ZGram - 4/11/2002 - "Judge rejects rule closing immigration hearings"

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

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)