Season 1

The Holy Land Foundation Case: Advocacy, Prosecution & the Limits of Dissent

Conversation In 2008, five leaders of what was then America's largest Muslim charity were convicted in one of the most consequential terrorism-financing prosecutions in U.S. history. Miko Peled and John Cline — an author who spent years investigating the case and the defense attorney who tried it — revisit what unfolded inside that courtroom, and what it reveals about the boundaries between advocacy, dissent, and the machinery of post-9/11 prosecution.

Guest Miko Peled is an Israeli-American author and human rights advocate. The son of Israeli general Matti Peled, he is the author of The General's Son and Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five, the latter examining the prosecution and conviction of the Holy Land Foundation's leadership.

Guest John Cline is a nationally recognized criminal defense attorney who represented Ghassan Elashi, the Holy Land Foundation's former chairman, at trial and on appeal. Over a decades-long career in complex federal defense, he has also represented clients including Oliver North, Wen Ho Lee, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Witness To

• The Holy Land Foundation case and its legal legacy

• The boundaries between advocacy, speech, and criminal prosecution

• Civil liberties in the post-9/11 landscape

Marium Uddin (00:00)

My guest today is Tal Steiner, Executive Director of HaMoked Center for the Defence of the Individual, and formerly Executive Director of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel.

She is a lawyer, she is Israeli, and she has spent her career documenting what Israeli state power does to Palestinian bodies and families, using the courts to challenge what she believes violates fundamental human rights.

HaMoked was founded in 1988, born of the first Antifada. For nearly four decades, it has operated at the intersection of Israeli law, military administration, and the occupied territories. In 2025 alone, HaMoked processed nearly 30,000 tracing requests, four times its normal caseload. Through litigation, emergency legal assistance, detainee tracing, freedom of movement cases, prison conditions litigation,

and advocacy against torture. Tal's work has become part of the legal infrastructure protecting Palestinian prisoners.

While much of the world's attention is focused on governments and armies, Tal's work has focused on individuals, the family searching for a disappeared son, the detainee whose location is unknown, the farmer trying to reach his land, the resident trying not to lose legal status. Today I want to talk not only about law but about what it costs to spend a career insisting that human rights remain human rights even during war.

Tal, I have felt the warmth of your friendship through our correspondence, and of course we've tried to meet in person, but circumstances outside of our control have prevented that. Thank you for making the time to appear on this episode of Witness.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (01:31)

Thank you so much

for having me.

Marium Uddin (01:32)

Let's start off with some biographical information.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (01:35)

I've been a lawyer for fifteen years. HaMoked, the organization I'm running now, was actually my first job out of law school. I studied law here in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and returned to direct the organization that I'm so very proud of. It has been such a privilege to lead it over the past seven or eight months now. Despite everything that we've gone through, including the circumstances that prevented you and I from meeting in Washington earlier this year because of the Israel-U.S.-Iran war

that engulfed the area.

Marium Uddin (02:02)

I'm also so impressed by its work and I want to dive right into that. Can you describe for us what it is? Who calls you? What happens when the phone rings right there behind you at your office?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (02:13)

So HaMoked, as you said, has been founded in 1988. It started as a students' union, just trying to assist individuals wherever they can, using some of our privileges as Israelis, as Hebrew speakers, as Israeli lawyers later along the line, to challenge some of the occupation's policies and

the harm that it does to Palestinian lives, livelihoods, everyday lives, rights, families. Today we are an organization of about 20 people. And most what we focus about would be individual protection. It would be firstly through the tracing of detainees, because when a detainee, when a Palestinian is detained by Israeli forces in the occupied territories, their families are never made aware of

their whereabouts or not even a confirmation of their arrest. So the first thing people can do is to call HaMoked, and they've been doing that for almost four years. We're one of the first phone calls people would make to learn if indeed their relative is held by Israel and where and in what condition. And then later on, if we're able to, we would also visit that person in prison and try and ascertain his condition, his living situation, his health, etc.

But we do a lot of work beyond prisons.

We represent Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem, who live here under a temporary type of residency status, not as citizens, which Israel is constantly trying to push out and away from Jerusalem into the West Bank. And so we each year would represent over two hundred families in an ongoing battle to help them sustain and remain here together in Jerusalem, their hometown.

We represent hundreds and sometimes thousands of residents of what is called the Seam Zone, the area caught between the separation barrier and the green line separating Israel proper from the occupied territories, whose lives have been completely upheavaled since the erection of the wall and even more so since October 2023 when the restrictions that guide their lives have become so much stronger. So we try to preserve their freedom of movement

and their ability to either live inside the Seam Zone because many people actually live within that no man's land, as well as their access to agricultural lands, to businesses, and their abilities to sustain. One of the things HaMoked does best is provide

top-notch legal aid, one person, one family at a time, as much as we can afford it, for as many, as much capacity as we have to protect individuals.

Marium Uddin (04:40)

This sounds a lot to me like public defense and a lot of what you're saying attests to a strong sense of disempowerment and having to muster tremendous courage to fight state systems. It takes special people to do that kind of work. Could you describe what drew you into this work?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (04:58)

Me personally, I mean I grew up in a very, very different landscape. My family are both modern Orthodox and Zionist. So the narrative that I grew up on is miles away from where I am right now. I think it took getting to know a lot of good people

in the Hebrew University. It was the years when the first demonstrations in Sheikh Jarrah started against the settlement expansion into East Jerusalem neighborhoods that woke me up to some of the things happening just under my nose here in Jerusalem. I spent some years volunteering at the Jerusalem rape crisis center. And I think that taught me a lot about working with people affected by trauma

and working on difficult issues that are dark, that are some of the places most people would not want to look at. Moving from there to HaMoked and then several years to representing asylum seekers and victims of human trafficking and then obviously the Committee Against Torture kind of led me full circle to confront again what I believe is the number one

issue that we as Jewish Israelis have to face, which is the occupation and its consequences to the people that we've been occupying for almost 60 years now.

Marium Uddin (06:08)

Is there any other work that you could see yourself doing or do you believe this is your life's calling?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (06:13)

I really can't imagine myself doing anything else. I mean it's different doing it as a lawyer than doing it as a director. My concerns right now are a bit different. I no longer wear the robe and storm into the halls of of the courts, which I'm also a bit grateful for because it could be some very frustrating spaces.

My challenge now is to lead an organization, meaning to understand first of all how to sustain it in a space that is constantly shrinking, both financially, politically. The threats that we're facing are nothing like what we faced when I started off here.

As well as strategizing and understanding the impact of our work because it can never be just about individual representation. Individual representation always has to accumulate and to create something bigger. If it's through strategic litigation, if it's through advocacy, and then who do we advocate? Domestic politicians, national politics, do we approach the international community and whom in the international community?

That's also an issue that has been politicized in many ways, including through some of the current U.S. administration's decisions and actions. So to navigate those waters, I think is what I'm doing right now, and I'm very proud to be doing that. That's the truth. I'm privileged with working with some of the most committed, professional, morally awake people that this region can offer.

And that has been a great comfort and relief even through some of the worst times that we've endured here over the past few years.

Marium Uddin (07:41)

Yeah, you can't do it alone, I know that. You've raised many things that I want to come back to, but before I do, people hear "human rights lawyer." They imagine speeches. Describe for me what a Tuesday morning is like. What does your staff actually do?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (07:57)

So my staff can be either the intake coordinators who sit at their desk and are bombarded by phone calls from 8 in the morning until when the lines are cut off, receiving tracing requests over 100 such requests. So those would be mothers, sisters, fathers calling from either the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem saying, My son, my husband, my brother has been arrested. Can you find out where they are? And then we start taking them through the system.

Of getting an answer back to them, which means we have to file a request with the Israeli authorities, get an answer, relay it back to the family, and if we don't get an answer, what do we do then? And then it goes one step above, which is the case managers. The case managers receive all this data from the intake department and have to, it's kind of like a triage. What do I do? Who do I approach this? Whom in the Israeli military - military attorney general, police. Who is

responsible

for this issue?

And then if the case managers can't resolve it, then you would take it up to the lawyers. And the lawyers and the head of the legal department would sit together with their team and decide, okay, do we have a case here? What's the case? What's the instance that we have to approach? Is it the court of appeals, is it the district, is it the supreme? Do we have enough for strategic litigation?

Do we need partners for this strategic litigation? Do we need more evidence? And then our advocacy coordinator would make sure that he reports on everything that we do, that we upload all this information, all this knowledge, trends that we're identifying, the work that we're doing, to our website, to diplomats, to journalists, to people like you who are interested

in our work to make sure that we raise as much awareness and create this sense of urgency that we know is crucial. It's never enough to rely only on litigation especially in Israel, in the current political context when the courts are already so compromised, we have to use every strategy under our belt. And that's a Tuesday.

It's very intense, it's very intense.

Marium Uddin (09:55)

You mentioned a staff of 20.

For that, 20 is a drop in the bucket. Do you feel like you are, as another person had told me, mopping the ocean? And is it a function of people being afraid to do the type of work that you do? Or is it a function of the political landscape where people may be

don't believe in the work that you do? Another question I have is you described a team setting where there are determinations being made on whether or not a case can be accepted and elevated. How do you make that determination? What is a case that's viable?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (10:29)

The first question is difficult. I think anybody who's ever worked in human rights knows that no matter how much capacity we have, how much energy, how much we want to save everyone, you really never can't. And this is an illusion that to sustain in this work you have to get rid of very fast. We call it the Superman or Superwoman complex. And never will we save all the people that are suffering, especially in such a widespread apparatus

of oppression that is the Israeli occupation of Palestine. But of course, we would always want to do more. I think the only limitation is our financial capacity. If I had double the budget, I would trace double the people, I would handle double the cases. There used to be times where we we were richer and had a bigger staff.

What we're lacking right now is mostly the mobilization of donors to believe in the work that we do, to believe that there's a future to this place, because we are seeing some donors backing away from the Israeli Palestinian situation. Perhaps

they're frustrated because they don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, or they want to divert their funds to other emergencies around the globe, which is also understandable. And there are other factors that affect that. But the only thing limiting us is capacity, really, because the professionalism, the drive, the motivation is here, and if I could I would raise double the people.

Marium Uddin (11:52)

I want

to help you do that more than you know, Tal. but i

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (11:55)

But I think this is helping.

Marium Uddin (11:57)

Is is HaMoked is it essentially the only sort of legal aid that does this specific work? You had also mentioned partners or are there sister organizations that you collaborate with?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (12:10)

We're definitely not the only organization actually. One of the things that makes Palestinian and Israeli civil societies special is really how varied they are, how many organizations are there. We do something that is special to HaMoked. No other organization represents that many people. That means the individual cases. Not many organizations have the capacity to handle our workload.

Especially with tracing, but also with East Jerusalem and the Seam Zone - those are specific issues that no other organization that I know has the same expertise and capacity. But there are definitely other organizations who conduct prison visits, who collect testimonies of torture and ill treatment in detention, who monitor zoning and landing rights and and annexation

efforts by the Israeli government. There are many organizations who do terrific work. We're definitely not alone in this. But, yes, HaMoked to me is is still a very special place, both with the level of expertise and professionalism and commitment and the capacity to treat that many people. I think in that we are unparalleled.

Marium Uddin (13:13)

The other question, of course, was what are the guidelines around determining

that a case could potentially be viable?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (13:20)

So if we're talking about an individual case, it's pretty straightforward. You look at the situation your client is presenting, you understand what the law says, and do you have grounds for success? And if you have reasonable grounds to succeed in their case, then you go ahead with it. And oftentimes success is a very limited notion. When we're talking about residency in East Jerusalem, families would have to approach the courts on average three or four times until

they reach a resolution because the Ministry of Interior is notoriously late in responding to requests and to procedures, and oftentimes you would have to go to court just to get a response. If it's a negative, then you have to go to court again. And, if the court rejects you, the court of appeals, then you have to appeal to the district, and then maybe even consider appealing to the supreme.

When we're talking about strategic litigation, it gets more interesting because we have to understand what we're seeing. We have to see is this a phenomenon? Is this a trend? If I litigate this case, what would be the broader effect that this would bring to a larger constituency? If I, for example, take on the issue of Israel's failure to document arrests, would this protect

more people from the prospect of being enforced disappeared? If I tackle this procedure that has to do with the access of farmers into their lands in the same zone, what are the chances that I'll be able to allow hundreds more to enter in the next harvest time? So, firstly just identify the reality that we're looking at. And then the second thing is to assess

the legal grounds that I'm standing on. Am I trying to challenge a law? Am I trying to make the state obey a law?

What are some of the political implications of what I'm doing? How well is this going to be received, and if not, how do I prepare myself? Because HaMoked often litigates cases that are extremely controversial from the mainstream Israeli Jewish perspective. We have protested house demolitions of people convicted of terrorism. To most Israelis that is very difficult.

We are currently protecting detainees from Gaza, which in the eyes of Israelis are all perpetrators of the October 7 atrocities and war crimes. This is extremely difficult. And our lawyers have paid prices for litigating such cases. So you also have to take that into calculation. Okay, I'm taking this case, but here is the price that I'm going to have to pay, and how do I mitigate those?

Who are my partners? Who do I go to court with? Who can echo what I'm saying and give me more information and validate what I'm saying from another perspective? So for example, do I need lawyers here? Do I need doctors? Am I going to ask physicians for human rights? Do I need a perspective of the Palestinian minority within Israel? I go to Adalah etc.

So you have to build the right coalition, base yourself in the right evidence, be very strategic, also consider what would be the price of losing. This is extremely important because oftentimes we want just to protest this awful law that we've seen. But we also have to consider that the court and oftentimes that is the case would not necessarily be in our favor. And if that happens, what damage can it cause?

So if I miss this case, if this case is rejected, what more damage have I caused versus the status quo as it is? But this is the fun part of the work. This is the intellectual challenge but also the weight of the responsibility that you can feel when you tackle such a question.

Marium Uddin (16:48)

And, Tal, just to be clear, the weight of that is in establishing a precedent that could end up doing more damage than good, correct? Okay.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (16:57)

Absolutely. And that is correct

both for individual cases, but also if for example you're trying to challenge a policy or a law and then to find that policy or law upheld by the Supreme Court means that this is the new reality that you would have to face and it will be much harder to attack it a second time.

Marium Uddin (17:14)

Is there a statistical breakdown you can give in terms of cases that come through the door and then cases that are accepted and taken further along the journey? And then cases that are won. How varied are those numbers? And with respect to the cases that you're successful on, do you find that the

outcome is often dependent on the personality of the judge or the prosecutor that you're in front of or that you're up against? Is it a personality-driven industry?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (17:46)

So the success rates depends on the context and the issue that we're treating. If we define success as being able to trace a detainee, then the percent is close to 100% success. Most times, even for people from Gaza, for example, we would be able to trace a person and let the family know if they're held by Israel and where. And that is very significant, especially for Gaza detainees, but really for all detainees, since the Red Cross committee, the ICRC,

has been completely banned. We are one of the only lifelines that they have to their family members. So there you could say success rate is high, but then if you look at the numerous petitions that we've filed trying to elevate their living conditions, trying to investigate the incredible death toll that has occurred in the Israeli prisons since 2023, then our success rate is close to zero. In very rare cases,

has the court intervened on behalf of general live-in conditions, overcrowding, complaints of torture and ill treatment for Palestinian detainees? When you look to East Jerusalem, our success rate is one of the highest. Ninety cases of the

cases that we take on are won because we're good at what we do, because the law is on our side, because the systems that we tackle are so malfunctioning that any decent court would just have to allow us the win because we're right on the merits and we're right on the procedures. With Seam Zone cases where there is more of an influence of also expert materials, different security opinions that are very hard to challenge,

their success rates drops to around 70%, which still is, I think, a pretty good rate, which enables most our clients most of the time some measure of a normal livelihood and just life around the Seam Zone.

Having litigated so many individual cases, your chances of success are higher. If you only do strategic litigation and lose and we'll talk in a bit why that happens so often in Israel, you could be discouraged very soon.

But each personal case, one individually, is a world unto itself, to the family that's been able to reunite. for the farmer is able to farm his his ancestral land. This is a world entire and this is what we try and keep in mind.

Why are some of our cases lost? Is a good question. Firstly, I think human rights work generally around the world usually is not triumphant. I don't think we're special in that.

But we also have to consider that the Israeli legal system has been severely compromised by the Israeli government for over four years now, from already 2022, when this government took power, and we're just headed for election now after it completed its full term of four years. Its number one ambition was to dismantle the legal infrastructure, the separation of powers, to attack all the gatekeepers, and you could

really see how much the court is being deterred by those actions, by those very personal sometimes attacks on Supreme Court judges, on the president of the courts, on the attorney general. You could really see them in a sense choosing their battles, choosing their rhetoric. And all of that happened already before October 2023. And then October 2023 just changed the narrative in Israel in such a profound way.

What used to be more in the margins of Israeli speak when yes, we had the occupation, we had mass military invasions into Gaza and into the West Bank. in a sense nothing is new in what happened in Gaza, but in another sense it's a completely new atmosphere. The dehumanization of Palestinian lives by the mainstream Israeli Jewish society is not something that we have ever witnessed.

it became almost a taboo to speak of Palestinians as human beings worthy of the same rights. There were even polls recently published citing 80% of Jewish Israelis believing that after October 7 any kind of action towards Gaza residents is justified. And 60% of Jewish Israelis said they agree with the phrase there are no innocent people in Gaza.

This is the mindset. This is the society that we work from within. And when you look at the courts, at the judges, they're part of that society. So either they agree with those sayings, but they hide it under a shroud of legitimacy or they shy away from it and they refuse to get involved in cases that are too controversial. And for human rights work in Israel,

defending Palestinian human rights is controversial. So oftentimes we would lose not because this or that specific judge, but because the atmosphere towards human rights has changed so dramatically in Israel and that affects everything.

Marium Uddin (22:31)

Is that intensification of atmosphere attributable to first and foremost the politicians? And then that mindset is transferred to, for example, the media, and then the media amplifies the narrative that the politicians want?

I'm curious as to what

accounts for that intensification?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (22:51)

And it's a question for sociologists and historians perhaps. What makes a society abandon so completely what used to be foundations of a democratic society? I want to say it didn't start on October 2023. And it didn't start with this government either. We've been based on

the occurrences of 1948. So not all the stories about what happened then are being told. Definitely not taught in Israel, not to Israeli children.

We're looking into the 60th year of the occupation of the West Bank, really, the holding under violence of millions of people without citizenship, without rights. All those things have occurred. As I've said, war crimes have occurred before 2023. Terrorism has occurred before that. So we're seeing two societies in a clasp of

violence and counterviolence, of oppression and of resistance, all of that is what makes life here. And then yes, of course, populist regimes, populist politicians who would incite against any group if that would be helpful for them to sustain hatred and bigotry as the

building blocks of their policy. A media that succumbs to it without asking too many questions. It's incredible for people from the outside to understand how little Israelis are made aware of even the most basic facts about how the war in Gaza is being fought, because the Israeli media does not report that.

Marium Uddin (24:16)

Tal, let

me interrupt. How do you know? Is there a news source? How do you know?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (24:19)

Time.

Marium Uddin (24:21)

How do you know about what's happening in Gaza? What differentiates you? Of

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (24:23)

Phone calls ringing. The phone calls ringing. I mean, our clients

are the number one source that we trust. But we also consume a lot of other media, of course, international media. We read the reports of other organizations that we trust and have been verified. UN agencies that are still operative on the ground.

On our social media, as much as we can verify, and the very few Israeli journalists who are doing their job and reporting what's happening. It's not impossible to know, and you're right. I mean, if you're implying, I think you are, it's not impossible for any Israeli to know. It's just not accessible and not very easy to learn that your state has been involved in such terrible crimes. And yes, to be fair,

I think in many other contexts we've also seen that what is already a volatile situation is then compounded by a big tragedy, a big loss, dramatic event. And the October 7th atrocities were such an event. Never in our history have we been invaded like that, never have so many citizens been killed and kidnapped and tortured. That would have to have triggered something.

I think those were some of my first thoughts in the days after October 7 is to know that willingly or not, intentionally or not, Hamas has unleashed something in the Israeli society that none of us can really foresee where it would take us. And unfortunately, I was right, it took us to the most horrible places.

Marium Uddin (25:43)

Allow me to just redirect slightly.

To the question that you had raised about the level of awareness among the average Israeli, which leads me to believe that as important as your work is, there isn't a specific affection writ large, attached to what you do. Do you see a differential between the older generation versus the younger generation in terms of whether or not there is

awareness or whether or not there is an attachment to the cause that you've dedicated your life to?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (26:14)

No, it's very complicated because even Jewish Israeli liberals have their own blind spots. So you could say generally and polls suggest that as well, that younger generations in Israel are becoming more and more nationalist, more and more religious, less and less open to Western values,

believing less and less in the value of democracy even - such as we see by the way in other places around the world. We're not special in that. But we can't

also just look in nostalgia towards the older generations because they were in many ways part of the regime that has been established here. And while it was perhaps easy for our former generations to describe the occupation as a benevolent occupier, as a benevolent ruler, a temporary situation that soon would be resolved if only the Palestinians would agree to our terms, we've moved past that.

But generally speaking, it has been less and less easy to operate and to find any kind of support for the work that we do from within Israeli Jewish society.

Marium Uddin (27:16)

Let me jump us into what the courts actually look like when you walk into them Obviously, most Americans have never seen an Israeli military court. Who do

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (27:25)

Yeah.

Marium Uddin (27:25)

they govern? What rights exist? What rights don't exist? How significant is that distinction for your work?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (27:32)

So actually most of the cases that we litigate are in the normal Israeli system. We go to the Israeli Supreme Court, Israeli district courts. It's not very often that we would go to the military courts because in the military courts that's where most of the

security-related offenses, criminal offenses by Palestinians in the West Bank are being adjudicated and we treat less of those cases. But as somebody who's been there I can tell you that it's very difficult. It resembles more a prison than a court, really. It's heavily guarded. it's run down, it's hot and it's messy and it's crowded.

It's case after case after case. Oftentimes people don't understand, can't hear what has been said, don't understand the translators. It's especially apparent when they're adjudicating cases of Palestinian minors in detention, and we're currently looking at almost 400 such minors in Israeli detention, trying to catch a glimpse of their parents while the judge just mutters away the accusations. Most of those cases would be finalized with a plea bargain

just because it makes no sense to run the full case. The conviction rates are skyrocketing. So it something that does not resemble justice in many ways. And a very difficult sight indeed.

But when we

Marium Uddin (28:49)

Along.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (28:49)

go to the Israeli courts, I mean the facade is there. You go to a Supreme Court, it's very established and it's very sophisticated and there are rules of conduct on how you approach and how you're being spoken to. But that too has been broken. When I mentioned that our attorneys are being attacked at the courts, this is where it happens. It's not rioters that come to our offices. They meet us at court,

follow our case load and they make a habit of showing up wherever we have high profile cases such as house demolitions, treatment of detainees, whatever sparks their imagination. And then our lawyers would be attacked by droves of right-wing activists, flashing their cameras at our face, shouting at us the most horrible insults and slurs, trying to get a reaction out of us. All of this is

being posted online to their numerous social media accounts. It's a very scary experience. We've approached the Supreme Court and the police time and time again trying to mitigate that, but somehow it seems that free speech overrides our ability to conduct our work safely or our clients' right to being represented at court.

The irony of it is that recently the same activists have been trying to attack the judges of the Supreme Court and led by some right-wing politicians who also have made that their political signature, you could say. The same people are now blowing up court hearings at anything that they don't like, from the new government laws on the media to the role of the attorney general. They would come and blow up and shout the same

slurs and insults to the Supreme Court judges themselves, which is ironic because we've been warning them for years this is going to happen and they haven't listened. So this is where we are right now. Yeah, it does not resemble I think what most Americans would imagine a Supreme Court hearing looking like.

Marium Uddin (30:35)

There's so much to unpack in that answer, Tal.

It's very, very scary.

Leah Tsemel. Is

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (30:40)

Tsemel.

Marium Uddin (30:41)

Tsemel. is she still iconic? I look at her as a woman of fierce courage and

she always seemed real sassy to me, you know, just like people might hurl insults at her and she would just just be like, you know, who do you think you are? She might hurl one back. I know that she's kind of gotten on in her years. Is she still active on this scene? Is she considered

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (31:02)

So that's great.

Marium Uddin (31:03)

iconic? tell me about her or if you have a relationship with her.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (31:06)

Of course. l I mean Leah is an icon. She's alive and kicking. Her office is two doors down our street.

She keeps litigating and representing some of the toughest cases around. I personally admire her and

also have had the privilege of just jumping to her office and asking what she thinks about different issues that we've tackled or legal dilemmas that I've had, and she's always been very generous with her time and just pulling cases off the shelves and "I used to have that case. Maybe you should try this, this and that precedent, or you should argue about this and that procedure that they're not complying with." So she's definitely still with us and in very small circles that are human rights lawyering in Israel

she's very much admired. So yeah, we have the privilege of counting her as one of our godmothers if you like.

Marium Uddin (31:52)

Yeah, I love her. I think she's so special. I had also met a gentleman when I was volunteering for a a nonprofit here in the U.S. that would send medical missions to Gaza. And his name is Yotam Ben Hillel. I don't know how small

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (32:05)

Mm.

Marium Uddin (32:05)

your community is. Do you know him also? Yeah.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (32:07)

course it's a small community and I know a lot of people so

yeah you

Marium Uddin (32:11)

He reminded me

he was my first touch point with someone that I thought of as a public defender of sorts, and because like I said of the work that I had done, I felt a real connection to him. Just very human, humble, grounded, compassionate, open-minded.

Okay, so back to what we were talking about, I wanted to talk also about the Unlawful Combatants Law. I had heard in an interview when you discussed this previously. So since October

October 7th, Israel has amended that to allow detention for months before a judge reviews the case or a lawyer is provided. Can you walk us through what that changed in your practice, who it affected, and what your organization has been fighting about it?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (32:52)

So if we look to detainees from the West Bank, the legal framework is the military orders are, of course, much less protective than normal Israeli criminal code when it comes to detainee rights, but has been set as the norm for Palestinians, and this is what we've been dealing with.

The Unlawful Combatants Law is trying to capture a different phenomenon. It was first sorry.

The first time the law has been legislated was after Israel captured detainees from Lebanon and held them with no trial, and HaMoked has actually petitioned against that practice to say you can't hold people without any legal grounds for it, you have to have some kind of a legal framework. And the court agreed with us and made basically the state legislates

the Unlawful Combatants Law, which HaMoked also protested earlier in the 2000s, because it creates a legal system that is even worse than what we got accustomed to with administrative detention, because it provides less legal safeguards, as you said, longer times for judicial review of the grounds of the arrest, longer times for denial of counsel and the ability to meet with those.

people into uncertain situation. And all of this is under the framework of administrative detention, meaning that the state has no obligation to ever indict those people or bring forward evidence towards them, and there's no specific time limit. They could be held in this legal framework indefinitely.

What changed after October 7th is that Israel decided to apply this law to all of the detainees from Gaza because according to Israel, Gaza is not an occupied territory. So the military law that applies in the West Bank doesn't apply in Gaza. I don't have to explain how ridiculous that is, but that is the case.

And the second thing that they did is to just take all of the time frames in that law and stretch them out. So just after October 7, when the law was amended, people could have been held without a right to see an attorney for 180 days. Six months without seeing an attorney. And three months until a court would even

look into their case and see what grounds they're being held on. Of course, confidential evidence presented ex parte to the judge, not even with the possibility of confronting what the merits of the case are, but still something.

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, the organization that I formerly ran, filed the first petition against the Unlawful Combatants Law. And through many, many months of litigation, we have been able to gradually take some of the edge off. The holding times began to shrink back to their normal size. The judicial scrutiny time frame that the amount of time until they were able to be visited by lawyers

have gradually shrunk but are still very far from the original law the Supreme Court upheld back in 2003. So we are still left with this legal framework. This is how over a thousand detainees from Gaza are currently being held in Israel. No prospects of trials for them yet. Very limited access to lawyers, to any kind of legal remedies, and in terrible conditions, as we've learned.

Marium Uddin (36:00)

Tal, let me ask you about that. For a listener who thinks, well, there must be some security rationale, what do you tell them about what that system actually looks like when you're on the inside of the case?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (36:11)

First

I want them to consider that detainees from Gaza and the West Bank it's a revolving door. We've seen people come in and out, in and out. We've seen the pictures and the testimonies of people in Gaza being loaded into trucks just for being in the wrong neighborhood when the army invaded or in the wrong hospital. We know for certain, and Israel has also confessed to that during the litigation, that people are taken into custody en masse. It doesn't

need any specific evidence. It's only after that they're being detained that the state starts sifting through them. The security systems are looking into their background and who they know and what information can be extracted from them. And then start releasing back everybody that they don't need. Stay with the ones that they do. But what does it mean that somebody is still there? Think about somebody like Dr. Abu Safiya and the manager of Kamal Adwan who's now currently in detention still.

If he's a terrorist, if there are such strong evidence, why aren't they being indicted? And for so long. And Israel is so adamant that he was involved deeply, not as a cog in the machine, as a leader in Hamas, but still no indictments have been filed against him. And if that is the case for such a high-profile person, consider every business owner, shopkeeper,

student being arrested in Gaza,

who Israel is so determined is in fact a Hamas combatant or some other armed group combatant, but fails to show any evidence against. I would say the security grounds there are weak. They've become even weaker once all Israeli hostages have been released, which means that even people who may have information on the whereabouts of those Israelis are no longer of concern.

Another thing that we've seen is that many of these people are held as bargaining chips for the next exchange deal, for the next gesture that Israel would have to give a humanitarian gesture to Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.

And when the political terms are right then those people are being released. The fact of the matter I think eventually is you have to try them or let them go. You can't hold people in administrative detention for over three years and just continue as is and claim that you have the right to do it indefinitely. That's not how democracy behaves, it just isn't.

Marium Uddin (38:22)

Speaking of democracy, I want to address very specifically an asymmetry that had come to my mind when I was preparing for our time together. I don't know if you would call it that or if you see it that way too, but I believe that you would. So Palestinians who are arrested and imprisoned by Israel end up going to an Israeli-run organization for help.

Is that by design meaning that as a practical matter, Palestinian lawyers can't actually represent their own people effectively in Israeli courts? Is that foreclosed? And how much of HaMoked's work depends on Palestinian lawyers and field researchers on the ground? Is there a real effort to build that capacity? And let me also just add to that, Tal, because your answers are so descriptive and comprehensive,

I'm curious about how you build trust with Palestinian clients when you're asking them to place their faith in an Israeli institution, or whether you feel that maybe simply out of desperation and not having any other choice, they have to surrender themselves to that idea.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (39:22)

Well the the answer is going to be very layered, because the situation is complicated. Firstly, Palestinian lawyers can defend and do defend Palestinians in both military and Israeli courts. If they are members of the Israeli Bar Association and many of them are, then they do and are representing Palestinian clients in all instances.

For the organizational side, especially for non profit representation, pro bono representation, that depends on each organization's strategy and set of beliefs and theory of change. And when we look at our sister organization, Palestinian organizations like Addameer, Al Haq, Al Mezan, PCHR, all amazing human rights organizations.

The strategy that they choose to operate with lately has less been of individual legal representation. They do other very significant human rights work, but not necessarily take cases into the Israeli justice system. For both political reasons, for really their theory of change is not relying on those courts for change, but rather other avenues of advocacy and and engagement.

But that doesn't relieve the question of this relationship in an Israeli-based organization representing Palestinians. Firstly, I would say we are registered in Israel, we have been founded by Israel, but more than half our team and half our directors are Palestinian. Mostly from East Jerusalem, so not even Israeli citizens most of them. I think that has a great effect in trust building because the people

who approach us the first people that they would meet and they would be represented by are people of their community. They're not externals in any way. Which brings its own challenges, of course. To represent people from within your community can also be very difficult mentally. But even that doesn't relieve the full question. There is an asymmetry. The period of time where organizations like ours emerged

I think we had less of an understanding of colonialist practices to really just the separation of powers and the asymmetry of powers. I think it is important that there are organizations that come from within Jewish and Israeli societies who speak up against Israeli policies. I think no meaningful change can come

without such voices. And I think when we look around to other historical contexts it has been in part thanks to the disobedience, the dissent from within, that undemocratic regimes or racist regimes have fallen. And I think mostly it keeps us with the task of being very honest with what we're doing, with what we're saying,

making sure that we don't overstate or take the voices of Palestinians and how they would represent the situation and how they would tackle it. And I'm sure it's not always easy for our clients, especially from Gaza, to approach what they know to be an Israeli organization. I think we're very privileged to have their trust and we have to treat it with the utmost respect and care to make sure that we are worthy of that trust.

Marium Uddin (42:21)

That answer makes me feel very emotional.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (42:24)

Why is that?

Marium Uddin (42:25)

I

but I want to make sure that I there will

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (42:25)

No, not at all. I really enjoyed this conversation.

Marium Uddin (42:28)

So, Tal, you mentioned some of the organizations, some of the civil society organizations that are actually founded by or have representation by Palestinians themselves.

Of course, the U.S. has designated some of those organizations. From your perspective, how significantly has that set back or handicapped the work?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (42:48)

Well, the first state to designate them and try and blacklist them was Israel already six years ago, when the Ministry of Security, by the way, not from this government, from the so-called reform government, designated six organizations, some of which as I said, are our sister organizations have been founded around the same time and have shown incredible

integrity and courage in criticizing and documenting not only Israeli crimes but also Palestinian crimes. And this is something a lot of people tend to forget. Al Haq published an incredible report on torture in Palestinian Authority detention centers years ago and took the backlash that I'm sure he did for it.

So Israel designated them and tried to convince other states to back that. It was during the Biden administration and the U.S. would not endorse that. And so has no other Western democracy. And then the administration of the U.S. changed, and then all of a sudden the U.S. designated many of the same organizations independently, supposedly, yes, of the Israeli claims.

Being under U.S. sanctions is a very difficult thing for organizations to endure. And I'm saying that because it's not impossible that Israeli organizations would only also be sanctioned at some point in time. We're seeing the attack of this administration against international rule of law, against the international court, the criminal court, against UN special rapporteurs, against Palestinian organizations and other

initiatives. So we're not naive enough to think that if the Israeli ministries, government, whoever politicians would want it bad enough, they wouldn't extend the same favor in designating us as well.

Being under U.S. sanctions means that any type of viability financially has become extremely jeopardized. It means that many banks would not work with you, would shut down your accounts immediately because they would not risk compliance issues. It's not even about who they believe, they just don't care. It's not a risk banks like to take. It means that you may have to let go many other stuff. It basically means being neutralized in many ways. It also means there's a stigma behind you.

you,

It's a very, very violent and aggressive way of of shutting up and silencing voices that are uncomfortable but legitimate nonetheless and that do and deliver amazing human rights work that is so necessary. It's really one of the worst decisions that this government could have taken, but it has.

Marium Uddin (45:11)

The the title of this podcast

has great significance for me. In addition to bearing witness by testimony, Tal, your organization itself has actually written about conditions in Israeli detention since October 7th. So you've also taken on the task of creating a documentary record, and in your 2025 annual report, you write about those conditions, the scale of it, the pace of it.

Also documented deaths in custody. At least 94 Palestinians between October 2023 and August 2025.

And you've submitted evidence of this to the UN Committee Against Torture. Now you've also stated publicly that what has happened in Israeli detention facilities constitutes torture, implemented as state policy - not a casual claim. What I want to ask you about is what the legal and institutional response within Israel has been. And then I want to speak, and maybe less on that and more on the personal aspects of it, I would like to speak about

the prisoner cases themselves and how the families around those prisoners have been affected by these arrests, detentions, and deaths.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (46:18)

So first to the Israeli reaction. Israel sent unprecedentedly large delegation to the UN CAT deliberation. When the UN Committee Against Torture reviewed Israel in October 2025, Israel sent almost 30 delegates supposedly to refute

some of the information that we have brought forward, some of the statements by human rights organizations, some of the allegations by the committee itself. I think it did very poorly in that. It was a charade that mostly appeased the Israeli ear but did not make any sense when trying to

address concrete and evidence-based human rights allegations. I can't say that it echoed deeply within Israel. On the contrary, part of this dehumanization that we've been seeing, I think best manifested, for example, in the Sde Temain case where reserve military soldiers have been filmed and indicted, charged with sexually assaulting a Palestinian detainee to the state where he needed

hospitalization, but the case has recently been dismissed and the charges were dropped to the joy of both Israeli leaders and the general public.

So I can't say that our claims are echoing in the Israeli society. And they're definitely not making headlines. And in fact what attracts much of the animosity towards our work is the fact that we insist on keep on recording and testifying to that.

Marium Uddin (47:45)

Tal, how is that possible? In what universe is it possible that there is actual video footage of something that is perhaps the greatest torture that can be conceived? That footage has been viewed around the world and then

those allegations are dismissed.

How do you really make sense of that?

What do you tell yourself? How do you carry it emotionally? How do you understand it? Teach us how to make sense of it.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (48:11)

When I try

Marium Uddin (48:11)

Or is it an

I'm sorry, yes, just an acceptance that it can't be made sense of? I apologize.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (48:16)

I don't think

I can answer that with a story that I've heard about one of the winter soldiers, the American soldiers that came back from the Vietnam War and

were charged with committing war crimes in Vietnam. And there was an interview with the father of one of the one of the soldiers, and they asked him, So, what do you say about what they're saying your son has done? And the father, the American father, says he didn't do it, and if he did, it was for the right reason. And this same kind of cognitive dissonance is what has been a part of

Israeli occupation since its beginning. And if you want to go beyond that, you can go to '48 and you can go even beyond that. On the one hand, we're doing very difficult acts, some of them criminal, some of them inhumane. And on the other hand, we keep denying that we do, justifying. That's the dissonance, right?

It's not that bad as they say and even if it is, that's what they deserve, or they wouldn't spare us or look at what they've done to the Israeli hostages. "I've lost all empathy after October 7th" is a phrase that you would hear a lot. Even among liberal crowds or formerly liberal circles in Israel. "I used to be empathetic to them, but after October 7th I just don't care anymore." A lot of things happen to the human mind

when fed with fear, when fed with hatred, when being under attack, under also real attacks. After being traumatized, after being indoctrinized, a lot of things happen to the human mind, which enable both the

perpetration of those acts as well as the denial and acceptance of them at the same time. I don't think the Israeli society is special in that. It's just I'm sorry that we have to live through that human stage right now that I'm sure we are going to regret for decades, for centuries.

Marium Uddin (50:01)

That's in understanding the mindset of the perpetrators, or the people who maybe are not horrified by it but are even celebrating it.

On the flip side, when we look at the actual detainee himself, I don't know if you are privy to this information, but are you able to, even in broad brush strokes, say how he is doing today? I wanted to follow up and ask,

to your mind, what does justice or accountability even look like for a person who survives abuse of that magnitude?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (50:32)

So first of all we know that torture and ill treatment are things that would echo through a person's life indefinitely. The level of hurt, the level of trauma is something that would resonate for a lifetime.

And not only through that person's life, but also through the lives of his entire family and society. We've seen the photos of the Gazan detainees being brought back to Gaza, malnourished and really dumbstruck. You know that those people have to somehow find a way to live within society again, within their families and

with such limited resources for rehabilitation, what toll would that take? It's a very difficult fate and this is something that would go with them for the rest of their lives. Some recover better than others. Some find a way of making sense into it. Some break. Break and then are lost.

And this is just for the ones who are lucky enough to have been released back to their families. Consider the Palestinian detainees who've been in detention for over three years without any contact with the outside world. Not a phone call, not a family visit, not a visit by anyone except some lawyers who are able to visit with them, not the ICRC. it really is a life in hell, it's something that I can't even imagine. I'm not gonna even try.

Marium Uddin (51:43)

You spoke about the visits.

Al Jazeera reported that Israel has worked to keep media and independent legal professionals out of these facilities, the facilities like Sde Temain, similar to the access restrictions at, let's say, Guantanamo. Have you been inside this particular prison, Tal? Are you allowed to make prison visits to talk to your clients at the more notorious ones, if there is such a thing? A a gradation of which ones are more notorious than others, whether that's Sde Temain or Ofer prison.

How much of the conditions have you been able to witness personally yourself?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (52:19)

So personally I've not been there because we only send Palestinian lawyers to visit Palestinian detainees. It doesn't make sense otherwise. But my lawyers, HaMoked's lawyers and also from where I worked before, were able to visit Sde Temain

and Rakefet, which is an underground facility in the center of Israel, and the military detention center in Ofer next to the West Bank, as well as multiple other detention facilities throughout Israel. So yes, we have retained that ability to access, and what they've witnessed and told us is horrid. From overcrowding to just random violence. I especially remember one of my lawyers telling me how her client was.

Brought to her to meet her, obviously still bleeding from the bashing that he suffered on his way to meet his lawyer. This is the level of immunity, and something that perhaps you haven't addressed yet, but you did ask about accountability. The level of immunity that the Israeli prison service personnel and Israeli soldiers in detention centers are enjoying is such that allows them to be as violent and as aggressive towards detainees and

knowing

that will get away with it, they will get away with anything. That's what statistics tells us, and they understand it as well as we do. So, yes, we have been able to visit, but this has been one of the only open visits that anybody has conducted, and even that is very much limited. It's not confidential, it's not private, they're being harassed as they are going to meet us, and as they go back, the ICRC has been banned.

journalists have been banned, even official visitors have been very much limited in accessing those places. So there's a shroud of secrecy around everything that happens and

I know that I'm sharing a lot of information and I'm proud that we were able to achieve that information and tell the world because we were some of the first organizations to be able to give concrete evidence and testimony of what happens within Israeli detention centers after 2023. But it's not enough. And until those prisons are opened and until those people are released and we get to hear their actual testimonies, we would never know the full picture of what happens there.

Marium Uddin (54:30)

How much do you believe that the publicity around this specific case that we discussed of the prisoner who was raped by a gang of officers, or any of the other cases, because you've just expressed

an affirmation of the notion that publicity around these cases is important, but how much do you believe that that publicity increases the risk of harm to the detainee? Understanding that generally prison systems culture has a well-documented reputation for being retributory?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (54:58)

So there definitely is a risk. Some of our clients were specifically told by prison guards if you open your mouth you're gonna pay for it. We have eyes and ears in the courts. Don't you dare tell the judge what you've

gone through. Which is why we place such a high emphasis on client consent. We do nothing without their consent and we share the concerns and we ask them, Are you sure you want to file a formal complaint here? My surprise is that many detainees did give this permission, especially the detainees from Gaza. I don't want to speak

on behalf of them, but what they told us was that it's more important for them for their voices to be heard, for what happened to them to come to light than the risk that they are running by speaking to us or meeting with us. But that's not always the case. And there's also been instances where clients refuse to see us, saying it's just too dangerous. Don't come see me again.

Marium Uddin (55:49)

Do you find that the detainees and especially ones, as you said, from Gaza are remarkably brave?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (55:56)

Mm-hmm.

them on a on a pedestal, they're just normal people thrown into an impossible situation. But the levels of courage and of resilience and of humanity that some of them have displayed are incredible. And especially so is the case of the doctors and the journalists and other

groups of people that have been especially targeted. We see their over representation in the Israeli detention system right now. They are remarkable people.

Marium Uddin (56:25)

Tal, for people like me though who are horrified by much of what we have discussed, but powerless, what kinds of support actually help you in cases like this? What can we do?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (56:34)

First of all, echo our information, use our information, in whatever circles you feel you could find influence in, if it's with your legislators or your communities. I trust our information. I know that we we do our best to give you verified and thought through and analyzed information and to make it as accessible as possible. So to follow us on whatever

social media platform, to follow what we publish on our website. The articles that resonate this situation is very important because we do see

a trend, a change, especially with the American perception of the conflict and the U.S.' role in that, which is still ongoing. The U.S. has so much influence into what happens in Gaza, for example, right now, but also in the West Bank and generally in Israel. So it's very important that Americans are aware and and continue to raise this issue and keep it on the agenda. So that's one thing I think that is very significant. And the other is financial.

If I had more money, I could employ 10 more lawyers, I could visit 100 more detainees, I could protect 50 more families in East Jerusalem. There's so much we want to do. There's great people work, there's great work to be done. Our capacity is limited and it's been shrinking gradually. So any kind of support would mean the world to us. And it would also be very heartwarming because do you know that there are people on the other side of the global like you, Marium? Who

are not born into this conflict. They don't have to take that burden on them. But they do care enough to get involved is such a boost to our motivation. It's so uplifting to know and I really would encourage anyone to reach out and do that. That would mean the world to us.

Marium Uddin (58:10)

You're not simply a human rights lawyer, you've described yourself that way, but you're also an Israeli criticizing Israeli policy. And I want to ask you about what it has cost you. We've spoken about cost throughout this conversation.

But I really want to know what it has cost you personally to do this work and to speak publicly about what you've seen. As an aside, Tal, my belief is that the more we humanize our stories and make ourselves relatable to people who may not have heard of us before, is the way we bring people into the fold. You can speak about the work, and that still remains an abstract, it's theoretical. But when you describe who you are and

That

you're a mother, and you wake up and you make breakfast and send your kid to school with the lunch bag, and you pick him up after school, and you can't wait for him to give you his artwork from the day. Like those are things that are universal or they're supposed to be universal. And so, to my question, I'm trying to find out not politically but personally, what relationships have you lost? What has changed in you, and how do you understand your own identity as an Israeli? Have you felt like an

outsider among your own people? What kind of reception are you given among mainstream Israelis?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (59:22)

It's a difficult and sad story you could say in a sense because, yes, there are I don't know that I've lost relationships because of that. My family still loves and accepts me, but some of the Shabbat dinner conversations that we're having, you know, a Friday night meal with all the family,

can really escalate to a shouting contest sometimes. It has happened more when I was younger. I think as I grew older I understood that we need to find another way to communicate around what we will never agree on. Being raised orthodox, being raised very Zionist and my family prouds itself in our Zionist heritage,

is not something they can just shake off. I'm never going to be a person other than what I am and where I've been raised. I try to approach it with criticism but with compassion. To understand that my forefathers did what they thought was best. And gave me the skills and the ability to do what I think now is not only best, but is really my obligation.

It's been harder and harder to talk about Palestinian human rights, especially since Gaza. Harder and sometimes even scary. Not to every person that I meet would I tell exactly where I work. Wiggle my way around it. So what do you do? I'm a lawyer. Where? I'm at a non profit. So what do you do? We do, you know, this and that. And only if I really am pushed to the corner would I absolutely spill out what I'm saying because

it could be dangerous sometimes. Has been has been

Marium Uddin (1:00:49)

Sometimes

You have received death threats, Tal?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (1:00:51)

Not specifically, but I've received a lot of slurs and sexual harassment over social media whenever I appear on the news.

Yes, that has happened. It has happened. Not to the point where I'm fearing my life. I'm not there yet. I'm not saying that to be a hero. It's an honest assessment of the level of risk that I'm facing. But to really understand that you are such a minority of your society - we're talking about less than three percent of Jewish Israelis probably who hold the same views as as we do - it could be very

discouraging and it could be very lonely.

Marium Uddin (1:01:27)

What do you do to keep yourself in it? Is there something special that you do for yourself? Is it a camaraderie with your friends? Or is it that you simply can't turn away because now you can't unsee what you've seen? What

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (1:01:42)

Mm.

Marium Uddin (1:01:43)

keeps you rooted in this work?

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (1:01:45)

I mean all of the above, first of all the comrades, I mean the people that I have really the incredible honor to be working with and the friends that I've made along the way and people that have gone through the same stages in life, been disillusioned by the same things that I have,

and also people from all over the world who teach me how to be in defiance and still live well and still be happy and still be healthy, and to accept this as a privilege to live a life that is made out of really fighting for what you believe in. It's very romantic really. How many of us get the chance to do that? I'm really doing my dream job as far as I'm concerned, as hard as it is.

And the commitment to the people that we are representing and the courage and inspiration that I draw from them from Palestinian resilience. It's not something that I can ever really emulate, but I can aspire to and I can take comfort in the fact that I can somehow support it.

And if that's what I do and if that's all that I do and if I never win the occupation and even if I don't live to see the day the Israeli occupation ends, I can take comfort that I took a small part in trying to dismantle it towards the future. And that's a great comfort.

Marium Uddin (1:02:52)

I have said that the purpose of putting this podcast together has been to feature the people I know, the people I have met who are extraordinary and who are carrying extraordinary burdens. And surprisingly, every single one of them is a person who would deny that characterization of himself or herself and say, I'm just an ordinary person doing what I can from where I am.

I cannot tell you how profound our time together has been. This is one of those conversations for me that is life-changing. And I pray that people who listen to it are going to be inspired by who you are, Tal, and the work that you do, that they will recognize the inherent value and that they will make their contributions because I know many people who care about this issue deeply. So that is a very sentimental way of saying I want to thank you for bearing witness today. I have

greatly appreciated our time together.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (1:03:48)

Thank you so much, Marium. Really this has been such a great talk and such a wonderful opportunity to reflect and thank you for all the warm and kind words. I can't wait to share them with my entire team because they really the praise

Marium Uddin (1:03:59)

I can't wait to see you in person.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (1:04:02)

they deserve more than I do.

Marium Uddin (1:04:03)

Yes,

please pass them on to everyone if possible. And I look forward to a time when we are together in person.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (1:04:11)

So

Marium Uddin (1:04:12)

Take Tal. Thank you so very much. Okay.

Tal Steiner, HaMoked (1:04:12)

Okay, you too, Marium, thank you so so much.

Marium Uddin (00:02) To understand what is happening to Muslim civil liberties in America right now, you have to understand where it started. The Holy Land Foundation was at one point the largest Muslim charity in American history. Founded in Texas in 1989, it fed Palestinian orphans, clothed refugee families, stocked dental clinics. It raised $57 million over its lifetime. It never put a dollar directly into Hamas's hands. It was by the account of its founders and supporters an act of faith and community. And yet in December 2001, ninety days after 9/11, federal agents raided its offices and froze every asset it had. The case unfolded in the immediate post 9/11 environment when national security designations and terrorism prosecutions expanded rapidly. In that context, Treasury and law enforcement agencies were designating organizations under counterterrorism authorities, and the government later acknowledged that some of those designations rested on thin evidentiary foundations. The first trial in 2007 produced some acquittals, no convictions, and a hung jury. A significant result for the defense. The US government called it a Hamas front. It prosecuted five men. It won. Men who had never been associated with any violent acts received what amounted to life sentences. Among the most contested elements, the government called anonymous witnesses from Israeli intelligence, men the defense could never fully examine. These men were described as "phantoms." A federal appellate judge called one of them a "powerful" witness. The Fifth Circuit found four errors. The convictions stood anyway. Ghassan Elashi, co-founder of the Holy Land Foundation, American citizen, Inmate number 29687-177, is serving a 65-year sentence. The convictions established legal precedents that have shaped nearly every major Muslim civil liberties and material support prosecution since. If you want to understand Aafia Siddiqui's case, you have to understand HLF. If you want to understand the current targeting of Muslim community leaders, journalists and activists, you have to understand HLF. It is the original wound. My guests today are John Cline and Miko Peled. John Cline has spent 40 years defending people the government has decided to make an example of. He clerked on the Fifth Circuit, he made partner at Williams and Connolly. He has argued before the Supreme Court in nine federal circuits and in courts across the country. His clients have included Oliver North, Wen Ho Lee, and Scooter Libby, figures at the center of some of the most politically charged prosecutions of their eras. But when you ask John Cline which case has shaped him most, which case keeps coming back, he does not name any of those. He names the Holy Land Foundation. Miko Peled was born in Jerusalem into one of Israel's most prominent military families. His father was a decorated Israeli general. He served in the Israeli military. And then, after his niece was killed in a suicide bombing, he undertook the kind of reckoning that changes a person's entire life. He became one of the most prominent Israeli voices for Palestinian rights, wrote The General's Son, and then spent years investigating the HLF case, interviewing the families, traveling to the federal prisons where the men are held, and sitting extensively with the lawyers, including John Cline. The result was Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five. Miko joins us from his studio at Palestine House of Freedom. This is the episode this show was built to produce. Thank you both for being here on this episode of Witness.

Marium Uddin (00:00) John, for listeners who don't know this case, can you give us the essential facts? What was the Holy Land Foundation? What happened? Why does it still matter? What's the connection between this case and the War on Terror? John Cline (00:12) It provided charity both in the U.S. and overseas. Its focus was in Gaza and the West Bank. It provided charity to needy people in those areas. It provided things like backpacks, support for orphans, kids who had lost one or both parents, hospitals, schools. And it did so on a nonpartisan, non-ideological basis. It did so on the basis of need, not on the basis of of the political affiliation of the parents or the families. it was shut down by the government in December 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and then in 2004 there was a criminal prosecution that resulted in two trials in 2007 and again in 2008. The defendants were sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment. My client Ghassan Elashi, for example, is serving a 65-year sentence for providing charitable aid involving no violence, no support for Hamas or any other terrorist organization. And it's important today, only because of the injustice but because it has served as something of a blueprint for how the government goes after organizations that it disfavors. Marium Uddin (01:31) Looking back, what do you think the prosecution got right? John Cline (01:33) Well, the prosecution had a coherent theory, which it presented in both trials. It was a profoundly mistaken and wrong theory. The basic theory was not that the Holy Land Foundation provided direct support to Hamas, but that it provided support through zakat committees, local charity committees that were in the government's view controlled by Hamas. And by providing charity through these supposedly Hamas controlled organizations, it helped Hamas win the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people. That was the government's theory. They supported it with expert testimony from Matt Levitt, for example, and others. And they're good prosecutors, they're good lawyers, and they presented a coherent theory. The theory was wrong. It was deeply flawed. There were all kinds of problems with it, which is why in the first trial there were no convictions at all. And in the second trial there were convictions only because we had a court that decided to put its thumb on the scale and commit a series of errors which ultimately were found to be errors on appeal. Marium Uddin (02:41) Miko, you came to this case not as a lawyer but as an investigator and a witness. What drew you to it and what did you find when you started pulling the thread? Miko Peled (02:49) Well, thanks for having me. it's great to be on this podcast. It's good to see you again, John. So I was in Texas speaking about my first book about The General's Son. I gave a presentation, and after the presentation, some of the student organizers came up to me and some of them were the daughters of the Holy Land Five, and they told me the story. Which sounded to me completely unbelievable. And so I investigated some more. And you know, many of us believe that there is a justice system that is not corrupt, and so to hear about this sort of an injustice, it just didn't make sense. It was really hard to believe. But I believed them. And so I spoke to them some more. I got into this just after their first appeal. And so they sent me all the information, I read it, I read through the documents, I went back to Texas, met the families. And I said, you know, I think we need to write a book about this and I got their support and then I started visiting the prisoners that are already in jail and I met them in their prisons and I thought this is an injustice that has to be put out there. People have to know about this, people have to read about this and understand just how politicized and corrupt this was. And then they put me in touch with John and some of the other attorneys. And it was a long journey because I wanted to tell the story of each one of the five and the organization, which is a character in and of itself. And so the more I got into it, the more I wanted to know and the more I wanted to learn. And I went back to Palestine and I interviewed people who were involved with them there. It was hard to get people to believe the kinds of sentences they received. Every time I said 65 years, people just could not believe it. I read again all the documents that were made available to me, and I spoke to them and then the book came out. It was a journey, it was an incredible journey into first of all meeting these guys, these incredible people, who are really some of the finest people I've ever met, and the families, but also to delve into how an injustice like this can actually take place in broad daylight and at the end, like John's saying, it was clear that the court put their thumb on the scales. Ralph Nader after he read the book he called the second judge a hanging judge. He said, We call that a hanging judge. And here we are all these years later and of course three of them are out, but Ghassan and Shukri are still in jail. Marium Uddin (05:03) What did you learn from John that you couldn't have learned on your own? Miko Peled (05:06) The legal details and what exactly transpired. What really impressed me in talking to all the attorneys is how much they cared for these people because they were clearly the finest people you'll ever meet. And also how appalled they were at how the trial went, particularly the second trial. Marium Uddin (05:22) John, Miko had briefly commented on how extraordinary the defendants inside this case were and are. So let's go from the case to the person inside for a moment. You've carried with you Ghassan Elashi's case for years, a man serving 65 years. What type of a person is he? John Cline (05:38) Ghassan is courageous. He is a powerful believer in the rights of Palestinians, but has never ever advocated violence. He has a very sharp, droll sense of humor, which has sustained him at times, certainly did during the trial, which was a very painful ordeal for him and for the other defendants. What I say about Ghassan - he is relentlessly honest. He is utterly clear-eyed about his own position, about the position of others. A very objective observer of his own situation and the broader political situation. And what I would say about him, I would say as well about the other defendants to the extent that I know them, Mufid, for example, Shukri, I agree entirely with Miko's assessment of them. They are remarkable, decent men who utterly unjustly have found themselves caught up in a grossly unfair criminal system. And it was unfair to all of them, but particularly to Ghassan and Shukri who are, as Miko said, still serving these ridiculous 65-year prison terms. And to put those prison terms just a little bit in perspective, if they had been convicted of the same crimes in Israel, they would have received sentences of something like one to three years. Here in the U.S., they are serving sentences of 65 years for providing charity to needy people in Palestine. It's one of the most grotesque injustices I am aware of in the federal criminal system. Marium Uddin (07:23) That's a stark irony you've pointed out. Of course, Human Rights Watch decried this as one of the most profound miscarriages of justice in modern times. I feel the sentiment that we're all centering around. The families of the defendants are extraordinary people. It bears worth repeating. They're some of the most exceptional, integrous, and resilient people. Miko, you travel to the federal prison complexes where these men are held and sat with them in person. What do you carry from those visits and what did you see in those rooms that the court record can't capture? Miko Peled (07:54) Really the humanity. Just the the humanity of these guys and then the the oppressive, horribly oppressive nature of the system. The only one of the five that the prison authorities did not permit me to visit was Ghassan actually. I met Shukri first. I went to see Shukri first. And at that time the prison allowed for a whole weekend so you could come and see them Friday afternoon and then Saturday and then Sunday. Since then they changed it. and they're only allowed, I believe, one day every other week or something. But first of all, going into the prison is such a horrifying experience, especially the maximum security ones, which which Shukri was in at the time. And then you go in and you sit with a guy for most of the day. We were able to sit most of the day because I would go there to Beaumont and sit with him. And you're chatting and you could be sitting in a cafe somewhere. I mean, really, it was just the most pleasant experience. And then suddenly, besides the fact that the prison guard is sitting right there looking at you, with this menacing expression and then they blow the whistle and that's it. Suddenly there's this separation. They go this way, the visitors go that way. I can't imagine what it's like for a family member. I was devastated by it. And then you leave that place and you drive off. And it reminded me of experiences that I've had with Palestinians in Palestine, where I could go and travel and meet them anywhere, but they were never allowed to come and visit me. They were never allowed to come out of their ghettos, of the prisons that in which they're in. And then I remember the first time I met Mufid in prison. He had just been released to a medium security prison. He had just come out of the CMU, the communication management units, which is kind of like a prison for "terrorists" or for Muslims for lack of a better term. And we were sitting there and there were children in the visitation room, and he was smiling and he said to me, I have not seen children in all of these years. It was several years into his imprisonment. And he was just I have not seen children in such a long time, and I've not heard children in such a long time. Every one of them I visited, there's a human story to these gentlemen. And you're just overwhelmed with the kind of people they are and what they've been through and and their resilience. They have this resilience and belief in their faith and and that they did the right thing. Abdulrahman got 15 years and he had the opportunity to basically snitch and testify Marium Uddin (10:08) you Miko Peled (10:09) for the prosecution and get out in six months. This was offered to him several times throughout before the trial and during the trial, and he said absolutely not. And he ended up being in prison for 15 years and now he left the U.S. because he just couldn't live here anymore. Mohammad El-Mezain as well. When I met him, he was already in a minimum security prison in Long Beach in California. And again, you sit with this this strong personality who has deep faith in himself what he did, and pride in what he did. And it's almost as though this horrific injustice didn't affect them. Didn't affect their personality, didn't affect their resolve. Like I said, some of the most impressive people I ever met and seeing them in that in that environment and then having to leave them there and not be able to take them with me or continue the conversation somewhere else is deeply, deeply disturbing. I can't imagine what it's like for family members. By the way, I met Mohammad El-Mezain because he was deported. He's in Istanbul. And so I recently met him in Istanbul. It's a reality that is just unfathomable really, the injustice of this. Marium Uddin (11:08) Whatis the reason the prison denied you the opportunity to visit Ghassan? Miko Peled (11:12) They don't they don't explain. I requested several times and then he was moved over the years to different prisons and I would try again and I would get the same the same answer every single time. and that's it. They don't explain. Marium Uddin (11:23) As for Abdulrahman when you mentioned that he had the opportunity to, quote unquote, snitch, it's an impossible situation and an untenable one when there's nothing to snitch about. Miko Peled (11:37) They wanted him to testify against his friend somehow, which of course, like you said, there's nothing to say because they did nothing wrong. But he said, No, I sleep well at night. I'm fine. I'm not worried. Marium Uddin (11:46) The resilience that you speak in terms of seeing how they carry on - is most demonstrative of courage, nobility, and integrity. your experience as well? Miko Peled (11:56) Absolutely. As a parent, the best testament to your ability to be a good parent is the children, of course. And the families and the children of these of these men are incredible. Absolutely incredible. I met them several times, I met them through different places around the country, I've had conversations with them. They're remarkable people. I think you you mentioned that as well. And you know, their ordeal didn't start with the trials. They didn't start in December of 2001. Shukri discovered during the trial that his phones have been tapped going back to the early nineties, which is when the ADL and some other Zionist organizations and Congress and others began this persecution of them. And the daughters were followed by the police and were harassed by the police on the way to school. So they have been experiencing this far longer than just when the legal state came out against them. of 2001. Marium Uddin (12:48) So Miko, understanding that, I'm sorry to interrupt, Miko Peled (12:51) Sure. Marium Uddin (12:52) that the HLF case is arguably the most consequential terrorism financing prosecution in US history, yet it received relatively little sustained retrospective investigation by the journalists who later scrutinized many of their aspects of the War on Terror. Do you have an explanation for why that is? Miko Peled (13:11) Well, first of all, nobody wants to deal with terrorism. People do not want to come close to it because it's terrorism. In the Muslim communities around the country, so many of them knew them and worked with Holy Land and trusted them. There was terrible fear to even touch it or hear about it or talk about it. So nobody wanted to discuss it. There were very few that wanted to hear about the book. It was really very, very clear that the success of this case was that the fear was so deep that nobody wanted to talk about Palestine, nobody wanted to talk about the case because terrorism is toxic. It's like they then In terms of the regular corporate media, they didn't see a problem. You know, they were "terrorists" and they were found guilty and you know, there was a trial and everything went fine. The devil is in the details of what took place in the courtroom, where the evidence came from, how it was translated, who the witnesses were. That's really where the devil lies and that's why these guys ended up in prison. The pol Marium Uddin (14:02) Do you believe that fear of touching these terrorism-related prosecutions extended to the Muslim American community or do you see itas they defended HLF publicly? Miko Peled (14:12) Well, people didn't want to talk about it. They didn't want to talk about that and they didn't want to talk about Palestine. It's sad that that's the reality. And I know that in Palestine they not only felt that Holy Land was no longer there in terms of the relief that was going to people in need, but also other charities refrained from sending aid and relief to Palestine for a very long time. Over the years it improved a little bit and people were a little more open to speak about this. But I've been on on events and panels with some of the daughters of the Holy Land Five and people weren't interested. Particularly the Muslim communities had their reason and the Arab communities and others just, didn't care, didn't want to hear about it. It wasn't interesting to them. Marium Uddin (14:50) Someone once told me, don't complain. Half of the people that hear you are glad that you have the problem and the other half don't care. That's apropos. Miko Peled (14:59) And the Israeli press was very proud that they had their own people there. Even the Shabak, the Israeli security services, on their website were praising their two intelligence officers that testified anonymously. They were very proud that they had a part in putting these people away. Marium Uddin (15:14) John, was the question of the legitimacy of Hamas' designation as a foreign terrorist organization raised? If not, why not? And if so, what was the result of that argument? John Cline (15:24) We could not challenge, and I'm not sure we would have challenged the designation of Hamas itself as a terrorist organization. We couldn't because we weren't Hamas. Only Hamas could challenge it. And excuse me. As far as I know, Hamas never made any effort to do so. What we did challenge was the designation of the Holy Land Foundation as a terrorist organization that occurred in December 2001. And that led to the shutting down of the organization. We filed a lawsuit in DC in federal court challenging that designation on a variety of grounds, including the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and statutory grounds. The district judge granted what's called summary judgment, meaning there's no need for a trial, the facts are undisputed. The problem with that was that we had not been allowed any discovery. Typically, in a typical civil case, if there's a rear ender, for example, somebody hits me while I'm driving and I want to sue them, I file a lawsuit, and then there's what's called discovery. I get to take the deposition of the driver, the driver gets to take my deposition. We have experts, their depositions get taken, and ultimately there's a trial if there's a factual dispute. Here, this process got truncated. There was no discovery. There was just a decision on the merits, on the facts by a district judge, without allowing us any discovery. We appealed that decision to the District of Columbia Circuit, and the DC Circuit essentially said that the facts here are incontrovertible, based largely on classified evidence that we were not permitted to see. And so of course we couldn't contest it. and what the DC circuit said, and I'm going to read you just a very short passage, it said, "In a general case, perhaps the opportunity for discovery might have produced precisely that which was lacking," namely ability to controvert the evidence the government had presented secretly, picking up the quote, "however, this is not a general case. This is a specific case involving sensitive issues of national security and foreign policy." So basically, this was the first of a number of instances where a special rule was designed just for the Holy Land Foundation. This rule won't apply in any other case. Every other defendant will get the ability, or every other plaintiff in a civil case will get the ability to conduct discovery, but not the Holy Land Foundation. So that was the end of our challenge. We challenged the designation. The government presented secret evidence, the court relied on it, we weren't able to challenge it, we weren't able to get discovery, and the designation was upheld. Marium Uddin (18:07) Although you didn't challenge the designation as to Hamas, and of course again the government called the HLF a Hamas front, you've disputed that characterization. Could you make the case for a listener who is genuinely skeptical, not hostile but uncertain? John Cline (18:21) Well, I'm not going to defend Hamas. and we didn't at trial, it wasn't our burden to do that. The question was, was the Holy Land Foundation supporting Hamas? Was it a front for Hamas? And the answer to that is clearly no. There was no evidence of that. And for a variety of reasons, the case against the Holy Land Foundation was incredibly thin. Bear in mind the Holy Land Foundation donated money through these zakat committees, local charity committees. Now the government's theory was they were Hamas controlled. The problem with that was they had board members who were both from Hamas and from, for example, Fatah, which was of course the other political main political organization among the Palestinians. On top of that, U.S. organizations, for example, USAID, used these very same Zakat committees to distribute charity. Why? Because they were nonpartisan and they were honest. They weren't corrupt. And so they were ideal vehicles to distribute charity to needy people. Other organizations like Red Cross and Crescent used these Zakat committees, other NGOs. There was absolutely nothing sinister whatsoever about using these Zakat committees. There were other problems as well. The Treasury Department maintains a list of terrorist organizations. These are groups that you cannot give money to and without a license, which in the case of an organization like Hamas would never be granted. Hamas is listed, Hezbollah is listed, many, many other groups and people are listed, and any charitable organization that wants to contribute money just checks the list. Well, the zakat committees were not on the list. None of the board members of the zakat committees were on the list. And so when Hamas was first designated, a number of charitable organizations, Muslim charitable organizations, went to DC to meet with the Treasury Department. This was in 1995, and the idea was to find out what the parameters were. And they met with the head of OFAC, which is the unit within the Treasury Department that administers this list of prohibited organizations, and they were basically told, rely on the list. And so they did. They relied on the list. They didn't give money to Hamas, they gave money through zakat committees to needy people. One of the problems, and I assume we're going to get to the trial here before long, one of the problems was Marium Uddin (20:53) you John Cline (20:55) at the second trial, the government called a lawyer from the Treasury Department who testified that the list really didn't matter at all. It didn't matter whether an organization was on the list. If you gave money to an organization that the government later could show or claim was somehow associated with Hamas, that was enough. One of many problems with the trial. Miko mentioned that there were accusations leveled against the Holy Land Foundation at various times. The Holy Land Foundation, of course, wanted to comply with the law. They didn't want to get into trouble. They hired a former congressman, a lawyer named John Bryant, to go to DC and find out what the what the problem was, what the issues were. And John Bryant, who testified at both trials, is a fine lawyer of sterling reputation, went to DC. He talked to the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the State Department, the Israeli Embassy. He talked with everybody he could meet with and said basically, what's the problem here? Is there a problem? And no one ever told him, the problem here is you're donating to these zakat committees. You shouldn't do that. No one ever gave him any sort of a signal or a warning to stop doing things the way Holy Land was doing things. And so of course the Holy Land Foundation concluded from that that what they were doing was lawful. If I can continue just for one second, there was a fascinating piece of evidence in the trial. As Miko said, the conversations between the people in the Holy Land Foundation were recorded 24/7 for years. One defendant I believe had his every electronic communication monitored for something like ten years, 24-7. So the government had a mountain of information about these people. One of the conversations between Shukri and Gassan occurred maybe in I don't know, 1998, something like that. And they're talking about what happens if Treasury Department designates the Zakat Committees, the organizations to which the Holy Land Foundation was donating money to be distributed to needy people. And Shukri said, Well, if the Treasury Department designates the Zakat committees, then of course we can't give money to the Zakat committees. That would be illegal. And Ghassan agreed. They would have to comply with the law, but he said, we will protest that very vigorously. I can't remember his exact words, but the gist of it was, We'll follow the law, of course, but we will protest. There could not be a clearer expression of a desire to comply with the law and a belief that they were complying with the law. And this, of course, occurred in a conversation that they didn't know was being recorded, a private conversation between the two supposed lead conspirators in this case. So there was a ton of evidence, a mountain of evidence showing that what they were doing was lawful, that they believed it to be lawful, that they were doing their best to follow the law, they were consulting the list, they were sending John Bryant to Washington, and there was no crime committed here. Marium Uddin (24:10) Following up on that just briefly, John, I've read that after the first trial, jurors stated there was literally no evidence for a conviction. What do you think allowed the jury in the second trial to convict these men anyway? John Cline (24:21) Well, something very specific. The government, the prosecutors in this case were very capable prosecutors. We got a new judge for the second trial, which changed the calculus a little bit from the government's perspective. And so in the second trial, the government presented four new pieces of evidence. One piece of evidence was the testimony from that fellow from the Treasury Department, the lawyer who testified that the list didn't matter. Another new piece of evidence was expert testimony from a man named Stephen Simon, who's a well respected international affairs expert and who had been with the State Department when Clinton designated Hamas. And he testified that the designation of Hamas among other things helped prevent future terrorist attacks like the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. They presented testimony at the second trial, which they had not presented at the first trial, from a man named Mohammed Shorbaji, a cooperator, a man who had criminal charges unrelated to the Holy Land Foundation, that he was trying to avoid being punished for. And Shorbaji testified that everyone in the West Bank knew that the Holy Land Foundation was the fundraising arm of Hamas. Now the problem with that testimony, which we objected to of course strenuously, the problem was Shorbaji had never been to the West Bank, not once in his entire life, and he hadn't been to Gaza in decades. So of course he couldn't possibly testify, even if it were otherwise permissible, that everybody in the West Bank knew anything about the Holy Land Foundation. But the judge allowed him to testify to that and he did. And finally, in the second trial, but not in the first - the first judge excluded these documents - the government was allowed to present some documents that the Israeli military had supposedly recovered from the headquarters of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah during a military incursion in 2002. These were anonymous documents supposedly recovered from the wreckage of the Palestinian Authority headquarters that claimed, again anonymously with no sourcing or anything else, that the Holy Land Foundation was associated with Hamas. Again, we objected to those documents. The first judge excluded them because they were completely unreliable. The second judge, of course, who was determined to get a conviction, let them in. Now, as a lawyer, one of the things that I find most appalling about this case is this. When we appealed, we raised a number of different issues. There were many unfairnesses in this trial, and we raised them in our briefs on appeal. Among other things, we argued that all four of these new pieces of evidence, the difference between the first trial and the second trial, should have been excluded. The Court of Appeals agreed with us. It found that every single one of those four new pieces of evidence was improperly admitted. Now here's the kicker. The Court of Appeal said that the admission, the erroneous admission of those four pieces of evidence, was harmless. It didn't make any difference to the outcome. Now, in the first trial, nobody was convicted of anything, and there were some acquittals. In the second trial, everybody was convicted of everything. The difference between those two trials with those four pieces of evidence. And the Court of Appeals, three judges with lifetime tenure, who ought to have the courage to do the right thing, actually wrote an opinion saying that the admission of those four pieces of evidence didn't make a difference to the outcome. It is the single most intellectually dishonest thing that I have seen come out of a U.S. court in my lifetime. Marium Uddin (28:09) I want to zoom in on that when we discuss more details about the trial, but for a moment, let me zoom out and ask Miko. I understand and correct me if I'm mistaken that your views encompass the idea that Hamas is a resistance born of occupation and oppression. How much have you carried or endured on account of those views? Miko Peled (28:29) I'll say first I agree with John. It has no bearing on the case, one way or the other. But nothing really. I mean, people sometimes look at me and say, Yeah, you're a Hamas supporter. There hasn't been any serious consequences, one way or the other. Two things that John said that I want to touch on. Marium Uddin (28:42) Absolutely. Miko Peled (28:43) It's appalling, it's not ridiculous. It's just appalling that the courts can can say something Marium Uddin (28:47) you Miko Peled (28:47) like that and can do something like that. And another thing, I remember when I first read the documents from the trial and everything, I thought, this looks like a really easy case. How could they possibly convict these guys, and it wasn't until I actually spoke with this remarkable team of lawyers that they had defending them that I realized how tainted this whole case was. But there's another point about the Zakat committees, which is that the American consul in Jerusalem at the time was, I think, one of the witnesses in the first trial, if I'm not mistaken, John. And I think the second trial there was a gag order because he used to be a CI operative. Those days the consul general of Jerusalem was actually an ambassador level so he had CIA briefings and everything an ambassador had because Jerusalem is unique, has a unique status. And so he testified for Holy Land, saying, you know, we used to work with them. Number one, we never heard anything, we never had any directive saying not to work with them. And the same thing with the Zakat committees. He said we work with them all the time. There was no reason we had never heard anything. And on top of that, he was asked whether or not the intelligence that the U.S. gets from the Israelis is reliable. And he said, no, it's not reliable, it's tainted, it's political, it's politically motivated. And so how can a judge look at that? And then how can the appellate courts look at that? And bring up this however thing. Yes, this is wrong, however. It's so tainted politically. But going back to your question, yes, I I have my views on this, I have my views on Palestine. We're here at Palestine House of Freedom. But it hasn't really come up in any serious way in terms of my personal experience. Marium Uddin (30:19) You asked how could this happen? This question that we're almost needlessly banging our head against the wall to find an answer to. How can any court or judge of integrity determine that there were errors that contributed to the opposite outcome of the previous trial and yet characterize those errors as harmless? What do you think? What's the real answer to that? Miko Peled (30:42) I think it's white supremacy. It has nothing to do with the law. It's white supremacy and the the war against terrorism is really an arm of the war against Muslims and Arabs in this country, which in my opinion has been amplified by by Zionist organizations here in the U.S. like the ADL and many others. And so it's a combination of white supremacy plus this indoctrination that Americans get from the different Zionist organizations, from an education system that is inherently white supremacist, that is Eurocentric. I mean, all of these things play a part in this. And then you have a trial and you see these guys, and they're all devout Muslims, they're Arabs, you see their families, the women are covered. I mean, it's a slam dunk. They're all terrorists. They're all anti-Semitic and they all must be terrorists as soon as they walk in, before they even open their mouth. I think that's what contributed to this. And again the Zionist organizations and Zionist politicians certainly had a lot to do with this racism that's directed against Arabs and Muslims. Marium Uddin (31:45) It's strangely validating to hear you say that because I think that when we, we being the Muslim community, say the exact same thing, there's an element of gaslighting that we're up against. And so when someone like you says it, it seems to lend a credibility to what we actually believe to be true about our experience. Miko Peled (32:03) Yes, absolutely. Marium Uddin (32:03) Let me take a moment to go back to John who had described to us the anonymous foreign intelligence witnesses that were used at the trial, the people the defense could not cross-examine being central to this prosecution, and recognizing the failure of the court to address the confrontation clause properly. You mentioned as well that Judge Solis being the judge who ultimately presided over the second trial made some difference to the outcome of the case. Can you briefly characterize the differences between the two judges that presided? And can you tell us about how personalities are so affective of outcome, especially when they wield such power in a system that is supposed to be objective? What do we do with those data points? John Cline (32:50) The difference that I perceived was this. The first judge, the judge in the first trial, was a conventionally pro-prosecution judge. I've been in front of a number of them, who call it down the middle, who are utterly fair. Now the law is skewed heavily in favor of the prosecution, and so many of their rulings are in favor of the prosecution. But they follow the law, and when the law dictates that the defense wins a point, the defense wins the point. Then there are judges who are what I would call conventionally pro-prosecution. And so when they have a discretionary judgment to make whether a piece of evidence comes in, that sort of thing, they will lean heavily toward the prosecution. Doesn't mean every single ruling favors the prosecution. In fact, the first judge kept out that evidence from the from the Palestinian Authority headquarters. But if it's a close call, it's going to go in the prosecution's favor. And that's how I would characterize the first judge. The second judge, my personal conclusion, based solely on what I witnessed at trial, is that the outcome of the first trial came as a shock to the the judiciary there in Dallas and to the prosecutors. And I think the second judge was determined that that was not going to happen again on his watch. And so it went beyond just the what I would call conventional pro-prosecution approach. And essentially every ruling, every ruling that mattered was in favor of the prosecution. And that involved committing a number of errors, which the Court of Appeals then whitewashed by calling them harmless, even though they obviously weren't. So it to me is not a question of personality. I would also say that from my this is from my perspective, it wasn't a question of of sort of overt racial prejudice. It's something that I've seen happen in a number of different settings when there is a controversial case or a controversial situation, particularly if it involves a disfavored group, as Muslims were, as Asian Americans have been at various times, as African Americans have been at various times. Some judges will step up and defend the liberties and the rights of those groups. Other judges don't have the courage to do that. Regrettably. Even though they have life tenure and they they are given life tenure specifically so that they can have the courage to make tough decisions, there are federal judges who do not have that courage. And sadly, in the second trial and on appeal, the judges in our case did not have the courage to make a decision that might have created some controversy and created some blowback among their colleagues and maybe in the press. That to me is how I perceive it. Marium Uddin (35:33) If they had the courage to make those decisions, would have spared and saved these men their lives. John Cline (35:40) And to me it is a shame that those judges should carry with them not only through their lives, but in any obituary that's written about them, in any judicial history. That decision in this case should be front and center. Marium Uddin (35:58) I want to take a moment to ask Miko a question that almost no one else, neither John nor I, could speak to. The anonymous government witnesses came from Israeli intelligence. Anonymous Israeli intelligence witnesses helped convict American Muslim men of terrorism in a Texas federal court. As an Israeli-American, you can make sense of that and connect dots that we can't. What does it tell us about the relationship between the Israeli security apparatus and American counterterrorism prosecutions? Miko Peled (36:25) I think it speaks for itself. I just want to say I think the second judge passed away already, didn't he? He did, didn't he? Yeah. I'll keep my I'll keep my thoughts about him and where he should be right now to myself. I think it's typical. I think there's nothing surprising about it. It's only surprising if you expect the law to work for people who are not white in this country, then it's surprising that they would do something like this. And if I'm not mistaken, John, I think you cross examined one of them at one point and it was obvious that they knew nothing about the Zakat committees. They knew nothing about the offices of the Palestinian Authority. Never mind they didn't speak Arabic. They knew nothing and then one of them said that none of that matters because I can smell Hamas. Yeah. John Cline (37:11) If I can just interrupt for one second, Miko. We had these these witnesses who were anonymous. We didn't know who they were. We couldn't research them. We couldn't do any of the things that you would ordinarily do to prepare to cross examine an expert. And it fell to me in the first trial to cross examine the the lead expert who was critical to the government's case because he was the one who was going to provide the supposed link between the Zakat committees and Hamas, which was Miko Peled (37:18) Right. John Cline (37:37) essential to the government's case. So they call this guy, he goes by a pseudonym Avi, E. V. I. We to this day have no idea, I don't at least, who he actually was. And he gets up there and he testifies, yes, every one of these Zakat committees is essentially a Hamas front. Well, how do you cross-examine somebody when you don't know who he is, you you haven't been able to examine his background, you know nothing about his biases. And I decided I would just get up and start asking simple questions and kind of see what he knew. And so I asked him, you know, who were the board members of of these zakat committees, you the Janine Zakat committee, who was on the board? and he didn't know. To my amazement, the guy knew virtually nothing about these zakat committees. But he was there to opine that they were all Hamas fronts. And as Miko said in one of his more memorable moments, he testified something to the effect that I can just smell Hamas. He had this wonderful olfactory sense that allowed him to to smell Hamas, presumably from a distance. I doubt that he ever got close to any of these zakat committees. I mean was ridiculous. But that was his testimony. By the time of the second trial, of course, he was allowed to testify again anonymously. I didn't cross examine him in the second trial, but he had I think been prepared somewhat to be a little more coherent than he was in the first trial. It was some of the most amazing testimony I've ever heard. just remote. Marium Uddin (39:11) I've described this trial or the ordeal of what the HLF-5 have endured as the original wound. John, you and I actually met during my representation of Marwan Marouf as we explored the architecture of charitable giving labeled as an act of terrorism all over again. I'd like to know if you think that that's an oversimplification. John Cline (39:33) The government has treated anyone who contributed to HLF or any similar organization that provides support to needy people in the Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza as if they are terrorists. We've talked about the sort of the chilling effect of the Holy Land case and the unwillingness of people to to provide charity to contribute. Marwan's case is a perfect example of that. Anybody who contributed to the Holy Land Foundation is presumed in the government's eyes to be a terrorist. Perhaps you can overcome that presumption, perhaps not. But that's how you are perceived if you contributed to the Holy Land Foundation or any of several other organizations that are essentially designed for the same purpose to provide relief in the Palestinian areas. And what's kind of sad about that, more than sad, tragic, is that no one disputes that there is an extraordinary need - the government expert at trial on sort of Hamas, a guy named Matthew Levitt, testified that there is a desperate need for aid to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. He was quite open about that. And, if you suppress that aid, if you make it impossible for people to provide that aid, what's that going to cause? It's going to cause a humanitarian catastrophe, which of course we see unfolding right now. And and it has been unfolding sometimes in slow motion and sometimes more rapidly, for years and years and years. Marium Uddin (41:16) Miko, can you build on that to describe what the through line is from HLF and the national security cases we're seeing at scale under this administration where Palestinian advocacy is demonized and law-abiding citizens are being targeted for their free speech and immigration status? Is the War on Terror alive and well, but just dressed Miko Peled (41:40) It's Marium Uddin (41:40) up as a different boogeyman? Miko Peled (41:42) Well, there's several things. There's a story about Matthew Levitt that I mentioned in the book. and John, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but at one point I believe the case for the prosecution made a case that since Holy Land was supporting orphans, then they were also supporting terrorism because the orphans must be the children of suicide bombers. And then the defense showed that the list of the act of the orphans and none of their parents died as a result of anything that has to do even remotely with terrorism. But if I'm not mistaken, the point that Matthew Levitt made was if a father knows that by killing himself, his family is going to get some kind of a stipend after that from Holy Land Foundation, then of course they're going to go and do it, then of course they're going to go and blow themselves up. It's and and this was an argument by a man who's considered an expert here in a think tank in Washington DC. And there was a judge and a jury willing to listen to this complete and utter racist nonsense and allow it into the record. So there's this us and them, which again goes back to what I said earlier about about supremacy - they are good guys and they stand with us and we stand with them. The other ones, if they are not part of this white supremacy reality, they are against us and it's fair game. And so there's no problem in accusing, and and I think you know this: that Holy Land was central not only to really just cutting the legs off of the Muslim and Arab community in America because these were respected leaders in the community. They were all highly respected leaders in the community throughout the entire country, but also allowed the state or the federal government to go after Muslims throughout. And you know, there are so many cases, and I'm sure you know, of young Muslims that have been thrown in jail. for 20, 30 years because I don't know, they looked at a website or they, you know, they're somehow connected to that world of Islam, of Palestine solidarity and so on. And they look like the bad guys. So it's easy to do. The the fact that the second trial ended the way it did opened the floodgates, if you will, to these ridiculous prosecutions that are basically persecuting a community in order to keep them down and in order to keep them from outwardly supporting Palestine, and in order to keep the Zionist narrative alive and well and people being afraid to challenge it. And like you said, there's things that I can say that you can't, and that's because of the difference of what we look like, what our names are and where we're from. And that's the reality. And so somebody comes in from the Israeli security system, then the truth is apparent just because of who they are. They would not lie, they are good guys and they are experts, and never mind the fact that none of that is true. None of the Israeli military apparatus and intelligence apparatus are completely incompetent and corrupt and racist. But here in the U.S., they walk around with a halo. People come to listen to them and respect them and want to support them and so on. And that's really to a large degree why we're where we are. But that's what made this case possible. That's what made the convictions possible, is that you can bring these guys that nobody knows anything about, and if they're working with the Israeli security service, particularly the intelligence part, there's no question that they're involved in war crimes. There's no question that they're involved in crimes against humanity because they torture people. There's a story about Mohammed Anati, who was the HLF office chief in Jerusalem and what they did to him, the torture that he went through, and then the offers that federal agents made for him that if he testified against Holy Land, he would be given a green card or something. You know, all of this is completely disregarded because they are Israelis. And if they're Israelis, then they have a halo and we have to listen to them, and we have to allow what is a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Very basic stuff. We will allow that because these are Israelis and these are obviously bad guys. Marium Uddin (45:28) I want to distill that. You're speaking about it at an institutional level. Of course, deference is given to Israeli sources and Israel in its relationship with the United States. Anecdotally, we make the mistake of implicitly ascribing credibility and truthfulness to people simply based on how they look. Miko Peled (45:48) Accent is also a white supremacist construct. It says that an ac English should should sound like white people talk, not like people of color speak or people who come from another country speak, regardless of how eloquent or how good their English might be. But they s Marium Uddin (46:02) Exactly. Miko Peled (46:02) you know what I mean? So it's all part of that same thing. Marium Uddin (46:05) and that we believe people who speak well must be speaking the truth. As I said, sure. Miko Peled (46:10) Can I ask John a question real quick about those anonymous guys? Did they have an American accent? Do you remember? Or an Israeli accent? Do you remember? Yeah. John Cline (46:18) Israeli. Yeah, Israeli. They spoke Marium Uddin (46:20) which John Cline (46:21) a very Miko Peled (46:21) And that ask and that accent is acceptable. Marium Uddin (46:23) Exactly, I was going to say it's characterized collapsibly as one that's permissible. John, Ghassan is effectively serving a life sentence for running a charity. Is there any realistic legal avenue towards his release? John Cline (46:36) There is no legal avenue, no judicial relief available to him, both as a matter of law and as a matter of practical reality. The judges who would be responsible for that simply don't have the courage to do the right thing, unfortunately. The only real practical avenue is a nonjudicial one, which is executive clemency, either a pardon or commutation of sentence. And, that may or may not be a realistic possibility. Marium Uddin (47:07) John, you were mentioning that there is no judicial redress, but there are two potential avenues. Could you again state what those two avenues are and what's the likelihood of them being efficacious? John Cline (47:18) It's really one avenue which is executive clemency, which can take either of two forms, either a pardon or a commutation of sentence. I think in this case, probably commutation is more realistic. We applied for executive clemency commutation, I believe toward the end of the Obama administration that was turned down. But you can apply more than once and I don't know what the chances of success are. It's always an uphill battle, but I know this administration has been more open, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, to grants of clemency. And so I don't in any way want to rule that out. Marium Uddin (47:56) Miko, what does vindication for the HLF defendants, what does vindication for the HLF-5 defendants realistically look like in your mind? Although I think I know what the answer to that is. Miko Peled (48:05) When I first heard of the case, I thought it reminded me of Sacco and Vanzetti. I don't know if you guys are familiar or remember the case of Sacco and Vanzetti. These were two Italian immigrant anarchists in the 1920's and they were prosecuted and executed for a trumped up murder charge. And a hundred years later, Michael Dukakis when he was Governor of Massachusetts, vindicated them and he said this was all wrong and there's a statue of them somewhere in Massachusetts. I don't know that there's any vindication possible. I mean this injustice is so horrifying. And these guys know, and they've said this many, many times, and I believe it's true, they are political prisoners. And I remember when the clemency request went to Obama, Mufid asked me what I thought. And I said, look, you're political prisoners, you'll be released when Palestinian prisoners in Palestine are released, which will happen when Palestine is free. Your lot is connected to them a hundred percent. You are not any different than they are. And they know this. So thankfully Mufid came out after almost 20 years and Abdulrahman and Mohammad El-Mezain are out, but in terms of Shukri and Ghassan, they know that they basically received a life sentence and the only way unless there's a president that's willing to the sentence or something, they are in it until Palestine is free. That's why I wrote the book, and I think people should read about it and talk about it and hail these guys as the heroes that I believe they are. don't think it would make sense if a hundred years from now some governor or some president would say, yeah, you know we made a mistake. It'll be too late. You know, for Sacco and Marium Uddin (49:30) Right. Right. Miko Peled (49:32) Vanzetti, it's it's too late. You Marium Uddin (49:33) I'll tell you how I've presented this when I've talked about it and how I think about it. there have been landmark judicial injustices in this country. Plessy versus Ferguson, which upheld I I'm sorry, Dred Scott. versus Santon, which which upheld slavery, essentially. there was Plessy versus Ferguson. there was the Koramatsu case which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. none of those cases was recognized as error officially during the lifetime of the participants, for the most part. but over time we have come to realize that all of those were grievous injustices. Dredgot got overruled in later cases plessy versus Ferguson which was separate but equal that got overruled in Brown versus Board of Education. The Koramatsu case, everyone now recognizes that that was a grotesque injustice. And even I I believe one of the defendants in that case actually got a more or less symbolic declaration from a federal judge in nineteen eighty four that the conviction has been properly attained. So I I don't think it's likely that Ghassan and Shukri will receive I hope they do. There is an avenue for that, but I I don't think it's likely. My hope is that we will mature as a country to the point where as in those other cases, we can recognize this case as a landmark injustice and something that we will not ever do again to Marium Uddin (51:06) Well, I think that's great to erase the stain of this on our moral conscience. The fact that it does nothing for the victims themselves leaves much to be desired. again, I'm preaching to the choir. Miko Peled (51:17) just one quick point again, John talked about the judges not having courage. The whole point of having the law is that they don't need to have courage. They're protected by the fact that the law is there and the fact that it requires courage for them to do the right thing is a real testament to what the judicial system here is like. You need to have courage to do the right thing where the law provides you with with the possibility of doing the right thing. That's quite a testament. Marium Uddin (51:39) The irony of this petition being heard by or under the Obama administration when you said, when Palestine is free. We recognize Obama as one of the greatest architects against Palestinian self-determination. John, looking back now, is there a moment during the case when you realized this prosecution was going to reshape American law far beyond your own client? I know that you had said to me at one time, you contemplated giving up the practice of law. Marium Uddin (52:08) I I it probably was sometime after the case was over that I understood the full scope of it. but personally it it was a a sea change for me. I would say that before this case I I was not unrealistic, I was not deluding myself, but I thought the system was basically fair and would in most cases reach a fair result one way or another sooner or later. this case, particularly the the second trial and even more specifically the the appellate decision, which was so grotesquely dishonest, really led me to think about quitting the practice of law. And and the the reason what what got me there was apart from just being depressed that the law could be so inhumane, was I I wondered if by participating in this process, I was giving it a patina an appearance of legitimacy that it didn't deserve. because after all people say, well, these people had lawyers, they had Klein as their lawyer, they had other people as their lawyers. So it it must be a fair process. And I wondered if I should participate in that and and to provide any sort of cover for a process that is that can produce a result like this. Ultimately I stayed. I'm still practicing law, but it was a real Marium Uddin (53:26) I'm glad that epiphany ultimately has led to you staying the course. Miko, we're almost 10 years out from when Injustice was published. What additional chapters would you add to your book now? Miko Peled (53:36) Throughout COVID, throughout all these petitions for clemency, throughout the fact that they were totally qualified to be released at all these different points, they're still there. The fact that two of them, two of the three that are already released, had to leave this country. I mean, Mohammad El-Mezain was released, his family went to greet him. And they said, no, no, no, he's going to an ICE detention. And he was in ICE detention for a year and then deported. Abdulrahman just couldn't couldn't live, couldn't work, couldn't find a job, couldn't travel, couldn't do anything. I think that's important for people to realize. And, just the way they communicate, the way they view their case, the way their families have evolved and and then how they're dealing with this now. I would add all of that, definitely add all of that, because it's all part of the case. It's all indicative of the problem, which is like I said earlier, the white supremacy and this horrific injustice against people who are not white. People want to know. I get that question quite a bit. People need to know about all of this. What life is like when you are released from prison having served a sentence, having been convicted of a terrorism charge. It's not just affects you, it affects your children, it affects your community, it affects anybody. The unindicted co conspirators. It's a huge network of injustice. And people need to know about that. I don't think there will be a second edition, but I would definitely add that. Marium Uddin (54:53) I learned so much being with you today. As you know, the scope of this podcast is to elevate the people like you of extraordinary courage who have carried extraordinary burdens. So thank you both for your time, your important work, your contributions, again, for bearing witness on this episode. Miko Peled (55:13) Thank you, Marium. This was was a great conversation. I I really appreciate you putting it together and including me and it's great to see John again. Marium Uddin (55:21) John Miko Peled (55:21) good.

Human Rights, Detention & the Rule of Law

Conversation What does it mean to defend human rights from within a society engaged in prolonged conflict? Tal Steiner reflects on years of representing Palestinians challenging military detention, movement restrictions, and barriers to family unity, while examining the enduring tension between security, accountability, and the rule of law.

Guest Tal Steiner is Executive Director of HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, an Israeli human rights organization providing legal representation to Palestinians affected by the occupation. She has spent her career advocating before Israeli courts on issues including administrative detention, freedom of movement, family reunification, and access to justice.

Witness To

• Human rights advocacy during armed conflict

• Military detention and the rule of law

• Defending universal rights from within Israeli society

Immigration, Constitutional Rights & Executive Power

Conversation When immigration law becomes a tool for exercising political power, the consequences reach far beyond the individuals caught within the system. Mahsa Khanbabai and Hassan Ahmad examine the constitutional limits of executive authority, the role of the courts, and what it means to defend due process and fundamental rights during periods of heightened political conflict.

Guest Mahsa Khanbabai is the founder of Khanbabai Immigration Law and a nationally recognized immigration attorney. A member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Board of Governors, she has represented individuals in complex immigration and national security matters while advocating for fairness, due process, and the rule of law.

Guest Hassan Ahmad is the founder of The HMA Law Firm and a nationally recognized immigration and civil rights attorney. His practice focuses on complex constitutional litigation, federal court advocacy, and the defense of individuals facing detention, deportation, and government overreach.

Witness To

• Immigration law as an instrument of executive power

• Constitutional protections and the limits of government authority

• Defending due process during moments of political crisis

Marium Uddin (00:00)

This episode is not about immigration law. It's about the people who practice it. The portrait lives in the tension between commitment and exhaustion. I have represented journalists, activists, families, students, green card holders, asylum seekers, and people whose lives were suddenly upended by encounters with government power. None of those cases was fought alone. Behind every emergency motion, every bond hearing, every habeas petition, every frantic family phone call.

And every last minute attempt to stop a removal is a community of lawyers. The lawyers joining me today are not simply colleagues. They are friends, and they are extraordinary people of courage and conscience who I am privileged to count among my friends. Mahsa Khanbabai represented Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts PhD student, pulled off a Somerville street

on her way to break her Ramadan fast, detained for co-authoring a student newspaper op-ed about Palestine. She spent six weeks in a Louisiana facility before a federal judge ordered her release, and nearly a year later, an immigration judge threw out the case entirely, finding the government never had grounds to revoke her status. Hassan Ahmad represented Badr Khan Suri, the Georgetown scholar seized by masked agents outside his Virginia home, accused of spreading Hamas propaganda,

for marrying a Palestinian woman and posting about Gaza online. He spent 58 days in detention, 1,500 miles from his family, before a federal judge found the government had violated both his First and Fifth Amendment rights. We have fought together in immigration court and federal court. We have strategized together at midnight. We have celebrated victories together. We have held losses together. We have told families their loved one was not coming home. We have told their families their loved one was coming home.

This conversation is about what that work looks like from the inside. What does it do to a person to spend years fighting a system that often seems indifferent to the people caught inside it? What keeps them going? And do they still believe the law can protect anyone? We're checking our legal briefs at the door and speaking frankly as friends and witnesses to this moment in time. Hassan, Mahsa,

it's such an honor for me to introduce you and have you on this episode of Witness. To begin with, Mahsa, would you mind talking to us about what's different in practicing immigration law right now compared to three years ago?

Mahsa Khanbabai (02:10)

Thank you so much, Marium, for having me on this podcast and for including me with the dear colleague and respected friend, Hassan So immigration law has changed drastically. It's often hard to find the words to talk about how much has changed, not only just over the 25 years that I've been practicing, but from the first Trump administration to this current administration.

I think the overwhelming sense of concern about the undermining of our justice system is the heaviest part that we as attorneys are grappling with because we expect there to be an impartial court of law. We expect there to be independent adjudicators of cases making decisions based on the law and policy, not based on politics and fearmongering. And that's

not happening. So as a lawyer, I think that's one of the hardest things. And then the second hardest part, I think, is worrying about ourselves as attorneys and how we are going to be targeted for the work that we do in trying to uphold justice and the rule of law. I don't think I've ever felt this sense of, watching over my back related to who is going to try to take me down and and try to take my colleagues down

because we're merely doing our jobs. And that's something that's common in many other countries around the world, but not in the United States. And that's a new feeling that I think is incredibly concerning. So out of so many things that are different, those are probably my two most important ones.

Marium Uddin (03:39)

Were you expecting this? Were you prepared for this moment?

Mahsa Khanbabai (03:42)

I was. I don't know if I understood really the deep and broad

Hassan Ahmad (03:48)

Hmm.

Mahsa Khanbabai (03:50)

position that the government would be following in all of this. But yes, I was expecting this because it's something that I've seen in other countries. And the warning signs were there from the first Trump administration, so there was no reason to think that it wouldn't be this bad this time around.

Marium Uddin (04:06)

Do you feel the same way as Mahsa in terms of hoping for the best, but expecting the worst?

Hassan Ahmad (04:11)

Absolutely. they've basically just taken the immigration law and turned it into deportation law. They've taken immigration judges and turned them into deportation commissioners. They've made a mockery of due process and rolled over the Constitution with a tank. And that was the plan.

Read Project 2025, read their writings, read that they haven't been silent about this. And when I say "they," I want to be very clear, I'm talking about white nationalists. What other justification, what other explanation can there be for an administration where every single policy, without exception, is, well, to quote Judge Berman, screw the non-citizen.

That's I mean, I'm quoting a judge. That's what he said.

It was years ago. He said it off the record, but he did say it. He's retired now, so I think it's okay for me to quote him. But that's what every single policy does. When there's two ways to take something, they'll take it in the way that exacts the maximum amount of harm on the non citizen or the non citizens' family or the non citizens' community.

And you know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, at some point you gotta stop all the beating around the bush and agreeing with their justifications, this is about job security, this is about national security, this is about ex white. It is not. It is about race, it is about keeping America white, it is about this

hearkening back to some mythical time in American history that never really existed, at least for people who look like us and

Marium Uddin (05:32)

Let me let

me ask you about that, Hassan, because I know you and I know you want to talk about John Tanton and I know that you know that I know that that's definitely going to be a part of this conversation. But before

Hassan Ahmad (05:40)

Setting this up. that's right.

Marium Uddin (05:44)

I do that, I want to know how many languages you speak.

Hassan Ahmad (05:46)

I do business in eight

languages, yeah. I

Marium Uddin (05:48)

What a show off. But you were

Hassan Ahmad (05:49)

Yeah.

Marium Uddin (05:50)

born and raised here. Do you ever feel like you're not a part of the American fabric anymore?

Hassan Ahmad (05:55)

Yeah, at times, obviously. I grew up in a small southern town in North Carolina where our family was the only brown family.

But after a while you start to understand what America actually is and how our country is a cross section of humanity that does not exist everywhere. Not every country can say that. But the fact that I've been able to practice law for 20 some years and represent people and I keep track

118 countries and counting. there's not a whole lot of countries in the world where I would get that opportunity to be able to see that sort of slice of of humanity, cross section of humanity up close and personal. And to me, growing up, that sort of became one of the highest ideals, if not the highest ideal, of being American. And I look at MAGA and I look at white nationalism well

sorry for the redundancy 'cause I think they're the same, one and the same. But I look at them and I almost feel pitiful. Like they're staring through a keyhole. They have no idea what America actually is.

Marium Uddin (06:49)

Did you see the clip? I'm sure you did with Megyn Kelly telling the Haitians to get get out of this country.

Hassan Ahmad (06:54)

Yes. Yeah.

Marium Uddin (06:56)

Mahsa, what did you think of that?

Mahsa Khanbabai (06:58)

To the earlier point about, did we expect this? I think the part that I didn't expect, which Hassan just touched upon, was the pure hatred of people of color and willing and being willing to undermine American businesses, the American economy, just because of white nationalism. That part caught me off guard

because we hear from business sectors and industries across the United States, whether it's healthcare, farming, education, construction, every industry and every sector of American society is being impacted negatively, and

Hassan Ahmad (07:34)

Yeah.

Mahsa Khanbabai (07:35)

the numbers are showing it, and yet this administration doesn't seem to care.

Marium Uddin (07:39)

Mahsa, do you also feel what we feel in terms of that exclusionary aspect? I believe that you feel it for your clients. Have you felt it personally for yourself?

Mahsa Khanbabai (07:49)

I've struggled with that in many ways because on the one hand, I've been blessed to have a very supportive family, to get the education that I have, and to to be amongst a circle of friends where I've always felt included and involved. But yes, there are times where you go into certain segments of society and there's nobody that looks like us. And that is,

an awkward feeling at times, especially because it's not just the way people look, right? But it's how you're treated. And while it may not be overt, except for the random person driving by saying, go back to your country, you can tell this underlying sense of, you're different than us. But otherwise I would have to say I've been, very, very lucky to be amongst communities where people

have not let that be the case. But yes, oftentimes you do feel like you're elbowing your way in to say, hey, excuse me, you need to make room for all of us.

Marium Uddin (08:44)

When we were together at the NAML conference, I remember saying, we're not looking for a seat at the table anymore. We're just gonna go have our own lunch table. Speaking of all of this, Hassan, in terms of

belonging. Who is John Tanton? Why

Hassan Ahmad (08:58)

Yeah.

Marium Uddin (08:58)

are you always going off about him? What has your study of modern immigration restrictionism taught you that most Americans still don't understand?

Hassan Ahmad (09:06)

so

Marium Uddin (09:06)

And Hassan,

we don't have an hour for this single question.

Hassan Ahmad (09:08)

I know. I I'll be brief.

But Marium - she knows me well and she knows that I'm gonna sit here and monopolize everything. So

Marium Uddin (09:16)

No, just when it comes to this particular topic. I've never had a conversation with Hassan without it coming up.

Hassan Ahmad (09:21)

Find a way. I find a way.

you all might remember that picture of Kris Kobach who was making the case to run the Department of Homeland Security right before the first Trump administration. And in a stroke of genius, he forgot to put his strategic plan

for DHS for the first 365 days, he forgot to put it in his leather folder and you could zoom in on the picture and read like half the words on the page because, you know, national security and all that, right? Well, that was a picture that started me on this quest saga, you know, of trying to understand.

We're right before the first Trump administration. We're all bracing ourselves for what's to come. We know it's gonna be bad, but we don't know how bad. We don't know what's gonna happen. So I figured I would start by looking at the people that are being brought in, like who funds them, who trains them, where they come from, why is it Kris Kobach? Like who is this guy?

And the more I looked at these anti-immigrant organizations, it just all sort of crystallized into a small group of organizations. There's the Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, the Center for Immigration Studies, and Numbers USA. And there's a few others that have mushroomed slash metastasized into this whole ecosystem

of the anti-modern anti-immigrant movement. And all of these organizations, all of them, have a founder. And that guy was John Tanton. He was an ophthalmologist who lived in rural Michigan. He was an avowed environmentalist and he was the guy that started

FAIR in 1979. He was very concerned about overpopulation and his idea and he actually had a seat in the Sierra Club. Environmental organizations have since, to be clear, completely distanced themselves from him. But his whole thing was

one of the things we need to do to protect the environment is to save it from overpopulation. And, you know, there's certain people that are sort of dirtier than others and we need to just sort of for blood and soil, we need to clear those people out because they're polluting the environment.

Nobody really took him seriously, but he had an uncanny ability to start an entire movement. He funded FAIR with a $50,000 check from

Cordelia, an heiress from the Mellon family, old money, you know. And it grew into the most influential, punch-above-their-weight group of organizations that have been behind every single and I say this without exaggerating, every single anti-immigrant law, including the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, IIRIRA. They were behind TPS designations, they were behind the Arizona SB 1070 law, the Show Me Your Papers Law back in 2010 that went up to the Supreme Court.

They were behind the the revocation of DACA in 2016 and 2017, which I'm shocked is still around, at least in partial form, and they have stalled meaningful immigration reform.

At every stage in the process. in 2007, under the Bush administration, when it seemed that comprehensive immigration reform had a chance at passing, there was a gang of six, a group of Republican bipartisan congressional leaders who were

about to ink the deal, things have come relatively close, or closer than they had been before. And Numbers USA, one of Tanton's flagship groups, led by Dr. Roy Beck, they had their army of people light up the switchboards on Capitol Hill in 2007 and enough Congress people that were in that gang that were about to sign pulled back and stalled the immigration reform that we were all waiting on.

So understanding FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA, gives you a preview of what this administration is going to do, what this administration is, how they're doing what they're doing. Because do you think Trump even knows what TPS stands for? No, he doesn't.

He has no idea. Stephen Miller didn't know what it was until he started working for Jeff Sessions back in 2013, 2014, something like that, and educated himself on this and who were the teachers, who were the groups that were telling these administration officials where the buttons were to press and where the levers were to pull to transform the immigration law into a deportation machine? It's a Tanton network.

Marium Uddin (13:18)

You've talked about a professor who influenced you and I know this quote by heart now. "The wrong ideology can produce thoughtless cruelty in otherwise good hearted people." Is what you're telling us?

Hassan Ahmad (13:28)

Absolutely. I take guidance not only from the wisdom of my professor, Sidney Rittenberg, but from the Qur'an itself. Because every tyrannical regime, every pharaoh, every tyrant - they're nothing without their army of minions.

And I look at these ICE officers that are, masked agents running around - the kind that assaulted and kidnapped Rumeysa Ozturk - everyone knows what ICE agents have have been doing. And I see them for what they are. They're peons in the system.

But you convince somebody that they're actually doing the right thing. You convince somebody that this is actually good. I'm one of the good guys because I am making the United States safer, I'm doing this for national security. They've drunk the Kool-Aid. And that's completely brainwashed.

Marium Uddin (14:08)

And that's how soldiers are galvanized, That's how it works. you get people to support your

Spe speaking

Hassan Ahmad (14:13)

You know

Marium Uddin (14:14)

of brainwashing, Hassan, something that we've become intimately familiar with that deeply hurts us is the terrorism adjacent framing being applied to people with demonstrably no connection to terrorism.

And I know you know when I get a lump in my throat, exactly which case comes to mind for me first. What does that label do to people and what's it designed to do?

Hassan Ahmad (14:37)

Suck up due process, be able to easily put people away when it's politically expedient to do so, and not give them a chance. It's exactly what happens in show trials and due process free regimes around the world and it happens here and the Muslim community has known about this for a long time.

It's just the favorite of many administrations the same way that our Latino brothers and sisters are labeled gang members. I had a client once who the officer couldn't even read my client's tattoo. He couldn't read it. It said L.A.

and he read it as MS. Like, you can't even read. And then when confronted with it, get this - the officer actually said, yeah, I see it does say L.A., but it still stands for MS because MS-13 was started in Los Angeles.

It's Yeah.

Marium Uddin (15:22)

Yeah, the disingenuity is appalling, but it's the brazen disingenuity, right?

Hassan Ahmad (15:27)

Right.

Marium Uddin (15:28)

Mahsa, bond hearings, detention conditions, access to counsel - where are the most severe due process failures occurring, if it's even possible to isolate them?

Mahsa Khanbabai (15:38)

I think all those three - right there are the number one concerns that I have When we are depriving some of the most vulnerable members of our communities of their liberty, jailing them, detaining them in some of the most subhuman conditions, modern day slavery, as some have called it, I think it's appalling and it's an embarrassment.

And I think sadly most Americans don't understand this. When they hear an ICE detention facility, they don't know that it means that this is a subhuman environment where dozens and dozens of people are crowded into a tiny room with lack of bathroom facilities, lack of proper food, freezing conditions,

lights on all the time at night, officers with their keys jangling, coming in, checking on individuals as they're sleeping at night, the lack of ability to call family members, lack of counsel, lack of access to be able to have visitors, and for nothing, right? For oftentimes made-up accusations of being a "terrorist" or having a family member that's a "terrorist."

These false accusations deeply impacting people who are cherished and important members of our communities, whether they're healthcare providers, whether they're people working in restaurants, or someone taking care of family members here. So I think that's the part that's the most gut-wrenching to see people detained and to now see the courts, the higher level courts, try to say that

even if your constitutional rights are being deprived, we're not going to hear it until you first have your immigration case completed, which can often take years. And, of course, having these sham bond hearings with deportation judges after having fired,

Hassan Ahmad (17:23)

All the good ones.

Mahsa Khanbabai (17:24)

hundreds

of qualified immigration judges to now have individuals who are basically just minions told to carry out these hearings. Again, a total lack of due process and fundamental constitutional rights. And the federal courts, the lower federal courts, are seeing this and are appalled and are ruling in favor of our clients with habeas petitions to release them because they say

this is not a fair system of law. These are not fair hearings. And, to my brothers and sisters who do this detained immigration work day in and day out, I send them lots of love and strength because while I don't do it on a daily basis, I have cases here and there and it just really rips at your soul to see the level of human suffering.

Marium Uddin (18:06)

Hassan, I wanted to confront Marwan's case. You and I both represented him. So, for people who don't know, Marwan Marouf had 35 years of lawful residence before he was detained.

What I want to ask you specifically is when someone like him is targeted, Hassan, what does it tell your clients who have built their lives here and assumed a certain kind of safety?

Hassan Ahmad (18:25)

One of the things that I think that people run from and that causes them to seek asylum wherever they go is they're running from instability. They're running from unpredictability. The fact that they know that everything that they work for can just be taken away and just gone in an instant.

Might by a bullet, by armed soldiers or whatever it is.

And when you see the same thing happening in the United States, when you figure if you had to, as an asylum lawyer, you could actually build a case for someone like Marwan Marouf, an asylum case for him to some other country in your sleep, right?

That's the thing that drives me to keep doing this work. Because

Marium Uddin (19:03)

I want to talk about what drives you, but I also want you to acknowledge with me in this moment that it's incredibly heartbreaking.

Hassan Ahmad (19:10)

It is. It's heavy.

You feel a really heavy weight because you realize the enormousness of the task. Especially when you're aware of like how well funded and how organized and how ahead the haters are, right? And how how much of a head start they've had, and you realize

the reason they're fighting so hard is because they really do think that this is an existential crisis for them. They think they're losing the country. And, people like us who were born and raised comfortably, live between two different cultures. I can be Pakistani, I play tabla. I can be as desi as you want. I speak Urdu and Hindi and Punjabi.

But I'm proud Southerner too. I am a proud, proud Southerner. I have the cholesterol to prove it. And

it's not an existential threat. And trying to convince somebody who already is looking at you as one of them, as a foreigner, as somebody who's here to to rob the country of

whatever they think it had or has or should have, you're constantly having to prove a negative, which as we all know, it's almost impossible to do.

Marium Uddin (20:06)

Something that people don't realize about you, Hassan, because the work that you do is so serious is that you are hilarious.

Hassan Ahmad (20:13)

Ha ha ha.

Marium Uddin (20:14)

He is so funny, right, Mahsa? Like, we're in a thread and we're working on, you know, this really big Marco Rubio determination. And I don't know, Hassan will say something, and it's just it's not even that it's inappropriate, it's so appropriate, but it's hilarious.

Mahsa Khanbabai (20:30)

Gotta

laugh so that we don't cry.

Hassan Ahmad (20:32)

Yeah. I mean it's therapy, right? It's therapeutic. What else are you gonna do?

Marium Uddin (20:35)

Well, speaking of laughing,

or at least coming close to smiling.

Rumeysa Ozturk.

I mean, hats off to you, Mahsa.

Many of the people I have interviewed have hearkened back to her case as one that is quintessential in their memory for not just pro-Palestinian advocacy and those who are at the front lines being targeted, but just the complete disintegration of the First Amendment. So she has become one of the defining detention cases of our era.

What stays with you about her case?

Mahsa Khanbabai (21:04)

I would say resilience in the face of this overwhelming sense that there's this huge behemoth of the U.S. government breathing down your neck and what do you do about it? Hassan kind of just alluded to this. and it makes me think though of the amazing culture

amongst most Americans, right? There was this famous saying, right, that kind of encapsulates it: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. And while you know many of my colleagues and I have had disagreements on the issue of the genocide in Palestine, many of them were incredibly upset and were just not going to accept the government's

the Trump administration's attempts to silence free speech amongst all of the cases that first came out because that was the whole intent of the administration's efforts in going after a small group of individuals and making them into high profile cases to frighten and terrify everyone and that came out in that incredible case in Boston -

AAUP versus Rubio, where Judge Young basically named what was happening, which was an attempt to stifle constitutional free speech rights. And I'm so proud of all of the individuals and all of the lawyers who've stepped up, these incredible teams of twenty plus attorneys to say that we're not going to allow

the most fundamental of our rights to be suppressed. And, unfortunately, there were some law firms that capitulated. There are some universities that have capitulated. But if we bend our knees and give up now, there's no protection in the future. No one is going to come and save us. We need to exercise our constitutional rights, flex those muscles, and

protect our constitution and our rights. So I think that's really the most important thing that I've taken away from all of these cases.

Marium Uddin (22:58)

What is Rumeysa like?

Mahsa Khanbabai (22:59)

Yeah,

she's very lovely, and I think how she carried herself through all of these cases, demonstrates the type of person that she is.

Marium Uddin (23:07)

I loved the piece that the New York Times did on you. and I remember reading, if I'm mischaracterizing it, please correct me, but that after the immigration judge ordered her release, ICE agents entered the courtroom or something like this, but they wanted to impose the ankle bracelet for monitoring purposes. And you

were like, no, like the judge just ruled, we're done, we're out.

But,

did you feel nervous when they came to you with that in terms of like here we go again, we're gonna lose ground when they said what they said about trying to enforce additional restrictions or conditions?

Mahsa Khanbabai (23:40)

Yeah, we'd have something psychologically wrong with us if we did not feel nervous when you have bullies trying to bully you and trying to intimidate you using the power of the U.S. government to try to frighten you and to have you capitulate and give up your own rights. That's the easiest thing for the government to try to do is to have you give up your own rights and not exercise them and not demand them and not

ask them to be upheld. And thankfully, we prevailed, right? The judge had stated that there is to be no monitoring of any kind. And we stood our ground and we were able to walk out of there with our heads held high, knowing that the law was behind us and that the constitution you know

Is there behind us. We just need to be brave and courageous and make sure that we demand our rights to be upheld.

Marium Uddin (24:27)

In tandem with what Mahsa is telling us, Hassan, it's the ideal that we aspire for. But how often are we finding that the constitution and the law are not behind us? You and I are representing the Hashemi family, and that invokes relationships between immigration law, foreign policy, and political designation.

How do you see that? What can you reveal?

Hassan Ahmad (24:49)

Well, you know how I feel about controversial things. I say bring

Marium Uddin (24:52)

Big hug.

Hassan Ahmad (24:53)

it on. Bring it on, you know. But I share your feeling, and this is what I meant by these rulings that just roll over the constitution with a tank, like a steamroller. It's as as if it doesn't exist. And one of the things that I

frequently note and try to get people to see is that immigration law is is unique in that respect because so much of what would otherwise be considered unconstitutional in other fields of law is perfectly okay and has been blessed by the Supreme Court. Why? And then when you add in foreign policy and national security and you just meld everything together into one big

Boogeyman, and I've always had this vision of if you actually put all the stereotypes together, it would be a dark figure crossing the Rio Grande wearing a sombrero and a thobe,

with a machete in one hand and in the other, saying I'm gonna come, you know.

Marium Uddin (25:40)

You are so funny.

Hassan Ahmad (25:43)

I mean that this is how ridiculous like

Marium Uddin (25:45)

find

Hassan Ahmad (25:45)

vivid imaginations, I'll give them that. I'll give them

Marium Uddin (25:45)

you?

Hassan Ahmad (25:48)

that. But that's about all the credit I that I can give them.

Marium Uddin (25:50)

Creative.

Hassan Ahmad (25:51)

Yeah, creative, right? And they just hold on to that image as if it's this existential threat. And they keep talking about border security and all these terms that honestly have been birthed by groups like the Tanton Organization, like the Tanton Network. But the issue here is that there still is a constitution.

And tyrannical regimes the world over, it doesn't matter whether you're talking about Bashar al Assad in Syria, the Taliban or Mao Zedong in China during the Cultural Revolution or the killing fields of Phnom Penh in Cambodia,

countries run amok by gang violence, or Maduro in Venezuela, or there's basically one playbook for being a tyrant. You go after the intellectuals, you go after the thought leaders, you go after the people that can speak, you go after political dissidents, you have to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy. It's the same.

It's the same crap all over the world every single time. It's one thing doing asylum cases from around the world for 20 years has taught me. It's the tyranny. They're like one-trick ponies, right? And when you see the same thing happen, what else is Rubio gonna do? What else is Stephen Miller gonna do? What else is he gonna do? They're nothing if not predictable. And it's up to us, I think it's up to the people to remind them that the reason why the Constitution exists is so that

these kind of descents into fascism don't occur. That's the guard. We grew up perhaps naively with an idea that we had our institutions and we did, you know. but ask Black Americans. Ask them how much faith they had in the system.

It's the same playbook that was used to keep the entire African American community enslaved for so long.

Marium Uddin (27:23)

Back to Hassan's humor, Mahsa. The one comment I continuously find when he is editing a document is, can someone please check this? I left a snarky footnote fourteen in the document."

Hassan Ahmad (27:37)

Yeah.

Mahsa Khanbabai (27:37)

Ha ha.

Marium Uddin (27:38)

There's always the snarky comment from Hassan. And most of the time I read it and I'm like, this is perfectly fine. I don't know why we need to edit it out.

So Mahsa, the system keeps producing new clients faster than we can protect the existing ones. You have this beautiful optimism about you. Are we actually making a dent?

Mahsa Khanbabai (27:57)

I think so. And I think it's actually telling because you see the Trump administration going after lawyers and law firms because they know we are the first line of defense. And that most of us, because of our personalities, we're not going to give up. We're too stubborn. We're too focused on no, there are rules. We need to follow the rules and justice must prevail no matter what.

And I remember when the first memos came out from Pam Bondi targeting law firms, targeting lawyers, especially targeting immigration lawyers. A quote

Hassan Ahmad (28:28)

it's very

Mahsa Khanbabai (28:30)

that often came up was, equating this to Henry the Sixth Shakespeare's play. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Hassan Ahmad (28:38)

Right.

Mahsa Khanbabai (28:38)

People never really, I think, understood what that meant.

When I think it was King James or someone talking to his henchmen and plotting how to overthrow the true king. And that was the plan. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers, because they know the lawyers are the ones that are the guardians of the rule of law. And we're not going to give up. And so

while we're, you know, plodding along a case at a time, which is, I think, unfortunately not really helping as many people as we need to, we are winning in the lower courts. And I think the American people are also recognizing that this is not right. This is fundamentally unfair, fundamentally unjust. These are not the principles of which American society

is to be based on. And I think, you know, Hassan rightly alluded to, you know, the incredible struggles against slavery in this country and how dark it was and how terrified people were. And we see that in other countries as well. Where lawyers are standing up for human rights defenders, whether it's in Iran or in Pakistan or in Russia or elsewhere, right? We have a duty

to our fellow Americans in this case. And no matter how hard it gets, no matter how difficult it gets, and and so far, you know, thankfully none of us have been jailed or anything like that. But we need to no, God forbid. you know, the th

Marium Uddin (30:01)

Hassan's gonna be the first to go, I can tell you right now. God forbid. Just joking, Hassan.

Hassan Ahmad (30:04)

God.

Mahsa Khanbabai (30:09)

I think the administration is afraid of all of us because of

our dedication to justice and the rule of law.

Marium Uddin (30:17)

Is there a client whose story has been closed that you're still carrying?

Mahsa Khanbabai (30:21)

Well, right now unfortunately I'm very focused on another client I have, a very similar situation to some of the cases that we've talked about. But he actually has not engaged in any kind of social justice advocacy. He's just a regular average physician from the Middle East, happens to be Palestinian.

And suddenly had his visa revoked and thrown into detention. And now we see the continued retaliation by the State Department and ICE in trying to undermine his immigration status, throwing around these accusations of, you didn't check off the box on the immigration form that your dad was a terrorist, type of nonsense. and this guy I actually wanted to add this point earlier, I forgot, but

the purposeful and intent in trying to cause fear in supporting someone by accusing them of being a terrorist or having ties to a terrorist because the government knows that this is going to scare off everybody from wanting to help this person, from supporting them, from writing an affidavit on why they should be released from detention and their good character.

So right now I'm dealing with that type of case. But the cases I think for individuals that I have represented who've gone on is just summarized by the ripple effect of what we do in helping each person and how they then help their family and they help the people around them and they bring up their community and make it a better place and

that sustains me and helps me keep going because I see then if they're released from detention or once they get their visa or once they get their green card the magnitude of the work that they do multiply because they truly care about doing the right thing and being a productive member of society and helping the community around them.

Hassan Ahmad (32:10)

Just imagine if we invested in people instead of detaining them. Just imagine.

Mahsa Khanbabai (32:14)

Yes.

Marium Uddin (32:15)

That goes for any incarceral system. Let's just also put

Mahsa Khanbabai (32:18)

Yes.

Marium Uddin (32:19)

that out there.

Thank you, Mahsa. Hassan, I do want to talk about what drives you. I think we share.

Mahsa's deeply encouraging perspective that we are not simply helping people survive the system, although we may be in our infancy, we are changing it, albeit slowly. What is the thing that drives you? What keeps you from hardening over time? Or are you hardened and just doing it in spite of that?

Hassan Ahmad (32:44)

It's hard not to get somewhat hardened and jaded obviously in a system like this, but

if I had to be short and succinct about it, come

Marium Uddin (32:52)

You don't.

Hassan Ahmad (32:52)

it comes down to my grandfather, my Dada, my father's father. He was a traditional doctor in India, before partition, and he

was a speaker for the Indian Congress party, which at the time was strongly for the Gandhian vision of a united India where Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs could live together and not be divided. But of course the subcontinent broke apart and he had to leave for Pakistan around the time of partition.

So he had a provincial chairmanship and so he would ride his bike around the streets of Sagar, India, where he was living at the time, and had this little vote box, a yellow vote box, and had a sign on it, be libre de mivor dalle like put your vote in the yellow box and he actually would go around to collect votes and make sure that everybody who could vote voted.

That's just kind of who he was. And because he spent all this time fighting for a unified India and even on his first night in Pakistan he gave a speech to the villagers. The

Hindus and Sikhs that were the majority were now the minority, and then it was now the responsibility of the new Muslim majority to protect them. And he must have had really, really complicated feelings towards his new country. I never met him. He died many years before I was born. But I think that he just it doesn't matter whether you win or not.

The victory is in the effort and that's what keeps me going. I just remind myself that, yes, we all want to have the wins. We all want to feel like we're making a difference. And, we are. There's no doubt I don't mean to downplay that in any way but ultimately I believe

I'm not going to be asked whether I succeeded, but I will be asked whether I tried. And I keep it that simple.

Marium Uddin (34:27)

You have such a way with words. And I think that's the perfect place for us to close out our conversation today. What a remarkable example your grandfather set. We also had the pleasure and privilege of meeting Mahsa's family, the maternal strength of her tribe. And that was something really beautiful to behold. We could see where you get your fire from.

I want to thank you for bearing witness.

Hassan Ahmad (34:53)

Well, I'm in the company

Mahsa Khanbabai (34:53)

Thank you so.

Hassan Ahmad (34:54)

of greatness here. To be on the same podcast as Mahsa. I feel like kinda starstruck, I'll be honest. And Marium, you're where you need to be. Huh? You're where you need to be. You're where you need to be. This

Marium Uddin (35:04)

Inshallah.

Hassan Ahmad (35:05)

Your superpower is bringing people together. I've always been amazed at this because I I I

Mahsa Khanbabai (35:09)

And telling

stories.

Hassan Ahmad (35:11)

Yeah, and telling the stories like this

Marium Uddin (35:11)

Inshallah. Inshallah.

Hassan Ahmad (35:13)

this is where you belong and just you know thank you for the opportunity to

Marium Uddin (35:17)

And show.

Hassan Ahmad (35:18)

let me share with you today.

Marium Uddin (35:19)

your heart, your

heart, your heart. Mahsa.

Mahsa Khanbabai (35:21)

I I

I agree 100% and actually have been a fan and admirer of Hassan for years and years and have always strived to channel his courage, his fire, his fearlessness, and to have him say all these words about me is very humbling. So thank you, Hassan. And, Marium, I've been so blessed to get to know you and be inspired by you and

just by your way of telling these human stories, which are so, so important in making sure you know everyone understands what's happening. So thank you for doing that. The only thing that I wanted to add, Marium, to your question about like how do we keep doing this work, right? Is realizing also that it's a marathon. We have whatever 900-something days, as you mentioned. And

we need to take care of ourselves and we need to take breaks sometimes and pass the baton on to someone else who can carry it for a while until we're ready to jump back in. So I hope both of you are doing that for yourselves and for any of the listeners remember to do that because we're a team and we need to to be there for one another. So thank you both for being there for me at different times. I I

Hassan Ahmad (36:29)

you.

Anytime, anytime.

Marium Uddin (36:31)

It

soon as it's over then we go back to work.

Mahsa Khanbabai (36:36)

Mm.

Marium Uddin (36:37)

I look forward to seeing how this conversation can impact those who are in the trenches and maybe just needed to hear a few words of encouragement from great lawyers like you.