FBI surveillance of Muslims in the spotlight in Supreme Court case

Ali Uddin Malik welcomed Craig Monteilh to his ward in 2006 with open arms. As a Muslim, he felt obliged to help the man who claimed to have recently converted to understand their common faith.

Over the course of several months, the two met often to pray and speak. There was only one problem: Monteilh was obsessed with jihad.

“At one of our meetings … he specifically asked me if vigilante violence is sanctioned within the religion, and I said absolutely no. He further investigated and asked if the Imam … was a proponent of violence or if I know of other (Muslims) in Southern California who support violence and I said no, ”Malik said during a recent press briefing.

Monteilh dropped the subject that day but picked it up again later. He urged Malik to say more about jihad and when violence is okay.

“I told him that our beliefs don’t sanction violence and that he needs to focus on prayer and faith,” Malik said.

Malik was so shaken by Monteilh’s urgency that he turned to his Imam and others for help. They were also alarmed and asked Malik to avoid the man “at all costs”.

After hearing similar reports from other members, community leaders were so concerned about Monteilh that they called the FBI. Little did they know the FBI sent him.

Defense of state secrets

About 2.5 years after Monteilh first stepped into the Irvine Islamic Center, the Muslim community in Southern California began to see the troubling episode in a whole new light.

Monteilh, fresh from jail on unrelated charges, revealed his previously confidential FBI connection. To Malik, it felt like a slap in the face.

“I felt betrayed by the institutions that were supposed to protect and honor the United States Constitution,” he said during the October 27 press briefing, which was co-funded by the ACLU, the Los Angeles division of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA.

Along with two other men, Malik filed a lawsuit against the FBI and some individual agents in 2011. They alleged that they were illegally targeted for surveillance solely because of their beliefs.

Ten years later, the lawsuit is still pending and no judge has ever contested their claims to religious freedom. Instead, legal proceedings have focused on the so-called “privilege of state secrets” that the government can invoke when a case raises national security concerns.

According to court records from government officials, the FBI and its agents are unable to defend their actions in Southern California without endangering the country. For this reason, they asked for the proceedings to be terminated.

In 2012, a district court sided with the government and closed the case. But then the 9th District Court of Appeals overturned the decision, ruling that a law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act paved a way for the lawsuit to proceed.

This summer the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and clarify the limits of defending state secrets. Oral arguments are scheduled for this Monday, November 8th.

The government claims that continuing the trial would put the country at risk. District 9 has misinterpreted and misapplied the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, officials say.

“The appeals court’s ruling has the surprising consequence that a limited provision of FISA designed to protect national security information is being turned into a mechanism to override the executive’s appeal to the privilege of state secrecy,” the government argued in the Appeal to the Supreme Court.

Malik and the other plaintiffs, however, say the 9th district judgment should pass. The whole country suffers when people who are improperly monitored by the government cannot seek legal assistance, argued Ahilan Arulanatham, faculty co-director of UCLA’s Law Center for Immigration Law and Policy, during the October 27 press briefing.

“The question for the court is ultimately very simple: Will the people we represent ever get their day in court?” He said.

Broader meaning

Oral arguments, as well as the eventual decision of the Supreme Court, are unlikely to address the religious aspects of the case. Most of the discussion will revolve around the privilege of state secrets and surveillance laws, said Arulanatham, who will argue on behalf of Muslim men in court.

Nevertheless, he sees the case as an opportunity to raise awareness. Few Americans understand the pain of being viewed with suspicion because of your belief, Arulanatham said.

“Even today, agents are asking to meet with the leaders of mosques to apparently spy on them, visit people in their homes for ‘voluntary’ interviews, and take various other measures, all of which together send out a very clear message.” this community: ‘We don’t trust you. You’re not like us, ‘”he said.

This negative attention makes it difficult for Muslims to relate to their religious community, Malik said, noting that Monteilh’s behavior led him to distance himself from his friends.

“I stopped going to the Islamic Center for fear of seeing Craig. I changed my appearance to appear less Muslim, ”he said.

The case will also raise awareness of the rules governing national security operations. Government officials hope it will become clear that the privilege of state secrets is never “frivolously” invoked.

“(Legal) proceedings serve to ensure that the privilege is only used if – and to the extent – this is necessary to safeguard national security,” wrote public prosecutors in one of their briefs.

The Supreme Court decision is expected in late June.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/11/6/22759869/why-these-american-muslims-sued-the-fbi-fazaga-supreme-court-surveillance