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.
And you tell me who's more principled the United States or some terrorist thugs? When we compromise princple and freedom, the very same principles and freedom that the terrorists hate, when we start stooping to their level, that's "their" victory not ours. It's about princple. It's about rules set up to provide for the defense of the accused to prevent innocent people from going to jail. If that means 1000 terrorists go free, so that one not one single innocent man goes to jail, so be it! That's the way the Founding Fathers set up the system, not to be compromised by shorted sighted people such as yourself.
We should have at least learned that government failed to perform and granting the same government unlimited powers to throw people in jail won't protect us either.
Not such a reach IMHO. There are several scenarios where this might play out to our advantage. At the least, this guy won't be wondering around without some folks paying attention to his activities.
I guess you are going to tell me we should have ignored Pearl Harbor because reacting would have been "stooping" to the level of the Japanese.
I play to win. By any means necessary. If some Arab terrorist loses some rights, I hate it for him. If he doesn't like it, he can go back home.
Don't be dense Appy. That argument is a strawman, not applying to the issue at hand. Fighting the Japanese was an action of self-defense against an agressor similar to our action in Afghanstian
I play to win. By any means necessary. If some Arab terrorist loses some rights, I hate it for him. If he doesn't like it, he can go back home.
I see, and someone who stands up for PROVEN Constitutuional principles is somehow NOT playing to win. This is the USA, Home of the Brave and Free, we respect certain inalienable rights such as those of life and self-defense. Our system is set up, for good reason, with the burden of proof to rest on the accuser. When good investigative work is done, and the rules are followed, we put away the bad guys almost every time. Innoscense does not have to be proven. It is assumed, until proven otherwise. That's the proven system we have. Those are our principles and our rules. To violate them is to go against everything that is "American" in the first place. You want a court that does as it pleases, when it pleases, with the accused move to China or Cuba. If you want to support such measures, if you are not mature enough to understand the underlying principles, fine, but please refrain from ever calling yourself a patriot or lover of this great land again.
Two words: Straw Man - This seems to be your preferred debate style
Again don't be dense. You don't defend an immediate physical initiation of force with a document. You defend immediate physical force with immediate physical force.
Should I point out that we were talking about the principles of the judicial system? Follow the rules, prove the guilt of the accuse and you have no problems do you. Cutting corners is for lazy weak minded people.
I'd prefer to keep my principles, CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, than succumb to the fear and paranoia of the weak minded
BLOAT, Cache, and Take Names!
Have you signed up to be your local neighborhood snitch watch person yet? Will you tell us when we should start spelling America with a K instead of a C?
You sound like a hysterical soccer mom.....
How exactly would we have done that, without making war on Japan?
Grow up.
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.