DATE=12/9/1999 TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP TITLE=U-S RELEASES EGYPTIAN JAILED ON SECRET EVIDENCE NUMBER=6-11586 BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE DATELINE=WASHINGTON EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS TELEPHONE=619-3335 CONTENT= INTRO: Nasser Ahmed, an Egyptian citizen, has been released from federal jail in New York after three years, during which the Immigration and Naturalization Service kept him locked up on the basis of secret evidence. He was an associate of a Muslim cleric convicted of conspiring to blow up the United Nations, but no public evidence was ever presented that showed Mr. Ahmed committed a crime. His treatment became a major story for the U-S press, which is now celebrating his release, on bond, pending the final disposition of his case. We get a sampling now from ______________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup. TEXT: Mr. Ahmed was arrested by immigration authorities more than three years ago, in the dragnet that questioned dozens of followers of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. He is the blind cleric convicted of helping plan a terrorist attack against the United Nations that never took place. The specific charge against Mr. Ahmed is that he overstayed his work visa, and he was recommended for deportation. When he was picked up, Mr. Ahmed applied for asylum in the United States, because he is a harsh critic of the Cairo government, and he feared imprisonment and torture if deported to Egypt. What happened next was a controversial series of court proceedings, in which the Immigration and Naturalization Service moved to have Mr. Ahmed deported, on the basis of secret F-B-I evidence allegedly linking him to the U-N plot. Neither Mr. Ahmed nor his lawyer was allowed to see the evidence. It is a basic and fundamental tenet of the U-S constitution that all those accused of crimes be allowed to face their accuser and the evidence against them. But in 1996, to counter increasing terrorism in this country, Congress passed a law allowing the I-N-S to use secret evidence in deporting suspected terrorists. This law has never been challenged in the Supreme Court, and many newspapers accused the government of breaching the Constitution in dealing with Mr. Ahmed. A few days ago, a federal judge ordered the evidence disclosed. Mr. Ahmed's lawyers were able to refute it, and he was released.. In the press, there is a good deal of comment on this case and its implications for other foreign citizens living in this country. The Akron [Ohio] Beacon Journal is pleased at his release, but worries about others in similar circumstances. VOICE: Nasser Ahmed, a critic of his Egyptian government, spent three-and-one-half years in jail, based on evidence he wasn't allowed to see and accusations he wasn't allowed to confront. Such a Kafkaesqaue incarceration is an affront to the American sense of justice. Still, we are not shocked to learn of such inhumane treatment elsewhere in the world. ... [Mr.] Ahmed's detention was made possible by wrong-headed portions of the 1996 immigration-reform law. He was deprived of the fundamental right to confront his accusers, a civil liberty extended to every U-S citizen (including the couple's [Mr. Ahmed's] children) because of a misguided notion of what constitutes a threat to national security mixed with a strain of xenophobia. ... If [Mr.] Ahmed's presence in the United States is a danger to national security, the government should have to make its case in an open, adversarial court setting -- as it must routinely do in any criminal proceeding involving a U-S citizen. // OPT // ... The immigration judge who initially had sided with the I-N-S's deportation request changed his mind, finding the government's evidence weak and suspect. // END OPT // There is no credible rationale for allowing the use of secret evidence in immigration matters. TEXT: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, in its editorial headline asks: "Where's the outrage? The Constitution is ignored after an Arab's arrest": VOICE: In July, an immigration judge ordered Mr. Ahmed's release after characterizing most of the F-B-I's "secret evidence" in the case as "double or triple" hearsay. In other words, Mr. Ahmed was detained on the basis of rumors and gossip spread by individuals unknown to him. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appealed the decision to Attorney General Janet Reno, who decided ... not to block Mr. Ahmed's release. And with good reason -- no right is more firmly enshrined in our nation's Constitution than the right to confront one's accusers. ... Where's the outrage? Are constitutional principles negotiable when Arab nationals with unsavory acquaintances are involved? ... The Constitution's civil-liberty guarantees are never more needed or more precious than when applied to groups or individuals marginalized by the majority. // OPT // ... To the extent that this nation's fear of terrorism leads it to subvert the rule of law, and abandon its principles, America's enemies will be able to claim a major victory. // END OPT // TEXT: To California's capital, now, where the Sacramento Bee worries about the broader question of other people in this country who may be similarly imprisoned on what it feels are unconstitutional grounds. VOICE: [Mr.] Ahmed is only one of some 20 foreigners -- nearly all from Arab countries -- who have been detained for months or years on secret evidence under 1996 antiterrorism and immigration laws that deny due process to immigrants. A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled that detention without charge on the basis of such evidence violates the constitution, and presumably the issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court. In the meantime, legislation has been introduced in Congress to ban the exclusive reliance on secret evidence. One way or another, America must end the gross violation of human rights on the basis of evidence that is often so flimsy as to mock the constitutional principles Americans cherish. TEXT: In Florida, where another Middle Eastern-born man, Mazen Al-Najjar, is being detained under the same law, The Miami Herald celebrates the latest move in Mr. Ahmed's case. VOICE: For immigrants in America, justice has come to this: It takes the attorney general to free a man shamefully held three-and-one-half years on secret F-B-I evidence. Bravo for U-S Attorney General Janet Reno whose decision not to intervene finally led to the release of Nasser K. Ahmed, an Egyptian living in New York. For good reason, the nation's founders rejected such secrecy. ... Now Ms. Reno should turn her attention -- for I-N-S's [Director] Doris Meissner will not -- to the plight of others held without charges. TEXT: Lastly, more thoughts on the Ahmed case, and how the present law allowing secret evidence is, in the opinion of The Boston Globe, damaging the United States, both at home, and possibly abroad. VOICE: Among the principles that distinguish the American system from make-believe democracies, none is more indispensable than the right of an accused individual to face his accusers in court and compel them to test their evidence against his in an open and timely adversarial procedure. This right is a glory of democracy. People subject to arbitrary actions by all-powerful governments in places like Afghanistan, Burma, and China know all too well how precious is the right of the accused to make the state disclose its evidence. TEXT: On that note, we conclude this sampling of editorial opinion on the case of the Egyptian citizen, Nasser Ahmed, finally released from a U-S jail after being incarcerated as the result of secret evidence. NEB/ANG/WTW 09-Dec-1999 14:55 PM EDT (09-Dec-1999 1955 UTC) NNNN Source: Voice of America .