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.
His testomony is irrelevant because it was given under an illegal detention. Thats what the judge said.
JUDGE RIPS MATERIAL WITNESS JAILINGS "cannot be used to imprison potential grand jury witnesses"
As you say, their straw man debate tactics only highlight their lack of basic constitutional principles.
-- Freeing this terrorist sympathizing punk on constitutional grounds is a win for individual freedom, & for a free republic, ---- and a loss for authoritarians.
That loss is the jerks real problem.
I'm no lawyer, but prisoner of war status is for uniformed soldiers of organized military, not enemy agents in plain clothes working under cover. This guy was a saboteur and spy, or aided those who where. He doesn't deserve prisoner of war status. He deserves summary trial and execution, or a long prison sentence, just like the Nazi spies in WWII.
IMHO you've found the fault in her ruling.
Even if one believed aliens had full Constitutional rights (which I don't btw- but that is beside the point), it would still be reasonable to assume, prima facie, that there is a high risk of flight by an alien.
Gee, how'd you guess?
Did a search -- the Honorable Judge Scheindlin was appointed by Bubba himself
Yes, because the "Material Witness" rule does not apply to grand jury investigations. Its spelled out in black in white. Its not even a "technicality".
I got into this discussion yesterday on another thread. I will say the same thing: If they wanted to detain these people as "terrorists" under sedition laws, and they had proof, then I would have no problem. But don't manipulate the law to one's liking to detain whoever for an indefinite period.
As I recall, the other article, posted yesterday, indicated the Judge in this case looked to the legislative intent when Congress made this law; as I recall, it said the law was narrowly written and defined; and the Judge said that it was not intended that people be held for grand jury purposes or whatever the devil her exact words were.
Sorry, if that doesn't comport to your idea of justice.....
Further, she also wrote up or said something about there being four (4) friskings of this person.......seeing as how your masculinie traits appear to be called into question, at least in your own mind, you'd probably consider the four friskings as 'pleasant or stimulating' rather than 'intimidating'.
Gee, the article called him "a Jordanian"... by now I should know better than to believe what I read.
:-)
If he's a citizen, then of course the government should have had to convince a judge of their case for holding him.
Ex Parte Quirin - I think I'm pretty much okay in my reading of it ;)
I suspect he may have been a citizen. If not, they probably wouldn't have had to resort to the "material witness" ploy to hold him, I'm sure they could have found some immigration reason.
The police work seems sloppy, both the misuse of the material witness law and the coersion into a search (why not get a warrant?). That said, I don't see where the perjury flowed from those actions.
LOL!!
Are you another one of those a-wipes who would worry about every "cross-the-T-and-dot-the-I" provision of the liberal, make-believe version of the Constitution - - such as "Miranda rights" - - before you would take any action in the face of imminent terrorist threats? Again, I am glad that people like you are playing with themselves in their libertarian sandboxes, and not involved in national security.
Look real hard and I bet you can find the "right to privacy" in there somewhere, too, LOFL.
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.