Counterterrorism Blog

Several other CTB contributors have expertly commented on yesterday’s verdicts in the Chicago HAMAS support trial wherein the two defendants were acquitted on the more serious racketeering charges and convicted of “lesser” felony obstruction violations. The defendants and their many supporters are hailing the verdicts as a major victory, claiming vindication and they were proven not to be terrorism supporters. They can spin the results any way they choose.

A review of the specific count on which defendant Muhammad Salah was convicted, 18 USC 1503, relates to him providing false statements in a civil lawsuit circa 2001 brought against him and others linked to a HAMAS attack that killed an American teenager. It is the wording of that violation count that is worth noting..., “Salah, corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice by submitting to the United States District Court, through lawyers acting under the authority of the court, false and misleading verified answers to interrogatories propounded on defendant Salah in a civil suit filed against defendant Salah and others which answers falsely stated, among other things, that defendant Salah had never provided or delivered funds for the purpose of supporting HAMAS...”.

Further, part of this conviction count incorporated a segment of the “Count One” for which he was acquitted. That small but important incorporated “Count One” section describes in detail the things about which Salah lied in the civil suit. Those lies included not only his financial support and dealings with HAMAS, but with HAMAS’ political leader Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook (who is a fugitive defendant in this same case) and about attending HAMAS training sessions. Those are the activities of an operative significantly involved in an organization.

While Salah and his supporters may claim acquittal on the racketeering count as some huge victory, a careful review of the details in his conviction would appear to belie any real defense win. Quite arguably, the jury sided with the Government in believing Salah was, in fact, a HAMAS operative and supporter who lied about it in the noted civil case. And HAMAS is a terrorist organization, period. An old adage in the law enforcement and prosecution business is that any conviction is a win for the Government, and in a difficult and complex case such as this, the Government won. The prosecutors and agents who worked this case should be congratulated for pressing ahead against tough odds and for incorporating some innovative and progressive prosecution techniques in the process. Unfortunately, there will surely be criticism for those who only did a hard job under difficult circumstances.

Another recent topic of interest are separate but equally disturbing revelations that large numbers of false or fraudulently obtained foreign passports have surfaced in the hands of Middle East persons who should not have them. Iraqi embassy officials in Stockholm announced they discovered they “issued” some 25,000 Iraqi passports over the past couple of years to persons based on false information, and those persons are believed not to be Iraqi citizens but likely citizens of Syria, Iran, Turkey and Lebanon. In the other case, Pakistani authorities have arrested some 500 people recently traveling on bogus Pakistani passports after they were deported from Saudi Arabia during the Hajj. The deported persons are believed to be Afghani.

These incidents are demonstrative of the widespread nature of the false identity document trafficking in the Middle East. It also demonstrates the apparent pervasive lack of security controls over even legitimate passport issuance at some foreign embassies. Of course, none of this should be surprising. If “ordinary” asylum seekers and Hajj visitors can readily obtain false passports for whatever routine purposes they may have, how difficult can it be for terrorist organizations to obtain high quality and even genuine but fraudulently procured travel documents for their operatives?

This is exactly why the US visa issuance process is so critically important. It provides for a layer of security screening outside the United States at US embassies and consular offices before a foreign national is able to set foot inside the United States or even board an airliner headed in our direction. The Visa Waiver Program, that our Administration is considering expanding, eliminates that layer of security protection.