The local media is calling it
"a terrorism case in the heart of America." It's a case of first impression: an American judge will rule on whether there is sufficient evidence of Israeli torture to suppress the confession of an American citizen.
Muhammad Salah, a U.S. citizen of Palestinian descent, is accused of funding Hamas in the early 1990s. He's not just accused of it, he's confessed to it, but more on that in a bit. He says he traveled to Gaza in 1992 on a humanitarian mission where he was seized by Israeli security agents. He argues that he was detained incommunicado and only after he was tortured by Israeli security forces for some 53 days did he sign a confession. He was imprisoned for five years there before being released in 1997 and coming back to the United States. After a series of investigations, he was arrested on the charge of aiding a terrorist organization. The government now seeks to admit that 12 year old confession. You can read more about the case here.
More below...
The Salah case is fascinating because the judge has to judge the validity of the confession based on claims of foreign torture. The government argues that the confession is legitimate and not the result of torture. Prosecutors point to the fact there was no physical evidence of torture among other circumstances in arguing that Salah is a liar. This argument has forced the government to take the unprecedented step of actually calling Israeli interrogation officers to testify in an American court proceeding. The judge has ruled that the proceedings starting Monday are to remain closed for security reasons. Over the weekend, her courtroom will be swept for bugs and explosives, and come Monday morning, the courtroom will be in lockdown as the Israeli agents take the stand.
Add to the mix that the judge has to deal with this question: if interrogation techniques are legal in a foreign country, does that mean the confession should be admitted--even if such techniques violate our own law? The technique used by the Israeli forces is called "Shabak" and a description of it can be read in the link at the beginning of this article. The gut reaction answer is naturally, no. So the judge may have to consider a legal as well as factual question in this hearing.
This case has been bizarre from the start and filled with interesting legal and factual turns. It's being prosecuted by the Fitz himself--well, Fitzgerald's office now that Fitz is otherwise occupied. Here's another fascinating tidbit. As part of this hearing on whether or not the confession was obtained by torture, one of the star witnesses may be none other than Judy Miller herself. Judy Miller is said to have witnessed the interrogation. Reads just like an episode of Law & Order, doesn't it?