The Times Square Fizzler, Faisal Shahzad, is scheduled to be arraigned today on an indictment charging ten counts of weapons and terrorism.  Ten counts? Ten?  Wow, he must be a really evil terrorist.

When Faisal Shahzad first appeared before Magistrate Judge Yanthis, following his nice, extended, mirandized chat with the government, there were only 5 charges.  Now there’s 10.  When I turned on the news this morning, it was the lead story.  Shahzad to be arraigned on 10 counts!  Oh my God, this changes everything.

When the question arose about what, if anything, Shahzad had in mind when he agreed to forsake his constitutional rights and tell government agents everything they wanted to know, a curious choice given that he was so radicalized moments before that he was prepared to blow up a car bomb in Times Square and yet now wanted to cooperate fully with the Devil Empire,  Obviously, the plea deal has yet to be cut, and now that federal defender Julia Gatto has the case, it may not be as easy for the government to deal with Shahzad as it was when he was left to his own devices.

But where’s the love?  Okay, maybe love is the wrong word to use, but appreciation?  Did the government not state that Faisal Shahzad was giving up everything and everyone in sight?  Was he not fully cooperative?  Did he not turn out to be a talkative fellow? 

The number of counts in an indictment is primarily a Public Relations thing, designed to suggest to the unknowing public that a criminal defendant is a really bad person.  Like the Six Flags commercial (more flags, more fun), more charges, more evil.  The media eats this stuff up, and spits it out as if it’s the most critical piece of news around.  In this case, upping the charges from five to ten (“Well, Mary, the Government had doubled the number of charges against Shahzad.” “That’s right, Bill, Shahzad must be double the terrorist we thought he was [insert serious face]; and now [insert smile], a word from our sponsors…”) is of no legal consequence.

So what’s the point?  There has to be a message in the decision to indict Shahzad on ten counts rather than five.  The problem with trying to decipher the message is that it all comes after Shahzad spent all that time talking his head off to the agents. Is the message directed toward the general public, that the government is very serious about prosecuting terrorists and will do so “to the fullest extent of the law,” a phrase that has long embodied the worst imaginary fear that can be shoved down non-lawyer’s throats.

Perhaps the point of the doubling of the counts is to suggest that terrorism is, and will remain. a very serious threat to our way of life, reminding us that we should be very afraid and ever-ready to give up any right that stands in the way of safeguarding us from this threat.  After all, the whole Shahzad fizzle didn’t really strike much fear in the hearts of New Yorkers.  I mean, seriously, this guy couldn’t get a car to explode?  That happens every day on the BQE without even trying.  It’s going to take a lot more than a fizzler to shake up New York. 

There’s another group out there for whom a message might be intended.  What of the would-be radicalized home-grown terrorists?  Are you trying to scare him with this five to ten count deal?  But what of the incentive to come on in, chat about it, let’s make friends experience that follows the hourly waiver of Miranda?  Isn’t there a message to be sent that if one cooperates with the government, there’s something in it for you?

It seemed that the government had taken a giant leap down slippery slope when it held Shahzad incognito for so long, but happily informed us of his cooperation.  There’s nothing better than a cooperative terrorist.  There’s nothing that makes less sense, but whatever.  The use of many of the ploys that affect the public’s perception of the process, not to mention the perception of future cooperators, seem to become badly confused in these cases where the standard incentive process, the promise of some amorphous benefit to the criminal if only they turn a new leaf and become the government’s newest, bestest friend.  The government simply cannot become newest, bestest friends with terrorists, even if he turns out to be a fizzler.

So Faisal Shahzad is charged with ten counts.  Not five, but ten.  Ohhh, scary.

Update:  At 4:30 in the afternoon, Shahzad pleaded guilty to all ten counts before Judge Mirriam Cedarbaum.

“How do you plead to that charge?” the judge asked.

“I do plead guilty to that charge,” Mr. Shahzad said.

The judge then said to Mr. Shahzad, “I gather you want to plead guilty to all of them.”

“Yes,” Mr. Shahzad said.

Shahzad added:

“I want to plead guilty 100 times over,” said Mr. Shahzad, who faces life in prison.

And the point of those ten counts are?  We shall see, no doubt.