Papers, Please!

The Identity Project

Category Archives: Secret Law

May 10 2012

Is the problem with the TSA the leader? Or the concept?

Rep. Paul Broun, MD, a Georgia Republican member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has called for the resignation of the Administrator of  the TSA, John Pistole.

We agree with Rep. Broun that “The time has come for serious action to be taken” with respect to the TSA, that “drastic change” is required, and that, “The time for that change is now.” And we agree that those at the top as well as the bottom of the bureaucratic hierarchy need to be held accountable.

Most of all, we’re pleased to see Rep. Broun put civil liberties first in his letter to TSA Administrator Pistole requesting his immediate resignation:

Americans can no longer tolerate the flagrant violations of their civil rights which are occurring at airports nationwide in the name of “security.”

Pistole’s resignation, now or later, would accomplish nothing unless Senators ask more serious questions (we have a few suggestions) before confirming a new TSA Administrator.

As long as the TSA is allowed to wield power over the people (and our exercise of our right to travel)) through secret, extra-judicial administrative fiat, airports and other transportation facilities will remain the domestic counterpart of Guantanamo: law-free zones in which even the most friendly-faced and “respectful” leadership can do little to change the essential illegality of the agency’s operations.

More is required, we think, than another turn of the revolving door on the office of the TSA Administrator.  If the TSA is retained, it needs to be brought within the rule of law.  We have some specific suggestions for interim reform of the TSA’s policies and practices, not just its personalities. But fundamentally, we agree with participants in the White House’s own public poll, whose first choice of requested actions for the President was to abolish the TSA entirely.

May 08 2012

US retaliates against tortured “no-fly” exile with trumped-up criminal charges

For two years, FBI agents tried to recruit Yonas Fikre — a US citizen who came to the US with his family as refugees when he was 12 years old — to infiltrate and inform on members of the congregation of a mosque he attended in Portland, Oregon, as part of an FBI entrapment “sting”.

When Fikre declined to become an FBI snitch or “agent provacateur”, the FBI had him put on the US “no-fly” list while he was overseas, and told him he would only be taken off the list so he could return to the US if he “cooperated” with their investigation of his fellow worshipers. Fikre again said, “No.”

Then the US government tightened the screws on Fikre, more or less literally, by having its “friends” in the dictatorial monarchist government of the United Arab Emirates arrest Fikre, who was in the UAE on business, torture him, and again tell him that the only escape from his predicament was to cooperate with the FBI.  Eeven under torture, Fikre stkill said, “No.”

Eventually Fikre’s torturers in the UAE gave up, released him from prison, and kicked him out of their country.  We can only assume that they decided he was innocent, or at least knew nothing incriminating about anyone to reveal, and wasn’t going to talk to the FBI no matter what they did.

Unable to return to the US because he was still on the “no-fly” list, Fikre then went to Sweden, where he has relatives (refugees who went to Sweden when his immediate family went to the US).

Throughout all this, Fikre was never charged with any crime in any country, as we presume would have happened if the FBI had evidence of any crime to use as leverage in their recruiting of Fikre as an informer.

Now Fikre has been indicted in the US, less than three weeks after he went public with his story of exile by, and torture at the behest of, the government of his own country, and announced that he has sought asylum in Sweden in order to remain there, since he can’t come back to the US.

“Frankly, I think it’s retaliation and retribution,”  one of Fikre’s US attorneys is quoted as saying. Another of his lawyers calls the charges retaliation and “specious”. From everything we’ve seen about the case, we agree.

Fikre is charged with the pettiest of purely procedural violations of Federal law. Allegedly, when he transferred money from the US to Dubai to fund a business he was starting there, he had the money sent in smaller increments rather than all at once, in order to keep each of the amounts below the $10,000 threshold above which he would had to report them to the US government.

For having “structured” his legal personal business so as to avoid having to inform on himself to the Feds who he knew already wanted him to inform on his associates, Fikre has now been indicted for the Federal crime of “structuring”.

Fikre’s brother and another alleged associate, but not Fikre, were also indicted for alleged violations of tax laws.

Fikre’s business was legal. Fikre paid his taxes. The money transfers were themselves legal, and each of them was small enough that Fikre wasn’t required to report them individually. If Fikre had filed an aggregate report on the total of the transfers, everything he did would have been legal.

Fikre had good reasons to fear additional interrogation or worse retaliation if he told the Feds any more about his affairs. If he was “structuring” his finances to avoid self-surveillance requirements, he was also structuring them to try (unsuccessfully, it turns out) to avoid exposing himself to further persecution by the US government. Should this be a crime?

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Fikre’s real “crime” is exposing US torture and exile of its own citizens, and embarrassing the US by seeking asylum abroad. Not that he had much choice about seeking asylum somewhere, since he couldn’t come back to the US, or live and work anywhere else indefinitely as a tourist or temporary visitor.

It remains to be seen whether the US will seek to have Fikre arrested and extradited from Sweden, or will merely hold the threat of criminal prosecution over him for life (the clock stops on the statute of limitations while you are out of the country) if he ever manages to return to the US or visits another country sufficiently “friendly” to the US government to arrest him.

Shame on  the US, and best wishes to Mr. Fikre for success in his application for asylum in Sweden.

Apr 27 2012

US citizen exiled to torture by “no-fly” list seeks asylum in Sweden

A US citizen who was imprisoned and tortured for three months by the US government’s “allies” in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and who can’t come home even after being released from the UAE because the US government has put him on its “no-fly” list and forbidden any airline from transporting him to the US, has requested political asylum in Sweden.

Yonas Fikre came to the US with his family in 1991, when he was 12 years old, as a refugee from Eritrea, and later was naturalized as a US citizen.

In April 2010, while Fikre was abroad on business and visiting family, FBI agents contacted him to try to recruit him as an informer and agent provacateur in an FBI entrapment “sting” directed at members of a mosque Fikri had attended in Portland, Oregon. Fikre declined to become a snitch and infiltrator for the Feds, but the FBI followed up with implicitly threatening email messages that, “[T]he choice is yours to make. The time to help yourself is now.”

In June 2011, he was arrested in Abu Dhabi by plainclothes UAE police, who held him for three months in a secret prison in Dubai while torturing him, interrogating him about members of the Portland mosque, and telling him that he had been put on the US no-fly list and that he would never be released from their custody and torture or allowed to return to the US unless he “cooperated” with the FBI.

Eventually, he was released from detention and allowed to leave the UAE in September 2011 , but told the US still wouldn’t let him go home.  He’s been living in Sweden, where he has other relatives, since then, and has now applied for political asylum on the grounds that he has been effectively exiled from the US by being placed on the US no-fly list (in violation of his human rights under Article 12 of the ICCPR, to which the US and Sweden are both parties) and that his detention and torture in the UAE, presumably at the behest of the US government and/or its agents, gives him reasonable grounds to fear further mistreatment even if he were allowed to return to the US.

This isn’t the first time that the US government has used the no-fly list against US citizens as an as an instrument of exile. Here are just a few of the incidents, among others, that have previously made the news:

It isn’t just US citizens who have been denied their right to return home by the US no-fly list. As recently noted by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the US no-fly list is used by US-flag airlines on flights elsewhere in the world, and is shared with at least 22 foreign governments. Some of the foreigners prevented from returning home, or from traveling to countries other than the US, as  a result of US no-fly orders or “no-board recommendations” from US “advisors” stationed at foreign airports, include:

  • Dawood Hepplewhite: UK citizen stranded in Canada and denied boarding on a flight home to the UK in February 2011.
  • Mohammed Khan: Canadian citizen stranded in Germany and denied boarding on a flight home to Canada in March 2011.
  • Moazzam Begg: UK citizen and former Guantanamo prisoner never charged with any crime in the US, UK, or any other country; denied boarding on a flight to Canada for public speaking engagements in May 2011.
Apr 26 2012

No-fly case goes forward against Feds, while SFO pays through the nose for false arrest of traveler

We’ve noted previously that, as the DHS increasingly relies on state and local law enforcement officers and private contractors to carry out its extrajudicial “no-fly”, search, and surveillance orders, those individuals and their employers face a growing risk of liability for their actions against travelers.

Case in point: Ibrahim v. DHS et al.

We’ve reported previously on some of the earlier stages in this case, originally filed in 2005 by a Malaysian architect, then a doctoral candidate at Stanford University and today (having received her Ph.D. from Stanford in absentia) a professor and Dean of the Faculty of Design and Architecture at UPM in Malaysia.  When she tried to check in at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) for a flight back to Malaysia to give a presentation about her Stanford research, she was arrested by SFO airport police (a branch of the San Francisco police force) on the direction of a private contractor who answered the phone at the TSA’s Transportation Security Operations Center (since renamed — we are not making this up — the “Freedom Center”).  She was told she was on the “no-fly” list, but was allowed to fly home to Malaysia the next day, after which her US student visa was revoked.

Through her lawyers in the US, Ibrahim sued the various Federal agencies involved in no-fly decisions; their individual officials, employees, and contractors; and the San Francisco city and county, airport, police department, and individual police officers, for violations of her 1st and 5th Amendment rights.

The case has a had a tortured procedural history. After seven years, there has been no discovery, fact-finding, or rulings on any of the substantive issues. The case has, however, survived a series of District Court rulings and two appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, first in 2008 on which, if any, Federal court (district or circuit, in San Francisco or DC) had jurisdiction to hear the case, and then in February 2012 on whether Dr. Ibrahim had standing, as a non-US citizen now residing (involuntarily) outside the US, to bring her Constitutional claims in US courts.

The latest ruling by the 9th Circuit in Ibrahim v. DHS, which allows the case against the government and its agents to go forward, is significant for its rejection of several of the Federal government’s key arguments against judicial review of no-fly decisions:

Read More →

Apr 25 2012

European Parliament approves PNR agreement with the US. What’s next?

[MEPs picket outside the plenary chamber to ask their colleagues to say “No” to the PNR agreement with the US. (Photo by greensefa, some rights reserved under Creative Commons license, CC BY 2.0)”]

Last week — despite the demonstration shown above (more photos here) by Members of the European Parliament as their colleagues entered the plenary chamber for the vote — the European Parliament acquiesced, reluctantly, to an agreement with the US Department of Homeland Security to allow airlines that do business in the EU to give the DHS access to PNR (Passenger Name Record) data contained in their customers’ reservations for flights to or from the USA. (See our FAQ: Transfers of PNR Data from the European Union to the USA.)

The vote is a setback for civil liberties and the the fundamental right to freedom of movement, in both the US and Europe.

But the vote in the European Parliament is neither the definitive authorization for travel surveillance and control, nor the full grant of retroactive immunity for travel companies that have been violating EU data protection rules, that the DHS and its European allies had hoped for.

Many MEPs voted for the agreement only reluctantly, in the belief (mistaken, we believe), that it was “better than nothing” and represented an attempt to bring the illegal US surveillance of European travelers under some semblance of legal control.

Whatever MEPs intended, the vote in Strasbourg will not put an end to challenges to government access to airline reservations and other travel records, whether in European courts, European legislatures, or — most importantly — through public defiance, noncooperation, and other protests and direct action.

By its own explicit terms, and because it is not a treaty and is not enforceable in US courts, the “executive agreement” on access to PNR data provides no protection for travelers’ rights.

The intent of the US government in negotiating and lobbying for approval of the agreement was not to protect travelers or prevent terrorism, but to provide legal immunity for airlines and other travel companies — both US and European — that have been violating EU laws by transferring PNR data from the EU to countries like the US.  The DHS made this explicit in testimony to Congress in October 2011:

To protect U.S. industry partners from unreasonable lawsuits, as well as to reassure our allies, DHS has entered into these negotiations.

But because of the nature of the PNR data ecosystem and the pathways by which the DHS (and other government agencies and third parties outside the EU) can obtain access to PNR data, the agreement does not provide travel companies with the full immunity they had sought.

Most of the the routine practices of airlines and travel companies in handling PNR data collected in the EU remain in violation of EU data protection law and subject to enforcement action by EU data protection authorities and private lawsuits by travelers against airlines, travel agencies, tour operators, and CRS companies in European courts.

Why is that?

Read More →

Feb 06 2012

Yet another US citizen denied their right of return

In the latest variation on what has become a depressingly-familiar theme, US citizen Jamal Tarhuni was denied boarding on a flight home to the USA last month, apparently because while he was abroad the US government put him on the list of those people it has secretly ordered airlines not to transport.

Mr. Tarhuni had been working in Libya for a nonprofit relief agency.  He is now trapped in Tunisia, separated from his home and family in the USA, as he discusses in this Skype video interview.

My Tarhuni’s de facto banishment from the USA is especially disturbing in light of reports that before being naturalized as a US citizen he was granted asylum in the USA in the ’70s. While conditions may  have changed, a grant of asylum means that Mr. Tarhuni has already established, to the satisfaction of US authorities, that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were forced to return to the country of his original citizenship. That makes it, we think, especially critical that the US allow him to return home before his permission to remain in Tunisia expires and he risks being deported to some other country of non-refuge.

It’s one more case for the UN Human Rights Committee to ask questions about when it conducts its next review of US (non)compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

[Update: Jamal Tarhuni is not alone. MSNBC reports that another US citizen, Mustafa Elogbi, is also trapped in Libya after being denied passage on a connecting flight from London to the US, and returned to Libya, where his flights has originated (not the country of his citizenship, the USA) after being detained and interrogated in London.  “Elogbi and Tarhuni have booked new tickets and are scheduled to board a flight back to the United States on Feb. 13, arriving in Portland on Feb. 14. Their Portland attorney Tom Nelson is traveling to the region so he can accompany them on the flight. The two men do not know whether they are included on the U.S. government’s secret no-fly list. As per government security policy, the FBI will not confirm or deny it. … Thus they do not know if they will be prevented from boarding in Tunis, or in Paris or Amsterdam, where they change planes.”]

Jan 27 2012

Retroactive Privacy Act exemptions could cost a US citizen his life

In his ruling this week in Hasbrouck v. CBP, Judge Seeborg of the US. District Court for the Northern District of California suggested that US citizens have no “rights” that would be prejudiced by applying newly-issued Privacy Act exemption rules to previously-made requests for government records.

But a parallel case currently before the U.S. District Court in DC shows how retroactive application of Privacy Act exemptions can be a potentially life-or-death issue.

Sharif Mobley is a native-born U.S. citizen who was living in Yemen with his wife (also a US citizen) and their two infant children when he was shot and seized by agents of the Yemeni government in January 2010, and taken to a Yemeni hospital in police custody.  He’s been in a Yemeni prison ever since, and needs US government records to defend himself against capital charges.

Read More →

Jan 12 2012

What’s it like to be labeled an “armed and dangerous terrorist”?

We’ve written before about the case of Julia Shearson, a US citizen who was detained in handcuffs at gunpoint, and separated from her four-year-old daughter, when she tried to re-enter the US by land after a weekend holiday in Canada.

The DHS has admitted that they had improperly flagged her as a “suspected terrorist” on the terrorist watch list and in the (illegal) travel records system that later came to be known as the Automated Targeting System, but to this day — despite her ongoing Privacy act and FOIA lawsuit — Ms. Shearson doesn’t know why.

We urge anyone who wants to know what it’s like to be caught up in the post-9/11 dragnet to listen to this talk given by Ms. Shearson at an event last month in San Francisco, and this video also shown at that event.

Jan 03 2012

The EU-US PNR Agreement — A Legal Analysis of Its Failures

[The following complete article (27 pages) or a summary of the key points (3 pages) can be downloaded in PDF format. Additional analyses and critiques of the proposed EU-US PNR agreement have been published by, among others, the Identity Project, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a coalition of US and EU NGOs.]

FROM THE DESK OF BARRY STEINHARDT

Chair, Friends of Privacy USA
Bsteinhardt@friendsofprivacy.us
December 26, 2011

Introduction

The proposed agreement regarding Passenger Name Records (PNR) between the United States and the European Union is riddled with faulty assertions and assumptions about US law and the actual operations of the US Government.

These faulty assertions and assumptions go to the heart of the agreement and undercut the claims of protections for European travelers.

As an American lawyer with substantial experience on the PNR and related issues, I want to set the record straight for the European officials who must act on the proposed agreement.

This memo highlights the most serious of those faulty claims and assumptions.

In summary:

  1. The Agreement does not apply to the agency – the Terrorist Screening Center – which actually decides which travelers will be subject to the No Fly rules.
  2. The US Laws cited in the agreement as offering protections to European travelers actually provide very little benefit or are completely irrelevant to the international transfer of PNR data;
  3. Europeans cannot, as the agreement suggests, obtain independent and adequate relief from unlawful actions by the US Executive Branch (USG) by appealing those decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA).There are virtually insurmountable substantive and procedural hurdles to the use of the APA in “appealing” decisions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).Of greatest importance, most of the relevant actions taken pursuant to the agreement will not qualify as a “Final Order” that can be appealed under the APA;
  4. Beyond that the APA is of little use to travelers who want to challenge the centrally important actions taken by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) of the Department of Justice (DOJ).The Agreement is focused on the TSA’s screening of air passengers. It gives short shrift to and offers very little protection from the Automated Targeting System (ATS) operated by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which is a wholly separate branch of DHS.It is CBP – not the TSA – that use the ATS to decide how Europeans will be treated when they enter exit the US;
  5. There are substantial uncertainties about which, if any, court would be empowered to hear an “appeal” and which agencies would need to be sued. Complex jurisdictional rules regarding APA appeals and transportation security issues throw air passengers into a procedural thicket from which they may never escape;
  6. The DHS Chief Privacy Officer has neither the independence nor the authority claimed in the Agreement. Nor does the CPO of the Justice Department whose jurisdiction includes the TSC, and;
  7. The Agreement does not cover the USG’s uses of private commercial data e.g. data obtained from the Computer Reservation Services (CRS) and the USG has wide power under the Patriot Act and related law to obtain data them.

Read More →

Dec 07 2011

Civil liberties principles for border policy

In anticipation of the announcement today of new, secretly-negotiated plans for a “North American Security Perimeter” agreement between the US and Canada, Privacy International, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and a coalition of other Canadian organizations have released a joint statement of the core civil liberties and human rights principles that ought to apply to any such agreement.

We strongly endorse this statement, and commend it to the attention not just of Canadian and US politicians, activists, and public citizens but also to people in Europe and elsewhere concerned with US efforts to internationalize and globalize the Homeland Security state and “War on Terror”. (It’s clear, for example, that the proposed European Union-US agreement on DHS access to PNR data, and current procedures for “no-fly” decisions related to flights to and from the EU, would not meet these criteria.)

In contrast to previous commentary on the surveillance and control of cross-border travel as solely a “privacy” issue, the core legal principles in the PI/ACLU/CCLA statement include both the substantive right to freedom of movement as protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 12) and the U.S. Constitution, and the procedural right to due process not just in how travel data is handled (“data protection”) but with respect to any decision impinging on the right to travel or imposing other ill effects.

Those interested in civil liberties and privacy protection in the particular context of USA-Canada cross-border travel should also see the Canadian Privacy Commissioner’s audit report on Privacy and Aviation Security: An Examination of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (November 7, 2011) and statement regarding Fundamental Privacy Rights within a Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness (July 7, 2011).