Category Archives: Failed foreign policy

Loretta Lynch Fully Opposes Obama on Gitmo

Posted on by

Say it isn’t so…pigs flying? Video calls between soccer or basketball games?

The Obama White House has a habit of altering assessments and reports especially noted by the CENTCOM scandal. The Obama regime also did the same with the assessment profiles of those forcibly released to other countries in an effort to close Gitmo. One such country that was betrayed by the Obama administration was Ghana. 

What is mind boggling is whether we should trust our President or the external people who are proving him wrong. According to US pundits, the said description as given by our leaders isn’t true for either of the men. Bin Atef in particular is a cause of concern. Long before his transfer, the intelligence analysts at Joint Task Force Guantanamo assessed him as a ‘high risk’ and ‘likely to pose a threat to the US, its interest and allies’. Atef is actually a fighter in Usama bin Laden’s former 55th Arab Brigade and an admitted member of the Taliban.

This is in sharp contrast to the claim by Mahama, who portrays the deal as an act of humanitarian assistance, likening the Yemeni men to non-threatening refugees who have been cleared of any involvement in terrorist activities. More here.

Those former detainees released to Uruguay were to be managed and controlled by the government under the Memorandum of Understanding and release. Well, at least one has fled, allegedly to Brazil.

Exclusive: Justice Department opposes new Obama proposal on Guantanamo

Reuters: President Barack Obama is again facing dissent from within his administration – this time from Attorney General Loretta Lynch – over his plans to shutter the Guantanamo Bay military prison, according to senior administration officials.

Lynch, a former federal prosecutor whom Obama appointed to head the Justice Department two years ago, is opposing a White House-backed proposal that would allow Guantanamo Bay prisoners to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court by videoconference, the officials said.

Over the past three months, Lynch has twice intervened to block administration proposals on the issue, objecting that they would violate longstanding rules of criminal-justice procedure.

In the first case, her last-minute opposition derailed a White House-initiated legislative proposal to allow video guilty pleas after nearly two months of interagency negotiations and law drafting. In the second case, Lynch blocked the administration from publicly supporting a Senate proposal to legalize video guilty pleas.

“It’s been a fierce interagency tussle,” said a senior Obama administration official, who supports the proposal and asked not to be identified.

White House officials confirmed that President Obama supports the proposal. But the president declined to overrule objections from Lynch, the administration’s top law-enforcement official.

“There were some frustrations,” said a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The top lawyer in the land has weighed in, and that was the DOJ’s purview to do that.”

If enacted into law, the Obama-backed plan would allow detained terrorism suspects who plead guilty to serve their sentences in a third-country prison, without setting foot on U.S. soil. The plan would thus sidestep a Congressional ban on transferring detainees to the United States, which has left dozens of prisoners in long-term judicial limbo in Guantanamo, the American military enclave in Cuba.

Obama has vowed to close the prison on his watch. But while he has overseen the release of some 160 men from the prison, the facility still holds 80 detainees.

The video plea plan has broad backing within the administration, including from senior State Department and Pentagon officials. A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment.

The most enthusiastic backers of the plan have been defense lawyers representing up to a dozen Guantanamo Bay detainees who are eager to extricate their clients from seemingly indefinite detention.

Republicans in Congress have opposed the president’s plans to empty the prison, on the grounds that many of the detainees are highly dangerous. But there is some bipartisan support for the proposal as well, a rarity in the Guantanamo debate.

Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican voice on defense and national security issues, said Graham was “intrigued” by the proposal.

While support from a Republican senator would by no means guarantee the votes needed to pass, it does give the proposal a better chance than schemes that would transfer detainees from the Cuban enclave to the United States.

Obama views the video feed proposal as a meaningful step toward closing the facility and making good on one of his earliest pledges as president, administration officials said.

 

Of the 80 prisoners remaining in Guantanamo, roughly 30 have been approved for transfer to third countries by an interagency review board. Most of those 30 men are expected to be released from Guantanamo in coming weeks, according to administration officials.

The officials said they think that as many as 10 more prisoners could be added to the approved-for-transfer list by the review board. Finally, another 10 detainees are standing trial in military commissions.

That leaves roughly 30 detainees whom the government deems too dangerous to release but unlikely to be successfully prosecuted in court. As a result, those men would likely have to be transferred to detention in the United States if the prison were closed.

Administration officials say that allowing video feeds could reduce that number to somewhere between 10 and 20. The administration believes that with such a small number of prisoners requiring transfer to the United States, it would be easier to win support for closing the facility, which is run by a staff of 2,000 military personnel.

“This is the group that gives the president the most heartburn,” said the senior administration official.

Lynch and her deputies at the Justice Department argued that the laws of criminal procedure do not allow defendants to plead guilty remotely by videoconference.

Even if Congress were to pass the law, Lynch and her aides have told the White House that federal judges may rule that such pleas are in effect involuntary, because Guantanamo detainees would not have the option of standing trial in a U.S. courtroom.

A defendant in federal court usually has the option to plead guilty or face a trial by jury. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, the only option they would likely face is to plead guilty or remain in indefinite detention.

“How would a judge assure himself that the plea is truly voluntary when if the plea is not entered, the alternative is you’re still in Gitmo?” said a person familiar with Lynch’s concerns about the proposal. “That’s the wrinkle.”

Lawyers for Guantanamo detainee Majid Khan, a 36-year-old Pakistani citizen, first proposed allowing Khan to plead guilty by videoconference in a legal memo submitted to the Department of Justice in November. In 2012, Khan confessed in military court to delivering $50,000 to Qaeda operatives who used it to carry out a truck bombing in Indonesia, and to plotting with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, on various planned strikes.

Senate investigators found internal CIA documents confirming that Khan’s CIA interrogators subjected him to forced rectal feedings. Khan’s lawyers say the experience amounted to rape. He was also water-boarded.

That treatment makes it difficult for the Department of Justice to successfully prosecute Khan in federal court, according to administration officials.

When White House officials learned that Khan and other detainees were ready to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court, they thought they had found a solution.

Efforts to try detainees, including Mohammed and other Sept. 11 suspects, in military tribunals at Guantanamo have bogged down over legal disputes. Only eight defendants have been fully prosecuted. Three verdicts have been overturned.

“The beauty of a guilty plea is you don’t need a trial,” said the senior administration official who supports the video plea proposal.

In February, senior Obama aides proposed pushing ahead with video guilty pleas at an interagency meeting at the White House on the closure of Guantanamo, according to officials briefed on the meeting.

Justice Department officials said they opposed video guilty pleas. Matthew Axelrod, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, said the proposal would violate laws of criminal procedure, according to the officials.

The meeting ended with an agreement to pursue new legislation allowing the guilty pleas, the officials said, which the Department of Justice supported.

One week later, President Obama rolled out his plan to close the prison in a nationally televised announcement from the Roosevelt Room. Obama’s plan included seeking “legislative changes … that might enable detainees who are interested in pleading guilty” in U.S. federal courts.

Administration officials spent much of the next two months drafting the new law. On a Friday afternoon in mid-April, White House staff emailed all the involved agencies with a final draft of the bill, according to the officials. The bill would be submitted to Congress the following Monday, the White House email said.

That weekend, Lynch intervened unexpectedly and said the Justice Department opposed the bill. The eleventh-hour move frustrated White House staff. Deciding again to not overrule Lynch, the White House shelved the bill.

In late May, White House officials found a sympathetic lawmaker who inserted language authorizing video pleas into the annual defense spending bill. The White House drafted a policy memo publicly supporting the proposal, which is known as a Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP.

Lynch opposed the idea, according to administration officials, sparking renewed tensions between the Justice Department and White House.

A SAP is the president’s public declaration on the substance of a bill, according to Samuel Kernell, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego. Without one, it’s often more difficult to get lawmakers on the fence to vote the way the White House wants.

The White House again bowed to Lynch’s objections and declined to issue the SAP.

Doctors Being Slaughtered in Syria

Posted on by

Not only are good Syrian doctors hiding wounded patients, they are reaching out to other doctors globally for help. So, really, where are all the global human rights activists, where is their outrage?

   

In the past five years, the Syrian government has assassinated, bombed, and tortured to death almost seven hundred medical personnel, according to Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that documents attacks on medical care in war zones. (Non-state actors, including ISIS, have killed twenty-seven.) Recent headlines announced the death of the last pediatrician in Aleppo, the last cardiologist in Hama. A United Nations commission concluded that “government forces deliberately target medical personnel to gain military advantage,” denying treatment to wounded fighters and civilians “as a matter of policy.”

In response, some doctors established secret medical units to treat people injured in the crackdown. One surgeon at Aleppo University Hospital adopted the code name Dr. White. Along with three colleagues, he identified and stocked safe houses where emergency operations could be performed. Dr. White also lectured at the university’s faculty of medicine; he suspected that seven of his most promising students shared his sympathies toward the nascent uprising. Another doctor, named Noor, recruited them to join the mission. In Arabic, noor means “light,” so the group called itself Light of Life.

At night, Noor and Dr. White gave the medical students lessons via Skype, concealing their faces and voices. The goal was to teach them the principles of emergency first aid, with an emphasis on halting the bleeding from gunshot wounds. During demonstrations, the students waited in cars and vans to shuttle injured protesters to the safe houses, then disappeared. “They had to leave the house before my arrival,” Dr. White told me during a recent Skype call from Aleppo. “They could not know who this man is.”

More here.

More than 700 doctors killed in Syria war: UN

Attacks on hospitals since Syria’s war broke out five years ago have left more than 700 doctors and medical workers dead, many of them in air strikes, UN investigators said Tuesday.

The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria also condemned horrific violations by jihadists and voiced concern that Al-Qaeda-affiliated militants may have recruited hundreds of children into their ranks.

Commission chief Paulo Pinheiro told the UN Human Rights Council that widespread, targeted aerial attacks on hospitals and clinics across Syria “have resulted in scores of civilian deaths, including much-needed medical workers.”

“More than 700 doctors and medical personnel have been killed in attacks on hospitals since the beginning of the conflict,” he said.

Pinheiro, who was presenting the commission’s latest report to the council, said attacks on medical facilities and the deaths of so many medical professionals had made access to health care in the violence-wracked country extremely difficult — and in some areas completely impossible.

– ‘Terrorised survivors’ –

“As civilian casualties mount, the number of medical facilities and staff decreases, limiting even further access to medical care,” he said.

Pinheiro also denounced frequent attacks on other infrastructure essential to civilian life, such as markets, schools and bakeries.

“With each attack, terrorised survivors are left more vulnerable,” he said, adding that “schools, hospitals, mosques, water stations … are all being turned into rubble.”

Since March 2011, Syria’s brutal conflict has left more than 280,000 people dead and forced half the population to flee their homes.

War broke out after President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed a brutal crackdown against protesters demanding political change in Arab Spring-inspired protests.

It has since become a multi-front war between regime forces, jihadists and other groups with the civilian population caught in the crossfire.

Pinheiro said the commission was investigating allegations that the Al-Nusra Front “and other Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups have recruited hundreds of children under 15 in Idlib” in northwestern Syria.

The brutality of Syria’s conflict is preventing millions of children from attending school, and activists have warned this is helping fuel jihadist recruitment drives.

Pinheiro also condemned violations committed by the Islamic State group.

In a report published last week, the commission warned that IS jihadists were continuing to commit genocide against the Yazidi minority in Iraq and Syria.

In 2014, IS jihadists massacred members of the Kurdish-speaking minority mainly based around Sinjar mountain in northern Iraq, forcing tens of thousands to flee, and captured thousands of girls and women.

– ‘Stop the genocide’ –

“As we speak, Yazidi women and girls are still sexually enslaved, subjected to brutal rapes and beatings. They are bought and sold in markets, passed from fighter to fighter like chattel, their dignity being ripped from them with each passing day,” Pinheiro said Tuesday.

“Boys are taken from their mother’s care and forced into ISIS training camps once they reach the age of seven,” he said, using another acronym for IS as he called on the international community to act “to stop the genocide.”

Vian Dakhil, a Yazidi member of the Iraqi parliament, also appealed for action.

“We need the (UN) Security Council to bring this … to the International Criminal Court” in the Hague, she told reporters on the sidelines of the Human Rights Council.

Dakhil said 3,200 Yazidi women and girls are still being held by IS, while around 1,000 boys under the age of 10 are being brainwashed and prepared for battle by the jihadists.

“This is still happening,” she said. “We need help.”

Around 400,000 Yazidis are still living in camps in northern Iraq, Dakhil said, adding that they still feared returning to Sinjar to rebuild their communities, since some of their Sunni Muslim neighbours had helped IS in its attacks.

“We need to rebuild peace … and trust,” she said. More from DailyMail.

 

Here is One That Should Have Received a Visa, But…

Posted on by

Athens, Greece – Working for the US Army in Afghanistan can get you killed, but there’s a silver lining.

  

The US Army offers its Afghan translators the right to request the Special Immigration Visa (SIV). It’s a program initiated by the US to help certain foreign employees leave their home countries and get on a path to permanent residency in the states—usually for protection from groups like the Taliban. For the last four years, the program has been renewed in the National Defense Authorization Act. This year, however, both the House of Representatives and the Senate failed to vote for the allocation of more visas, which could imperil remaining applicants.

Through that program, Muhammad, a former US Army translator in Afghanistan that I met in the port of Piraeus, Greece, should already be in the US. But like several other forgotten Afghan translators who served the United States, his visa has not come through. After being laid off by his army base in 2014, Muhammad fell into a bureaucratic gap between the United States’ promises to its employees in Afghanistan, and its rocky attempt to withdraw from the country.

Muhammad applied for the SIV in 2014. He was rejected in May 2015. According to the rejection email, his application was ruled invalid on the grounds of “Lack of faithful and valuable service.” Muhammad says that’s because he was fired—but not for lack of faithfulness or value. 2014 was simply the year that the Obama administration started closing army bases, in an early phase of withdrawal from Afghanistan. With fewer bases and fewer troops, fewer translators were needed. Muhammad was downsized by government contractor Mission Essential.

So in January 2016, he decided to make a go of it on his own. He paid $5,500 in smuggling fees to be trafficked from Afghanistan to Iran, from Iran to Turkey, and then from Turkey to Greece. By the time he arrived in the port of Piraeus in March, the 22-year-old’s life had been reduced to the phone in his pocket, the clothes on his back, and a sheaf of papers from his job with the United States Army.

His service and his perfect English together, in theory, put him in a better position than most refugees, but because he is Afghan, he isn’t even eligible for any of the expedited European relocation measures that the Syrian and Iraqi refugees sheltering in the port can claim.

Today he lives in limbo in a tent outside the port’s E1 terminal, where he can watch the Greek ferries come and go, bearing tourists to their summer holidays.

A life-threatening profession

Muhammad says that he was well aware his job translating between US and Afghan forces in the city of Khost came with a death sentence from Taliban insurgents, who oppose the current government and US intervention. He never told anyone, not even his family, what he did for a living.

“I was trying to keep a low profile,” he says, sitting cross-legged next to a ship bollard in the port. He forks a clump of rice from crinkled plastic tray on the ground in front of him. If anyone asked about his work in Afghanistan, he says, he told them he was going to school. These days, he’ll tell anyone who’ll listen.

In an Oct. 2014 episode of Last Week Tonight, US comedian John Oliver highlighted the bureaucratic nightmare that Iraqi and Afghan translators have to deal with in applying for an SIV—and the US system’s inability to take into account individual circumstances and dangers. One Afghan translator interviewed by Oliver had to wait three years and four  months between applying for his SIV and arriving in the United States. In that time, the Taliban killed his father and kidnapped his younger brother.

In April 2016, Muhammad met someone who nearly met a similar fate: another former Afghan translator for the US army named Ahmad. Until Jan. this year, 25-year-old Ahmad worked for the US army in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Knowing the dangers of his job, he applied for his SIV in 2014, but the paperwork moved slowly. He went back to work on the base.

In Dec. 2015, Ahmad’s family in Kabul received a letter from the Taliban, which threatened to kill his parents if he kept working for American troops. The next month, in January 2016, Ahmad decided he could not wait for a visa any longer, and decided to flee Afghanistan with his younger brother. They paid smugglers nearly $11,000, and got as far as Piraeus. Like Muhammad, the two brothers now camp in the port. Ahmad has not yet tried to restart his visa application process.

The SIV process has five basic steps, which include several phases of petition and permission before actually applying for the visa. The State Department estimates that this entire process takes 357 business days—but clearly, it can also take much longer.

“The single biggest cause for delay is security checks,” says Betsy Fisher, policy director at the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), which provides legal assistance to refugees. A puzzling problem, considering that anyone who has worked as a translator on a US army base in a conflict zone, has already undergone extensive security checks, including periodic polygraph tests.

Those who make it to the United States…

With patience, some Afghan translators do make it to the United States. Hamed, who asked to go by his first name only, is a former translator who worked for the US Army in the provinces of Khost and Paktika between 2010 and 2015. He began his SIV application in 2012. His application was approved the next year, but he did not receive his visa until early 2015. Luckily, he and his family survived the wait.

“I told them I want to leave as quick as possible,” Hamed told Quartz about the sense of urgency he felt after multiple threats due to his work for the Army. When he got word one night that he was finally cleared to leave, he says, he was so overcome with joy that he couldn’t sleep. In May 2015, he and his family boarded a plane to the United States.

But their departure has not had an entirely happy ending. In Afghanistan, Hamed’s wife was in her last semester of law school in Afghanistan, but they left before she could finish. Hamed has a degree in information technology, but in Woodbridge, Virginia, where they now reside, he has only been able to find a job in fast food.

…and those who don’t

Today, fewer than 4,000 SIV visas are still available, according to Fisher. Roughly 10,000 SIV applicants are currently waiting for a decision.

With the Balkan route that saw a million refugees work their way into Europe in 2015 effectively shut down, Muhammad and Ahmad’s only options are to wait, apply for asylum in Greece, or go home again. Asylum in Greece is not an option, says Muhammad. “This is not a country which can bear refugees,” he says of its record-high unemployment and the economically paralyzing effects of austerity. “Greeks already have too many problems.”

Despite being stonewalled by US immigration authorities, he carries with him at all times proof of his years of army service: copies of letters of recommendation from two sergeants he worked for, as well as certificates commending his work—just in case they might come in handy.

“I have no idea what to do,” he says.

WH Ignoring Law Banning Russian Arms to Iran

Posted on by

Obama Admin Under Scrutiny for Ignoring U.S. Law Banning Russian Arms Sale to Iran

White House stalls congressional inquiry into its failure to invoke law

FreeBeacon: The Obama administration is stalling a congressional inquiry into its ongoing refusal to uphold a U.S. law that would sanction Russia for selling advanced missile systems to Iran, according to recent communications between the State Department and Congress exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

President Obama has the authority under U.S. law to designate as illegal Russia’s recent sale to Iran of the advanced S-300 missile system, a long-range weapon that would boost the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities.

 

The administration has so far declined to exercise its sanction authority under law and has been stalling attempts by Congress to discern the rationale behind this decision, prompting accusations that the administration is ignoring U.S. law and “acquiescing” to the sale in order to preserve last summer’s comprehensive nuclear deal.

Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio), who first launched an inquiry challenging the administration’s reluctance to sanction the sale in early April, told the Free Beacon that the White House is continuing to punt questions from lawmakers, jeopardizing efforts by Western nations to block the arms sale.

The administration informed Chabot on June 8—more than two months after his initial request—that it has not reached a determination as to whether it will move forward with sanctions as specified under the law.

Obama administration officials reiterated this stance when contacted by the Free Beacon late last week.

“Frankly, I’m disappointed in the administration’s response to my letter requesting a quick determination that Russia’s transfer of the S-300 missile system to Iran is progressing their efforts to acquire advanced conventional weapons systems,” Chabot told the Free Beacon. “Unfortunately, the administration’s abysmal response indicates that they are more than reluctant to provide a determination on this case—which is exceptionally disconcerting considering the administration admits they have been trying to persuade Russia not to proceed with the weapon transfer.”

U.S. officials continue to avoid specifying whether the president will use current U.S. laws to designate the sale as illicit and place sanctions upon Russia.

This power, granted under the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992, allows the president to sanction any sale of “advanced conventional weapons” to Iran by other nations.

Obama administration officials have not explained why the law is still not being followed months after Russia announced it had made good on the multi-million dollar arms sale to Iran.

“We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry,” the State Department informed Chabot in its most recent communication, according to a copy viewed by the Free Beacon.

While the administration remains “concerned” about the S-300 sale, it is not prepared to take action, according to the State Department, which was ordered by the White House to provide Chabot’s office with a response.

“We remain concerned about this and have strongly urged Russia not to proceed with the sale of an S-300 system to Iran, as the transfer of these surface-to-air weapons systems to Iran would add to tension in the region and be clearly inconsistent with our common nonproliferation goals,” the State Department wrote to Chabot.

“The Department will continue to implement, as required, the various sanctions authorities we have to support our non-proliferation priorities,” the letter adds.

A State Department official further told the Free Beacon it has not yet decided how to react to the sale.

“We’re continuing to closely follow reports concerning the delivery of the S-300 missile system from Russia to Iran,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak on record. “We have not yet made any determination as to whether this delivery, if and when complete, would trigger any actions under U.S. authorities.”

Lawmakers, as well as reporters, have been trying for months to obtain answers from the administration about the sale. So far, U.S. officials have declined to provide a rationale as to why the administration has not exercised its sanction authority.

“These systems would significantly bolster Iran’s offensive capabilities and introduce new obstacles to our efforts to eliminate the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. I believe existing U.S. sanctions should be used to deter Russia from transferring this or other dangerous weapons systems to Iran,” Chabot wrote in his initial inquiry to the White House.

Obama administration officials are fighting against enforcing U.S. laws designating the sale in order to keep Iran from breaking its commitments under the nuclear agreement, according to one foreign policy adviser who works intimately with Congress on the issue.

“The Obama administration seems willing to let Iran get away with anything, up to and including acquiring destabilizing weapons that will remake the military balance in the Middle East, just to preserve the nuclear deal,” the source said. “It’s difficult to imagine what would ever trigger U.S. action, if importing these missiles that make Iran immune from outside pressure isn’t enough. Critics of the Iran deal predicted a lot of this, but the collapse on S-300s is worse than many of them imagined.”

 

What the DoJ Wont Tell you About Mateen’s Father

Posted on by

 

 

IPTNews: by Abha Shankar

The father of Orlando mass shooter Omar Mateen has longstanding connections to prominent Islamist groups in the U.S., a document discovered by the Investigative Project on Terrorism shows. Seddique Matin is listed as president of a then-new American Muslim Alliance (AMA) chapter in Fort Pierce in a July 1997 announcement archived by the IPT.

The AMA sponsored several radical conferences in the U.S. and its leader, Agha Saeed, has spoken in defense of convicted terrorists, including Aafia Siddiqui (a.k.a “Lady al-Qaida”), Palestinian Islamic Jihad board member Sami Al-Arian, and Pakistani intelligence lobbyist Ghulam Nabi Fai.

The Fort Pierce chapter is among 10 new AMA chapters opened, the announcement in an AMA bulletin says.

 

 

AMA was incorporated as a nonprofit organization in California in 1994 “to educate the Muslim community and others on the history and laws of the United States and on affirmative participation in civic activities on a non-partisan basis.” AMA’s political activist wing, the American Muslim Political Coordinating Council (AMPCC), includes leading Islamist organizations in the U.S. including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the American Muslim Council (AMC).

AMA no longer exists as a registered nonprofit and it last filed tax returns in 2010. But the organization continues to maintain an active Facebook account. In its posts, the AMA refuses to consider any Islamist motivation for the attack and lays the blame for Omar Mateen’s massacre which killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub solely on the country’s lax gun laws.

The organization has a history of working with radical Islamist groups and has issued statements in support of several terrorists later convicted in the U.S. The FBI cut off outreach communication with CAIR, for example, after uncovering evidence placing the organization and its leaders in a U.S.-based Hamas-support network.

In October 2000, AMA co-sponsored a rally in Washington’s Lafayette Park where AMC’s then-executive director Abdurahman Alamoudi announced his support for Hamas and Hizballah.

In 2004, Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years in prison for illegal financial dealings with Libya. He also confessed to taking part in a Libyan plot to assassinate then-crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

In 2003, Saeed testified on Al-Arian’s behalf, describing the man who ran “the active arm” of Palestinian Islamic Jihad as “my friend and during the last ten years we have worked together to mainstream American politics. We have worked together to replace the culture of despair with culture of hope and the culture of bullet with the culture of ballot.” AMA’s website also featured a section entitled “Valiant Civil Rights Struggle of Dr. Sami Al Arian.”

Saeed also penned an op-ed along with CAIR’s then-national board chairman Parvez Ahmed that called for Al-Arian’s release from prison during a subsequent contempt case. The op-ed criticized U.S. counterterrorism efforts claiming “the saga of Dr. Sami Al-Arian is a repeat of past incidents in American history in which our government targeted individuals using unconstitutional and un-American tactics.”

Saeed advocated “armed resistance” at a 1999 Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in Chicago: “United Nations has a resolution…which says… people in Palestine have the right to resist their oppression by using all means including armed resistance….” Saeed was featured as a guest speaker at Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) conventions. Evidence unearthed in a Hamas-financing trial in Dallas, showed IAP served as a propaganda machine for the terrorist group in the U.S.

At AMA’s 7th Annual National Convention in October 2002, Agha Saeed indirectly blamed the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden was contemptible, he said. “But I would like to say very respectfully, who brought Osama bin Laden from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan? Who gave him million[s] of dollars? Who trained him in [the] science of war, death and destruction, deception and deceit? Who gave protection to his cause and diplomatic coverage to his enterprise? Was it not President Reagan, when he had to see mujahideen at the White House, he said, ‘When I meet you I feel as if I am in the company of the founding fathers of this country?'”

Years after working with AMA and its Islamist allies, the senior Mateen, who hosts the Durand Jirga Show from California on the YouTube channel Payam-e-Afghan, has been reported to be an ideological supporter of the Taliban. He can be seen in one video declaring his candidacy for the Afghan presidency. In another video, Mateen can be seen praising the Afghan Taliban and referring to the terrorist group as “our warrior brothers,” the Washington Post reports.

While little information is known about Seddique Mateen’s work with the AMA, the 1997 newsletter shows the Orlando shooter’s father has worked for years with some of the most visible and radical Islamists in the United States.