Material Support to Terrorists—Sentencing

Fadl Mohammad Maatouk has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for conspiring to help Hezbollah, which is a designated foreign terrorist organization.^[1] The former flea market owner pleaded guilty in January.^[2] As part of his plea agreement, Mr. Maatouk admitted that “in a May 2003 telephone call with his brother, he agreed to lend a machine gun to a Hezbollah member, who planned to use it to protect one of the group’s leaders in southern Lebanon.”^[3] He also admitted to giving Hezbollah members camouflage fatigues while visiting Lebanon in 2003.^[4]

He was arrested in March 2005 on unrelated drug paraphernalia and money laundering charges.^[5] Mr. Maatouk begged for mercy from the court, but US District Court Judge Harvey Schlesinger imposed the maximum sentence nonetheless and also imposed five years of probation after he gets out of jail.^[6]

Though Mr. Maatouk got the maximum five year penalty for a conspiracy charge, he faced far more jail time based on the 17-page indictment returned against him in November of 2004, that charged with him with false statements, money laundering, and mailing drug paraphernalia.^[7] Those charges were dropped, and Mr. Maatouk pleaded guilty to a superseding information charging him with a general conspiracy^[8] to provide material support to terrorists.^[9]

The suggestion that Mr. Maatouk was convicted in part on evidence taken from phone conversations with his brother raises questions of whether those conversations were obtained with a warrant. There seems to be no bar in the plea agreement concerning an appeal as to how evidence was obtained.

Under the plea agreement, the government has agreed to not charge Mr. Maatouk with committing any other federal criminal offenses known to the US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida at the time of the execution of the agreement which is related to the conduct giving rise to the plea agreement.^[10] In turn, Mr. Maatouk agreed to waive his right to appeal whatever sentence chose to give him.^[11]

---

[1] Former Orange Park Man Gets 5 Year Sentence for Helping Hezbollah, AP (via Bradenton Herald), May 26, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] See U.S. v. Maatouk, No. 3:04-cr-00323 (M.D. Fla. 2006).
[8] See 18 U.S.C. § 371.
[9] See 18 U.S.C. § 2339A.
[10] See Maatouk, supra note 7, Plea Agreement, at 3.
[11] Id. at 9.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation—Netherlands

Sweeping new anti-terrorism measures have been approved by the Dutch parliament.^[1] Under the new measures, authorities can “arrest suspects without strong evidence and hold them longer without charge.”^[2] In the past, “reasonable suspicion” was required to approve surveillance, infiltration, or wiretapping, but that requirement no longer applies in terrorism investigations.^[3]

The new law goes into effect immediately, and the new standard for making an arrest is “evidence a terrorist attack is being prepared.”^[4] Spot searches will be easier to conduct as well in “airports, industrial complexes, sports stadiums and government buildings,” and “[p]olice will be able to preventatively search people, and vehicles or things without permission” from prosecutors or judges.^[5]

Furthermore, police can hold a terrorism suspect for 14 days without charges being brought; previously it was three days.^[6]

Changes like those in the Netherlands are likely what US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was referencing when he mentioned that some European nations “have legal tools to deal with terrorism that simply are not available in the U.S. criminal justice system.”^[7] Calling US laws and the Constitution “constraining,” Atty. Gen. Gonzales seemed to praise Europe’s “preventive detention regimes not available in the States,” and the “control orders” that other nations have implemented, which “restrict[] suspects’ freedom of movement and communication.”^[8] He did state that he was not “advocating that America adopt a European model,” but it is clear that he is grateful for the cooperation the United States receives from Europe.^[9]

---

[1] Toby Sterling, Dutch Parliament OKs Anti-Terror Measures, AP (via Houston Chronicle), May 25, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Alberto Gonzales, Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at the Vienna E.U. Interior Ministers Conference, US DOJ (via US Newswire), May 5, 2006.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.

Terrorism Arrests—United Kingdom

There are conflicting reports about how many people were detained in anti-terrorism raids carried out in the United Kingdom today. Reuters says it was 7 people,^[1] 8 people,^[2] or 9 people,^[3] while Bloomberg puts the number at 7,^[4] and the AP says that 9 people were arrested.^[5] Some of the confusion can be attributed to news organizations having flexibility over their headlines, and some of it can be attributed to the apparent release of some of the individuals after questioning.

No matter the number of people who are ultimately being held by British authorities, it is clear that raids were carried out across the United Kingdom, conducted by over 500 officers.^[6] The operations began at 3 this morning, with “officers from five forces assisted by the security and immigration services” raiding addresses in Manchester, Merseyside, Middlesbrough, the West Midlands and the London area.^[7] Two of the arrests were made under the Terrorism Act, while six were made under immigration legislation; one or two of the individuals arrested on the immigration charges were released without charge.^[8]

Police describe the situation as “fluid,” noting that “[s]earching addresses under the terrorism act can often take two, three or more days…it will take some time to resolve.”^[9] The individuals have been under surveillance for more than a year, and five of the suspects might be eligible for deportation because “their presence in Britain [is] ‘not conducive to the public good.’”^[10] The raids do not seem to be focused on activities that might pose a threat to the UK, but rather are “believed to relate to activities in Iraq.”^[11]

Under the Terrorism Act of 2000, a justice of the peace may “on the application of a constable issue a warrant in relation to a specified premises if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that” a particular person will be found at those premises.^[12]

---

[1] Valentina Za er al., British Police Detain 7 in Anti-Terrorism Raids, Reuters (via ABC News), May 24, 2006.
[2] British Police Detain 8 in Anti-Terrorism Raids, Reuters, May 24, 2006.
[3] Valentina Za, et al., Police Detain 9 in Anti-Terrorism Raids, Reuters.uk, May 24, 2006.
[4] U.K. Police Hold Seven Suspects After Series of Raids, Bloomberg, May 24, 2006.
[5] 9 Arrested in Britain on Terror Allegations, AP (via Houston Chronicle), May 24, 2006.
[6] Id.
[7] Seven Arrested in Major Terror Operation, Times of London, May 24, 2006.
[8] See id. and Za, supra note 1.
[9] Za, supra note 1.
[10] Eight Held in Anti-Terror Raids, BBC, May 24, 2006.
[11] Id.
[12] Terrorism Act 2000, c. 11, s. 42.

Terrorism Accusations—Talal Chahine

The owner of the La Shish restaurant chain—and his wife—has been indicted on four counts each of tax evasion.^[1] According to the indictment against Talal Chahine and his wife, Elfat El Aouar, the two “maintained a double set of computerized books, records and balance reports, one actual and one altered.”^[2] The altered books allegedly “artificially reduced the amount of income in the form of cash that was actually received by the restaurants,” and Mr. Chahine allegedly instructed Mrs. El Aouar to “fail to deposit a substantial amount of cash receipts from the restaurants. Instead, [the defendants] had La Shish, Inc. employees convert millions of dollars into cashier’s checks and also change denomination size from smaller denominations into larger denominations,” which was allegedly done to facilitate the transportation of cash outside the United States to Lebanon.^[3] Mr. Chahine is allegedly in Lebanon, while Mrs. El Aouar is in Michigan.^[4]

This would be a fairly mundane case, except the government has raised the specter of terrorism by alleging that Mr. Chahine “has ‘connections at the highest levels of … Hizballah.’”^[5] These accusations arose as the government attempted to argue that Mrs. El Aouar should not be released on bond “because she is a flight risk.”^[6] According to the government’s arguments, Mr. Chahine and Mrs. El Aouar “attended a fund raiding event in Lebanon,” where the keynote speakers were Mr. Chahine and Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah; Sheikh Fadlallah is a Specially Designated Terrorist “based upon his status as a leading ideological figure within Hizballah.^[7] Magistrate Judge Donald A. Sebeer, however, set Mrs. El Aouar’s bond at $100,000 unsecured, and ordered her to report to Pre-Trial Services as directed, to surrender her passports, to obtain to passport, to submit to Home Incarceration, to not travel by aircraft, and to conduct no international financial transactions.^[8]

There is also a possibility that Mrs. El Aouar could also be charged in a superseding indictment with making false statements because the government alleges in its request for pretrial detention that she falsely claimed at her arrest not to know the location of her passports or her children’s passports, while the government had allegedly tracked her international travel roughly a month earlier.^[9]

It is unclear whether the terrorism accusations are the real thrust of the government’s case against Mr. Chahine, but it certainly seems that the government is trying to compel him to return to the United States by prosecuting his wife, though she is allegedly complicit in the tax evasion scheme. There is no extradition treaty between Lebanon and the United States, and the two countries have somewhat strained relations at the moment. Therefore, to prosecute Mr. Chahine, he would likely have to return on his own accord, which he may not be willing to do.

---

[1] Niraj Warikoo, La Shish Owner Tied to Terror, Prosecutors Say, Detroit Free Press, May 23, 2006.
[2] United States v. Chahine, No. 5:06-cr-20248, Indictment at 2, (E.D. Mich. 2006) (available through PACER).
[3] Id.
[4] Warikoo, supra note 1.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Chahine, supra note 2, Government’s Written Proffer in Support of its Request for Detention Pending Trial, at 7.
[8] Chahine, supra note 2, Order Setting Conditions of Release, at 2.
[9] Chahine, supra note 6. at 3.

Cyber-Terrorism—South-East Asia

There are conflicting reports coming out of Southeast Asia about whether the region is vulnerable to cyber-terrorism. According to Reuters, Southeast Asia is still a long way from being hit by cyber attacks,^[1] while the AP claims that the region is indeed vulnerable.^[2] That, at least, would be the impression if headlines were the only source of news. As it turns out, both news agencies were reporting on a regional cyber security meeting in Kuala Lumpur, and the assessment of global cyber experts is fairly similar: the region will inevitably face an internet-based attack by terrorists against key institutions, even though militant groups lack the technical savvy so far.^[3]

According to Rohan Gunaratna, the head of the political violence and terrorism centre at Singapore's Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, "It will take a very long time for Southeast Asian groups to develop the capability to attack the Internet."^[4] Yean Yoke Heng, the deputy head of the Malaysian-based South East Asia Regional Centre for Counter Terrorism, says that the “threat is real” and it isn’t a “question of how or what, but it is only of when.”^[5] Security officials and analysts from Malaysia, the United States, Japan, Cambodia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand were on hand at the five-day conference, “discuss[ing] how governments can prevent terrorists from exploiting information technology.”^[6]

Mr. Gunaratna also mentioned how the Internet is being used primarily for recruitment, with groups such as Jamaah Islamiyah “using [it] as a medium to create a new generation of radicalized Muslims” through the creation of more than 1,000 jihadist Web sites.^[7] He offered three proposals for countries to deal with the threat:

• the nations in the region should be working together to understand how terrorists use the internet and try to find methods to fight back;
• the Southeast Asian region should emulate Europe and the United States on how to develop Internet technologies to overcome the challenge; and
• the Southeast Asian nations should develop a collaborative framework among the region, as well as links outside the region.^[8]

---

[1] Southeast Asian Cyber Attacks Still Way Off, Reuters (via alertnet.org), May 22, 2006.
[2] Southeast Asia Vulnerable to Cyber Attack by Terrorists, Associated Press (via Jakarta Post), May 22, 2006.
[3] Id; Reuters, supra note 1.
[4] Reuters.
[5] Id.
[6] AP, supra note 2.
[7] Id.
[8] 1,000 Radical Groups Post Terror Ideology on the Net, Says Expert, Bernama, May 22, 2006.