FBI's Muslim Spying Scandal: Rights Groups Appeal to Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court case FBI v. Fazaga, which involves the spying of Muslims by the FBI, has been appealed by two civil rights groups and another plaintiff after it was dismissed.

The rights groups are American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). 

The surveillance of Muslims was exposed in 2011 when a man who had infiltrated mosques in southern California as a Muslim convert for the FBI confessed that he was an informant. The mosque-goers had not done anything wrong.

"For over 20 years, the FBI has been targeting the Muslim community under the guise of counterterrorism efforts, but many of their investigations have been overly broad and unlawful," said Amr Shabaik, CAIR's senior civil rights managing attorney, to The New Arab.

"These actions have caused significant harm and distress to our community, infringing on our rights, and treating us as suspects solely based on our religious affiliation," he added.

The informant, Craig Monteilh, spied on the attendees for about a year until he started trying to incite violence. The mosque members then reported him to the authorities. Monteilh later admitted publicly that he worked for the FBI, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs want their case to be reinstated so that they can seek justice for the alleged violation of their constitutional rights and discrimination. The US government has argued that the case should be thrown out because it could reveal sensitive government information - what they called "state secrets".

Shabaik expressed his concern that if the court sides with the government and dismisses the case based on the state secrets claim, then "it would mean the government could simply claim 'state secrets' whenever it conducts electronic surveillance and dismiss any legal claims challenging that surveillance".

He also said that if the case is dismissed, it could have implications beyond the Muslim community.

"It would allow the government to avoid being held accountable and escape civil liability, even if it engages in unlawful surveillance and violates the constitution, without any oversight from the courts," he said.

Source: Agencies