Visit Al Jazeera English

U.S.
LARA BELOVA / GETTY IMAGES
Does FBI use no-fly list to pressure Muslims to become informants?
US removes from no-fly list four men who say they were barred from air travel because they refused to work with agents
June 11, 2015 12:00PM ET
by Jenifer Fenton@jeniferfenton
The U.S. government recently removed four law-abiding Muslim men from the no-fly list just days before a New York federal district court hears their case, scheduled for Friday.
Tanvir v. Lynch alleges that the FBI used the no-fly list to coerce Muslims into becoming informants on their community and that the government retaliated against them when they lawfully opted not to.
“The fact that the government has confirmed that all four of our clients now can fly really affirms our claims in this lawsuit that the only reason they were ever on a no-fly list is … they were refusing to be informants. There was never any valid reason for their placement,” said Diala Shamas, a senior staff attorney at CLEAR (Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility) at the City University of New York School of Law, which brought the lawsuit along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and Debevoise & Plimpton.
According to the suit, Muhammed Tanvir, a resident of the New York City borough of Queens, was not allowed to travel after he refused multiple requests from FBI agents to work on their behalf, saying it would violate his religious beliefs. Furthermore, he said he had no useful information to share.
He was first approached by the FBI in early February 2007, and the suit alleges that the harassment continued for years and included a temporary confiscation of his passport and threats to deport him to Pakistan, where his wife and son lived.
The suit also alleges that the FBI believed him to be a “special,” “honest” and “hardworking” person and offered him incentives, help with his family’s travels to the U.S. and financial assistance for his parents to take religious trips to Saudi Arabia.
Tanvir believes he was placed on the no-fly list sometime before October 2010, after he refused to speak to the agents further.
“Had Mr. Tanvir actually presented a threat to aviation safety, [FBI agent Sanya] Garcia would not and could not have offered to remove Mr. Tanvir from the list merely in exchange for his willingness to become an informant,” the suit states.
The three other men included in the suit — Jameel Algibhah, Naveed Shinwari and Awais Sajjad — believe they too were prevented from traveling after refusing to work on behalf of the FBI, or they found themselves unable to travel and were told by the FBI that they could be removed from the list if they agreed to work as informants.
“I haven’t seen my family in a long time. My youngest daughter doesn’t even know me,” said Algibhah, whose wife and daughters live in Yemen, according to a Center for Constitutional Rights press release issued after the men were notified that they would again be able to fly in the U.S.
Sajjad said he would like to travel to Pakistan to see his ailing grandmother. Shinwari has been unable to visit his wife and family in Afghanistan since 2012.
The men say their First and Fifth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association as well as freedom of religion and due process, among others, have been violated.  
The lawsuit names among the defendants the attorney general, FBI Director James Comey and more than a dozen FBI agents, some whose identities are not known.
‘Post-9/11, the FBI has been very aggressively recruiting informants within the Muslim community, and they use a number of tools. Among them is the no-fly list.’
Diala Shamas
senior staff attorney, CLEAR
The lawsuit is far from unique in its aim to make the government blacklist more transparent.
Last June, a federal judge in Oregon ruled in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit that the government’s system for people to challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list was unconstitutional, noting that the redress process contained “a high risk of erroneous deprivation of plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected interests.” In response, seven of 13 American citizens or residents represented by the ACLU were cleared to fly, after having fought their ban for years. Two U.S. military veterans are among those who remain on the list.   
The government provided unclassified summaries about the ACLU clients regarding some of the reasons they may not have been able to fly. But none of those summaries included all the reasons, said Hugh Handeyside, a staff attorney in the ACLU's national security project.
The government “didn’t provide any actual evidence in support of the summaries,” he said. “They didn’t provide access to the witnesses against our clients … and there was no live hearing at which our clients could establish their credibility.”
The ACLU continues to fight the government regarding the constitutionality of the no-fly list, which the organization says “treats people as guilty without a trial and deprives them of their freedoms without due process.”
If someone is on the no-fly list, he or she cannot fly to or from the U.S. or in U.S. airspace. Several federal agencies — including the FBI, which administers the Terrorist Screening Center — can nominate someone for the list, but the government has not said what criteria are used to designate someone a threat.
The Department of Homeland Security alleges that if the government revealed this information, “terrorist organizations would be able to circumvent the watch list’s purpose by determining in advance which of their members were likely to be questioned or detained.”
The number of the people prevented from flying is unknown, but estimates range from more than 21,000 people in 2012 to about 48,000 in 2013 to 64,000 in 2014.
Nearly half the people in the U.S. terrorist screening database, of which the no-fly list is a subset, were found to have no connection to a terrorist group, according to a document obtained by online news site The Intercept last year.
The no-fly list is shared with 22 foreign governments, and people usually discover they are on the list only when they try to fly and are not permitted to do so.  
If people believe they are on the list, they can submit a complaint to the Department of Homeland Security, which is then reviewed by the Terrorist Screening Center. They are notified by letter whether they are on the list and, if so, given instructions how to request additional information regarding why they were placed on the list.
But as the ACLU notes, a hearing is not provided.
The original primary guidelines of the government blacklist were to identify if a person was a threat to aviation and could be properly identified as such via “sufficient unclassified biographical data.”
There have long been allegations that the FBI has tried to coerce Americans, including law-abiding ones, to act as informants.
Former FBI Special Agent Michael German, who is now with the Brennan Center for Justice, said these allegations are true and are more acute for Americans living overseas. 
There needs to be proper redress and stronger regulations that are “constitutionally adequate” and don’t “deprive persons of the rights that they are entitled to,” he said, adding that coercing informants should not be part of the equation. Those put on the list, he said, must also have an “adequate forum to challenge the allegations against them.”
The case brought on behalf of Tanvir and the other men raises the larger issues of discriminatory policing, government surveillance and the profiling of Muslims.
“Post-9/11, the FBI has been very aggressively recruiting informants within the Muslim community, and they use a number of tools,” said CUNY’s Shamas. “Among them has been the no-fly list.”
SHARE THIS:
Life after the sting: ‘(T)error’ doc explores FBI use of paid informants
Tarik Shah, jazz bassist and karate master, is serving 15 years; his family maintains he is victim of entrapment
Professor removed from no-fly list, but full ruling kept secret
One woman’s battle to clear her name comes to an end, but court refuses to divulge details about no-fly list processes
Federal judge rules government’s no-fly list unconstitutional
Decision made on grounds that individuals on list have no meaningful way to contest status
Terrorist watchlist risks stigmatizing hundreds of thousands, says ACLU
Civil rights group says names are added to list based on secret evidence, no meaningful process to challenge errors
Wrongfully accused by the electronic surveillance state
Florida put me through automated trial by phone for a toll I didn’t owe
RELATED
TOPICS
FBI, Homeland Security, Law & Justice, Race & Ethnicity, Surveillance
EDITOR'S PICKS
Scalia’s death could affect court decisions long before his seat is filled
Deadly strikes on Syrian schools, hospitals denounced as ‘war crime’
New black mayors make a difference, one Georgia town at a time
Renewed deficit hysteria based on flimsy CBO projection
A blurry line divides addicts and dealers in heroin underworld
 
NEWS
OPINION
VIDEO
SHOWS
About
Our Mission, Vision and Values
Code of Ethics
Social Media Policy
Leadership
Contact Us
Press Releases
Awards and Accomplishments
Visit Al Jazeera English
Mobile
Newsletter
RSS
Site Map
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Cookie Preferences
Terms of Use
Subscribe to YouTube Channel
FAQ
Community Guidelines
Site Index
© 2016 Al Jazeera America, LLC. All rights reserved.
×
Al Jazeera America News
Al Jazeera America
FREE - In Google Play
VIEW
You rely on Al Jazeera for truth and transparency
We understand that your online privacy is very important and consenting to our collection of some personal information takes great trust. We ask for this consent because it allows Al Jazeera to provide an experience that truly gives a voice to the voiceless. You have the option to decline the cookies we automatically place on your browser but allowing Al Jazeera and our trusted partners to use cookies or similar technologies helps us improve our content and offerings to you. You can change your privacy preferences at any time by selecting ‘Cookie preferences’ at the bottom of your screen.To learn more, please view our Cookie Policy.
NEWSOPINIONVIDEOSHOWSSCHEDULELiveOpinionShowsLive