White House May Have to Release 9/11 Suspects on Technicality

KSM to Go Free in White House Legal Error?
Dylan Ruegger
Ottawa Sun

American civil and defense attorneys are bristling at the legal back-and-forth between the White House and the Justice Department. For the last month it has been widely reported that the Obama Administration was considering trying al Qaeda suspects tied to the September 11, 2001 attacks in military court. This would be a reversal of their earlier push to try the defendants in a New York City court.

While this move has been applauded by members of both the Republican and Democratic establishments, it has not gone over well with legal experts at both the Pentagon and in the Justice Department. According to one senior attorney speaking on terms of anonymity, the change in legal settings could set off a chain reaction leading to a mistrial.

According to American law, most changes of legal venues occur only after it has been determined that a suspect cannot receive a fair trial. If these suspects were American citizens, a change to another court would have been a simple matter. However, due to the legal changes regarding terrorist detainees put in place by the Obama Administration, this is not as simple.

"You have the al Qaeda suspects being presumed innocent until proven guilty," said one Justice Department attorney's aide, "If the trials are moved to Guantanamo Bay, the suspects' lawyers can legally challenge that the federal government changed the venue only to increase the chance of a guilty verdict."

If this is indeed the case, the Obama Adminstration would also be legally unable to return the trials to the original destination. Under these circumstances it is possible, but still not likely, that a circuit court could determine that the attempted changes constituted a miscarriage of justice and that the suspects would have to be set free.

While this situation is unlikely, it is still unsettling for many in the legal community, especially those who have been tracking al Qaeda.

"The chance of them being set free is maybe five percent." said our source at the Pentagon, "But five percent is still five percent too high."

Obama Administration officials have defending this course of action, claiming that the continuity of American justice during wartime was an utmost concern. Attorney General Eric Holder's office simply told one FOXNews affiliate simply, "Justice will be served."

Deepak Chardyia contributed to this report.

Bookmark our site!


Consider advertising on our site!

US Considering Dropping Charges Against bin Laden

Conservative News and Reporting
"News for the Rest of Us."
Geoffrey Likeson

According to sources in the Justice Department, the Obama Administration is pushing for the reversal of charges levied against purported al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is under indictment from U.S. courts for his roles in the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, as well as the September 11, 2001 attacks.

This move comes as new Attorney General Eric Holder is promising a more "fair and open" Justice Department. Holder is the first African-American Attorney General and is a close confidant of the President.

According to a draft report circulating at the DOJ, Holder has asked that the charges against bin Laden and deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri be "suspended" until the time of their capture or death. Effectively, this would drop all charges against the two.

It is unknown if the President himself has pushed for these changes, but it is noted that such a public reversal could not happen without the White House's explicit approval.

The cause for this change of policy is not clear, but aligns closely with the changes that the Obama Administration has taken to reverse Bush-era "mistakes." It is speculated that the changes could be used to lessen international disapproval of American actions in Afghanistan. In addition, this could lead to a permanent suspension of the charges if bin Laden were to promise not to engage in terrorism.

It has been argued that if the charges are dropped against the al Qaeda members, then the United States technically has no right to apprehend or harm the two if they were ever found. James Fortright, a Constitutional scholar at George Washington University states that as long as there is no warrant for an arrest, the government is almost powerless.

"Without a warrant, you have to catch them in the act." Fortright stated in an email interview, "This would mean that if we located them, we could not touch them until a terrorist attack was already underway."

These changes are under the jurisdiction of the White House once approved by the Attorney General. When these actions will take place is unknown, but will likely be done by the end of the year.

Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below: