No Case Vs. Man Who Knew Hijackers (BULL! Case thrown out on outrageous technicality)

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.

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.

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.

As I said in my email to you, if you choose to advertise the fact that you are a liar, that's your business. But your constant whining because some people choose to ignore you rather than put up with your childish antics is getting tedious. Frankly, I believe your behavior borders on abuse.

How weird. -- You claim that IF the 14th means what the USSC says, THEN the amendment must have been written in some sort of code which the court was only able to break after decades of study.

You claim that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states.

It took the US Supreme Court decades to start applying even part of the Bill of Rights to the states using the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court still hasn't adopted the interpretation you propose because they refuse to apply all of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Second Amendment, for instance.

I stated repeatedly that if the drafters of the 14th Amendment had intended for the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, they would have said so in no uncertain terms and not have used a code that it would take decades to break. In other words, the 14th Amendment does not mean what you say it means.

You accused me of saying the 14th Amendment was written in code. This is exactly the opposite of what I said, as anyone with the least bit of intelligence can see from reading my posts.

To spell it out for you -- my posts suggest that you must believe that the 14th Amendment is written in code. A code the courts still haven't broken completely because they have not "discovered" that (according to you) the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.

My position is equally clear. I say that if they had wanted the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, they would have said so in no uncertain terms. Since they did not, I conclude that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.

Now, friend, as I've said, your constant whining has gotten old. You can continue to whine and cry all you want. But do it on someone else's posts. I'm tired of listening to your childish nonsense.

As I said in my email to you, if you choose to advertise the fact that you are a liar, that's your business.

-- You are running about this forum, falsely accusing me of lying. I choose to fight your baseless accusations.

But your constant whining because some people choose to ignore you rather than put up with your childish antics is getting tedious. Frankly, I believe your behavior borders on abuse.

Your 'lie & run' tactics are abusive, not my attempts to stop you.

==================================

How weird. -- You claim that IF the 14th means what the USSC says, THEN the amendment must have been written in some sort of code which the court was only able to break after decades of study.

You claim that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. It took the US Supreme Court decades to start applying even part of the Bill of Rights to the states using the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court still hasn't adopted the interpretation you propose because they refuse to apply all of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Second Amendment, for instance.

The court will 'apply' the 14th to ALL of the BOR's using their own strange timetable.
But its language is unrefutable, -- it does apply. - Always has. - That was the intent of the men who wrote it, and ratified it.

'In other words', you repeat that it is in a code, as the court sees the 14th's clear meaning in exactly the same fashion as do I.

You accused me of saying the 14th Amendment was written in code. This is exactly the opposite of what I said, as anyone with the least bit of intelligence can see from reading my posts.

You just repeated that self same bit of contridictory idiocy again, just above. --- As anyone can see.

To spell it out for you -- my posts suggest that you must believe that the 14th Amendment is written in code. A code the courts still haven't broken completely because they have not "discovered" that (according to you) the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.

No code. - That is your delusion, not mine.
The language of the 14th is clear, and the intent of those who wrote it was clear. - The 2nd was to be honored by the states.

False conclusion. -- The record of the 1868 congressional debates is available, and proves you wrong. -- WHY you would want the 2nd to be at risk by unconstitutional state actions is a real mystery.

Now, friend, as I've said, your constant whining has gotten old. You can continue to whine and cry all you want. But do it on someone else's posts. I'm tired of listening to your childish nonsense.

Nope, we're not friends. - Never will be. -- And it is your juvenile tactics that have made it so.

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.