Editorial: Clamming up on the Ujaama case
July 26, 2002

Federal officials' disturbing devotion to secrecy in the treatment of Americans suspected of ties to terrorists has been on display again - this time in Denver.

When FBI and federal prosecutors were asked this week whether James Ujaama had been arrested, as everyone knew he had at a house in the 2800 block of Dexter Street in Denver, they simply refused to say.

Had he attended a hearing Tuesday in a federal courtroom with his lawyer, the U.S. attorney and a federal magistrate?

Federal officials refused to say (although the answer was yes, he had).

Was he still in Denver? Had he been transported to Virginia?

Federal officials refused to say (he was and is, apparently, still in Denver).

Would they explain why they refused to say?

No, they would not.

And until Thursday, his lawyer didn't feel he could answer many questions, either, because his client's case had been sealed.

Yet Ujaama, it so happens, is an American citizen - not some enemy infiltrator from abroad. He has the same rights as every other citizen. And if he can be spirited off to an unknown location while the government refuses to confirm his whereabouts, or even his initial detention, that means the rest of us could be treated that way, too. It's scary, and such behavior in the pursuit of terrorists really has to stop.

We understand the Bush administration's resolve to avert another terrorist attack; it is in fact encouraging that federal officials are apparently leaving no stone unturned. And Ujaama obviously had earned scrutiny. A Muslim male in his 30s who boasts that he founded a Web site accusing the United States of genocide against Muslims -  http://www.stopamerica.org - he had traveled to Karachi, Pakistan, on several occasions (by his own account) and was reportedly associated with radical Islamists in Seattle and London. No doubt the most disturbing of those possible links is to fundamentalist sheik Abu Hamza al-Masri of London, an alleged recruiter for al-Qaida.

Given such a profile, the FBI would have been utterly negligent not to have questioned Ujaama at some point. The problem is not the vigor of the investigation, but the secrecy that surrounds his detention and the apparent assumption that if a case involves possible links to terrorism, normal procedures governing the rights of suspects can be put on hold or even tossed to the wind.

Ah, but Ujaama is not a criminal suspect, you might reply. He's a "material witness" who can be held indefinitely while he's being questioned, in order to prevent his flight. First of all, we're not convinced that government has any such right to hold material witnesses. But even if it does, since "indefinitely" could turn out to be a long time, information regarding his status and location is critical - even if officials technically don't have to say a thing.

We've worried before about the Bush administration's belief that it can detain an American citizen indefinitely simply by designating him a material witness or "enemy combatant" (the latter argument was offered, for example, in the case of Yaser Hamdi). Because whatever Ujaama may have done, he still retains his rights. Or at least we hope he does. Because if he doesn't, then neither do we.

 http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_1287619,00.html