Definitions of Terrorism on the Web:
is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/alqaeda/glossary.html
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp
The systematic use of violence to achieve political ends is not new – among many other examples, it featured during The Troubles in Ireland before its independence in 1922. In recent decades, it has become a common tactic among a wide variety of groups, from independence movements to the secret services of various countries. ...
www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/browse/glossary.html
use of terror, especially the systematic use of terror by the government or other authority against particular persons or groups; a method of opposing a government internally or externally through the use of terror
www.imuna.org/c2c/app_a.html
Any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.
www.ecis.org/finance/paisdefin.htm
"Systematic use of terror, manifesting itself in violence and intimidation. Terrorism has been used by groups wishing to coerce a govt in order to achieve political or other objectives, and also by dictatorships or other autocratic governments in order to overcome opposition to their policies." [BFH] Often anti-terrorist mercenaries will only do a job if they have a carte blanche to do whatever they want. ...
www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/t3encyc.htm
Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations.
www.jafi.org.il/education/hasbara/glossary.html
The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change
wps.prenhall.com/chet_langan_preparing_1/0,9681,1613226-content,00.html
a violent act in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, which is intended to intimidate or influence the policy of a government.
www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/respect/spring02-glossary.cfm
Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of coercion including the use of force, intended to intimidate or coerce, and committed in support of political or social objectives.
www.austin.cc.tx.us/audit/Glossary/LetterT.htm
a psychological strategy of war for gaining political ends by deliberately creating a well-founded climate of fear among the civilian popuation. Such a strategy may be used by an occupying army on the occupied population. Many terrorist acts, especially against an occupying military or against illegal occupants are acts of war or resistance, and not terrorism.
www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Definitions of terrorist on the Web:
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm
Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html
a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
Definitions of terrorist act on the Web:
means an act of violence, other than civil disorder or riot, (that is not an act of war, declared or undeclared) that results in loss of life or major damage to property, by any person acting of behalf of or in connection with any organization which is generally recognized as having the intent to overthrow or influence the control of any government.
alumniabroad.com/travelselect/8_definitions.asp
terrorism: the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Definitions of civil disorder on the Web:
Civil disorder is a broad term that is typically used by law enforcement to describe one or more forms of disturbance caused by a group of people. Civil disturbance is typically a symptom of, and a form of protest against, major socio-political problems. Typically, the severity of the action coincides with public outrage. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disorder
Definitions of revolutionary on the Web:
markedly new or introducing radical change; "a revolutionary discovery"; "radical political views"
rotatory: of or relating to or characteristic or causing an axial or orbital turn
relating to or having the nature of a revolution; "revolutionary wars"; "the Revolutionary era"
revolutionist: a radical supporter of political or social revolution
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The term Revolutionary is some what vague and may be thought to be relative to the context it is used in. It is used to refer to diverse people from Che Guevara a Communist guerilla fighter to Nelson Mandela a nationalist and Gandhi a pacifist nationalist. A general definition might be any one who advocates and organises extreme change from the current status-quo i.e. a Revolution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary
Definitions of civil disobedient on the Web:
Civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence. Civil disobedience has been used in struggles in India in the fight against British colonialism, South Africa in the fight against apartheid and civil rights movement in the USA and Europe.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedient
Definitions of oppressed on the Web:
laden: burdened psychologically or mentally; "laden with grief"; "oppressed by a sense of failure"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Definitions of civil liberties on the Web:
Freedoms that protect the individual from arbitrary government interference (as with the freedom of speech and movement).
www.csa.com/hottopics/terror/gloss.php
Civil liberties are protections from the power of governments. Examples include the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery and forced labour, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and the right to marry and have a family. These are usually guaranteed and protected by a constitution or by adherence to an international treaty.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties
Definitions of civil liberties vs. civil rights on the Web:
while the two terms may appear identical, in the United States they have two different meanings. Civil liberties are what bills of rights protect: freedom of speech, the right to privacy, freedom of and from religion, due process, the right to vote, etc. Civil rights are more social and deal with the rights of groups, eg emancipation for oppressed minorities and women, same-sex marriage, and various affirmative action programs.
www.ospolitics.org/knowledge/archives/2004/04/10/political_.php
Definitions of malcolm x on the Web:
a leader in the Black Power movement of the 1960s who became a symbol of a more militant and separatist side of the civil rights movement. Born Malcolm Little, he turned away from a past as a petty criminal to embrace the teachings of the Nation of Islam. (He and others in the movement used the X as a replacement for what they termed a “slave” name. ...
www.fasttrackteaching.com/termsmodern.html
militant civil rights leader (1925-1965)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Malcolm X (May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965 – also: Malcolm Little, Detroit Red, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, and Omowale) was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and a founder of both the Muslim Mosque, Inc., and the Organization of Afro-American Unity. He was assassinated in February 1965 on the first day of National Brotherhood Week. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X
Malcolm X is a 1992 dramatic movie directed by Spike Lee about the African-American activist and Black nationalist Malcolm X. The story is based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X_(film)
Definitions of eugene debs on the Web:
Eugene Victor Debs (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was an American labor and political leader and five-time Socialist Party candidate for President of the United States.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Debs
Definitions of revolutionary war on the Web:
The War of Independence, 1775-1783, fought by the American colonies against Great Britain.
usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oal/gloss.htm
the American war for independence, 1776 - 1783, which involved many citizens and created a variety of records helpful to genealogists.
www.arkansasresearch.com/g-gloss.html
The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between Great Britain and revolutionaries within the thirteen North American colonies. The war, which eventually widened far beyond British North America, resulted in the overthrow of British rule in the thirteen colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_War
Definitions of cuban revolutionary war on the Web:
The Cuban Revolution was the overthrow of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista by the 26th of July Movement and the establishment of a new government led by Fidel Castro in the 1950s. It began with the assault on the Moncada base on July 26, 1953, and ended on January 1, 1959, when Batista was driven from the country and the cities Santa Clara and Santiago de Cuba were seized by sections of the people's army, led by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, respectively. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_revolutionary_war
Definitions of french revolutionary war on the Web:
The French Revolutionary Wars occurred between the outbreak of war between the French Revolutionary government and Austria in 1792 and the Treaty of Amiens in 1802. It is usually divided between the First Coalition (1792-1797) and the Second Coalition (1798-1801), although France was at war with Britain continuously from 1793 to 1802.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_War
Definitions of al queda on the Web:
Al-Qaeda ( - al-Qā'idah, "the foundation" or "the base") is the name given to a worldwide network and alliance of militant Islamist organizations. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Queda
Definitions of al qaeda on the Web:
ahl-KY-duh International terrorist network that claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks; "Al Qaeda means "the base"
school.newsweek.com/misc/pronunciation.php
The US government issued an indictment in November 1998 alleging that Osama bin Laden heads an international terrorist network called "Al Qaeda," an Arabic word meaning "the base." Al Qaeda is blamed for several attacks on US interests, including the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/alqaeda/glossary.html
Lowercase the al in the name of bin Laden's terrorist network, except starting a line in a headline.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html
Al-Qaeda ( - al-Qā'idah, "the foundation" or "the base") is the name given to a worldwide network and alliance of militant Islamist organizations. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda
Definitions of al qaeda on the Web:
ahl-KY-duh International terrorist network that claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks; "Al Qaeda means "the base"
school.newsweek.com/misc/pronunciation.php
The US government issued an indictment in November 1998 alleging that Osama bin Laden heads an international terrorist network called "Al Qaeda," an Arabic word meaning "the base." Al Qaeda is blamed for several attacks on US interests, including the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/alqaeda/glossary.html
Lowercase the al in the name of bin Laden's terrorist network, except starting a line in a headline.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html
Al-Qaeda ( - al-Qā'idah, "the foundation" or "the base") is the name given to a worldwide network and alliance of militant Islamist organizations. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda
Paige calls NEA 'terrorist organization'
From John King
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization" Monday as he argued that the country's largest teachers union often acts at odds with the wishes of rank-and-file teachers regarding school standards and accountability.
Paige later issued a written release saying that statement, made during a conversation with governors, "was an inappropriate choice of words" but reiterated his criticism of the NEA and its Washington lobbyists.
An administration official said the secretary was "clearly joking" but he should not have used the "terrorist" label in taking issue with the NEA -- which is not only the largest teachers union but also a major player in Democratic Party politics.
Several Democratic governors were quoted after the session saying they were taken aback by Secretary Paige's strong language.
In his written release, Secretary Paige said:
"It was an inappropriate choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms.
"I also said, as I have repeatedly, that our nation's teachers, who have dedicated their lives to service in the classroom, are the real soldiers of democracy, whereas the NEA's high-priced Washington lobbyists have made no secret that they will fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children regardless of skin color, accent or where they live.
"But, as one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better."
In a written statement, NEA President Reg Weaver said, "It is morally repugnant to equate those who teach America's children with terrorists. NEA is 2.7 million teachers and educators who are fighting for children and public education. Yet this is the kind of rhetoric we have come to expect from this administration whenever one challenges its world view."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe called Paige's words "hate speech" and said "President Bush and the Republican Party should immediately renounce" it.
"Secretary Paige has demeaned America's teachers and denigrated the men and women in uniform who are fighting a deadly enemy," he said in a written statement.
"It is a revolting attack on America's teachers to suggest that it is an act of terrorism to disagree with President Bush and to be outspoken advocates for students and teachers."
The NEA is headquartered in Washington where every year the organization spends about $1 million lobbying, according to The Associated Press.
The NEA and its political action committee donated $3.1 million to federal candidates and the two political parties in the last presidential election cycle, the AP reported. About 90 percent of those donations went to Democrats.
Copyright 2004 CNN. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/23/paige.terrorist.nea
Paige calls NEA 'terrorist organization'
From John King
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization" Monday as he argued that the country's largest teachers union often acts at odds with the wishes of rank-and-file teachers regarding school standards and accountability.
Paige later issued a written release saying that statement, made during a conversation with governors, "was an inappropriate choice of words" but reiterated his criticism of the NEA and its Washington lobbyists.
An administration official said the secretary was "clearly joking" but he should not have used the "terrorist" label in taking issue with the NEA -- which is not only the largest teachers union but also a major player in Democratic Party politics.
Several Democratic governors were quoted after the session saying they were taken aback by Secretary Paige's strong language.
In his written release, Secretary Paige said:
"It was an inappropriate choice of words to describe the obstructionist scare tactics the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms.
"I also said, as I have repeatedly, that our nation's teachers, who have dedicated their lives to service in the classroom, are the real soldiers of democracy, whereas the NEA's high-priced Washington lobbyists have made no secret that they will fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children regardless of skin color, accent or where they live.
"But, as one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better."
In a written statement, NEA President Reg Weaver said, "It is morally repugnant to equate those who teach America's children with terrorists. NEA is 2.7 million teachers and educators who are fighting for children and public education. Yet this is the kind of rhetoric we have come to expect from this administration whenever one challenges its world view."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe called Paige's words "hate speech" and said "President Bush and the Republican Party should immediately renounce" it.
"Secretary Paige has demeaned America's teachers and denigrated the men and women in uniform who are fighting a deadly enemy," he said in a written statement.
"It is a revolting attack on America's teachers to suggest that it is an act of terrorism to disagree with President Bush and to be outspoken advocates for students and teachers."
The NEA is headquartered in Washington where every year the organization spends about $1 million lobbying, according to The Associated Press.
The NEA and its political action committee donated $3.1 million to federal candidates and the two political parties in the last presidential election cycle, the AP reported. About 90 percent of those donations went to Democrats.
Copyright 2004 CNN. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.
Links referenced within this article
Associated Press
http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/23/paige.terrorist.nea
By the Project for Excellence in Journalism
Five Major Trends
Last year we identified the underlying trends shaping the transformation. In 2005, our research has led us to five main conclusions about the nature of the media landscape.
There are now several models of journalism, and the trajectory increasingly is toward those that are faster, looser, and cheaper. The traditional press model - the journalism of verification - is one in which journalists are concerned first with trying to substantiate facts. It has ceded ground for years on talk shows and cable to a new journalism of assertion, where information is offered with little time and little attempt to independently verify its veracity. Consider the allegations by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," and the weeks of reporting required to find that their claims were unsubstantiated. The blogosphere, while adding the richness of citizen voices, expands this culture of assertion exponentially, and brings to it an affirmative philosophy: publish anything, especially points of view, and the reporting and verification will occur afterward in the response of fellow bloggers. The result is sometimes true and sometimes false. Blogs helped unmask errors at CBS, but also spread the unfounded conspiracy theory that the GOP stole the presidential election in Ohio. All this makes it easier for those who would manipulate public opinion - government, interest groups and corporations - to deliver unchecked messages, through independent outlets or their own faux-news Web sites, video and text news releases and paid commentators. Next, computerized editing has the potential to take this further, blending all these elements into a mix.
The rise in partisanship of news consumption and the notion that people have retreated to their ideological corners for news has been widely exaggerated. A year ago we mentioned a third, older form of news that seemed to be gaining momentum - the journalism of affirmation. Here the news is gathered with a point of view, whether acknowledged or not, and audiences come to have their preconceptions reinforced. In 2004, that notion gained new force when Pew Research Center survey data revealed that Republicans and conservatives had become more distrustful of the news media over the past four years, while the perceptions of Democrats, moderates and liberals had remained about the same. This led to the popular impression that independent journalism was giving way to a European-style partisan press, in which some Americans consume Red Media and others Blue. The evidence suggests that such perceptions are greatly overstated. The overwhelming majority of Americans say they prefer independent, non-partisan news media. So, apparently, do advertisers and investors. In addition, distrusting the media does not correlate to how or whether people use it. Not only do Republicans and Democrats consume most news media outlets in similar levels, but those in both parties who distrust the news media are often heavier consumers of news outlets than those who are more trusting. The only exceptions to this are talk radio and cable news. In the latter, Republicans have tended to congregate in one place, Fox. For most other media, the political orientation of the audience mirrors the population. The political makeup of the network news audience, for instance, matches that of the Weather Channel.
To adapt, journalism may have to move in the direction of making its work more transparent and more expert, and of widening the scope of its searchlight. Journalists aspire in the new landscape to be the one source that can best help citizens discover what to believe and what to disbelieve - a shift from the role of gatekeeper to that of authenticator or referee. To do that, however, it appears news organizations may have to make some significant changes. They may have to document their reporting process more openly so that audiences can decide for themselves whether to trust it. Doing so would help inoculate their work from the rapid citizen review that increasingly will occur online and elsewhere. In effect, the era of trust-me journalism has passed, and the era of show-me journalism has begun. As they move toward being authenticators, news organizations also may have to enrich their expertise, both on staff and in their reporting. Since citizens have a deeper range of information at their fingertips, the level of proof in the press must rise accordingly. The notion of filling newsrooms only with talented generalists may not be enough. And rather than merely monitoring the official corridors of power, news organizations may need to monitor the new alternative means of public discussion as well. How else can the press referee what people are hearing in those venues? Such changes will require experimentation, investment, vision and a reorganization of newsrooms.
Despite the new demands, there is more evidence than ever that the mainstream media are investing only cautiously in building new audiences. That is true even online, where audiences are growing. Our data suggest that news organizations have imposed more cutbacks in their Internet operations than in their old media, and where the investment has come is in technology for processing information, not people to gather it. One reason is that the new technologies are still providing relatively modest revenues. The problem is that the traditional media are leaving it to technology companies - like Google - and to individuals and entrepreneurs - like bloggers - to explore and innovate on the Internet. The risk is that traditional journalism will cede to such competitors both the new technology and the audience that is building there. For now, traditional media brands still control most of where audiences go online for news, but that is already beginning to change. In 2004, Google News emerged as a major new player in online news, and the audience for bloggers grew by 58% in six months, to 32 million people.
The three broadcast network news divisions face their most important moment of transition in decades. A generation of network journalists is retiring. Two of the three anchors are new. One network, CBS, has said it wants to rethink nightly news entirely. Nightline, one of the ornaments of American broadcast journalism, was fighting for its life. After years of programming inertia and audience decline, network news finds itself at a crossroads. If the networks rethink nightly news, will they build on the programs' strengths - carefully written, taped and edited storytelling - or cut costs and make the shows more unscripted, like cable interview programs? Will they try to find network evening news a better time slot, or begin to walk away from producing signature nightly newscasts altogether because of the programs' aging demographics? Will ABC try to save Nightline because it adds to the network's brand, or drop it because the company could make more money with a variety show? The next year will likely signal the degree to which passion, inertia or math drives the future of network news.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/narrative_overview_eight.asp?cat=10&media=1
Ashcroft says 46 groups to be designated as terrorist organizations
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday he wants the State Department to designate 46 groups as terrorist organizations, a move that he said would help authorities stop terrorists from entering the country and deport any who are already here.
At a news conference, Ashcroft also announced new security measures for the issuance of non-immigrant visas. At times, he said, "security advisory opinions" and background investigations will be solicited in consultation with the State Department, the FBI and CIA before a visa is granted.
"America will not allow terrorists to use our hospitality as a weapon against us," he said.
He also announced that Steven C. McCraw, an FBI agent, will head the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, which will coordinate the work of several federal agencies to prevent would-be terrorists from entering the country, and tracking down and deporting those who get in.
He also said that aliens who provide material support to terrorist activity will also be barred from entering the country or deported if they are here.
"Just as we welcome America's friends, we will not allow our welcome to be abused by those who are America's enemies," he said.
Speaking to reporters at a separate event, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the "big challenge" to a tighter and more effective immigration policy is crafting up-to-date database that can be accessed by key authorities easily.
"We have to make sure that all derogatory information we have on individuals who might be trying to get into the country are in that database, so that when our consular offices around the world receive a request for a visa and they put it into the database, we check every single name against our databases," Powell said.
The 46 groups cited by Ashcroft include many linked to al Qaeda, the network run by Osama bin Laden.
"All these groups have committed or planned violent terrorist acts or serve as fronts for terrorist organizations. ... Designating these groups as terrorist organizations will enable us to prevent aliens who are affiliated with them from entering the United States. In addition, any aliens who are inadmissible because of their affiliation with these groups at the time they managed to enter our country would also be subject to removal," Ashcroft said.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AG
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
(202) 616-2777, TDD (202) 514-1888
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT OUTLINES MOBILIZATION AGAINST TERRORISM ACT
WASHINGTON, D.C. Attorney General John Ashcroft today presented the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act to Congress. Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft outlined the comprehensive legislative initiative which will redefine the antiterrorism effort while protecting civil liberties. The purpose of the legislation is to provide the President and the Department of Justice with the tools and resources necessary to disrupt, weaken, thwart, and eliminate the infrastructure of terrorist organizations, to prevent or thwart terrorist attacks, and to punish perpetrators of terrorist acts.
"The danger that darkened the United States of America and the civilized world on September 11 did not pass with the atrocities committed that day," said Ashcroft. "It requires that we provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to identify, dismantle, disrupt and punish terrorist organizations before they strike again. Terrorism is a clear and present danger to American's today."
The proposed legislation seeks to combat terrorist activity on several fronts. Title I enhances the Department's capacity to gather intelligence necessary to combat terrorist organizations who increasingly employ sophisticated modes of global communications. Existing wiretap authority and procedures have not kept pace with the development of modern technology or the mode of operations of international terrorist organizations. Since current wiretap authority is often restricted to specific property as opposed to allowing law enforcement to follow suspects, current authority is inadequate for investigative personnel to monitor terrorist agents and associates. These proposals update the law to the technology. Terrorist offenses necessitate and justify comprehensive intelligence gathering.
Title II enhances the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain and remove suspected terrorists by expanding the definition of terrorists to include those who lend support to terrorist organizations. The ability of terrorists to enter the United States and operate within the country is the obvious prerequisite to their capacity to inflict damage on citizens and facilities. These proposals protect the integrity of the United States borders without sacrificing the ability to welcome law-abiding visitors and legal immigrants.
Title III proposes changes to enhance prosecutors' ability to disable terrorists organizations through the legal process. The proposal amends current law to encourage investigation and prosecution prior to successful completion of a devastating terrorist attack. Terrorism should be considered no less than murder and the elimination of the statute of limitations on terrorist acts is reflective of these sentiments. In addition, this legislation provides for alternative maximum sentences, up to life, for the commission of terrorist acts, giving judges the ability to punish terrorists commensurate to their crimes. A number of other proposals are designed to punish or deter those who would assist terrorists and their organizations through concealment of their activities or their members. The lending of support that works to further terrorist organizations and to perpetuate terrorist attacks is expressly criminalized. In these specific changes to the law of crimes and criminal procedure, the constitutional rights of the accused are respected.
Title IV aims at the financial infrastructure of terrorist organizations whose sophisticated operations require substantial financial resources. Often such resources are provided by those not directly responsible for terrorist acts. These proposals will cripple the capacity of terrorist organizations to finance their illegal activities through criminal and civil forfeiture of resources. In addition, criminal liability is specifically imposed on those who knowingly engage in financial transactions involving the proceeds of these acts.
Title V authorizes emergency operations in response to the September 11 attacks and assists the Attorney General in providing support and relief to the victims. These proposals provide the Attorney General greater discretion and authority to disburse funds with regard to rewards to be offered in connection with crimes of terrorism.
###
01- 492
09 April 2002
Four Indicted for Aiding Convicted Terrorist, Ashcroft Announces, April 9, 2002
(Four accused of helping Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman pursue terrorism from prison)
A U.S. grand jury has indicted four people for supporting and providing resources for convicted blind terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and the organization known as the Islamic Group, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced at an April 9 news conference in New York.
"The Islamic Group is a global terrorist organization that has forged alliances with other terrorist groups, including al Qaeda," Ashcroft said, noting that it has an active membership in the United States, concentrated in the New York City metropolitan area.
The four indicted include New York City attorney Lynne Stewart, one of Rahman's lawyers; Ahmed Abdel Sattar, described as a Staten Island resident and a "surrogate" for Rahman; Yassir Al-Sirri, the former head of the London-based Islamic Observation Center and currently in custody in Britain; and Mohammed Yousry, identified as an Arabic language translator.
Ashcroft said the four helped the 62-year-old Rahman "direct" terrorist activity from his prison cell.
Sheik Rahman is in prison in Rochester, Minnesota, after being convicted in 1995 along with nine others of joining in the plot that resulted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and a conspiracy to destroy several New York landmarks, including the United Nations.
Ashcroft said the indictment charges that the four defendants worked in concert with Rahman in violation of special administrative measures restricting Rahman's communications with the outside world, to provide material support and resources to the Islamic Group.
"The indictment charges that Rahman used communications with Stewart, translated by Yousry, to pass messages to and receive messages from Sattar, Al-Sirri and other Islamic Group members," Ashcroft said.
Federal officials learned of the activity between the four and Rahman by, in part, monitoring conversations the Muslim cleric had with his lawyer and associates, the Attorney General said.
Such monitoring of conversations, Ashcroft added, would continued in an effort to thwart any possible terrorist activity.
Following is a transcript of the news conference:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of Justice Attorney General
Transcript
April 9, 2002
New York, NY
Islamic Group Indictments
ASHCROFT: This afternoon I'm announcing the indictment of four associates of Sheik Abdel-Rahman, leader of the U.S. government-designated terrorist organization, the Islamic Group. Since 1995 Sheik Rahman has been serving a life term, plus 65-year prison sentence for conspiring to wage a war of terrorism against the United States. Included in that conspiracy term is the plot that resulted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and a conspiracy to destroy several New York landmarks, including the United Nations.
Today's indictment charges four individuals, including Rahman's lawyer, a United States citizen, with aiding Sheik Abdel-Rahman in continuing to direct terrorist activities of the Islamic Group from his prison cell in the United States. The United States charges the following individuals: Lynne Stewart, who was Sheik Abdel-Rahman's attorney during his 1995 conviction for the World Trade Center bombing and who has continued to act as one of his attorneys since he has been in prison.
Mohammed Yousry, the Arabic language interpreter for communications between Lynne Stewart and the imprisoned Sheik Rahman.
Ahmed Abdul Sattar, a resident of Staten Island, New York and an active Islamic Group leader, whom the indictment describes as a surrogate for Rahman.
And also indicated is Yasser al-Sirri, the former head of the London-based Islamic observation center. He is currently in custody in the United Kingdom. He is charged with facilitating communications among Islamic Group members and providing financing for their activities.
The indictment charges that these defendants worked in concert with Sheik Abdel-Rahman in violation of special administrative measures restricting Rahman's communications with the outside world, to provide material support and resources the Islamic Group.
ASHCROFT: The indictment charges that Rahman used communications with Stewart, translated by Yousry to pass messages to and receive messages from Sattar, al-Sirri and other Islamic group members.
The terrorist movement at the center of the facts alleged in this indictment is the Islamic group which has as its credo a message of hate that is now tragically familiar to Americans, to oppose by whatever means necessary the nations, governments, and individuals who do not share its radical interpretations of Islamic law.
The Islamic Group is a global terrorist organization that has forged alliances with other terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. It has an active membership in the United States, concentrated in the New York City metropolitan area.
According to the indictment, since at least the early 1990s, Sheik Abdel-Rahman has been one of the principal leaders of the Islamic group and has directed its terrorist operations.
He has defined its goals, has recruited its membership in the United States. In 1997, following his 1995 imprisonment, the Bureau of Prisons implemented special administrative measures that defined the conditions of his imprisonment. Among these restrictions, these measures prohibited Rahman from, and I quote, ``from passing or receiving any written or recorded communications to or from other inmates, visitors, attorneys, prison staff, or anyone else.''
According to the indictment, in 1999, these restrictions were amended to prohibit Rahman from communicating with any member of the news media in person or through his attorneys. Before being allowed access to Rahman, his attorneys, including Lynne Stewart, were required to sign and did sign an affirmation acknowledging that they would abide by these measures and they would be accompanied by a translator only to communicate with Sheik Rahman according to and regarding legal matters. ASHCROFT: Today's indictment charges that Lynne Stewart and Mohammed Yousry repeatedly and willfully violated these order in order to maintain Sheik Abdel-Rahman's influence over the terrorist activities of the Islamic group.
Among other overt acts, the indictment charges that, during a May 2000 visit to Sheik Abdel-Rahman, Stewart allowed Yousry to read letters from Ahmed Abdul Sattar regarding whether the Islamic group should continue to comply with a cease-fire in terrorist activities against Egyptian authorities that had been in place following the shooting and stabbing of 58 tourists and four Egyptians visiting an archaeological site in Luxor, Egypt in 1997. That's a terrorist attack for which the Islamic group claimed credit.
The indictment charges that because these special communications--pardon me. The indictment charges that because these communications violated the special administrative measures placed on Sheik Rahman, Stewart took affirmative steps to conceal the conversation from prison guards, making extraneous comments in English to mask the Arabic conversation between Rahman and Yousry. Following the meeting, and in further violation of the special administrative measures to which she had agreed, Stewart is charged with announcing to the news media that Rahman had withdrawn his support for the cease-fire.
The indictment further alleges that in a January 2001 phone call, Ahmed Abdul Sattar informed Stewart that prison administrators had pleaded with Rahman's wife to tell Rahman to take his medicine. The indictment charges that although they knew Rahman was voluntarily refusing to take insulin for his diabetes, Sattar and Stewart agreed to issue a public statement falsely claiming that Rahman was being denied medical treatment.
The indictment charges that Stewart stated that this misrepresentation was, quote, ``safe,'' because no one on the, quote, ``outside,'' would know the truth. Shortly after terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, the Department of Justice promulgated a rule creating the authority to monitor the attorney-client communications of federal inmates whom we suspected of facilitating acts of terrorism.
ASHCROFT: At the time, we attempted to make clear of the 158,000 inmates in the federal system, this authority would apply to only 16 inmates who, like Sheik Abdel-Rahman, were already under special administrative measures, a definition of the conditions of their custody. The authority was carefully circumscribed to protect inmates' rights while preventing acts of terrorism.
Each prisoner would be told in advance his conversations would be monitored.
None of the information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege would be used for prosecution. Information would only be used to stop impending terrorist attacks and save American lives.
The Department of Justice announced this authority back in October, with the knowledge, which could not be publicly shared for fear of exposing Americans to greater risk, that inmates such as Sheik Abdel-Rahman were attempting to subvert our system of justice for terrorist ends. In fact, the training manual for Al Qaeda terrorists offers detailed constructions to recruits on how to continue their terrorist operations in the event they get caught.
Imprisoned terrorists are instructed to take advantage of any contact with the outside world to, quote--and now I'm quoting from the terrorist manual--''communicate with brothers outside prison and exchange information that may be helpful to them in their work. The importance of mastering the art of hiding messages is self-evident here.'' And I'm closing now the quotation from the Al Qaeda training manual.
As today's indictment sets forth, Sheik Abdel-Rahman has learned the lessons of the Al Qaeda manual well. Sheik Rahman is determined to exploit the rights guaranteed to him under the United States system of justice.
The United States cannot and will not stand by and allow this to happen. Accordingly, today, I am announcing that the Department of Justice is invoking for the first time to monitor the communications between Sheik Abdel-Rahman and his attorneys under the new Justice Department regulations.
Since America was attacked over six months ago, I have sought to reassure the American people that the acts of the Department of Justice are carefully designed to target terrorists and to protect the rights of Americans and their freedom. Today's actions pursue the same objectives with the same protections in mind. We will not look the other way when our institutions of justice are subverted.
We will not ignore those who claim rights for themselves, while they seek to destroy the rights of others. We will in the president's words ``defend freedom and justice no matter what the cost.''
Thank you. Now we'd be happy to respond to your questions.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Is there any information pertaining to the September 11 attacks that is not contained in these documents but might be forthcoming later?
ASHCROFT: I don't want to try and discuss all the evidence, but I think it's clear that the indictment does not indicate that there's any information regarding the September 11 attacks, and I think it's safe to assume that there is not any that would be likely to be forthcoming.
QUESTION: Do you know what, if anything, is the consequence of the letters that you allege were read to the Sheik, and if you read letters back in addition to (inaudible) which you say was issued under his name in the year 2000? What, if any, are the consequences of these communications?
ASHCROFT: Well, the first consequence is that the agreement and that the rules relating to his incarceration have been broken.
The second is that the communication, in accordance with the items mentioned in the indictment, that he had lifted his approval of the cease-fire is a very important signal to members of the Islamic group.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: How did these people provide financial support (inaudible) and other things, including sending money to Sheik Rahman's son in Afghanistan?
ASHCROFT: The indictment alleges that money was transferred, but frankly, for us to go beyond the indictment at this time would be improper.
QUESTION: Can you describe (inaudible) listing his son as, I believe, a co-conspirator but not a defendant, can you explain that?
ASHCROFT: Well, we're talking about Rahman...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... Rahman's son.
ASHCROFT: His son?
Let me just call upon Jim (ph) to make a comment on (OFF-MIKE)
(UNKNOWN): I can't comment other than to say the investigation is continuing. The people we've indicted are the people we've indicted. So I'm sorry I can't give you more than that.
QUESTION: All right. Just to be clear, you said that you're announcing for the first time that the attorney--that Sheik Rahman's conversations will be monitored, his conversations with the attorney. Is this the first instance in which attorney-client conversations will be monitored under the new provisions?
ASHCROFT: Under the new provisions, that's correct.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
ASHCROFT: We've had about a dozen and a half people who have been subject to special administrative measures. But under the new regulations promulgated last fall, this is the first time we'll be imposing those regulations as a means of monitoring conversations.
Yes, ma'am?
QUESTION: Do you have information beyond September 11 (inaudible) do you have any information that these particular communications (inaudible)
ASHCROFT: We're not going to go beyond the information in the indictment at this time.
QUESTION: Can you characterize the relationship between the Islamic group and Al Qaeda? What is the nature of that? How close did they work together (inaudible)
ASHCROFT: I don't want to get into the facts that we're likely to develop at one time or another. The indictment alleges a formal relationship, that there's an allied relationship between the two. And at this time, we wouldn't go further.
Yes?
QUESTION: Could you talk about the Luxor attack and the taking of the tourists as hostages? Did the sheik--the information that got out--what were the repercussions, that they encouraged these gentlemen to take the hostages?
ASHCROFT: Well, you know that dozens of people died in Luxor.
QUESTION: Right.
ASHCROFT: And the sheik is a person whose leadership is substantial in the community of terrorists. Scattered on the bodies of those who died in Luxor were the pamphlets saying, ``Release the sheik from his imprisonment in the United States,'' just to indicate that his influence in the Islamic group as a terrorist organization was a profound influence, and so that signaling from him would be important.
QUESTION: To encourage other attacks? But this is one instance that you're suggesting occurred, where they actually did kill people... ASHCROFT: Well, I think that instance occurred prior to the time in which we...
QUESTION: OK.
ASHCROFT: We're not going to go beyond the indictment at this time and provide other information. Yes, sir?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) what is your concern about what would happen if you didn't take this action that you're announcing today?
ASHCROFT: Well, I've stated on repeated occasions that we will not allow individuals to continue to perpetrate criminal acts or terrorist acts from their prison cells. And we will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that that opportunity, either to direct or otherwise guide or plan or executive acts of terrorism or criminality is restrained.
ASHCROFT: And the regulations which we are now imposing on this particular individual provide for us to be able to monitor his conversations very thoroughly.
QUESTION: And how seriously do you think (inaudible)?
ASHCROFT: I'm not in a position to comment on those things at this time.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
ASHCROFT: I think that's a good question, yes. For a number of years, the conversations have been monitored, pursuant to court order, monitor these conversations, and with judicial authority and authorization.
In order to be able to respond aggressively in a timely fashion, I promulgated regulations last fall that allow to do so with a different set of safeguards and a framework that could provide more expeditious opportunities for surveillance. So, for the first time, we are imposing the ability to surveil a conversation under this new framework.
But for several years now, this office of the United States attorney and the office of the Department of Justice, aided by the FBI and law enforcement authorities, has been taking the steps necessary to assemble this case. And frankly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, its local officials in this office, deserve credit for an investigation which is extending over several years to culminate in the action which is taken today.
QUESTION: How would you characterize the relationship between Sheik Rahman and Lynne Stewart?
ASHCROFT: I think for me to go beyond the indictment today would be inappropriate. We've alleged in the indictment that Sheik's attorney has gone outside the confines of the agreement to which she had come with the officials, and the fact that she has done so has resulted in charges being brought.
QUESTION: When did you start monitoring conversations? Can somebody answer that question?
ASHCROFT: 1998, I believe, is it? December of 1998.
Thank you very much.
(end transcript)
Anti-terrorism and Domestic Gun Violence: A Case of Misplaced Priorities, 10/1/2003
Commentary
by Dick Dahl
Attorney General John Ashcroft has been touring the country on a public-relations blitz for the USA Patriot Act, proclaiming that the U.S. is now a safer place than it was two years ago following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
In his speeches before carefully selected audiences, Ashcroft has been claiming that the U.S. is winning the war on terror because there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since the World Trade Center and Pentagon were struck on Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, said Ashcroft in Tallahassee, Fla. on Sept. 25, "Today America is freer than at any time in the history of human freedom."
It would seem that the nation's top prosecutor is encouraging us to uncork the champagne and offer a toast to ourselves for this singular achievement. We are the freest people in history!
If only it were so. First, there is mounting concern that the USA Patriot Act is providing the Justice Department tools that enable it to pry too deeply into Americans' private lives. Second, Ashcroft's rosy pep talks are even more problematic in their refusal to acknowledge the true ongoing terror of gun violence in the U.S. Perhaps terrorists have claimed no more victims on American soil since some 2,800 were killed Sept. 11, 2001, but nearly 60,000 people in the U.S. have been shot to death in that span of time and hundreds of thousands more injured, vastly more than any other industrialized nation that is not nominally at war. And while Ashcroft has been bragging to his mostly hand-picked audiences about crime going down because of his efforts, the national Centers for Disease Control has just released a report that reveals a certain hollowness in his boasts.
The CDC's new National Vital Statistics Report shows that the long decline in annual gun deaths and gun homicides that began under the Clinton Administration in the 1990s came to a halt in the first year of Ashcroft's (and President Bush's) tenure. In 2001, gun deaths in the U.S. rose by more than 3 percent, from 28,663 the previous year to 29,572. Gun homicides also rose, albeit by a slightly lesser rate, from 11,071 the previous year to 11,348 in 2001.
So, what is John Ashcroft's Justice Department doing about continuing gun violence in the U.S.?
In 2002 the Justice Department looked at the 136,000 people who were rejected for gun ownership by the National Instant Background Check system because they had lied about criminal backgrounds, domestic-abuse histories, and other prohibition categories -- and chose to prosecute fewer than 600 of them. "President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft promised to enforce the gun laws on the books," Americans for Gun Safety president Jonathan Cowan said in a statement on Sept. 17, "and this ... is further evidence that they are breaking the biggest promise that they made on guns."
In early March, Ashcroft testified before Congress and refused to offer support for continuation of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, which expires next year. Ashcroft's position is a stark and shameless contradiction to a statement he made during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2001 when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked him whether he would support continuation of the law. He stated, "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I would be pleased to move forward that position, and to support that as a policy of this president, and as a policy of the Justice Department."
The Justice Department has had little or nothing to say about the documented connection between the nation's lax gun laws and terrorist organizations' exploitation of them. In May, a Congressional Research Service report found that loopholes in U.S. gun laws can be exploited, and already have been, for purchases of assault weapons and explosives by terrorists. Violence Policy Center public policy director Joe Sudbay wrote in a commentary that he believes the influence of the National Rifle Association (of which Ashcroft is a member) has kept the Bush Administration mum on the issue. "A free flow of assault weapons and .50-caliber sniper rifles is the NRA's goal, despite the benefit it presents to the terrorists who aim to deny us the freedoms that Bush and Ashcroft claim to defend," Sudbay wrote. "When it comes to the gun issue, the White House repeatedly contradicts its own anti-terror message, a glaring lesson in hypocrisy that benefits only terrorists and the NRA."
Early in his tenure as attorney general, Ashcroft received plaudits from the NRA and its supporters when he told the organization that he believes the Second Amendment guarantees an absolute right to gun ownership. This assessment stands at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the arming of state militias, and not individuals. Despite the fact that during his confirmation hearings Ashcroft had stated that he would not allow his personal beliefs to affect his job as upholder of federal laws, he has subsequently contradicted himself on the Second Amendment just as he has with assault weapons. In May, 2002, the Justice Department filed briefs to the Supreme Court stating that it has officially adopted the NRA position that the amendment guarantees broad individual rights. The reaction? Criminal defendants across the land, including the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, now cite their new Second Amendment rights.
Besides handing the Justice Department unprecedented powers to spy on us, Congress has allocated more than $30 billion this year for the Office of Homeland Security to try to keep us safe from terrorists in the U.S. and is considering President Bush's ill-defined request for $87 billion to fund the military and reconstruction activity in Iraq. Meanwhile, police departments and crime-prevention programs all across the U.S. are being decimated by budget cuts.
Over the last 20 years or so, the concept of "community policing" has risen as an effective means of reducing crime and violence, particularly in urban areas. Police departments found that forging links with programs, schools, community organizations, and creating after-school programs and athletic leagues were effective ways to keep the peace. "Crime prevention is anti-terrorism," Jeffrey Fryrear, director of the National Crime Prevention Institute at the University of Louisville, said in an interview. "It begins at the block level, the neighborhood level, the street level, and builds up. It's a very difficult proposition to build from the top down."
With fewer resources and greater demands from the Department of Homeland Security to perform anti-terrorist security functions, police are less able to hold the community-policing programs together. Now they're more focused on responding to crime than preventing it.
The prospects for the future do not bode well, as the troubling new CDC data on increasing gun deaths and crime would seem to verify. As Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said recently in an interview, "I truly believe that (community policing) had a strong influence in why, before this, we went through eight years of crime reduction in this country. As we pull away from those things, you're not going to see some dramatic increase, but I think that over time this will have an extremely negative effect."
It would be useful and refreshing if Attorney General Ashcroft would acknowledge the reality that professionals like Fryrear and Kerlikowske describe. The accounts of Ashcroft's boosterish speeches around the country all report his heavy emphasis on September 11 and the spectre of more attacks on U.S. soil by foreign terrorists. From Ashcroft's position as an NRA operative, which he surely is, perhaps the tactic does make nefarious sense. If people are frightened enough, they'll accept intrusions into their private lives. They'll consider common-sense crime prevention an extravagance. And maybe they'll buy a gun.
The war on terrorism is certainly necessary. But it would be useful if the U.S. attorney general, among others, would draw a clearer distinction between threat and reality. Terror is already a big problem in the U.S., and as the nation's top prosecutor, John Ashcroft is negligent in misleading the public about its true nature.
Dick Dahl is a freelance journalist who contributes frequently to Join Together Online. His work also has appeared in the The Boston Globe Magazine, The Nation, and the National Law Journal.
Visit www.jointogether.org for complete news and funding coverage, resource links and advocacy tools supporting community-based efforts to reduce and prevent substance abuse and gun violence.
Attorney Lynne Stewart is Not the Terrorist Ashcroft Wanted Her to Be
John Ashcroft must be tearing out his primly coiffed hair about now. On July 21, Federal District Judge John G. Koeltl (Southern District of New York) dismissed the terrorist charges against New York attorney Lynne Stewart. In a 77-page opinion, Judge Koeltl agreed with famed civil rights attorney Michael Tigar's argument that the anti-terrorist act under which she was charged was overly vague as applied to attorney speech and conduct related to client representation.
Stewart had been charged with aiding and abetting the terrorist activities of Sheikh Abdel Rahman, whom she, as court-appointed attorney, defended in connection with the 1993 bombings of the World Trade Center. After visiting her client in prison, Stewart answered a press question about Rahman's support of a cease-fire of then ongoing terrorist activities such as those that were implicated in bombings of U.S. embassies. She said that he did not support a cease-fire. That statement was the basis of one of the charges that could have put her away for 15 years (she faced 40 years if convicted of all four charges). The other had to do with her supposedly being a "mouthpiece" to pass on messages from Rahman to the organization he was tied to, the Islamic Group, which is on the government's list of terrorist organizations.
Judge Koeltl said that the provision in the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act that forbids providing communication methods and personnel to a terrorist organization did not give an attorney notice that communicating with our about his or her client could amount to conspiring to engage in terrorism.
"The Government accuses Stewart of providing personnel, including herself, to [the Islamic Group]," Koeltl said. "In so doing, however, the Government fails to explain how a lawyer, acting as an agent of her client, an alleged leader of an FTO [foreign terrorist organization], could avoid being subject to the criminal prosecution as a 'quasi-employee' allegedly covered by the statute."
The government, in its war on defense attorneys, would have liked to be able to charge attorneys who represent alleged terrorism suspects with being terrorists themselves. To their line of reasoning, Stewart's providing her legal services to a terrorist and using the phone to communicate with him was a violation of the law that presaged loss of liberties under the USA Patriot Act (as with the Patriot Act, few people took notice of the Antiterrorism Act when passed).
Koeltl refused to find the material support for terrorism statute unconstitutionally overbroad, saying its prohibitions are content-neutral and its purposes are "aimed not at speech but at conduct." He let stand charges that Stewart violated the conditions imposed upon her when she visited Rahman in his prison hospital cell. It was there that she is alleged to have used subterfuge so that her client could pass messages to the Islamic Group through an interpreter whom Stewart brought with her to translate her conversations with Rahman (Stewart does not speak Arabic).
Attorney General John Ashcroft signed an executive order giving him the power to order the Bureau of Prisons to monitor certain attorney-client conversations. Stewart was the first, and to date, only, defense attorney charged with violating the conditions imposed on attorney-client communications. Known as SAMs (for Special Administrative Measures), the conditions are arbitrarily imposed at the whim of the Attorney General. The attorney only knows that he or she may be monitored while engaging in what used to be thought of as sacrosanct communication afforded the highest and oldest privilege under the law--the attorney client privilege. Stewart did not know she was under surveillance until she was indicted.
While not admitting that she violated the SAMs, Tigar argued that Stewart was forced to sign what the government put before her in order to do her duty to her client. A strong argument could be made that the purpose of SAMs are to chill attorney-client conduct related to certain defendants. For an attorney has two choices: sign the SAM and see the client, or not-sign and abrogate their legal duty to the client. It is troubling that Judge Koeltl let these charges stand, for a government win would have a dramatic impact on defense attorneys. For while few defense attorneys will be charged as terrorists, any attorney representing anyone upon whom Ashcroft wants to conduct surveillance (or even the attorney herself) could be the target of a SAM.
The net result of Judge Koeltl's decision is that while Stewart is not facing terrorist charges, she is being charged for other crimes arising out of the same acts--speaking to and about her client. The heart of the case against Stewart remains what it always has been--defending the 6th amendment rights of defendants to have a meaningful defense (hard to do with the government is listening to your conversations with your client) and the right of attorneys to diligently and zealously represent their clients, as lawyer conduct codes demands.
Stewart and Tigar were guests on the July 23 edition of Democracy Now, the Pacifica Radio Network show hosted by Amy Goodman. Tigar said that Judge Koeltl’s opinion protects not only lawyers from being charged as terrorists, but ordinary citizens from being prosecuted for speaking out against events such as aspects of the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
Not willing to call it quits just yet, prosecutors said they were exploring possibilities of an appeal. "We continue to believe that the statute prohibiting material support of terrorism is constitutional, and we are reviewing our appellate options," said a spokesman for James B. Comey, the United States attorney in Manhattan.
Posted by Elaine Cassel at July 24, 2003 05:37 A
Prosecutor Under Investigation in Detroit Terrorism Case
I wrote about the case of the Detroit "sleeper cell" in my book, The War on Civil Liberties. When the book went to press, Judge Rosen was considering defense motions to set aside the verdicts. Apparently the Justice Department is probing whether the lead prosecutor set out to mislead the defense, and to convict the defendants with false evidence.
The prosecutor alleges that he is being smeared by the Justice Department, against who he testified about to Congress in a probe of case.
Considering that this administration would not likely investigate any prosecutor for dirty tricks--given that it lives by them in its Roveian universe--the more likely scenario is that the prosecutor IS being retaliated against for blowing the whistle on the big guns.
Here is the Washington Post story about the case.
Detroit 'Sleeper Cell' Prosecutor Faces Probe
Grand Jury Considering Indictment for Misconduct
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 20, 2005; A03
DETROIT -- Once trumpeted as one of the Justice Department's significant triumphs against terrorism, the case targeting the so-called "Detroit sleeper cell" began less than a week after the attack on the World Trade Center. It was only after a jury convicted two men of supporting terrorism that the flimsiness of the government's case became clear.
As hidden evidence spilled out and the Justice Department abandoned the effort, federal investigators began to wonder whether the true conspiracy in the case was perpetrated by the prosecution.
Now a federal grand jury in Detroit is investigating whether the lead prosecutor, Richard Convertino, or anyone else should be indicted for unfairly tipping the scales.
It is a highly unusual case. No charges have been brought and many details remain secret, but information in public documents and testimony in U.S. District Court in Detroit suggest an effort by federal prosecutors and important witnesses to mislead defense lawyers and deceive the jury. U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen said the government acted "outside the Constitution."
Rosen and Justice Department investigators concluded last year that the prosecution stuck doggedly to its theory in defiance of plausible explanations and advice from other U.S. government officials. Records suggest prosecutors withheld evidence that cast doubt on their conclusions, even when ordered by superiors to deliver documents to the defense.
Convertino, who resigned from the Justice Department earlier this year to practice law in Michigan, has denied wrongdoing. He sued former Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and other superiors, accusing them of mismanaging anti-terrorism efforts and retaliating against him for testifying to Congress about those efforts. His attorneys contend that Convertino was no renegade and was closely supervised by Washington.
It would be "extremely rare for a prosecutor to face criminal charges for misconduct," said former D.C. public corruption prosecutor Randall D. Eliason. "The key is going to be showing deliberate and willfully corrupt misconduct, as opposed to somebody who was pushing the envelope and got carried away."
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth threw out the retaliation claim in Convertino's civil lawsuit in October, saying federal court was not the proper venue. He allowed another portion of Convertino's case to proceed, though he has granted a delay while the Detroit grand jury investigation is underway.
The case of the sleeper cell that wasn't began on Sept. 17, 2001, when federal agents searching for a suspect named Nabil al-Marabh instead found three men in a Detroit apartment where al-Marabh had once lived. Among their possessions were fake identity documents, Islamic fundamentalist cassette tapes and a videotape with footage of tourist sites.
Prosecutors charged four men -- Karim Koubriti, Ahmed Hannan, Farouk Ali-Haimoud and Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi -- with conspiring to help terrorists. Convertino and his principal chief government witness, FBI agent Paul George, believed they had cracked an "operational combat cell" of Islamic terrorists.
Convertino told a jury when the trial began in March 2003 that the men were a "shadowy group" that was "planning, seeking direction, awaiting the call." The most important piece of evidence was a day planner that included a pair of sketches.
To the prosecution, they were the maps of a terrorist. The defense dismissed them as doodles.
Seeing that one drawing said "Queen Alia Jordan," Convertino and his team searched for a match in Jordan among an airport, hotel and military hospital that all bore the name of the former queen. FBI agent Michael Thomas and State Department security officer Harry Raymond Smith testified to seeing striking similarities between the sketch and the hospital's surroundings.
"Every time we turned," Smith testified, "it was getting more and more like this drawing."
There was much discussion during the trial about whether the prosecution had photographs that could settle the debate. When Convertino asked Smith under oath whether he had taken photographs, Smith replied that diplomats "never take pictures" of a military installation because "it could cause bigger political implications."
But Justice investigators said later that U.S. officials had taken photographs and Convertino knew it. E-mails from State Department liaison Ed Seitz reported that the photos had been forwarded to Detroit, where Convertino replied, "Thanks Ed!! We love ya."
Justice lawyers said the photographs and the e-mails should have been disclosed. They concluded, in remarks unusually critical of a fellow prosecutor, that "misleading testimony was elicited."
"It is difficult, if not impossible," the lawyers wrote, "to compare the day planner sketches with the photos and see a correlation between the documents and the hospital site."
Thomas told investigators after the trial that Jordanian intelligence officers believed the drawing more resembled the airport. But he testified differently, telling the jury: "We presented this document to the Jordanians. They said, 'We believe this is the military hospital.' " Convertino said a second day planner drawing portrayed Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. This time he introduced photographs. Thomas testified that the match was "almost identical," while Air Force Lt. Col. Mary Peterson described the sketch as "pre-operational surveillance."
What no one on the prosecution team revealed was that other military analysts thought the drawing was not a bomber's map of Incirlik, but a doodler's depiction of a map of the Middle East.
The Justice review team said Peterson had created the "strong inference" that all Air Force personnel agreed that an object in the drawing was a hardened bunker that existed at Incirlik. But undisclosed documents in the Air Force file called the drawing unclear and described any conclusions as "essentially opinion."
A group of U.S. terrorism specialists in Ramstein, Germany, also studied the drawing and concluded that it might be a Middle East map. That detail took on more importance after the trial when an Air Force investigator described a conversation with FBI agent Thomas.
According to the investigator, Thomas reported that a Yemeni source named Nasser Ahmed told him his mentally unstable brother might have drawn a map of the Middle East while doodling in the day planner. Defense lawyers were never told of the potentially exculpatory evidence, as required by law.
Rosen was so troubled by another piece of hidden evidence that he conducted a December 2003 hearing to find out why the U.S. attorney's office had failed to disclose it. The subject was a letter written by Milton "Butch" Jones, a Detroit drug gang leader awaiting sentencing on a federal murder charge.
Jones wrote to prosecutors that he had spoken in jail with Youssef Hmimssa, the only witness to tie the Detroit defendants to a terrorist cell. He quoted Hmimssa as saying he had lied to the FBI and fooled the Secret Service. Jones offered to show prosecutors his notes and take a polygraph test.
Federal prosecutor Joseph Allen testified in a post-trial hearing that he showed the letter to Convertino more than a year before Hmimssa took the witness stand. When it became clear during the trial that the letter remained secret, Allen was so upset that he notified the head of the Detroit U.S. attorney's office criminal division, Alan Gershel.
Gershel told Rosen how, with the letter in front of him, he instructed Convertino's co-counsel, Keith Corbett, during the trial to release it. Allen said Gershel told him later the same day that the matter had been taken care of.
But Convertino and Corbett did not release the letter. Questioned later by Rosen, Convertino said "it slipped through the cracks" and would not have helped the defense anyway. Corbett admitted a "mistake in judgment on our part," but added that he did not recall Gershel's order to surrender the letter.
Rosen ordered the internal Justice Department inquiry in December 2003, six months after the jury convicted Koubriti and Elmardoudi of supporting terrorism. Those two and Hannan were also convicted of document fraud. Ali-Haimoud was acquitted.
The Justice Department took its own case apart, witness by witness, and delivered scores of pages of evidence to defense lawyers. Rosen also traveled to the CIA to review classified documents.
Beyond the evidence about the trial, the Justice Department review quoted witnesses as saying that Convertino instructed an FBI agent not to fill out official reports on the lengthy interviews of Hmimssa, the questionable witness. The FBI reports -- standard procedure -- would have been accessible to defense lawyers.
Defense lawyers, who had accused the prosecution of concealing evidence and knowingly using false testimony, felt vindicated.
"This was, for lack of a better term, a conspiracy to present a fraudulent case to the court," said Detroit defense lawyer William Swor, who represented Elmardoudi. "They took what was a reasonable concern under the circumstances and turned it into a witch hunt."
Posted by Elaine Cassel at November 20, 2005 06:47 AM
UNITED STATES V. LYNNE STEWART
Stewart Reply Memo (573k PDF)
Michael Tigar Declaration (92k PDF)
Lynne Stewart Motions to Dismiss (1.48MB PDF)
Michael Tigar Letter to Judge Koeltl (110k PDF)
Amicus Brief filed by National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys (1.2MB PDF)
Aboobaker Ismail: Once an anti-apartheid fighter, he now works for the South African Reserve Bank.
•
How do you define terrorism?
•
On the justness of a cause
•
What was the African National Congress cause?
•
Was the ANC a terrorist group?
•
What's the difference between freedom fighting and terrorism?
•
Why did the ANC resort to violence?
•
Do you stand by your actions?
•
On reconciling with Clarence
•
On moving on
Neville Clarence: Blinded in a bomb attack, he now owns his own technology company.
•
How do you define terrorism? Attacks on civilians
•
Where do you draw the line?
•
Why were you targeted in the bomb attack?
•
Do you consider the bombing terrorism?
•
Were you angry?
•
How did you reconcile with the ANC?
•
On reconciling with Ismail
