Hamas Clamps Down in Gaza

Discussions about life in Gaza emphasize the dire economic conditions Palestinians live under. The quality of life is further being eroded by an incremental campaign of harsh religious law by the Hamas government that subjugates women and intimidates people deemed insufficiently observant. We've chronicled some of those restrictions here and here, including the arrest of a female journalist accused of "laughing out loud" and being without a male escort while at the beach.

In the Jerusalem Post, Jonathan Spyer details new and disturbing restrictions on individual freedom. Among them:

Creation of a "Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" security force to patrol public places in search of those displaying insufficient modesty in dress and behavior; a special unit with female officers, dressed in full-body niqabs, to enforce limits on women; designated mosque watchdogs who ensure people are praying properly "offer help where insufficient devotion is diagnosed."

Spyer cites this example:

"One source describes how a man wearing shorts while sitting on his own balcony in southern Gaza was spotted and advised that this must not happen again. Rules banning men from bathing topless, and women (who may still bathe separately from men and fully covered) from laughing or smiling while bathing, are also in the process of enforcement."

Islamic financial services are growing dominant, too, and becoming the repository for Hamas charity and social programs "to establish channels of material dependence between the public and the Hamas organization.

Spyer believes this all is the result of a delicate balance Hamas boxed itself into striking. He notes there is pressure from Salafi movements that seek an even more extreme adherence to Sharia law and Hamas can't lose its mantle of religious leadership. In the end, Spyer writes, "without any recognized body deciding upon it, an Islamic mini-state in the full sense is currently emerging in Gaza."

Read his article here.

The Purist View of Zazi's Alleged Tipster

Accused New York bomb plotter Najibullah Zazi pled not guilty to a conspiracy charge this morning in federal court.

Newsweek's Christopher Dickey has a pretty compelling account of the frantic days leading up to Zazi's initial arrest in a plot tied to Al Qaeda. It includes details of how alleged co-conspirator Ahmad Afzali may have tipped Zazi off that law enforcement was on his tail by calling Zazi's father. Dickey reports:

"The name of the caller is not the one the cops have been using. The top Intelligence Division detective at the meeting steps out of the room to phone his office and check. Yeah, that's Afzali, he says when he comes back in."

What would prompt a law enforcement informant to warn a terror suspect? Views Afzali expressed in an August sermon offer a few insights. The sermon, or khutbah, emphasizes a pure adherence to faith and chastises those who show up at the mosque only during holidays. Failure to practice the faith more consistently could lead Muslims down the path of Jews and Christians who reformed and modified their religious practices, he warns.

Afzali offers his harshest views for Shia Muslims, whom he calls "the kafir of the kafir of the race." Kafir are non-believers, or infidels. The entire sermon can be heard here. Click on the following links to hear the excerpts described.

ON JEWS AND CHRISTIANS:

"Rabbis destroyed Judaism. The Christian monks destroyed Christianity. And we, the Muslims, slowly and gradually are destroying Islam."

ON MUSLIMS WHO ONLY OBSERVE MUSLIM HOLIDAYS:

"Think about what we're doing to the heart of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. Because if he was here present, right here in this masjid or in this locality, what he would say to us? He would tell the sahabahs – Declare jihad on them first."

ON CHRISTIANS:

"How can this be possible, after we have one God, or we have three Gods, in the Trinity, the Son, and the Father and the Holy Ghost, the most confused people on the face of this earth."

During Zazi's arraignment, prosecutors made it clear that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercepts would be a part of their case. We should learn more about Afzali's ideology from those tapes.

Did Terror Watch List Members Patronize Cigarette Smuggling Ring?

Undercover agents in New York State have arrested more than 20 people in conjunction with an alleged cigarette-smuggling ring. Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore said after the recent raid that the smuggling operation cost the state $21 million in tax revenues.

Although the investigation has not established a link between the smuggling and terrorist groups, the New York Post reported that eight of the ring's customers are believed to be on the FBI's terror watch list.

"Undercover agents peddling illegal smokes from a Yonkers warehouse even met their neighbor – a white-supremacist lunatic suspected of running an arms factory who was so taken in by his new 'friends' that he gave them a homemade bomb as a gift," wrote Adam Nichols of the Post.

Many of the ring's customers traveled from New York City, purchased cartons of cigarettes for $42 and sold them for more than double what they paid. Agents running the shop said that many of the customers came with guns, prostitutes or drugs and were looking to make deals. Some tried to rip off the agents with counterfeit money and some came with guards and attempted to rob other smugglers.

Hizballah has used cigarette smuggling to raise money in the United States. During the 1990s, Hizballah operatives bought cigarettes in North Carolina and resold them in Michigan without paying that state's much higher cigarette taxes.

The leader of the smuggling ring, Mohamad Youssef Hammoud, was convicted of conspiracies to launder money and sell contraband cigarettes, as well as attempted bribery and immigration law violations. Hammoud – who had numerous links to Hizballah boss Hassan Nasrallah – was sentenced to 155 years in prison.

Read more here, here, and here.

A Busy Day for Terror

September 24, 2009 was one of the busiest days for terrorism arrests, plots, and revelations since 9/11. Events ranged from the arrest of a Jordanian who attempted to blow up a skyscraper in downtown Dallas, to a Dutch aviation services company pleading guilty to conspiracy to export aircraft components and other goods to Iran. Below is a summary of each case's most significant details, with hyperlinks to where primary case documents made available by the IPT can be found:

Continue to full text of posting...

UPDATE: JUSTICE Act May Prevent Civil Suits by Victims of Terrorism

Last week we reported on Senator Feingold's proposed JUSTICE Act. Specifically, we highlighted Section 502's proposed requirement that the government prove that resources given to a terrorist organization were given with the specific intent that they be used for acts of violence. Although we focused on the negative repercussions for criminal "material support" prosecutions, it is important to consider the effect that this bill would have on civil lawsuits brought by victims of terrorism.

While historically the responsibility for punishing individuals and entities that aided terrorists has fallen to the government, private citizens who themselves have been victimized by acts of terrorism have joined in the fight against the terrorist infrastructure. Bringing claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, victims of terrorism have made tremendous strides against terrorist financiers. Leading the charge in these cases has been the law firm of Motley Rice, LLC.

Commenting on the JUSTICE Act, the firm this week explained:

"The Motley Rice law firm of South Carolina, which represents thousands of terrorism victims, survivors, and victims' family members, strongly disapproves of Section 502 of proposed S.1686, the 'JUSTICE Act.' That section would amend the 1996 'material support' statute, mandating that prosecutors prove that terrorism suspects knew or intended that the material support or resources provided to terrorists would be used in carrying out terrorist activity. That additional burden of proof threatens to turn the clock back to 1995, ignore the lessons of the 9-11 attacks, and weaken our legal defenses against international terrorism."

Motley Rice properly recognizes that not only will the proposed legislation effectively eviscerate criminal prosecutions of terrorist supporters, but it will also damage the ability to hold those who provide financial, logistical, or other resources civilly liable.

Al Qaradawi Forbids Iraqis from Becoming U.S. Citizens

Yusuf al Qaradawi has issued a fatwa forbidding Iraqis from becoming American citizens on the grounds that the United States is occupying Iraq. His statement also applies to Afghans. (Read the IPT's translation of al Qaradawi's comments here).

Al Qaradawi's remarks were made on a religious program on an Arabic news channel. He expressed agreement with a ruling which Tunisian clerics had made during the colonial era decreeing "that whosoever adopts French nationality is an apostate." (It may be noted that al Qaradawi has defended the death penalty for apostates.)

These statements have caused a strong reaction in the Middle East. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has reported on the controversy. For example, at the thousand year old al Azhar University, the most prestigious religious institute in the Muslim world, one lecturer has gone so far as to say, "The Americans are not the enemies of Iraq alone, but of the entire Islamic nation." On the other hand, another teacher at al Azhar opined that naturalization "helps spread Islam in the West." One Arab journalist in an article published in Arabic and English asserts, "This fatwa has nothing to do with the reality on the ground, and contains more political absurdity then it does religious guidance."

Niqash, an Iraqi weekly, reports that the fatwa "has angered Iraqis for what they perceive as a misguided and unjustified intervention in Iraqi affairs." An Iraqi specialist in Quran studies quoted in the article said that the fatwa "is based on an obsolete logic that divides the world into a land of peace and a land of war."

Terror Probe Heightens Fears of Mass Attack on Nation's Transit System, Other Targets

Federal agents arrested individuals in Colorado and New York as part of an ongoing investigation into a possible cross-country terror plot to attack mass transit systems and other high-profile targets. As the national terrorism investigation intensified, federal advisories issued to law enforcement officials warned of possible attacks on transit systems, luxury hotels, sport stadiums and other targets. Investigators contend this could be the first Al Qaeda plot in the U.S. since the Sept. 11^th attacks.

The focus of the investigation, part of NYPD's larger "Operation Nexus," to prevent terror attacks on U.S. soil, is a Denver airport shuttle driver Najibullah Zazi, his father Mohammed Zazi and a New York imam Ahmad Wais Afzali. The three Afghan-born men have been accused of lying to the FBI and will likely face tougher terrorism charges, according to intelligence sources.

Arrest documents reveal that around the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Zazi drove from Denver to New York City in a rental car and spent the night in Flushing, Queens. A search of the rental car turned up a laptop containing a photographic image of handwritten notes on bomb making. According to court documents, Zazi falsely asserted that he had not written the notes and may have unintentionally downloaded the document as part of some religious materials he had downloaded earlier. Agents also found batteries and other items that could be used to make explosives with Zazi's fingerprints in raids on apartments he visited in New York. Backpacks and cell phones were other items that were seized. According to news reports a New York area U-Haul store turned away a group of Afghan men who tried to rent a 26-foot truck there.

Law enforcement officials suspect that Zazi and others may have been plotting to detonate backpack bombs via cell phones on New York City trains in attacks reminiscent of the London subway bombings in 2005 and the Madrid rail attacks in 2004. Immigration records indicate that Zazi visited Peshawar in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) in August 2008, where Al Qaeda operates training camps.

NYPD efforts to use Ahmad Wais Afzali, an imam at the Hazrat Abu Bakr Islamic Center in Queens, as a police informant backfired when Afzali tipped off Zazi that the FBI had been looking for him. In phone conversations intercepted by the FBI, Afzali called Najibullah Zazi and informed him about being visited by law enforcement and shown photographs. Afzali allegedly stated, "I was exposed to something yesterday from law enforcement. And they came to ask about your characters." The warning forced the hands of law enforcement officials to conduct raids and arrests sooner than they would have liked, making it harder for them to gather more evidence and identify others involved in the alleged conspiracy.

Arizona Politicians Concerned By Minnesota Rep.'s Relationship with CAIR

U.S. Senator Jon Kyl and U.S. Representatives Trent Franks and John Shadegg expressed concern over Rep. Keith Ellison's relationship with the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a recent letter to the Minnesota Congressman.

The letter was prompted by Rep. Ellison's recent attendance at CAIR-Arizona's 2009 Annual Banquet.  In the letter the Arizona politicians said that they were "deeply concerned that any official support of this organization [CAIR] would undermine the legitimate concerns of federal investigators about CAIR's relationship to foreign terrorist organizations."

The "concerns" about CAIR that the Arizona delegation referenced in the letter were highly publicized during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).  CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.  Among the evidence, CAIR was listed on a memo as part of the Palestine Committee in the U.S. – the memo calls on members of the committee to "increase the financing and moral support for Hamas."  As a result the FBI decided to cut off contacts with CAIR – citing questions surrounding CAIR's relationship to Hamas as its reason.

But Ellison and CAIR deny the organization's ties to Hamas.  In an interview before his speech at CAIR-Arizona's banquet Ellison said, "I would never associate myself with anyone even soft on terrorism," calling the Arizona politicians' claims "ridiculous."  He also argued that if there were truth to the allegations surrounding CAIR that the Government could move ahead with arrests and prosecutions, which it has not.  CAIR-Arizona Executive Director Ahmad Daniels also denied the allegations asserting that, "In no way, shape or form is CAIR Arizona associated with Hamas."

It should be noted that this is not the first time Ellison has met with CAIR. Ellison's relationship with CAIR is well-developed as detailed in an IPT report from last year.

It's Official: Al-Shabaab Ties the Knot with Al Qaeda

According to an article by CBS News' Khaleed Wassef, Al-Shabaab, the largest Somali homegrown terrorist organization in Somalia, has ended ambiguity about its relationship with worldwide terror group Al Qaeda. For the first time, the Emir of Al-Shabaab [aka Shabaab Al-Mujahideen], Abu Zubair, declared his loyalty to Bin Laden's forces. This 48 minute video is a marked contrast to previous statements by Al-Shabaab and its affiliates, denying any organizational links to Al Qaeda.

This pronouncement follows last week's assassination of Al Qaeda's chief of operations in East Africa, Saleh Al-Nabhan, by a missile strike from a U.S. special forces working off the coast of the Somali city of Baraawe. It is a strong response to U.S. operations in the area, replete with Jihadi-style semantics such as, "The Mujahideen here are fine and the winds of victory are still blowing on them and the enemy's plans are collapsing one after another."

A large crowd of Al-Shabaab terrorists were also waving their guns and chanting, "Here we are O' Osama; We are your soldiers O' Osama."

Aside from the reaction to American actions in Al-Shabaab-held southern Somalia, the video is a vocal response to Bin Laden's call that Al-Shabaab rebel against the Somali Islamist [but somewhat less extreme] interim government. The al-Shabaab video featured audio clips from a previous Bin Laden video, "Fight on O' Champions of Somalia," to drive home the point.

In addition, the video featured Al Qaeda leader and American convert to Islam Abu Mansour Al-Amriki [Omar Hammami], supervising a small group of Al-Shabaab militants as they train in military tactics.

It is not fully known why Al-Shabaab has made such a drastic shift in policy by identifying directly with Bin Laden. Suggestions include linking to a more global dimension of jihad and clarifying the obvious connections in training that the two organizations share.

This new shift may also be a response to the 2008 U.S. State Department designation of Al-Shabaab as a terrorist organization. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on the recent influx of American Somalis to Al-Shabaab, including the first-ever U.S. suicide bomber who blew himself up in the Somali regional capitol of Hargeisa. However, it is certain that this will clarify the U.S. effort to suppress Somali-American terror links.

See the following IPT link for more information about Somali-American terror connections and the most recent success of the U.S. government in prosecuting this extension of terror.

Judge's Ruling a Bad Omen for National Security Legislation?

 A recent decision by U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, Horn v. Huddle, has revived a question of national security law and policy long thought to be settled – is control over access to classified information entrusted to the sole discretion of the Executive Branch, and if so, can the Judiciary review that determination?

The Executive branch plays a critical role in protecting the nation's security, and to that end, it enjoys broad discretion to control access to sensitive military and national security information. Under the Executive Order controlling access to classified materials, an individual must satisfy three prongs: (i) they must receive a security clearance; (ii) sign a nondisclosure agreement; and (iii) have a "need to know" the classified information. Each of these elements is handled by the agency in control of the classified material, and courts have historically been reticent to second-guess any determination made by the Executive branch. For example, challenges related to the denial of security clearances or the legality of nondisclosure agreements are routinely denied on the grounds that they are political questions entrusted to the sole discretion of the Executive. As the Supreme Court has explained in Department of the Navy v. Egan:

"The authority to classify and control access to such information is constitutionally vested in the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief, and this authority should not be intruded upon by the courts."

Huddle arose over allegations that an employee of the State Department illegally wiretapped an employee of the DEA. All parties to the case were involved in sensitive activities in Burma at the time of the alleged wiretapping, and as a result, the case was expected to implicate classified national security information. Although the plaintiff's attorneys were familiar with the classified material, defense counsel would have required access in order to effectively defend the lawsuit.

In order to prevent the disclosure of the classified material in question, the DOJ intervened and successfully asserted the state secrets privilege, at which point the government went on to claim that portions of the non-privileged materials were classified and therefore unavailable to defense counsel. Consequently, the court was forced to determine how, if at all, it could grant cleared defense counsel access to classified material over the government's objection.

In ruling against the government – and ignoring long standing precedent – Judge Lamberth held that counsel in the case indeed had a "need to know" the classified material in question, stating: "the deference generally granted to the Executive Branch in matters of classification and national security must yield when the Executive attempts to exert control over the courtroom."

The decision by the District Court will likely have a profound impact on future national security cases, as is already proving evident in ongoing litigation in Oregon involving the al Haramain Islamic Foundation. The plaintiff in that case, al Haramain, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT), was seeking injunctive relief on the grounds that classified information used to designate the organization was unconstitutionally gathered. Although the litigation has moved past the relevant discovery proceedings, during an earlier phase of the case, the plaintiff sought access to the classified material that was used in their designation. Refusing to disclose the information, the Government explained that although the plaintiffs' counsel had been granted security clearances, they did not have the requisite "need to know," and that determination was not subject to judicial review – the same argument made by the Government in Huddle. Although the court in al Haramain side-stepped the ultimate question, the case is demonstrative of the effect that Judge Lamberth's decision in Huddle could have on future litigation. Based on Huddle, future defendants in national security cases may be able to force disclosure of classified material over the government's objection. Hopefully the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will be cognizant of this looming inevitability and the institutional competencies of each branch of government when Huddle comes up for appellate review.

Read the full text of Horn v. Huddle here.

Follow our coverage of the al Haramain litigation here.

Newer Postings   |   Older Postings