When in
Doubt, Kick Out?
FBI
teams track immigrant terrorism suspects at great cost,
yet may not find conclusive evidence. Deportation
emerges as a quick fix.
By
Greg
Krikorian
LA
Times
October 30,
2002
More than a year before the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks, FBI agents were aware that a
Middle Eastern student at a U.S. college was making
anti-American statements and had contacts with militant
groups overseas.
Just hours after the twin towers
fell, the FBI placed the student under around-the-clock
surveillance.
The decision required as many as
eight agents per shift to monitor the man's travels,
from apartment to college, mosque to supermarket.
Another half-dozen agents listened in on his calls.
Other agents filed wiretap reports or handled aerial
surveillance. Two supervisory agents oversaw the
case.
In all, almost 40 agents were needed to
tail one target. "If this had been Manhattan or another
city with a subway, we may have needed even more
people," said an agent who took part in the
surveillance. "I mean, if someone's on foot in New York,
how you gonna follow them in a car?"
After
several months, with resources stretched hopelessly
thin, the FBI agents shifted gears. They ended the
surveillance and worked with the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to simply deport the student on
minor immigration violations.
"I think he was
ready to leave the area ... so we wanted to make sure we
did something," the agent said. Besides, he said, "the
cost was enormous."
Since last September's
attacks, federal authorities have wrestled with a stark
dilemma: Should they watch, or simply deport, scores of
illegal immigrants who may have crossed paths with
terrorists?
"For the FBI, at this moment in time,
there are no good options in a lot of these cases," said
Sacramento Supervisory FBI Agent Frank Scafidi. "A lot
of times it comes down to dollars and cents.... We just
can't afford [surveillance] for as many people as we
suspect might have bad intentions."
Added one
federal prosecutor: "The prevailing sentiment is, 'Just
get them the hell out' " if they have visa or other
immigration violations.
But if anyone deported on
such charges turns out to be a terrorist — or an
accomplice — they may come back to haunt the U.S. by
assuming new identities and reentering the
country.
"Then, you are in some ways in a much
worse position," said the prosecutor, "because now you
don't know where they are."
Since last September,
the INS has deported almost 500 people as a direct
result of the Justice Department investigation into
terrorism. Hundreds more have been forced to leave as a
result of stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. It
is likely that many people caught in the dragnet do not
support terrorism, but the government is taking few
chances.
Nasir Al Mubarak, for example, had lived
illegally in the U.S. for a decade without incident. The
Pakistani-born pilot faced deportation for overstaying
his student visa but was free on bail pending an appeal
on grounds that his marriage made him eligible for
permanent residency.
That all changed on Sept.
11.
Right after the attacks on New York and
Washington, FBI agents questioned the 35-year-old
Sacramento-area resident about his association with
terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad. In 1995, Murad, a
Pakistani, was convicted of conspiring to blow up 12
U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean.
In 1991,
Mubarak acknowledged, he and Murad came to the U.S. to
attend flight schools, and lived together before Murad
left the country. Mubarak said he had long since lost
track of Murad, but after Sept. 11, federal authorities
did not believe him and pressed for his deportation.
Ultimately, Mubarak agreed to leave and returned in
August to Pakistan, a country where he had last lived as
a toddler.
Mubarak's friends and family have
insisted his case is a classic example of guilt by
association. But FBI officials claimed the truth is far
more complicated.
"Look, I went a number of years
in grade school with a guy who became part of the Manson
clan. Does that make me a felon? No," Scafidi said. "But
this guy [Mubarak] was encircled earlier in his life
with a real-life, fire-breathing, ill-meaning
terrorist."
Agent Michael Mason, who heads the
FBI's Sacramento Office, said "there were sufficient
connections that necessitated his removal to another
country."
Truth be told, Mason noted, were
Mubarak not a foreign national, U.S. authorities may not
have been able to take any action against him,
regardless of their suspicions.
"If he were a
U.S. citizen, he might be walking around the
[Sacramento] area today," Mason said. "But ... inasmuch
as his residency in this country was an issue, that just
became another arrow in my quiver to neutralize the
threat."
The decision whether to seek deportation
is rarely an easy one for federal
authorities.
"That," said one FBI
counterterrorism specialist, "is a question we debate
every day."
One Justice Department official, also
speaking on condition of anonymity, said federal
authorities since last September have often detained
acquaintances of terrorists if, for no other reason,
than to buy time for their investigations.
Said
the official: "The general assumption was that it was
better to do something than do nothing."
From
that starting point, the official added, it was not a
great leap to use deportations in cases where
surveillance was too risky and terrorism charges might
not be provable.
'Better There Than
Here'
"If we have some inkling someone might be a
problem, do we really want them running around on our
streets?" the official said. "It seems to me common
sense that you'd say, 'Better there, than here, in our
own house.' "
Often, according to federal
authorities, the single greatest factor in determining
who should be deported is the staggering cost of
surveillance.
Watching a single individual 24
hours a day and monitoring his calls can easily cost
$100,000 a month, said veteran FBI agents. The costs
range from roughly $55 an hour for agents to $150 an
hour for aircraft surveillance to as much as $900 an
hour for electronic surveillance equipment. And, agents
said, those expenses do not include the per diem costs
of at least $150 a day for out-of-town agents who are
sometimes assigned for months if an office does not have
adequate personnel itself.
Though he would not
discuss the cost of such surveillance, Los Angeles FBI
Agent Matt McLaughlin said expenses are clearly a
consideration in determining what to do.
"It's
impossible to keep track of all these people through
surveillance," said McLaughlin, chief spokesman for the
L.A. office. "The resources needed to do that are too
substantial."
Determining how many agents will be
assigned to a surveillance depends on factors including
the target's location and potential awareness that he or
she is being followed.
Authorities must also
assess the individual's potential danger to the
community and ability to elude them. "If someone is
really committed to not being under surveillance, it can
make things really difficult," said Bill Gore, who heads
the FBI's office in San Diego. "And if you really
believe that this person is a threat ... the question
becomes whether you can really afford to lose him. If
not, maybe you just get rid of him" through
deportation.
In many cases, the deportation
proceedings offer only hints of connections to
terrorism.
Acting on an unprecedented request by
the INS, an Immigration Court judge agreed to close all
proceedings — and issue a gag order — on the deportation
case involving Zakaria Soubra, an outspoken Islamic
student from Lebanon.
Soubra is one of eight
people mentioned in a Phoenix FBI agent's memo, written
prior to the East Coast skyjackings, that raised
concerns about alleged Middle East extremists attending
flight schools in Arizona. He was taken into INS custody
in Phoenix on May 23 for violating his immigration
status. His violation? Soubra fell below the minimum of
12 credits per semester required for a student
visa.
Records and interviews show FBI agents were
interested in Soubra's attendance at Embry Riddle
Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz., as well as
his membership in Al Muhajiroun, a hard-line
anti-American group that some intelligence agents
suspect is linked to Osama bin Laden's terrorist
network, Al Qaeda.
Authorities have not alleged
any links between Soubra and September's hijackers. But
investigators long ago established that one of the 19
terrorists, Hani Hanjour, first came to Arizona in the
mid-1990s and trained at local flight
schools.
Affidavits presented by the FBI
requested that Soubra's hearing be closed. INS attorneys
also argued for secrecy in the case, suggesting that
Soubra's case involved issues of national
security.
Ultimately, Soubra was ordered deported
for what normally would be a routine immigration
violation. His attorneys have railed against federal
authorities for publicly invoking the specter of
terrorism against their client without offering either
evidence or a chance for him to clear his
name.
"If these people are being accused of
terrorism, absolutely get them the hell out of the
country," said Soubra's Phoenix attorney Eric Bjotvedt.
"But when they are not being charged with that, I cannot
understand how you can treat them like ...
terrorists."
The same arguments — for and against
deportation — have been advanced in the San Diego case
of Mohdar Mohamed Abdullah.
A former San Diego
State University student, Abdullah, 24, has been ordered
deported back to Yemen after pleading guilty to lying on
immigration forms, claiming he was from
Somalia.
But that offense was overshadowed by the
government's assertions that Abdullah knew three of the
Sept. 11 skyjackers and helped them get driver's
licenses, Social Security cards and information about
student visas to attend flight schools in
Florida.
In successfully blocking a lower bail
for Abdullah in May, federal authorities claimed he
"regularly dined, worked and prayed with the hijackers"
who crashed into the Pentagon. And, authorities said,
they did not believe Abdullah when he denied knowledge
of the attack planned by his "friends" Hani Hanjour,
Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Al-Midhar.
Abdullah's
attorneys rejected the assertions as groundless attempts
to make a routine immigration case appear a matter of
national security. "These are nothing more than
inflammatory statements by the government to demonize my
client," said attorney Randy Hamud, who represented
Abdullah in the deportation proceedings.
Perhaps.
But the case is just one of many that illustrates how
authorities will use deportation when proving terrorism
charges might not be possible.
Said Agent
Scafidi: "It isn't a fair process when you get right
down to it because a lot of people who get caught up in
this might have crossed paths with one of the top 10
dirty people in the world 20 years ago but have no
terrorist leanings themselves. And who's to say whether
they would do anything in the future?
Not
Taking Chances
"But we are not going to take a
chance," Scafidi said. "If you are here and obeying all
of the laws, fine. But if you are here illegally or out
of status or your car is not registered, you are going
to cause a little more scrutiny ... and what we are
doing is of necessity.
"We are being forced to
use every legal and moral and ethical avenue that we
can," he said, "to ensure the safety of our
citizens."
| | | |
