Judges affirm rulings in Iraq name-selling case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's decisions in the appeals by the central Indiana man who tried to sell the names of CIA agents working covertly in Iraq shortly before the U.S. invaded the country in 2003.

The Circuit Court consolidated six appeals of Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban's post-judgment motions following his convictions in 2006 on six counts, including conspiracy and violating the Iraqi Sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Shaaban traveled to Iraq in late 2002 where he offered to sell the names of U.S. intelligence agents to the country for $3 million dollars, as well as broadcasted messages of support for the Iraqi government on Iraqi media stations that encouraged Iraqis and others to forcibly resist the U.S. He was sentenced to 160 months in prison.

The Circuit Court decided only two of Shaaban's appeals merited discussion. In United States of America v. Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban, Nos. 08-4124, 08-4278, 09-1206, 09-1330, 09-2251, and 09-2277, the judges found the District Court didn't abuse its discretion when it denied Shaaban's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. They agreed with the lower court's reasoning that the evidence was known to Shaaban or readily ascertainable before trial, was needlessly cumulative, or was unlikely to lead to acquittal in a new trial.

The judges also considered Shaaban's appeal of the adverse ruling on a motion to reconsider the denial of his demand for the return of seized property. In October 2008, the District Court issued an order that said if Shaaban wanted to pursue the return of his property, he would have to file a new civil action and pay the filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In December 2008, he moved for reconsideration of that decision because he said he couldn't afford the filing fee.

Shaaban argued that the District Court erred in requiring him to start all over and file a new civil action. The judges noted Shaaban would have a point if he had appealed the October order instead of the December order.

"Further still, although the district court may have erroneously required him to start over with a new civil complaint, nothing is really lost because he can still do just that," stated the per curiam opinion. "Shaaban - whose criminal proceeding in the district court closed in January 2006 - has six years from the close of his criminal proceedings to initiate an action for return of his property."


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.