Terrorism Crimes Blog

British Court Rules People’s Mujahedeen Not Terrorist Group

2008-05-07T17:31:00.004-05:00

Britain’s Court of Appeal ruled today that the Iranian resistance group known as the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran should not be included on the British government’s list of banned terrorist groups. The group, who has been fighting for seven years in the British Court system to have their organization removed from the list, believes the ruling will leave Parliament no other choice but to remove them from a list of more than twenty terror organizations under Britain’s Terrorism Act. ^[1]

The People’s Mujahedeeen group goes back several decades, to Iranian resistance against the Shah in the mid-1960’s. After the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini executed many of the group’s members and exiled others. The group reorganized in the 1980’s in Iraq and has been carrying on a resistance campaign that has allegedly included assassinations of Iranian diplomats and former Mujahedeen. The group also provided intelligence on Iran’s attempts to enrich uranium, which led to sanctions against the country.^[2]

Iran has taken exception to the ruling, noting it is a political, rather than a legal decision. “Senior British authorities must explain the reason behind this ruling,” stated Mohammad Ali Hosseini, a spokesman for the Iranian government. Hosseini added that the decision will only empower armed attacks and “propagate terrorism and violence.”^[3]

In the Court’s ruling, Lord Chief Justice Nicholas Phillips wrote there was “no reasonable prospect of success” for any British government appeal of the ruling, and that the group had complied with its renunciation of violence in 2000. “The only conclusion that a reasonable decision maker could reach,” according to the court, was that the People’s Mujahedeen had been disbanded by American forces in Iraq and the group “has not taken any steps to acquire or seek to acquire further weapons or restore any military capability in Iraq.”^[4]

The group now intends to overturn a similar classification by the European Union, ^[5] but what effect the ruling will have on similar listings held by United States is yet to be seen. The group is currently listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US State Department,^[6] but the Bush administration has indicated they have no plans to lift the designation.^[7] The designation is key, as it is illegal to donate money or give assistance to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations, even if the money is earmarked for humanitarian purposes.

The People’s Mujahedeen hopes the ruling will help them gain strength in their on-going struggle against the current Iranian government. Following the overthrow of the Shah, many of the group’s members were tortured and executed, with survivors fleeing to Europe and Iraq. Many fought under Saddam Hussein during the mid-1980’s in the Iraqi war against Iran. A large contingent of supporters still remains in a camp under US protection in Iraq, near the Iranian border.^[8]

_________________
[1] John F Burns, Iran Group Not Terrorists, Court Finds, NY Times, May 8, 2008 (available at www.nytimes.com).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] US Department of State, Listing of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, May 6, 2008 (available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65479.pdf).

[7] Burns.

[8] Id.

Chicago Six to be Tried for Third Time

2008-04-25T19:56:00.003-05:00

Despite two mistrials due to hung juries, Federal Prosecutors announced on Wednesday they plan a third trial for six men accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower. “The United States has decided it’s necessary to proceed, your honor, one more time to a jury,” stated prosecutor Richard Gregorie to US District Judge Joan A. Lenard during hearing this week.^[1]

The six defendants were arrested in June of 2006 at a warehouse in Miami’s Liberty City neighborhood, after FBI informants posing as al-Qaeda operatives allegedly persuaded the men to pledge their allegiance to the terrorist group. The men were also offered $50,000 to take part in a terror plot, and had reportedly taken pictures of federal buildings in the Miami area. The group’s leader, Narseal Batiste, testified at the previous trials that he agreed to the proposal with the intent of defrauding the informants’ out of their money, not to commit terrorist activities.^[2] Prosecutor Gregorie pointed out that taped conversations obtained by the FBI counter Batiste’s assertions. "In referring to Americans, Mr. Batiste said he wanted to kill all the devils," Gregorie told the judge.^[3]

During the trial, prosecutors argued the men planned to finance the terror plot using the money provided. Hundreds of video and audio recordings were presented, but the government failed to show that any of the men possessed any weapons, explosives, or ammunition at the time of their arrest. The first jury acquitted one of the original defendants, Lyglenson Lemorin, of all charges, while the first and second juries deadlocked after nine and 13 days of deliberations, respectively.^[4]

Many legal analysts have used the “Chicago Seven/Six” mistrials to underscore their criticisms of the Bush administration’s handling of terror prosecutions, but former US Attorney Kendall Coffey defended the third retrial. "It's not a surprising decision given the seriousness of the allegations and the Department of Justice’s focus on terrorism…We can expect that they would pursue defendants unless or until the prospects of conviction are truly hopeless."^[5] It is expected that the third trial will commence sometime this winter.^[6]

Further information on the prosecution of terrorism crimes can be found on the Terrorism Crimes Blog.

__________________
[1] Julienne Gage, US to Make Third Attempt to Prosecute Miami Group, Washington Post Online, April 24, 2008 (available at www.washingtonpost.com).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Jose Padilla Begins Prison Term at Supermax

2008-04-19T19:59:00.003-05:00

After being convicted of terrorism-related offenses in Federal Court and sentenced to 17 years in prison, accused “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla was sent on Thursday to the notorious Supermax prison to serve out his sentence for separate terrorism-related offenses. ^[1]

Supermax, the ultra-high security facility in Florence, CO, is best known for its strict isolation and infamous occupants, including fellow convicted terror suspects Zacarias Moussaoui, Shek Omar Abdel-Rahman, and “Shoebomber” Richard Reid, as well as “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski, former FBI Agent Robert Hanssen, and Oklahoma Bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols. Padilla’s attorney, Michael Caruso, called Supermax “a living hell,”^[2] with inmates spending 23 hours a day in their 7-by-12-foot cells, and all of that time spent in solitary confinement. Caruso noted that most other persons convicted of supporting terrorism have not be ordered to serve under such conditions, calling the decision “yet another example of Jose being treated differently and in a more punitive fashion than others who have been accused of similar crimes. I genuinely fear that Jose's mental health will erode to an even greater degree."^[3]

Padilla was sentenced in January to 17 years in prison, but with time served and good behavior, he is scheduled to be released as early as 2021. Padilla was arrested in 2002 at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, accused with plotting to detonate a “dirty bomb” in support of al Qaeda, but these charges were not presented in his federal trial.^[4] Instead, Padilla was convicted, along with two others, of sending money, recruits and supplies to Islamic extremist groups. Padilla, who is a US citizen, was held in a military jail for over three years before being brought to trial. Prior to his trial, Padilla filed numerous challenges to his continued detention, and also claimed he had been tortured while being held in a Navy brig. He continues to appeal both his conviction and sentence.^[5]

The case of Jose Padilla has been covered extensively in the Terrorism Crimes Blog, with additional information on his specific case found here.

__________________
[1] Convicted Terrorism Platter Padilla Sent to ‘Supermax’ Prison, Associated Press, April 18, 2008 (available at www.online.wsj.com).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

DOJ Supported Warrantless Search and Seizure in Terror Cases

2008-04-14T18:36:00.002-05:00

A memo issued by the Department of Justice in 2001 supported the assertion that Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to military members fighting terrorism in the United States. The document was recently released with several other controversial memos as a part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The memo, written by controversial former Justice attorney John Yoo and sent on October 23, 2001, to the Department of Defense and the White House, examined legal issues that would be faced if US forces were deployed in the United States “in the event of further large-scale terrorist activities.” ^[1]

In addition to the Fourth Amendment memo, a 2003 Justice Department document authorizing harsh interrogation techniques was also made public. Both documents supported almost unlimited executive power during times of war, including limits on Congress’ ability to pass legislation governing interrogations of enemy combatants. The 2003 memo also asserted that federal criminal laws did not apply to military interrogators questioning al-Qaeda captives, and that Fifth Amendment guarantees of due process "do not address actions the Executive takes in conducting a military campaign against the Nation's enemies."^[2]

Such assertions have shocked many in the legal world, both in and outside of the Bush Administration. Jameel Jaffer, National Security Director at the ACLU underscored that no court ruling has ever supported the assertion that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to members of the military. "In general, the government can't send an FBI agent to search your home or listen to your phone calls without a warrant, and it can't send a soldier to do it, either," he said. "The applicability of the Fourth Amendment doesn't turn on what kind of uniform the government agent is wearing."^[3]

Even members of the military were reluctant to accept the assertions made in the Justice memos. In regards to the memo authorizing harsh interrogation techniques, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers (Ret.), who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the memo was written, discounted the document’s narrow definition of torture as "absolutely ludicrous."^[4] Myers further added, "I frankly don't know anyone in the military who bought into that as a good definition of when you cross the line….In the end, you want to do the right thing. I worry most about reciprocity, how other countries will treat us."^[5]

Several of the memos in question have since been withdrawn by the Justice Department, which instructed both the Defense Department and the White House to disregard the assertions made in the documents, but the Fourth Amendment memo arguing for military exceptions to search and seizure requirements has not been formally withdrawn. The document remains a “secret but unclassified document,” according to Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, who declined to state whether or not the document has since been modified.^[6]

_______________________
[1] Dan Eggan and Josh White, Administration Asserted a Terror Exception on Search and Seizure, Washington Post, April 4, 2008 (available at www.washingtonpost.com).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Trial of Heathrow Terror Suspects Begins

2008-04-06T05:08:00.002-05:00

The trial of eight men accused of plotting to blow up seven transatlantic flights originating at Heathrow Airport in 2006 began this week in London, with prosecutors detailing their alleged plot to bring liquid explosives onto the planes.^[1]

The men, aged 23 to 29 and all of Pakistani descent, reportedly planned to smuggle hydrogen peroxide, carried in plastic bottles and colored to resemble a beverage, aboard flights where the liquid would later be mixed with other ingredients to make an improvised explosive. The targeted flights included routes to Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Montreal, and Toronto.^[2]

Prosecutors allege the plot would have been the most ambitious and devastating terror attack since 9/11, and that "the authorities would be unable to prevent the other flights from meeting a similar fate as they would already be in midair” over the Atlantic Ocean when the first device was set to explode.^[3] The case is the result of the largest anti-terrorism investigation in British history, and the security restrictions placed on the transport of liquids and gels aboard passenger flights, initiated in response to the alleged plot, remain in place today.^[4]

Investigators reportedly found flight information, aircraft details, and a list of items allowed on-board passenger flights on a computer memory stick belonging to Abdul Ahmed Ali, one of the accused masterminds of the plot. Ali also allegedly wrote handwritten notes, which were presented to the jury, detailing formulas for combining the necessary organic material with hydrogen peroxide, as well as how to detonate the mixture.^[5]

The trial is expected to last several months, with the prosecution’s case-in-chief commencing next week.^[6]

Further information on terrorism crimes under United States jurisdiction can be found here, with relevant cases found on the Terrorism Crimes Blog.

_________________
[1] Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan, 8 Accused in Transatlantic Bomb Plot Go on Trial, Washington Post, March 4, 2008 (available at www.washingtonpost.com).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Federal Judge Sets Aside $200 Million Terror Judgment Against Palestinian Authority

2008-03-30T03:30:00.004-05:00

On Thursday, US District Judge Victor Marrero set aside a nearly $200 million civil judgment awarded to American victims of Palestinian terrorism in Israel, allowing for a new trial. Judge Marrero did require the Palestinian Authority to post a $192.7 million bond in order to assure it does not default in any possible future judgments, and ordered the group to pay all legal expenses previously accrued by the plaintiffs in their suit.^[1]

Palestinian officials initially warned that such suits were likely to bankrupt their organization, and had urged top US government officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to halt the action. The Bush administration ultimately chose not to intervene or provide an opinion on the case, a move that would have forced a choice between supporting monetary damages for terror victims and supporting the Palestinian government in hopes for progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Judge Marrero noted in his decision that the Bush administration did make a statement to the court noting its concern that similar lawsuits could damage “financial and political viability” of the tenuous existence of the Palestinian Authority.^[2]

The plaintiffs sued under the Antiterrorism Act,^[3] a 1990 federal law passed following Achille Lauro hijacking, but the Palestinian Authority argued that it was immune from such suits, citing sovereign immunity. Federal courts rejected the claim, as Palestine is not currently recognized as a state by the US. ^[4]

In 2006, a judgment of almost $174 million was levied against the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority, the latter of whom refused not to defend itself in court. Subsequently, the Palestinian Authority stated it was prepared to mount a defense against the charges and desired a new trial. Judge Marrero’s opinion to set aside the judgment now allows the organization the opportunity to do so.^[5]

Further information on criminal liability arising from acts of terrorism can be found on the Terrorism Crimes site, as well as the Terrorism Crimes Blogs.
___________________
[1] Glenn Kessler, Palestinian Authority Granted New Trial in Terrorism Damages Suit, March 28, 2008 (available at www.washingtonpost.com).

[2] Id.

[3] See Knox v Palestine Liberation Organization, 230 FRD 383 (2005).

[4] Kessler.

[5] Id.

Convicted Terrorism Supporter Sami al-Arian Faces Continued Imprisonment

2008-03-22T16:57:00.003-05:00

Sami al-Arian, a former computer engineering professor convicted in 2005 of conspiring to assist the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, may have his stay in prison extended after refusing to testify before a grand jury.^[1]

Arian was originally scheduled to be released from prison next month, and then be deported to the Palestinian territories. Instead, he may be kept behind bars by US authorities for civil contempt. Arian has been subpoenaed to testify in a grand jury investigation into Muslim charities that allegedly aided terrorist organizations, but has refused to give testimony as he believes the charities have been unjustly targeted "and he doesn't want them to be persecuted the way he was.”^[2]

In 2003, Arian was the focus of a high profile terrorism prosecution, accused of conspiracy to commit racketeering and murder in aid of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad,^[3] a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department.^[4] He was acquitted in 2005 of the majority of charges, but pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and was sentenced to 57 months in prison. A part of the plea agreement reportedly included an understanding with the federal government that he would serve additional prison time if the government would not elicit his testimony in future terrorism prosecutions. But since this immunity was not a part of the official plea, Department of Justice officials say they are not bound by it.^[5]

"The plea agreement is clear, unambiguous and does not grant Al-Arian immunity from future grand jury subpoena," stated Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd. "Therefore, we hold that the government did not break the plea agreement by issuing a subpoena commanding Al-Arian to testify before a grand jury." The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals court agreed, issuing a decision in January blocking Arian from relying on any understandings not outlined in the plea agreement.^[6]

The case of Sami al-Arian has been discussed extensively in previous Terrorism Crimes Blogs, which can be accessed here.

___________________
[1] Darryl Fears, Refusal Keeps Terrorism Convict in Prison, Washington Post, March 22, 2008 (available at www.washingtonpost.com).

[2] Id.

[3] See US State Department listing of foreign terrorist organizations, available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/41055.pdf.

[4] Fears.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Attorneys Claim Gitmo Detainee Zubaydah Illegally Held

2008-03-18T07:32:00.004-05:00

One of the US government’s most valuable detainees claimed he never worked for Al Qaeda and has been unlawfully detained. In a petition filed last month with the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, and unsealed Monday, attorneys for Abu Zubaydah claim US charges against their client are false and his continued detention is a violation of due process rights.^[1]

Attorneys for Zubaydah assert that he "has not been afforded any procedures that would satisfy even the most basic notions of due process," adding that he is “not a member of either the Taliban or al Qaeda" and that he "did not cause or attempt to cause any harm to American personnel or property.”^[2] The petition also contains quotes from a former FBI Agent, Daniel Coleman, who describes Zubaydah as a “travel agent” for Al Qaeda who “knew very little about real operations.”^[3]

Brent Mickum, one of Zubaydah’s lawyers, further added that no classified information on Zubaydah has been provided to support government claims regarding the alleged activities of their client. The attorneys reportedly were forced to rely solely on information from the public records and media reports.^[4]

This is not the first time the Zubaydah case has been the subject of judicial scrutiny- in December 2007, CIA officials admitted to videotaping interrogations of Zubaydah, and later destroying those recordings, possibly illegally.^[5]

Zubaydah was reportedly detained in CIA facilities overseas from the time of his capture in Pakistan in 2002, until his transfer to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2006. Authorities have admitted that Zubaydah was submitted to waterboarding during interrogation, and he further claims to have been subjected to other severe treatment while in custody. Government documents claim Zubaydah was recruited by Osama Bin Laden to be a travel facilitator, directed an Al Qaeda training camp, and was trained in forgery and the use of explosives. It is further alleged he was organizing a terror attack in Israel at the time of his capture.^[6]

Douglas McNabb has written extensively on the prosecution of alleged terror suspects; additional information can be found here, with specific analysis of terrorism crimes found here.

__________________
[1] Carol Cratty, Terror detainee falsely held, lawyers say; CNN.com, March 17, 2008 (available at www.cnn.com).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, CIA Destroyed Tapes as Judge Sought Interrogation Data, NY Times, February 7, 2008 (available at www.nytimes.com).

[6] Cratty.

Former US Navy Sailor Convicted of Leaking Information to Suspected Terror Groups

2008-03-08T13:27:00.007-06:00

Former United States Navy signalman Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, Arizona, was convicted in a Connecticut Federal Court this week of providing material support to terrorists and disclosing classified national defense information.^[1]

Prosecutors alleged that Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, leaked information regarding the movement of his ship, the destroyer USS Benfold, as well as the make-up, formation, and movement of the ship’s battle group when it was scheduled to pass through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf during April of 2001.^[2]

Evidence presented during the trial included computer discs recovered from the London, England, home of an alleged terrorism supporter. One disc included files which detailed ship movements, the number and type of personnel aboard several navy vessels, as well as the capabilities of those ships.^[3]

At his May 23 sentencing, Abu-Jihaad faces up to 25 years in federal prison. His attorneys plan to appeal the guilty verdict, stating that the US government’s four-year investigation failed to prove Abu-Jihaad was responsible for the leaked information. During the trial, defense attorney Dan LaBelle attempted to show that much of the “inside information” allegedly leaked by Abu-Jihaad contained multiple factual errors, and was publicly available via press releases and websites.^[4],

Federal prosecutors acknowledged investigators found no direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked ship details, but noted that the leaked documents were of the type that Abu-Jihaad would have had access to while working as a signalman, adding that the disclosed information could only have been leaked by someone with inside access.^[5]

Abu-Jihaad, who received an honorable discharge from the US Navy in 2002, was charged as a result of an investigation into the activities of Babar Ahmad, a British citizen accused of running websites aimed at recruiting terrorism fighters and sympathizers, as well as raising money and obtaining equipment to support terrorists. Ahmad is currently awaiting extradition to the United States.^[6]

The crime of providing material support for terrorism is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 2339B.^[7] That statute makes it a crime to knowingly provide, attempt to provide, or conspire to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. The penalty for violation of this statute is a fine or imprisonment up to 15 years, or both. If the death of any person results, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.^[8] Disclosing national defense information to a person not entitled to receive it is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 793(d).^[9] This federal statute criminalizes any attempt to deliver any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note to a person not entitled to receive it. The information disclosed must be related to the national defense, and must be of the type that could be used to injure the United States or give advantage to a foreign nation. Violation of this statute carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. ^[10]

Federal criminal defense attorney Douglas McNabb discussed the Abu-Jihaad case previously here. Additionally, the crime of providing material support to terrorists can be discussed here, and the crime of disclosing national defense information to one not entitled to receive it can be accessed here.
____________________

[1] John Christoffersen, Ex-Sailor Convicted in Terrorism Case, Associated Press, March 5, 2008 (available at www.washingtonpost.com).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] 18 U.S.C §2339B (2008).

[8] Id.

[9] 18 U.S.C. §793(d) (2008).

[10] Id.

Former Navy Sailor Stands Trial for Alleged Support of Terrorists

2008-02-26T08:30:00.001-06:00

The trial of a former Navy sailor alleged of providing material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens and disclosing classified national security information began this past Monday.^[1] British investigators began the trial by describing the details they found in the sailor’s London home, including information on the vulnerability of a U.S. Navy battle group.^[2] U.S. prosecutors accuse the defendant, Hassan Abu-Jihaad, of passing that information on to individuals in London suspected of being terrorism supporters.^[3] Abu-Jihaad, an American convert to Islam, was formerly known as Paul R. Hall. He served as a signalman prior to receiving an honorable discharge from the Navy.^[4]

Abu-Jihaad pled not guilty to the charges against him and the defense counsel contends that the government’s case is very weak.^[5]

Abu-Jihaad was the target of the same British investigation that led to the 2004 arrest of Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist alleged to have raised money via his website, appealed for fighters and provided equipment for terrorists.^[6] Ahmad is currently facing extradition to the U.S.

In the course of the investigation of Ahmad a computer floppy disk was found. According to computer expert Samantha Miller, that disk contained information on U.S. Navy ships and planned ship movements.^[7] Furthermore, the information on the disk included statements such as "They have nothing to stop a small craft with RPG (rocket-propelled grenade), etc., except their SEALS' stinger missiles."^[8]

In addition, the information on the disk included the makeup of the Navy battle group, outlined the battle group’s movements and provided an illustration of how the group's formation would look when it passed through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.^[9] Moreover, it included information on the personnel of each ship and the ships' capabilities. The information also ended with instructions that the message was to be destroyed.^[10]

Prosecutors admit that they do not have any direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked the information found on the disks.^[11] However, they contend that Abu-Jihaad spoke with Ahmad through e-mail in both 2000 and 2001.^[12] Investigators say that in those e-mails Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Osama bin Laden.^[13]

Prosecutors intend to bolster their case by playing intercepted phone calls to demonstrate what they believe is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech.^[14] Investigators believe that Abu-Jihaad spoke of "hot meals" and "cold meals" in reference to intelligence that could be used to strike American military targets.^[15]

Abu-Jihaad's attorneys believe those statements are irrelevant. The trial is expected to last one to two weeks.^[16]

Crimes for the material support of terrorism are punishable under 18 U.S.C. 2339B.^[17] That statute makes it a crime to knowingly provide, attempt to provide, or conspirer to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. The penalty for this violation is a fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisonment for any term of years or for life.^[18]

Disclosing national defense information to a person not entitled to receive it is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 793(d).^[19] That statute criminalizes any attempt to deliver to a person not authorized to receive it, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note related to the national defense that could be used to injure the United States or give advantage to a foreign nation.^[20] Violation of this statute carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.^[21]

Abu-Jihaad is alleged to have violated both of these statutes and could face a maximum penalty of 25 years.

Federal criminal defense attorney Douglas McNabb has discussed the terrorism crime of providing support to terrorists extensively in this blog, as well as the crime of disclosing national defense information to one not entitled to receive it; these posts can be accessed here and here.

[1] John Christoffersen, Terror Trial Starts for Ex-Navy Sailor, Associated Press, Feb. 25, 2008 (available at www.ap.org).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17]18 U.S.C. § 2339B (2008).
[18] Id.
[19]18 U.S.C. § 793(d) (2008).
[20] Id.
[21] Id.

Australian Court Eases Restrictions on Former Guantanamo Bay Detainee

2008-02-19T19:55:00.002-06:00

An Australian court has relaxed some of the restrictions placed on former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.^[1]

An order was upheld requiring Hicks, an Australian citizen who pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism under a deal that ended more than five years in U.S. military detention, to report to police and which also limited his movement.^[2]

Federal Magistrate Warren Donald granted Hicks' request that some of the limitations on his freedom be reduced so that he may get a job and fit back into society.^[3]

Hicks was captured among Taliban supporters in Afghanistan by U.S.-backed forces in December 2001 and later transferred to the custody of the U.S. military.^[4] Following five years of detention without a trial, Hicks was brought before a military tribunal on charges of providing material support to al-Qaida.^[5]

Hicks remains the only person ever convicted by a military tribunal at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It should be noted however, that this conviction was the result of a plea bargain reached before his trial even began.^[6]

Under the plea bargain, Hicks was sentenced to seven years in prison, and then released into Australian custody to serve the rest of his term in his home country.^[7] In December he was released, however Australian Federal Police sought the court-imposed control order insisting that he was still a terror threat.^[8]

Under the order’s new terms, Hicks only has to report to police twice a week instead of three and may live anywhere in Australia, as long as the location is approved by police.^[9] Other restrictions still remain in place. These include not being able to leave the country and the inability to possess weapons.^[10]

As mentioned above, Hicks was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2339B for providing material support to a terrorist organization.^[11] Under that statute it is a crime to knowingly provide, attempt to provide, or conspirer to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. The penalty for this violation is a fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisonment for any term of years or for life.^[12]

Federal criminal defense attorney Douglas McNabb has discussed the terrorism crime of providing support to terrorists extensively in this blog; these posts can be accessed here. David Hicks case has been discussed here.

[1] The Associated Press, Restrictions Eased on Terror Supporter, The Associated Press, Feb. 19, 2008 (available at http://www.ap.org).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (2008).
[12] Id.

DOJ Ordered to Establish Relevancy of Destroyed Interrogation Tapes

2008-02-15T19:02:00.002-06:00

The Bush administration has been ordered by a federal judge to state whether two CIA interrogation videos destroyed in 2005 were relevant to his case.^[1]

The videos displayed CIA interrogators using harsh methods on two individuals suspected of engaging in terrorism, however, the government has yet to reveal what information was gleaned from that questioning. The Department of Justice has asked that judges not to demand information about the tapes, citing that it would hamper an ongoing investigation into their destruction.^[2]

U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts rejected the Justice Department’s stance last month and required that the government disclose how it has handled evidence since 2005 and explain what has been destroyed. The Justice Department asked Judge Roberts to put that ruling on hold due to the ongoing criminal investigation. In a ruling on the afternoon of February 14th, Roberts held that he would not call for the government to reveal its handling of all evidence since 2005. However, he has asked that prosecutors disclose whether any destroyed evidence was relevant to his case which involves a Guantanamo Bay detainee.^[3]

If the two al-Qaida suspects in the video discussed the detainee from Roberts’ case during their interrogation, the CIA would have to disclose that in court and give an explanation as to why they destroyed the tapes.^[4]

In July of 2005, Roberts had ordered that the government preserve all evidence in the case. In November of that year the tapes were destroyed. In the event that Roberts finds that the tapes contained evidence relevant to his case he could hold the government in contempt of court.^[5]

Contempt of court is punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 401, where it is defined as the

(1) Misbehavior of any person in the court’s presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of the court’s officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to the court’s lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.^[6]

If Judge Roberts finds that evidence relevant to his case was destroyed and holds the government in contempt of court, then the punishment can be by fine or imprisonment, or both.^[7]

According to Roberts, the government has yet to prove that they did not destroy evidence in the case. In fact, the Judge expressed disapproval when prosecutor John Durham quoted CIA Director Michael Hayden in court documents, stating that the tapes were destroyed only after it was determined that they were not relevant to any court cases. Roberts noted the quote "with some concern." He stated that he does not understand why the Hayden quote was included, given that the Justice Department has not offered evidence to show that the tapes were irrelevant and that Durham himself is investigating whether destroying them violated any court orders.^[8]

Although Roberts has stated that he does not want to interfere with the criminal investigation, the Bush administration has shown no reason why it cannot state whether evidence related to his case was destroyed. He has given the Justice Department a deadline of March 13 to do just that.^[9]

[1] Matt Apuzzo, Judge Asks Details on Destroyed Evidence, The Associated Press, Feb. 14 2008 (available at http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1305820&nid=116).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] 18 U.S.C. § 401(2008).
[7] Id.
[8] Matt Apuzzo, Judge Asks Details on Destroyed Evidence, The Associated Press, Feb. 14 2008 (available at http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1305820&nid=116).
[9] Id.

Prosecutors Say Attorney Supported Terror Yet Got Light Sentence

2008-02-01T16:57:00.000-06:00

Lynne Stewart was sentenced to two years and four months in prison, escaping a maximum punishment of 30 years behind bars.^[1] Prosecutors assert that Stewart and co-defendants helped spread blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman's call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.^[2] The prosecutor wants a harsher sentence because Stewart received a "slap on the wrist," in their opinion.^[3]

Stewart is a civil rights attorney and Abdel-Rahman, who was sentenced to life in prison for plotting to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president, was one of Stewart's clients.^[4]

Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Barkow told a three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that the case should be returned to Judge John G. Koeltl for resentencing, arguing that the trial judge made a mistake in being lenient because no violent acts could be traced to the messages.^[5]

Stewart was arrested six months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and she was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity and providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity in 2005; she also was convicted of two counts of making false statements.^[6]

Barkow told a three-judge panel of the appeals court that the trial judge was wrong not to apply a terrorism enhancement to the Stewart’s conviction on charges that she smuggled messages between Abdel-Rahman and senior members of an Egyptian-based terrorist organization.^[7]

The appeals panel did not immediately rule, as two of the judges have made differing decisions; the third judge and likely swing vote on the panel, Robert Sack, did not join the discussion.^[8]

Providing material support to a terrorist organization is covered under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B underwhich it states that it is a crime to knowingly provide, attempt to provide, or conspirer to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. The penalty for this is a fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisonment for any term of years or for life.^[9]

“Material support” is defined as any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.^[10]

Federal criminal defense attorney Douglas McNabb has discussed the terrorism crime of providing support to terrorists extensively in this blog; these posts can be accessed here. He has also written extensively on terrorist financing.

^[1] Larry Neumeister, Plea for New Sentence in NY Terror Case, January 30, 2008, January 9, 2008, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services.
^[2] Id.
^[3] Id.
^[4] Id.
^[5] Id.
^[6] Id.
^[7] Id.
^[8] Id.
^[9] 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (2007).
^[10] 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1)(2005).

Congress May Free Up Billions in Iranian Money, But Not for Iran

2008-01-27T00:31:00.000-06:00

This week Congress passed a defense authorization bill, and hidden within was a provision that could release hundreds of millions of dollars.^[1] This money, now beyond reach, would assist victims of terrorist attacks struggling to collect damages from foreign governments.^[2] However experts say it also may undermine one of the administration's key foreign policy achievements: improved relations with Libya. ^[3]

Though some terrorist victims and their families have won huge damage awards, very little can be collected from sovereign nations, such as Iran, which ignore the judgments.^[4] The new law potentially allows for a wide range of assets to be seized, doing away with a previous requirement that the nation had to have day-to-day control over the assets.^[5]

The full scope of the law's impact is difficult to judge, as plaintiff and business lawyers are still trying to interpret it; if the bill is a broad as it potentially could be, Iran may have hidden assets worth $4 billion to $6 billion in the United States that are now fair game.^[6]

This is what prompted Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) to push for the legislation the bill "achieves my goal of providing justice for American victims of terrorism at the hands of terrorist states like Iran and Libya," he said.^[7]

The change in U.S. law also threatens the growing engagement between the United States and Libya since its decision to end its support of terrorism and give up weapons of mass destruction.^[8] U.S. businesses have rushed to invest in Libya, but the deals may be put on hold because of the new litigation risks created by this law.^[9]

Libya faces pending liabilities over the 1989 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, and the 1986 bombing of a German disco, which killed two U.S. servicemen and wounded 79 Americans.^[10]

President is however authorized to waive cases for Iraq because of the threat of litigation from crimes committed by Saddam Hussien, but not other countries.^[11] The White House says Bush will sign the bill despite the impact on Libya.^[12]

"We are concerned about the impact section 1083 would have on other countries, such as Libya, who are emerging from their past and establishing stronger relations with the United States and the U.S. private sector…..We would welcome the opportunity for a more comprehensive solution," said White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.^[13]

^[1] Glenn Kessler, Bill's Provision May Help Terror Victims Gain Redress, Washington Post, January 26, 2008; Page A12, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503069.html?hpid=moreheadlines (last visited January 26, 2008).
^[2] Id.
^[3] Id.
^[4] Id.
^[5] In the past, for example, victims have even tried to claim Persian artifacts in museums in an effort to win payment from Iran.
^[6] Id., The Congressional Research Service lists nearly 40 cases in which more than $6 billion in damages have been awarded -- and says there are dozens more that could be refiled. A federal judge last September ordered Iran to pay more than $2.6 billion to nearly 1,000 family members and a handful of survivors of a 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 241 soldiers, but he acknowledged there was little chance the money would ever be collected
^[7] Id.
^[8] Id.
^[9] Id.
^[10] Id.
^[11] Id.
^[12] Id.
^[13] Id.

Update: US Still Not Willing to Remove N. Korea From Terror List

2008-01-24T01:09:00.000-06:00

The Bush administration asserted Wednesday it is too early to remove North Korea from a U.S. terrorism blacklist, a major demand by Pyongyang in international nuclear disarmament negotiations.^[1]

Dell Dailey, the State Department's counterterror chief, asserted that North Korea appears to have complied with the criteria needed to be removed from the list.^[2] However White House press secretary Dana Perino “[North Korea would not be taken off the list because r]ight now where we are is waiting on the North Koreans to provide a complete and accurate declaration of their nuclear activities."^[3]

The United States maintains that removing the North from the U.S. terrorism list is linked to North Korean progress on meeting commitments under a six-nation nuclear deal to disarm.^[4] The North missed an end-of-2007 deadline to provide the list declaring all its nuclear programs.^[5]

Federal criminal defense attorney Douglas McNabb has previously written about North Korea’s efforts to get off the terror list, here;

^[1] AP Staff, US: N Korea Stays on Terror List, Associated Press Newswire, January 22, 2008, January 23, 2008, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services.
^[2] Id.
^[3] Id.
^[4] Id.
^[5] Id.

Former Michigan Congressman Indicted for Terrorism Support

2008-01-18T18:24:00.000-06:00

Former Michigan congressman and delegate to the United Nations, Mark Deli Siljander, was indicted Wednesday on charges of being part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to a supporter of al-Qaida and the Taliban.^[1]

Siljander is charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.^[2] The 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency(IARA) of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.^[3]

The government asserts that IARA employed a man who had served as a fundraising aide to Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader and mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.^[4]

The indictment accuses IARA of sending approximately $130,000 to help Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whom the United States has designated a global terrorist.^[5] The money, sent to bank accounts in Peshawar, Pakistan, in 2003 and 2004, was masked as donations to an orphanage located in buildings that Hekmatyar owned.^[6]

The indictment says Siljander was hired by IARA in March 2004 to lobby the Senate Finance Committee in an effort to remove the charity from the panel's list of suspected terror fundraisers.^[7] For his work, IARA allegedly paid Siljander with money that had come from U.S. government funding.^[8] The charity was awarded the money years earlier for relief work it promised to perform in Africa, and IARA was supposed to return any unused funds after the relief project ended in 1999.^[9]

Instead it is asserted that Siljander and three IARA officers agreed to cover up the money's origins and use it on the lobbying effort.^[10]

Obstruction of Justice
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a), it is a crime for a person to corruptly influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice. The punishment for a violation of section 1503(a) is a fine, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.Federal criminal attorney Douglas McNabb has also previously discussed obstruction of justice in his blog, here; and money laundering, here.

^[1] Lara Jakes Jordan, Ex-Lawmaker Charged in Terror Conspiracy, Associated Press Newswire, January 16, 2008, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services.
^[2] Id.
^[3] Id.
^[4] Id.
^[5] Id.
^[6] Id.
^[7] Id.
^[8] Id.
^[9] Id.
^[10] Id.

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari Asserts that He Was Not Trying to Support Terror, Just Himself

2008-01-10T17:24:00.000-06:00

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari has been accused of trying to funnel money to a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan told a judge his dealings with an undercover operative were to enrich himself, not to help the enemy.^[1]

Alishtari is charged with accepting an unspecified amount of money to transfer $152,000 that he believed was being sent to Pakistan and Afghanistan to support the camp.^[2] He has fervently pleaded not guilty in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan to charges of terrorism financing, material support of terrorism and money laundering.^[3] The charges carried a potential penalty of 95 years in prison.^[4]

Recordings secretly made by federal agents show that Alishtari "was interested more in the profit potential of the undercover's supposed money backers and himself than he was to their 'cause,'" his lawyers wrote in a letter this week to the judge.^[5]

Alishtari was allegedly hoping the undercover agent, who passed himself off as a wealthy Middle Easterner, would invest in Flat Electronic Data Interchange, a loan investment program he was running; federal prosecutors have called it a fraud.^[6]

Contributing or supplying services to designated terrorist groups (or conspiring to contribute or supply services to these entities), is a violation of regulations issued under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act,^[7] we have previously discussed IEEPA in this blog, here.

Providing material support to a terrorist organization is covered under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B underwhich it states that it is a crime to knowingly provide, attempt to provide, or conspirer to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. The penalty for this is a fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisonment for any term of years or for life.^[8]

“Material support” is defined as any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.^[9]

Federal criminal defense attorney Douglas McNabb has discussed the terrorism crime of providing support to terrorists extensively in this blog; these posts can be accessed here. He has also written extensively on terrorist financing.

^[1] AP Staff, Man Says He Didn't Try to Fund Terrorism, Associated Press Newswire, January 4, 2008, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services.
^[2] Id.
^[3] Id.
^[4] Id.
^[5] Id.
^[6] Id.
^[7] 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-07 (2007).
^[8] 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (2007).
^[9] 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1)(2005).

Jury Selection Post-Poned Liberty City 7 Case

2008-01-07T22:02:00.000-06:00

Jury selection has been put off in the retrial of the “Liberty City 7” who are accused of plotting to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower.^[1] The court action was delayed in Miami today because of an undisclosed family emergency involving 1 of the federal defense attorneys.^[2]

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard agreed to postpone the start of juror questioning at the request of Ana Jhones, who represents the group's alleged leader, Narseal Batiste.^[3] The judge set a hearing for Wednesday to determine when the case can go forward.^[4]

The first trial of the “Seven" ended last month in a hung jury for six defendants and the acquittal of 1; they are accused of plotting with al-Qaida to destroy the Sears Tower and bomb FBI offices, although authorities acknowledge the alleged plans never got very far.^[5]

The second jury is to be anonymous to everyone except U.S. Marshals and the court and Lenard has imposed a gag order on all defense attorneys and prosecutors. Jury selection is expected to take at least two weeks.^[6]

Batiste testified at the first trial that he was never serious about any terrorism plots. Batiste insisted that he went along with a man he knew as Brother Mohammed - in reality an FBI informant pretending to be an al-Qaida operative - in hopes of conning him out of $50,000.^[7]

Federal criminal defense attorney Douglas McNabb has talked extensively about this case in his terrorism crimes blog, which can be found here.

^[1] AP Staff, Retrial in terrorism conspiracy case delayed, Associated Press Newswire, January 7, 2008, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services File.
^[2] Id.
^[3] Id.
^[4] Id.
^[5] Id.
^[6] Id.
^[7] Id.

U.S. Diplomat Killed in The Sudan; Terror Suspected

2008-01-04T01:05:00.000-06:00

An American diplomat was shot and killed early Tuesday by gunmen in a passing car who cut him off as he was being driven home in Sudan's capital.^[1] The diplomat's Sudanese driver was also killed in the shooting.^[2]

The US State Department has said diplomatic security and FBI agents will be sent to Sudan to investigate the murder of a US diplomat and his driver.^[3] The U.S. State Department said U.S. investigators were in the process of obtaining visas for Khartoum, Sudan.^[4] "They will... work closely with the Sudanese government to determine who is responsible for these murders and bring them to justice," spokesman Sean McCormack said.^[5]

The Sudanese government often drums up anti-Western sentiment in the media; but attacks on foreigners are rare in Khartoum, where an American diplomat was last killed in 1973.^[6]

Sudanese officials insisted it was not a terrorist attack, but the U.S. Embassy said it was too soon to determine the motive.^[7] The Sudan Media Center cited an unidentified government official as saying the attack was criminally motivated and that there was ''no grain of suspicion of an organized terrorist action.''^[8] However, a U.S. Embassy spokesman said it was ''too early to tell'' whether the attack was terror-related.^[9]

^[1] AP Staff, U.S. diplomat's killing wasn't terrorism: Sudan, Associated Press Newswire, January 2, 2008, available at LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services File.
^[2] Id.
^[3] BBC Staff, US to send investigators to Sudan, BBC News, January 2, 2008, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7169040.stm (last visited January 3, 2008).
^[4] Id.
^[5] Id.
^[6] AP Staff, supra note 1.
^[7] Id.
^[8] Id.
^[9] Id.

House Passes TRIA Renewal

2007-12-30T17:43:00.000-06:00

Federal backstops for terrorism insurance would be extended for another seven years under legislation the House passed Tuesday, December 25, and sent to President Bush.^[1] The administration, however, contends that the program is a temporary response to the 2001 terrorist attacks and should be phased out in favor of a private market for terrorism insurance.^[2]

"Today‘s vote is a major accomplishment and will help extend the market stability and certainty that TRIA has provided since its enactment in 2002…This action is critical to businesses throughout the nation that rely on insurance to protect them from the threat of terrorism," said former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, president of the American Insurance Association.^[3]

The House in September approved a more ambitious plan that extended the program for 15 years, lowered the threshold for triggering federal aid to $50 million, from the current $100 million and specified that nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks would be covered.^[4] It also added group life insurance to covered items and ensured that areas hit by terrorist attacks could get insurance in the future.^[5]

The post-9/11 Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) contains a completely different definition of terrorism than we are used to seeing in statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2332, which essentially criminalizes all homicide, conspiracy to commit homicide, and other physical violence with the intent to coerce public policy.^[6]Conversely the TRIA defines the term “act of terrorism” as: any act certified by the Secretary of Treasury, in concurrence with the Secretary of State and Attorney General, to be an act that is dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure and to have resulted in damage within the U.S. (or outside the U.S. in the case of a U.S.-flagged vessel), or on the premises of a U.S. mission.^[7]

In addition, the act of terrorism must have been committed by individual(s) acting on behalf of a foreign person or foreign interest as part of an effort to coerce the U.S. population or government. Losses from the act must exceed $50 million in 2006 – up from the original $5 million trigger. In 2007, that trigger will rise to $100 million.^[8]

^[1] Jim Abrams, Congress renews terror insurance act, Associated Press Newswire, December 18, 2007, Associated Press Newswire, July 19, 2007, LEXIS, News Library, Wire News Services File.
^[2] Id.
^[3] Id.
^[4] Id.
^[5] Id.
^[6] 18 U.S.C. § 2332(2007).
^[7] Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-297, 101(a)-(b), 116 Stat. 2322, 2322-23 (2002).
^[8] Id.