Civil Liberties Online

PART A: Overzealous Prosecution and Investigationn in the Aftermath of 9/11

Beyond the Patriot Act: Cases and Laws Outside of the Scope of the PATRIOT Act That Nonetheless Raise Civil Liberties Issues

The government’s desire to crack down on terrorism appears to have led to some overzealous prosecutions. E.g., United States v. Koubriti, 336 F. Supp. 2d 676 (E.D. Mich., 2004) (finding government’s failure to protect the constitutional rights of three individuals arrested one week after the September 11th attacks because government denied defendants access to certain exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession at the time of trial); Parlak v. Baker, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9646 (E.D. Mich., 2005) (finding that Turkish citizen could not be detained for seven months prior to removal). The Sixth Amendment right to a fair and speedy trial has become a point of contention in terrorist cases. The Sixth Amendment ensures a just judicial proceeding. See United States v. Benatta, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16514(W.D.N.Y. 2003) (recommending dismissal of a suit against detained individual because Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by the government); see also United States v. Moussaoui, 382 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that the Sixth Amendment protection would be afforded to an alleged terrorist even though the defendant will be denied direct access to possibly exculpatory witnesses being held by the government so long as adequate substitutions are provided in place of the witnesses).

Furthermore, the ruling of courts on procedural matters may be affected by the presence of terrorist related allegations in the case. Cf. Cheema v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding the petitioners’ requests of asylum for a determination if the removal of petitioners to a place where they will inevitably suffer greatly could be excused by national security concerns); United States v. Elashi, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4559 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (denying the defendants motion for transfer of venue despite evidence of excessive media coverage of the terrorist allegation).

Other pending cases contain as yet unproven allegations of the government’s misuse of power after September 11th. See Omar v. Casterline, 288 F.Supp. 2d 775 (W.D. La. 2003) (denying the government’s motion for summary judgment and ordering further discovery on a First Amendment claim by individual, detained one day after the September 11th attacks, because the court found no penological interest in refusing to tell the individual the time of day so he could pray accordingly and continuing to serve him pork products despite his religious dietary prohibitions); Turkmen v. Aschroft, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14537 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (proceeding with suit of various non-citizens alleging unlawful and cruel detention after September 11th).