This is one of those cases that makes you question what the hell has been going on with our nation's justice system the last several years:

 

from AOL.com-

 

TORONTO (Aug. 13) - The date was Sept. 12, 2001, but Benemar "Ben" Benatta was clueless about the death and destruction one day earlier.

 

About a week before, Canadian officials had stopped Benatta as he entered the country from Buffalo to seek political asylum. On that Sept. 11, he was quietly transferred to a U.S. immigration lockup where a day passed before sullen FBI agents told him what the rest of the world already knew: terrorists had attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

 

It slowly dawned on Benatta that his pedigree - a Muslim man with a military background - made him a target in the frenzied national dragnet that soon followed. The FBI didn't accuse him of being a terrorist, at least not outright. But agents kept asking if he could fly an airplane.

 

He told them he couldn't. It made no difference.

 

"They gave me a feeling that I was Suspect No. 1," he said in a recent interview.

 

The veiled accusations and vehement denials would continue for nearly five years - despite official findings in 2001 that he had no terrorist links and in 2003 that authorities had violated his rights by colluding to keep him in custody.

 

Of the estimated 1,200 mostly Arab and Muslim men detained nationwide as potential suspects or witnesses in the Sept. 11 investigation, Benatta would earn a dubious distinction: Human rights groups say the former Algerian air force lieutenant was locked up the longest.

 

His Kafkaesque journey through the American justice system concluded July 20 when a deal was finalized for his return to Canada. In the words of his lawyer, the idea was to "turn back the clock" to when he first crossed the border.

 

But time did not stand still for Benatta: The clock ran for 1,780 days. The man detained at 27 was now 32.

 

"I say to myself from time to time, maybe what happened ... it was some kind of dream," he said. "I never believed things like that could happen in the United States."

 

In a nation reeling from unthinkable horrors inflicted by an unconventional enemy, it could. And did.

 

Sporting a gray T-shirt and cargo shorts on a sizzling summer day, Benatta eased his muscular frame into a white plastic chair in the backyard of a Toronto halfway house for immigrant asylum-seekers. He sipped lemonade, then paused to taste freedom.

 

"You start to look around and take in everything - the wind in your face, the breeze - everything," he said.

 

The youngest of 10 children in a middle-class family, Benatta recalled always wanting to be military man like his father. But after he joined the air force, he grew disillusioned. Algerian soldiers, he said, were abusive toward civilians. And militant Muslims were out for blood.

 

"I was in harm's way in my country," he said.

 

Benatta entered a six-month training program for foreign air force engineers in Virginia in December 2000, plotting from the start to desert and flee to Canada. In June 2001, he stole out of a hotel the night before his scheduled flight back to Algeria. He lived briefly in New York before arriving Sept. 5 on Canada's doorstep.

 

A week later, Canadian authorities were escorting him back over the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls, where they turned him over to U.S. immigration officers. On Sept. 16, U.S. marshals took him into custody, put him on a small jet and flew him to a federal jail in Brooklyn that became a clearing house for detainees who were labeled "of interest" to the FBI following the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

One remark by a marshal stuck in his head: "Where you're going, you won't need shoes anymore."

 

In Brooklyn, he was locked down - minus his shoes - 24 hours a day between FBI interrogations. When he continued to deny any involvement in the attacks, agents threatened to send him back to Algeria. As a deserter, he was certain he would be tortured.

 

"That was all my thinking all of the time - they were signing my execution warrant," he said.

 

Prison guards, he said, dispensed humiliation in steady doses - rapping on his cell door every half hour to interrupt his sleep, stepping on his leg shackles hard enough to scar his ankles, locking him in an outdoor exercise cage despite freezing temperatures, conducting arbitrary strip searches.

 

The alleged abuses would have been bad enough.

 

But as a judge eventually pointed out, something else was amiss: Benatta was never charged with a crime.

 

The FBI grillings stopped sometime in November 2001, when an internal report was prepared saying he was cleared. On paper, he was no longer a terror suspect.

 

No one bothered to tell him.

 

December turned to March with Benatta still under lockdown in Brooklyn, without any contact with the outside world. "Each day, with that kind of conditions, is like a year," he said.

 

Finally, in April, he received word that he would be transferred to Buffalo to face federal charges of carrying a phony ID when first detained. Benatta was denied bail while he fought the case. But for the first time he was allowed into the general population of federal defendants housed at an immigration detention center.

 

He also had access to the news, and was shocked by the images accompanying anniversary stories about the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

"It was the first time I'd really seen what happened," he said.

 

It wasn't until the second anniversary of the attacks that U.S. Magistrate H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr., in a bluntly worded ruling, found that Benatta's detainment for a deportation hearing was "a charade."

 

Though terrible, the Sept. 11 attacks "do not constitute an acceptable basis for abandoning our constitutional principles and rule of law by adopting an 'end justifies the means' philosophy," Schroeder wrote. Based on that decision, another judge tossed out the case on Oct. 3, 2003.

 

"That gave me so much hope," Benatta said. "For me, it's like (the judge) had so much nerves. He gave me some kind of hope in the judicial system all over again."

 

His hopes were dashed by an ensuing standoff: Benatta demanded asylum. Immigration authorities wanted him deported for overstaying his visa.

 

An immigration court first set bail at $25,000, then ruled he should stay behind bars indefinitely - a situation a United Nations human rights group decried as a "de facto prison sentence." Most asylum seekers are released pending the outcome of their cases.

 

It took another two years before a Manhattan attorney, Catherine M. Amirfar, found a solution: She convinced Canadian authorities to let her client apply for asylum there without jailing him.

 

"Canada was willing to take him back and turn back the clock five years," she said. "Of course, Benemar will never get those five years back."

 

The last detainee was deported in his prison smock without an apology. He remembers cold stares when he ate his first meal at Wendy's and went to a mall to buy clothes.

 

Today, there's no more soul-numbing confinement. But he's still caught in waiting game, this time to see whether Canada will grant him asylum - a decision at least six months away. He also wonders if he can regain enough spirit to start a new life.

 

"Now I'm not the same person," he said. "When I came to the United States, I was optimistic. I had so much energy. That's not the case now."

 

What a mess.

Hopefully he's reimbursed for his trouble. Heavily reimbursed.

I'm sure he will. But you can't make up for lost time, unfortunately.

Hopefully he's reimbursed for his trouble. Heavily reimbursed.

 

I don't know, but I would certainly sue them hard.

it's amazing that an article this long can't spell the guy's name right and totally omits the reason why he was arrested in the first place--attempting to cross the border with forged documents.

 

you're a total pawn if you think this writer's depiction is the whole story.

it's amazing that an article this long can't spell the guy's name right and totally omits the reason why he was arrested in the first place--attempting to cross the border with forged documents.

 

you're a total pawn if you think this writer's depiction is the whole story.

 

 

 

Yes because not charging someone with that crime and detaining them without a trial or hearing is now ok. You should ask accord about the right to procedural due process in the 5th amendment.

it's amazing that an article this long can't spell the guy's name right and totally omits the reason why he was arrested in the first place--attempting to cross the border with forged documents.

 

you're a total pawn if you think this writer's depiction is the whole story.

 

 

 

Yes because not charging someone with that crime and detaining them without a trial or hearing is now ok. You should ask accord about the right to procedural due process in the 5th amendment.

yes, that sums up my post nicely.

 

strong work.

it's amazing that an article this long can't spell the guy's name right and totally omits the reason why he was arrested in the first place--attempting to cross the border with forged documents.

 

you're a total pawn if you think this writer's depiction is the whole story.

 

 

 

Yes because not charging someone with that crime and detaining them without a trial or hearing is now ok. You should ask accord about the right to procedural due process in the 5th amendment.

yes, that sums up my post nicely.

 

strong work.

 

 

No but you still ignore the point of the article. Yes he broke the law. Yes he had suspicous characteristics. Yes Im sure the government had some justification in national security. But the result can't be changed. He wasnt a threat-the FBI determined this in 2001. Due process lets us settle this out so he could have been deported a long time ago and not, as it turns out detained without cause. And even if you don't buy the liberal media spin, the judge's wording says something about the wrong action. Maybe you could clarify your point if I missed it.

Sure, he violated a crime, but no crime merits this kind of punishment (indefinite lock-up, no due process, etc.) These kinds of punishments are handed out by scum like Fidel Castro of Kim Jong-Il. Under no circumstance in this country should we keep people in prison for five years based on suspicion of anything. People violate the "law" in Cuba all the time for speaking out against the government, and receive sentences like this. I really hope this is a sad and unfortunate anomaly, and not the kind of thing we should come to expect.

Sure, he violated a crime, but no crime merits this kind of punishment (indefinite lock-up, no due process, etc.) These kinds of punishments are handed out by scum like Fidel Castro of Kim Jong-Il. Under no circumstance in this country should we keep people in prison for five years based on suspicion of anything. People violate the "law" in Cuba all the time for speaking out against the government, and receive sentences like this. I really hope this is a sad and unfortunate anomaly, and not the kind of thing we should come to expect.

 

 

Some people just don't understand the idea behind innocent until proven guilty. Granted, you can't hate on them too much when some of our policymakers don't either.

Always makes me wonder when I see something like this, how many others are serving time for a crime the didn't commit or even worse are put to death wrongfully.

Always makes me wonder when I see something like this, how many others are serving time for a crime the didn't commit or even worse are put to death wrongfully.

 

 

It happens, which is the biggest drawback of the death penalty and our system in general. But, no system is perfect. I'm not the biggest proponent of the death penalty, but our legal system is as good as gets when compared to other courts.

I say we dont prosecute anyone in America ever again.

 

That way no one will ever be wrongfully convicted.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunate mistakes happen. Human error does occur.

 

The wrongfully incarcerated should be heavily compensated.

The wrongfully incarcerated should be heavily compensated.

 

 

How than are the people who are put to death wrongfully compensated? This is something that obviously money doesnt solve.

 

I'm not against the death penalty, but it has to be administered fairly, and given the fact that people have been put to death wrongfully, there seems to be a flaw in the system.

The wrongfully incarcerated should be heavily compensated.

 

 

How than are the people who are put to death wrongfully compensated? This is something that obviously money doesnt solve.

 

I'm not against the death penalty, but it has to be administered fairly, and given the fact that people have been put to death wrongfully, there seems to be a flaw in the system.

 

 

 

 

 

Hang on a sec.......Lets not act like there are innocent people being put to death every other day.

 

 

Its EXTREMELY rare (yes I know, even one is too many ).

 

 

What can I say? Do I wish there were no flaws in our judicial system? You betcha.

 

Will there always be flaws in the system? Yup.

Always?

 

Huh, I guess you don't assume the timeline is long enough to answer tough questions and make a more better system. THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS ad infinitum. Always. I'd love to live in a world where answers are so easy and necessary conditions are permanent for everything.

 

Give me a break.

 

I'm not against the death penalty, but I'm against it being used except in the most rare of cases (let's say exceptional cases).

 

In theory I want to be with Christ and to never have the death penalty [ever] (I'm not so sure a true Christian could ever support an execution), but I personally think some instances merit it (doesn't make it true, but it's just my own belief and it's constantly changing from case to case). I don't really have a problem with them being in prison for the rest of their lives either, though. At all.

Hopefully he's reimbursed for his trouble. Heavily reimbursed.

 

I don't know, but I would certainly sue them hard.

 

Can't.

The wrongfully incarcerated should be heavily compensated.

 

 

How than are the people who are put to death wrongfully compensated? This is something that obviously money doesnt solve.

 

I'm not against the death penalty, but it has to be administered fairly, and given the fact that people have been put to death wrongfully, there seems to be a flaw in the system.

 

 

 

 

 

Hang on a sec.......Lets not act like there are innocent people being put to death every other day.

 

 

Its EXTREMELY rare (yes I know, even one is too many ).

 

 

What can I say? Do I wish there were no flaws in our judicial system? You betcha.

 

Will there always be flaws in the system? Yup.

 

Nobody is saying innocent people have been put to death every other day, but you'd be ignorant to say that innocent people haven't been put to death in the past (And no, i'm not talking about 1 or 2) .

 

Which also leads me to another point...People who are put to death for an identical crime that others have been sentenced to a prison term for, due to poor representation because they can't afford an attorney or any number of other reasons.

 

I also dont like the fact that so many people are complacent in ineffectiveness of many aspects of our judicial system. Being "perfect" and "flawless" is an essential when it comes to something as serious as taking away a life. That's just my .02

Always?

 

Huh, I guess you don't assume the timeline is long enough to answer tough questions and make a more better system. THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS ad infinitum. Always. I'd love to live in a world where answers are so easy and necessary conditions are permanent for everything.

 

Give me a break.

 

I'm not against the death penalty, but I'm against it being used except in the most rare of cases (let's say exceptional cases).

 

In theory I want to be with Christ and to never have the death penalty [ever] (I'm not so sure a true Christian could ever support an execution), but I personally think some instances merit it (doesn't make it true, but it's just my own belief and it's constantly changing from case to case). I don't really have a problem with them being in prison for the rest of their lives either, though. At all.

 

 

 

 

 

Ive given up debating anything with you because your always right and everyone else is an idiot in your book.

Always?

 

Huh, I guess you don't assume the timeline is long enough to answer tough questions and make a more better system. THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS ad infinitum. Always. I'd love to live in a world where answers are so easy and necessary conditions are permanent for everything.

 

Give me a break.

 

I'm not against the death penalty, but I'm against it being used except in the most rare of cases (let's say exceptional cases).

 

In theory I want to be with Christ and to never have the death penalty [ever] (I'm not so sure a true Christian could ever support an execution), but I personally think some instances merit it (doesn't make it true, but it's just my own belief and it's constantly changing from case to case). I don't really have a problem with them being in prison for the rest of their lives either, though. At all.

 

 

 

 

 

Ive given up debating anything with you because your always right and everyone else is an idiot in your book.

 

I never said that did I? Did I explicitly say that? Maybe if you had a valid argument to back up your bulls***, but you don't. One was never presented.

 

And if you didn't care at all and had truly given up you wouldn't have even responded.

That's an excellent arguement, "You think you're right so their's no sense debating you".

 

Question... Isn't an Opinion your thought on what's right?

 

BTW, back to this topic. This guy deserves compensation, guilty or not, just make sure it's their AFTER he's done serving his time. Also for the Death Penatly, basically agree with Buckeye. Some states have been too trigger happy, while others maybe not so. It needs to be the ultimate punishment but not thrown around. Basically, the Death penalty should be reserved for Serial Killers, Mass Murders, not your average scum bag who kills a man over an arguement.

That's an excellent arguement, "You think you're right so their's no sense debating you".

 

Question... Isn't an Opinion your thought on what's right?

 

BTW, back to this topic. This guy deserves compensation, guilty or not, just make sure it's their AFTER he's done serving his time. Also for the Death Penatly, basically agree with Buckeye. Some states have been too trigger happy, while others maybe not so. It needs to be the ultimate punishment but not thrown around. Basically, the Death penalty should be reserved for Serial Killers, Mass Murders, not your average scum bag who kills a man over an arguement.

 

 

 

 

 

Nice.

 

So if you only kill one person you shouldnt have to pay with your own life.

 

You get one freebie!!!

 

When are you running for Governer?

Nice.

 

So if you only kill one person you shouldnt have to pay with your own life.

 

You get one freebie!!!

 

When are you running for Governer?

 

And you're more than clever, I haven't seen anyone as clever as you since Yakov Smirnov.

 

You are you getting your own show in Branson!? Wow, being Clever is fun!

 

Why should I as a tax payer, thanks to your idiocy have to pay for your lengthy appeals case, your incarciration in a fully protected cell, when you could just be bait for the rest of the prison population, and I have to pay for your expensive execution? All which costs you and I more than if you were too just rot in the tiniest of cells with your little buddies, the Latin Kings, Aryan Nation, and all of Islam's recent converts, while enjoying the finest in prison cuisine, hospitality, and don't forget the showers

 

You seem to gloss over the fact, that prison despite what the Sean Hannity's of the world, is not exactly fun. We are not rewarding these people. Unless, you're the type who likes the fear of rape and violence over your back every second of your life, living in a concrete cell, and having every part of your life planned out for you. Sounds like fun.

 

Question, How is it the ultimate punishment, as our system says it is, if we become so willing to charge the tax payer for every scum bag who got too hot heated.

 

Yeah, I see you're point a Crime of Passion, and John Wayne Gacy are on the same level.

All killers are not equal.

 

I guess you can't do things accidently (let's say vehicular manslaughter, which is still killing someone) or you can't do something like reform in some people's world?

 

Face it, there are instances where someone has killed someone and then felt sorry for it afterwards. And worked to try and square things up with the community, the family, the courts, whoever after the fact. People can reform and after serving some time (a lot of time) and paying back to society they should be allowed back in.

 

What about cases of self-defense, alchohol impairment, of because of social circumstance (think of any instance where someone has to literally kill to survive)?

The problem betwen the inequality of 'killers' is exactly why eliminating the death penalty will be very difficult to do again. You commit 1st degree murder a crime considered more heinous than second degree. Right now the detah pently is available for murder 1, if it gets banned whats the max penalty for murder 1? Life in prison without possibility of parole. However, thats already the max penalty for murder 2. So what do we do? Decrease the penalty for murder 2 to accomodate this? Or give both murder 1 convicts and murder 2 convicts the same penalty? Very difficult decisions that would have to be made for sentence disparity.