Posted on 04/30/2002 9:54:01 PM PDT by Spar
No Case Vs. Man Who Knew Hijackers
Tue Apr 30,12:29 PM ET
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge threw out a perjury indictment Tuesday against a Jordanian college student who knew two alleged Sept. 11 hijackers, citing errors made when investigators applied for an arrest warrant.
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin dismissed the indictment after concluding that Osama Awadallah, 21, was unlawfully arrested after he was taken from his San Diego home several days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"Awadallah was effectively seized," she wrote.
Scheindlin said that federal statute does not authorize the detention of material witnesses for a grand jury investigation. It was not immediately clear what effect such a ruling could have on dozens of material witnesses held since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).
"We believe the court's opinions are wrong on the fact and the law and we are reviewing our appellate options," U.S. Attorney James B. Comey said in a statement.
A message left with a lawyer for Awadallah was not immediately returned.
The judge also threw out evidence seized after Awadallah, a student at Grossmont College in El Cajon, Calif., was taken into custody on Sept. 21. The evidence included videotapes and a picture of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).
The judge cited several factors showing that Awadallah's consent to go with FBI (news - web sites) agents to their office and later submit to a lie detector test was the "product of duress or coercion."
She said the agents repeatedly made a show of force by telling him he could not drive his own car, frisking him, refusing to let him inside his apartment and ordering him to keep a door open as he urinated. Moreover, she said, one agent threatened to "tear up" the apartment if he did get a warrant.
Agents also failed to tell Awadallah he had a constitutional right to refuse any searches when they asked him to sign a form consenting to a search, the judge said.
Awadallah was charged with perjury for allegedly lying about his knowledge of one of the men blamed for the suicide attack on the Pentagon.
In grand jury appearances, Awadallah admitted meeting alleged hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi 30 to 40 times but denied knowing associate Khalid al-Mihdhar. Confronted with an exam booklet in which he had written the name Khalid, he later admitted he knew both of them.
If convicted, Awadallah could have faced up to 10 years in prison.
Many states do both, of course. Exclude evidence and make officers personally liable for their misconduct. Best of both worlds, eh? ;)
Don't get me wrong. I'm probably more libertarian than many of them. But I don't believe in lying.
Then you shouldn't infer that they do indeed lie, as you just did.
In fact I have seen you lie in the making false accusations of 'deliberate misrepresentations'. You then refused to prove your point, or to further discuss the matter, although you have been repeating these charges in a cowardly way on other threads.
In the aftermath of the terrorist murders, it became necessary, in my opinion, to be unorthodox. It was indeed a time which called for "rounding up all the usual suspects". Sweep up everybody with any connection to the mass murderers? You betcha. Do whatever it takes to get information from them? Yep indeedy. We had no idea (and still have no idea) what other horrendous acts of terrorist mass murder may have been in the works for September 12th or September 20th or October 3rd. Or tomorrow.
This guy Awadallah perjured himself before a Grand Jury. He lied through his teeth. He smells real, real bad. I don't want him released because one of Scumbag's judicial appointees says there were technical violations of a Constitution which she has utter disdain for. It was a crazy few weeks there, and a little "sloppy" police work was going to happen.
You've put into words a point I've been trying to make for a long time here. Indeed when they don't agree with a particular concept or doctrine, they lie about it or make something up. Its terribly difficult to respect or have an adult discussion with them given their proclivity to do this. Keep up the great discussion.
I see the Drudge Report has a story about Rats that are implanted with electrodes and taught to do simple tasks. Perhaps there's still hope for you too.
As it is late, I won't answer you tonight, except to point out that Wolf did not apply the exclusionary rule to the states. It said that the 4th Amendment applied to the states through the 14th, but did not apply the exclusionary rule. That's why I left it out. We'll call it "Judicial Economy".
Until tomorrow.
Hey Paine, they're talking about you on the Po-ka Khattab thread. :)
That is all too common. There are some people who lie with such regularity that I completely ignore them. That is the only way to treat these people.
Since then, your farce has evolved into, - 'how cowardly can you get'?
Face the fact. - You called me a liar, and can't back it up.
Running about the forum repeating this baseless charge makes you look even more weird.
You may 'share my concern and appreciation for the original intent and for the Constitution, but you immediately flush it down the toilet when you start using the 'I'm scared of what someone might do fear factor' to justify crapping on it! What is so difficult about understanding that if an exception can be made to bend the Constitution for your purposes, no matter how noble, that the somensabeaches on the other side of the aisle can't come up with an exception to bend it to their purposes, no matter how noble, evil, or whatever!!
You wrote: "Scumbag liberals like her only use the Constititution when it fits their agenda"...HELLO! YOU ARE USING THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT FITS YOUR AGENDA. I presume you believe that if an "R" does it, it is OK, but if an "D" or an "L" or a "G" or a "U" does it it is not OK. Can you not see that you, yourself, are trying to make it flexible and an ever-changing roadmap? Ah, but of course, you use enabling words like "unorthodox" or "it became necessary" or "indeed a time which called for rounding up all the usual suspects" "Everybody with any connection"....'do whatever it takes'....ah yes, the old the ends justify the means....no doubt Hitler and his cronies felt that way, too! Stalin and Pol Pot must have also. Hell, even old King George and his men back in the pre-revolutionary war days.
"Do whatever it takes to get information from them? Yep indeedy".....the commies will love you for that--just put the barrel of a gun in your baby son's mouth and threaten to pull the trigger--bet they could get all sorts of information from you or your wife....you betcha--whatever it takes--truthful or otherwise! Start breaking your fingers one at a time until you decide to tell them what they want to know.
Of course we have no idea what tomorrow will bring.....only God knows that with any certainty, fool. Because you don't know what tomorrow brings, you had better be for getting rid of cars....oh, don't eat--you might choke on your food...don't use a cell phone--rumors may be right about causing brain tumors...don't go swimming--you might drown....better not get married--you might get divorced! Sheesh.
So what a guy perjured himself before a Grand Jury.....look at the Senate of the United States....both sides of the aisle....recall we had an impeachment of a Perverted President....and every single man and woman Senator in the GOP voted to a man to have a kangaroo court like the damned Democrats demanded! They let the son of a bitch -- who couldn't do any harm with only 2 years left -- stay in office to damn near bring this country to its knees....and you worry about a friggin college kid thats scared shitless by JBTs!
And about that sloppy police work.....it happens all the damn time....remember WACO....faulty warrant....full of innuendos about drug labs and such--lets call in the military....end result--lots of dead innocent children. Don Scott in California---shot dead as a doornail--phony warrant--drugs. And we can't forget the bad guys back in where was it--Boston, New Jersey, wherever.....served something like 30 years in prison because of the FBI--oh sure, they knew he was innocent--but what the hell--he was a bad guy and should be serving time for something!
I'll tell you what, though - - if you lost a wife or kids on one of those planes or in one of those buildings, you would not be so stinking righteous.
Regards,
LH
Think about it Lancey.....recall the story of the Catholic priest, who in WWII Germany didn't respond to the calls of the union workers when the Gestapo came for them because he wasn't a union worker, nor did he respond to the cries of the Jews when the Gestapo took them away because he wasn't a Jew, he didn't respond to the cries of anyone when the Gestapo came for them, and when the Gestapo came for the Catholics, there was no one left to stand up for him.
Apply that to what you and I are discussing here.....if I don't stand for your constitutional rights, whose gonna be around for me to cry out to when they come and take mine away?
You are correct, although I would have included it in a discussion of the Fourth Amendment. A stylistic difference, perhaps ;)
LMAO - My "tripe," huh? :-) Do you even know what a Straw Man fallacy is smart guy?
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3.Person B attacks position Y.
4.Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.
You cannot be debating about apples, and then bring up an argument about oranges, and claim victory in the debate about the apples. I wouldn't have had to bring up Straw Man so often if those trying to "debate" (for lack of a better term) were not always trying to use fallacious arguments for their statist stance on Constitutional principles. Can I help it if this silly and WRONG argument was brought up numerous times. Small, scared minds think this way - you must be one of them. The only "tripe" that is "annoying" here is your insistance that is not ok for me to point out my opponents terrible arguments. Guess it makes you guys feel kind of stupid and irrelevant when your arguments are shown not to be logically fallacious, huh?
LOL - Ironically you were the exact statist jackboot I had in mind when I read that story earlier. Sounds like your kind of world . . .
We're going to have to agree to disagree here then. If cops would have covered all their bases, like going out of their way to get a warrant and such we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we?
One cannot promote and defend the Constitution when one is dead. The ability to defend oneself is justifiable by Constitutional standards and it doesn't imply those who defend the Constitution must be hindered in order to defend it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.