[Ifroham4]

Speaking of smears, that's a smear by Andak.

An unindicted co-conspirator is someone who the government knows is related to or involved in some way with what the government believes to be a crime (and has charged someone with something regarding). However, there is not enough evidence, at this time, to indict them for their personal participation.

A good example would be in a money laundering case, where there was a business owner who had a portion of the business that was used by an employee to launder money, but, there is no evidence that the owner was directly involved. He was involved in the operation of the business, of the unit, but not necessarily with the laundering part. Could have been, but right now we don't know. His name will be mentioned as part of the conspiracy, but he won't be personally charged, unless and until evidence comes up that would be enough to possibly get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

[doctorzlo]

Andak,

Sometimes you need to lay legal groundwork for both investigating, calling into court, and possibly adding as a defendant a person who you can show had some degree of probability of involvement, but not enough at x point in time to go to a grand jury with.

Again, when you have cases that deal with organizations - ie. money laundering cases, this is not unusual.

[Ifroham4]

http://www.fclr.org/articles/2004fed...RS%20GENERALLY

The term "unindicted co-conspirator" refers to any person who allegedly "agreed with others to violate the law but who is not being charged with an offense and who, consequently, will not be tried or sentenced for his criminal conduct."(24) The law permits admission of unindicted co-conspirators' statements and acts performed during and in furtherance of the conspiracy as evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the indicted conspirators.(25) Prosecutors often have enough evidence to indict these individuals, but instead name them as unindicted co-conspirators for a variety of strategic reasons.(26) Apparently another reason is to get around certain hearsay violations while avoiding the fact that the failure of a defendant (as opposed to unindicted person) to testify can't be held against the defendant.

Anyway, if you read the article, you'll see that the practice has a long history that has nothing to do with Muslims... it's a pretty common practice... no need for paranoia.