Charges Withdrawn in Military Commissions for Sept. 11 Suspects

[Paslode]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/22/charges-withdrawn-military-commissions-sept-suspects/?test=latestnews

- FOXNews.com

- January 22, 2010
Charges Withdrawn in Military Commissions for Sept. 11 Suspects

Charges against 9/11 suspects were dropped "without prejudice" -- a procedural move that allows federal officials to transfer the men to trial in a civilian court and also leaves the door open to again bringing charges in military commissions.

All charges have been withdrawn in the military commissions against the five suspects in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks being held at Guantanamo Bay.

The charges were dropped "without prejudice," according to the Defense Department -- a procedural move that allows federal officials to transfer the men to trial in a civilian court and also leaves the door open, if necessary, to bring charges again in military commissions.

"This action comes in light of the announcement by the attorney general of the United States that the Department of Justice intends to pursue a prosecution ... in federal court in the Southern District of New York," says a release from the Defense Department.

Click here to see the file dropping charges against the alleged 9/11 conspirators.

Currently no suspects stand charged in the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11. U.S. officials sent notification to Congress and families of 9/11 victims Friday afternoon. The order dropping charges was made Thursday.

"This action is a procedural step, which is part of a normal process, when an alternative forum is chosen," according to the Defense Department.

The Obama administration decided in November to remove the five suspects -- including self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- from a military trial after $100 million was spent on their prosecution and on the construction of a state-of-the-art courthouse at Guantanamo Bay built specifically to facilitate their military commissions.

One source familiar with the decision told Fox News that officials have not given the all-important 45-day transfer notification to Congress, indicating that the men will not be on U.S. soil imminently.

But as of Friday afternoon, the five suspects -- Mohammed and alleged co-conspirators Walid bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi -- were one step closer to a civilian trial in New York.

Similar actions were taken in May 2009 against Ahmed Ghailani, an alleged Al Qaeda member and participant in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ghailani was then transferred to trial in federal court in New York, the first Guantanamo detainee to face civilian charges in the U.S.

Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

This sounds like a disaster in the making......but before I draw my own conclusion, can anyone explain the highlighted remarks?

[CSB]

Depending on the jurisdiction, criminal charges can be "dismissed" "withdrawn" "no true bill" (by a grand jury) "nolle prosequi (by the district attorney)" "not referred" (to a court-martial by a convening authority) and so on.

Those are all ways of saying "the government is not going to prosecute you for the alleged crime, you are free to go."

In some cases, once that decision has been made, it cannot be revoked, even if more evidence comes up later (or if you confess) the case cannot be revived.

One example: A case dismissed by the judge during trial, at the close of the state's (weak) case, upon the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy bars a retrial, even if the government later comes up with more proof than it had the first time.

Another: A Defendant is kept in pretrial confinement for two years awaiting trial, while the prosecution uses court days for "more important cases." By the time the Defendant finally comes up for his trial, his defense witnesses have died, disappeared, moved out of range of a subpoena, or key physical evidence (like telephone records or recordings of 911 calls) have been erased or written over. The judge, on motion of the Defendant, may find that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated -- and cannot be salvaged -- and since the Defendant cannot ever get a fair trial, dismiss the charges.

In each of those cases, the dismissal is "with prejudice." That is, it is literally "pre-judged" in favor of the Defendant without a trial. The case can never be brought back again. Whether guilty or not, the Defendant is released to "go forth and sin no more."

On the other hand, cases can be dismissed for technical reasons. For example, foreman of the grand jury forgot to sign the indictment. The prosecutor in a state case might elect to dismiss charges against a bank robber in state court because the federal government is going to prosecute the Defendant in federal court. Those dismissals are "without prejudice" and the case against the Defendant can be brought back to life for trial, usually by going back to the grand jury and having them return a new indictment.

So all the government did in the terrorism case is turn over the case files to the civilian side of the house, but announced to the courts and the Defendant's "If for any reason you cannot be tried in a civilian court, we reserve the right to take the case files back again and try you by a commission."

[Paslode]

I appreciate the explanation.