WASHINGTON — Swept up by authorities after the Sept. 11 attacks, Adham Hassoun, a Palestinian computer programmer who lived in Florida, served 15 years in prison for sending support to Islamist militants abroad. His sentence completed, he then waited in immigration detention more than a year and a half while the government fruitlessly hunted for a place to deport him.
Finally, a judge ordered him temporarily released in the United States. But instead, the Trump administration, citing a little-used immigration regulation issued after Sept. 11, notified Mr. Hassoun last month that he was being declared a security risk and would be kept locked up indefinitely.
Mr. Hassoun, 56, has sued the government in a case that is shaping up to be the first legal test of that assertion of executive power. The lawsuit is the latest chapter in a series of disputes — dating back to the opening of the Guantánamo Bay prison in January 2002 — over when the government may label people terrorism risks to hold them in open-ended detention, and what due-process rights they have to contest their indefinite lockup.
“The government is saying it can hold someone solely because it claims he is a danger, without a justification like he’s a combatant in an armed conflict or has a mental illness that prevents him from controlling his own actions,” said Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union, who is consulting in the case. “This is a monumentally important issue courts have never addressed.”
Mr. Hassoun is difficult to deport because he is stateless. He was born in Lebanon, which did not grant him citizenship and has declined to take him. The Palestinian Authority said he may go to the West Bank, but Israel and Jordan have not consented to letting him get there, according to his volunteer lawyers, Nicole Hallett and Jonathan Manes of the University at Buffalo School of Law.
Before Mr. Hassoun’s case, the government had invoked the Bush-era regulation only once, the Department of Homeland Security said. That was in a 2015 case in which the Obama administration cited the regulation to justify keeping another Palestinian man detained; he had finished a prison sentence for planting a bomb on a Hawaii-bound airliner in 1982, and the government was having trouble finding a place to deport him, too. But before a judge could rule on whether his continued detention was lawful, Mauritania took him in.
Mr. Hassoun is linked to a far more famous terrorism case: Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was arrested in Chicago in 2002. The Bush administration deemed him an enemy combatant and held him for years at the Charleston, S.C., naval brig — including a 22-month period when he was denied access to a lawyer and interrogators subjected him to extreme isolation and sensory deprivation.
Eventually, to avoid Supreme Court review of whether its handling of Mr. Padilla was unconstitutional, the Bush administration transferred him to the criminal justice system for a trial. Mr. Hassoun was a co-defendant. They had attended mosque together, and Mr. Hassoun — an outspoken advocate of helping oppressed Muslims — was accused of recruiting Mr. Padilla to the “global jihad” cause.
Evidence presented at the trial showed that Mr. Hassoun had separately been under F.B.I. surveillance for years. He was accused of sending money and supplies to mujahedeen fighting in places like Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya, under the guise of humanitarian relief for Muslims facing oppression.
Prosecutors sought a life sentence. But Judge Marcia Cooke balked, noting that there were no specific, identifiable victims of his crimes and that the F.B.I. had known what he was doing for years before arresting him — a fact that she said “does not support the government’s argument that Mr. Hassoun poses such a threat to the community that he needs to be imprisoned for the rest of his life.”
In the lawsuit, Mr. Hassoun’s lawyers accused the government of seeking “to impose what amounts to a life sentence on the very same basis that the trial judge considered and rejected.”
The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice declined to comment.
Complicating matters, the lawsuit says that the F.B.I. has produced a memorandum assessing Mr. Hassoun as a security risk for reasons that go beyond his actions two decades ago, citing allegations that he used unspecified “incendiary rhetoric” in Muslim prayer services at the immigration facility and tried to recruit three unidentified fellow detainees for illegal activities.
Neither the government nor his defense team would provide the memo to The New York Times or describe the purported illegal activities. Ms. Hallett and Mr. Manes called the claims false, and said making the details of such “slander” public would only smear their client’s reputation. Part of their argument is that he has a right to a hearing to confront his accusers and contest the credibility of such claims.
While the dispute over Mr. Hassoun is new, the dilemma it raises is not. A longstanding immigration statute says that when a foreigner is subject to a final removal order, the government should take him into custody for deportation. But it does not dictate what should happen if that goal proves impossible.
In June 2001, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the government can hold such people indefinitely. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that it would be unconstitutional to interpret the law as permitting perpetual civil detention, and set a general six-month limit for such custody.
Still, in that case, Zadvydas v. Davis, the majority also suggested that exceptions could be made for “special circumstances,” like if a detainee had a mental illness that caused him to pose a threat to public safety. Justice Breyer also noted that the case before the court in 2001 did not involve terrorism.
Several months later, the Sept. 11 attacks touched off a period of heightened fears about Islamist terrorism, including sweeps aimed at rounding up and prosecuting or deporting hundreds of noncitizen Muslim men — like Mr. Hassoun.
Meanwhile, in November 2001, the Bush administration issued its regulation responding to the Zadvydas ruling. Among other things, it carved out an exception to the six-month release rule for foreigners deemed to be linked to terrorism. But that provision sat on the books, unused, for years.
Mr. Hassoun’s lawsuit challenging it may face steep obstacles, legal experts said.
The five-member conservative bloc that now controls the Supreme Court appears less sympathetic to people facing deportation than the court was in 2001. The court ruled 5 to 4 last week that immigrants facing deportation proceedings because they committed crimes, including minor ones for which they were released from criminal custody long ago, must be detained during that process without bail.
The Supreme Court will be unlikely to order Mr. Hassoun released if the Trump administration says he poses a security threat, predicted Jamil Jaffer, a George Mason University law professor who held several national-security positions in the Bush administration.
“The government’s hand is stronger when it comes to evaluating a national-security threat because courts generally give the president more deference in that space,” he said. “I just don’t see a court granting him relief.”
Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas, Austin, law professor, noted that a provision in the USA Patriot Act, enacted in October 2001, creates a way for the attorney general to hold terrorism-linked foreigners in open-ended custody if they cannot be deported. While the government is not invoking that statute, he said, it may argue in court that its existence means the regulation is reasonable.
Several dozen noncitizens will complete prison sentences for terrorism-related crimes in the coming years, according to a database compiled by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law. Many are from troubled nations like Somalia where officials may be reluctant to repatriate them.
“The creation of any precedent will be a big deal,” Mr. Vladeck said. “Once there is case law on the books that the government is able to subject even some immigrants to perpetual detention, it’s not hard to imagine the government taking advantage of it.”B:
六合杀手图纸【没】【有】【时】【间】【废】【话】，【于】【朗】【赶】【紧】【带】【着】【莎】【莫】【迅】【速】【的】【离】【开】【了】【这】【里】，【一】【直】【跑】【到】【科】【学】【院】【的】【大】【门】【前】，【他】【才】【停】【下】【喘】【了】【口】【粗】【气】。 【回】【过】【头】，【一】【道】【道】【的】【流】【光】【溢】【彩】【的】【身】【影】【从】【学】【院】【的】【各】【个】【角】【落】【飞】【出】，【迅】【速】【的】【赶】【往】【图】【书】【馆】，【他】【们】【都】【是】【索】【兰】【大】【学】【隐】【藏】【的】【超】【凡】【者】。 “【怎】【么】【样】？【帅】【不】【帅】？”【突】【然】【一】【个】【声】【音】【在】【于】【朗】【的】【耳】【边】【想】【起】。 【于】【朗】【惊】【讶】【的】【转】【过】【头】，【赫】
【简】【介】： 【地】【狱】【空】【荡】【荡】，【恶】【魔】【在】【人】【间】。 【方】【圆】：“【他】【们】【不】【配】【叫】【恶】【魔】，【只】【配】【当】【垃】【圾】。【先】【不】【说】【了】，【我】【去】【扫】【垃】【圾】【了】。”
“【臭】【家】【伙】，***【奶】【奶】【好】【不】【容】【易】【来】【看】【我】【一】【次】，【你】【居】【然】【还】【要】【吓】【唬】【她】，【真】【是】【太】【可】【恶】【了】！” “【这】【可】【怨】【不】【得】【我】，【谁】【让】【他】【们】【当】【初】【把】【你】【给】【软】【禁】【了】【来】【着】，【相】【逢】【一】【笑】【泯】【恩】【仇】？【红】【龙】【可】【没】【那】【么】【大】【度】。” “【可】【你】【现】【在】【是】【整】【个】【大】【陆】【的】【龙】【之】【王】【诶】，【好】【歹】【也】【是】【个】【半】【神】【嗷】！” “【半】【神】【咋】【了】，【提】【亚】【马】【特】【还】【老】【是】【针】【对】【我】【呢】。” “【只】【要】【你】【答】【应】
【李】【浩】【这】【才】【安】【心】【的】【在】【树】【洞】【中】【盘】【膝】【坐】【下】，【开】【始】【调】【息】【先】【前】【消】【耗】【掉】【元】【气】【来】。 【他】【在】【树】【洞】【中】【一】【呆】【就】【是】【半】【日】【之】【久】，【当】【双】【目】【一】【睁】【开】【的】【时】【候】，【不】【但】【体】【内】【元】【气】【恢】【复】【如】【初】，【连】【精】【神】【也】【明】【显】【比】【先】【前】【好】【上】【了】【许】【多】。 【毕】【竟】【这】【几】【天】【小】【心】【谨】【慎】，【不】【断】【使】【用】【神】【识】【打】【量】【四】【周】，【让】【其】【心】【神】【也】【大】【为】【消】【耗】【不】【少】【的】。 【李】【浩】【展】【开】【双】【手】【伸】【了】【个】【懒】【腰】，【活】【动】【了】【一】【下】【身】六合杀手图纸【情】【有】【独】【钟】。 【礼】【崩】【乐】【坏】。 【行】【军】。 【高】【昌】。 【墨】【竹】。 【落】【魄】。 【命】【运】。 【朝】【歌】。 【石】【佛】。 【在】【众】【人】【瞩】【目】【之】【中】，【二】【人】【缓】【缓】【来】【到】【擂】【台】【之】【上】，【对】【台】【下】【同】【门】【发】【出】【的】【声】【响】，【视】【而】【不】【见】，【二】【人】【眼】【中】【唯】【有】【对】【方】【的】【存】【在】。 【望】【着】【眼】【前】【的】【罗】【州】，【和】【平】【常】【一】【样】【的】【穿】【着】，【一】【袭】【宗】【门】【规】【定】【的】【青】【袍】，【那】【青】【袍】【布】【料】，【极】【其】【的】【差】，【和】
【眼】【见】【皇】【上】【动】【了】【杀】【心】，【人】【人】【自】【危】【之】【际】，【冷】【场】【了】。 【开】【什】【么】【玩】【笑】？ 【皇】【上】【问】【谁】【来】【受】【过】？ 【那】【个】【傻】【子】【敢】【答】【应】【受】【过】，【做】【替】【死】【鬼】，【遗】【臭】【万】【年】【啊】？ 【除】【非】【脑】【袋】【被】【门】【夹】，【或】【是】【进】【水】【了】。 【才】【会】【答】【应】【皇】【上】，【替】【人】【受】【过】。 【显】【然】，【这】【是】【不】【可】【能】【的】。 【但】【这】【件】【事】【总】【要】【有】【个】【结】【果】【吧】？ 【何】【况】【皇】【上】【开】【了】【金】【口】，【这】【件】【事】【就】【必】【须】【有】【个】【结】
【其】【中】【一】【个】【说】：“【没】【关】【系】【哥】，【俺】【几】【个】【不】【会】【伤】【你】，【就】【是】【想】【让】【你】【跟】【我】【们】【走】【一】【趟】，【大】【哥】【想】【见】【你】。” 【我】【说】：“【想】【见】【我】【给】【个】【电】【话】【就】【行】【了】，【非】【要】【这】【样】【吗】？” “【时】【间】【有】【点】【急】，【大】【哥】【怕】【耽】【搁】【时】【间】……” 【看】【他】【们】【没】【有】【动】【粗】，【我】【也】【没】【有】【喊】，【其】【实】【喊】【了】【也】【没】【用】，【周】【围】【也】【没】【有】【人】。【他】【们】【把】【我】【连】【拉】【带】【拽】【塞】【进】【停】【在】【河】【堤】【上】【的】【车】【里】，【一】【路】【谁】【也】【不】【说】【话】，
“【该】【出】【发】【了】。” 【宇】【智】【波】【晴】【的】【脸】【颊】【红】【的】【好】【像】【一】【只】【红】【苹】【果】，【平】【日】【里】【大】【方】【不】【拘】【小】【节】【的】【女】【孩】【很】【少】【有】【如】【此】【羞】【红】【脸】【颊】【的】【时】【刻】。 【宇】【智】【波】【辰】【轻】【轻】【握】【住】【了】【妻】【子】【的】【小】【手】【说】【道】。 “【嗯】。” 【宇】【智】【波】【晴】【轻】【轻】【点】【了】【点】【头】，【声】【音】【有】【一】【些】【细】【微】，【低】【着】【头】，【脸】【上】【满】【是】【红】【晕】。 “【恭】【喜】【你】【们】【了】。” 【卡】【卡】【西】【抱】【着】【肩】【膀】，【声】【音】【平】【静】，【与】【周】【围】【的】(来源：兴卉馨)