Gyroscope

A newsletter for those unmoved by spin.
No. 24, January 12, 2004

Subscribe

Change Address

Unsubscribe

Comment

Civil Liberties: Mike Hawash

Civil Liberties: Mike Hawash

I said that I was planning to write more about civil liberties violations by the government, and this is the first installment making good on that pledge.

On March 20, 2003, Maher "Mike" Hawash was arrested outside Intel's Hillsboro, Oregon office by officers in full body armor carrying assault riffles. Hawash, a Palestinian-born American citizen, was then held for five weeks in solitary confinement, denied full access to a lawyer, all without any charges being filed. The authority to hold him was the material witness statute which (more later) allows authorities to arrest indefinitely anyone they think might have some knowledge of a crime and might flee.

After his arrest, his wife reported that their home was raided, computers and other evidence taken and his wife served with a material witness subpoena to appear at a grand jury.

The charge against Hawash was that he was associated with the "Portland Six" a group of Middle-Eastern men who had attempted to travel to Afghanistan in November 2001 via China in an attempt to fight against U.S. forces there. Apparently they were unable to cross from China to Afghanistan and returned home.

The community rapidly organized in support of Hawash with family, work associates and national civil rights groups decrying the secrecy, the abuse of the material witness statue and proclaiming their faith in Mike's innocence. Speculation ensued on why he was targeted and objections were raised to profiling of men just because they were from the Middle East.

Fuel was added to the fire when a local paper drew sinister conclusions from there being a beardless picture on Mike's web site rather than one showing the bearded (and presumably more 'foreign' and 'terrorist-like') visage Hawash currently sported. Derision was heaped on the editorial writer from many sources.

The day before the detention hearing, Hawash was charged with Conspiracy to Levy War Against the United States, Conspiracy to Provide Material Support and Resources to Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and Conspiracy to Contribute Services to Al-Qaida and the Taliban. His material witness charge was voided.

And then, on August 6th of this year, Hawash pleaded guilty to one count of a three-count indictment, admitted that he had known the Portland Six, had gone to China, and had attempted to enter Afghanistan. The FBI's affidavit and the plea agreement present evidence that Hawash deeded his house to his wife and transferred cash to her before he departed as well as evidence that the asserted purpose of his trip to China, developing computer business, was false. The plea bargain was for a sentence of between 7 and 10 years and is contingent on Hawash providing evidence to the government and keeping quiet about what evidence he is providing. Another defendant of the Portland Six has accepted a plea bargain for an 18-year sentence.

So I guess there is no problem right? America was under attack, Bush defended us against some terrorists and the liberals are whining about nothing as usual?

Not so fast. There are a lot of questions here about how the government conducted itself. The government acted as if this case was an imminent threat of violence against the United States, even though the only, rather ineffective, action occurred over a year before the arrest. No evidence has surfaced of any criminal act, or attempted criminal act, by Hawash after his return from China.

Then, the government spirited Hawash away, rather than first obtaining the arrest warrant. The excuse for this is to cry "terrorism" and "conspiracy" and argue that "we had to act swiftly to prevent further terrorism" or that "you can't be too careful." But, time and time again, it comes out after the fact that such actions are excessive.

And what of the government's secrecy and partial denial of access to a lawyer? "National security." But nothing that was ever produced comes even close to national security issues. Hawash was turned in by his neighbors. Normal search warrants and criminal investigative procedures found all the evidence necessary to convict him.

And the material witness statute appears to be one of the major loopholes to our civil rights, permitting detention indefinitely with no chance of appeal. A judge approves the detention, but without the normal safeguards and due process requirements.

(Sources for this story include the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 2003, p. 51, www.freemikehawash.org, www.findlaw.com, Secret Justice )

"There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples." Daniel Pipes, as posted on his web site. President Bush appointed him to the board of the US Institute of Peace, a taxpayer funded organization..

Sec. 2384. - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(18 USC 2834)

"Authorities have arrested and jailed at least 44 people as potential grand jury witnesses in the 14 months of the nationwide terrorism investigation, but nearly half have never been called to testify before a grand jury, according to defense lawyers and others involved in the cases.

Although they had not been charged with any crimes, these "material witnesses" were often held under maximum security conditions, in detentions ranging from a few days to several months or longer. At least seven of the witnesses were US citizens.

... Under the 1984 statute, prosecutors may seek an arrest warrant if a potential witness's testimony is "material" to a criminal proceeding and the individual is likely to flee. A judge must approve the warrant, and the witness is entitled to a bond hearing and a court-appointed attorney.

The Justice Department has refused to say how many material witnesses have been taken into custody since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or to reveal any information about them, including their names or which courts are supervising the cases. Officials said the detentions are related to grand jury proceedings, which are secret under federal law.

In 20 of 44 cases reviewed by The Washington Post, material witnesses were never brought before a grand jury, their attorneys said. " reports Steve Fainaru and Margot Williams in the Washington Post, Nov. 24.

"....For five weeks, unless he was scheduled to be somewhere else, the government kept [Hawash] in solitary confinement in an 8-foot by 12-foot cell for 23 hours a day, 7 days a week. Whenever he left his cell, prison guards would strip-search him and place him in chains before he was moved about. Hawash could call home only once a week and only received a visit from his wife or attorney three times a week. What interest has been asserted by the government to justify this deprivation?

For witnesses, like Hawash, who are not accused of being dangerous or a terrorist, the government has stated that it wants to guarantee that the witness will be available to testify before a grand jury investigating terrorism.

To assure Hawash would testify before the grand jury, the government certainly did not need to impose maximum-security conditions - conditions reserved for those individuals who had been found guilty of committing felonies. Limiting Mike Hawash's access to his family and lawyer, for example, did nothing to advance the government's asserted interests in detaining him. Indeed, it probably did not need to confine him in a prison at all.
Alternatives used for probation - such as home detention and electronic surveillance - could have been used.
" writes lawyer Brian Lehman, excerpted on TalkLeft