|
by William Fisher
A week after 20-year-old charges were dropped against the last two defendants in the longest-running Federal prosecution in US history — the so-called L.A. Eight — another case threatens to take its place.
And critics of the Department of Justice are charging that the newest case is a clear example of prosecutorial over-zealousness.
After numerous defeats in court, the Government late last month agreed to drop deportation charges against Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh, who were accused in 1987 on charges of being affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The government charged that any association with the PFLP was grounds for deportation under the McCarran-Walter Act, legislation written during the McCarthy era that allowed deportation for association with any organization that "advocated the doctrines of world Communism."
Two years later, a Federal Judge declared the charges under that law unconstitutional. The Government then charged the men with providing material support to a terrorist organization under the USA Patriot Act of 2001. It finally dropped these charges after the Los Angeles Immigration Court ruled that the Government was in violation of the men's constitutional, statutory, and regulatory rights.
The other six defendants were in the US on temporary visas when the case began. Three of them have become permanent residents. One became a permanent resident and then a naturalized citizen. Two others are eligible to become permanent residents and have applications pending. So for all practical purposes, the case against Hamide and Shehadeh was the final one.
But the clock is ticking on another case that appears to be similarly endless. It is a prosecution that many are describing as one of the most bizarre in US legal history.
The case pits avant-garde protest artists against government anti-terrorism investigators. The key players are Dr. Robert E. Ferrell, 68, a nationally known genetics researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Steven A. Kurtz, 48, a tenured arts professor at the University at Buffalo and a founding member of the award-winning collective Critical Art Ensemble (CAE). Some of CAE's work is designed to protest the potential risks of genetically modified (GM) food.
The case started in May of 2004.While Kurtz was preparing for
an exhibition
at MASS MoCA, a museum in North Adams, Massachusetts, his wife of
twenty years died in her sleep. When police responded to his 911 call,
they saw petri dishes in his home — part of the scheduled installation
— filled with bacteria cultures.
They
called the FBI. While politicians and Federal prosecutors rushed to
trumpet the thwarting of a major threat, Kurtz was illegally detained
under the Patriot Act on suspicion of bioterrorism. The street where
Kurtz's home was located was cordoned off, his house searched, and his
property seized.
The Governor of New York, George Pataki, lauded
the work of the FBI for disrupting a major bioterrorism threat. And the
then US Attorney in Buffalo, Michael A. Battle — the lawyer who was
later to become the Department of Justice employee who notified eight
US Attorneys that they were being fired — praised the work of the
Buffalo Joint Terrorism Task Force.
But after a
several-month-long investigation, the FBI and the Department of
Homeland Security (DSH) failed to provide any evidence of
"bioterrorism" On the contrary, FBI tests revealed within a few days of
the incident that there were no harmful biological agents in Kurtz's
house and that his wife had died of heart failure.
Forced to
drop its charges of weapons manufacture, the government instead accused
Kurtz and Ferrell of mail and wire fraud. They had failed to complete a
question in the requisition required to transport the admittedly
harmless bacteria — the purpose of the shipment. This resulted in
Ferrell's plea to illegally using the mails to transport restricted
materials. The charges against the two academics were brought under the
Patriot Act, thus increasing the maximum penalty from five years to 20.
The
defendants' supporters in the art world claim that Kurtz and Ferrell
were unfairly targeted for a bogus bioterrorism prosecution because
Kurtz's art exhibitions often attack government actions and policies.
The
case against Kurtz and Ferrell came to a nation still terrified by the
2001 anthrax attacks in the US. Also known as Amerithrax from its FBI
case name, the attacks occurred over the course of several weeks
beginning in September 2001. Letters containing anthrax spores were
mailed to several news media offices and two Democratic US Senators,
killing five people and infecting 17 others. Despite a massive
government investigation costing millions and covering several
Continents, the crime remains unsolved.
The FBI named a
government researcher, Dr. Steven Hatfill, as "a person of interest" in
the investigation. His name was widely publicized in the media for
months, but he has never been charged with any crime.
Prosecutors
say the Kurtz-Ferrell case revolves around public safety concerns, not
politics. According to reporting by Dan Herbeck of the Buffalo News,
the current US Attorney, Terrance P. Flynn, has declined to comment on
the case. But Lucia Sommer, a spokeswoman for Kurtz's defense fund,
said that Kurtz will continue to fight the government's charges.
The
New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) has questioned the propriety of
a grand jury investigation into Kurtz's work. "It doesn't appear that
this investigation satisfies the FBI standards that the facts and
circumstances of the case must reasonably indicate that a crime has
been committed," said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU.
The
NYCLU said that if the investigation was based on criticisms of the
government espoused by Kurtz and the Critical Art Ensemble, then
officials may have violated their free speech rights. "Unless the US
Attorney is in possession of facts very different from what has been
publicly reported, we call on his office to discontinue its
investigation of Professor Kurtz," Lieberman said.
In Federal
District Court earlier this month, the Government won the first of
their battles with Ferrell and Kurtz, when Ferrell pled guilty to a
lesser misdemeanor charge rather than facing a prolonged trial for the
mail and wire fraud felonies.
His wife, Dr. Dianne Raeke
Ferrell, an Associate Professor of Special Education and Clinical
Services at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, said, "From the
beginning, this has been a persecution, not a prosecution."
She
added, "Since this whole nightmare began, Bob has had two minor strokes
and a major stroke which required months of rehabilitation." She said
her husband was indicted just as he was preparing to undergo a painful
and dangerous autologous stem cell transplant, the second in seven
years.
His daughter said, "My dad opted to settle from pure
exhaustion." Ferrell will learn what his penalty will be in a court
hearing scheduled for February 2009.
Kurtz's supporters say,
"The government has pursued this case relentlessly for three and a half
years, spending enormous amounts of public resources. Most
significantly, the legal battle has exhausted the financial, emotional,
and physical resources of Ferrell and Kurtz; as well as their families
and supporters. The professional and personal lives of both defendants
have suffered tremendously."
Kurtz has rejected any plea deal,
instead demanding a public trial. Most of the art world has rallied
behind him. His colleagues in the Critical Art Ensemble have set up a
website and a legal defense fund (caedefensefund.org/). Kurtz continues
to teach at the University of Buffalo.
But no date has been set
for his trial, giving rise to speculation by some in the legal and the
arts communities that the Justice Department simply plans to 'run out
the clock' until President Bush's term ends in January 2009.
Patricia
J. Williams, professor of law at Columbia University, questions whether
the Kurtz-Ferrell prosecution is part of a larger government reaction
against anti-Administration expression in the arts. She writes,
"Recently scholars from around the world have been barred from the
United States for reasons stated and unstated, but all in the name of
Homeland Security. They include a South African peace activist, a
Canadian antipoverty worker, an Iraqi epidemiologist, most Cuban
academics, a Greek economist, a British musician, a Bolivian historian."
She
adds, "As other countries have adopted their own versions of Homeland
Security, the tables are turning on our own: Medea Benjamin, founder of
the exuberant antiwar group Code Pink, was denied entry to Canada
because of her numerous arrests for peaceful acts of civil
disobedience."

Recommend this article... |