<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<h1 class="title" id="page-title"><small>How the FBI blacklisted US’
largest Muslim civil rights group</small></h1>
<div class="field-author"> <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/people/charlotte-silver"
typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Charlotte
Silver</a><br>
<b><small><small><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://electronicintifada.net/content/how-fbi-blacklisted-us-largest-muslim-civil-rights-group/1286">http://electronicintifada.net/content/how-fbi-blacklisted-us-largest-muslim-civil-rights-group/1286</a></small></small><small><small>7</small></small></b><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="field-publication-date"> <span class="date-display-single"
property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime"
content="2013-10-22T20:38:00+00:00">22 October 2013</span> </div>
<div class="field-body">
<div id="file-25997"
class="file file-image file-image-jpeg media-element file-full"
style="width: 618px;">
<div class="content"><br>
</div>
<span class="credit">(<a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/people/rod-veal"
typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Rod
Veal</a> / <a href="http://electronicintifada.net/people/zuma-press"
typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ZUMA
Press</a>)</span> </div>
<p>Based on flimsy evidence, the <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/fbi">FBI</a> has sabotaged
efforts to be on good terms with Muslim communities in the US by
accusing the <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/council-american-islamic-relations">Council
on American-Islamic Relations</a> (CAIR) of being linked to a
“terrorist organization.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>“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.<br>
</p>
<p><i><font color="#cc0000"><b>* 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</b></font></i><br>
</p>
<p>“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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h2>“Unindicted co-conspirator”</h2>
<p>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 <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/holy-land-foundation">Holy
Land Foundation</a>, the largest Islamic charity in the US until it was
<a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/content/let-us-not-be-brought-down-last-legal-recourse-holy-land-five/11805">shut
down</a> by a Bush administration executive order in December 2001.</p>
<p>The <a
href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/423.pdf">sprawling
list</a> of “unindicted co-conspirators” was divided into 11
categories, identifying those included on the list by their alleged
membership in or participation with <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/hamas">Hamas</a> or <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/muslim-brotherhood">Muslim
Brotherhood</a>-affiliated groups. CAIR, for instance, was listed under
“members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Palestine Committee’ and/or
its organizations.”</p>
<p>There is very little precise information available about the
Palestine Committee. The <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/investigative-project-terrorism">Investigative
Project on Terrorism</a>, an anti-Muslim website founded by <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/steven-emerson">Steven Emerson</a>,
<a
href="http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/08/cair_identified_by_the_fbi_as.php">describes</a>
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.”</p>
<p>The Palestine Committee is alleged to have initially spawned four
US-based organizations, the Holy Land Foundation being one of them.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<h2>Tenuous</h2>
<p>The evidence the FBI used to implicate CAIR as a “co-conspirator”
with the Holy Land Foundation is tenuous.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 (“<a
href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1952.pdf">Testimony
of FBI Agent Lara Burns [and others], 9/29/2008</a>,” p. 123-4 [PDF]).</p>
<p>In 1994 Hamas had not yet been criminalized in the US. Hamas was
placed on the list of terrorist organizations in 1995, when President <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/bill-clinton">Bill Clinton</a>
signed an <a
href="http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/12947.pdf">executive
order</a> designating Palestinian groups that rejected the <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/oslo-accords">Oslo accords</a>
as “terrorist organizations which threaten to disrupt the Middle East
peace process.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>In a 2008 article published by the <em>Journal of Palestine Studies</em>,
lawyers Michael E. Deutsch and Erica Thompson document how the Israeli
government, in the early 1990s, built its campaign to accuse
Palestinian American <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/muhammad-salah">Muhammad Salah</a>
as a terrorist and Hamas leader by arguing that Hamas had established
its leadership in the US.</p>
<p>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” (“<a
href="http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=10022&jid=1&href=fulltext">Secrets
and Lies: The Persecution of Muhammad Salah</a>”).</p>
<p>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 <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/victory-palestinian-american-muhammad-salah-removed-us-terrorist-list-after">after
a legal challenge</a>.</p>
<p>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 <em>zakat</em> committees — the
foundation assisted.</p>
<h2>Witch hunt</h2>
<p>While the government’s brief specified just seven individuals as
defendants, it <a
href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_nait.html">announced</a> 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.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>“It’s a scary-sounding thing and we now have to labor under this
designation,” CAIR’s communications director Corey Saylor said.</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>Michael German, senior policy counsel with the <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/aclu">American Civil
Liberties Union</a> (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.</p>
<p>In a <a
href="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">2004
article</a>, 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.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>“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.</p>
<h2>Damage already done</h2>
<p>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.</p>
<p>But the damage was already done. “You can’t put toothpaste back in
the tube,” as German noted.</p>
<p>Further corroborating claims that the allegations against CAIR were
baseless, Attorney General <a
href="http://electronicintifada.net/tags/eric-holder">Eric Holder</a>
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 (“<a
href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0411/Holder_DOJ_nixed_CAIR_leaders_prosecution.html">Holder:
DOJ nixed CAIR leader’s prosecution</a>,” Salon, 26 April 2011).</p>
<p>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 (“<a
href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20110429-u.s.-attorney-in-dallas-says-obamas-white-house-didnt-meddle-in-case.ece">US
attorney in Dallas says Obama’s White House didn’t meddle in case</a>,”
<em>The Dallas Morning News</em>, 29 April 2011).</p>
<p>“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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>“We don’t always see eye to eye, but there used to be a healthy
relationship,” Saylor explained.</p>
<p>“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.’”</p>
<h2>Devastating</h2>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <a
href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/242.pdf">applauding
the agency’s decision</a> to cut ties with CAIR, and suggested the
entire government adopt a similar policy.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>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 (“<a
href="http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2013/e0707r.pdf">Review of
FBI interactions with the Council on American-Islamic Relations</a>,”
19 September 2013 [PDF]).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>“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.</p>
<p>In a <a
href="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/2013-10-07_-_aclu_letter_to_oig_re_general_review_of_fbi_interactions_with_cair.pdf">scathing
letter</a> 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.”</p>
<h2>Secrecy</h2>
<p>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.</p>
<p>“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.</p>
<p>The information that is not redacted states that the policy was
developed in part because of CAIR’s listing as an “unindicted
co-conspirator.”</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>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 “<a
href="http://wolf.house.gov/press-releases/wolf-statement-on-ig-report-on-fbicair/">immediately
remove</a>” all non-compliant FBI agents.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p>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.”</p>
<p><em>Charlotte Silver is a journalist based in San Francisco. Follow
her on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/CharESilver">@CharESilver</a>.</em></p>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.freedomarchives.org">www.freedomarchives.org</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>