[R-G] Disinformation Based on the Starting Point of Preventing Terrorism: An Examination of the Lackawanna Six Case

[Josh Minchen]

Disinformation Based on the Starting Point of Preventing Terrorism: An 
Examination of the Lackawanna Six Case

Lackawanna Discussion Group, July 2004

We reprint below a presentation given by the Lackawanna Discussion Group at 
the Symposium on Media and Disinformation, in Halifax, Canada, June 30-July 
4, 2004. It serves to expose and analyze the disinformation used to justify 
broad attacks on rights and collective punishment, including that in the 
NYPD Report on "Homegrown Terrorism" (see above).

* * *

Since September 11, and even before, the government has put forward the 
necessity to prevent future terrorist attacks as the single most important 
issue to provide for national security. Its actions, whether at home or 
abroad, are to be looked at from this starting point. War in Afghanistan, 
detentions of thousands, widespread profiling or Arabs and Muslims, and 
brutal attacks on rights all have been justified on this basis of 
prevention.

According to the government, it is better to sacrifice rights than to permit 
another September 11. People then are pulled into these false presentations 
as to how problems are posing themselves. Disinformation of the government 
and media serves to block people from discussing what change is needed, in 
government and society as a whole, to both define and provide security. The 
critical role of defending rights in providing security is not only 
denigrated, but targeted as a support to terrorists. At the same time, 
opposing widespread U.S. impunity is certainly not included as part of what 
is needed to eliminate terrorism and contribute to peace and security, of 
nations and people, abroad and at home.

The Lackawanna Six case takes place in this context and is an integral part 
of the hysteria promoted concerning the threat of terrorism. Language such 
as "ticking time-bombs running loose," "terrorist cells" and "sleeper 
cells" - where even the individuals involved supposedly do not know they are 
involved in terrorism - all contribute to the hysteria that distorts the 
reality that a) these threats do not exist and b) those threats which do 
exist, from the government, are not to be addressed.

The Lackawanna Six case involves six young men, all American citizens of 
Yemeni descent, living in Lackawanna, a former steel-town that borders 
Buffalo, New York. The Six had been identified, followed and interrogated by 
the FBI long before September 11, as well as after. They traveled to 
Pakistan and Afghanistan in the summer of 2001 and visited what at the time 
the U.S. identified as a Taliban training camp. After September 11 it was 
proclaimed an al-Qaida camp.

It is important to recognize that part of the disinformation and hysteria 
concerning terrorism also concerns al-Qaida itself. Coupled with the 
starting point of prevention has been the establishment, without trial, 
evidence or anything more than government say so, that al-Qaida is 
responsible for September 11. As well, anyone who associates with al-Qaida, 
harbors anyone called a member or in anyway assists them is just as guilty 
and has been subject to assassination, invasion or similar use of force by 
the government. Regardless of what one may believe about al-Qaida, all of 
these government actions, routinely given legitimacy by the media, are 
contrary to international and U.S. law. Individuals are held responsible for 
crimes committed, not the organizations they may be members of. Whole 
countries, like Afghanistan, are not guilty for the crimes of individuals, 
like those carried out on 9/11. All individuals are considered innocent 
until proven guilty.

By branding al-Qaida (as a whole) guilty of the crime of 9/11, the door is 
opened wide to branding anyone even remotely associated as a terrorist also 
guilty of 9/11. This is what was done with the Six, even though all they 
did, and all they were ever charged with, was attending the training camp. 
Even the government admitted that they did nothing on returning from the 
camp to in any way pose a threat.

Similarly, it is not an accident that the person the government labels the 
"mastermind" of September 11 is not being charged. He is reportedly being 
held in secret and the government says the information gotten from him, 
again in the name of prevention, is more important than charging him. In 
this way the facts of the case are never to be presented in open court and 
secret detention, secret interrogations and secret evidence branding 
individuals, whole organizations and countries as terrorists is made 
acceptable.

The media has been fundamental in broadly establishing these key issues that 
the problem is one of preventing terrorism, that any person, organization or 
nation in anyway associated with al-Qaida is guilty, and that government 
intervention when no crime has been committed is necessary so as to stop 
what are called "ticking time-bombs." As FBI officials put it, they are no 
longer pursuing investigations to the point of having evidence, but rather 
"making quick arrests at even the hint of potential violence." Notice here, 
that all that is needed is the hint of potential violence, as determined by 
the government. Said another way, an FBI official was quoted describing the 
new approach as, "Who cares where it [the investigation] goes? Let's go get 
the bastards."

The whole conception of law enforcement as enforcing laws through 
investigating crimes is being replaced with the standard that the role of 
the police agencies is to identify "potential" terrorists and intervene 
based on intent. This is a fundamental shift in the arrangements of 
governance and between government and individuals, organizations and 
nations. It is an arrangement of military rule, not democracy.

The Lackawanna Six, when arrested September 13, 2002, on the first 
anniversary of September 11, were immediately branded a terrorist cell 
trained by al-Qaida. President Bush has repeatedly referred to the 
government's success in breaking up the "Buffalo terrorist cell," including 
in his last State of the Union speech. He did so again when he recently 
visited Buffalo specifically to promote the case as a model for providing 
homeland security.

Recently resigned CIA head George Tenant referred to the Six as "the most 
dangerous bunch inside the United States." FBI Director Robert Mueller said 
they "could be defined as a sleeper cell ... in terms of capabilities." 
Attorney General Ashcroft uses the case as an example that verifies the need 
for the USA PATRIOT Act's attacks on rights, claiming the "intelligence" 
they secured to arrest the Six could not have been gotten otherwise. All of 
these claims are endlessly repeated by the media, plastered across the front 
page, with both the government and media knowing full well that they are not 
only lies, they are disinformation on the facts of the case itself and on 
the threat of terrorism generally.

Usually not addressed at all, or buried and reduced to one line, are the 
facts that none of the Six were charged with an act of terrorism, with 
planning or even intending to plan any act of terrorism or violence. None 
were found guilty of such charges. The Six were charged simply with 
providing material support by attending the camp and conspiracy to attend 
the camp.

Nowhere was it explained why the FBI, who had them under surveillance before 
and after their attendance at the camp in summer of 2001, did not 
immediately arrest and charge them if they were indeed a "terrorist cell." 
On the contrary, government officials throughout this case have said there 
was no danger or imminent threat to the people of New York from these men.

The atmosphere created in the whole region was for everyone to fear their 
neighbor, to think the main threat came from "all-American" youth like the 
Six, and that the government actions were the source of security. The 
terrorism of the government, including collective punishment of Lackawanna, 
itself a crime, was instead heralded as a "model" for homeland security.

What was completely eliminated from all media coverage was the violent 
collective punishment inflicted on Lackawanna. This included raiding the 
community with massive armed force at night to make arrests of people the 
FBI already had under surveillance. It included surrounding homes with 
dozens of police, arms drawn, to confront women and children. It included 
entering homes without warrants, ransacking them, pointing guns at and 
interrogating and humiliating grandmothers, sisters and wives. Following the 
arrests, the FBI remained present, using helicopters that buzzed the tree 
tops, hounding the youth, photographing children for databases, and 
attempting to brand all the Arabs and Muslim as terrorists or supporters of 
terrorists with "something to hide." Spy cameras were placed directly across 
from the Mosque, at the community soccer field and a gas station.

Despite being directly informed of these events, not a single media outlet, 
TV, radio or press, investigated them or addressed this state terrorism. 
What could be more blatant than police raids on homes and cameras directed 
at a Mosque? People were so terrorized that they begin throwing out precious 
personal and family items for fear they would be branded terrorists. There 
was no outrage in the media against these crimes, no headlines about the FBI 
terrorizing Lackawanna, no challenge to the government as to why they were 
putting photographs of children in their databanks and hounding them on the 
way to school demanding if they were supporters of terrorism. Quite the 
contrary, the media joined in the hounding and humiliation of the youth and 
the community. They continue to repeat the government hysteria that 
Lackawanna is the home to and supporters of a terrorist cell and the Six are 
supposedly violent terrorists.

It is this reality that starkly shows that disinformation itself is a crime, 
directly aiding and abetting the terrorism of the government. To this day, 
helicopters and spy planes do regular raids on Lackawanna, youth are 
harassed, jailed, blackmailed to become informants or face terrorism 
charges, phones in the entire community are tapped and numerous other 
attacks are occurring. And to this day the role of the media is to present 
the government as providing security by uncovering "terrorist cells," here 
inside the country.

The government's Lackawanna model involves arresting and charging people who 
are not violent and who have not committed or planned any acts of terrorism, 
elimination of the need for evidence and the principle of innocent until 
proven guilty, and collectively branding and punishing whole communities. 
Guilty until proven innocent, whether it is guilt by association, as a 
family member, a neighbor, living in the community, being a Muslim, being an 
Arab, by "even a hint" of support for the Lackawanna Six, is what 
characterizes this government model for homeland security.

In the face of this very difficult situation, the Lackawanna Discussion 
Group took the stand to uphold the principle of innocent until proven 
guilty, to condemn the crime of collective punishment and to go door to door 
in the community to let everyone know that they were not alone and that the 
people of the Buffalo area stood with them. We repeatedly went door to door 
to gather the facts of the crimes committed against the people of the 
community and to inform people of their rights, such as their right not to 
talk with the FBI or allow them into their homes. We called on people not to 
compromise their own conscience by throwing out their precious belongings 
while also providing a place for the belongings to be safely kept.

We published our materials in both English and Arabic so as to give 
expression to the unity of all and the need for the respect and equality of 
languages and cultures. We organized to provide facts and information that 
cut through the government hysteria and provided everyone, inside and 
outside Lackawanna, with a principled position from which to fight. Numerous 
demonstrations were also organized. An appeal sent out to lend a hand in 
opposing the collective punishment of Lackawanna received broad support, 
from churches, organizations and concerned people in the region and 
nationwide.

Central to this work has been advancing the necessity to defend the rights 
of all and elaborating this content in the course of the struggle. 
Initially, for example, members of the community wanted to know why we 
risked taking these stands publicly and going door-to-door and demonstrating 
at the Court House when we ourselves were not directly under attack. 
Concretely elaborating that an attack on one is an attack on all and that 
the security of all could only be found in standing together to defend 
rights wherever they came under attack, has greatly strengthened the unity 
not only within the community but more broadly in Buffalo. This was evident 
in a recent demonstration that targeted government impunity against Iraq and 
Palestine, against Lackawanna and through police brutality in the African 
American community. Many of the women and youth from Lackawanna came out to 
themselves demonstrate downtown, despite the many on-going attacks on them 
and their families.

We have no doubt that media like our publication, The Community Voice, as 
part of persistent organizing to defend rights and stand against government 
terrorism and all its impunity has played a significant role. An important 
part of this has been providing the information and stands people need to 
stand up against impunity.

Taken as a whole, the work has armed the community not to speak with the FBI 
or the monopoly media and has enabled them to stand tall despite every 
effort to humiliate and defeat them. These are not small accomplishments in 
the current conditions where anyone can be jailed and indefinitely detained 
at any time.

The government attacks on Lackawanna have continued without let up. This is 
in part a response to the success that has been achieved in blocking 
government efforts to completely silence and paralyze the community while 
creating fear among everyone else. These attacks include the forced guilty 
pleas gotten from the Six, using threats of the death penalty and branding 
them enemy combatants subject to indefinite military detention. Like nearly 
all the terrorism related cases, the government does not want them tried in 
open court. In this case, for example, many felt the claim that it is a 
crime simply to attend a training camp would have readily been challenged. 
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals ruled a similar charge in a 
similar case as unconstitutional.

Despite the fact that the government admitted the pleas were gotten under 
death threats and despite the harassment and threats made to family members, 
both in the U.S. and Yemen, including the assassination of six people in 
Yemen by the CIA, the judge accepted the pleas. This was the same judge who 
refused to grant bail based not on the norms for bail, but on what he 
himself termed "what ifs," despite all the facts demonstrating that the men 
were not violent or a threat.

These attacks also included charging a well-known community leader and 
businessman, humiliating him with a TV spectacle of handcuffing him and 
arresting him at has place of business for a technical infraction of a new 
law normally handled with a fine. Most recently, two businessmen, one also a 
well-known and respected community leader in both Buffalo's African American 
community and in Lackawanna, have been denied bail. They were convicted in a 
case that had nothing whatever to do with terrorism and are currently 
appealing the conviction. While they had been out on bail during the trial 
for the past four years, with the conviction the government suddenly claimed 
both were a threat to national security. They used secret evidence to assert 
this, the judge accepted it, and both are now being held in jail, often 
under 23-hour lockdown. The recent action against government impunity was in 
part in their defense.

These facts are again confirming that the government is acting against its 
own laws and indeed imposing lawlessness. The entire Lackawanna Six case is 
evidence of the fact that due process is being eliminated, including not 
only innocent until proven guilty but the right to confront accusers, to 
present evidence of innocence, to be free from coercion and torture. Secret 
evidence, indefinite detention, collective punishment, all are part of the 
impunity unleashed in the name of preventing terrorism.

In concluding, we think one of the more significant contributions made by 
all those who take up work to provide facts, information and stands that 
defend rights is the space created to think through the problems we all 
face. A main feature of this work for us has been to reject the starting 
point of preventing terrorism. No doubt, some will wonder how can anyone be 
against preventing terrorism. We are not. We are very much against posing 
the problem in this manner as it necessarily serves the direction of the 
ruling circles toward arrangements for military rule. This is the role the 
disinformation is playing. It blocks thinking about what is occurring and 
about what needs to be done and particularly the role of the people in 
bringing about change. It is work that has been done to defend rights in 
Lackawanna, for example, that has provided security and opposed the 
terrorism of the state.

The content of prevention of terrorism by the state necessarily means 
imposing the standards of acting on the basis of intent, of whenever there 
is "even the hint" not of an act of terrorism, not of a plan to commit an 
act of terrorism, not even a crime committed, but of possible violence as 
determined by the government. It is well-known, for example, that the 
military camps imposed in Miami at the time of protests against the Free 
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and more recently in Georgia against the 
G-8 and planned for New York City at the Republican convention, are all done 
in the name of "stopping potential violence." In fact this was directly 
stated by the police agencies involved at the G-8, when they justified use 
of the military and numerous federal, state and local police in order to 
"stop terrorists and protesters out to cause trouble." Canadians are 
familiar with similar actions in Quebec City, for example, also for protests 
against the FTAA.

Taking another example, the authorization for use of force issued by 
Congress shortly after 9/11 says the following: "The President is authorized 
to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, 
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or 
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored 
such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of 
international terrorism against the United States by such nations, 
organizations or persons." It should be noted here that the language of the 
resolution is such that the president alone determines targets and use of 
force and that nations, organizations and persons are all included, all of 
which goes against international and Constitutional law. In this manner 
Congress authorized widespread impunity, abroad and at home, based on 
"prevention." Congress also gives its approval here to the president 
usurping power to wage war, to brand people, organizations and nations, 
based on his determination alone, as threats to be dealt with however he 
sees fit.

The government's prevention of terrorism is its mechanism to unleash use of 
force as the norm for any and all problems. It is an integral part of the 
drive of U.S. imperialism for World Empire. In rejecting this starting 
point, all concerned are in a position to discuss what changes would 
contribute to eliminating terrorism and all use of force against the 
peoples. We think that changing the role of the U.S., beginning with having 
no U.S. troops abroad and ending the occupation of Palestine, would 
immediately contribute to blocking U.S. state terrorism abroad. We think 
making government impunity a crime and developing a rule of law based on 
guaranteeing rights would contribute to the security of all. We think 
discussion of such solutions and working through together how problems are 
posing themselves is an important part of opposing disinformation and 
providing human beings with the thinking they require.