I’M NOT SURE WHAT TO MAKE OF THIS:

CHICAGO — The head of a Muslim charity accused of funneling money to Osama bin Laden’s terror network pleaded guilty Monday to illegally buying boots and uniforms for fighting forces in Bosnia and Chechnya.

As part of the plea bargain, prosecutors dropped charges that Enaam Arnaout aided bin Laden. But they insisted he committed the offense, and said they agreed to the plea bargain to secure a conviction and Arnaout’s cooperation while sparing the government the expense of a trial.

“We are prepared to prove that he did support al-Qaida when that issue is addressed at sentencing,” Attorney General John Ashcroft said in Washington.

Possibilities: (1) the Al Qaeda link was too weak to take to trial; (2) this was in exchange for cooperation; (3) proving the Al Qaeda link would have exposed sources; (4) something else not immediately apparent.

UPDATE: InstaPundit’s Chicago legal correspondent, Jacob Corre, emails:

There is a simple legal answer to the “why the cheap plea bargain?” question, which is a particular version of your first scenario, with a possible element of the third. The government lost a major motion on Friay. It had made a “Santiago proffer” claiming that Aranaout was a coconspirator with Al Qaeda, and a prima facie showing whould have made the al Fahdl testimony “Al Qaeda link” evidence admissible against Aranaout at trial under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. The district judge (I believe it was judge Susan Conlon) said the government had not yet made an adequate showing, though she gave them a chance to renew the motion at trial. Hence the plea bargain. It will be interesting to see whether the Al Qaeda stuff comes in through the back door at sentencing. (That is something that would concern me, on principled grounds. I don’t like using the sentencing phase to convict of uncharged offenses by means of enhancements to base offense levels.)

Yes, that makes sense.