- Payroll tax deal close: Why did Republicans back down? (+video)
- Israel says Bangkok, Delhi, and Tbilisi attacks all linked – to Iran
- Rick Santorum's new machine-gun ad: Will it work? (+video)
- As Sarkozy seeks new term, French are wary of 'Merkozy' (+video)
- Honduras prison fire kills more than 300, highlights regional problem (+video)
A legal tool emerges in terror war
Federal officials are taking terror suspects into custody under the material-witness law.
(Page 2 of 2)
Because material-witness laws have rarely been the subject of major court challenges, there is no extensive body of case law delineating abuses of the federal statute, experts say.
For example, it remains unclear to what extent material-witness detainees have a right to see documents related to their detention, have a right to Miranda warnings, or even have a right to consult with counsel.
"The whole concept of holding people as material witnesses has a lot of potential for abuse," says Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative legal-advocacy group.
"But there has to be in this national-security area a certain play in the joint," he says. "When you have people who are intent on destroying our society, there aren't many people who think the government should have no basis for holding such people until [investigators] have gotten enough evidence to arrest them for a crime. That would be suicidal."
While the law's utility may be apparent in cases involving government attempts to disrupt a terror plot, the experiences of some detainees illustrate the downside of the administration's approach.
In one case, a third-year medical student from Saudi Arabia working at a hospital in San Antonio was held for 12 days in solitary confinement in a New York prison cell because his last name was similar to that of two of the Sept. 11 hijackers. The student's name is al-Hazmi. The hijackers were al-Hamzi.
In another case, an Egyptian student was held in prison for 30 days because federal agents suspected he had an aviation radio capable of talking to an airline cockpit in his hotel room near the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.
Rather than digging for probable cause before making an arrest, prosecutors simply had the student, Abdallah Higazy, taken into custody as a material witness. He was held in a prison cell, denied telephone access to family and friends, and offered multiple opportunities to confess.
Mr. Higazy repeatedly denied any knowledge of the radio. Prosecutors responded by charging him with making false statements to federal officials. At one point during an intense interrogation and polygraph exam, Higazy admitted the radio was his own and offered three different versions of how he had obtained it, according to a federal prosecutor's statements to a judge in the case.
But the "case" against Higazy fell apart when the real owner of the radio came forward. Further investigation by the FBI revealed that a hotel security official had lied when he told the FBI he found the radio locked in Higazy's room safe. The security official made up the story, according to his lawyer, in a misguided effort to help authorities make a case against someone the security official thought might be an Al Qaeda operative.
Justice Department officials refuse to disclose how many individuals have been detained as material witnesses in its terrorism investigation.
Some, like Padilla, who also uses the name Abdullah al-Muhajir, have refused to cooperate. Others have talked extensively, only to wind up charged with crimes as a result of their voluntary cooperation.
That's what happened to Osama Awadallah, a Jordanian student in San Diego. Mr. Awadallah was imprisoned for 83 days. He was eventually charged with making false statements to a grand jury because of his faulty recollection about the name of one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, whom he had met 18 months earlier and last seen a year before the hijacking.
Two months ago, a federal judge in New York threw out Awadallah's indictment and declared that the government had violated the letter and spirit of the material-witness law. "This broad reading of the material witness statute has led to serious abuses," wrote US District Judge Shira Scheindlin in her 60-page decision.
Attorney General John Ashcroft defends his department's broad application of the witness law and pledges to appeal the ruling to the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
Depending on how the Second Circuit rules, a showdown at the US Supreme Court may be on the horizon.
Page:
1 | 2



