#ramzi kassem | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

xtruss · 3 years

Text

Are Federal Sting Operations in U.S. Counterterrorism Cases Legal?

The Pennsylvania Avenue entrance of the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Building is seen in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 30, 2017. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

— By Paula Moura | August 10, 2021 | FRONTLINE

Sting operations — in which law enforcement either creates or exploits a targeted likely offender’s opportunity to commit a crime — have been used by U.S. agencies for decades. And they’ve been the subject of debate for nearly as long.

Experts say federal stings increased after 9/11, in cases such as the one examined by the new FRONTLINE documentary In the Shadow of 9/11, directed by Dan Reed (Leaving Neverland). The film explores how an FBI sting led to the prosecution of the so-called Liberty City Seven, a group of Miami men charged in a 2006 Al Qaeda plot, despite having no connection to the terror group.

Some critics say that, as the FBI’s role evolved in the wake of the September 11 attacks, so too did the nature of counterterrorism stings, with the line between investigator and instigator sometimes becoming blurred. Are stings legal? And who’s most affected by them, post-9/11? Here’s a look at the legality of sting operations and how they’ve been used in the 20 years since 2001.

What Laws Govern Sting Operations?

Stings are not governed by laws passed by Congress but by guidelines first mapped out by the U.S. attorney general in 1976. Since then, those guidelines have been revised multiple times, with further guidance added that can be updated without notice.

If the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General finds that the guidelines have been violated, the IG might criticize the FBI, but those are “only shaming devices,” according to Michael German, a former FBI undercover agent and a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty & National Security Program who appears in In the Shadow of 9/11.

Courts can also play a role, including if the inspector general finds possible criminal conduct.

U.S. Attorney General Edward H. Levi originally created the guidelines in response to Watergate revelations of federal privacy and free-speech violations targeting activists including Martin Luther King Jr., as well as members of the Black Panthers, the Socialist Workers Party in the U.S. and the KKK.

Attorney General John Ashcroft revised the guidelines in 2002, with further changes from Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008. To “clarify and enhance” the guidelines, the FBI introduced its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, or DIOG, in 2008, with further updates in 2011, 2013 and 2016. Ashcroft also created guidelines for undercover FBI operations in 2002, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales added guidelines on the use of “confidential human resources,” or informants, in 2006.

Only redacted portions of the 2016 DIOG are available, although The Intercept published a leaked version of what it identifies as the entire DIOG.

Why So Many Changes? What Did They Do?

After 9/11, the FBI shifted its focus from organized crime and drug trafficking to terrorism, according to Hugh Handeyside, now a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project and formerly a CIA analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence and the Counterterrorism Center.

“It defined itself more as an intelligence-gathering agency, in addition to a criminal investigative agency,” Handeyside says of the FBI.

“That changed because of 9/11, because there was fear,” says Jesse Norris, an assistant professor of criminal justice at State University of New York at Fredonia who has published extensively on post-9/11 prosecutions.

The agency also broadened its operational guidelines to reflect its new counterterrorism mandate. The 2002 changes authorized FBI agents to attend public events and protests without disclosing their identities and extended the time period for “preliminary investigations,” which require only an allegation — not the “specific and articulable facts” required by the original Levi guidelines.

Practically speaking, that meant the agency could conduct investigations without a reasonable indication that someone was engaged in wrongdoing, German says.

The 2008 changes created a new category that troubled civil liberties lawyers: “assessments,” or investigations that lack any allegation, information or reasonable indication that the subject did anything wrong and that have no time limit. And with the 2011 version of the DIOG, the FBI granted itself the power to conduct database searches without opening assessments, among other changes.

“With lower evidentiary standards, the new guidelines allowed the FBI to initiate investigations of people they have no factual basis to believe are doing anything illegal … rather than investigating evidence of actual violence committed by individuals or groups, or other illegal terrorist activity,” German told FRONTLINE.

“After 9/11, a lot of people believed there were sleeper cells that were going to commit another attack,” Norris says.

A 2014 report by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute found that “at times, in aggressively pursuing terrorism threats before they even materialize, U.S. law enforcement overstepped its role by effectively participating in developing terrorism plots.”

The FBI did not respond to individual questions from FRONTLINE. In a statement, a representative from the Office of Public Affairs wrote: “All FBI operations are conducted in accordance with all legal requirements, to include the Constitution, the Privacy Act of 1974, our Domestic Investigations Operations Guide, the Justice Manual, and the standards with which the American people expect the FBI to protect them. Additionally, all FBI operations are subject to robust compliance mechanisms and oversight from the three branches of government.”

Since 9/11, Who Has Faced Terrorism Charges Based on Stings?

The FBI categorizes “terrorism” in two ways. “International terrorism” involves any ideology considered “foreign in nature,” such as Al Qaeda, ISIS or the FARC in Colombia, even if all parties under investigation are located within the United States. “Domestic terrorism” is typically reserved for investigations of violent criminal acts related to racial bias, antigovernment sentiment, the environment and animal rights and abortion, among others.

Most prosecutions stemming from international-terrorism sting operations since 9/11 have resulted in two types of charges: material support (69%) and criminal conspiracy (21%), according to a database maintained by journalists Trevor Aaronson and Margot Williams of The Intercept.

A number of things can be considered material support: sending money to a designated terrorism organization or providing personnel to a terrorist organization, in the form of one’s self.

Conspiracy is a charge applied when two or more people allegedly agree to commit a crime. In most jurisdictions, “you have to show something in addition to that … something minor, like buying supplies, or maybe just driving by the place you plan to attack and looking at it, seeing what it looks like — you know, some preparation to commit a crime,” says Norris, of SUNY.

According to The Intercept journalists’ database, the DOJ indicted 972 defendants on charges related to international terrorism between September 11, 2001, and May 14, 2021.

In a separate study from 2018, Norris and co-author Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk analyzed 580 terrorism cases dating from 9/11 to 2014 and identified 316 defendants, or 54%, where cases involved informants or undercover agents.

Norris and Grol-Prokopczyk developed 20 different indicators to track people charged with crimes related to terrorism and found that “minority racial and religious groups, undocumented immigrants, and individuals with low socioeconomic status all have elevated risk for at least one entrapment-related outcome.”

The most consistent predictor of sting targets was “Black Muslim identity,” according to Norris and Grol-Prokopczyk. They found that Black Muslims were more than three times as likely as white non-Muslims to have eight or more entrapment indicators. Of the 309 defendants targeted by stings whom the researchers analyzed (excluding seven cases due to variations), they found that 188 were Muslim.

Have Defendants Used Entrapment as a Defense?

The attorney general’s guidelines and DIOG prohibit government misconduct and entrapment, but the legal definition of entrapment is narrow.

“There is not exactly an official definition, because it was created by Supreme Court decisions, not by legislation,” Norris says, citing 1992’s Jacobson v. United States as a key case.

In court, defendants have the burden of proving they were entrapped, and a jury has to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not the accused was predisposed to commit the crime before being approached by law enforcement.

“You’re not supposed to entrap people, but … predisposition is a very vague concept,” Norris says. He says that Canada, for example, has a stricter definition of entrapment. “If you get someone to commit an offense, and they weren’t already committing a crime when they started, then they are entrapped,” he says.

“There are larger legal and constitutional constraints, like the Fourth Amendment protections [which prevent unreasonable searches and seizures] that apply in a criminal proceeding, but those do not stand in the way of what the FBI has been doing in sting operations,” says Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at City University of New York and director of the school’s CLEAR Project, a nonprofit legal clinic focused on law-enforcement accountability.

“The current sting model was designed to fit within the existing framework, allowing for what many would view as troubling overreach by the FBI,” Kassem says.

No U.S. federal terrorism case has been acquitted solely on entrapment grounds, according to Norris’s research. He did find in a 2019 analysis that three defendants were acquitted after raising the issue in court, without formally introducing the entrapment defense.

Norris’s research showed that, from 2001 to 2014, most defendants pleaded guilty or took a plea deal, and only 33% of 316 cases that involved sting operations went to trial. Among those, 29 of the cases used an entrapment defense.

How Does The DOJ Oversee The Use of Informants in Sting Operations?

According to German of the Brennan Center, the Office of the Inspector General — part of the DOJ, which also oversees the FBI — is limited to reviewing FBI paperwork on compliance with informant guidelines.

“There is virtually no independent oversight, particularly when the FBI uses informants who have very serious criminal records, targeting people who do not have records nearly as serious as the informant,” German says. “That’s quite problematic.”

A special report released in 2005 by the Office of Inspector General found that informant guidelines — such as FBI agents obtaining the proper authority to permit engagement in otherwise illegal activities, documenting an agent’s evaluation of an informant and giving the required instructions to informants, among others — were violated in 87% of cases.

In a 2019 audit, the Office of Inspector General cited the FBI’s current validation process for informants as lacking “sufficient independent headquarters oversight.”

In a statement, a representative from the FBI Office of Public Affairs told FRONTLINE: “The FBI’s mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. That mission is dual and simultaneous, not contradictory, which means that one part need not — and must not — come at the expense of the other.”

— Paula Moura, Tow Journalism Fellow, FRONTLINE/Newmark Journalism School Fellowship, FRONTLINE

0 notes

multipleservicelisting · 3 years

Text

Pentagon Moves to Block Exam of Tortured Guantánamo Prisoner

WASHINGTON — In his final days as Secretary of the Army, Ryan D. McCarthy has moved to thwart a federal judge’s order for an independent examination of a mentally ill prisoner at Guantánamo Bay who was previously tortured there, the Justice Department disclosed on Friday.

Lawyers for the prisoner, Mohammed al-Qahtani, 45, had obtained the order in March for two foreign doctors and one from the U.S. Army to examine the man under an Army regulation to determine whether he should be repatriated to his native Saudi Arabia for psychiatric care.

The Defense Department has not permitted such a medical review since the detention center was established in January 2002, and the order was poised to become an early test of the Biden administration as it considers resuming releases from Guantánamo.

But on Friday, Justice Department lawyers notified the U.S. District Court in Washington that Mr. McCarthy had signed a two-page memorandum on Monday excluding detainees at Guantánamo from the regulation that was the basis of the court order.

In March, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that the regulation required the medical review, and that if the doctors found repatriating Mr. Qahtani to Saudi Arabia was in his best interest, she would order it.

The order rattled the Defense Department, which has fought for nearly two decades to block civilian courts from deciding questions involving the detainees. Officials warned that, if an examination were conducted, others among the current 40 detainees would seek medical repatriation.

Judge Collyer has since retired, and another judge, Ellen Segal Huvelle, upheld the order in August. The next month an appeals court rejected a government pleading to delay the examination, leaving the Trump administration with a quandary: Permit the first ever decisive outside evaluation of a Guantánamo detainee or, as previous administrations have done to avoid court orders to release a detainee, voluntarily transfer Mr. Qahtani to a psychiatric hospital in Saudi Arabia.

It did neither, citing restrictions at Guantánamo during the coronavirus pandemic.

Given Mr. McCarthy’s decision to alter the regulation, the Justice Department on Friday asked the court to vacate Judge Collyer’s order. “The entire legal basis underlying this court’s March 2020 Order has evaporated,” it said.

Once Mr. Biden takes office next week, his Justice Department could choose to maintain the same position or withdraw the request to the court.

Mr. Qahtani’s lawyer, Ramzi Kassem, called the move “a last-ditch effort by the Trump administration to lock Joe Biden into a path of resisting the independent medical examination of a mentally ill man that the government has admitted torturing.”

Mr. Qahtani, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, was captured along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and subjected to two months of continuous, brutal interrogation at Camp X-Ray at Guantánamo in late 2002 and early 2003.

Leaked documents show that Mr. Qahtani was deprived of sleep and water, kept nude and was menaced by dogs, while under the care of military medics.

“There is no real question that the examination will confirm my client’s severe illnesses and lead to his medical repatriation,” said Mr. Kassem, a law professor whose clinic at City University of New York represents Mr. Qahtani.

Mr. Qahtani has been suspected of being one of several failed, aspirational 20th hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he has never been charged with a crime, in part because he was tortured.

Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who follows Guantánamo litigation, said the Army secretary has the authority to modify a regulation but the question likely confronting the court will be “whether the change is procedurally valid and whether it can be applied retroactively to this pending case.”

He also called the timing suspicious, days before Mr. McCarthy is relieved as Army secretary. “They lost on the rule. So they changed the rule.” He called it “a pretty shady way to duck the issue.”

A Pentagon spokesman, Mike Howard, declined to comment on the change, including whether the Department of Defense’s general counsel was consulted beforehand.

Multiple Service Listing for Business Owners | Tools to Grow Your Local Business

www.MultipleServiceListing.com

The post Pentagon Moves to Block Exam of Tortured Guantánamo Prisoner appeared first on Multiple Service Listing.

from Multiple Service Listing https://ift.tt/3qCGb2H

#multiple #service #listing #news #local #business #ads #near #me

0 notes

coprelawland · 3 years

Text

Tricky Language And Setting Precedent In Cases Of Qualified Immunity

By Sarah Rodowick, University of Colorado Boulder Class of 2021

January 12, 2021

Qualified immunity has been a source of controversy ever since the Supreme Court ruled that there was a “need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority” in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982)[i]. In Pearson v. Callahan (2009) qualified immunity was specified to protect government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”[ii]. The importance of this verdict lies in the language which states that there must be “clearly established” laws that a “reasonable person” would have known about[iii]. This language causes problems for individuals who wish to challenge notions of qualified immunity to the Supreme Court. Over the past summer, after many months of nation-wide protests against police brutality, several cases were brought to the Supreme Court regarding the legality of qualified immunity, but all these cases were dismissed since they failed to provide enough burden of proof for the “clearly established” rule[iv]. The development of a recent case though, Tanzin v. Tanzir (2020), may lead to a new way of thinking about the “clearly established” rules of qualified immunity as well as lead to new developments regarding the protection of minority ethnic and religious groups.

On December 10th, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of three Muslim men, Muhammed Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, and Naveed Shinwari, in regard to their desire to seek monetary damages against FBI agents who placed them on the no-fly list after refusing to become government informants. Tanveer, Algibhah, and Shinwari all alleged that agents asked them to spy on mosques in the New York area. After they refused, these men found it impossible to fly to see relatives and had to miss out on professional as well as educational opportunities. Agents even told Tanzir that they could help him get off the no-fly list, but only if he cooperated. Ramzi Kassem, one of the defendants’ lawyers, argued that his defendants “refused to spy on innocent co-religionists” since it was “in violation of their Islamic beliefs” and not because they were suspected of terrorist activity –the reason they were put on the no-fly list[v]. His clients therefore qualified to seek monetary consolation for their troubles under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. The Supreme Court held that although the FBI had removed the men from the no-fly list prior to the court’s decision, their actions were still in violation of the RFRA, which allows defendants to seek “appropriate reliefs” – including monetary reliefs – when their religious rights are violated[vi].

Although Tanzin v. Tanzir wasn’t a case that specifically targeted qualified immunity it may still set a legal precedent to protect future individuals from this type of government misconduct. Justice Clarence Thomas was explicit in pointing out that the FBI is still at liberty to try and protect the agents in question under qualified immunity and, if the FBI should choose to pursue this line of action, they would probably succeed in protecting the agents in this particular instance[vii]. Despite this fact, this case still sets legal precedent for any future cases brought to the Supreme Court relating to FBI officials abusing their power to coerce Muslim individuals by putting them on the no-fly list. As previously mentioned in this article, one of the trickiest aspects of trying to oppose the use of qualified immunity relates to the failure to provide evidence that there was a violation of “clearly established” law that would be understood by a “reasonable person.” As a result, if another case in the future were to be brought to court under similar circumstances as those surrounding Tanzin v. Tanzir, it would be easier to hold these hypothetical agents accountable since there is now a “clearly established” rule set.

Since qualified immunity is so difficult to attack in the court of law, it might be more productive for individuals to try and set “clearly established” rules that could be used in the future to deter government officials – including police officers – from behaving in corrupt or immoral activities therefore making them more liable than they have previously been under qualified immunity. For example, part of the reason why Cooper v. Flaig – a case where a 33 year old black father was killed by police officers after being repeatedly tased while experiencing an “acute mental health episode and under the influence of drugs” – failed to get accepted by the Supreme Court this past summer was because of its specific focus on trying to “eliminate or significantly revise” qualified immunity, instead of trying to establish precedent for why the police officers’ actions may have violated the Constitution[viii]. The majority of recent cases that have been brought to the Supreme Court in hopes to change or revise qualified immunity relate to either the fourth amendment – illegal searches and seizures – or the eight amendment – cruel and unusual punishment[ix]. Under the fourth and eight amendments, American citizens have a constitutional right to be protected against the use of excessive force, which could arguably have been contended in Cooper v. Flaig[x]. So, if more cases were brought to the Supreme Court regarding the fact that more officers seem to be in violation of the Constitution, perhaps more legal precedent could be set on what can constitute as excessive force or unreasonable searches and seizures; legal precedent could be set by trying to establish more specifically what is or isn’t a violation of the fourth and eight amendments. This would not necessarily mean that the accused officers would get punished, and they would probably still be protected under qualified immunity, but it creates “clearly established” laws that could be used as precedent for future cases involving similar actions. This kind of legal action is not easy to accomplish, it may just be easier than specifically attacking qualified immunity.

Corrupt police action has been around since the U.S. police system was first put into place, and it doesn’t seem to be getting better anytime soon. What the police is or isn’t allowed to do has become blurred in the eyes of the law and qualified immunity doesn’t help establish proper rules of conduct for these officers. Due to the sensitive nature of qualified immunity though – considering government officials still need to be protected against unreasonable harassment in order to properly perform their duties – I believe that it may be best to work towards creating more “clearly established” rules that will force future officers from participating in similar kinds of behavior rather than specifically targeting qualified immunity. The more we, as a people, fight police brutality and corruption on a legal playing field, the greater chance we will have at creating fair and equitable justice for those who fall victim to police violence.

______________________________________________________________

[i] Legal Information Institute. “Qualified Immunity.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

[ii] ibid

[iii] Azmi, Nimra. (12 June 2020). “Development of Qualified Immunity.” Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/70751/the-supreme-courts-insidious-development-of-qualified-immunity/

[iv] CBJ Team. (2 July 2020). “U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review Qualified Immunity Cases.” Crabbe Brown James LLP. https://cbjlawyers.com/u-s-supreme-court-declines-to-review-qualified-immunity-cases/

[v] Barnes, Robert. (10 Dec 2020). “Supreme Court rules for Muslims placed on no-fly list after refusing to become FBI informants.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-for-muslims-on-no-fly/2020/12/10/b2d8862e-3b06-11eb-bc68-96af0daae728_story.html

Liptak, Adam. (10 Dec 2020). “Supreme Court Backs Muslim Men in Case on No-Fly List.” The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/us/supreme-court-muslim-fly-list.html

[vi] Supreme Court of the United States. (2020). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-71_qol1.pdf

[vii] Barnes, Robert. (10 Dec 2020). “Supreme Court rules for Muslims placed on no-fly list after refusing to become

FBI informants.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-for-muslims-on-no-fly/2020/12/10/b2d8862e-3b06-11eb-bc68-96af0daae728_story.html

[viii] Supreme Court of the United States. (2020).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/191001/131050/20200205130027986_Cooper%20Petition--PDFA.pdf

[ix] Amendements 1-27. QUIA. https://www.quia.com/jg/3029650list.html

[x] FindLaw Staff. (2 June 2020). “Excessive Force and Police Brutality.” FindLaw.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/excessive-force-and-police-brutality.html#:~:text=The%20constitutional%20right%20to%20be,punishment%20in%20the%20Eighth%20Amendment.

0 notes

ravelite · 4 years

Quote

“Federal agents put my clients on the No-Fly List because they refused to spy on innocent coreligionists in violation of their Islamic beliefs,” Ramzi Kassem, a lawyer for the men, told the justices, who heard the case by telephone. “My clients lost precious years with loved ones, plus jobs and educational opportunities.”

Supreme Court Hears Case of Muslims on No-Fly List - The New York Times

0 notes

eretzyisrael · 10 months

Text

“This is not a battle of good versus evil,” Ramzi Kassem wrote in an op-ed that appeared on September 17, 2001. “The perpetrators were probably not driven to their actions by some intrinsic evil or inherent hatred of the good United States.”

He went on to argue that the Al Qaeda attack a week earlier was the result of the “resentment these terrorists felt towards the United States” as a result of “our country’s policies.”

Two decades later, Kassem, now a CUNY law professor and prominent terror lawyer, claimed in a Washington Post op-ed that, “since 9/11, the government has consistently used the law to enable, operationalize and justify the violence it has deployed against Muslims.”

And that, “the legacy of 9/11 ought to be recounted primarily through the stories of Muslims the world over who have largely paid the price of American power and prosperity.”

Next year, Ramzi Kassem was named by the Biden administration as a Senior Policy Advisor for Immigration at the White House Domestic Policy Council.

A Syrian national who grew up in Lebanon, Iraq and other Islamic terror states, arriving in this country to attend college and spread terrorist propaganda before becoming a terror lawyer, Kassem seems like a national security risk rather than a White House Policy Council adviser.

Ramzi Kassem had boasted of having “held the record for the longest delayed security clearance in the Guantánamo setting”, but even that does not seem to have dissuaded the Biden administration from bringing him on board.

While some leave behind the extremist views of their college years, Ramzi Kassem instead built a career around them, becoming a noted terrorist lawyer whose Gitmo inmate clients included Ahmed al-Darbi, an Al Qaeda terrorist and the brother-in-law of one of the hijackers who flew a plane into the Pentagon, and who was himself a key figure in the bombing of an oil tanker.

Some lawyers represent paying clients, but Kassem, like many terror lawyers, worked pro-bono, and his advocacy echoed his pre-existing support for Islamic terrorism.

In his columns, as in his activism, Ramzi Kassem repeatedly justified terrorism as a reaction to its victims. “Terrorism is but one of many reactions to oppression and dispossession and not their cause.”

While at Columbia University, Kassem co-founded Turath, an association of Muslim students, and then Qanun at Columbia Law. A fellow student described these hateful groups as having brought “under the guidance of Mr. Kassem… speakers to this campus that support violence against American and Israeli civilians… defended the genocidal program of Hamas.”

The Columbia letter noted that, “one speaker, disavowed by many of America’s pro-Palestinian activists, prior to being invited to Columbia, had said that Jews exist only to ‘dip their matzahs in the blood of Palestinian children.’”

This antisemitic blood libel didn’t seem to have interfered with Kassem’s career prospects.

Kassem’s college obsession with Jews extended even to condemning Columbia’s dining hall for serving “Israeli Wrap” sandwiches and demanding that the name be changed to the “more inclusive” Middle-Eastern Wrap. But not all of Kassem’s hostility to Jews was non-violent.

In his own columns for the university paper, Kassem boasted of throwing stones at Israel.

“On a sunny day in early August, I headed down to the Lebanese-Israeli border at Fatima’s Gate with busloads of Palestinian adolescents from the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, and we threw some stones,” he described. “Lebanese civilians, young and old, were playfully going through the motions… Having lived through my fair share of Israeli bombardments, raids, and sieges, I figured I might as well partake in the festivities.”

Even more violent acts of antisemitic murder found a ready defense.

“Some Palestinians resort to terrorism for many of the same reasons that people from various backgrounds have in the past: namely, despair and much endured suffering,” Kassem argued. “One must ask oneself how and why a human being was pushed to the limit and saw no way out of a situation short of blowing himself or herself up.”

These defenses of Islamic terrorism came within the larger context of calls to eliminate Israel and accusations of ethnic cleansing, while blaming Islamic violence against Jews, even before the creation of Israel, on its Jewish victims.

Kassem was named a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, a project of a foundation by Soros’ brother, notorious for its cultivation of political extremists hostile to America and its values, and worked with the Center for Constitutional Rights, a former Communist organization.

After law school, Ramzi Kassem founded Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR) at CUNY to provide free legal aid to Muslims accused of terrorism.

The City University of New York had become notorious for its antisemitic atmosphere and Kassem signed on to a letter in defense of antisemitic Islamist activism alongside known hate groups and terrorist support organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine, Al-Awda, Within Our Lifetime, and Samidoun: designated by Israel as a terrorist organization.

The letter accused Jews of using antisemitism to “repress activism and harass and threaten Palestinian students and Muslim students”.

Across the decades, Kassem’s college advocacy against Jews had come full circle from student to professor. And his war against this country has taken him from Gitmo to Washington D.C.

The Biden administration chose to elevate a vocal advocate for Islamic terrorists as a Senior Policy Advisor for Immigration at the White House Domestic Policy Council at a time when there are grave concerns about the penetration of terrorists through the unguarded southern border.

The Biden administration claims that it wants to protect the homeland and that it supports Israel. Putting Ramzi Kassem on its Domestic Policy Council shows those assertions to be lies. Its Policy Council includes a man who advocated for Gitmo terrorists and threw rocks at Israel.

Ramzi Kassem’s presence on driving the immigration agenda at the White House Domestic Policy Council is hard evidence that the Biden administration is putting the rights of Muslim terrorists ahead of the safety and welfare of Americans.

The White House Domestic Policy Council coordinates and develops the Biden agenda. Including a vocal activist against national security will have consequences. And the Biden administration will not be able to play innocent when one of the Islamic terrorists it allows into the country kills Americans.

This article was originally published in World Israel News and can be viewed here.

#ramzi kassem #biden administration #immigration policy

5 notes · View notes

dipulb3 · 4 years

Text

Supreme Court hears religious freedom challenge over suing FBI agents

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/supreme-court-hears-religious-freedom-challenge-over-suing-fbi-agents/

Supreme Court hears religious freedom challenge over suing FBI agents

The dispute began seven years ago when, said Muhammad Tanzir, Jameel Algibhah and Naveed Shinwari — who were all born abroad but live legally in the US — they were asked by the FBI to become informants for the government in terrorism-related investigations. The men claim they declined — citing their religious beliefs — and their reluctance to spy on their community.

They allege that they were retaliated against and put on the no-fly list, a watchlist for people who are prohibited from boarding aircraft that originate from, terminate in or pass over the United States. Even after they were removed from the list, their lawyers sought to sue the individual agents for damages, citing the federal law.

“An individual whose religious exercise has been substantially burdened by a federal official,” lawyer Ramzi Kassem of the City University of New York School of Law argued, “may sue that person in their individual capacity for damages.”

A lower court ruled in their favor, allowing the lawsuit to move forward. The Justice Department appealed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was never meant to allow government officials to be sued for damages in their individual capacities. But supporters of the men, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, seek to broaden the reach of the law.

Over an hour of telephonic arguments, the justices grappled with the law, parsing the words of the statute that allows a party to obtain “appropriate relief” against the government.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who often delves into the words of the law at issue, leaving aside what Congress might have intended, dug into parenthetical clauses, modifiers and definitional provisions. The argument, he said at one point, must hinge on the word “appropriate.”

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh said his focus was on the words that weren’t in the statute. He noted that other statutes that authorize damages against federal employees do so expressly.

“I think this would be a first or among a very small handful where damages were awarded against federal officers in their individual capacities without the statute explicitly saying so,” he said.

And Justice Elena Kagan suggested that if Congress had meant to allow lawsuits for personal damages it would have been more clear. “We haven’t interpreted any statutes with this little specificity to permit damages against federal employees personally,” she said. She suggested that Congress would have had to be really clear to allow such damages and it “hasn’t been so clear.”

Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that even if the government were to lose the case at this juncture, down the road the officers could argue that they have qualified immunity from such lawsuits.

The Justice Department argued that a decision allowing damage awards against the federal employees could chill their ability to do their job and “raise sensitive separation of powers concerns,” potentially preventing government officials from “devoting the time and effort required for the proper discharge of duties.”

“Even well-intentioned federal employees would thus be forced to navigate a minefield of liability that would be difficult to predict or avoid,” Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler said in court papers.

0 notes

religionamerica · 4 years

Link

This article from the New York Times discusses a supreme court case in which three Muslim men were coerced into becoming FBI informants by being placed on the No-Fly list. The case was filed by Muhammad Tanvir, who was asked by the FBI to spy on his community. He declined stating that his religious faith would not allow this. In response, the FBI agents involved applied pressure by placing Tanvir on a No-Fly list, prohibiting him from entering any airport.

In class we have discussed how the United States has changed the way it treats Muslims since 9/11. They have faced increased discrimination and scrutiny, escpecially around air travel. The criteria for being placed on the No-Fly list is unclear, and there is a history of racial profiling of Muslims based on susicion following 9/11. As the article states Tanvir “has never been arrested or charged with any crime and that he poses no threat to aviation safety” (Liptak, 2020). The tactic being used to pressure Tanvir has had a serious impact on his livelihood. He must fly for work and has had to quit his job. The article also explains, “On three occasions, he bought plane tickets to visit his mother in Pakistan, who was in failing health. He was not allowed to fly. Throughout, agents told him that they would help him get off the list — if he cooperated” (Liptak, 2020). Tanvir’s case was originally dismissed in 2013, however it was later revived by the United States Court of Appeals. The article cites multiple other cases in which Muslims faced discrimination and mistreatment, for example “the Supreme Court reversed a Second Circuit decision that had allowed a Pakistani Muslim man arrested after the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue a lawsuit against John Ashcroft, a former attorney general, and Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, for abuses he said he had suffered in a Brooklyn detention center” (Liptak, 2020).

The case that Tanvir is bringing to the Supreme Court questions the FBI’s ability to interfere with his right to religious freedom. They are pressuring him to go against his beliefs to help them with their investigation, and threatening him if he does not comply. The article states, “Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at the City University of New York and a lawyer with a clinic there that represents Mr. Tanvir, said the case would test the court’s commitment to religious liberty” (Liptak, 2020). The United States prides itself on freedom and liberty, however there is constant inhibition of these rights based on discriminatory actions.

0 notes

banji-effect · 6 years

Link

After decades of returning art to prisoners upon their release, the government will now withhold works indefinitely and has threatened to destroy them.

Several lawyers representing the accused first reported the change when the prison failed to return works that had been submitted for inspection so that they could be approved for release. Attorney Ramzi Kassem said that one of his clients was told that if he were to leave the prison he would not be given his works and that they would be incinerated instead.

#art and fascism #this world

3 notes · View notes

tasksweekly · 7 years

Photo

[TASK 032: EGYPT]

Shout out to anon for inspiring this task! There’s a masterlist below compiled of over 120+ Egyptian faceclaims categorised by gender with their occupation and ethnicity denoted if there was a reliable source. If you want want an extra challenge use random.org to pick a random number! Of course everything listed below are just suggestions and you can pick whichever character or whichever project you desire.

Any questions can be sent here and all tutorials have been linked below the cut for ease of access! REMEMBER to tag your resources with #TASKSWEEKLY and we will reblog them onto the main! This task can be tagged with whatever you want but if you want us to see it please be sure that our tag is the first five tags!

THE TASK - scroll down for FC’s!

STEP 1: Decide on a FC you wish to create resources for! You can always do more than one but who are you starting with? There are links to masterlists you can use in order to find them and if you want help, just send us a message and we can pick one for you at random!

STEP 2: Pick what you want to create! You can obviously do more than one thing, but what do you want to start off with? Screencaps, RP icons, GIF packs, masterlists, PNG’s, fancasts, alternative FC’s - LITERALLY anything you desire!

STEP 3: Look back on tasks that we have created previously for tutorials on the thing you are creating unless you have whatever it is you are doing mastered - then of course feel free to just get on and do it. :)

STEP 4: Upload and tag with #TASKSWEEKLY! If you didn’t use your own screencaps/images make sure to credit where you got them from as we will not reblog packs which do not credit caps or original gifs from the original maker.

THINGS YOU CAN MAKE FOR THIS TASK - examples are linked!

Stumped for ideas? Maybe make a masterlist or graphic of your favourite Egyptian faceclaims. A masterlist of names. Plot ideas or screencaps from a music video preformed by a Egyptian artist. Masterlist of quotes and lyrics that can be used for starters, thread titles or tags. Guides on Egyptian culture and customs.

Screencaps

RP icons [of all sizes]

Gif Pack [maybe gif icons if you wish]

PNG packs

Manips

Dash Icons

Character Aesthetics

PSD’s

XCF’s

Graphic Templates - can be chara header, promo, border or background PSD’s!

FC Masterlists - underused, with resources, without resources!

FC Help - could be related, family templates, alternatives.

Written Guides.

and whatever else you can think of / make!

MASTERLIST!

Ladies:

Lobna Abdel Aziz (81) Egyptian - actress.

Shwikar (81) Egyptian - actress.

Nelly Artin Kalfayan (68) Egyptian - actress, singer, dancer & comedian.

Wendie Malick (66) Egyptian (paternal grandfather), German, French, English - actress, voice actress, & former fashion model.

Fifi Abdou (63) Egyptian - belly dancer & actress.

Yousra (56) Egyptian - actress & singer.

Elham Shahin (56) Egyptian - actress.

Hala Sedki (55) Egyptian - actress.

Sherihan (52) Egyptian - actress and multi-artist.

Hoda Kotb (52) Egyptian - news anchor.

Simone Philip Kamel (50) Egyptian.

Abla Kamel (49) Egyptian - actress.

Ghada Abdel Razek (46) Egyptian - actress.

Dalia El Behery (46) Egyptian - actress.

Ola Ghanem (45) Egyptian - actress.

Angham Mohamed Ali Suleiman (45) Egyptian - singer.

Nelly Karim (42) Egyptian - actress, fashion model & ballerina.

Hanan Tork (41) Egyptian - actress & former ballerina.

Mona Zaki (40) Egyptian - actress.

Zeina (40) Egyptian - model.

Yasmine Al Massri (38) Palestinian / Egyptian - actress.

Arwa Gouda (37) Egyptian - actress.

Nour El-Semary (36/37) Egyptian - singer.

Sherine (36) Egyptian - singer & actress.

Ruby (35) Egyptian - singer & actress.

Yara Goubran (34) Egyptian - actress.

Mirhan Hussein (34) Egyptian - actress & singer.

Menna Shalabi (34) Egyptian - actress.

Elham Wagdy (34) Egyptian - model.

Fawzia Mohamed (33/34) Egyptian - beauty queen and model.

Randa El Behery (33) Egyptian - actress & model.

Amal Maher (32) Egyptian - singer.

Mona Hala (32) Egyptian - actress.

Donia Samir Ghaneen (32) Egyptian - actress.

Vanessa Lengies (31) German / Egyptian - actress, dancer and singer.

Ehsan Hatem (31) Egyptian / American - model.

Hana Sheha (31) Lebanese / Egyptian - actress.

Sonja Kinski (30) Egyptian / Polish, German - actress.

Meriam George (29/30) Egyptian - model.

Yara Naoum Egyptian (29) Egyptian - model.

Sara El-Khouly (29) Egyptian - model.

Elisa Sednaoui (29) Syrian-Egyptian, French / Italian - model, actress & philanthropist.

Zizi Adel (29) Egyptian - singer.

Malak Koura (28) Egyptian - actress.

Rahma Hassan (28) Egyptian - actress & former model.

Nesma Mahgoub (27) Egyptian.

Lara Scandar (26) Egyptian-Italian / Unknown - singer.

Jade Thirlwall (24) English / Egyptian, Yemeni - singer.

Mayar El Gheity (24) Egyptian - actress.

Tara Emad (23) Montenegrin / Egyptian - actress & model.

Carmen Suleiman (22) Egyptian - singer.

Lara Debbana (22) Egyptian - model.

Imaan Hammam (20) Egyptian / Moroccan - fashion model.

Menna Arafa (17) Egyptian - actress.

Elham Abd El-Badea (?) Egyptian - actress.

Elham Abdelbadea (?) Egyptian - actress.

Sarah Fasha (?) Egyptian - model.

Donia Hamed (?) Egyptian - model.

Men:

Samir Ghanem (80) Egyptian - comedian, singer & entertainer.

Adel Emam (76) Egyptian - actor & comedian.

Mahmoud Yacine (76) Egyptian - actor.

Hussein Fahmy (76) Egyptian - actor.

Yehia El-Fakharany (71) Egyptian - actor.

Mahmoud Abdel Aziz (70) Egyptian - actor.

Lotfy Labib (69) Egyptian - actor.

Mohamed Mounir (62) Egyptian - singer.

Ali El Haggar (62) Egyptian - singer.

Sayed Badreya (59/60) Egyptian - actor.

Hesham Selim (59) Egyptian - actor.

Amr Diab (55) Egyptian - singer.

Mohammad Fouad (55) Egyptian - singer & actor.

Andrew Ridgeley (54) Egyptian, Italian / English, Scottish - singer, songwriter and record producer.

Hany Ramzy (52) Egyptian - actor.

Khaled El Nabawy (50) Egyptian - actor.

Moustafa Amar (50) Egyptian - musician & actor.

Khaled Abol Naga (50) Egyptian - actor.

Ahmed Helmy (47) Egyptian - actor & host.

Ahmed Ahmed (46) Egyptian - actor & comedian.

Mostafa Shaban (46) Egyptian - actor.

Mido Hamada (45/46) Egyptian - actor.

Xavier Naidoo (45) German, Indian / Egyptian - singer-songwriter.

Ahmed Ezz (45) Egyptian - actor.

Amr Saad (45) Egyptian - actor.

Amr Waked (43) Egyptian - actor.

Ramez Galal (43) Egyptian - actor & singer.

Jaime Camil (43) Mexican (Egyptian, possibly other) / Brazilian (Portuguese, possibly other) - actor, singer & host.

Ahmed El Sakka (43) Egyptian - actor.

Omar Metwally (42) Egyptian / Dutch - actor.

Karim Abdel Aziz (41) Egyptian - actor.

Samer el Nahhal (41) Egyptian / Finnish - bassist.

Hany Adel (40) Egyptian - guitarist.

Sam Esmail (39) Egyptian - actor.

Tamer Hosny (39) Egyptian - actor.

Hesham Maged (36) Egyptian - actor.

Ahmed El-Fishawy (36) Egyptian - actor.

Khalid Abdalla (36) Egyptian - actor.

Sammy Sheik (35) Egyptian - actor.

Mohamed Mamdouh (35) Egyptian - actor.

Rami Malek (35) Egyptian, 1/8th Greek - actor.

Sami Malek (35) Egyptian, 1/8th Greek - actor.

Asser Yassin (35) Egyptian - actor.

Ahmed Dawood (34) Egyptian - actor.

Amr Salama (34) Egyptian - film director, blogger, screenwriter & author.

Andreas Bourani (33) Egyptian - singer-songwriter.

Mohamed Imam (32) Egyptian - actor.

Tarek El-Ibiary (30) Egyptian - actor.

Karim Kassem (30) Egyptian, Jewish heritage - actor.

Mohamed Ramadan (28) Egyptian - actor.

Ali Rabee (27) Egyptian - actor.

Xavier Dolan (27) Egyptian / French-Canadian, one quarter Irish - actor.

Sherif Fayed (24) Egyptian - footballer.

Fady Elsayed (23) British / Egyptian - actor.

Youssef Osman (22) Egyptian - actor.

Shady Srour (21) Egyptian - Youtuber.

Youssef Sawmah (19) Lebanese, Egyptian.

Mohamed El Sharnouby (?) Egyptian - actor.

Ahmed Hatem Omar (?) Egyptian - actor.

Mohamed Kelany (?) Egyptian - musical artist.

Moe Michaels (?) Egyptian - actor.

Amir Aboulela (?) Egyptian - actor.

Tameem Youness (?) Egyptian - Youtuber.

Non-binary:

N/A

Trans:

N/A

-C

#rph #fc help #fc masterlist #Egyptian fc #Egyptian faceclaim #task: 032 #task: egypt

99 notes · View notes