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
.
