Mauri Saalakhan, Nassima Haddam - Early Beginnings of Secret Evidence Laws (1999)

Andrew Zimmerman: Welcome to Bruderhof Radio, an independent production broadening the bounds of discourse on progressive thought and action.

Mauri Saalakhan: Terrorists are not born, they are made. And they are made from the crucible of suffering that they and their people are forced to come through and endure on a day-by-day basis.

Andrew Zimmerman: This is Bruderhof Radio, and I'm your host, Andrew Zimmerman. For Americans who lived through the Cold War, the threat of foreign aggression has always existed in our collective consciousness. Often it took the form of Russian nuclear warheads pointed in our direction and ready to rain down destruction at the push of a button. But for others of us, born later this century, fear has a different face. Today's number one enemy is six feet tall, his hair is black, he wears a mustache, and his features are distinctly Arab. This week on Bruderhof Radio, the fleecing of America, how an entire nation came to accept the stereotype of modern terrorism, and worse, how we gave up our constitutional rights in the process. In 1995, after a bomb blasted the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 people, A new wave of anti-terrorism legislation was introduced in Congress. Most of the measures passed without obstacle, including the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which gave the government the right to detain any non-citizen suspected of being a terrorist based on so-called secret evidence. Maury Salacon heads the Peace and Justice Foundation in Washington, D.C., and is currently leading a campaign to raise awareness on this issue.

Mauri Saalakhan: Secret evidence is, you know, just as the name implies, it's evidence that is kept secret from the person who is being accused as well as from his attorneys. And it flies in the face of constitutional guarantees. According to the Constitution, any defendant that is accused of wrongdoing or suspected of wrongdoing is supposed to be able to have his or her day in court. They are supposed to be able to, number one, know what the nature of the charges are against them. And number two, supposed to have the opportunity to confront their accusers, to know who their accusers are and confront them in open court. Well, in secret evidence cases, this is not the case. You can be accused. And not know the nature of the charges nor know who is the person or persons bringing these charges against you. And again, it erodes the whole idea of due process and fairness within the realm of law.

Andrew Zimmerman: According to Solicon, more than two dozen individuals are currently being detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS, based on secret evidence.

Mauri Saalakhan: The government's use of secret evidence first came to my attention when about a year and a half ago A mutual friend came, gave me a call because of an issue involving a family, the Haddam family, who lives in the state of Virginia. I was asked if I would be willing to meet with them and, you know, with the aim of looking to see what we might be able to do to assist them. And when we sat down about a week or two later, and I was given the details surrounding the case and also a lot of documentation, I received quite a bit of documentation that I reviewed. It became clear that an elected parliamentarian from the country of Algeria was wrongfully imprisoned in the United States because quote-unquote secret evidence suggested that he was a national security threat. Now, what made the case so alarming to me was that here was a man, an equivalent to one of our congressional leaders, locked up in the United States of America. after participating in national elections in Algeria that were the first free and democratic elections in Algeria's post-independence history. This was a man who was freely chosen by the people to represent them Subsequent to this, a coup d'etat took place where the results of this national election were completely nullified. Members of the Islamic Salvation Front, the political party that won, A majority in the seats were imprisoned and tortured. Some were killed and others like Anwar left the country and, you know, subsequent to leaving the country, sought political asylum. in other countries. The fact that this man could be in the United States, imprisoned, without any criminal charges now for the past, what, 32 months, is quite horrendous to me.

Nassima Haddam: My husband came here in the United States in 1980 as a student. And upon completing his study in nuclear physics, he studied nuclear physics at Iowa State University. He returned to Algeria to teach physics at the University of Science and Technology. And while he was teaching, he was also involved in political activities over there. My husband was in Algeria. He has been part of the Algerian Islamic Movement for the past 20 years. And I don't know if you know, but what happened seven years ago, There were parliamentary elections in Algeria, and he was elected. They were the only fair and multi-party elections ever held in Algeria, and he was elected as a representative to the parliament of his hometown. So it was in December 1991, sorry. The election was held in December 1991. And in January 1992, they were... a coup d'etat staged by the military. And Dmitry arrested a lot of members of the FIS. This is the FIS stands for Islamic Front for Salvation, FIS. So after the cancellation of the election, Dmitry began to arrest and torture. So my husband... was asked by the leadership of his party, the FIS, to hold delegations of elected members of parliament to the so-called free world in Europe and USA. So in order to express on behalf of FIS the suffering and the aspiration of the Algerian people, and to gather support also for the Algerian people to choose freely their civilian government. So since then, he became one of the main targets of the military regime. And also for that reason, after I was able to escape with my family from Algeria, because we were also being harassed and threatened by the police. And we came to join him here in the end of 1992. So we came here because, first of all, we thought it was a country of freedom of speech. And secondly, because I have two U.S.-born citizens, American citizens. That's why we came to the United States. So when we came here, we applied for asylum. And since April 1993, we applied for asylum. And our cases were pending until October 1996. On October 1996, we have been denied asylum. So without notice, they came on December 6, 1996, and they arrested my husband.

Andrew Zimmerman: The arrest itself did not come as a surprise. Haddam had long feared deportation if his request for asylum was not granted. But the real shock came when Ban, too, was denied without explanation.

Nassima Haddam: After he had been arrested, he went before the immigration court. And through all these hearings, the INS used as evidence, as an open record, they used what the... government newspapers were saying about my husband. They didn't rely on my husband's communiques. And the immigration judge, after six months of hearings, he decided, of course, his decision was based on what the media, you know, the media of the government, the military government of Algeria was, you know, saying about my husband. He didn't rely also on my husband's communiques, and he denied also the asylum. At the same time, the INS gave the immigration judge the secret evidence. He told the judge that we have secret evidence against this person. But the immigration judge didn't listen to them by saying that they are unfair to the defendant. So he didn't listen to them. And we... We appealed before the BIA, the Board of Migration, appealed on the decision of the judge. But the BIA rejected all these evidences. And in the same time, he gave reason to the INS, because the INS also appealed on these second evidences, because I told you the immigration didn't listen to them. They appealed the decision of the judge and asked the BIA, you know, asking them to listen to the secret evidence. So the BIA reminded this, you know, second to the immigration judge to listen to them and give them his answer.

Andrew Zimmerman: As the judge was soon to learn, the charges were tenuous at best.

Mauri Saalakhan: Salikhan explains, Anwar Haddam has been accused of being a persecutor of others by virtue of telephone calls. that our conversations that he supposedly had, wherein he did not, I guess, use the right words in condemning or speaking out against atrocities that were being committed ostensibly by associates of his in Algeria. He is not accused of being a direct perpetrator. of these atrocities, but being someone who has basically condoned them by not speaking out against them. Now, this flies in the face of the facts. The fact is, Anwar Haddam and the political party that he represents, the Islamic Salvation Front, has consistently, since the coup d'etat in January of 1992 and the subsequent horrendous human rights atrocities that have been committed in Algeria against the people, Both he and the party have consistently called for an independent investigation into who is responsible for the bloody carnage. Who is the one? Who are the people that have been responsible for the massacres in these villages? Villages that should be noted were some of the political strongholds of Feast. This is where they got much of their support from. And so Algeria, the Algerian government and its state-controlled information apparatus, as well as the international media, who basically has been, unfortunately, in lockstep with parroting what has come out of Algeria concerning these atrocities, would have us believe that the people who benefited The party that benefited from the support they received from these villagers then turned on the same villages, the same base of support, to commit these, again, horrendous atrocities that have taken an estimated 100,000 lives in Algeria since 1992.

Andrew Zimmerman: In other words, what the INS called secret evidence was actually little more than speculation that Hadam's party in Algeria was illicitly involved in the massacre of its own supporters, about which Hadam's failure to speak out amounted to compliance. This begs the question, when exactly did the INS become a global human rights watch? But whatever the impetus for Hadam's detention, the INS wasn't taking any chances.

Nassima Haddam: I think they want just to keep him in jail. They are not trying to find a third country for him since he cannot be returned to Algeria, otherwise he will face death. And they don't want him to leave. We went through the federal court asking to release him and bail with all this stuff or let him go. He doesn't want to stay here. He doesn't want an asylum now. He wants just to leave the United States and be a free man. But they don't want him. They just want him to be in jail. Even though in jail they don't let him in peace. They are moving him from jail to jail, even putting him in jail far from here, four hours just to go to see him. I have to spend like four hours driving. And they don't allow him to receive magazines, books. So even in jail he's not in peace.

Andrew Zimmerman: When a ruling was finally passed down, the judge's decision seemed as arbitrary as the evidence itself.

Nassima Haddam: It took her more than nine months to give a decision. The 15 days became nine months. And at the end, when she gave her decision, she said, I listened to the second evidence, but it didn't bring anything new to the case. And she bailed it. her decision on the same open record as Judge Bryant did before. And since then, since the end of June, when she gave her decision, so we did appeal her decision again, but she kept the record. She didn't give it to the BIA. I don't know what they are playing, what game they are playing.

Andrew Zimmerman: You're listening to Bruggerhoff Radio. To learn more about the topic of this program, call us. It's toll free at 1-800-778-8461.

Mauri Saalakhan: I'm very heartened by the fact that a bill has been introduced known as the Secret Evidence Repeal Act of 1999, H.R. 2121. If this bill is passed into law, it will make it illegal for the government to continue to use secret evidence as it has been using secret evidence in immigration and deportation proceedings.

Andrew Zimmerman: We asked Salikhan why he thought the secret evidence law passed in the first place.

Mauri Saalakhan: My own belief is that with the fall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, The architects of this military industrial complex that we've built up here in this country, they need a new villain. They need a new enemy on the block to justify the continued expenditures going into this complex. I would also add that no doubt the Zionists in Israel as well as here in the United States see Islam as a threat, the only threat to the brutal control that they have had over the part of the world that is ironically referred to as the Holy Land. There is concern about a balanced policy becoming uh the foreign policy of of the united states government in in the mid-east and they're going to you know fight tooth and nails to keep a balanced policy a truly balanced and just policy from being implemented this is all part and parcel of it there are there are unfortunately um There are partners in this crime against humanity, both in the United States in the governmental apparatus, in the media apparatus, as well as abroad. I'm sure that if you were to speak to any of the architects of this unfortunate law, they would tell you that this appearance of selective bias is just a kind of chance occurrence that, you know, they didn't have Muslims or Arabs in mind when they drafted this law, but Again, the way that it's been used suggests otherwise. I think even though it is selectively targeted at Arabs and Muslims, I do believe that it is part and parcel of this anti-immigrant mood in this country, generated by special interests, generated by those at the top, who see a way of gaining political capital from creating such hysteria. And for this reason... I also believe that it behooves those of us who are concerned about immigration issues in this country to take a look at this, take a look at what's being done with the use of secret evidence and do something about it. Now, there is another law that... is also being, that's similar, that has a similar, it has a connection to this issue in the sense that, and how it's being used, how it's being applied against Arabs and immigrants in this country. And that is U.S. forfeiture law. There is a case of a brother by the name of Muhammad Salla of the Quranic Literacy Institute in Chicago, Illinois. This is a man who... has been a US citizen for a number of years. He's a US citizen. He was born in Palestine, and on a relatively recent trip to Palestine, he was held by the Israeli authorities in detention for a considerable period of time. And reports were that he was also tortured while in detention. And after he was released, he returned to the United States, and shortly thereafter, his assets were seized. I believe over a million dollars. I mean, this is a successful business and family man in this country. His assets were seized because he is suspected... And I emphasize the word suspected. of having sent money overseas for humanitarian causes that went instead to quote-unquote terrorist organizations abroad.

Andrew Zimmerman: Indeed, the 1995 and 1996 anti-terrorism laws can hardly be seen as a measured response to an outbreak of terrorist acts in the United States.

Mauri Saalakhan: In the 10-year period prior to the passing of the so-called anti-terrorism terrorist omnibus law in 1996. There had been, I think, if I remember correctly, no more than two incidents in the United States that could be classified as international terrorist incidents. But the reality is that the terrorism that has been committed in the United States over the past 10, 15, 20 years or so has been committed by homegrown terrorists, like, for instance, the Oklahoma bombing incident at the federal building in Oklahoma City, which initially was blamed on Muslims and Arabs. This is reality. And this is the kind of atmosphere that has led to some congressional leaders for political expediency signing on to this bill anti-freedom legislation and plugging into and supporting this anti-freedom current which flies in the face of everything that America is supposed to stand for and others just being silent on the issue altogether. It's very sad, but it's the atmosphere. And then I would also add that part of the atmosphere, or I should say part of the reason, part of the reason, another very important part of the reason why this kind of thing has been going on far too long is because too many American citizens are unaware of what's being done in their name. And of those who are aware, too many of us are silent.

Andrew Zimmerman: It's ironic that a law designed to protect Americans from international aggression should have the effect of destroying our domestic constitutional guarantees. But perhaps an even greater irony lies in the fact that these laws tend to reinforce our position in the world as an economic and military superpower, a supporter of large corporations, and, more often than not, a protector of undemocratic regimes. In this way, we not only engage in our own form of international terror, but we invite the same in return. Maury Salikhan

Mauri Saalakhan: Whenever you have people, any people, anywhere in the world, who are forced to exist in a cycle of pain, suffering, and oppression, you're going to have members of that group that are going to strike out in whatever way If they cannot fight in the quote-unquote legitimate ways, then they're going to resort to whatever they have at their disposal to strike out at those who they see as being responsible for their conditions. This is unfortunately a part of the, you know, this is a natural part of the human condition. Again, this is not something unique to the Middle East. This is anywhere, everywhere in the world. There's a slogan in the human rights community, civil and human rights community here in the United States, no justice, no peace. The only way that terrorism is going to come to an end, and I'm speaking now of the terrorism committed by the little socially and politically disenfranchised minority in the Middle East or in any other part of the world. The only way that that is going to come to an end is if the terrorism that is committed by the big powers, by the huge power wielding authorities comes to an end. Terrorism does not take place in a vacuum. Terrorists are not born. They are made. And they are made from the crucible of suffering that they and their people are forced to come through and endure on a day-by-day basis.

Andrew Zimmerman: That's all for this edition of Bruderhof Radio, a look at the secret evidence laws which, in the name of fighting terrorism, erode our constitutional rights and freedoms. For more information on this topic, give us a call at 1-800-778-8461.