From what I have heard so far there is some question about the strength of the federal case and the ability of the prosecution to prove the elements required to establish a terrorist act. The stronger case seems to be with the state court of Massachusetts. It is almost a foregone conclusion that a defense attorney will move to dismiss the federal claimfor lack of jurisdiction if for no other reason than to remove the death penalty as a remedy. I think he should be charged under both federal and state law under the federal court's pendent or ancillary jurisdiction or by both the state and federal courts under their concurrent jurisdiction.

I recall a case several years ago in which the defendant was convicted under RICO and associated claims in the federal court and then had to face trial in the state court of Massachusetts for state claims. He was convicted by both.

I am getting rather tired of religious fanatics targetting the USA, and then hiding out in some desolate area of the world requiring us to chase after them. Case in point Osama Bin Laden hid in Afghanistan and finally was found in Pakistan. Our alledged ally Pakistan claimed they did not know he was there. How could they not know? He was the most wanted man in the world. When we pressured them by threatening to cut off foreign aid.... they reponded by saying "If you think it is bad now wait until you stop paying us."