ZGram - 4/11/2002 - "Judge rejects rule closing immigration
hearings"
irimland@zundelsite.org
irimland@zundelsite.org
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:06:13 -0800
ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny
April 11, 2002
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
This is good news for those of us who have watched the Soviet-style
"secret hearing" abominaation:
[START]
Judge Rejects Rule Closing Immigration Hearings
By Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 4, 2002; Page A01
NEW YORK, April 3 -- A Justice Department policy to close immigration
hearings deemed of "special interest" to the investigation into the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is unconstitutional, a federal judge in
Detroit ruled today.
The strongly worded ruling, in a consolidated lawsuit involving a
Lebanese detainee and Detroit news outlets, represented the first
federal decision against tactics employed by the government in the
terrorist investigation, which has been criticized by civil liberties
advocates for its secrecy.
The judge, Nancy G. Edmunds, rejected the government's argument that
the closed hearings were necessary to protect national security and
the integrity of the investigation. Despite the government's
arguments, she wrote, "the subtext is all about the government's
right to suspend certain personal liberties in the pursuit of
national security."
"It is important for the public, particularly individuals who feel
that they are being targeted by the government as a result of the
terrorist attacks of September 11, to know that even during these
sensitive times the government is adhering to immigration procedures
and respecting individuals' rights," Edmunds wrote.
The Justice Department has indicated it will appeal. It remained
unclear what immediate effect the ruling would have on the policy,
which has led to the closure of hundreds of immigration hearings of
Sept. 11 detainees since it was laid out in a Sept. 21 memo issued by
Chief Immigration Judge Michael J. Creppy.
A Justice Department spokesman, Mark Corallo, said: "We're reviewing
the decision and will decide what steps to take in the near future."
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer who argued the case for the American Civil
Liberties Union, which represented some of the plaintiffs, said he
believed that the decision would have implications beyond the Detroit
case. Civil liberties advocates said they hope a series of recent
legal challenges -- including the Detroit case -- will help shed
light on how the investigation of the attacks is being conducted, who
has been detained and how the detainees are being treated.
Since the attacks, authorities have detained about 1,200 people, most
of Arab and South Asian descent, in the investigation. Another 114
are jailed on criminal charges unrelated to terrorism, government
figures show. The Justice Department has periodically released
figures on the number of detainees -- the number had dropped to 327
by Feb. 15 -- but has refused to release their names.
In a separate ruling last week, a New Jersey judge ruled that under
state law, the government must release the names of hundreds of
detainees in New Jersey jails. The Justice Department, which had
intervened in the case, is appealing. In another case, the ACLU is
representing New Jersey news outlets that have challenged the
constitutionality of the closed hearings.
"The larger significance of this ruling is that the judge refused to
rubber-stamp the government's September 11 policies," said Gelernt.
"The ruling sends a clear message that the role of the courts is
more, not less, important in the aftermath of September 11."
The Detroit case revolves around a Lebanese citizen, Rabih Hadad, who
was taken into custody by immigration officials on Dec. 14 and is
still jailed. Hadad, of Ann Arbor, Mich., was held on charges that he
had overstayed his visa. On the same day, authorities raided and
closed the offices of the Global Relief Foundation, a charitable
organization founded by Hadad. The government argued that the
foundation had been used to funnel money to the Hamas, a militant
Muslim group that the Bush administration has designated as a
terrorist organization. Hadad and his supporters have denied
funneling money to Hamas.
On Dec. 19, with reporters and Hadad's supporters in attendance,
Hadad came before an immigration judge for a bail hearing. However,
before the hearing began, Judge Elizabeth Hacker cleared the court.
When Hadad objected, Hacker stated that the decision had been made by
her supervisors and that she did not have the authority to keep the
courtroom open.
The basis for the decision was a document widely referred to as "the
Creppy Memo." In the memo, released by the nation's chief immigration
judge, Creppy issued guidelines for cases "for which the Department
of Justice is requiring special arrangements." Among other
provisions, the guidelines stipulated that only judges with "secret
clearance" could handle the special cases and that the courtroom must
be closed -- "no visitors, no family and no press," said the memo.
In response, Hadad, the Detroit Free Press, other news outlets and
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) filed separate complaints challenging
the policy and calling for the hearings to be opened. Edmunds later
consolidated the cases.
In its arguments, the government provided an affidavit from James S.
Reynolds, chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crimes Section of the
Justice Department's Criminal Division, to explain the justification
for the Creppy memo. Reynolds argued that the closed hearings were
necessary to prevent "public identification of individuals associated
with them," to encourage detainees to cooperate, to protect the
"direction and progress of the investigation" and avoid stigmatizing
the detainees.
Edmunds rejected those arguments, noting that Hadad's name had
already been made public.
Staff researcher Margot Williams contributed to this report.
(Source: www.washingtonpost.com)
[END]
=====
Thought for the Day:
"Nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy."
(Shakespeare)