Terrorism Investigative Techniques—Syed Ahmed

With the arrests of the 17 Canadian alleged terrorists last week, much has been made in the press about possible ties with that group to Georgia Tech student Syed Ahmed, who is apparently still be held at an undisclosed location. He personally is back in the news today, after his attorney filed a motion to suppress Mr. Ahmed’s statements to the FBI “or make the government abide by the alleged agreement not to prosecute him.”^[1]

What is detailed in the motion is an object lesson in how “helping yourself” rarely ends up doing that; it is one of the oldest tricks in the FBI’s playbook, and yet, one of the FBI’s most successful ploys.

According to the motion, it is alleged that “an FBI agent and a task force investigator who questioned Ahmed on March 10 at his Atlanta apartment told him that as long as he told the truth he would not be arrested. He said one of the investigators told Ahmed that he, too, was a Muslim and used that to get a statement from [Mr.] Ahmed, saying "Allah does not want you to go to jail …I want you to help us. Obviously, that is why we are talking to you." ^[2]

As has been discussed before, Mr. Ahmed has been charged with providing material support to terrorists.

If true, the assistance would surely help Mr. Ahmed at the time of sentencing, but he likely assumed that, when the FBI told him that he would not be arrested if he told the truth, they were likewise telling him the truth, and that he wouldn’t even have a sentencing issue. It is usually a mistake to assume that; while it is a crime for an individual to make a false statement to an investigator, even an “exculpatory no,” there is no serious bar on the government lying to a suspect during an “interview.”

For good measure, Mr. Ahmed’s lawyer is “insist[ing] that the government be forced to say whether the National Security Agency used its power to obtain phone records for [Mr.] Ahmed or conduct other electronic surveillance of him without a warrant.”^[3]

With yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling however, taking a very large sledgehammer to the exclusionary rule which was developed to address the penalty for violations of the Fourth Amendment, the outcome and solutions to Mr. Ahmed’s motions are very much in doubt.

---

[1] AP NewsBreak: Student Says He Was Duped in Terrorism Probe, AP (via AccessNorthGA.com), Jun. 15, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.

Indefinite Detention of Terrorism Suspects—Canada

It would be nice if the United States were the only country that has a policy of indefinite detentions of people merely accused of terrorism, but the fact is, most countries are turning that way. The United Kingdom, for example, has flirted a number of times with the policy, and the courts there have been a little less agreeable to the idea than American Courts.^[1] Canada, too, has such a policy, implemented in Canada’s Immigration Act in 1978, and it is facing a challenge about whether such policies are legal.^[2]

Canada’s Supreme court has opened “hearings on [the] controversial security certificates, which permit secret court hearings, undisclosed evidence, and infinite incarceration.”^[3] The government claims that such detentions “on national security grounds are necessary to fight terrorism.”^[4] Challenging the policy are “five suspected terrorists, including Adil Charkaoui, Mohamed Harkat and Hasan Almrei, Muslims accused of having ties to Al-Qaeda.”^[5] Some signs suggest that the Supreme Court is not quite receptive to the government’s basic argument, which is that “[p]rotecting security…is a condition sine qua non of the very existence of the rule of law in [a] democratic system of government.”^[6] Security, said Justice Louis LeBel, cannot overshadow all rights, because “[i]f we don’t have the rest we’ll be living in North Korea.”^[7] Other Justices seemed “receptive to suggestions that Canada could adopt a system that exists in the United Kingdom, where independent, security-cleared lawyers are appointed as ‘special advocates’ to attend secret hearings and challenged governmental lawyers.”^[8] They also seemed concerned that the defendant’s lawyers may not have proposed a strong alternative, “short of simply releasing their clients into the community. ‘What does the world do with someone who is truly dangerous wherever they go?’ asked Justice Beverley McLachlin. ‘Is freedom really an option?’”^[9]

One option would be what Jose Padilla argued while he was detained as an enemy combatant in the United States: just bring them to trial. Of course, the government eventually did, and the arguments against Mr. Padilla are nothing remotely related to what he was accused of doing. That may be the real concern that governments have: if they bring these individuals to trial, they risk losing, either because there isn’t any evidence, or because they have mistreated the individual to a degree that any evidence elicited from the defendant is inadmissible.

---

[1] See Vikram Dobb, et al., Terror Law an Affront to Justice: Judge, Guardian (UK), Apr. 13, 2006.
[2] Indefinite Jailing of Terror Suspects Necessary, Canadian Court Told AFP (via Yahoo!), Jun. 14, 2006.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Janice Tibbetts, Security Laws Before Supreme Court, CanWest News (via Canada.com), Jun. 14, 2006.
[9] Id.

Suicide Bombs—Biggest US Threat

A survey of 117 foreign policy and terrorism experts has determined that “suicide bombs rather than chemical, biological or nuclear weapons are the most serious threat to the United States.”^[1] Indeed, suicide bombings have “accelerated sharply since the September 11 attacks … with hundreds of people killed in Indonesia, Jordan, Israel, Madrid, … London” and Iraq.^[2]

The survey of 117 people, conducted by Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress, found that suicide bombs “were rated the most likely method of attack by 67 percent of those surveyed.”^[3] Radiological devices (“dirty” bombs) were in second place at 20 percent, followed by chemical weapons (10 percent), biological weapons (9 percent), and nuclear weapons (6 percent).^[4]

The survey—which picked the brains of academics, retired military officers, think tank analysts and former administration, foreign service and intelligence officers—was described as “the first of an annual series to establish a ‘terrorism index.’” The subjects of the survey also believe that an “attack on the scale of the 2005 London or 2004 Madrid bombings—[in which] 56 and 192 people [were] killed respectively—is likely to take place in the United States within the next five years, and 79 percent expect another attack on the scale of 9/11, in which almost 3,000 people were killed.^[5]

For the public, however, it seems that terrorism is far from the most important thing: according to a May CBS poll, only five percent of Americans see terrorism as the most important issue in the United States, trailing far behind the war in Iraq, the economy, immigration, and gasoline prices.^[6] And the public also has an extremely disparate view of US success from that of the experts; while 56 percent of the public thinks the US is winning the “war on terror,” only 13 percent of the experts believe as such.^[7] Furthermore, while only 44 percent of the public believe that the war in Iraq is having a negative impact on the war on terror, 87 percent of the experts think that Iraq is not helping.^[8] The latter view is shared by a British think thank, the Oxford Research Group, which states that “[t]he government’s obsession with the ‘war on terror’ is counterproductive and distracting politicians from more fundamental threats to global security.”^[9]

---

[1] Bernd Debusmann, Suicide Bombs Biggest Threat to US: Experts, Reuters, Jun. 13, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Richard Norton-Taylor, Climate Change a Bigger Security Threat than Terrorism, Says Report, Guardian (UK), Jun. 12, 2006.