|
CAIR REPORT - May 11, 2005
The status of Muslim civil rights in the United States – 2005
The case of Sami al-Hussayen
“Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.”173 –Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell
Background
According to The Wall Street Journal, in the days right after September 11, 2001, Sami Omar al-Hussayen led fellow Muslims in the college town of Moscow, Idaho as they joined an emotionally charged candlelight vigil honoring the victims of 9/11. The computers science graduate student at the University of Idaho also helped organize a blood drive for 9/11 relief efforts. He also issued a press release on behalf of the local Muslim Students Association (MSA), the nation’s largest American Muslim collegiate organization, stating that the small town’s Muslims "condemn in the strongest terms possible what are apparently vicious acts of terrorism against innocent citizens."[174]
That was why people in the small rural university town were so surprised on February 26, 2003 when FBI agents arrived before dawn in unmarked vehicles at Mr. Hussayen's home to arrest him[175]. The agents rousted him from bed and took him away in handcuffs. Over the next two days, most members of the campus MSA, which Mr. Hussayen formerly headed, were interrogated about their immigration status, extracurricular activities and views of the United States.[176]
Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, 33, arrived in Idaho in 1999 to work on a doctorate in computer security. On two trips with his father to the U.S. when he was a child, his family toured Washington DC, Universal Studios and Disney World. In the mid-1990s, Mr. Al-Hussayen earned a master's degree at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana and also studied at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.[177]
From all evidence, Mr. Al-Hussayen and his family appeared at ease with many aspects of American life. The eldest two of his three young sons went to public school and played on local soccer teams. They skateboarded and speak better English than Arabic, according to Mr. Al-Hussayen's brother, Abdul, a 34-year-old cardiologist in Toronto.
"Their culture has been the culture of the United States kids," he said in court testimony in March[178]. He recalled that he and Sami had joked about how hard it would be to go back to Saudi Arabia, because they both enjoyed living in the West.
The Charges against Sami Al-Hussayen
The alleged ‘terrorist’ crimes for which al-Hussayen was charged actually originated from the computer keyboard at his Idaho home. As the Justice Department would find out over time, this case would serve as a significant litmus test to take place at the intersection of terrorism law, the First Amendment and the infamous USA PATRIOT Act.
Among other minor civil immigration charges, Al-Hussayen was being charged with “providing material support”[179] to terrorists, a common post-9/11 indictment in Attorney General John Ashcroft’s Justice Department.
The basis of the charges against Al-Hussayen was that he volunteered his computer expertise to help run websites for a Muslim charity. While the charity’s mission was geared toward peaceful religious teachings, prosecutors alleged that buried deep within the websites were a handful of violent messages — written by others — encouraging attacks on the United States and donations for terrorist organizations.[180]
However, according to the Seattle Times, Al-Hussayen's case had nothing in common with other terrorism cases. There was no evidence that the websites recruited terrorists, or, for that matter, that Al-Hussayen even believed their hateful message.[181] Even if he did, the First Amendment would protect his right to speak his mind, as long as there was no “imminent threat of violence.”[182]
Law enforcement officials used the USA PATRIOT Act, the sweeping anti-terrorism law hurriedly passed in October 2001, to bypass some of these legal hurdles. Al-Hussayen was charged under a clause that broadly expanded the definition of "material support" to include those individuals who provide "expert advice or assistance" to cause of terrorists. Al-Hussayen was the first person in United States history to be charged under this provision.[183]
The government’s flimsy contention was that Al-Hussayen used his “expert skills” as a webmaster; therefore, that made him a terrorist.
Terrorism vs. The First Amendment
John Steger, a juror on the case and retired federal employee, stated after Al-Hussayen’s acquittal that, “There was not a word spoken that indicated he supported terrorism…It was a real stretch."[184]
After being acquitted on the three immigration charges against him, the true power of the First Amendment became evident at the announcement of the final verdict.
"In two or three hours," juror Steger recalled, "we voted him not guilty on all three[185] [terrorism counts]..." Mr. Steger went on to add that, “I guess I’d say it was a lack of evidence.”[186]
"There was no direct connection in the evidence they gave us…between Sami and terrorism," said juror Clair Ingraham[187].
For supporters of the Constitution, the verdict was seen as a huge victory for the First Amendment and free speech. "It is encouraging…to see the jury so clearly distinguish between the right to freedom of expression on controversial matters, and acts of terrorism," said Nancy Chang, senior litigation attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York. "Since Sept. 11th, the trend, starting with the Patriot Act, has been to expand the definition of terrorism to the point where free speech is at best chilled, and at times even criminalized."[188]
According to the Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review, William C. Bradford, a law professor at Indiana University, said he thought the case would make the government "a little bit more circumspect" about bringing terrorism charges against those whose connections to terrorism are indirect or tenuous at best.[189]
Commenting on the Justice Department’s broad use of the “material support” statute and the USA PATRIOT Act, Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole noted that cases like Al-Hussayen’s have “…become the linchpin of [outgoing Attorney General John] Ashcroft's war on terrorism precisely because it doesn't require proof that an individual engaged in any sort of terrorist act or even supported any terrorist activity…It is to my mind a resurrection of the principle of guilt by association."190
Asked about how his client felt after being acquitted in a landmark First Amendment case, Al-Hussayen’s attorney, David Nevin said that Sami was “happy about the verdict… He would love to be able to…be reunited with his family."191
169 Supra note 151. 170 Id.
171“Cat Stevens named ‘Man of Peace’” Associated Press, November 10 2004 available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6444741/
172 “Sweet vindication” Miami Herald, November 10 2004 available at http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/people/10141365.htm
173 http://www.worldofquotes.com/topic/Speech/1/
174 Paul Barrett “MSA figure seized by FBI” The Wall Street Journal, May 29 2003.
175 See ‘Free Sami Omar al-Hussayen’ website available at www.samiomar.com
176 Supra note 92.
177 Supra note 93.
178 See supra note 174.
179 18 U.S.C. 2339A
180 Maureen O’Hagan “A terrorism case that went awry” The Seattle Times, November 22, 2004 available at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002097570_sami22m.html
181 Id.
182 Julie Hilden, “The Supreme Court tackles cross burning and the First Amendment” CNN Student News, November 15 2002 available at http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/15/findlaw.analysis.hilden.cross.burning/ See also Brandenberg v. United States, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
183 Supra note 97.
184 Id.
185 Id.
186 Betsy Russell, “Al-Hussayen acquitted in terror case” The Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review, June 11, 2004 available at http://www.spokesmanreview.com/local/story.asp?ID=10124
187 Supra note 97. 188 Supra note 103. 189 Id. 190 Supra note 97.
191 Supra note 103.
|
