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

Skip to comments.

Judge Tosses Out Perjury Indictment Against College Student Who Knew 2 Alleged 9/11 Hijackers
New York Daily News ^ | 4/30/02 | LARRY NEUMEISTER

Posted on 04/30/2002 12:39:14 PM PDT by areafiftyone

The government’s jailing of terrorism witnesses for a grand jury probe of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is unconstitutional, a federal judge concluded Tuesday in dismissing a perjury case against a Jordanian college student.

In a ruling that, if upheld, would have far reaching implications on the government’s approach to investigating terrorism, Judge Shira Scheindlin attacked the reasoning of Attorney General John Ashcroft.

She criticized Ashcroft’s reported statement that “aggressive detention of lawbreakers and material witnesses is vital to preventing, disrupting or delaying new attacks.”

Scheindlin wrote that “Relying on the material witness statute to detain people who are presumed innocent under our Constitution in order to prevent potential crimes is an illegitimate use of the statute.”

The judge made the finding as she threw out perjury charges against Osama Awadallah, 21, a Grossmont College student in El Cajon, Calif. who was accused of lying about his associations with two Sept. 11 hijackers.

The decision drew a swift response from U.S. Attorney James B. Comey, who said, “We believe the court’s opinions are wrong on the fact and the law and we are reviewing our appellate options.”

Scheindlin explained her findings in a lengthy ruling that began by telling how the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights because the Constitution “failed to provide them protection from the government.”

The judge said its authors believed people “should forever ‘be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects’ from intrusion and seizure by officers acting under the unbridled authority of a general warrant.”

Congress in 1984 carefully carved out an exception with a material witness statute that lets a witness be detained until his testimony can be secured by deposition in the pretrial phase of a court case, she said.

She said the exception “could not be clearer” in being limited only to material witnesses in the pretrial phase of a criminal proceeding rather than during a grand jury probe.

“Detaining Awadallah solely for the purposes of a grand jury investigation was therefore unlawful,” Scheindlin wrote. “Such an interpretation poses the threat of making detention the norm and liberty the exception.”

She said trying to apply the exception to a grand jury proceeding was like trying “to fit a square peg into a round hole.”

Scheindlin said the broad reading of the material witness statute had already “led to serious abuses.”

She cited the case of Abdallah Higazy, an Egyptian-born student arrested Dec. 17 as a material witness after a handheld pilot radio was found in his Sept. 11 hotel room overlooking the trade center. The charges were dropped when it was later found that the radio belonged to someone else and a hotel security guard had lied.

Scheindlin said a magistrate judge in San Diego not only ignored pertinent portions of the statute but added language to keep Awadallah imprisoned after FBI agents confronted him outside his San Diego home on Sept. 20 and detained him a day later as a high security prisoner.

“Awadallah was effectively seized,” she wrote. “Having committed no crime — indeed, without any claim that there was probable cause to believe he had violated any law — Awadallah bore the full weight of a prison system designed to punish convicted criminals as well as incapacitate individuals arrested or indicted for criminal conduct.”

The judge also threw out evidence in the Awadallah case including videotapes and a picture of Osama bin Laden.

“Wonderful,” said Jesse Berman, a lawyer for Awadallah. “He did everything he could to be cooperative and they treated him terribly. I’m just happy that he’s been vindicated.”

The judge cited several factors showing that Awadallah’s consent to go with FBI 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, refused to let him inside his apartment, ordered him to keep a door open as he urinated and engaged in a “flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment” by repeatedly frisking him.

Moreover, she said, one agent even threatened to “tear up” the apartment during a search.

Scheindlin’s ruling followed a February hearing in which federal agents and Awadallah testified about the circumstances of his arrest.

Awadallah was charged with perjury for allegedly lying about his knowledge of one of the alleged hijackers 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: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: awadallah; billofrights; jihadinamerica; taqiyyalist; terrorwar; traitorlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

1 posted on 04/30/2002 12:39:14 PM PDT by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Interesting. I had a feeling the courts may not look to kindly upon the actions of Asscroft.

And no one get me wrong here. Any person who is not an American citizen who is even suspected of having terrorist ties should be deported immediately.

2 posted on 04/30/2002 12:47:36 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
federal judge Shira Scheindlin

That is " Clinton appointed federal judge Shira Scheindlin" to you ...

3 posted on 04/30/2002 12:51:58 PM PDT by a_witness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I take it by your spelling of Ashcroft, you don't like him?
4 posted on 04/30/2002 12:53:01 PM PDT by SolitaryMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Well what did we expect, after all x42 got away with this. Why shouldn't terrorists?

Yes this country is now seeing the seeds sown by X42. After all you can't expect a man to tell the truth about.....when he has to protect the ........ of others.

5 posted on 04/30/2002 12:54:19 PM PDT by w1andsodidwe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolitaryMan
I take it by your spelling of Ashcroft, you don't like him?

Did I spell something wrong? ;)

6 posted on 04/30/2002 12:54:31 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
So if I understand correctly, he did in fact lie about his connection to al-Midhar. Wonder how come?
7 posted on 04/30/2002 12:56:03 PM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon
So if I understand correctly, he did in fact lie about his connection to al-Midhar. Wonder how come?

I don't give a damn if he lied about his connection. If they suspected it(but had no proof which they obviously did not), then they should have deported him, which would have been legal. Abusing the Material Witness statute was not the answer.

8 posted on 04/30/2002 12:59:27 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
I agree with the fact that we shouldn't be allowed to hold people during an investigation.. can you imagine being a material witness in the OJ murder and having to sit in jail for 6 months for that trial to begin? That's a gross violation of the constituion.. but regardless even if he was overheld I don't understand the dismissal of the perjury. He clearly lied about all knowledge which impeded an investigation. I'm not buying this whole he was brutalized and so therefore he should be let go crap.
9 posted on 04/30/2002 12:59:36 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon
So if I understand correctly, he did in fact lie about his connection to al-Midhar. Wonder how come?

Probably for the same reason Peter denied he knew Christ.
10 posted on 04/30/2002 12:59:57 PM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I'm not questioning some convoluted point of law. And besides, why deport someone you consider to be a material witness?

I'm asking how come this guy lied.

11 posted on 04/30/2002 1:04:05 PM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon
He had direct contact with one of the hijackers 30-40 times, he had videotapes and pictures of his hero, OBL. It's mindboggling that we Americans are losing some of our rights to protect ourselves from these sleepers yet this liberal clinton-appointed judge decides that this guy should have his constitutional rights!
12 posted on 04/30/2002 1:07:31 PM PDT by freeperfromnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon
I'm not questioning some convoluted point of law. And besides, why deport someone you consider to be a material witness?

The judge that threw out the indictment explains why he could not legally be detained under the "material witness" law. Please note that the law is called the "material witness" law and one does not just become a "material witness" because the government detains you (illegally) under this law.

I'm asking how come this guy lied.

I suspect we all know why he lied. Deport the anti-american who shouldn't have been here in the first place.

13 posted on 04/30/2002 1:07:50 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
The judge said its authors believed people “should forever ‘be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects’ from intrusion and seizure by officers acting under the unbridled authority of a general warrant.”

Surely this is a stretch. The "authors" (founding fathers) could not have believed that the "people" should be forever secure. Maybe the authors beleived "citizens" should be secure, but certainly not potential terrorists, terrorists or mass murderers. There is a perverse and malevalent lack of common sense in this era of weapons of mass destruction this judge exemplifies, that, unless corrected, will result in mass casulties.

Like it or not, Ozzie and Harriet are gone and America's enemies have access to powerful, miniature weapons. We have to deal with that, and non-citizens should be well treated guests but should not have unfettered, anonymous access to our infrastructure.

We can maintain our moral high ground as the country that grants all kinds of rights to illegal aliens but there will eventually be a price to pay.

14 posted on 04/30/2002 1:10:04 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeperfromnj
Why didn't the government just charge him with "terrorist activities" instead of illegally detaining him under a provision that relates to pre-trial activities and not grand jury investigations?

If Asscroft wants to charge any of these foreign terrorist associates or sympethizers as "terrorists", then I have no problem, providing there is proof. Just don't manipulate the law to your liking.

Bottom line, they will not deport these KNOWN TERRORISTS for a reason. What is it? They knew these people were associates of terrorists long before 9/11. Every American needs to ask the hard question, "Why, oh why, would our government let known terrorists and associates into this country in the first place". No other questions are needed.

15 posted on 04/30/2002 1:12:37 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
There's really no reason to be puerile and uncivil about disagreement.
16 posted on 04/30/2002 1:14:54 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Judge Shira Scheindlin

Maybe the judge is right on the point of law.

(but...she's still a Clinton appointee...)
17 posted on 04/30/2002 1:15:48 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VOA; rdavis84
interesting perspective on the law & the appoinment.
18 posted on 04/30/2002 1:21:30 PM PDT by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: VOA
Maybe the judge is right on the point of law.

How do you think this decision will affect other detainees being held under similar circumstances?

19 posted on 04/30/2002 1:23:04 PM PDT by freeperfromnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
The way I see it, The justice dept. did everything they could to avoid declaring martial law and suspending all liberties. They knew they would be in for criticism from the courts and have accepted it.

I think, in retrospect, they did the right thing. The suspension of liberties under martial law would have sent a shockwave through the world. The criticism is really mild IMHO.

20 posted on 04/30/2002 1:23:31 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 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