Judge Commands Release of 3 from the ‘Newburgh Four’ and Criticizes FBI’s Participation in Post-9/11 Terrorism Scheme

A U.S. District judge has mandated the release of three men who were convicted in a post-9/11 terrorism ploy. The men, characterized as “disadvantaged, easily swayed, and poverty-stricken small-time criminals,” were imprisoned as a result of a scheme largely driven by overzealous FBI agents and an unreliable informant, over a decade ago. Judge Colleen McMahon condemned the FBI’s role in the case and described the men’s sentences as “excessively severe and unfair.”

The judge criticized the United States government as the main conspirator and approved the men’s plea for compassionate release to take effect in three months. The three men, Onta Williams, David Williams, and Laguerre Payen, were part of the group referred to as the “Newburgh Four.” Judge McMahon censured the government for deploying an untrustworthy informant to exploit the most impoverished and vulnerable individuals as potential terrorists in exchange for urgently needed cash.

She condemned the men’s agreement to take part in what she referred to as a staged plot constructed by the government, even though she clarified that the plans to carry out these acts were purely fictional and not something the men had considered before. Despite this, the judge did not withhold her criticism of the FBI.

The judge also took into account the men’s health and her reservations about the case when she reduced their mandatory minimum sentences from 25 years to time already served plus 90 additional days. This additional time is meant to allow probation officers to make necessary preparations and for Payen’s lawyer to arrange for supportive housing, given his severe mental health issues.

The U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment on Judge McMahon’s decision. The FBI has yet to respond to a request for a comment.

Legal representatives for the three men expressed relief at the judge’s decision. Amith R. Gupta, a member of the team representing the men, stated that they were impoverished individuals entrapped due to their race, religion, and socio-economic background by a government intent on inciting fear and justifying inflated budgets.

The fourth member of the Newburgh Four, James Cromitie, did not participate in the request for compassionate release and is expected to complete his sentence by 2030. His attorney intends to discuss the possibility of seeking a similar release.

In 2009, the four men were apprehended during a time when concerns were high about potential terror attacks orchestrated domestically by supporters of foreign extremist groups. Initially, Cromitie was portrayed as the mastermind behind a horrifying plot involving “extremely violent men” aligned with a Pakistani terror group. However, no evidence about foreign terror organizations was presented at the trial.

Their attorneys challenged this narrative and questioned whether the defendants were entrapped into a scheme that they would not have otherwise been involved in. Despite these questions, the men were convicted in 2010 and lost an appeal in 2013.

The case was complicated further by the involvement of federal informant Shaheed Hussain, who had previously worked with the FBI on other cases, and was known to have his own checkered past, including a conviction for fraud.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Newburgh Four Release

More about Newburgh Four Release

• Original case of the ‘Newburgh Four’
• Explanation of compassionate release
• Definition of entrapment
• FBI’s role in post-9/11 terrorism stings