This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/no-fly-list-fbi-coerce-muslims

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
No-fly list used by FBI to coerce Muslims into informing, lawsuit claims No-fly list used by FBI to coerce Muslims into informing, lawsuit claims
(35 minutes later)
NaveedNaveed
Shinwari hasn’t seen his wife in 26 months. He suspects it’s because he Shinwari hasn’t seen his wife in 26 months. He suspects it’s because he
refused to become an informant for the FBI. refused to become an informant for the FBI.
InIn
February 2012 Shinwari, who has lived in the US since he was four, February 2012 Shinwari, who has lived in the US since he was 14,
flew to Afghanistan to get married. He says that before he could get home to Omaha, flew to Afghanistan to get married. He says that before he could get home to Omaha,
Nebraska, he was twice detained and questioned by FBI agents whoNebraska, he was twice detained and questioned by FBI agents who
wanted to know if he knew anything about national security threats. A wanted to know if he knew anything about national security threats. A
third FBI visit followed when he got home.third FBI visit followed when he got home.
TheThe
following month, after Shinwari bought another plane ticket for a following month, after Shinwari bought another plane ticket for a
temporary job in Connecticut, he couldn’t get a boarding pass. Airport temporary job in Connecticut, he couldn’t get a boarding pass. Airport
police told him he had been placed on the US no-fly list, although he police told him he had been placed on the US no-fly list, although he
had never in his life been accused of breaking any law. Another FBI had never in his life been accused of breaking any law. Another FBI
visit soon followed, with agents wanting to know about the “local Omaha visit soon followed, with agents wanting to know about the “local Omaha
community, did I know anyone who’s a threat”, he says.community, did I know anyone who’s a threat”, he says.
“I’m“I’m
just very frustrated, [and I said] what can I do to clear my name?” just very frustrated, [and I said] what can I do to clear my name?”
recalls Shinwari, 30. “And that’s where it was mentioned to me: you recalls Shinwari, 30. “And that’s where it was mentioned to me: you
help us, we help you. We know you don’t have a job; we’ll give you help us, we help you. We know you don’t have a job; we’ll give you
money.”money.”
ShinwariShinwari
is one of four American Muslims in a new lawsuit who accuse the FBI of is one of four American Muslims in a new lawsuit who accuse the FBI of
placing them on the no-fly list, either to intimidate them into becomingplacing them on the no-fly list, either to intimidate them into becoming
informants or to retaliate against them for declining. informants or to retaliate against them for declining.
FiledFiled
on Tuesday night in the US district court for the southern district of on Tuesday night in the US district court for the southern district of
New York, the case accuses the US attorney general, Eric Holder, the FBI director, James Comey, the homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson, and two dozen FBI New York, the case accuses the US attorney general, Eric Holder, the FBI director, James Comey, the homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson, and two dozen FBI
agents of creating an atmosphere in which Muslims who are not accused ofagents of creating an atmosphere in which Muslims who are not accused of
wrongdoing are forbidden from flying, apparently as leverage to get wrongdoing are forbidden from flying, apparently as leverage to get
them snitching on their communities.them snitching on their communities.
TheirTheir
lawsuit seeks not only the plaintiffs’ removal from the no-fly list but also the establishment of a more robust legal mechanism to contest lawsuit seeks not only the plaintiffs’ removal from the no-fly list but also the establishment of a more robust legal mechanism to contest
placement upon it.placement upon it.
“This“This
policy and set of practices by the FBI is part of a much broader set of policy and set of practices by the FBI is part of a much broader set of
policies that reflect overpolicing in Muslim-American communities,” policies that reflect overpolicing in Muslim-American communities,”
said Diala Shamis, one of the lawyers for the four plaintiffs.said Diala Shamis, one of the lawyers for the four plaintiffs.
InIn
recent years Muslim community leaders in the US have stated that they recent years Muslim community leaders in the US have stated that they
feel law enforcement at times considers them a target, particularly feel law enforcement at times considers them a target, particularly
thanks to mosque infiltrations and other surveillance practices. Material demonizing Muslims and Islam has been present in FBI counter-terrorism training, which the bureau has conceded was inappropriate. The New York police department recently shut down a unit tasked with spying on Muslim businesses, mosques and community centers in New York and New Jersey.thanks to mosque infiltrations and other surveillance practices. Material demonizing Muslims and Islam has been present in FBI counter-terrorism training, which the bureau has conceded was inappropriate. The New York police department recently shut down a unit tasked with spying on Muslim businesses, mosques and community centers in New York and New Jersey.
LikeLike
his co-plaintiffs Shinwari does not know for sure that the FBI his co-plaintiffs Shinwari does not know for sure that the FBI
deliberately placed him on the no-fly list as either a punitive measure deliberately placed him on the no-fly list as either a punitive measure
or a pressure tactic.or a pressure tactic.
Their four stories differ in important respects.Their four stories differ in important respects.
Jameel Algibhah of the Bronx alleges that the FBI explicitly asked him Jameel Algibhah of the Bronx alleges that the FBI explicitly asked him
to infiltrate a Queens mosque and pose as an extremist in online forums.to infiltrate a Queens mosque and pose as an extremist in online forums.
But they have in common an allegation of an implied quid pro quo. “We’re But they have in common an allegation of an implied quid pro quo. “We’re
the only ones who can take you off the list,” an unnamed FBI agent who the only ones who can take you off the list,” an unnamed FBI agent who
wanted Algibhah to inform to is alleged to have told him.wanted Algibhah to inform to is alleged to have told him.
Their case follows at least one other, brought by the ACLU in Oregon,Their case follows at least one other, brought by the ACLU in Oregon,
that alleges the FBI attempted to leverage no-fly selectees into that alleges the FBI attempted to leverage no-fly selectees into
informants. That case also challenges as insufficient the process afforded to informants. That case also challenges as insufficient the process afforded to
people seeking to remove themselves from the list.people seeking to remove themselves from the list.
Shinwari,Shinwari,
who now lives in Connecticut and works for a temp agency, has not who now lives in Connecticut and works for a temp agency, has not
attempted to return to Afghanistan to see his wife. While he was able toattempted to return to Afghanistan to see his wife. While he was able to
board a flight last month, he wonders if he received a reprieve from board a flight last month, he wonders if he received a reprieve from
the no-fly list that the FBI offered to him in 2012 as enticement. the no-fly list that the FBI offered to him in 2012 as enticement.
Repeated attempts to formally remove himself from the list resulted in Repeated attempts to formally remove himself from the list resulted in
vague and inconclusive notifications from the government – which he, vague and inconclusive notifications from the government – which he,
his co-plaintiffs and his lawyers contend feeds into the problem.his co-plaintiffs and his lawyers contend feeds into the problem.
TheThe
no-fly list is among the most opaque post-9/11 measures. It is maintained no-fly list is among the most opaque post-9/11 measures. It is maintained
by the FBI and implemented at airports by the Department of Homeland by the FBI and implemented at airports by the Department of Homeland
Security. Few know they’ve been placed on it, and those who do face a Security. Few know they’ve been placed on it, and those who do face a
complicated redress process to have themselves removed. The new complicated redress process to have themselves removed. The new
lawsuit alleges that the opacity contributes to watchlist abuse.lawsuit alleges that the opacity contributes to watchlist abuse.
AccordingAccording
to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, which maintains the list, to the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, which maintains the list,
there were approximately 16,000 people, fewer than 500 of them there were approximately 16,000 people, fewer than 500 of them
Americans, on the no-fly list as of September 2011.Americans, on the no-fly list as of September 2011.
AA
larger pool of data that feeds the no-fly list and other government larger pool of data that feeds the no-fly list and other government
watchlists, known as the Terrorist Screening Database, contemporaneouslywatchlists, known as the Terrorist Screening Database, contemporaneously
contained records of 420,000 people. Famously it included Nelson Mandela until 2008. The government’s policy is to not to confirm or deny someone’s placement upon a watchlist. contained records of 420,000 people. Famously it included Nelson Mandela until 2008. The government’s policy is to not to confirm or deny someone’s placement upon a watchlist.
SeveralSeveral
earlier lawsuits have attempted to get people off the no-fly list. In earlier lawsuits have attempted to get people off the no-fly list. In
February Rahinah Ibrahim became the first since 9/11 to win such a case, after February Rahinah Ibrahim became the first since 9/11 to win such a case, after
demonstrating that the FBI adder her name by mistake. She had been unable to fly since 2004.demonstrating that the FBI adder her name by mistake. She had been unable to fly since 2004.
TheThe
criteria for inclusion on the list are unclear. In a March 2011 criteria for inclusion on the list are unclear. In a March 2011
federal court filing Christopher Piehota, the current director of the federal court filing Christopher Piehota, the current director of the
Terrorist Screening Center, affirmed that FBI agents could nominate Terrorist Screening Center, affirmed that FBI agents could nominate
candidates to it.candidates to it.
InclusionInclusion
on the broader Terrorist Screening Database depends upon “whether there on the broader Terrorist Screening Database depends upon “whether there
is reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is a known or is reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is a known or
suspected terrorist”, Piehota, then the deputy director of the Terroristsuspected terrorist”, Piehota, then the deputy director of the Terrorist
Screening Center, told the eastern district court of Virginia. Screening Center, told the eastern district court of Virginia.
“Mere“Mere
guesses or ‘hunches,’ or the reporting of suspicious activity alone is guesses or ‘hunches,’ or the reporting of suspicious activity alone is
not enough to constitute a reasonable suspicion and are not sufficient not enough to constitute a reasonable suspicion and are not sufficient
bases to watchlist an individual.” Audits and other quality control bases to watchlist an individual.” Audits and other quality control
measures were periodic, Piehota told the court.measures were periodic, Piehota told the court.
An ACLU study last month challenged that criterion. “It is not at all clear what separates a reasonable-suspicion-based-on-a-reasonable-suspicionAn ACLU study last month challenged that criterion. “It is not at all clear what separates a reasonable-suspicion-based-on-a-reasonable-suspicion
from a simple hunch,” it said, calling inclusion on a from a simple hunch,” it said, calling inclusion on a
government watchlist a potentially “life-altering” experience. government watchlist a potentially “life-altering” experience.
A redress systemA redress system
for thwarted travelers was operated by the Department of Homeland Security and referred complaints to the FBI, Piehota further affirmed. A for thwarted travelers was operated by the Department of Homeland Security and referred complaints to the FBI, Piehota further affirmed. A
subsequent records check determined “whether the complainant’s current subsequent records check determined “whether the complainant’s current
status in the TSDB [Terrorist Screening Database] is suitable based on status in the TSDB [Terrorist Screening Database] is suitable based on
the most current, accurate and thorough information available”.the most current, accurate and thorough information available”.
TheThe
process was entirely internal, with DHS informing the would-be traveler process was entirely internal, with DHS informing the would-be traveler
what the system had determined “without disclosing the traveler’s status what the system had determined “without disclosing the traveler’s status
in the TSDB”, Piehota said.in the TSDB”, Piehota said.
AA
study by the justice department’s inspector general, partially study by the justice department’s inspector general, partially
declassified on 25 March, painted a mixed picture of the FBI’s declassified on 25 March, painted a mixed picture of the FBI’s
watchlisting processes. “Subjectswatchlisting processes. “Subjects
of closed terrorism investigations were removed from the watchlist when of closed terrorism investigations were removed from the watchlist when
the case was closed,” it found, but it noted the FBI was “not timely in the case was closed,” it found, but it noted the FBI was “not timely in
submitting watchlist nomination and removal packages for individuals submitting watchlist nomination and removal packages for individuals
not under investigation by the FBI”. In such cases it took the FBI a not under investigation by the FBI”. In such cases it took the FBI a
median of 78 days to remove people from the lists.median of 78 days to remove people from the lists.
“Because“Because
non-investigative subjects may be retained on the watchlist for an non-investigative subjects may be retained on the watchlist for an
extended period of time, this subset of watchlist practices will extended period of time, this subset of watchlist practices will
continue to grow throughout the years,” the inspector general’s report continue to grow throughout the years,” the inspector general’s report
said.said.
The FBI declined to comment on the allegations in the new lawsuit.The FBI declined to comment on the allegations in the new lawsuit.
Shinwari said his placement on the no-fly list and his dealings with the FBI had a chilling effect. “IShinwari said his placement on the no-fly list and his dealings with the FBI had a chilling effect. “I
don’t want to open up to people any more, or express myself politically don’t want to open up to people any more, or express myself politically
or otherwise. It’s definitely had an effect on me participating in my or otherwise. It’s definitely had an effect on me participating in my
local mosque,” he said.local mosque,” he said.
“I“I
just want to see some changes to this process, and openness and just want to see some changes to this process, and openness and
transparency would be good. That’s what Obama originally ran for."transparency would be good. That’s what Obama originally ran for."