Verdict Raises Questions (why some prosecuted, some not article)

[uppityperson]

I would like to believe that they are treated differently to get intellegence, but think there are other, larger, differences in why they are treated differently. Publicity. BOO! vs reality. But here is the article:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002970792_moussside04.html

Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person prosecuted in connection with the worst terrorist attack in American history, did not receive the death penalty because some jurors concluded he had little to do with Sept. 11, 2001. Yet two key planners of the al-Qaida plot — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh — have not been charged, though they have been in U.S. custody for more than three years.

A central contradiction in the Bush administration's fight against terrorism is that bit players often have been put on trial, while those thought to have orchestrated the plots have been held in secret for questioning. The difference in treatment, government officials say, stems from the fact that gathering intelligence from suspected terrorists is more important than punishing them publicly.

That's why Muslim men from Portland, Lackawanna, N.Y., and Lodi, Calif., have been prosecuted and imprisoned for having attended training camps in Afghanistan. Facing charges such as conspiracy and providing "material support" to terrorists, they had little of substance to reveal to U.S. authorities.

Similarly, the Bush administration sought life in prison for John Walker Lindh, the California-born Muslim convert who went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban regime before the U.S. invasion. He pleaded guilty in exchange for a 20-year sentence. But it was a different matter when the FBI arrested Jose Padilla in Chicago in 2002. The Brooklyn native, a convert to Islam, was suspected of leading a plot to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" inside the United States...(more@link)