|
Scores of Muslim Men Jailed Without Charge
Source: Human Rights Watch
06/27/05 "Reutes" - - (New York, June 27, 2005)-Operating behind a wall of secrecy, the
U.S. Department of Justice thrust scores of Muslim men living in
the United States into a Kafkaesque world of indefinite detention
without charge and baseless accusations of terrorist links, Human
Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union said in a report
released today. Following the September 11 attacks, the Justice
Department held the 70 men-all but one Muslim-under a narrow
federal law that permits the arrest and brief detention of
"material witnesses" who have important information
about a crime, if they might otherwise flee to avoid testifying
before a grand jury or in court. Although federal officials
suspected the men of involvement in terrorism, they held them as
material witnesses, not criminal suspects.
Almost half of the witnesses were never brought before a grand
jury or court to testify. The U.S. government has apologized to 13
for wrongfully detaining them. Only a handful were ever charged
with crimes related to terrorism.
"These men were victims of a Justice Department that was
willing to do an end run around the law," said Jamie Fellner,
director of Human Rights Watch's U.S. Program. "Criminal
suspects are treated better than these material witnesses
were."
The 101-page report, "Witness
to Abuse: Human Rights Abuses under the Material Witness Law since
September 11," documents how the Justice Department
denied the witnesses fundamental due process safeguards. Many were
not informed of the reason for their arrest, allowed immediate
access to a lawyer, nor permitted to see the evidence used against
them. The Justice Department evaded fundamental protections for
the suspects and the legal requirements for arrested witnesses.
Their court proceedings were conducted behind closed doors, and
all the court documents were sealed.
"Haste, incompetence and prejudice played a role in these
detentions," said Anjana Malhotra, the report's author and
Aryeh Neier fellow at Human Rights Watch and the American Civil
Liberties Union. "Muslim men were arrested for little more
than attending the same mosque as a September 11 hijacker or
owning a box-cutter."
The Justice Department has refused to reveal how many material
witnesses it has detained in connection with its counterterrorism
investigations and has largely ignored repeated Congressional
inquiries. After a year of extensive research, Human Rights Watch
and the ACLU have confirmed 70 such material witnesses. Sixty-four
were of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent; 17 were U.S.
citizens, and all but one was Muslim.
The report details how the Justice Department relied on false,
flimsy or irrelevant evidence to secure arrest warrants for the
men and to persuade courts that they were flight risks who had to
be incarcerated. Almost all the men, in fact, had cooperated with
federal authorities before their arrest. Many proved to have no
information relevant to a criminal proceeding.
"On the domestic front, the Justice Department's unlawful use
of the material witness statute is perhaps the most extreme but
least well-known of the government's post-September 11
abuses," said Lee Gelernt, a senior staff attorney with the
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The material witness abuses
are a prime example of what happens when there is no public
scrutiny of the government's actions."
Witnesses were typically arrested at gunpoint, held around the
clock in solitary confinement, and subjected to the harsh and
degrading high-security conditions usually reserved for prisoners
accused or convicted of the most dangerous crimes. Corrections
staff verbally harassed the detainees and, in some cases,
physically abused them.
The report found that one-third of the 70 confirmed material
witnesses were incarcerated for at least two months. Some were
imprisoned for more than six months, and one actually spent more
than a year behind bars. According to the report, the Justice
Department apparently used the material witness statute to buy
time to conduct fishing expeditions for evidence to justify
arrests on criminal or immigration charges. When there was no such
evidence, the Justice Department simply held the men under the
material witness law until it concluded that it had no further use
for them or until a judge finally ordered their release.
The report also documents the long-term effects of the Justice
Department's material witness policy on witnesses and their
families. While recovering from the trauma of being jailed in
harsh conditions, witnesses often continued to live under a
specter of suspicion. They faced lingering questions in the
community about their ties to terrorism, even in cases when the
government apologized. Many lost businesses and job opportunities,
and some had to move to new communities to restart their lives.
Testimony from Material Witnesses and Attorneys:
"They treated us like professional terrorists. They put us
in cars and had big guns-as if they were going to shoot people, as
if we were Osama bin Laden. They didn't let us speak, they didn't
let us ask why we were in detention. I never knew for how long we
would stay in jail. It felt like we would stay forever … I
didn't even know why I was in jail." -Tarek Omar, an
Egyptian national arrested as a material witness in October 2001
with seven friends and relatives who had immigrated together from
Egypt. The eight men later received an apology from the FBI for
wrongful arrest.
"Five to six cars surrounded my car. The agents pulled out
shotguns and told me to get out of the car or they will shoot me.
They told me they were about to shoot me. … I asked what's going
on? I've been so helpful. But three guys told me to put my hands
on the car, they patted me down and shackled me. I asked what am I
arrested for? Am I charged with something? … I got no answer.
They shoved me against the car and handcuffed me. … They didn't
tell me why I was arrested-they said they'd explain in the main
office. They didn't read me Miranda rights. … I got in the car.
They were so disrespectful and so rude. They told me to 'shut the
fuck up.'" -Mohdar Abdullah, a Yemeni national arrested
as a material witness on September 21, 2001 in San Diego,
California.
"It's hard to argue about a national security argument.
Anytime I ask[ed] what the basis was it would be a canned national
security argument. I would ask: 'What's the justification?' The
government responds: 'National security.' I would say, 'What does
that mean?' The government would say: 'I can't tell you.'"
-Susan Otto, an attorney who represented material witness Mujahid
Menepta in Oklahoma.
"I was transferred … to solitary confinement in the
Special Housing Unit, or the 'ninth floor hole.' The room was
maybe six-by-five feet. I was in a small cell for twenty-four
hours a day with the lights on. Guards came every ten to fifteen
minutes and banged on the door. They look through the hole and
stare and looked at me. For two months, I left the cell only for
interrogations. Later I was allowed outside after two months but
they would leave me out in the freezing cold. I didn't sleep for
one or two months. The guards would bang on the door all night.
They would say, 'This is the guy-the Taliban guy,' or call me
'Khan Taliban.' The guards said so many bad things. They told me:
'You won't ever see your family. You're going to die here. Do you
smell the WTC [World Trade Center] smoke? You're gone. How would
you like to die? With the electric chair?' ... [Whenever I was
taken out of my cell] they would twist my hands. My feet were
shackled and guards would step on chains. I got a deep cut on my
feet. I was stripped too many times to remember and hit on the
back. I would be pushed against the wall. Whenever they took me to
the FBI, guards would twist my hands and fingers and tell me to
'Just shut up.'" -Ayub Ali Khan, an Indian national
arrested as a material witness on September 12, 2001 in San
Antonio, Texas and held in the Special Housing Unit at the
Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York
"They were threatening me with capital charges. … They
believed it was me. They pretty much told us, 'We have enough to
indict you but not enough to prosecute.'" -Brandon
Mayfield, a U.S. citizen arrested in May 2004 as a material
witness after federal officials believed they matched his
fingerprint to one found near the site of the March 2004 bombing
in Madrid. He later received an apology from the Justice
Department for a wrongful arrest.
"[A]fter we were released we were in hell, you tell
yourself, okay, well they released us so everyone should
understand we are innocent, but that was not the case. Because I
mean there are some people who support you and stuff like this but
everyone is curious: did you snitch on somebody else, or did you
make a deal with the government, or why were you released, or did
you really do something or not. … It's just like all this doubt
in people's mind. … At the time we lost about 30 to 40 percent
of our business and then it kept getting worse and worse. And even
when we got the apology and the newspaper wrote about it we
thought we were going to be slammed because it's an apology on the
first page of the newspaper. And [business] is slow. But people
remember we were caught and this kind of thing and [business got
even] slower. Then the Evansville Courier made a poll on the
internet where they asked people did [they] talk enough about the
apology enough in the newspaper to give these people their dignity
back. It was so funny to get the response because most of the
response from people was, yes, they had enough, okay, they are
innocent, [but] let's go back to our life, if they don't like it
let's tell them to go back to their home, we are trying to make
the country safer." -Tarek Albasti, an Egyptian national
arrested as a material witness in October 2001 as one of the
"Evansville Eight" to whom the federal government
ultimately apologized for the wrongful arrests.
HRW
news
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |