The following is the press release on Dr. Dhafir's sentencing on October 27, 2005.

Dhafir Punished with 22 years

A "Republican Thing"

Gallery Weeps as Rafil Speaks

Did Sentence Set Precedent & Expand Gov’t Reach?

Syracuse NY—Judge Norman Mordue sentenced Dr. Rafil Dhafir, founder of the Help the Needy Charity, to 22 years in prison today.

Judge Mordue noted that he had received 41 letters and 69 letters previously from a bail motion in support of Dr. Dhafir from the Muslim community and his patients.

Dr. Dhafir’s lawyer Devereaux Cannick began the sentencing hearing by noting that their were "44 glaring misstatements or intellectually dishonest statements", in the government’s sentencing brief. He said some were as innocuous as stating that Dr. Dhafir immigrated to the USA in 1974, while in fact it was 1972, to claims more damaging.

Lead Prosecutor Michael Olmstead rebutted Mr. Cannick’s claims. Mr. Olmstead then went on mini rant about the embargo against Iraq. He said that the sanctions were about a threat to national security, not a "Republican thing". The gallery was shocked to hear Mr. Olmstead politicize the sanctions. He would later revisit the "Republican thing" by noting that all the USA Presidents had supported the sanctions.

In making the defense’s appeal Mr. Cannick talked about the hardship imposed by housing Dr. Dhafir at Jamesville. Judge Mordue would have none of it. Saying; "We accommodated Dr. Dhafir pretty well." His comments were a reference to how Dr. Dhafir had won a pretrial request not to be stripped searched, which violated his Muslim faith, in being transported between jail and the court room during his trial.

In setting the prosecution’s case for sentencing Mr. Olmstead attacked Dr. Dhafir calling him a lying and manipulative person that had others do his dirty work. He also reiterated that Dr. Dhafir was not targeted because of his Muslim faith. The government has been consistently criticized for targeting Dr. Dhafir, because he is the only person to be criminally charged with breaking the sanctions.( Operation Free Dhafir)

When Mr. Olmstead said that Dr. Dhafir had stolen money from helpless and suffering children in Iraq several of Dr. Dhafir’s supporters broke into tears or covered their ears because they found Mr. Olmstead hypocritical and offensive.

Rafil Apologies to God, His wife....

None of Dr. Dhafir’s supporters was surprised when Dr. Dhafir, a man of deep faith, focused his statement before sentencing on God and his faith.

Rafil began by talking about how he had prepared a 50 page document (Which we hope to have posted in a few days to his homepage Rafil's Homepage) to be read at the trial, but said he was not going to read it because his lawyer’s said it was too long. He even said he was not going to read a 5 or 6 page summary.

Instead he began in Arabic with a "Praise Allah" which he interpreted and noted how he had been in jail for close to 1,000 days.

He said apologies were in order. To God for him not being a good enough person. To the prophet for not being able to endure as much as he had. To his wife for the time she has and will spend alone. He apologized for putting his charity work ahead of her which lead to his current predicament. He hopes that she understands and forgives and hopes that they will be together again, if not in this life time but in the life to come. (Since Dr. Dahfir is 57 it may be that he dies in jail.)

He went on to apologize to others–the Muslim community, his supporters. By the time he was finished his supporters were in tears or on the verge there of. He had even wiped off the smirks of some of the large contingent of government employees in the gallery.

Government Victory–A Further Erosion of Civil Rights

In its sentencing motion the government asked for a upward revision in Dr. Dhafir’s sentencing because he was a "national security’ risk, a terrorist ( Manlius Doctor Linked to Terrorists). Many interpreted this as unfair because the prosecution who had initially called Dr. Dhafir a terrorist at the time of his arrest, had successfully won a motion to prevent the defense from raising the issue of terrorism during the trial. Many cried foul when they now redeployed this strategy again. Trial by Memo

Jennifer Van Bergen, author of The Twilight of Democracy , in ‘The Case of Dr. Dhafir’ notes how the government is trying to turn a white collar crime into terrorism. In the article she also ties together other criminal cases such as the St. Pats 4 and Lynne Stewart and how they advance the government’s ability to arrest and detain those that it sees as enemies of the state.

For example, the government after failing to prove that an Albany NY Imam was a terrorist, has now brought new charges against him in which it claims that the Imam is a threat to national security because of his link to Dr. Dhafir among other things. (Albany Times Union on Imam Aref's charges

Terrorist or National Security Threat?–Did you send Aid to Iraq?

To this writer it appeared as though the government had won its sentencing motion. But I am not a legal expert.

Judge Mordue dismissed the terrorist claims in the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation. But this did not prevent the Judge from calling Dr. Dhafir a "national security risk" because he broke IEPA (International Economic Powers Act) and sentenced him accordingly. To the Judge IEPA was all about national security.

Is there a difference between being called a "national security threat" or a "terrorist"? Consider the words of Jennifer Van Bergen in ;‘The Case of Dr. Dhafir’

"[T]he PATRIOT Act has become widely unpopular, a trigger for political activism and press coverage. The DOJ would much rather prosecute in private, without the public knowing what exactly it is doing, especially where it is doing something really unkind to a nice man. It would hurt their case for the public to be alerted.."

In essence Van Bergen's words imply that the government won its sentencing request. Rafil got a stiff sentence of 22 years, only 2 less than the minimum they had asked for, and the Judge had smeared him as a "national security risk". The government can now take the "national security" threat and apply it to other cases.

The Judge said that anyone that broke IEPA was a "national security threat". Many of us in the gallery that had sent aid to Iraq during the time of the sanctions winced.

To go Back to Rafil's Home Page