Congress must reform FBI use of informants

AUG 6, 2013, 3:14 PM


Congress must hold hearings to reform federal law enforcements’ clandestine use of informants.

A recent Freedom of Information Act request, filed by USA Today, revealed what civil liberties advocates and many criminal defense attorneys have long known – that the FBI and other federal entities have misused informants in investigating potential criminal activities. In 2011, the FBI gave informants permission to break the law over 5,600 times. That comes to 15 times per day. That does not even include informants breaking the law without informing their handlers.

Other federal agencies, including the ATF and DEA, claim that they do not know how many times permission was given for their informants to break that law. This astounding admission should worry us all.

Most informants are not patriotic citizens working with law enforcement to make our society more secure. Many are criminals who engage in further criminal activities to get their own criminal charges lowered or dismissed (usually earning money in the process). Some immigrants feel pressured to act as informants out of fear of deportation. Driven by the desire to get charges dropped, to make money, or anxiety over being deported, informants can easily drift into acting as agent-provocateurs.

One such example is career criminal Craig Monteilh, who acted as an informant in the Muslim community in Southern California. His behavior among Muslim youth provoked so much suspicion that the Muslim community contacted CAIR, which then reported him to law enforcement. The FBI, however, did nothing because Monteilh was on their payroll. He eventually blew his own cover in claiming that the FBI did not pay him all of his provocateur wages.

The ACLU and CAIR sued the FBI regarding the unconstitutionality of using informants in this manner, but a judge threw out the case after the government found that revealing how the FBI uses these criminals could cause “significant harm to national security.”

Federal law enforcement is not only concealing from Congress its protocols for informants but is also invoking national security as a means to circumvent the law. Law and order cannot be truly served in our nation by the government encouraging and hiding the deliberate breaking of the law.

These latest revelations should be a wake-up call to Congress to not only hold hearings but to also pass legislation checking federal law enforcement’s use of informants. Without breaks on such practices, we risk the FBI operating against American values – and like secret police in other nations.


AUDIO: Former FBI agent discusses FBI spying on Facebook and other abuses

The following audios were of two public lectures given last Friday and Saturday, which discussed government abuses relating to the loss of privacy and the improper usage of informants by the FBI.

Speakers were ACLU Counsel Michael German, who was a former FBI agent that investigation terrorism and white supremacist groups, ACLU-OH Staff Attorney Romin Iqbal and CAIR-MI Executive Director Dawud Walid.

Part 1 (Islamic Center of Akron)

Part 2 (Islamic Center of Akron)

Part 1 (Islamic Center of Cleveland)

Part 2 (Islamic Center of Cleveland)

Conyers Announces DOJ Investigation Into Imam Homocide

Death certificate of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah

House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) today announced that the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division will launch an investigation into the homocide of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah on 10/28/09 by FBI agents.

I use the term homocide, by the way, because homocide is the language used on the death certificate meaning that he was killed by humans, not by natural causes, an accident or suicide.

Calls were also made by Conyers for the DOJ to review the FBI’s current usage of confidential informants in houses of worship.  The usage of confidential informants or agent provocatuers is at the basis of the charges within the criminal affidavit against Abdullah and 10 members of Masjid Al-Haqq, and it was an agent provocatuer, White male named “Jabril,” who apparently arranged for Abdullah to be at the location in the warehouse in Dearborn, which led to his death.

Conyers also criticized the Dearborn Police Department and mentioned their role which led to Abdullah’s death being it was part of the mutli-jurisdictional joint terrorism taskforce that was logistically involved in the raid.

At today’s press conference was also MI State Rep. Bettie Scott, who chairs the state judicial committee, as well as the following organizations:

Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality

American Civil Liberties Union – Michigan (ACLU-MI)

National Lawyers Guild – Michigan

National Action Network (Al Sharpton’s organization)

Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ)

Abdullah’s family attorney and ADC-MI Advisory Board Chair Nabih Ayad was also present.

Video footage of entire press conference coming soon.

Deadly FBI raid in Dearborn prompts concern over informants

Deadly FBI raid in Dearborn prompts concern over informants

Muslims, civil rights advocates decry tactic


He called himself Jabril. Two years ago, a white man who claimed he was an ex-con and convert to Islam started attending a predominantly African-American mosque on a run-down street in Detroit.

He touted his Islamic ways while offering poor members of the mosque cash for odd jobs at an auto shop on the city’s west side. He told tales of sick family members and brought a young boy to the mosque who he said was his son.

Jabril soon became a brother in faith and a confidante of the mosque’s fiery leader, Luqman Ameen Abdullah, who was killed in a shootout during an Oct. 28 raid by FBI agents to arrest men suspected of dealing in stolen goods.

Members now believe Jabril was an FBI informant who infiltrated their mosque.

“He built up trust in the community,” said Omar Regan, 34, one of Abdullah’s sons.

The case — one of several in the past year involving informants in Muslim-American communities — has prompted growing concern among Muslims and civil rights advocates about undercover surveillance in religious institutions.

Federal officials say they don’t send informants into congregations without reason. But last week, U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Detroit Democrat, called upon the U.S. Justice Department to review its policies on using informants in houses of worship.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors are seeking a protective order to shield the identities of three informants used in the case.

With tattoos on his neck and a full beard, the newcomer arrived at the Detroit mosque in 2007 with stories of turning to Islam while in prison.

“He had this hard-life story,” recalled Regan, a son of the mosque’s imam, Luqman Ameen Abdullah.

For two years, the man known as Jabril to many at Masjid Al-Haqq ingratiated himself with members of the mosque, according to Abdullah’s followers. They accepted him as a brother in Islam.

On Oct. 28, Regan said Jabril asked mosque members to help him move some goods in a Dearborn warehouse. Authorities said the men were there to deal in stolen items.

Once inside the warehouse, Jabril reportedly told the mosque members: “I’m going to go get some water, a drink of water,” Regan said in an interview with the Free Press.


Jabril then disappeared.

Moments later, federal agents stormed inside. Abdullah, 53, was shot dead by FBI agents after an exchange of fire during the raid.

Jabril was never seen again by members of the mosque.

The story of Jabril’s alleged infiltration offers a rare look into the use of FBI informants in Muslim-American communities in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. Members of the Detroit mosque say they believe Jabril was a key undercover informant in helping the FBI build a case against Abdullah and his followers.

Muslim advocates say there’s a growing problem of improper use of informants, particularly in houses of worship. Some accuse the informant of luring Abdullah to his death in the fatal shooting, which has raised questions about excessive force.

FBI agents’ actions defended

But the FBI and federal prosecutors have said that agents acted appropriately in trying to apprehend members of a criminal operation led by Abdullah. They said the group preached violence and hatred against law enforcement and non-Muslims.

Abdullah and his followers were not charged with any acts of terrorism. The charges against the 11 men arrested include dealing in stolen goods such as laptops and fur coats, firearms violations and tampering with vehicle identification numbers. The criminal complaint, however, highlights the radical views of the group. “America must fall,” Abdullah once said, according to the complaint.

While some Muslim leaders have expressed concern about civil rights, federal officials say informants are vitally needed, especially with the recent surge in domestic terrorism.

The FBI would not comment on whether Jabril was one of the three informants in the case. But the recollections of Jabril by mosque members interviewed by the Free Press match parts of the 43-page criminal complaint filed against Abdullah and 10 others. Mosque members say, for example, that the complaint’s descriptions of car trips to Virginia and Chicago with an informant named S-3 jibe with their memories of rides they and Abdullah took with Jabril.

Mosque members said they believe S-3 is Jabril, though the criminal complaint only identifies S-3 as “an FBI confidential source who has proven to be reliable and credible in the past.”



Last week, federal prosecutors filed a motion in which they expressed concern about the safety of the informants used by federal agents in the investigation. Prosecutors appeared particularly worried about S-3, saying the defendants have discovered his identity.

They are seeking a protective order barring the defense from releasing undercover audio and video because they are worried about S-3’s safety. Prosecutors note that the criminal complaint includes references to threats by Abdullah — reported by S-3 — that he would kill any informants. According to the complaint, Abdullah told S-3 in June 2009 that he suspected there was an informant in his mosque, saying “that if somebody is trying to gather information on him, he would kill them himself or have them killed.”

Muslims, and some civil rights advocates, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, have raised concern that using informants in mosques infringes on the constitutional right to free assembly and worship.

Other cases involving informants in Muslim communities in California, Ohio and New York have surfaced over the past year, alarming some who say mosques are supposed to be safe places where people can be free to speak their minds.

Andrew Arena, special agent in charge of the Detroit FBI office, said his agency doesn’t target anyone based on religion.

“Without predication, without reason, we cannot send informants into a religious institution just to see what is going on,” Arena said. “That is illegal. On the flip side, if there are individuals involved in criminal activity, and they are trying to hide behind a religious institution, that’s not going to fly.”

He said informants are used in a wide range of investigations including “mortgage fraud, gangs and public corruption — and counterterrorism is no different.”

Human intelligence

In recent years, the FBI has increasingly used human intelligence in the United States. After Sept. 11, 2001, the FBI told all of its field offices across the U.S. to increase its use of informants as it made terrorism its No. 1 priority. Keeping an eye on Islamic extremism became a priority and remains so — as highlighted by the Dec. 25 failed bombing attempt suspected to have been carried out by a Muslim man on a Detroit-bound airplane.

In July, the ACLU said in a report that the use of informants has had a “chilling effect on congregants’ rights to association, speech and religion.”

And last week, U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Detroit Democrat and chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asking that he review the policy of using informants inside mosques, saying that “our traditions, and our constitution, simply do not permit undercover fishing expeditions in our nation’s houses of worship.”

But some terrorism and legal experts disagree.

“Radicalization and recruitment to terrorism does take place here,” and so using informants can be helpful and legitimate, said Brian Jenkins, a senior adviser at the Rand Corp. who studies terrorism. But he said it needs to remain under tight controls.

Ultimately, an open court system must be used to let a judge and jury decide whether any informants were used legitimately in particular cases, he said.

Some legal experts say the use of informants in mosques doesn’t violate the Constitution.

“There is nothing in the … First Amendment that would preclude the FBI from using informants at a mosque,” said Robert Sedler, distinguished professor of law at Wayne State University who teaches constitutional issues. “A true informant is not going to have any chilling effect, so there is no constitutional objection to the FBI using informants within a religious organization because it doesn’t interfere with the religious practices of the people. The service at the mosque goes on even when you have the FBI” informant listening.

“It doesn’t affect what the imam is saying.”

Informant prodded violence

Tensions over the use of informants in Muslim communities came to a head last year after reports that the FBI had used an informant in Orange County, Calif., who had acted as an agent provocateur by trying to get Muslims to wage violent attacks against Western targets. In Michigan, Muslim leaders said in April that agents were pushing some local Muslims to act as spies inside their mosques.

“It’s brought paranoia in the community,” said Dawud Walid, head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “Some are now wary of coming to the mosque.”

The controversy over Abdullah’s death has been heightened because his autopsy results have not been released by Wayne County, which says that Dearborn police have requested a delay pending their investigation. Authorities maintain that Abdullah opened fire on federal agents, and he was killed when they returned fire. The family contends he was shot 18 times.

A close friend of Abdullah, Akil Fahd, 40, said he remembers the imam as peaceful and focused “on calling people to Allah.”

‘Stuck out like a sore thumb’

When Jabril showed up in 2007, Masjid Al-Haqq sat on a rough stretch of Joy Road in Detroit. It has since relocated to Clairmount.

Most of its members are African American, some of them former convicts looking to improve their lives through Islam. Because of their felony records, some had problems finding steady employment.

So, Jabril’s job offers made him popular despite the fact that he “he stuck out like a sore thumb, a white guy among all these black people,” said Abdullah’s son, Mujahid Carswell, 30. Carswell is among the 11 indicted in the case.

“When he started offering the brothers jobs, that’s when he got close to my dad,” Regan said.

But the federal complaint suggests that it was S-3’s offer of cash through criminal activities that drew him close to Abdullah. The criminal complaint, for example, shows Abdullah and S-3 talking multiple times about how to deal with a stolen Dodge truck.

In the nearly three months since the imam’s death, talk about Jabril has swirled throughout parts of the African-American Muslim community. Those who met him say they never suspected Jabril.

One of them, Mikail Stewart, 34, of Detroit remembers Jabril as a cordial man who always shook his hands and said “As-salamu Alaykum,” the traditional Muslim greeting that means “Peace be upon you.”

Congress Must Hold Hearings On Sweeping Surveillance

Congress Must Hold Hearings On Sweeping Surveillance

By Dawud Walid -Guest Columnist

Congress must convene hearings into the sweeping surveillance of American Muslim organizations and mosques that threatens the foundational spirit of the United States Constitution.

Due to national security concerns prompted by the tragedy of 9/11, Americans have witnessed a steady erosion of their constitutional rights. From NSA warrantless wiretapping to new FBI guidelines that allow ethnicity and religion to be primary factors in conducting initial threat assessments, our government wields unprecedented authority to monitor its own citizens.

Within the past year, a number of advocacy groups and concerned citizens have questioned the inappropriate monitoring of Muslim nonprofit organizations by the government and the use of agent provocateurs who attempt to incite members of mosques to commit crimes that they otherwise would not have committed.

In June 2009, the ACLU released a report titled “Blocking Faith, Freezing Charity,” which details American Muslims being harassed for donating to legally operating Islamic charities and organizations. The report also addressed the concern that an increasing number of Muslims are being approached by the FBI to act as informants in their mosques in exchange for visas, citizenship or criminal charges being dropped.

In the spring of 2009 in Irvine, California, an FBI informant claimed that he lured young Muslim men to a gym in an attempt to incite them to make incriminating statements by them to wage war against their own country. Meanwhile in New York, four Muslim men were arrested for driving a vehicle to the Bronx in an alleged terrorist conspiracy that appears to have been totally concocted and financed by the FBI through an agent provocateur. One of the arrestees was a homeless schizophrenic, and another was a desperate soul who was offered money to pay for a dying sibling’s liver transplant.

These and a number of other instances that have taken place since including one which led to the unprecedented fatal shooting of a Muslim cleric by FBI officers in Dearborn have come to a crescendo with the chilling revelation that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) improperly spied on the Nation of Islam (NOI) in 2007. It appears that the NOI reemerged as a target of government surveillance because it allegedly engages in “highly volatile and extreme rhetoric,” though the DHS admitted that the NOI “has neither advocated violence nor engaged in violence.”

Such Orwellian monitoring is reminiscent of the federal government’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which stretched from the 1950’s into the early 1970’s. Under COINTELPRO, churches, civil rights organizations, and peace groups were infiltrated by informants. Many activists such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were monitored because of their political views ranging from racial profiling to the Vietnam War. Astute pupils of history know that history repeats itself, and it appears that American Muslims are currently being subjected to similar measures.

In 1975, Senator Frank Church chaired the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, which unearthed a plethora of immoral and un-American surveillance activities by the FBI and military intelligence against American citizens. In 2010, Congress should hold similar hearings to determine the extent to which such activities are taking place today.

In order for our nation to truly trumpet the ideas of freedom, justice and equality to the world, we must not be afraid to examine our own policies to ensure that no American is unduly deprived of basic civil rights and liberties. If we fail in this regard, not only do we lose, but the whole world loses.

(Dawud Walid is the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations—Michigan Chapter)