The Niqabi Paralegal

Yemeni charity in the spotlight

Who or what is the Charitable Society for Social Welfare? That question has come to the forefront in the trial of Numan Maflahi. In 1999, Maflahi accompanied Yemeni Sheikh Abdullah Satar on a tour of mosques in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Prosecutors allege that they were engaged in fundraising. Maflahi, described as the director of the New York branch of CSSW, has been convicted of obstructing an FBI investigation into the charity. CSSW is said to be based in Yemen. There is indeed a Charitable Society for Social Welfare in Yemen. It was founded in 1990 and its website describes it as the "first voluntary organization in Yemen". It is recognized by the United Nations as a non-governmental organization (NGO) and has worked with the U.N. Capital Development Fund, the World Health Organization, the World Food Program, the World Bank, and the United Nations Center on Human Settlement, as well other charitable organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Catholic Institute for International Relations, in their development and aid projects in Yemen. It took part in a 2002 UNICEF conference on children and is in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations as of August 2003. The New York branch, according to the Associated Press, was incorporated for the purpose of aiding "single mothers and their children in Kings County". The state of New York lists it as an "active" non-profit although the Attorney General's office has no record of it and the mailing address is a coin-operated laundry currently closed for renovations. Further complicating matters is a now-defunct organization, also called the Charitable Society for Social Welfare, registered in the Midwest (possibly the same as the Kansas organization listed in this 1996 directory of Muslim relief organizations). Mohammad Hilali, former president of this CSSW, says that his organization was founded in the mid 1990s to help victims of civil war in Yemen and that it was "legal and authentic" and had no connection to the New York charity. Prosecutors in Maflahi's trial alleged that Satar and Maflahi solicited funds for local causes but that the money actually went to Yemen. The FBI believes that CSSW is a front for financing terrorism, although it has not formally been desigated as such by the Treasury Department. Satar denies that he was engaged in any fundraising activities during his 1999 visit. After leaving New York, Satar allegedly met with El Sayed Abdelkader Mahmoud, who was convicted in absentia in Milan in January of criminal association with Al-Qaida (Mahmoud's location is unknown, and he is believed to have died in Afghanistan). An earlier story in the New York Times says that Satar is a member of Yemen's parliament. FBI agent Brian Murphy says that Maflahi told him that Satar had a status in Yemen similar to that of New York's senators in their state. The deputy chief of the Yemeni embassy in Washington, Yahya Alshawkani, said that he had heard of Satar but knew little of him and did not know how to contact him. Satar has not been charged. © 2004 Solidarity USA

Ryan Anderson charged

Spc. Ryan Anderson, a Seattle-area Muslim convert and soldier in the Washington National Guard, has been charged with attempting to pass information to Al-Qaida. Anderson was arrested last week after being caught in a sting operation. No information actually passed to Al-Qaida; the individuals Anderson thought were Al-Qaida operatives were actually undercover agents. Initial reports cited FBI and other federal law enforcement sources as saying that Anderson was a "wannabe" with no significant security clearance and that the information he passed on was "common knowledge stuff". However, Anderson has been charged with providing detailed information about weaknesses in the military and "means of killing U.S. Army personnel and destroying U.S. Army weapon systems and equipment." Anderson's background has been of some interest. While his conversion to Islam has drawn attention, Anderson has an interest in guns and militia groups that predates his conversion. The AP as well as the Everett Herald and freelance journalist David Neiwert, an expert in right-wing militia groups, have traced Anderson's postings to pro-gun and militia Usenet news groups. In 1998, Anderson was arrested for approaching a school while toting weaponry, according to Reuters. The incident occurred a day after a school shooting in Oregon by Kip Kinkel. In 2002, Anderson alarmed members of an email list for Seattle Muslims, not with fundamentalist rhetoric, but with his interest in forming a group of Muslim men who would practice shooting together. The group primariy discusses community events, and Anderson was rebuffed and left soon thereafter. Anderson's case comes after the high-profile prosecutions of Captain James Yee and Ahmad al-Halabi, who served at Guantanamo. Both Yee and Halabi were initially accused of espionage and aiding the enemy. Both cases eventually fell apart. Will the case against Anderson follow the same pattern? Only time will tell. © 2004 Solidarity USA

Army investigates law conference on Islam and women

Is any gathering of Muslims now a national security concern? Events following a recent legal conference at the University of Texas have left Muslims and civil rights activists wondering. On February 4, 2004, the University of Texas Law School hosted a conference called "Islam and the Law: The Question of Sexism?". The conference was devoted to discussion of the status of women in Islam and in Muslim countries. Both Muslims and non-Muslims agree that a free and open discussion of these and other issues is important, for Muslims in reforming their own countries and for non-Muslims in better understanding Islam and the Muslim world. Yet U.S. Army intelligence agents appear to have been monitoring the conference, according to Sahar Aziz, a UT law student and organizer of the conference. Two Army lawyers in plain clothes attended the conference, then reported to Army intelligence that they had been approached by "suspicious" foreigners whom they were uncomfortable with. As a result of this, on Feburary 9, two Army intelligence agents went to the dean's office at the law school and began knocking on doors and asking students for the organizers of the event. Jessica Biddle, co-editor of the law school's journal on Women and the Law, which helped sponsor the conference, says that Special Agent Jason Treesh asked her for a roster of attendees and also a video of the event. He also asked her to give his card to Aziz. Biddle says that she felt unnerved by the questioning. Aziz received calls in the evening from law school friends that Army intelligence agents were looking for her. She was so concerned that she contacted a civil rights attorney, Malcolm Greenstein, who learned from the Army about the "three suspicious Middle Easterners" under investigation. Greenstein also said that the Army investigators had not obtained a subpoena or warrant for the information they were seeking. When Aziz contacted Treesh, she told him that the conference had been open to the public and therefore there was no roster. Aziz is not the only person disturbed by the investigation. Jim Harrington, director the Texas Civil Rights Project, said that the agents' tactics were meant to "intimidate and scare people from using the First Amendment". The National Lawyers Guild, which co-sponsored the conference, released a statement condemning the investigation. Guild president Michael Avery said, "It appears that the government is stepping up surveillance of innocent activity at academic institutions. Two weeks ago a federal grand jury in Iowa attempted to subpoena information about a law school conference at Drake, now the Army has visited Texas Law School to inquire about a conference there. An element of racial profiling is present in this case, given the Muslim-related content of this particular event. Government spying on student conferences has no place in a free society." © 2004 Solidarity USA

Sting operation catches Seattle-area Muslim convert

The Seattle Times reports that an FBI sting operation has caught Spc. Ryan Anderson, a National Guardsman and Seattle-area Muslim convert. Anderson is being held pending charges of attempting to communicate with and give intelligence to Al-Qaida; however, the person he thought was an Al-Qaida operative was an undercover FBI agent and no information actually passed to Al-Qaida, FBI sources say. Federal law enforcement sources also say that Anderson was a "wannabe" who had no significant security clearance, and that the information he passed on was "common knowledge stuff". Anderson was more noted for his love of guns than for his religious fundamentalism. A series of letters to the editor at a local newspaper that he wrote, published by the Associated Press, could have been written by any gun enthusiast except for generally commenting that the Muslims he had met were kind, patient, and courteous. Pro-gun views are not uncommon in the Pacific Northwest, where many militia groups have found a home. Anderson was once arrested for approaching a school while toting weaponry, according to Reuters. The incident occurred a day after a school shooting in Oregon by Kip Kinkel. Anderson has not yet been formally charged. © 2004 Solidarity USA

What's in a name?

Question: Does this story have any implications for Muslim charities? Response: According to the IRS, in order to file for tax-exempt status, a charitable organization must be a corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation Incorporation is governed by state law and in addition to the requirements set out by federal law regarding tax-exempt status, charities must also follow the requirements of state law in regard to their incorporation, usually as a not-for-profit corporation. Most state codes set out requirements relating to the name of a not-for-profit corporation. Generally, these requirements seek to prevent fraud or the use of misleading or deceptive names. For comparison purposes, I studied the District of Columbia (where SUSA is located) and the state of Washington (where I'm located). D.C. St. S 29-301.07 governs corporate names in the District of Columbia while RCW 24.03.045 does so in the state of Washington. NY Not-for-Profit Corporation Law S 301 governs corporate names in New York. At issue in the Benecke case is S 301(a)(8) which states that the corporate name: "Shall not contain any word or phrase, or any abbreviation or derivation thereof, which, separately, or in context, shall be indecent or obscene or shall ridicule or degrade any person, group, belief, business or agency of government or indicate or imply any unlawful activity." Neither D.C. St. S 29-301.07 nor RCW 24.03.045 contain this type of restriction on the corporation's name. Whether NY Not-for-Profit Corporation Law S 301(a)(8) is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment is a question all its own and not something that I'm addressing here (though in my opinion, it is or should be). Charities that wish to incorporate in the state of New York at the current time need to avoid names that in the judgment of the state of New York are: 1) indecent, 2) obscene, 3) ridicul[ing] or degrad[ing] any person, group, belief, business, or agency of government, or 4) indicat[ing] or imply[ing] any unlawful activity A charity that has already incorporated in New York will not get in trouble after the fact for its name (an earlier article on the case raises the question of whether the state of New York would allow the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to incorporate today when the term "colored" is considered offensive to African-Americans). However, new charities that wish to incorporate in New York should be alert to whether their name might be considered indecent, obscene, to ridicule or degrade a any person, group, belief, business, or agency of government, or to indicate or imply any unlawful activity. The paranoid mind imagines that in some political climates, an Islamic name might be taken to imply unlawful activity (i.e., terrorism). However, this does not yet appear to be a real concern. It is just something that Muslim charities should be aware of because even the smallest breach of the law may make them a target today.

A question about frozen assets

When terrorism occurs, who besides the perpetrators can be sanctioned for it? What kind of activity can be considered "material support" of terrorism? Much of anti-terrorism law seeks to provide answers for these questions. Related to this is the question of what assets can be attached as part of a judgment against a person or organization found to support terrorism. Although the question of assets seems abstruse, it can be very significant to organizations, such as Muslim charities, that are caught up in terrorism investigations. A recent case involving Iranian banks may provide some guidance. The New York Law Journal reports on Bank of New York v. Weinstein, Misc. 02-237. Ira Weinstein was killed in 1996 in a terrorist attack by Hamas. His wife filed suit against the Islamic Republic of Iran and in 2002 won $33.2 million in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages, Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 184 F.Supp.2d 13. She is attempting to attach Iran's assets under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). The Bank of New York holds $229,000 in accounts from three Iranian banks whose stock is held by the Iranian government. The bank filed a petition asking a federal court to determine whether Weinstein's widow has a right to the $229,000. The problem was that the money had been frozen not in relation to terrorism but because of sanctions imposed by President Carter on Iran in 1979 due to the hostage crisis. The plaintiffs argued that because the assets had been blocked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), they were fair game. However, the court held that TRIA's clear statuatory text precluded such a broad interpretation. The assets would have had to be frozen or seized under TRIA not just under the broader authority of IEEPA. They were not, and therefore the plaintiffs cannot seize them. At a time when the government and the courts seem to be favoring broader and broader interpretations of who is a terrorist and what is material support of terrorism, the decision in Bank of New York v. Weinstein rejecting a broad interpretation of terrorist assets, is a small step in the right direction. © 2004 Solidarity USA

Tragedy or farce? The James Yee saga continues

As the government's case again Captain James Yee continues to fall apart, his hearing was delayed a fourth time on Tuesday. Yee, a Chinese-American convert to Islam who served as a military chaplain at Guantanamo, was initially alleged to be part of a spy ring but when the government finally brought charges, he was only accused of mishandling classified documents. Yee's case has become a cause celebre among both Muslim-American and Chinese-American activists, who say that Yee is a victim of racial and religious profiling. Yee's father, Joseph Yee, renewed this allegation in a news conference on Feburary 2, 2004. Yee was held in solitary confinement for 76 days, often in manacles. He was finally released in time for Eid al-Fitr, but the government muddied the waters by charging him with adultery and storing pornography on his computer. The case has seen many strange developments since then, including the prosecutors themselves mishandling classified documents. Would Yee have been treated like this if he weren't Muslim? If he weren't Chinese-American? The case is all too reminiscent of the Wen Ho Lee saga - another Chinese-American accused of espionage only to be exonerated in the end. The similarities are not lost on the Chinese-American community. © 2004 Solidarity USA

Anti-terrorism law leaves 6,000 orphans out in the cold

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been aggressive in their prosecution of Al-Haramain Foundation, a Saudi charity organization. They allege that some branches of Al-Haramain have funneled money to Al-Qaida and they are seeking to freeze Al-Haramain's funds. Caught in the middle of this are 6,000 Somali orphans. On February 2, 2004, eleven Somali orphanges were forced to close due to lack of funds. 6,000 orphans and 500 employees relied on these orphanages, the former for care and the latter for jobs in this war-torn country with no central government. The Somali branch of Al-Haramain was designated as having connections with terrorism on March 11, 2002, along with the Bosnian branch. On January 22, 2004, Al-Haramain branches in Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, and Tanzania were also designated as terrorist sponsors. Al-Haramain denies the charges and says that it is only engaged in charity work for the poor. Will Al-Haramain be able to defend itself in court against the charges? Will those of its funds that are clearly being spent only on charitable purposes be unfrozen? Or will the Somali orphans and perhaps many others who rely on support from Al-Haramain be left to fend for themselves, innocent victims of the war on terrorism? © 2004 Solidarity USA

Are sex offenders terrorists?

There have been a number of disturbing reports that the Bush Administration is using the USA Patriot Act in cases that aren't related to terrorism. Now the New Jersey Law Journal reports that the government is using another anti-terrorism rule in non-terrorism cases, this time targeting sex offenders. The rule in question, 8 C.F.R. 3.19(i)(2), allows the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to automatically stay any order by an immigration judge that would release a detainee on bond. Instead, the detainee must remain in jail until tried in immigration court. Ordinarily, the decision whether to release a detainee on bond or hold him for trial is made by the immigration judge after considering whether the detainee is a flight risk or poses a danger to the community. The automatic stay rule was enacted on October 26, 2001, to enable the Attorney General to designate that immigrants suspected of ties to terrorism could be held indefinitely, apparently so that they can be interrogated. Similar treatment of the September 11 detainees has been roundly criticized by civil libertarians. But John Ashcroft is now using the automatic stay rule not just against suspected terrorists, but also against sex offenders. Welcome to Operation Predator. As part of Operation Predator, BICE is checking the "automatic stay" box for any immigrant who has been convicted of a sex offense, whether minor or major, even if the immigrant has already served his time and stayed out of the trouble with the law ever since. Immigration lawyers argue that this blanket rule is a denial of due process. While detention of immigrants pending trial is consitutional (as determined by the Supreme Court in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003), detaining them without regard to their individual circumstances may not be. Lawyers for several immigrants detained as part of Operation Predator have filed habeas corpus petitions for their clients, seeking judicial review of the detentions. One of the most recent of these cases is Alvarez v. Ashcroft, 03-CV-5680, which came before federal judge Faith Hochberg on January 13, 2004. After reviewing the case, Hochberg said, "One of my biggest concerns is otherwise good policies and initiatives are undermined when bad cases make bad law [because of] wooden decisions to use the same tool whether you're dealing with a Raggedy Ann doll or Attila the Hun." The Department of Homeland Security then discontinued the automatic stay against Alvarez, terminating the case before Hochberg could make any further ruling against Operation Predator. The immigration bar plans to keep trying.

The case of David Hicks

Australian David Hicks has been held in near-solitary confinement at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for two years, awaiting trial - and his lawyer says that his mental condition is deteriorating. Major Michael Mori, Hicks's attorney, spoke to the press on January 21, 2004. Mori said that Hicks is suffering from the lack of outside communication and contact and can only concentrate on basic human needs such as food and shelter. Human rights groups have already criticized the indefinite detention of Guantanamo prisoners and alleged that they lead to mental degeneration and suicide attempts by the prisoners. Hicks is almost unique among the 680 or so inmates at Guantanamo in having an attorney; only one other inmate has been allowed one. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in July whether the other inmates must be allowed legal counsel as well. Besides reporting on Hicks's mental health, Mori took aim at the system of military tribunals that the U.S. government has established for Hicks and five other Guantanamo prisoners. Mori said that the military tribunal would not be able to provide a fair trial for Hicks and that Hicks would have a better chance for justice if tried in his home country of Australia. Hicks has not yet been charged with any crime. The government has not indicated when it will charge him or any of the Guantanamo prisoners, or whether it plans to provide trials for more than six of them. It is the indefinite nature of the detentions as much as the severe conditions that concerns human rights groups and other critics. Right now, Hicks and the other 680 inmates are left in limbo, without any rights. What does this say about the reality of the American justice system? © 2004 Solidarity USA