Federal officials in Washington declined to say how the idea of working with Al Qaeda came to the defendants, or whether it might have been planted by the government's informant. The indictment makes clear that the informant told authorities of Batiste's alleged interest in joining Al Qaeda before going undercover for the government.
On Friday, Justice Department officials said the case was an example of the government's success at rooting out plots before they came to fruition.
"This case clearly demonstrates our commitment to preventing terrorism through energetic law enforcement efforts aimed at detecting and thwarting terrorist acts," Gonzales said at a news conference.
He also said, "These men were unable to advance their deadly plot beyond the initial planning phase."
But, he said, they had taken enough steps to justify criminal charges -- including seeking out uniforms and weapons, conducting reconnaissance of Miami targets, and swearing an oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda.
He said that under the anti-terrorism law, it did not matter that the "Al Qaeda representative" they were dealing with was an operative with the South Florida Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty said in a separate briefing, "We really don't have the option of waiting for the plotters and conspirators to take the next step."
The Miami case was the latest in which the Justice Department used undercover operatives.
Federal prosecutors recently won a jury verdict in a terrorism case in Lodi, Calif., based largely on the testimony of an FBI informant who encouraged one of the suspects to attend a terrorist training camp.
A government informant also is involved in a case in Toledo, Ohio, in which three men are accused of conspiring to aid the insurgency in Iraq. The informant reportedly went so far as to meet one defendant in Jordan when the suspect allegedly was seeking to enter Iraq to wage jihad.
Some legal observers said the Miami indictment appeared to be based on little evidence, raising questions about where the Justice Department was drawing the line between criminal activity and unsavory thoughts and words.
"It sounds to me like this is loose talk, and yet the government makes it sound like a detailed plan," said Stephen Hartman, a criminal defense lawyer in Ohio who is representing a defendant in the Toledo case. "It raises some real concerns: What does it take to get the FBI on your back on something like this?"
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond law school in Virginia, said he was perplexed by the government's reference to threats being "homegrown."
"I suppose that the government is saying: 'Better we err on the side of indicting these people.' But that raises other questions of racial profiling and free speech," Tobias said.
*
Williams reported from Miami and Schmitt from Washington.
