. not getting bail.

Also, in many places - including the Uk - you can hold a terrorism suspect without charge for quite a significant amount of time - I believe it's 28 days in the UK.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/counterterrorism/tp/Terrorist-Suspects-Detention-.htm

jclarkdawe said:

But you have a major problem that you may not have noticed. Kids break into guy's office and go to police. Kids apparently confess to breaking into the office. WHY AREN'T THEY ARRESTED???

Click to expand...

In some jurisdictions it is *very* difficult to do anything about criminal acts by children unless it's murder, aggravated assault, or drugs. A bit of breaking-and-entering is pretty small potatoes.

Dave Williams said:

In some jurisdictions it is *very* difficult to do anything about criminal acts by children unless it's murder, aggravated assault, or drugs. A bit of breaking-and-entering is pretty small potatoes.

Click to expand...

I'll agree that there's a significant probability the kids walk. But that's why I ended this with a question. "Why aren't they arrested?" You've got to deal with the kids, even if the answer is the police don't want to waste their time.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

Also, why aren't the kids suspects in the bombings?

If I've got this right, the kids go to the police saying 'There are going to be bombings at locations A, B and C.' The police say, 'What makes you think that?' The kids produce some code they've decoded, and the cops roll their eyes and say, 'Yeah, right.' And then there are bombings at locations A, B and C.

The cops' top suspects are going to be the people who knew exactly where the bombings would be. Even if the cop they talked to didn't bother filing a report, even if he's in a different country now, he's going to see the news and go 'Holy spit, those kids knew this was going to happen,' and get straight on the phone to a buddy in the relevant department.

Ha ha...I think Anberlin got it all figured out, right? So, what did you come up with?