A first-hand account of the New Orleans devastation from leading human rights attorney
Loyola University law professor Bill Quigley, best known for his work with Haitian pro-democracy activist Father Jean-Juste, spent some time speaking to Raw Story’s Jennifer Van Bergen about his experience inside New Orleans’s ground zero.
When the category-four Hurricane Katrina made landfall early last week, Bill Quigley was volunteering at Memorial Hospital, at the heart of what would be later described as the worst-hit area. His wife Debbie, a medical doctor at Memorial, was on duty that night.
Speaking to RAW STORY, a shaken Quigley attempted to reconstruct what occurred after the power and communication lines went down. The hospital, he says, became intolerably hot.
“The conditions were abysmal,” Quigley said. “Worse than abysmal. The toilets were full. There was no running water, no electricity, and we were running out of drinking water. There was no food. And it was hotter than hell.”
The power went out early Monday. The sickest patients, roughly seventy or so, were evacuated by helicopter Sunday. Not until Wednesday morning did more helicopters appear. Quigley and other volunteers tried to get the attention of the numerous helicopters they could see hovering over the city. The sickest patients were brought up eight flights of stairs in sheet slings to the roof. Some patients were kept on the roof as long as 24 hours.
“We were standing there waving a sheet to get their attention,” he said.
Quigley says they saw helicopters from the Red Cross, the National Guard, the Coast Guard and the Army. One Army helicopter, which the volunteers on the roof managed to “flag down” wouldn’t land and refused to take anyone, even those remaining critically ill patients, because “they were full with rescue workers and could only pick up individuals one at a time off of roofs, which they stated they had been doing all day.”
Instead, Quigley says the Army helicopter dropped some food supplies that turned out to be just three or four boxes with tin cans of Vienna sausages.
These were not enough to feed the patients, let alone the staff or volunteers. Food and water supplies were dwindling.
After that the helicopters never returned to Memorial Hospital.
“We couldn’t figure out why they didn’t come back,” Bill said.
Tulane University Hospital had been evacuated, Quigley heard, but those at Memorial “were left to die or get out as best they could.”
At least ten patients died while awaiting rescue workers. Many died because their life-sustaining medical treatment required electricity.
“These were patients with oxygen tanks, on ventilators, and with IVs,” he explained.
“The nurses were heroic, the doctors did terrific work, and the administration, well, they didn’t know what to do,” Bill recounted, because “they were relying on information that didn’t come.”
One road to another
As the hours and days wore on and no help came, floodwaters continued to rise. Medication and supplies ran out. Quigley says he saw no National Guard, local or state police or security forces of any kind.
Around midday on Thursday, air boats operated by private volunteers began arriving and taking four or five persons at a time. The remaining hospital patients and staff – approximately 2000 people -- were evacuated by citizen volunteers.
“They made a LOT of trips, those boats,” he said.
The volunteers, however, could take the victims only so far because the water became too shallow for the boats. The hospital staff, along with volunteers, walked through the muddy water to the corner of Napoleon and St. Charles.
Quigley describes the shocking spectacle hundreds of mostly black survivors, gathered at this location, awaiting their next hope. A constant stream of people kept arriving, as though “up out of nowhere.” He describes an elderly man with a satchel and cane, and a man with a nine-day-old baby. People were milling about, having lost everything, in the rain, wet, cold, hungry and thirsty.
An old lawn company truck “maybe thirty years old with wooden slats,” pulled up and allowed roughly 100 people to board. The truck was an open flatbed, and it was still pouring rain. Quigley sat beside a pregnant woman who had only thirty dollars and a bottle of antibiotics with her. She said she had been turned away from the Superdome twice.
“It was a scary ride,” he remarked. “We had to duck trees and power lines.”
When they got to the drop point, Bill said, “everyone gasped” because it was just an underpass at Interstate 10, where thousands of people were already waiting for buses. “It was pouring rain; there was mud, no portalets.”
The only security there were eight police officers who were “shell shocked” themselves, according to Bill, and did little to organize people, so that when a bus did arrive, “people surged.”
“It was survival of the fittest,” said Quigley, “people were really agitated. It was horrifying. People were shouting and pushing. My heart was breaking all along because of the lack of organization. There were resources, but they were not used well.”
Finally, Bill and his wife decided to give up trying to get on a bus, hoping instead to volunteer to help those in need of medical attention or simply just start walking toward Baton Rouge. They noticed several people with stethoscopes around their necks who turned out to be nurses, one of whom was about to drive to Lafayette, which happened to be near where Bill’s wife’s family resides.
Thus, the Quigleys managed to escape New Orleans Thursday night. They were among the last to be evacuated from Memorial Hospital, but there were thousands left behind at the drop point, waiting to be transported … somewhere. By the time the Quigley’s got out of New Orleans, Bill says the city had become a “Third World mass unit.”
Questions, questions and no answers
Bill, tired and still dazed, wonders what happened.
“Why were the Red Cross, Coast Guard, National Guard and Army helicopters there one day and gone the next?” he opined. “Who changed priorities?”
He estimates that there were a quarter million people still in the city through Wednesday. By Thursday, he estimated “50,000, or maybe double that.” People from the poor neighborhoods didn’t want to go to the Superdome. They tried to stay home because, Bill said, they knew the Superdome was “dangerous and nasty.”
Bill says that now, up in the Lafayette area; there are 15 police officers at each shelter. “They all talk about the looting, but 99 percent of the people weren’t looting.”
He asserted that there had been no plan for evacuation. “
The plan was self-evacuation," he quipped. "A very small percentage stayed by choice but most had no choice.”
He’s heard that people showing up with boats were turned away. He knows there were supplies, he saw the helicopters carrying them, but he doesn’t know why the supplies were not provided to those who needed them. He says that “everybody was systematically stripped of their possessions.” He left the hospital with one quarter of what he had brought with him and people were told they couldn’t bring stuff with them. He says “I just feel fortunate to be alive.”
When RAW STORY first spoke to him earlier in the day, he said he was “decompressing and disoriented.”
“I can’t watch television,” he said.
Traumatized, Bill nonetheless wanted to underscore that he felt that what has transpired so far, “getting out -- is not even the first quarter of the game.”
“There are hundreds of thousands of people without homes, without jobs, and without any way to connect," he remarked. "There are people just GONE.”
He says the image he gets in his mind is of a glass paperweight and a 50 pound mallet that just smashed it. “How do you fix this?”
If there is any silver lining, Bill, ever-hopeful, ever-socially conscious, says, it is that there is nobody to bomb in response.
“There is no enemy to blame,” he says. New Orleans was one of the poorest cities, but it is not the only one. “Maybe now,” he hopes, “there can be a renewed national commitment to rebuilding the cities.”
“The conditions were abysmal,” Quigley said. “Worse than abysmal. The toilets were full. There was no running water, no electricity, and we were running out of drinking water. There was no food. And it was hotter than hell.”
Investigation finds Red Cross agreed to withhold Orleans aid, operates in tandem with Homeland Security
Jennifer Van Bergen
Top Red Cross official Bush appointee, donor
New information surrounding relief efforts by the American Red Cross in New Orleans raises questions about whether the organization provided adequate relief and whether funds are actually being directed to Katrina victims, RAW STORY has found.
Previous investigations have shown that the Red Cross mishandled its 9/11 fund, attempting to divert more than half into a "war fund" before Congress intervened, and moved $20 million from a fund in 1989 for earthquake victims towards other uses. Allegations of similar holdbacks following the Oklahoma City bombing and several later disasters, coupled with the discovery that the Red Cross, mandated by its Code of Conduct to remain independent of government, is officially part of the Bush Administration's national security apparatus, led RAW STORY to dig deeply into the Red Cross and its recent disaster relief efforts.
Why did the Red Cross not enter New Orleans?
While many were outraged that the Red Cross failed to enter New Orleans, unsafe conditions and reports of shootings and lootings may have informed the decision. The Red Cross is not chartered to conduct search and rescue operations.
We "will not put [our] own workers in harm's way," Red Cross spokesperson Renita Hosler told RAW STORY.
Hosler explained that the Red Cross was "at the table" with "Emergency Management" numerous times while conditions deteriorated in New Orleans and that a decision was reached that if the group set up shop within the city, it might encourage others to come back, creating a secondary crisis.
Hosler confirmed that authorities turned down repeated offers by the Red Cross to enter New Orleans with supplies. New Orleans, she asserted, was considered too unsafe for the Red Cross to enter.
The Emergency Management Team, Hosler says, was comprised of city, state, and federal officials.
The Associated Press reported Sept. 8 that Col. Jay Mayeaux, deputy director of the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security asked the Red Cross not to enter the city at least for the first 24 hours after the storm in order to have to time to "set up a feeding station to feed a large number of people." By Saturday, there was a large-scale evacuation under way.
New Orleans artist Daniel Finnigan told RAW STORY there were helicopters everywhere, mostly military.
"That's what confused us," Finnigan said, "there was such a huge presence of military in the air but nothing on the ground."
Amid reports that thousands were trapped in the Superdome and the Convention Center, the Red Cross did not distribute or drop supplies to either location. The group's explanation that its presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city mirrors a National Guard decision not to drop food supplies, saying they did not want to spark riots.
The Red Cross is still not distributing supplies in the city.
Hosler says that although the city is now fully occupied by the National Guard, the Red Cross remains outside the city and is not distributing supplies, largely because of the decision to forcibly evacuate those who remain.
Some residents have been forced to travel at least 17 miles for water.
"Goods that the government personnel are bringing in are for their own forces," one eyewitness report states. "They are not distributing provisions to people who desperately need them… Thousands of troops are in New Orleans but water is premium and still not available."
New Orleans resident and construction worker Mark Klar confirmed this account.
Klar managed to stay in his Garden District home in until Sept. 7, when he was handcuffed and forcibly removed by police. Klar's home is above flooded areas and he was able to gather water and distribute to those in need, in the absence of relief from officials.
Humanitarian imperatives first?
The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement declares that humanitarian imperatives come first, that "the prime motivation of our response to disaster is to alleviate human suffering" and that "the need for unimpeded access to affected populations is of fundamental importance in exercising that responsibility."
The Red Cross was incorporated by Congressional Charter in 1905 in order to "provide volunteer aid in time of war to the sick and wounded of the armed forces" in accordance with the spirit and conditions of various treaties, among which were the Geneva Conventions.
Unknown to most Red Cross donors, Congress incorporated the Red Cross to act "under government supervision" and eight of the fifty members of the Board Governors are to be appointed by the President, seven of whom are federal officials.
Though not a government agency, the Red Cross may purchase supplies from the armed forces and use government buildings for its offices and storage. Its employees may in some cases be provided meals and housing while serving with the Army. Commissioned officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force may be detailed for duty with the Red Cross.
While courts have considered the Red Cross a "government instrumentality" immune from state taxation, they have not viewed it as such for purposes of religious discrimination or Freedom of Information Act claims. In other words, the Red Cross obtains the tax benefits of being a "government instrumentality," but is exempt from the obligations that government carries.
One federal court noted that, "Close cooperation with government is essential to the work of the Red Cross. A perception that the organization is independent and neutral is equally vital."
The Supreme Court has found that "time and time again, both the President and the Congress have recognized and acted in reliance upon the Red Cross' status virtually as an arm of the Government."
Questionable affiliations
In recent years, affiliations between the Red Cross and federal agencies have grown. Prior to 9/11, the Red Cross was a key organization in what is known as the Federal Response Plan, enacted in 2000.
The Federal Response Plan could only be triggered by a request for support by a governor and a declaration of emergency by the President. In providing relief and assistance under the Act, the President was given authorization to utilize the personnel and facilities of the Red Cross and to enter into agreements with it to coordinate disaster relief efforts.
In 2002, the Federal Response Plan was superseded by the similarly-named National Response Plan. This Plan was created under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. FEMA and the Red Cross were brought under the Department of Homeland Security.
The Red Cross again became a signatory.
The National Response Plan "establishes multi-agency coordinating structures at the field, regional and headquarters levels" which "execute the responsibilities of the President."
Under the Plan, the Red Cross "provides relief at the local level and also coordinates the mass care element" to include mass care, disaster housing, and human services. It is obligated to timely deliver these resources.
The Red Cross is an active participant and works closely with federal agencies to formulate disaster responses.
Who runs the Red Cross?
The day-to-day activities of the Red Cross are run independently of the government. The Board of Governors is, by the Congressional Charter, the governing body. President Bush has appointed six persons to the Board.
The Red Cross' leading officers are Bonnie McElveen-Hunter, Chair of the Board, and Marsha J. Evans, the President and CEO.
McElveen-Hunter was appointed by Bush in June 2004. Her Red Cross bio says she is the "former U.S. Ambassador to Finland (2001-2003) and the CEO and owner of Pace Communications, Inc., the largest private custom publishing company in the United States. The company's clients include such Fortune 500 companies as United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, AT&T, Carlson Hotels, and Toyota."
McElveen-Hunter donated more than $230,000 to the Republican Party since 2000, RAW STORY has found. Her largest donations were $25,000 to the Republican National Committee in April 2004 and $200,000 in July 2000. In May 2000, she gave $2000 to "Bush for President, Inc."
Marsha J. Evans, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Red Cross, is a Rear Admiral in the Navy and the Director of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., a global investment bank serving the financial needs of corporations, institutions, governments and high-net-worth investors worldwide, according to the corporation's web site. Evans also sits on the boards of the May Department Stores Company and Weight Watchers International and was recently elected to the board of the Huntsman Corporation, a large chemical and plastics manufacturer. She is also a presidential appointee to the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Military Academy.
Evans donated $500 to the Republican National Committee in 2004.
Red Cross mishandling donations?
As of Sept. 11, 2005, the American Red Cross estimated that it had received $578 million in gifts and pledges for the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
During previous disaster relief efforts, however, the Red Cross has withheld funds intended for victims and placed them into a reserve fund for future use, including for what one Red Cross president described as a “war fund."
The Red Cross has repeatedly been cited for poor handling of donations for disaster victims. Some have even referred accused them of "bait-and-switch fund raising."
An investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel after 9/11 revealed that while pledging that 9/11 donations (minus overhead) would all go to victims, the Red Cross held back more than half of the $543 million it had raised.
The Red Cross says they funneled these monies to prepare for terrorist attacks.
"We had planned for a weapon of mass destruction attack," former Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy said, saying funds were diverted to a "Liberty Fund."
"The Liberty Fund is a war fund," Healy added.
During the oversight panel's hearings, Representative Bill Tauzin (R-LA), declared: "What's at issue here is that a special fund was established for these families. It was specially funded for this event, September 11. And it is being closed now because we are told enough money's been raised in it, but we're also told, by the way, we're going to give two-thirds of it away to other Red Cross needs."
The subcommittee asked the Red Cross to provide the exact language of its television and newspapers appeals for donations to determine whether it had intentionally deceived the public. The Red Cross responded by refocusing the Liberty Fund back to meeting the needs of 9/11 relief.
Red Cross holdbacks were also evident after the 1989 earthquake in San Francisco, where it was alleged that the Red Cross turned over to victims only $20 million of the $50 million raised, keeping the difference for future disasters and organizational expansion. According to one researcher, critics also protested holdbacks following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Red River flooding in 1997 and a San Diego fire in 2001.
Red Cross spokesperson Janine Moss says the organization has always had two ways to contribute. People may contribute to a specific relief fund (such as the Katrina Relief Fund) or to a general Disaster Relief Fund.
Moss told RAW STORY that the Red Cross has always had these options but that the 9/11 hearings brought the issue out into the open more. According to Moss, all Katrina-designated donations to the Red Cross will be used only for Katrina victims.
Moss said she was uncertain how funds obtained through supermarkets and other local donation boxes would be used.
This is the first in a six-part series of articles on the USA Patriot Act: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."
This Act, passed in response to the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on our country, was passed hastily and in a time of fear. It affects all of us in some very basic and important ways.
Part I of this series states briefly why we should demand the immediate repeal or amendment of the USA Patriot Act.
Part II walks the reader back in time to look at two acts, which were also passed hastily and in a time of fear. The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798 parallel the USA Patriot Act in many respects, and offer some important warnings.
Part III discusses the recent emergence of troubling evidence of violations of civil rights under the USA Patriot Act, and looks at the disturbing possibility of torture being used.
Parts IV and V look at specific sections of the Act. Part IV covers how the Act mixes criminal law and foreign intelligence work, puts the CIA back in the business of spying on Americans, allows law enforcement to enter your home without you knowing it, and can track your emails and internet activity. Part V will discuss how the Act punishes some people for engaging in innocent First Amendment associational activity, violates other civil rights of immigrants, uses secret evidence, curbs judicial oversight, and invades financial and student records.
Part VI discusses national security concerns, sums up, and closes with a potent exhortation to Americans, made over 200 years ago by Senator Edward Livingston.
Part I: This Law is Dangerous
The USA Patriot Act is an insult to Americans. The name, itself, is insulting, given what the Act contains and what it will someday be known for: its complete abdication of democratic law and principles. It should be called the Constitution Shredding Act.
In particular, it utterly relinquishes any semblance of due process, violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, and unacceptably mixes aspects of criminal investigations with aspects of immigration and foreign intelligence laws.
Let me state it even more bluntly. This law is dangerous. It's a travesty.
What is worse is that few Americans have the slightest idea what this law contains or what it means.
Why is this? Because, the USA Patriot Act has several clever catches in it that have enabled it to slip by the awareness of the average law-abiding citizen. First, it relates mostly to foreign nationals. (So it can?t affect U.S. citizens, right? Wrong.) Second, it deals with terrorism. (And we?re not terrorists, are we? Don?t be so sure.)
If you think this law applies only to the bad guys who attacked our nation, think again. Many provisions in this law apply to and will affect Americans, in many, bad ways.
What is more frightening about it is that, despite the fact that the USA Patriot Act was passed hastily without any debate or hearings and under a cloak of fear, its provisions were obviously very carefully thought out and crafted to take power out of the hands of courts and ensure absolute lack of oversight of law enforcement and intelligence gathering.
There is no way that the USA Patriot Act came into existence solely in response to September 11th. In fact, it is clear from prior legislative and case history that law enforcement and intelligence have been trying for many years to obtain these powers. It is only the unreasoning "bunker mentality" that followed September 11th that allowed its planners to pass it.
Indeed, one might question whether Congress could sincerely have intended this Act, given that portions of it are re-enactments of the 1996 anti-terrorism laws which had been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. One must wonder whether congress- persons were in their right minds. If they were not, this law cannot be valid.
Most troubling is that most of these powers do little to increase the ability of law enforcement or intelligence to bring terrorists to justice, but, they do much to undermine the Constitution and violate the rights of both immigrants and American citizens alike.
Another reason why Americans do not yet know what a terrifying weapon has been put in their government?s hand is that the Act is extremely nuanced and amends numerous other laws.
One provision, for example, merely amends the words of an earlier act, which had read "the purpose," to read "a significant purpose." What difference could that tiny change make? It opens the door for the FBI to evade the probable cause warrant requirement in criminal investigations whenever the FBI decides the information might have "a significant purpose" in an intelligence investigation. No court can intervene.
In other words, the legal protection that a court must determine that there is probable cause of criminal activity before a search or seizure can be made is totally discarded here. If the FBI thinks the information might contribute to an investigation, whatever the target?s activity might be, legal or not, the FBI can simply go search and seize. (And under the new "sneak and peek" provisions, they can do so without you ever knowing it.)
Notice also that this clause mixes foreign intelligence gathering with domestic criminal investigation, allowing the FBI to spy on Americans whom no court has determined have done anything wrong.
Finally, this information, under another provision of the Act, can now be shared with the CIA, in violation of its charter, which bars it from engaging in domestic spying.
As the ACLU analysis of this section states, this simple little clause is being used "as an end-run around the Fourth Amendment." It is a "power grab [that] will sweep in Americans" as well as aliens.
It behooves us to take a good, solid look at the USA Patriot Act, so we can tell our representatives what we think of it.
Tomorrow, we will take a walk back in time to look at two acts that were also enacted hastily in a time of fear. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 parallel the USA Patriot Act in several respects and offer some important warnings.
Jennifer Van Bergen holds a law degree from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is an adjunct faculty member at the New School for Social Research in New York, and is a member of the Board of the ACLU Broward County, Florida Chapter.
Jennifer Van Bergen is an Editor and a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t.
The Case of Dr. Rafil Dhafir Victim of the US Invasion of Iraq by Madis Senner & Jennifer Van Bergen www.dissidentvoice.org
February 24, 2006
In 2005, Dr. Rafil Dhafir, an Iraqi-born American citizen, was convicted in Syracuse, New York of 59 felony charges. In addition to charges of mail and wire fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, Medicare fraud, and mishandling charity money, Dhafir was convicted of violating the sanctions against Iraq. Dhafir was sentenced to 22 years in jail.
Dhafir was one of the few, if not the only person, to be criminally charged with breaking the Iraq Sanctions. [1] Normally, a violation of the sanctions results only in a civil fine.
Dhafir’s crime was that he circumvented the sanctions, raising and funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars for humanitarian aid to Iraqis suffering from the U.S. sanctions. While the prosecution claims that he was a common money launderer and defrauder of donors, the sanction violations remain the centerpiece of the charges and were the direct cause of him receiving the maximum sentence. [2]
But it is our opinion that had the U.S. not chosen to invade Iraq, Dr. Dhafir would not have been convicted. Arguably, he might never even have been brought to trial.
The story of the targeting, indictment, trial, and sentencing of Dr. Dhafir in many ways mirrors the story of U.S. aggression against the Iraqis, who suffered for years under the sanctions, and whom, at the time of Dhafir’s arrest, the Administration was planning to invade. The invasion of Iraq mirrors the invasion of the rights of Dr. Dhafir and the Muslim community of which he was a member.
Perfect Candidate
Dhafir was the perfect candidate for government targeting. He was a naturalized American citizen of Iraqi descent that still had family and friends in Iraq. Through his fund-raising efforts to help those suffering in Iraq from the brutality of the Sanctions, he traveled across America and around the globe. This gave him a high profile with connections to Muslims around the world.
Prior to the invasion, the U.S. government began targeting suspected Iraqi intelligence agents in order to rattle potential terrorists and “shake the tree” to see what fell out. It appears now that the targeting of Dhafir was part of that effort. The government was convinced he was terrorist. He was Iraqi, Muslim, had strong Iraqi connections, and operated a charity that moved great amounts of money into Iraq. In fact, according to Ed Menkin, Dhafir’s original defense attorney:
Prosecutors have been asking witnesses whether Dhafir "surreptitiously traveled to Afghanistan," whether he was a longtime mole for Iraqi intelligence, whether he met with a high-ranking al-Qaida official, and whether he'd used the code word "tourism" for terrorism in e-mails. [3]
Recent terrorism indictments of several of Dhafir’s business associates confirm that the government believed he was a terrorist and was trying to find a way to taint his humanitarian work. While a law enforcement official recently noted that there is no known connection between Dhafir and these indictments [4], it is clear from those documents that the government has been mining Dhafir’s business connections deeply for terrorism connections.
Moreover, as former Bush Administration National Security Coordinator Richard Clarke revealed in his book, Against All Enemies, the Bush Administration had a score to settle with Iraq and intended right from the outset to take down Hussein. Bush Sr. had not succeeded in getting Iraq under his heel. The Administration of Bush Jr. took it upon themselves to complete the mission of removing Saddam from power and making Iraq into a Western player, if not an American-owned commodity.
Of course, the government found no evidence Dhafir was a terrorist and brought no terrorism charges against him. But that didn’t stop Ashcroft or Pataki from calling him a terrorist prior to trial [5], from Dhafir being included on a government list of terrorists cited by President Bush [6], or from the prosecution obtaining a maximum sentence based on their assertion that anyone who violated the Iraq Sanctions was inherently a national security threat.
Operation Imminent Horizon
A little over a week after Dr. Dhafir was arrested, ABC News reported that the military had begun an effort code-named “Operation Imminent Horizon.” The declared purpose of this operation was to “disrupt and rattle” potential terrorist operations. This operation was put into play just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The report stated:
The United States is launching a campaign, code-named Imminent Horizon, to disrupt and rattle Iraqi intelligence agents around the world, intelligence sources told ABCNEWS. These are people the United States suspects are trying to engineer terrorist attacks against American interests overseas. [7]
According to the report, Imminent Horizon was implemented both domestically and overseas. The idea was to harass and disrupt the activities of suspected agents.
On the day of Dr. Dhafir’s arrest, Attorney General John Ashcroft noted that the arrest was part of the effort to prevent terrorism prior to the invasion of Iraq:
“As President Bush leads an international coalition to end Saddam Hussein's tyranny and support for terror, the Justice Department will see that individuals within our borders cannot undermine these efforts,” stated Attorney General John Ashcroft. “Those who covertly seek to channel money into Iraq under the guise of charitable work will be caught and prosecuted.” [8]
It is clear that Dhafir’s arrest and the tactics used in the Syracuse Muslim community on the day of his arrest (as we discuss below, over 150 persons were rounded up and interrogated) was part of Operation Imminent Horizon. But while other suspected Iraqi agents were simply asked to leave the country, Dhafir -- who was not ever charged with being a terrorist -- was subjected to much more aggressive treatment. Agents pushed the door in on Mrs. Dhafir, knocking her down, and held a gun to her head while questioning her. Dhafir claimed that eighty-five agents came to his home that day. The government denied this. [9]
Subsequent treatment of Dhafir also reflected a strong bias against him. He was denied bail, one of his attorneys was forbidden to see him, and he was only allowed to see his remaining attorneys in person if he was strip-searched -- a practice that is against his religion.
ABC reported that the Operation Imminent Horizon consisted of rounding up businessman and students and interrogating them: “In law enforcement terms, it's called 'shaking the tree,' -- creating doubts, trying to rattle potential terrorists.”
The interrogation of 150 Muslims in Syracuse on the day of Dhafir’s arrest, many of whom had donated to Dr. Dhafir’s charity, was “shaking the tree.” The FBI came to the homes of Dhafir’s donors in the early morning. Husbands and wives were separated either by not allowing wives to call their husbands who had left for work or by putting them in separate rooms. Agents carried a card with them that had questions on it. But it was the questions asked which were not on the card that was instructive of the FBI’s motive: “How often to do you pray? Do you have family in the Middle East? Do you celebrate Christmas? Etc…” The questions, according to those who were interrogated, clearly focused on their religious leanings and their connections and travels to the Middle East, not on possible criminal activity as it pertained to Dhafir.
The shaking and rattling went even further. One local Muslim indicates that during his interrogation by the FBI, the interrogating agent repeatedly suggested that Dhafir was a Shi’ite, in an apparent attempt to turn the man against the defendant. The agent was trying to get the man to talk by bringing up the Shi'ite/Sunni divide. In Iraq there is a civil/religious conflict going on between the two Muslim factions. The agent was trying to provoke the man into getting angry by implying that Dhafir was a Shi'ite.
Department of Defense Blessing
Another factor linking the Dhafir case to Imminent Horizon was a 2002 DOD memo found by the defense team that encouraged the FBI to keep up its efforts in the Dhafir case. The FBI has always claimed that it had been investigating Dr. Dhafir for four years prior to his arrest, but the DOD memo indicates a connection with the military effort against Iraq.
This suggests that the motivation in prosecuting Dhafir went beyond prosecution for violating the Sanctions or other laws. But the prosecution provided no explanation of the DOD interest and apparently none of the charges relied on intelligence gathered through the DOD. (According to the lead prosecutor, Olmsted, regular wiretaps were used on Dhafir. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) taps -- authorized only for taps of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers -- were not used.)
It seems that, again, Dhafir was the victim of a taint operation by the government. Interestingly, the 2002 memo ties in with the ABC report that planning for “Operation Imminent Horizon” had begun a year before the 2003 invasion of Iraq: “Sources say the CIA, FBI and military intelligence agencies have worked on this operation for more than a year -- a period during which they say evidence has continued to mount that Baghdad intends to strike.”
Smear Dhafir
In Dhafir’s case, instead of using “shock and awe” as it did to scare the Iraqi people into submission, the government resorted to smearing Dhafir as a “terrorist” to frighten the Muslim community into stopping their business and to keep them from coming to Dhafir’s aid.
As noted earlier, numerous officials have called Dhafir a terrorist. Additionally, a report done by former Attorney General Edwin Meese and Paul Rosenzweig for the Heritage Foundation noted that one provision of the PATRIOT Act -- the delayed notice warrant provision -- was used in the Dhafir case. In the same paragraph, the report cites several examples of terrorist cases, thus implying again that Dhafir belonged in the same class. [10]
At the time of Dhafir’s arrest the country was still reeling from 9-11 and preparing for war with Iraq. When the government called Dhafir a “terrorist” it was as if they had shouted fire in a crowded movie theater that had all its exits locked. The media and the local community went into frenzy. This made it difficult for him to get a fair trial.
Will Justice Prevail?
Had the government been more objective and done its job better it would never have considered Dhafir a terrorist or investigated him as an Iraqi intelligence agent under the Operation Imminent Horizon effort.
Dhafir supporters say that he was on Saddam Hussein’s “hit list.” If he were an Iraqi agent working for Saddam, the Iraqi leader would not have issued orders for his assassination. Like many others in Iraq who opposed Saddam’s brutal reign and tried to help his countrymen, Dhafir would have been killed had he gone directly to Iraq with his aid. Dhafir avoided the legal channels in order to avoid the pilfering of the aid by Saddam’s henchman. Dhafir’s supporters say that he never went back home to Iraq because he faced certain death.
Dr. Rafil Dhafir escaped the clutches of Saddam Hussein but not the clutches of an over-zealous and ambitious Bush administration, looking for feathers in its hat.
Popularity for the invasion and occupation of Iraq continues to wane. Politicians appear willing to come up with an exit plan before mid-term elections. But what will the exit plan be for all the casualties of this senseless war? Countless Iraqi’s and USA/coalition forces have been killed and maimed. Their fates etched in stone.
And what of Dr. Dhafir? At 58, he likely will die in prison before his release. Will politicians similarly look to right a wrong and admit that he too was a victim of a senseless war?
To learn more about go to: www.FreeDhafir.org or www.dhafirtrial.net/.
To keep abreast of developments on the Dhafir case, send an email to the following address to subscribe to the Free Dhafir newsletter:
Jennifer Van Bergen is a journalist with a law degree who writes frequently on civil liberties and human rights issues. She is the author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America (2004). Her upcoming book Archetypes for Writers (Michael Wiese Productions) about the characterization program she taught at the New School University, will be out later this year. She can be reached at:
Madis Senner, CPA, is an ex global money manager turned faith-based activist. His causes include supporting Dr. Rafil Dhafir. He can be reached at:
FOOTNOTES
[1] See Madis Senner, “Stop the Crusade.”
[2] See Jennifer Van Bergen, “The Case of Dr. Dhafir.”
[3] John O’Brien, “Iraqi Uniform in Doctor’s Home, Court Papers Say; Dr. Rafil Dhafir’s Lawyer Asks Judge to Step Down, Citing Son’s Military Service.”
[4] Dan Eggen, “Ohio Men Accused of Plot to Kill Troops in Iraq,” (2/22/06).
[5] Re. Ashcroft, see fn.8 below. Re. Pataki, see Michael Powell, “High-Profile N.Y. Suspect Goes on Trial,” (10/19/04). See also, Marnie Eisenstadt, “What's going on with Upstate?”, and Madeleine Baran, “The Terrorism Case that Wasn't” (2/29/04).
[6] Dan Eggen & Julie Tate, “U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges” (6/12/05). The list is available here. See also: Syracuse Post Standard Editorial (6/22/05), “Playing Loose With Terrorism: President should not cite Dhafir case as evidence.”
[7] See “Operation Imminent Horizon.” The ABC News article is no longer available on their web site. It is archived.
[8] Department of Justice, Press Release, 2/26/03, “Indictments Allege Illegal Financial Transfers to Iraq; Visa Fraud Involving Assistance to Groups that Advocate Violence.”
Archives
by Jennifer Van Bergen