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.
Is there anyone who really believes that this is what the Constitutiuon requires? Would anyone be insane enough to ratify a document that required the government to turn a terrorist loose just because someone didn't get the paperwork right?
Certainly the founders never thought so.
Or because you didn't have anything to hide, the fruits of your labor/life are taken away and you get the privilege of working in an Amerikan gulag!
The founders understood that the wrongdoer should suffer the consequences -- not society. Police officers who made a false arrest or who wrongfully searched a house without a warrant were liable. They were often sued and had to pay damages. This was an effective deterrent to the violation of citizen's rights.
Letting the criminal go does not punish the wrongdoer. It punishes society. The cop that did it just goes and gets another doughnut.
Don't you see any difference between American citizens and foreign arab muslim "students" who venerate Osama after 9-11, and who knew several of the 9-11 terrorists very well?The Bill of Rights applies to everyone who is legally in this country, regardless of citizenship or lack thereof.No difference at all?
-Eric
Freeing this terrorist sympathizing punk on constitutional grounds is a win for individual freedom, & for a free republic, ---- and a loss for authoritarians.Standing by our principles under adversity strengthens them immeasurably. Dumping them when it's convenient strips them of any meaning.
I believe Franklin had a germane comment as well.
-Eric
In the absence of a free and fair judicial process at all levels, you don't know that any particular person is a criminal, and hence cannot treat them as such. You cannot legitimately separate society from its agents in such a case.
Uh-huh. Sure. Right.
Moreover, she said, one agent threatened to "tear up" the apartment if he did get a warrant.
Psst. Guess what would have happened if they 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,
What is he, a moron? If there is a form to sign asking you to consent to such a search, it is a tautology that you have the right to refuse one.
Sorry, I see no sloppy police work here. All I see is some police trying to play nice with the guy. They should have just gotten a warrant, busted down the door and trashed the guy's apartment. According to the judge, that would have been OK. the judge said.
This was my point. We are dealing with a SINGLE entity that is demostratably responsible for attacking us, like Japan in WWII, but rather a diffuse network of terrorists. Because of this we must pove and show that those we go after are in fact guilty. It's NOT kill 'em all and let God sort them out - as a nation we should take a much more principled a moral apporach than that. But what are moral and principles to a statist such as yourself?
It is warfare none the less.
Never said it wasn't
But don't worry, we will defend the weaklings and cowards and pacifists and stupid along with the rest of Americans.
HA! Must be nice to know you'll be protected then, huh?
Precisely - sloppy at best . . .
Thank you. :-) I'm glad to see the rest of you guys showed up. I thought I was going to have to tackle the statists by myself.
Straw man is always employed by those will terrible arguments. Once you have reverted to straw men and name calling you've lost. It's amazing that the "small minds" cannot see this.
Alas, the thinkers and the principled will always be ostracized . . .
I read these comments from the "real Patriots" and can only assume that they have no actual experiance in dealing with Police.
Trust me, in the REAL world, this is a fairly common practice. Real life is not an episode of Ally McBeal. This is how law enforcement works on the streets.
Of course, Irory Tower Judges and people who surf the Internet hours a day have very high opinions of what they think the constitution says and how it is to be interpreted, and in the Judges case, the authority to free a man who in all likelyhood, has material knowledge of both past and future terrorist attacks.
But of course, it gives you that nice warm feeling knowing that you are "defending the rights of all citizens".
I have seen this country bend over backwards to respect "rights" to prevent "violations" of those rights.
And here we have the result, the cops threat to "mess up" his house. The suspects rights are therefore abused and is set free.
Like Yakov Smirnoff used to say, "What a country!".
Now he can look to hire a "Dream Team" of lawyers and look for a huge cash settlement, after all, the Judge has already said his "Rights" were violated, game, set, match.
And the really funny part is, my taxes will go up to pay him !
What a country indeed...
Cheers,
knews hound
The system wasn't perfect. But that's why we have juries. Presumably they would reject confessions made under duress.
But I disagree with you on whether we can separate society from its agents. You have outlines a scenario in which police officers commit a crime against an innocent person. Surely it is in the interest of society to punish the police officers. Just as it is to ensure the innocent person goes free.
But let us take a case more clearly analogous to the case sub judice. A police officer makes errors in the process of getting a warrant. No, let's make it even more egregious. Without procuring a warrant, a police officer searches a house and finds a dismembered body in a trunk. An investigation ensues and all evidence points to the house's resident as the murderer.
Do we throw out the evidence and let the murderer walk? (Assume that all evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree".)
If we do, who suffers the consequences? The cop? No. Society? Yes. The murderer's next victim? Certainly.
Please dont make them have to take hard moral choices like that.
It messes up the grass on the base of their Ivory Tower.
Might throw off their whole world view, I mean, if it wasnt for that pesky body it would be an open and shut case. Let the poor soul whos rights were being viciously trampled on by the jackbooted thug police go, he was only minding his own buisness and catching up on some carving.
I mean hell, the important thing is, his "Rights" were secure.
Isnt that the Ally McBeal way after all?
Cheers,
knews hound
Sure. That's the name of the game. And who knows, maybe the next time the cops will get it right. A bit rough on the next poor bugger he kills, but what of that? As long as we follow the "rules".
In fairness, the gentleman hasn't answered, so he might very well agree that the murderer should be punished. We cannot assume that he will advocate allowing the murderer to go free.
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.