Judge hears Benghazi terror suspect challenge to his arrest, interrogation
|
Version 0 of 1. Attorneys for the man accused of leading the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans in 2012 urged a federal judge Thursday to sanction the U.S. government for what they called the unlawful seizure and interrogation of their client. Libyan militant Ahmed Abu Khattala, 44, pleaded not guilty last fall to an 18-count indictment, including charges of murder, conspiracy and destroying a U.S. facility, in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others. Abu Khattala was captured in a June 2014 raid by U.S. Special Operations forces in Libya. Appearing before U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper in Washington, Abu Khattala’s attorneys requested that he be returned to Libya or spared the death penalty on murder charges. They argued that his overseas capture by the military and questioning aboard a U.S. Navy ship without a lawyer violated his due process rights and a doctrine that limits the military’s role in law enforcement. “The single purpose of this operation was to abduct Abu Khattala and bring him to this court to face charges. What could be more outrageous than the executive branch purposefully violating multiple provisions of the law?” said Assistant Federal Defender Mary Petras. “If the judiciary does not act to sanction this conduct, there is nothing to discourage the government from doing it to anyone this way.” Assistant U.S. Attorney John D. Crabb Jr. argued that “no law was broken, no treated was violated. Mr. Abu Khattala’s rights were not abused.” At issue are the blended military and civilian policies adopted by the Obama administration to extract intelligence from terrorism suspects while preserving the ability to try them in U.S. civilian courts. [Abu Khattala’s interrogation poses legal risks, intelligence benefits] Abu Khattala’s attorneys say that after being taken into custody, he was interrogated for five days shipboard by a group of U.S. military and intelligence personnel as well as law enforcement officials. Information obtained by such efforts may further intelligence-gathering but cannot be admitted as evidence. Then a second group — of FBI agents — told Abu Khattala he was under arrest and read him his Miranda rights. He requested a lawyer, but none was available for him, and he was interrogated for seven more days, his attorneys said. [U.S. captured Benghazi suspect in secret raid] Petras said the results violated the meaningful exercise of the constitutional rights to a Miranda warning, counsel and prompt appearance before a court. She cited indications in government communications that authorities knew Abu Khattala could have been flown to the United States within two days but that European countries along the route might have held up his extradition without a promise that he would not face the death penalty in the United States. [Capture thrusts U.S. special operations in Africa into spotlight again] Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael C. DiLorenzo and prosecutors with the national security section of the U.S. attorney’s office for the District wrote that U.S. courts have allowed similar prosecutions. They citing the case of Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, also known as Anas al-Libi, who died of liver cancer shortly before his trial in New York in January. Ruqai was captured in Tripoli in a U.S. military and FBI operation and was detained at sea until he fell ill. He was accused of involvement in the 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. Crabb also argued that no matter how egregious, no constitutional violation — except perhaps torture or brutality — should warrant dismissal of criminal charges against a defendant, saying there were other remedies to punish or prosecute the violators. In October, the parties argued over defense motions to dismiss nearly all charges against Abu Khattala. [Judge hears arguments over whether to dismiss Benghazi charges] His attorneys said then that charges of providing material support to terrorists were so vague as to be unconstitutional and that other lesser charges applied only to domestic crimes. They also argued that the U.S. mission and annex in Benghazi were not legally recognized government facilities — as alleged in the destruction charge. Cooper did not say when he would rule on the motions. And no trial date has been set. [U.S. captured Benghazi suspect in secret raid] |