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.
Bull!! In fact I am near violent with anger. Awadallah has noted links to the Bosnian Jihad effort. With this ruling, I am close to calling it a cover up by Clintonites to the detriment of the Bush effort to fight al-Qaeda.
Read the breaking news of this terrorist's indictment when it was posted on here: Indictment Made in 9/11 Hijack Case ``Martyrs of Bosnia''
Lied about not knowing the other guy.
Let's just let him go.
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
"Caryl hasn't received justice ... she's gotten tyranny with a smile"
"This goes beyond what they did to me. The USDOJ Immigration & Naturalization Service has put America at Risk." Caryl Ball Leventhal
"I might also add that any reference to on-site criminal activity and hostility towards Ms. Leventhal during Citizenship USA was excluded from the trial by US Attorney Eric B. Fisher and Clinton appointed federal judge Shira Scheindlin."
Anybody got background on this sick scumbag, Scheindlin?
I'm guessing a Clinton appointment.
I read a report yesterday which said that more terrorist attacks are "inevitable". How would this sick judge feel if she loses family members the next time Awadallah's buddies blow up a bunch of innocents?
On the other hand, maybe her handlers were told by the CIA/DIA to cut this mouse loose so that he might lead them to the cheese. But that's probably reaching....
This "sloppy" police work came on the heels of the 9/11 attacks. Remember them? Some people at the time thought a little urgency was needed. So get real.
I guess that makes it "ok" then, huh? My bad . . .
Do you want a judicial system where rules are followed or some sort of puppet court like you see in China and Cuba. It's a matter of principle. Some aren't mature enough to understand this
Ah yes, the ad hominem straw man fallacy, used to avoid coming up with a reasoned an logical rebuttal to my principled position . . . classic!
I am certainly glad that my family's safety doesn't depend on you or your ilk.
As well, I am glad my family's right to a fair trial (an extension of the inalienable right of self-defense), following set Constittutional principles is not dependant on your statist ilk.
Good day :-)
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.