Ansar Mahmood Defense Committee

c/o Chatham Peace Initiative

P.O. Box 34, Chatham, NY 12037

info@chathampeace.org www.chathampeace.org

July 2, 2004

chatham peace initiative Response to BICE’s Letter Denying Ansar Mahmood’s Request for Deferred Action

The Chatham Peace Initiative, which forms the core of the Ansar Mahmood Defense Committee, responds to the letter written by BICE Regional Director William Cleary denying Ansar Mahmood’s request for deferred action with the following observations.

1. Two versions of one letter

There are two versions of Mr. Cleary’s letter denying Ansar Mahmood’s request for deferred action. One was released to the media. The second was faxed to Ansar Mahmood’s lawyer. We have questions about what the differences in the two letters indicate about some of Mr. Cleary’s possible prejudices in reviewing Mr. Mahmood’s case. Both versions are available for viewing on our website www.chathampeace.org.

2. An attempt to defame Mr. Mahmood

The first thing that struck us about the letter was its tone. Through innuendo and the repetition of certain key phrases, Mr. Cleary attacks Mr. Mahmood’s reputation and attempts to paint a picture of Mr. Mahmood as criminal and dangerous. Mr. Mahmood has no previous criminal record in Pakistan or the US and in fact has a reputation as a hardworking, generous and honest man. Because this letter was released to the media, these ugly insinuations are damaging to Mr. Mahmood’s reputation and may well impact his future. Mr. Cleary repeatedly accuses Mr. Mahmood of being a “liar and a perjurer.” In fact Mr. Mahmood never knew that his fellow immigrants’ visas had expired, and only pled guilty to the charges of harboring under the advice of an attorney. Mr. Mahmood was at the time under extreme stress dealing with an unfamiliar and complicated legal and cultural situation. We know “plea bargaining” is a common practice in our justice system. How often have most of us been encouraged to change the truth of our story to lower a legal penalty even at the level of traffic court infractions?

3. Deferred Action Application should look to future

The deferred action application should deal with how well Mr. Mahmood would be able to merge back into his community in the present time, not on the vicissitudes of prior legal hearings. Mr. Mahmood has already received his criminal conviction which is time served plus five years probation.

4. Mr. Mahmood’s English skills

Mr. Cleary also suggests to Mr. Mahmood that “you used your purported lack of understanding English in an attempt to cloud the legal difficulties in which you have found yourself.” Again Mr. Cleary is insinuating that Mr. Mahmood is being dishonest. In fact, Mr. Mahmood was not provided with either a lawyer or any kind of interpreter when he was first arrested and interrogated by some twelve law enforcement officers. Mr. Mahmood’s attorney, Mr. Velasquez has informed us that Mr. Mahmood was provided with an interpreter for his second hearing thus indicating that there was a perception that Mr. Mahmood’s English was not adequate to the task of understanding legal proceedings without assistance.

5. Conflating a fear of terrorism with a fear of immigrants

Although Mr. Cleary states that “I am confident that you did not engage in terrorist activity and you have never been charged as a terrorist or accused as being a terrorist,” he then concludes his letter with a statement that Mr. Mahmood’s actions of “harboring” “posed a serious threat to national security.” Here the innuendo is that “illegal aliens” are a threat to our national security, thus conflating a national fear of terrorists with a fear of immigrants. In fact the fellow immigrants that Mr. Mahmood helped were “illegal” not because they were in anyway dangerous, but because their visas had expired. Neither they nor Ansar Mahmood were a “threat to national security.”

6. Racial Profiling not addressed

Mr. Cleary does not address the problem of racial profiling which is one of the most disturbing aspects of Mr. Mahmood’s arrest and subsequent detention. Mr. Mahmood was one of 1200 Muslim and Arab men who were targeted in response to the September 11 attacks. Mr. Cleary’s only comments on this issue are in the first version of the letter where Mr. Cleary states that because “the act of reporting suspicious activity after the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on US soil was encouraged,” he “finds no fault in the manner that (Mr. Mahmood) came to the attention of federal authorities.”

7. An attempt to discredit Mr. Mahmood’s supporters

Mr. Cleary attempts to discredit the Ansar Mahmood Defense Committee, a citizen’s group centered in Columbia County, NY, by noting that “the majority of those supporters had never met or communicated” with Mr. Mahmood. In fact the core group of Mr. Mahmood’s supporters have gotten to know Mr. Mahmood very well through visits to Batavia, weekly phone conversations and an avid written correspondence. In addition, it is perfectly legitimate for citizens to get involved in fighting injustice on behalf of people who they do not know personally.

8. A possible prejudicial Political bias in judging Mr. Mahmood’s request

In the first version of Mr. Cleary’s letter he states “I also received calls and letters, which were directed as general anti-US government sentiments. One person who wrote on your behalf cited the need to change our manner of government.” This sentence was edited out of the second version of the letter. These statements exhibit a prejudice which may have helped shape Mr. Cleary’s judgment as he seems to be disturbed by the political beliefs of Mr. Mahmood’s supporters. The fact that this statement was edited out of the second version of the letter suggests that there was a feeling that this statement was inappropriate and revealed prejudice.

9. The Judicial Review Process

Mr. Cleary states that “I find that the judicial reviews you have received have provided a fair and unbiased review and determination of your case.” In fact the judicial reviews were denied because Mr. Mahmood’s deportation was mandated by federal laws passed in 1996 which have stripped judges of their traditional power to exercise discretion in response to the individual needs of each case.

Mr. Cleary uses Mr. Mahmood’s attempt to use the legal appeal process against him. This creates a sort of Catch 22: the US government provides an appeals process, but the appeals have no judicial discretion because the judges are mandated to deport. Then in a plea for deferred action, one criterion of judgment by Mr. Cleary is that Mr. Mahmood was denied on appeals.

10. Media Coverage

The letter suggests that for Mr. Cleary the outpouring of public support and media interest was a negative factor his decision on Mr. Mahmood’s case. The letter states that “While you were exhausting all your legal avenues accorded under the American legal system, you have used this time to provide numerous articulate interviews with both the TV media and print media to garner attention for your release based on public support.” Of course, both Mr. Mahmood and the media have a right to free speech and the public has a right to know what is going on within the walls of US Federal Detention Centers.

11. Major omissions: Congressional Support

The letter does not mention the strong support Mr. Mahmood has received from members of Congress. Letters of support were written by Senators Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Feingold, Leahy, Corzine and Durbin. In addition, a joint letter of support was sent to the Department of Homeland Security shortly before Mr. Cleary’s letter was released by Congress members Rangel, Hinchey, Honda, Meeks, Conyers, Jackson Lee, Faleomauvega, Maloney, Grijalva, Crowley, Davis, Payne, Towns, Gutierrez, Stark, Owens, Baldwin, McDermott, Lee and Becerra.

12. Additional Omissions: Community support
The letter mentions that Mr. Cleary received hundreds of letters of support for Mr. Mahmood but does not mention that these letters included offers of housing and jobs.

It also fails to mention that there were many letters of support from organizations including churches, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and others.

13. Additional Omissions: ACLU Petition to the United Nations on behalf of Ansar Mahmood

The letter also failed to mention that Mr. Mahmood is part of a petition made to the United Nations on behalf of thirteen 9/11 detainees by the ACLU. This petition states that Mr. Mahmood and his fellow petitioners were subject to arbitrary arrest based on racial profiling and their human and legal rights were violated. This further underscores the importance of racial profiling and human rights to Mr. Mahmood’s case, an issue that Mr. Cleary has virtually ignored.

14. Additional Omissions: Mr. Mahmood’s Behavior while in Detention

The letter never mentioned Mr. Mahmood’s unblemished 30 month stay in the Detention Facility where he had an impeccable reputation which was verified for the AMDC by a prison staff member. In the October 2003 meeting held by members of the AMDC with Mr. Cleary, Mr. Velasquez also confirmed that Mr. Mahmood had a very good record during his time in detention. 

The members of Chatham Peace Initiative are Susan Davies, Robert Elemendorf, Kurt Lehner, Marcie Gardner, Max Grieshaber, Azim Goldrick, Nancy Rothman. For more information about the case of Ansar Mahmood see www.chathampeace.org or call 518-392-9477.