6 Iraqi Exiles Are Ordered Deported

Relying on secret information from FBI agents and other government officials, a U.S. immigration judge in Los Angeles has ordered the deportation of six Iraqi exiles who say they were involved in a failed 1996 coup attempt against Saddam Hussein.

Judge D.D. Sitgraves found Monday that the six “pose security risks to the United States,” though the basis of her ruling remained largely concealed in a 92-page decision that is off limits even to defense attorneys. A separate 55-page section that was made public only outlines the judge’s reasoning.

Lawyers representing the six say all face torture and execution if returned to Iraq and will probably appeal the ruling. The men, who have been in custody nearly a year, are seeking political asylum in the United States based on likely persecution in Iraq.

However, their appeals, like their failed defense, face a major barrier: The government is again entitled to use its classified evidence and keep the material from defense scrutiny--a situation unique in U.S. jurisprudence.

“How do you appeal a case without access to the evidence?” asked Niels Frenzen, one of the lawyers for the men, who are at the Immigration and Naturalization Service lockup in San Pedro.

The judge’s decision was largely based on classified information provided by FBI agents, who gave much of their testimony in secret--with defense attorneys stationed outside the hearing room--and were subjected to severely limited cross-examination. An unidentified U.S. government official with access to intelligence information also testified against the six men.

Defense lawyers say their clients have been falsely accused of being Iraqi spies as a result of infighting within the severely splintered Iraqi opposition. The six, one Kurd and five Arabs, maintain that they were leaders in two CIA-backed rebel organizations working to overthrow the Iraqi dictator, said Daniel Levy, another attorney representing the Iraqis.

The allegations against the six were termed “outrageous” by Ahmed Chalabi, president of the Iraqi National Congress, one of the two major CIA-backed opposition groups. “None of these guys are double agents,” said Chalabi, who testified on behalf of the six during the deportation proceedings.

However, U.S. officials defended the use of classified information, which they say was employed justly and with great restraint.

“The use of classified information in immigration cases is not standard procedure, nor is it one that we take lightly,” said Carole Florman, spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, whose Justice Department includes the INS and who appoints immigration judges. “But we have the responsibility of safeguarding the security of the nation, and applying the law in a fair manner.”

The use of secret evidence is barred in criminal trials, though judges frequently review material in their chambers to decide if it may be introduced as evidence. Even trials involving national security do not give prosecutors the leeway to use secret evidence against defendants, legal experts say. However, court rulings have granted the INS the right to introduce classified material in certain proceedings.

But critics call the procedure’s use a denial of the basic constitutional right of defendants to face their accusers.

“You can’t have a fair proceeding when one side does not get to see the evidence,” said David Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University who is challenging the secret-evidence practice in several unrelated cases. “The basic premise of our adversarial system is that both sides put their evidence on the table.”

The INS is using secret information under the national security umbrella in about half a dozen deportation cases nationwide, apart from the Iraqi cases in California, Cole said. All of the other cases involve Arabs with purported links to alleged terrorist groups.

The six Iraqis were among more than 6,000 who escaped to neighboring Turkey and were airlifted to Guam in 1996 after Hussein crushed coup efforts and sent troops to rout the CIA-backed opposition in northern Iraq. U.S. authorities say the vast majority were allowed into the United States and granted political asylum--including, ironically, the wives and children of the six now facing deportation.

The six men have 30 days to appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is independent of the INS. Board decisions can then be appealed to federal courts. In practice, appeals of deportation cases can drag on for years.

The unclassified part of the judge’s ruling, while giving little rationale for her decision, does provide new glimpses into the lives of the six men.

Safa Al-Din Al-Batat contends that he participated in an uprising against Hussein in 1991 and was among the hundreds of thousands who subsequently had to flee to Iran. He said he survived a 1994 assassination attempt in which someone--his attorney said it was an agent of Hussein--put rat poison in his Pepsi, causing him to suffer loss of hair, bleeding and temporary blindness.

Another Iraqi, Dr. Adil Hadi Awadh, served as a first lieutenant physician in the Iraqi military, according to the judge’s ruling. Among his assignments, the document says, was a posting at a hospital where the ears of army deserters were removed surgically. The doctor’s attorney said he did not remove anyone’s ear.

Another physician, Ali Yasim Mohammed Karim, testified that he had served as an interpreter for the CIA and had once treated an agent for a migraine.

A fourth defendant, Ali Jahjoh Saleh, a former Iraqi army lieutenant and member of Hussein’s Ba’ath Party, carried a “Friends of Saddam” identity card and served in a battalion charged with protecting Scud missiles during the Gulf War. The defense said such identification cards were commonplace in the military, entitling holders to two extra pairs of pants and other small perks.

Times staff writer Robin Wright in Washington contributed to this story.