British Court Rules People’s Mujahedeen Not Terrorist Group

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

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

[7] Burns.

[8] Id.

Chicago Six to be Tried for Third Time

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

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

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

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

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


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

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Jose Padilla Begins Prison Term at Supermax

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

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

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

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


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

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

DOJ Supported Warrantless Search and Seizure in Terror Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Trial of Heathrow Terror Suspects Begins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.