[News] How the FBI blacklisted US’ largest Muslim civil rights group
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Oct 23 12:24:26 EDT 2013
How the FBI blacklisted US’ largest Muslim civil rights group
Charlotte Silver <http://electronicintifada.net/people/charlotte-silver>
*http://electronicintifada.net/content/how-fbi-blacklisted-us-largest-muslim-civil-rights-group/12867*
22 October 2013
(Rod Veal <http://electronicintifada.net/people/rod-veal> / ZUMA Press
<http://electronicintifada.net/people/zuma-press>)
Based on flimsy evidence, the FBI
<http://electronicintifada.net/tags/fbi> has sabotaged efforts to be on
good terms with Muslim communities in the US by accusing the Council on
American-Islamic Relations
<http://electronicintifada.net/tags/council-american-islamic-relations>
(CAIR) of being linked to a “terrorist organization.”
Founded in 1994, CAIR monitors policies that affect Muslim Americans and
provides legal representation in cases of civil rights violations. The
largest nationwide organization advocating for Muslims’ rights in the
US, CAIR says the blacklisting has undermined its work at a time when it
is needed the most.
The group first became aware of its change of status on 8 October 2008,
when James Finch, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Oklahoma City
field office, sent a letter to participants of the state’s Muslim
Community Outreach Program. In the letter, he informed them that the
upcoming quarterly meeting between members of the Muslim community and
local law enforcement would be canceled due to CAIR’s participation.
“It was surprising because up until that point, CAIR in Oklahoma had
enjoyed a very good relationship with the FBI,” Adam Soltani told The
Electronic Intifada. Soltani is the third and current executive director
of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR.
/** In many cases CAIR accepts the role of cooperating with the FBI to
'help them' distinguish between good and bad Muslims - a problematic
aspiration to say the least - CM*/
“They had attended our events, annual banquet, our training functions on
‘know your rights,’” recalled Soltani, who served on the chapter’s board
of directors from 2006 until 2008.
That was the first communication that CAIR had received suggesting that
the organization’s relationship with the FBI was to about to change. Two
weeks later — on 22 October 2008 — the FBI met with the national
director of CAIR and informed the organization of the new “parameters
for any future interaction” with the FBI: as of that point the FBI would
no longer attend CAIR-sponsored events and CAIR would not be invited to
attend any FBI-sponsored event.
“Unindicted co-conspirator”
The events that precipitated the blacklisting of CAIR can be traced back
to May 2007, when CAIR was listed — along with 246 individuals and
organizations — as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the federal
government’s case against the Holy Land Foundation
<http://electronicintifada.net/tags/holy-land-foundation>, the largest
Islamic charity in the US until it was shut down
<http://electronicintifada.net/content/let-us-not-be-brought-down-last-legal-recourse-holy-land-five/11805>
by a Bush administration executive order in December 2001.
The sprawling list
<http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/423.pdf> of
“unindicted co-conspirators” was divided into 11 categories, identifying
those included on the list by their alleged membership in or
participation with Hamas <http://electronicintifada.net/tags/hamas> or
Muslim Brotherhood
<http://electronicintifada.net/tags/muslim-brotherhood>-affiliated
groups. CAIR, for instance, was listed under “members of the US Muslim
Brotherhood’s ‘Palestine Committee’ and/or its organizations.”
There is very little precise information available about the Palestine
Committee. The Investigative Project on Terrorism
<http://electronicintifada.net/tags/investigative-project-terrorism>, an
anti-Muslim website founded by Steven Emerson
<http://electronicintifada.net/tags/steven-emerson>, describes
<http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/08/cair_identified_by_the_fbi_as.php>
it as a group formed by leaders of “the Muslim Brotherhood of the
Levant.” Corey Saylor, the current communications director of CAIR,
knows only that it was “a group that existed in the early 1990s that
seemed to have strengthening pro-Palestinian work at its core.”
The Palestine Committee is alleged to have initially spawned four
US-based organizations, the Holy Land Foundation being one of them.
The government’s first case against the Holy Land Foundation ended in
mistrial. But the foundation was re-prosecuted in 2008, and found guilty
by the jury. From 2008 to 2012, the case weaved its way through the
courts, stopping short of the Supreme Court. For the first time in the
history of the US court system, prosecutors were allowed to admit
anonymous expert testimony — by an Israeli intelligence agent —
significantly limiting the defense’s ability to cross-examine.
Tenuous
The evidence the FBI used to implicate CAIR as a “co-conspirator” with
the Holy Land Foundation is tenuous.
It includes the claims that CAIR received money from the foundation in
1994 — before it was designated a “terrorist organization” — and that
Omar Ahmad, the former chairperson of CAIR, and Nihad Awad, the founder
of CAIR, were present at an October 1993 meeting of the Palestine
Committee in Philadelphia.
Participants in this two-day meeting allegedly expressed support for
“the Movement,” which the FBI interpreted as Hamas, and opposition to
the Oslo agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation
Organization that had been formally signed only the month before.
Court transcripts and documents in the FBI’s case available on Emerson’s
Investigative Project on Terrorism site show that the meeting was bugged
by the FBI (“Testimony of FBI Agent Lara Burns [and others], 9/29/2008
<http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1952.pdf>,” p.
123-4 [PDF]).
In 1994 Hamas had not yet been criminalized in the US. Hamas was placed
on the list of terrorist organizations in 1995, when President Bill
Clinton <http://electronicintifada.net/tags/bill-clinton> signed an
executive order
<http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/12947.pdf>
designating Palestinian groups that rejected the Oslo accords
<http://electronicintifada.net/tags/oslo-accords> as “terrorist
organizations which threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process.”
Prior to this policy, the US government had maintained tepid diplomatic
relations with Hamas. But in the early 1990s, Israel began making the
case that Hamas was as much a threat to US national security as it was
to Israel’s.
In a 2008 article published by the /Journal of Palestine Studies/,
lawyers Michael E. Deutsch and Erica Thompson document how the Israeli
government, in the early 1990s, built its campaign to accuse Palestinian
American Muhammad Salah
<http://electronicintifada.net/tags/muhammad-salah> as a terrorist and
Hamas leader by arguing that Hamas had established its leadership in the US.
As Deutsch and Thomas write: “The [Government of Israel] press office
released a diagram of Hamas’ operational structure, reproduced in a
number of publications, which put ‘US leadership’ at the top and drew
lines that extended to several Middle Eastern states, including Iran”
(“Secrets and Lies: The Persecution of Muhammad Salah
<http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=10022&jid=1&href=fulltext>”).
This doctrine — that the US must abort the germinating “nerve center” of
Hamas operatives in the US — was eventually codified in Clinton’s 1995
executive order and exemplified in the government’s case against the
Holy Land Foundation, which would not reach the courts until May 2007.
Salah was put on a list of “designated terrorists” following a decision
by the Clinton administration, and though a federal court acquitted
Salah of all terrorism charges in 2007, he was not removed from the list
until 2012 after a legal challenge
<http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/victory-palestinian-american-muhammad-salah-removed-us-terrorist-list-after>.
At that point, the government filed its first brief charging the Holy
Land Foundation with conspiracy to provide support to Hamas, now a
designated terrorist organization. After nearly 13 years of
investigating the Holy Land Foundation, the government found no evidence
it supported or incited any violence. Instead, the government’s case
relied entirely on the fact that Hamas controlled the Palestinian
charities — known as /zakat/ committees — the foundation assisted.
Witch hunt
While the government’s brief specified just seven individuals as
defendants, it announced
<http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_nait.html> a political witch hunt
for Hamas: “The focal point of this case is the designated terrorist
group Hamas … As noted in the case summary, the defendants were
operating in concert with a host of individuals and organizations
dedicated to sustaining and furthering the Hamas movement.”
The list of “unindicted co-conspirators” that was appended to the 2007
brief sounded an alarm bell for Muslim and Palestinian organizations
around the country.
“It’s a scary-sounding thing and we now have to labor under this
designation,” CAIR’s communications director Corey Saylor said.
“Institutions that don’t like us use it as a hammer on us all the time.
It interferes with our relations with other institutions, interferes
with our donors. We used to be able to approach the FBI with a problem.
Now we can’t do that. Now it’s more combative in the media and the
lawsuits and that doesn’t help anyone.”
Michael German, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties
Union <http://electronicintifada.net/tags/aclu> (ACLU), said that the
practice of naming “unindicted co-conspirators” allows prosecutors to
get around prohibitions against the admission of hearsay evidence in a
trial. Rather than needing to prove the allegations that CAIR and the
other 246 individuals and organizations on the list committed a crime —
or conspired to — with the Holy Land Foundation case, the government is
able to level an unsubstantiated smear.
In a 2004 article
<http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1245&context=facsch_lawrev&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fq%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.wcl.american.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1245%2526context%253Dfacsch_lawrev%26sa%3DD%26sntz%3D1%26usg%3DAFQjCNE9JJrHjCCNMtswSNR3QIN7Ge1TsA#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.wcl.american.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1245%26context%3Dfacsch_lawrev%22>,
Professor Ira Robbins of American University Washington College of Law
argues that the process of naming “unindicted co-conspirators”
unavoidably violates individuals’ Fifth Amendment rights because by not
criminally indicting them, those listed “have neither the right to
present evidence nor the opportunity to clear their names.”
Robbins presciently forewarns that while the government had not employed
“unindicted co-conspirators” for some time, the domestic terrorism
trials occurring in the wake of the 11 September attacks presented
“fertile ground” for the reintroduction the legal tactic.
In fact, the manual for US attorneys instructs prosecutors not to make
public “unindicted co-conspirators.” On why the US attorneys failed to
comply with that rule, the ACLU’s German said: “That’s a good question.”
Before joining the ACLU, German worked in the FBI for 16 years, 12 of
which he spent working on domestic terrorism cases. He left the FBI in
2004 after becoming increasingly disturbed by the agency’s methods after
the 11 September 2001 atrocities.
“After spending 12 years trying to change it from the inside, I decided
I would be a better advocate for civil rights on the outside,” he said.
Damage already done
In 2010, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did indeed find that the
publication of the list of “unindicted co-conspirators” violated the
individuals’ and groups’ Fifth Amendment rights.
But the damage was already done. “You can’t put toothpaste back in the
tube,” as German noted.
Further corroborating claims that the allegations against CAIR were
baseless, Attorney General Eric Holder
<http://electronicintifada.net/tags/eric-holder> stated in 2011 that
after reviewing the facts of the case his Justice Department had reached
the same conclusion as that of the Bush administration not to prosecute
CAIR (“Holder: DOJ nixed CAIR leader’s prosecution
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0411/Holder_DOJ_nixed_CAIR_leaders_prosecution.html>,”
Salon, 26 April 2011).
Moreover, after Representative Peter King criticized Holder’s decision,
Jim Jacks, lead prosecutor of the Holy Land Foundation, announced his
approval of the decision not to prosecute CAIR (“US attorney in Dallas
says Obama’s White House didn’t meddle in case
<http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20110429-u.s.-attorney-in-dallas-says-obamas-white-house-didnt-meddle-in-case.ece>,”
/The Dallas Morning News/, 29 April 2011).
“Considering that the government has broad powers to prosecute
organizations that have provided material support to terrorism, the fact
that they haven’t brought more cases is evidence that they don’t have
any evidence against them,” German said.
But while the government never charged CAIR with criminal activity, its
lingering status as an “unindicted co-conspirator” remains the bedrock
for the FBI’s blacklisting of the organization until this day.
In 2008, a year after the government sued the Holy Land Foundation, a
still-unknown entity within the FBI instructed all field offices to
sever official relations with CAIR. Up until that point, FBI field
offices throughout the country had cultivated relationships with local
CAIR chapters in order to engage cooperatively with Muslim communities.
“We don’t always see eye to eye, but there used to be a healthy
relationship,” Saylor explained.
“For example, there was a meeting between the FBI and CAIR in 2004
regarding a ‘know your rights’ pocket book CAIR distributed,” Saylor
added. “The FBI was concerned about some of the language in that and
asked us to change it. So we agreed to add, ‘If you know of any criminal
activity taking place in your community, it is both your religious and
civic duty to immediately report such activity to local and federal law
enforcement agencies.’”
Devastating
Adam Soltani from CAIR’s Oklahoma office said that for many states,
including his, CAIR is the only organization representing Muslims’ civil
rights. Eliminating CAIR’s role as a mediator between Muslim communities
and the FBI has been devastating.
The new policy received praise from certain members of Congress. In
February 2009, Senators Jon Kyl, Charles Schumer and Tom Coburn wrote to
FBI Director Robert Mueller applauding the agency’s decision
<http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/242.pdf> to cut ties
with CAIR, and suggested the entire government adopt a similar policy.
But some FBI field offices had trouble implementing the policy. Mongi
Dhaouadi, the executive director of CAIR’s Connecticut chapter, told The
Electronic Intifada, “The policy has very clearly frustrated agents
because it has hindered their efforts to reach out to the Islamic
community in Connecticut.”
That the policy has disrupted the practices of local FBI offices is
clear in a Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General report
published last month (“Review of FBI interactions with the Council on
American-Islamic Relations
<http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2013/e0707r.pdf>,” 19 September 2013
[PDF]).
In response to a request by Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia, the
Office of Inspector General launched an investigation into the handful
of instances in which field offices were non-compliant with the
guidelines established in late 2008. Despite the absence of criminal
charges or incriminating evidence against CAIR, the Office of Inspector
General has still failed to conduct a review of the policy itself.
“One of the troubling things for me as a former FBI agent is that the
FBI should be responsible for enforcing civil rights laws. That the FBI
would be a part of violating civil rights and the Inspector General
would fail to investigate it at all, and instead investigate a violation
of internal policy is problematic,” the ACLU’s German said.
In a scathing letter
<https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/2013-10-07_-_aclu_letter_to_oig_re_general_review_of_fbi_interactions_with_cair.pdf>
sent to Inspector General Michael Horowitz on 7 October, the ACLU
writes: “Rather than criticize the FBI officials who resisted this
policy, the OIG [Office of Inspector General] should have applauded them
for honoring their oaths to defend the constitutional rights of all
Americans, and reprimanded instead the FBI officials who formulated and
implemented the policy.”
Secrecy
In the Office of Inspector General’s review of the program, much
pertinent information is redacted, including what entity instructed the
FBI to alter its relationship with CAIR; the full explanation for why
this policy was implemented; and the precise language of the policy.
“That’s very troubling because the only thing that should be redacted is
information that should not be disclosed for national security purposes.
I’m not aware of any division within the FBI that is itself classified,
so that strikes me as an inappropriate redaction, and perhaps designed
more to evade public accountability, than protect security in any way.”
German said.
The information that is not redacted states that the policy was
developed in part because of CAIR’s listing as an “unindicted
co-conspirator.”
“The OIG [Office of Inspector General] compounds the original
constitutional error by continuing to reference this list as evidence of
guilt when there has been no opportunity for CAIR to defend itself and
in fact no charge,” German said. “The government continues to use it in
a way that is inappropriate and misleading.”
Likewise, the report provides only a partial explanation for why the
policy was deemed necessary: “in order to stop CAIR senior leadership
from exploiting any contact with the FBI, it is critical to control and
limit any contact with CAIR.” A second reason is redacted.
While the Office of Inspector General’s report is intended to reinforce
the FBI’s ban on relating to CAIR, it only, albeit unintentionally,
reveals the senselessness of the policy.
In his conclusion, the Inspector General Michael Horowitz writes: “It
appears that the common mission of OPA [the Office of Public Affairs]
and the field divisions to foster interactions with the Muslim community
ran counter to and some cases, effectively undermined the intent of the
FBI’s [redacted — likely a policy title] to sever such non-investigative
community relations with CAIR.”
This admission seems only to have emboldened CAIR’s political enemies.
Following the publication of the Inspector General’s report, Rep. Frank
Wolf demanded the OIG “immediately remove
<http://wolf.house.gov/press-releases/wolf-statement-on-ig-report-on-fbicair/>”
all non-compliant FBI agents.
When phoned for comment, a spokesperson for the FBI directed all
questions The Electronic Intifada put to him to a letter the FBI sent to
Horowitz in response to his report (see Appendix I). In the letter, the
FBI assures Inspector General Horowitz that they will incorporate his
recommendations and implement safeguards against breaches of the policy
from occurring again.
On whether the Office of Inspector General should review the 2008
policy, spokesperson Chris Allen said, “I would not presume to know what
the IG [Inspector General] should do.”
Despite all that it has encountered, CAIR has kept on working to
advocate for the rights of Muslims in the US. As Saylor said, “We’ve
continued being effective without going to the FBI’s roundtables. The
attacks still continue but you don’t attack non-effective groups.”
/Charlotte Silver is a journalist based in San Francisco. Follow her on
Twitter: @CharESilver <https://twitter.com/CharESilver>./
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20131023/3eb73ded/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list