From Matt Apuzzo of the Associated Press:
Banana company Chiquita Brands International said Wednesday it has agreed to a $25 million fine after admitting it paid terrorists for protection in a volatile farming region of Colombia.
The federal indictment filed today alleged Cincinnati-based Chiquita paid $1.7 million between 1997 and 2004 to the Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, also known as AUC. This included monies paid by Chiquita after 2001, the year the Treasury Department declared the AUC to be a "specially designated global terrorist," or SDGT.
Under the immigration laws (as interpreted by the Justice Department), immigrants who buy or have purchased Chiquita products can now be charged with affording material support to a terrorist organization. See why, after the fold.
Section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines three types of terrorist organizations. The first two types are those designated by the State Department after a formal rulemaking process. It includes the usual suspects: Hamas, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, Shining Path et al.
But the third type is the problem, as it requires only an allegation by DHS, and the stamp of approval of an immigration judge, not a formal rulemaking process:
[A] group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv).
8 USC 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) (for you legal purists)
Subclauses I-III of clause (iv) include "soliciting funds" for or "affording material support" to a terrorist organization. Under this definition, Chiquita is now a "two or more" terrorist organization because it provided material support to the AUC in the form of money.
But because Chiquita is now a "two or more" terrorist organization, then any "alien" (our government's way of saying "immigrant") who affords them material support--money--is engaging in terrorist activity. An immigrant "engage[s] in terrorist activity" by
commit[ting] an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including... funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit... to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III) [the "two or more" clause], unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization's terrorist activity.
8 USC 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)
According to the Justice Department, these definitions are retroactive without limitation. So, if you're an immigrant, and bought Chiquita bananas at any time after 1997, you provided funds to a terrorist organization. You can claim you had no idea--but hey, if you're from Latin America, and you had any inkling that Chiquita was operating in some pretty bad parts of Columbia, who's to say you "should not reasonably have known" that Chiquita was affording material support to terrorists?
Sound farfetched? Try telling that to Ibrahim Parlak.
Parlak is a Kurd from Turkey who came to the United States in 1991 seeking asylum from Turkish oppression of the Kurds. In his asylum application, Parlak forthrightly disclosed that he was a "leading member" of the ERNK, "which has close ties to the PKK." He also disclosed that he organized fundraising events for the ERNK centered around Kurdish culture in Europe during the 1980s. At that time, and thereafter, the ERNK was the political front for the PKK. The PKK was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department in 1997; the ERNK was never included in the list of PKK aliases or front organizations so designated.
Our government's response to these disclosures in Parlak's asylum application? "Welcome to the United States, Mr. Parlak. Asylum granted."
Ibrahim Parlak lived the American dream after his arrival here. He took a job as a busboy in Chicago, started learning English, became a cook, and eventually bought his own restaurant in southwestern Michigan. He became a father. He was widely respected by his community, consisting of rock-ribbed Republican locals and lakefront liberals from Chicago who vacation in the area.
But after 9/11, everything changed. DHS arrested Parlak in July 2004, threw him in jail for 10 months without bail, and charged him with terrorism. His offense? His 1980s fundraising for the ERNK--a group never designated by the State or Treasury Departments as "terrorist"--but a "two or more" terrorist organization according to DHS. An immigration judge in Detroit found Parlak deportable based almost solely on torture-based evidence extracted for a disgraced and now-abolished Turkish security court. Parlak was ultimately ordered released on a writ of habeas corpus by a federal judge, and remains free on bail while his case is pending.
One difference between the ERNK and Chiquita: the ERNK, which had operations in the U.S. in the 1990s (and is now defunct), was never indicted by the Justice Department.
Parlak's next step? The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is expected to rule on Parlak's appeal in fall 2007. Let's hope that panel of judges has Chiquita bananas for breakfast.