Updated and bumped up from this afternoon:

U.S. Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder granted bail to only one of the defendants in the Buffalo Six Terror case.

The Judge granted bail of $600,000 to Sahim Alwan, 29, who cooperated with the FBI and established to the Court's satisfaction that he tried to leave an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan after 10 days in the spring of 2001 by pretending to have injured his ankle.

The Judge imposed the strictest conditions on Alwan that we've ever heard of:

He is under house arrest except to go to work; he is subject to around the clock electronic surveillance and his whereabouts will be monitored by satellite using the Global Positioning Satellite System. He is not allowed to use a telephone, computer, pager or fax machine or access email. If his job requires him to use a computer, it can only have work related software on it and the Probation Department will install monitoring equipment on it so that it can track what he does on it.

He has to have two telephone lines in his house, one which he cannot use but will be wiretapped 24/7 by the Government. The other line will not be subject to recording, but have a pen register device attached to it and may only be used by Alwan to phone his lawyer and the Probation department.

Alwan's attorneys are prohibited from relaying any information from third parties to him, without prior approval of the Government attorneys.

Alwan will have to pay the cost of all the monitoring. He will not be eligible for release until he posts either $600,000 in cash or real property worth $600,000 after deducting any encumbrances, and until the Probation Department has installed all the monitoring equipment.

What happens if Alwan can't afford all this? We think the Judge must reconsider and modify the conditions to something he can afford. Having found that Alwan is entitled to be released on bail, 18 USC 3142© provides:

"(2) The judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.

(3) The judicial officer may at any time amend the order to impose additional or different conditions of release. "

As to the other five defendants, the Judge found ""If the defendants are or have become disciples of al Qaeda and believers in self-destruction as a legitimate means of causing harm to others, there are no conditions that could be imposed that would deter such act."

The Judge also rejected a defense argument that the 1996 law that prohibits providing material support to a terrorist organization was unconstitutional. The Judge disagreed with the Ninth Circuit which ruled the statute unconstitutionally vague and agreed with the Judge in the John Walker Lindh case who found the statute constitutionally valid:

"I accept the reasoning of the District Judge in Lindh and conclude that one can be found to have “provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization” by offering one’s services to said organization and allowing one’s self to be indoctrinated and trained as a “resource” in that organization’s beliefs and activities. Therefore, for purposes of deciding the government’s motion to
detain the defendants herein, I reject the contention of unconstitutionality of the statute put forth by the defendants."

The Oregon defendants may meet with greater success in challenging the law as they are within the 9th Circuit. The Buffalo defendants will have another opportunity to raise this issue in their case before the District Judge assigned to try the case.

Finally, the Judge rejected the defense claim that the statute prohibiting providing material resources to a terrorist organization was not a crime of violence. Again, the Judge quoted the finding by the Judge in the John Walker Lindh case:

"I conclude that 18 U.S.C. § 2339B constitutes a crime of violence. It takes little imagination to conclude that providing material support and resources to a terrorist organization creates a substantial risk that the violent aims of the terrorists will be realized. Violence, therefore, is intrinsic to the crimes with which [the defendants are] charged. United States v. Lindh, 212 F. Supp.2d 541, 580 (E.D.Va. 2002)."

You can read the full text of the Judge's decision here. For a recap of the factual events, CNN has this article.

Our prior posts outlining what the Judge was required to consider in making his decision are here and here. Our recaps of the evidence against the men are here and here.