Muslims in America Accused and Sentenced for Practicing Islam

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night to the sound of armed men entering your house. You rush to your children to ensure that they are safe and prepare yourself for the worst.  Then, you are suddenly seized and subdued by people in dark clothing and whisked away in an unmarked vehicle while your wife and children are left at home crying and terrified for your safety.

If this sounds like something out of a 007 movie, think again. Over a thousand Muslims in America have been arrested in a similar fashion by the FBI, INS, and other governmental organizations, with no explanation and without due process.

According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), over 1,000 Muslims have been “detained” in American jails since September 11^th. Most of them are still in custody, and very few of them have been charged with any crimes or given any chance to seek legal defence.

Using terrorism laws and the U.S. Patriot Act, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) have launched a campaign against law-abiding Muslims living in the U.S. with complete disregard for their civil liberties and basic human rights.  While these injustices of the state have now reached alarming levels, the government has actually been involved in such activities for several years.

In 1997, Palestinian Professor Dr. Mazen al-Najjar was arrested and subsequently imprisoned in a Florida jail for 3 years by the INS under “Secret Evidence.”  The secret evidence laws, signed under the Clinton Administration, allow the government to imprison individuals who are suspected of being “threats to national security” on the basis of evidence that is not released to the public, or even to lawyers involved in the cases.  As a result, the accused have no way of defending themselves against the charges.

After three years, al-Najjar was finally released after battling in court and after receiving the support of numerous human rights and religious organizations.  Despite this, the court declined to overturn a ruling that he should be deported to the U.A.E., and al-Najjar was again arrested pending his deportation.  On May 14^th, 2002, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported, “The government acknowledged at the time that Al Najjar had nothing to do with the events of September 11^th, but in a press release issued on the day of his arrest the Department of Justice said that his detention demonstrated its "commitment to address terrorism."

Countless others have been held in United States prisons on the basis of “secret evidence” which neither they nor their lawyers have ever been allowed to see.  The tragic events of September 11^th have only given government agencies more excuses to detain Muslims without trial.

Since September 11^th , only one detainee has been charged with any crime.  Human Rights Watch (HRW), in a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft states, “The danger to the United States posed by terrorist activities should not be used as a justification to expand these powers in ways that undermine the rights to liberty and due process possessed by citizens and non-citizens alike.”

HRW also mentioned that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in Article 9, clearly states that everyone “has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.”  The United States is a party to ICCPR and agreed to adhere to its legislation. 

Despite international consensus opposed to it, the United States has taken measures to give the INS and FBI sweeping authority to detain, question, and deport individuals deemed to support “terrorist activities.”  Many of these mandates and laws that have been passed are conveniently vague almost to the extent that anyone can be detained without explanation.  The INS, for example, is allowed to detain people indefinitely for “questioning” as of an emergency regulation established immediately after September 11^th (see 66 Fed. Reg. 48,334, September 20, 2001).

.

The U.S. Patriot Act

h

Perhaps the most precarious of these “anti-terrorism” legislations is the U.S. Patriot Act.  It is described in its text as, “Uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism.”  While its first section begins with denouncing discrimination against Arabs, South Asians and Muslims (Section 102(a)1), it later gives the President and government agencies powers to spy on, arrest, deport, and seize assets of those individuals and organizations suspected of “terrorism.”

The act never gives a clear definition of terrorism or terrorists.  It does, however, give the President the power to “confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States…”

The result of this U.S. Patriot Act has been the closing and seizure of assets of several prominent Muslim charitable organizations, namely Al-Barakaat, Holy Land Foundation, Benevolence International Foundation, and Global Relief Foundation.  All of these organizations have denied the charges against them and have filed lawsuits against the government to have their assets unfrozen due to the lack of evidence to support its claims.

The Global Relief Foundation, accused of funding terrorism, has recently had their numerous appeals to courts turned down by judges who are again using “Secret Evidence” to keep the organization’s assets frozen.  In addition to this, the FBI arrested their public relations chair, Rabih Haddad and has kept him in custody since December 14^th without bail, without charges, and without any evidence.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is currently attempting to legitimize Al Barakaat for fear that closure of the organization, Somalia’s largest money transfer system, “may cause a new humanitarian crisis in the war-ravaged country.”  The U.S. shut down the organization after suspecting that it had ties with Osama Bin Laden.  The U.S. government has stated that it has proof of these accusations, but no evidence has thus far been released.

Among the newest detainees since September 11^th is Abdullah al-Mujahir (formerly Jose Padilla) who has been labelled by the American media as “The Dirty Bomber.”  Al-Muhajir was accused of plotting with terrorists in Pakistan to return to the U.S. and detonate a “dirty bomb.”  While, no evidence was presented by the U.S. officials to give credit to their case, al-Muhajir was nonetheless designated as an “enemy combatant” and thrown into a military jail.

Human Rights Watch became concerned by the government’s total disregard for al-Muhajir’s rights as a citizen, who should at least be given a fair trial to determine his innocence or guilt. 

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, contends, “There should be a strong presumption that anyone arrested in the U.S., far from any battlefield, be granted the full legal protections of the criminal justice system- including the right to counsel and not to be held without charges.  Simply accusing someone of working with al-Qaeda does not justify throwing him into a navy brig.”

“Being an accused terrorist,” Roth said, “is not synonymous with being an enemy combatant.  Otherwise, the President could detain and hold anyone without charges simply by labelling him a member of al-Qaeda.” 

As of date, Human Rights Watch has been denied access to the holding cells in their attempt to determine the quality of treatment and living conditions of the approximately 1,000 detainees since September 11^th.  It is still unclear as to how long they will continue to rot in jail cells without justice (either of innocence or guilt).  And in the case of al-Muhajir, President Bush has indicated that the accused “Dirty Bomber” will remain in the military jail for the “duration of the war on terrorism,” a war that has already been called a war with “no boundaries” and thus no limitations.

Perhaps the most blatant of all U.S. disregard for human rights was made apparent when the international community, on the verge of finalizing an International Criminal Court that would be capable of charging individuals for war crimes, asked the United States to agree on the provisions.  The United States had signed and agreed to be a party in the criminal court under the Clinton administration, but then attempted to “withdrawal” under the Bush administration.

Their main reason for desiring exemption from the criminal court was that “peacekeepers” from the U.S., in various locations such as Bosnia, could in fact be charged for war crimes.  In a recent interview, Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters that the United States did not want U.S. soldiers and officials to be charged in such a court.  It is not a direct confession of guilt, but sometimes what is not said is equally revealing.  Time will tell, and the truth will eventually be told.