Anwar al-Aulaqi
A federal arrest warrant issued in Colorado for radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was withdrawn in 2002 because prosecutors ultimately lacked evidence that he had committed a crime, interim U.S. Attorney Dave Gaouette told the Denver Post last week.
Awlaki has emerged as a key figure as investigators look into the Nov. 5 shooting deaths at Fort Hood. He was an imam at a suburban mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour. Awlaki praised suspected Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan on his blog last month.
ABC News first reported that Colorado prosecutors had issued but then withdrawn a warrant for his arrest on passport fraud charges.
Gaouette, who was an assistant U.S. Attorney for the office in 2002, told the Denver Post that he and other federal prosecutors in his office held a meeting and decided there was insufficient evidence to present a passport fraud case to a grand jury.
“We asked the court to dismiss the complaint and withdraw the warrant in the interest of justice,” Gaouette told the Post. “There is no sense putting a person through an indictment when the government knows all along that we don’t have evidence or that we can prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Gaouette’s term as interim U.S. Attorney for Colorado was set to expire on Tuesday, but has been extended by judicial decree until a new U.S. Attorney is appointed, according to his office. President Obama’s nominee for the position, Stephanie Villafuerte, is awaiting confirmation from the Senate. The Colorado Republican Party chairman and other conservatives have pressed the nominee over allegations she used a restricted federal database to help the 2006 campaign of Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter.
Gaouette also said his office never received information about the cleric’s possible ties to terrorists, contrary to what sources told ABC News.
“Even if there was information to us at the time that he associated or communicated with other people, that would not be a basis to get a criminal charge unless those communications were violations of criminal law,” Gaouette told the Post. “That has never been done, and that will never be done, and prosecutors make their decisions on the facts at the time.”
