FBI underreported use of USA Patriot Act

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 11 minutes ago

The FBI underreported its use of the USA Patriot Act to force businesses to turn over customer information in suspected terrorism cases, according to a Justice Department audit.

One government official familiar with the report said shoddy bookkeeping and records management led to the problems. The FBI agents appeared to be overwhelmed by the volume of demands for information over a two-year period, the official said.

"They lost track," said the official who like others interviewed late Thursday spoke on condition of anonymity because the report was not being released until Friday.

The FBI in 2005 reported to Congress that its agents had delivered a total of 9,254 national security letters seeking e-mail, telephone or financial information on 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents over the previous two years.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine's report says that number was underreported by 20 percent, according to the officials.

Fine conducted the audit as required by Congress and over the objections of the Bush administration.

It was unclear late Thursday whether the omissions could be considered a criminal offense. One government official who read the report said it concluded the problems appeared to be unintentional and that FBI agents would probably face administrative sanctions instead of criminal charges.

The FBI has taken steps to correct some of the problems, the official said.

The Justice Department, already facing congressional criticism over its firing of eight U.S. attorneys, began notifying lawmakers of the audit's damning contents late Thursday. Spokesmen at the Justice Department and FBI declined to comment on the findings.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the FBI, called the reported findings "a profoundly disturbing breach of public trust."

"Somebody has a lot of explaining to do," said Schumer, D-N.Y.

Fine's audit also says the FBI failed to send follow-up subpoenas to telecommunications companies that were told to expect them, the officials said.

Those cases involved so-called exigent letters to alert the companies that subpoenas would be issued shortly to gather more information, the officials said. But in many examples, the subpoenas were never sent, the officials said.

The FBI has since caught up with those omissions, either with national security letters or subpoenas, one official said.

National security letters have been the subject of legal battles in two federal courts because recipients were barred from telling anyone about them.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Bush administration over what the ACLU described as the security letter's gag on free speech.

A federal appeals judge in New York warned in May that government's ability to force companies to turn over information about its customers and keep quiet about it was probably unconstitutional.

On the Net:

Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov

A big win for the LA 8

Tue Jan 30, 2007

Judge Einhorn of immigration court rendered his decision on Tuesday January 30, 2007 in (LA 8) case. The court “finds that the government has failed to carry its burden of proving respondents deportable based on clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. Therefore, the proceedings against Hamide and Shehadeh are TERMINATED.) The decision said.

Please visit our web site for more information. Please click on the word decision in the body of the article to read the decision. [Editor's note: See article below]

Thanks to all who helped in this case,

Michel Shehadeh
---

The Los Angeles Eight Case

Government Seeks Deportation for Magazine Distribution in 1980s

^{When Administration defenders claim that "there have been no abuses" of the Patriot Act, ask them about the case of Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh. The government seeks to deport these two long-time permanent resident aliens under the Patriot Act for having distributed magazines and raised humanitarian aid in the 1980s in Los Angeles. It seeks to punish these men, neither of whom has ever even been charged, let alone convicted, of a crime, under a law enacted in 2001 for conduct engaged in fifteen years earlier, at a time when the conduct was perfectly legal. And it seeks to deport them for classic First Amendment activity ? the distribution of a magazine.}

^{The case of Hamide and Shehadeh will prove a critical test of the limits of the expansive amendments to immigration law made by the Patriot Act. And because the activities for which the government seeks to deport Hamide and Shehadeh are protected by the First Amendment, it also will prove a test of the scope of immigrants' First Amendment rights. This is the first case in which the government has sought to deport anyone under that Act for distributing literature, and one of the first in which the government has invoked the Patriot Act's "material support to terrorist organization" grounds. It is also one of the longest-running immigration cases in the United States, having begun 18 years ago, in 1987, under an anti-communist immigration law dating back to the 1950s. The case, a kind of modern-day Bleak House, has generated several landmark judicial opinions, and been up to the Supreme Court. It is now back in immigration court, where trial is set to begin July 13, 2005, before Immigration Judge Bruce J. Einhorn.}

^{Born in the West Bank, Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh came to the United States in their college years and have now lived here thirty four and thirty years, respectively. They are lawful permanent residents and hard-working fathers--Hamide, father of three U.S. citizen children, supplies luxury coffee shops; Shehadeh, father of two U.S. citizen children and married to a U.S. citizen, works as a freelance writer and lives in Oregon.}

^{They are now charged with being deportable for having provided "material support" to a "terrorist organization." The organization is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a faction of the PLO headed by George Habash. The government claims that Hamide and Shehadeh provided the PFLP with "material support" in Los Angeles in the mid-1980s by distributing its magazine, and by holding two community dinners at which they helped raise money for political activities and humanitarian aid. The money went to support political work in the United States in support of Palestinian self-determination, and humanitarian aid to various social service groups in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza. But the government claims that the recipients were tied to the PFLP, and that therefore Hamide and Shehadeh are deportable.}

^{The case began in 1987, when immigration authorities arrested seven young Palestinians and a Kenyan woman--dubbed the "LA 8" by the media--on charges of being affiliated with the PFLP. At that time, the oovernment claimed that they were deportable for being affiliated with a group that "advocated the doctrines of world communism," a deportable offense under the McCarran-Walter Act, a law enacted in 1952, at the height of the McCarthy era. At the time, FBI Director William Webster testified before Congress that the eight "had not been found to have engaged themselves in terrorist activity." Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Nomination of William H. Webster to be Director of Central Intelligence, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. 94-95 (April 8, 9, 10, May 1, 1987). Mr. Webster further admitted that they "were arrested because they are alleged to be members of a world-wide Communist organization which under the McCarran Act makes them eligible for deportation ... if these individuals had been United States citizens, there would not have been a basis for their arrest." Id.}

_{In 1989, a federal court declared the McCarran-Walter Act charges unconstitutional. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Meese, 714 F. Supp. 1060 (C.D. Cal. 1989). The court ruled that the First Amendment protects all persons within the United States equally, whether citizens or foreign nationals, and that deporting foreign nationals for their political associations violated the First Amendment. The following year Congress repealed that McCarthy-era law. The government nonetheless pursued deportation under new charges.}

^{In 1995, the same federal court blocked the deportations under the new charges from going forward on the grounds that the government, in violation of the First Amendment, had selectively targeted the group for constitutionally protected political activities. The court reviewed 10,000 pages of evidence submitted by the government, but found evidence only of constitutionally protected political activity. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, No. CV 87-2107, at 32 n.14 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 1996).}

^{In 1996, however, Congress stripped federal courts of authority to hear such selective-enforcement challenges to deportation, and in 1999 the Supreme Court ruled that the cases could go forward. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999).}

^{The case is now back in immigration court, where trial is scheduled to being July 13, 2005. The government claims that Hamide and Shehadeh provided material support to the PFLP. Hamide and Shehadeh deny providing such support. They admit that they distributed magazines and sponsored two community dinners, but maintain that they raised money only for domestic political activities of the Committee for a Democratic Palestine, a U.S.-based political organization that engaged in political activity in support of Palestinian self-determination ? and for a handful of charitable social service organizations in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. The trial will focus on Hamide and Shehadeh's political activism in the 1980s, and whether it can be seen as "material support" to the PFLP.}

^{Hamide and Shehadeh have challenged the retroactive application of the Patriot Act to their conduct, engaged in twenty years ago. They also argue that their activities were protected by the First Amendment, and that they did not support the PFLP.}

George Bush’s America

Posted on Dec 4, 2006

AP Photo / Chris O'Meara

Former University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian smiles as he makes his way through the media with his wife Nahla, left, before entering the United States Courthouse Thursday afternoon Dec. 12, 2002 in Tampa, Fla. Al-Arian, who is accused of helping lead a terrorist group that has carried out suicide bombings against Israel, was acquitted on nearly half the charges against him Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2005. The jury deadlocked on the rest of the charges.

By Chris Hedges

The Democrats may have taken control of the House and Senate, but we still live in George Bush’s America. It is an America the imprisoned Palestinian activist Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who has spent over two years in isolation, knows intimately. Dr. Al-Arian, who was a tenured professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida until being fired, was given the maximum sentence earlier this year for what the judge, in a case that bordered on the farcical, said was his support of a radical Palestinian organization.

The imprisoned professor, who will be deported when he is released, was to have spent 57 months in prison. But his time now seems likely to be extended since, despite plea bargaining that should have exempted him from further testimony, he has been called to testify before a secret grand jury in Virginia investigating Islamic organizations in the state. It is the newest twist in a case that has become emblematic of the repression meted out to America’s Muslim minority.

Al-Arian endured a six-month show trial in Florida that saw the government’s case collapse in a mass of contradictions and innuendo. During the trial the government called 80 witnesses and subjected the jury to hundreds of hours of often inane phone transcriptions and recordings, made over a 10-year period, which the jury dismissed as “gossip.” Out of the 94 charges made against the four defendants there were no convictions. Of the 17 charges against Al-Arian—including “conspiracy to murder and maim persons abroad’’ --, the jury acquitted him of eight and was hung on the rest. The jurors disagreed on the remaining charges by a count of 10 to 2 favoring his full acquittal. Two others in the case, Ghassan Ballut and Sameeh Hammoudeh, were acquitted of all charges, dealing another body blow to the government’s case. The May sentencing of Al-Arian contradicted the basis of the jury’s acquittal and the reasoning behind the subsequent plea agreement.

Following the acquittal, a disaster for the government, especially since then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had announced the indictment, prosecutors threatened to retry Al-Arian. The Palestinian professor, under duress, accepted a plea bargain agreement that would spare him a second trial, saying in his agreement that he had helped people associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad with immigration matters. It was a tepid charge given the high profile of the case. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida and the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department agreed to recommend to the judge the minimum sentence of 46 months. But U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. sentenced Dr. Al-Arian to the maximum 57 months. In referring to Al-Arian’s contention that he had only raised money for Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s charity for widows and orphans, the judge said acidly to the professor that “your only connection to orphans and widows is that you create them.”

“The cards were stacked against us,” said the defendant’s daughter, Laila Al-Arian. “The prosecutors showed gruesome videos of suicide bombings in Israel and tried to tie my father to them. He had nothing to do with these attacks. He has always condemned the killing of Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The trial was Orwellian. The government prosecutors would take events and statements that had nothing to do with my father and attempt to connect them to him. This was all about silencing a Palestinian activist, not combating terrorism.”

But all this has not stopped the government from continuing its harassing of Al-Arian. Judge Moody recently ruled that compelling Al-Arian to testify in the grand jury investigation of the International Institute of Islamic Thought in Herndon, Va., would not violate the plea agreement. Several people close to the case fear that the current attempt to make Al-Arian testify is part of an effort to charge him with perjury and set him up for a new trial. The assistant U.S. attorney in Virginia, Gordon Kromberg, like many involved in the case, has made derogatory and racist comments about Muslims. When Al-Arian’s lawyers asked Kromberg to delay the transfer of the professor to Virginia because of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan they were told “if they can kill each other during Ramadan they can appear before the grand jury.” Kromberg, according to an affidavit signed by Al-Arian’s attorney, Jack Fernandez, also said: “I am not going to put off Dr. Al-Arian’s grand jury appearance just to assist in what is becoming the Islamization of America.”

“Had he said this about any other ethnic or religious group it would have provoked widespread outrage,” said Laila Al-Arian.

And so, although Al-Arian is scheduled to be deported in April 2007, he could now be imprisoned for an additional 18 months. The federal government has placed him in contempt of court because he is refusing to answer questions before the Virginia grand jury.

This trial says legions about the place of Muslims in the United States following the attacks of 9/11. It is part of a ruthless campaign to strip Americans of fundamental rights because of their religious beliefs.

“The jury spoke a year ago when they acquitted my father and the other three defendants,” Laila Al-Arian said. “This is part of a government campaign to silence and intimidate all Muslims in America by persecuting their leaders. It is part of an effort to disenfranchise American Muslims.”

1 blog reaction