National Security Law Blog

United States v. Alishtari/"Mixon," SDNY

2007-02-25T13:40:00.000-05:00

This indictment concerns Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, a/k/a "Michael Mixon." Alishtari, 53, was indicted on five charges which are detailed below. He faces a maximum of 95 years' imprisonment if found guilty.

The Charges

Financing Terrorism -- Alishtari allegedly accepted payment to transfer approximately $152,000 to be "sent to Pakistan and Afghanistan to be used to support a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan by, among other things, funding the purchase of equipment such as night vision goggles." 18 U.S.C. § 2339C (Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism).
Material Support of Terrorism -- This charge goes along with the one above, but deals directly with the fact that Alishtari concealed the source of the funds, and that this material support would be used in preparation for, and in carrying out, a violation of an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B) (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries).
Money Laundering -- This charge applies to one of the money transfers made by Alishtari; specifically, a transfer in the amount of $25,000 from a bank account in New York to a bank account in Montreal, Canada. The indictment alleges that Alishtari knew that these funds were being directed towards illegal activity, and therefore his actions constitute money laundering. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) (Laundering of monetary instruments).
Wire Fraud Conspiracy -- From 1998 to 2004, Alishtari conspired with others to administer and promote a fraudulent loan investment program known as the "Flat Electronic Data Interchange" ("FEDI"). This was a high-yield investment scheme in which Alishtari (and other unnamed co-conspirators) promised investors high rates of return. He allegedly obtained "millions of dollars" from this scheme, and violated wire fraud conspiracy statutes. 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Attempt and conspiracy).
Wire Fraud -- This is the individual charge for the actual commission of wire fraud as part of the FEDI scheme. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Fraud by wire , radio, or television).

A few interesting points about this indictment and this case:

First, Alishtari allegedly obtained millions of dollars from the FEDI scheme. So, where did the money go? While the indictment charges him with the transfer of a total of $152,000, this was money that he purportedly transferred for a third party. As the indictment alleges, he received compensation to do this, so it was not $152,000 from his personal funds. Could he have also sent his own money? Counterterrorism Blog makes a good point: the language of the indictment suggests that it may have been a sting operation (click here for the argument). So does the language of the US Attorney for SDNY press release. So, is this getting Capone on taxes? Will more details come out during the trial?

Second, Alishtari is quite the political player, having donated $15,250 to the Republican Party and being a self-described "US National Republican Senate Inner Circle Member for Life." Again, see the Counterterrorism Blog post for more info on this.

Third, he is a founder of the Global Peace Film Festival. Is this a cover? Just a businessman covering "both sides of the plate?" Or is it perhaps Nick Cohen's argument that the Left Loves Islamists? (Here for Lexis users, here for the intro, and full text for WSJ subscribers with online access.) Regardless, it is hard to miss the irony of it.

Lastly, What Would Posner Do? Judge Posner (7th Circuit) has argued that the U.S. intelligence community is in tension with the U.S. law enforcement community, and that the renowned Joint Terrorism Task Forces may be a bit too quick to make arrests. (See Uncertain Shield: The U.S. Intelligence System in the Throes of Reform). Is this one of those cases? Who are the other unnamed individuals mentioned by the indictment, and has the arrest of Alishtari effectively prevented injury to innocents, or has it simply caused more important figures to withdraw temporarily?

Thoughts?

United States v. Iqbal, (SDNY)

2006-11-26T19:43:00.000-05:00

This indictment in the Southern District of New York concerns two individuals, Javed "John" Iqbal and Saleh Elahwal, who are accused of violating a number U.S. laws:

18 USC 2339B -- Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
22 USC 287c -- Economic and communication sanctions pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution
Executive Order 13324 -- Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001)
31 C.F.R. Part 594 -- Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations

While this list is not definitive, it covers the laws most pertinent to issues of national security and support for global terrorism in particular.

Iqbal and Elahwal operated the HDTV Corporation, which had as its purpose the provision of satellite television programming to customers in the New York City area. However, they were particularly interested in rebroadcasting material that they obtained from Al Manar, the Lebanon-based channel owned and operated by Hizbollah. In fact, the indictment alleges that they received thousands of dollars from Al Manar after signing a contract to broadcast Hizbollah programming in the United States. Additionally, they sent samples of satellite broadcast equipment to Lebanon to obtain Al Manar's approval for larger purchases.

Hizbollah was deemed a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the Secretary of State in 1997, and it is therefore illegal under 18 USC 2339B for Iqbal and Elahwal to provide them with any "material support or resources." Further, the Department of Treasury designated Al Manar as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist in 2006, in accordance with Executive Order 13224.

It will be interesting so see how this indictment plays out, especially given the interest that civil liberties groups will have in the issue. One can see how the attorneys for Iqbal and Elahwal may attempt to argue that the rebroadcasting of the Al Manar programs is an example of free speech. Expect to see the International Action Center and Ramsey Clark involved in this.

Welcome to the National Security Law Blog

2006-04-26T09:02:00.000-04:00

Since the attacks of September 11, 1001, the legal community has had a heightened awareness of the importance of national security law. Attorneys throughout the United States have turned their attention to the pressing questions brought up by the war on terror, with as wide a variety of responses as would be expected.

Along with this new level of concern, law schools throughout the United States have increased their course offerings in national security law and related issues. According to the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School, "[i]n 1984, there were only 7 law schools in the country that offered a course in national security law, but now over 100 provide such an offering."

However, there still does not exist a resource for law students with a particular interest in this field. Thankfully, organizations such as the National Security & Law Society are beginning to fill the gap. As they continue to grow and spread, they will provide more opportunities for students to learn about issues in national security law, and about how to obtain positions in the field.

This blog will gather together links, news and information that is pertinent to law students. That said, the field is growing at such a rate that one person cannot possibly keep on top of all of it. For that reason, this is a blog documenting my personal experiences and interests in the field of national security law.