Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Case Vs. Man Who Knew Hijackers (BULL! Case thrown out on outrageous technicality)
AP via Yahoo! ^ | Tue Apr 30,12:29 PM ET | LARRY NEUMEISTER

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 911; awadallah; balkans; bosnia; immigrantlist; terrorists; terrorwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-169 next last
To: Spar
I fear all we can do now is hope he was just some miss guided doofus. If he wasn't, than our system requires that all we do is suffer and die at his hands. Next time, its 300,000.
81 posted on 05/01/2002 11:57:11 AM PDT by MrNeutron1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spar
I fear all we can do now is hope he was just some miss guided doofus. If he wasn't, than our system requires that all we do is suffer and die at his hands. Next time, its 300,000.
82 posted on 05/01/2002 11:57:19 AM PDT by MrNeutron1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spar
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.

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.

83 posted on 05/01/2002 12:03:58 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rule of Law
You can't be serious. What good is having a Constitution or Bill of Rights at all, if the government is free to violate them at will and without consequences?
84 posted on 05/01/2002 12:15:20 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Nah, I ain't worried about all those 'i's and 't's.....I'm more worried about your ass and Spar's and mine and a whole lot of others when the frigging socialists are in total control [or are you one of those who think we will have King George with us forever] and don't mind using torture and other little niceties like taking your wife or kids and holding a gun to their temple to extract a confession that 'you willingly gave' or that some asshole felt was needed for the greater good of society at large--i.e.,al allay someone's fears!

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!

85 posted on 05/01/2002 12:24:11 PM PDT by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: general_re
You can't be serious. What good is having a Constitution or Bill of Rights at all, if the government is free to violate them at will and without consequences?

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.

86 posted on 05/01/2002 12:30:52 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
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?

No difference at all?

The Bill of Rights applies to everyone who is legally in this country, regardless of citizenship or lack thereof.

-Eric

87 posted on 05/01/2002 12:30:59 PM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
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

88 posted on 05/01/2002 12:34:30 PM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Rule of Law
The courts have considered this argument, and rightly rejected it. By that logic, the police could torture a "confession" out of a perfectly innocent person, and have him spend the rest of his life in jail for a crime he did not commit - even if the antics of the police were to come to light later on. After all, releasing that person would be "punishing society" for the bad acts of the police, wouldn't it?

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.

89 posted on 05/01/2002 12:42:30 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
It's called "Living Document Conservatism." It's been around for years.
90 posted on 05/01/2002 12:43:50 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
The judge cited several factors showing that Awadallah's consent to go with FBI agents . . . was the "product of duress or coercion."

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.

91 posted on 05/01/2002 12:46:21 PM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
(Ignore that last fragment.)
92 posted on 05/01/2002 12:46:56 PM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
What we are experiencing is a new form of warfare where states do not attack with national emblams painted on their wings.

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?

93 posted on 05/01/2002 1:15:27 PM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
They should have just gotten a warrant, busted down the door and trashed the guy's apartment.

Precisely - sloppy at best . . .

94 posted on 05/01/2002 1:17:04 PM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Well done against the knee jerks.

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 . . .

95 posted on 05/01/2002 1:24:23 PM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
I cannot agree more.

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

96 posted on 05/01/2002 1:24:28 PM PDT by knews_hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Should read: We are NOT dealing with . . .
97 posted on 05/01/2002 1:25:11 PM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: general_re
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.

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.

98 posted on 05/01/2002 1:36:53 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Rule of Law
Facts facts facts.

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

99 posted on 05/01/2002 1:53:27 PM PDT by knews_hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: knews_hound
I mean hell, the important thing is, his "Rights" were secure.

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.

100 posted on 05/01/2002 2:03:59 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-169 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson