ProPublica: Justice & Law

Afghan Officials Holding Terror Suspect’s Son, a U.S. Citizen

2008-08-26T17:50:00-05:00

by Eric Umansky

The strange case of Aafia Siddiqui continues. As we wrote last week, there are lingering questions about where Siddiqui was in the five years before the suspected al-Qaida sympathizer was apparently arrested last month in Afghanistan. Siddiqui disappeared along with her three children in March 2003. The U.S., who has charged Siddiqui with trying to kill a GI during an escape attempt after her arrest this July, says the American-trained neuroscientist spent those years as a fugitive. Meanwhile, human rights activists wonder whether Siddiqui was detained in a secret prison.

Now there’s a new wrinkle in the case. It's one that's nearly as odd as Siddiqui's lost time, except this time everybody seems to agree on the facts: Afghan security forces are holding Siddiqui's son, an 11 year-old U.S. citizen. The Washington Post reports:

In a letter to [Siddiqui's family]..., federal prosecutors said photos and DNA tests strongly suggest that the youngster in Afghan custody is Siddiqui's son, Ahmed. The boy was detained July 18 when Afghan police arrested Siddiqui in what they described as a shootout near a government compound in Ghazni.

The Post called officials in Afghanistan who confirmed that they're holding the boy. "We kept the boy for 24 hours because we do not have a right to hold him longer than that," an Interior Ministry official told the paper. "We sent him to the National Security Directorate, and I don't know what happened to the boy after that."

According to the Post, "U.S. agents" also spoke with Siddiqui's son, who "initially told them he was an orphan."

The Post doesn't quote any U.S. officials on their reaction to Afghan forces holding an 11-year-old American citizen. We're going to make some calls.

Meanwhile, the CIA again denied that they knew anything about where Siddiqui was in the years before her capture. "Had we known where Ms. Siddiqui was prior to her capture, we would have shared that information with our partners in this country and overseas," a CIA spokesman told the Post. "She was a fugitive from American justice."

Mich. Gov. to Judge Detroit Mayor

2008-08-26T16:32:00-05:00

by Paul Kiel

It's not something you see very frequently. Next Wednesday, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) will hold a hearing on whether Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) should be booted from office.

In a post last week, we ran down the many options available to those wishing to expel the beleaguered mayor, who faces two separate criminal prosecutions. By far the fastest means would be for Granholm, the state's former attorney general, to determine that Kilpatrick had committed official misconduct. The state constitution gives her the power to remove him from office.

Granholm proclaimed in an order this morning that the hearing will focus on questions about an $8.4 million settlement the city paid to two police whistleblowers who had accused Kilpatrick of misconduct. The deal, approved by the mayor, sealed text messages between the mayor and his chief of staff that appeared to show the two had lied at trial about their affair.

The hearing will be broadcast live.

How Do You Boot a Mayor?

2008-08-19T11:36:00-05:00

by Paul Kiel

For seven months, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) has managed to hold on in office. In January, the Detroit Free Press published text messages ("Never busted. Busted is what you see!") between him and his former chief of staff. The messages appeared to show that the two had lied at a police whistleblower trial when they denied having had an affair and firing one of the plaintiff cops. Kilpatrick steadfastly refused to step down, even vowing to run for re-election.

He's since been indicted by the county prosecutor for perjury and obstruction of justice and by the state attorney general on assault charges (for allegedly pushing a cop who was trying to serve a subpoena). And city and state officials set into motion the creaky machinery for unseating a mayor.

Those who want Kilpatrick gone have four options. They have so far been motivated chiefly by what would be speediest.

Options No. 1 is simply to let prosecutors do the job. Kilpatrick would be forced from office if he were convicted in either of the criminal cases against him. But no trial dates have been set, and the pace of justice being what it is, it's likely to be at least a couple months before a verdict is reached in either case.

There's also the possibility of a recall election (option No. 2). But even if enough signatures could be gathered, that wouldn't happen until February.

The city council could initiate "forfeiture proceedings" -- essentially impeachment (option No. 3). The council tried to do just that. But in a setback yesterday, a judge ruled that the city charter was too vague on such authority.

The council had argued that Kilpatrick had committed an offense worthy of forfeiture when, in order to keep the text messages hidden, he'd used $8.4 million in city money to settle the police whistleblower suit last year. The judge found that the charter only allowed for ousting the mayor if he/she moved outside Detroit or was convicted of a felony. An appeal is possible, but would take awhile.

So that leaves option No. 4: According to the state constitution, the governor has the power to remove local officials from office, based on sworn accusations of misconduct. Prompted by a request from the city council, Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) has tentatively planned to hold hearings starting Sept. 3. It's all up to her. And that leaves the Kilpatrick camp nervous:

Marcus Reese, a spokesman for the mayor's legal team, said attorneys are awaiting the structure and process Granholm puts in place.

"We think that it's problematic for the governor to sit as judge, jury and executioner," he said. "We're taking kind of a wait-and-see approach with the governor."

Alaskan Bribing CEO Enjoys Window of Freedom

2008-08-18T17:49:00-05:00

by Eric Umansky

Alaskan politicians are facing a lot of heat these days. The state's senior senator, Ted Stevens (R), has of course been indicted for not disclosing booty he received from an Alaskan oil company, VECO. Five other state politicians have also been indicted for allegedly taking bribes from VECO. So what happened to the VECO folks who offered the bribes?

VECO's two top former officers, CEO Bill Allen and vice president Rick Smith, pleaded guilty last year. But according to today's Anchorage Daily News, Allen has yet to serve jail time. Rather, he's been cooperating with prosecutors who in turn have helped push back his start date for jail to February 2009. In addition to having their sentences reduced, defendants who cooperate with prosecutors often have their start date delayed.

In the meantime, Allen arranged the sale of VECO for nearly $365 million. According to the Daily News, each of Allen's three grown children, who co-owned VECO, earned about $30 million from the sale. Allen himself reportedly earned about $7 million.

All of which has allowed Allen to enjoy some nice living before he has to head off to more cramped quarters. The Daily News reports:

Though Allen still owns his home near downtown Anchorage, a property valued at $571,400, he now spends some of his time in Roswell, N.M., according to his attorney, Bob Bundy, and to people who know him there.

Dick Cappellucci, a New Mexico licensed horse trainer from El Paso, Tex., who used to work for Allen's son, Mark Allen, and once owned a race horse with Mark, said Bill Allen is living on his son's Double Eagle Ranch. The county lists the ranch as a 46-acre property.

Mark Allen himself "is building a fancy, fancy place over there," Cappellucci said.

Allen eventually faces a sentence of 9 to 11 years.

"He's just kind of marking time -- he's just kind of waiting for the ax to fall, that's all," his lawyer told the Daily News. "He went from a guy who was leading a pretty good life, being a CEO with people respecting him, to somebody that's just waiting now. It's not a very happy situation."

Coming This Week: International Edition!

2008-08-18T15:12:00-05:00

by Sharona Coutts

Congress is in summer recess and everyone else in the U.S. seems to be at the beach, their ranch or preparing for the conventions.

So in lieu of our normal roundup, we're giving you a taste of some of the (very few!) events we found afar.

Monday, Aug. 18

Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai is on a 10-day tour of southern Africa, meeting with leaders across the continent as part of his effort to break the deadlock in talks with President Robert Mugabe.

Tsangirai, who won a thumping victory in March's elections, has been in negotiations with Mugabe for a month. It's the first time the two men have spent long periods of time together, and while there have been several occasions where a resolution seemed near, no agreement has yet been reached.

Also today, America's second-in-command in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin III, will brief reporters on ongoing security operations over there. Earlier this summer, Austin warned that sectarian violence would increase in the lead-up to Iraqi elections, scheduled in October.

Tuesday, Aug. 19

There are two meetings on the Russian invasion of Georgia. First, NATO foreign ministers will be meeting to talk about the crisis.

It will be interesting to watch NATO's response, given that one of Russia's main complaints about Georgia is its attempt to join the regional defense organization, which Russia considers a threat.

The second event is a meeting between the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross president, Jakob Kellenberger, and senior Russian officials. The ICRC reported today that they are still unable to access many parts of Georgia, and Human Rights Watch says that Russia may have violated humanitarian law during the attacks.

Also, the trial of former Liberian President, Charles Taylor, resumes at the Special Court of Sierra Leone. Taylor is charged with 17 counts of crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international law, including alleged use of child soldiers in the conflict with Sierra Leone.

His other alleged crimes include "murdering and mutilating civilians, including cutting off their limbs, using women and girls as sex slaves, abducting adults and children, and forcing them to perform forced labor or become fighters during Sierra Leone's conflict."

Human Rights Watch has good background on Taylor and the conflict in Sierra Leone, and you can find lots more information about the trial here.

Mystery Surrounds Case of Terror Suspect

2008-08-18T13:05:00-05:00

by Tim Bella

As U.S. and Pakistani officials sort through the confusion following Aafia Siddiqui's transfer to New York after being charged with trying to kill U.S. soldiers and FBI agents in Afghanistan last month, a key question remains: Where has Siddiqui been for the past five years?

The American-trained neuroscientist is being held without bail after firing two shots at American soldiers and FBI agents a day after local authorities in Ghazni, Afghanistan took her into custody for loitering. Some officials are calling her arrest "the most significant capture in five years." She has been linked to at least two al-Qaida members -- one of whom is her husband (PDF), detained in Guantanamo since 2006. She is said to have helped alleged al-Qaida operative Majid Khan gain access to documents to re-enter the United States. (Despite all those allegations, Siddiqui has so far not faced any terrorism-related charges.)

In March 2003, Siddiqui disappeared after visiting her parents' home with her three children in Karachi, Pakistan. The mystery of her whereabouts since then has caused an uproar among human rights groups, most of which are looking in the general direction of the U.S. government. A press release issued by Siddiqui's lawyer, Elaine Whitfield Sharp, claims Siddiqui said she had been held in U.S. custody at Bagram Air Base in the Parvan Province of Afghanistan.

"We do know she was at Bagram for a long time. It was a long time. According to my client, she was there for years and she was held in American custody; her treatment was horrendous."

Joanne Mariner, director of terrorism and counterterrorism at Human Rights Watch, speculated that Siddiqui may be a detainee known as "Prisoner 650" or the "Gray Lady of Bagram" -- allegedly the only female prisoner at Bagram.

"Obviously, this is a rare occurrence," Mariner said. Siddiqui "was the only woman on our list of disappeared people. Just the fact that this was a Pakistani woman suggests that this is Siddiqui. It's not proof, but it raises the possibility."

Since Siddiqui was detained last month, officials at the Justice Department and the CIA have maintained that she had not been in U.S. custody.

"As the Department of Justice has said, this individual was not in U.S. custody before she was detained on July 17, 2008," CIA spokesman George Little said.

Other groups, such as the Human Rights Coalition of Pakistan (HRCP), insist that's not true.

"To say that she had been taken into custody only on July 21, 2008 is a blatant lie, as transparently ugly as any falsehood can be," HRCP co-chairperson Iqbal Haider said in an Aug. 5 press release. "The insinuation, that she had been hiding herself since 2003, is a travesty of truth, an affront to people's common sense."

President Bush acknowledged in September 2006 that secret CIA-operated, international prisons existed to hold al-Qaida members and other suspects associated with the war on terror. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the "principle architect of the 9/11 attacks" (PDF), was picked up and disappeared in a March 2003 raid in Rawalpindi, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh was captured and disappeared following gunfire in Karachi in September 2002.

Calls and e-mails about Siddiqui to a spokeswoman for Bagram Air Base and to Pakistan's Interior Secretary Kamal Shah have not been returned. We'll post their response if we hear from them.

Prosecutors May Charge Blackwater Guards

2008-08-18T12:31:00-05:00

by Paul Kiel

Last Friday, we reported that legislation has been languishing to make State Department security contractors more accountable. But yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department had sent target letters to six Blackwater guards involved in last September’s Nisour Square shooting.

Prosecutors typically issue such letters as a warning they will file charges. The final decision on whether to indict "may not be made until October," the Post reports.

Despite the potential charges, the legal ambiguity for contractors like Blackwater still exists. The Post reports that Blackwater's lawyers, in fact, have already argued to prosecutors that current law doesn't apply to State Department contractors. But prosecutors seem willing to risk convincing a judge, through some display of litigious dexterity, that current law does apply. It would be the first time the question is tested in court.

As legal experts tell the Post, even if prosecutors win that battle, trying to prove that guards operating in a war zone essentially committed murder will be extraordinarily difficult; as one former prosecutor put it, "exponentially tougher" than a bad police shooting case.

Security Contractors in Iraq Remain Outside the Law

2008-08-15T14:04:00-05:00

by Matthew Schwarzfeld

Nearing the one-year anniversary of the shooting incident involving Blackwater guards at Baghdad's Nisour Square, State Department security contractors in Iraq continue to operate in a legal vacuum.

Iraqi leaders have continually pushed to revoke the controversial Order 17, passed in the final days of the Coalition Provisional Authority to immunize contractors from Iraqi law. Recent news reports about Iraqi-U.S. negotiations indicate that the Iraqis may prevail. But because of inaction by Congress, the loophole for State Department contractors remains in U.S. law.

Closing the legal loophole that makes prosecuting the Blackwater guards so unlikely -- as illustrated by the Justice Department's public difficulties in finding the legal authority to prosecute guards for last September's Nisour Square shooting -- has proven extremely difficult. Blackwater has said its guards acted only after coming under fire.

Congressional Democrats have sought to apply U.S. civilian law to all contractors abroad; Rep. David Price (D-NC) introduced legislation (H.R. 2470) that would broaden the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). Currently, only Pentagon contractors fall under MEJA; the Blackwater guards who shot Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square were hired on a State Department contract.

Passed 389-30 by the House two weeks after the Blackwater shootings, the bill has never come to a vote in the Senate, where it is sponsored by presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-IL). The administration has strongly opposed the bill. The White House did not reply to our request for comment.

"We are nearing the one-year anniversary of the killing of 17 civilians by security contractors at Nisour Square in Iraq, and not a single one of those responsible has been held accountable because of a gap in U.S. law," Rep. Price told ProPublica. "The decision by the administration to block it in the Senate is a serious affront to the rule of law and to the efforts of our military service members in Iraq."

But experts have expressed doubts whether applying U.S. laws abroad is even a realistic option. Since MEJA was first enacted in 2000, DoD has referred only 58 cases to DoJ -- only 13 resulting in charges.

"It's incredibly complicated to apply civilian law 7,000 miles away and in the context of a war zone," Peter Singer, a defense expert with the Brookings Institution, told ProPublica. "You have to consider rules of engagement and decisions made in a battle situation. You have to get evidence and witness testimony from 7,000 miles away. There's really no legal precedent that says this would work."

Some legal experts have floated the possibility of applying the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- the courts martial system -- to contractors abroad. As with MEJA, there's very little precedent for applying military justice for contractors, and defense attorneys would likely question its constitutionality.

The independent Congressional Budget Office noted the impracticality of extending the courts martial system in a recent report (PDF) on contractors in Iraq: "Using the UCMJ to prosecute civilians, even during a war, may generate constitutional challenges based on the standards of due process applicable to military courts."

Holding security contractors accountable for criminal acts depends in large part on government oversight. The GAO questions (PDF) the long-term sustainability of recent improvements in oversight and incident reporting by the Pentagon and the State Department, the government's primary contracting agencies in Iraq. The GAO does commend the agencies for improving coordination and lines of authority and reporting.

But most experts are concerned that the issues behind the Blackwater incident remained unresolved.

"Poor coordination was not the cause of these shooting incidents or why those responsible haven't been properly punished," Singer said. "No one should walk away thinking that the problem is solved."

New Allegations Against Sen. Stevens

2008-08-15T11:54:00-05:00

by Eric Umansky

It’s been a fun few days in the criminal case of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).

The senior senator from Alaska was charged last month for not disclosing $250,000 in gifts from an Alaskan oil company. His lawyers have been pushing to get the trial started right away, and to move it to Alaska. They also argued yesterday that the prosecution of Stevens was trampling the blessed independence of the legislative branch. (Stevens has also said he's innocent.)

Prosecutors have pushed back and last night offered up a near-avalanche of new allegations. After last month detailing an alleged home makeover and cut-rate Mustang, prosecutors now claim (PDF) that the oil company, VECO, also plied Stevens with a Jeep Grand Cherokee for his daughter and a job for his grandson.

Prosecutors also point to a suspicious 2001 $5,000 Florida real estate investment with a “personal friend.” That friend, a partner of the company that developed the property, allegedly gave Stevens a $31,000 no-interest loan to help him purchase the condo. Stevens did not disclose the loan on his Senate disclosure forms, prosecutors write. Six months after Stevens put only $5,000 down, the friend allegedly helped arrange for another buyer to buy the property at a $130,000 profit for Stevens.

Then there’s a generator. The motions (PDF) quote an e-mail Stevens sent in 1999:

"Incidentally, I asked Bill Allen to hook up a generator to our chalet for Y2K – JUST IN CASE!!"

According to prosecutors, Stevens got his generator, and as with the rest of the gifts, seems to have forgotten to mention it on his Senate disclosure forms.

Prosecutors also point out another thing that caught our eye. They quote (PDF) two e-mails Stevens allegedly sent last year to somebody -- identified as "Person A" -- who was about to testify in front of a grand jury on the case.

"I hope we can work something out to make sure you aren't led astray on this occasion," Stevens wrote (PDF) in the first e-mail.

Stevens followed up with a second e-mail, complete with a helpful tip: "don't answer questions you don't KNOW the answers to."

Capitalization, as the prosecutor's motion notes, in the original.

U.S. AIDS Program Funds Questionable Drugmaker

2008-08-14T12:01:00-05:00

by Alexandra Andrews

Millions of taxpayer dollars have gone to an Indian pharmaceutical company under investigation by the FDA and the Justice Department for allegedly producing substandard drugs. Not only are some of these drugs sold in the U.S., but they are also bought and distributed throughout the world as a part of President Bush's AIDS initiative.

The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was established in 2003 to tackle the global AIDS crisis. PEPFAR is overseen by the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Ambassador Mark R. Dybul, who reports directly to the Secretary of State.

On July 30, President Bush signed a five-year extension of PEPFAR, prompting the Wall Street Journal to note ($) that much of the $131 million in funding is spent (PDF) on generic drugs. This is a marked departure from PEPFAR's early -- and heavily criticized -- practice of purchasing only expensive, patent-protected, name-brand drugs.

Last year, PEPFAR allocated $9 million of those funds to Ranbaxy, India's largest pharmaceutical company, for its generic antiretroviral drugs (ARVs), which inhibit the growth of HIV/AIDS. In 2007 alone, more than 1.8 million packages of Ranbaxy-produced ARVs were delivered to the 15 most affected countries where PEPFAR concentrates its efforts.

Yet throughout 2006 and 2007, while Ranbaxy profited from PEPFAR funding and supplied millions of ARVs to AIDS patients, the FDA was investigating allegations that the company's generic ARVs might be of substandard quality.

The FDA first uncovered quality problems at a Ranbaxy plant in India in February 2006; four months later, it sent a warning letter to the company citing irregular markings on its generic ARVs taken from distribution warehouses in Uganda and Nigeria.

Now the Justice Department alleges that Ranbaxy submitted bogus data to the FDA in order to conceal the fact that its drug-manufacturing process violated FDA standards. A motion (PDF) filed on June 7 by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland alleges that the company has engaged in a "pattern of systemic fraudulent conduct."

No formal charges have been brought against the company yet. Neither Ranbaxy's lawyer nor its spokesman have returned e-mails or phone calls.

Despite these serious allegations, Ranbaxy remains on the FDA's list of generic ARVs approved for PEPFAR, which the report refers to as the "most updated approvals."

How those drugs maintained their approval status and continued to be purchased through PEPFAR is not exactly clear. Last month, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, opened an investigation in order to find out.

An FDA spokesman declined to comment on why this drug is still being sold in the U.S. But he did explain that the FDA is not involved in the purchase or distribution of the drugs through PEPFAR. "We only expedite the approval process," he said. "Another agency pulls the trigger."

According to a spokeswoman at the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC), that task falls to the U.S. Embassy in each target country. "They put together a 'country operational plan' at the beginning of each fiscal year that describes how they're going to spend that year's funding," she said. When asked specifically about Ranbaxy drugs, she referred questions to the FDA.

But it isn't clear whether the U.S. Embassies were told of the Ranbaxy investigation or any potential adulteration of its ARVs. A spokesman at the Office of Global Health Affairs, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, thought the FDA might have sent out an alert. But the spokesman at the FDA had never heard of that alert, adding, "FDA's only public comment at this time is to acknowledge that Ranbaxy is under investigation."

PEPFAR's management is widely dispersed –- it has seven primary implementing agencies –- which may explain some of the confusion over whether the embassies were notified. But even a spokesman for the program most directly involved with the embassies' drug purchases, the USAID-administered Supply-Chain Management System, did not know if the embassies had been notified about the Ranbaxy investigation.

The U.S. Embassies in Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda -- the countries that purchased the most Ranbaxy ARVs in 2007 -- did not respond to e-mails.