WASHINGTON, 16 July 2003 — The Justice Department on Monday refused to produce a key witness in the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, defying a federal court order and acknowledging that the judge is likely to dismiss the indictment against the only person charged in the United States in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The government’s action raises the possibility that the case against Moussaoui could move to a military tribunal, but Justice Department officials indicated Monday night that they were determined to keep it in the civilian courts and that they intend to appeal any dismissal of the charges to the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
But first, prosecutors must confront the federal judge who ordered that they produce the witness, Ramzi Binalshibh, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema is likely to impose sanctions for the government’s failure to allow Moussaoui and his attorneys to question Binalshibh. The expected punishment is the dismissal of the charges, but Brinkema could choose lesser consequences, such as removing the death penalty as an option, reducing the charges or striking all mentions of Binalshibh from the indictment. The government’s refusal to produce Binalshibh underscores the delicate balancing act among lawyers and judges in the Moussaoui case.
In a brief filed in Alexandria Monday night, US Attorney Paul McNulty told Brinkema that her order “is unacceptable to the Government, which not only carries the responsibility of prosecuting the defendant, but also of protecting this nation’s security at a time of war with an enemy who has already murdered thousands of our citizens.”
Prosecutors had already appealed Brinkema’s ruling to the 4th Circuit. A three-judge panel earlier rejected the appeal on procedural grounds but said the government could appeal again if Brinkema imposed sanctions for defying her order. Those sanctions could have come as early as yesterday, but Brinkema also could set a hearing date on the issue.
On Monday, the slate of active 4th Circuit judges upheld the panel’s earlier ruling. But the court split 7 to 5 and issued a series of heated opinions that highlighted how the case has raised new legal issues between a defendant’s constitutional rights and the government’s national-security responsibilities. The judges also strongly hinted as to how they might rule if the case comes before them again.
In a blistering dissent, Judge Michael Luttig accused Brinkema, the three-judge panel and the rest of his colleagues of failing “to appreciate the fragility of the intelligence-gathering process.”
Prosecutors have called Binalshibh a key intelligence source, and they said that disrupting his interrogation would irreparably harm national security.
“Because of this failure,” Luttig wrote, “I believe my colleagues have gravely underestimated the effect that their respective orders and decisions have already had, and now will continue to have, on the nation’s intelligence gathering .”
William Wilkins, the court’s chief judge and a member of the panel that issued the earlier ruling, asserted that he believed that “my colleagues have allowed the importance of the issues involved in the underlying merits of this appeal to cloud their judgment on the purely legal question of jurisdiction.”
“Siding with the Government in all cases where national security concerns are asserted,” Wilkins added, “would entail surrender of the independence of the judicial branch and abandonment of our sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law.”
