2026年7月30日 / 美国东部时间下午3:06 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
一名阿富汗女性、美国永久居民的法院指定律师周四誓言将全力对抗政府驱逐她的行动，并告诉联邦法官，整个法律程序既不公平也违宪。司法部指控该女子为“外国恐怖分子”。
这是秘密运作、此前从未启用过的外国恐怖分子驱逐法庭审理的首个标志性案件，联邦公设辩护人马修·法利指责司法部侵犯了纳齐拉·哈吉·扎达的正当程序权利。
他请求法官立即释放其当事人，但法官驳回了这一请求，不过该案预计将在后续的羁押听证会上进行审议。
“整个制度都违反了正当程序，且违宪，”法利对外国恐怖分子驱逐法庭的首席法官、美国地区法官琼·埃里克森说道。
法利表示，此案相当于“绕开刑事诉讼程序”，因为它依靠更低的证据标准来证明她是否属于可依法驱逐的非公民恐怖分子。
周四的听证会是该外国恐怖分子驱逐法庭自1996年设立以来首次开庭。设立该法庭的初衷是驱逐那些无法通过传统法律程序被驱逐的非公民，因为其案件相关信息属于机密，出于国家安全原因无法公开。
该法庭成立时间极早，甚至连电子 filing 系统都尚未建立——法官承认了这一事实，并呼吁大家保持耐心，让法庭工作人员搭建起法庭的基础设施。她指出，该法庭已经“休眠且未经过实践检验长达30年”。
这类非公民恐怖分子驱逐程序的目标对象——包括合法永久居民在内——无权查看针对他们的机密证据。与刑事诉讼不同，目标人员无法在法律上质疑政府收集证据的方式。
像居住在德克萨斯州的哈吉·扎达这样的绿卡持有者享有稍高的保护，例如有权要求政府为其指派拥有安全许可的律师。
哈吉·扎达周四头戴米白色头巾出庭，并依靠译员协助理解庭审程序。
司法部律师声称，虽无犯罪前科且从未被指控参与恐怖主义犯罪的哈吉·扎达曾“激进化”其家人——包括当时十几岁的儿子和女婿，使其支持伊斯兰国组织。
去年，她的儿子阿卜杜拉·哈吉·扎达和女婿纳西尔·艾哈迈德·陶赫迪均已认罪，他们在俄克拉荷马州联邦法院承认，曾从一名联邦线人手中购买两支AK-47风格步枪和500发弹药，这是据称针对2024年选举、为支持伊斯兰国而实施的阴谋的一部分。
2024年被捕时，扎达的儿子年仅17岁。他以成年人身份被起诉，并在18岁时承认了枪支犯罪指控。陶赫迪则承认了恐怖主义和枪支犯罪指控。
在年轻的哈吉·扎达的量刑备忘录中，其辩护律师将他描述为一名单纯的青少年，只是试图满足其姐夫的意愿，而非受极端意识形态驱使。
“他从未宣扬过极端观点、寻找过极端内容，也从未与任何已知的招募者联系过。他没有采取任何独立步骤策划或推动暴力行为，也没有迹象表明他了解其姐夫阴谋的全部范围，”其律师当时写道。
埃里克森法官的办公地点位于明尼苏达州联邦地区法院，她专程前往华盛顿主持此次听证会。在代理副助理司法部长海登·奥伯恩最初仅模糊声称政府获取了表明她是“外国恐怖分子”的机密信息后，埃里克森敦促政府向哈吉·扎达提供更多关于指控她的证据细节。
部分与本案相关的法院文件直到周三深夜才公开，但针对她的大部分证据仍处于保密状态。
他表示，联邦调查局的证据显示她是“伊斯兰国的支持者，并已宣誓效忠伊斯兰国”。
他补充称，她秘密地对家人进行了激进化，且未让其“毫无戒心的丈夫”知晓此事。
哈吉·扎达的律师表示，他担忧提供给当事人的案件非机密摘要仅包含两段多一点的信息，其中部分内容不过是重复了俄克拉荷马州儿子刑事案中已公开记录的信息。
他还声称，政府打算甚至阻止他和联合律师查看任何机密证据，“我认为这与法律规定相悖”，他说道。
埃里克森法官告诉司法部，虽然她目前不会就政府是否必须允许辩护律师查看机密证据作出裁决，但她打算秉持“辩护律师将能够审查机密信息的工作推定”。
她补充称，她将坚持要求政府披露“无法披露某些信息的原因和理由”。
周四的听证会出现了几次尴尬时刻，这或许恰好契合这个历史上首次开庭的联邦法庭的处境。某一刻，法庭内的一部手机突然响起。
法庭还遭遇了其中一个麦克风的反馈噪音问题，法官也无法讨论未来听证会的可能日期，因为她在法庭内无法查看自己的日程表。
她补充称，她相信该法庭最终会建立起电子 filing 系统。
“我相信会在PACER系统上实现，”她说。“而且我认为我们不会对此收费，”她补充道。
Afghan woman plans to fight DOJ efforts to deport her over allegation she is an “alien terrorist”
July 30, 2026 / 3:06 PM EDT / CBS News
A court-appointed lawyer for an Afghan woman and U.S. permanent resident whom the Justice Department alleges is an “alien terrorist” vowed Thursday to vigorously fight the government’s efforts to deport her, telling a federal judge that the entire legal process is unfair and unconstitutional.
In the first-ever test case before the secretive and never-before-used Alien Terrorist Removal Court, federal public defender Matthew Farley accused the Justice Department of violating Nazira Haji Zada’s due process rights.
He asked the judge to immediately release his client — a request the judge denied — but the issue is expected to be reviewed at a subsequent detention hearing.
“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional,” Farley told U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, the chief judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
Farley said the case represents “a runaround to bringing a criminal case” because it relies on a lower evidentiary standard to prove whether she is a non-citizen terrorist who can be deported under the law.
Thursday’s hearing marked the first time the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has ever convened since it was first created in 1996. It was set up to deport noncitizens who could not be removed by the traditional legal process because the information about their cases was classified and could not be made public for national security reasons.
It is so new that it lacks even an electronic filing system — a fact the judge acknowledged as she called for patience while the court staffers work to stand up the infrastructure for the court, which she noted has been “dormant and untested for three decades.”
The targets of its noncitizen terrorist removal proceedings — including legal permanent residents — are not permitted to review the classified evidence against them. And unlike criminal proceedings, targets are barred from legally challenging how the evidence was collected by the government.
Green card holders like Haji Zada, who lives in Texas, have slightly elevated protections, such as the right to have the government appoint her counsel with a security clearance.
Haji Zada appeared in court on Thursday wearing a cream-colored head covering and relying on an interpreter to help her understand the proceedings.
Justice Department lawyers allege that Haji Zada, who has no criminal history and has never been charged with a crime of terrorism, helped “radicalize” her family members — including her then-teenage son and her son-in-law to support the Islamic State group.
Last year, her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were convicted after each pleading guilty in a federal court in Oklahoma to purchasing two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI agent as part of an alleged plot targeting the 2024 election in support of the Islamic State.
At the time of his arrest in 2024, Zada’s son was only 17. He was charged as an adult and pleaded guilty to gun crimes when he was 18. Tawhedi pleaded guilty to terrorism and gun offenses.
In his sentencing memo, lawyers for the young Haji Zada portrayed him as a mere teenager who was only trying to fulfill the wishes of his older brother-in-law, and not as someone driven by radical ideology.
“He never promoted extremist views, sought out radical content, or communicated with any known recruiters. He took no independent steps to plan or advance violence, and there is no indication he understood the full scope of his brother-in-law’s scheme,” his lawyers wrote at the time.
Ericksen, who is based out of the federal district court in Minnesota and traveled to Washington, D.C., to preside over the hearing, pressed the government to give Haji Zada more details about the evidence against her during the hearing after Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hayden O’Byrne initially only provided vague claims that the government had obtained classified information suggesting she was an “alien terrorist.”
Some of the court documents pertaining to the case were only made public late Wednesday night, though much of the evidence against her remains classified.
The FBI’s evidence, he said, shows she is a “supporter of Isis and has pledged loyalty to Isis.”
He added that she had covertly radicalized the family, all without her “unsuspecting husband” knowing.
Haji Zada’s attorney said he was concerned that the unclassified summary of the case provided to his client contained little more than two paragraphs of information, some of which merely reiterated things that are already available in the public record through her son’s criminal case in Oklahoma.
He also alleged that the government intends to prevent even him and his co-counsel from reviewing any of the classified evidence, “which I think is contrary to the statute,” he said.
Ericksen told the Justice Department that while she won’t yet rule on whether the government must provide access to the classified evidence, she intends to rely on the “working presumption that defense counsel is going to be able to review the classified information.”
She added that she will insist that the government disclose a “reason and rationale” for why certain pieces of information cannot be otherwise disclosed.
Thursday’s hearing had a few awkward moments that were perhaps fitting for a federal court that has never before convened in history. At one point, a phone inside the courtroom started ringing.
The court also grappled with feedback noise coming from one of its microphones, and the judge was not able to discuss possible dates for future hearings because she did not have access to her calendar in the courtroom.
She added that she believes that eventually, the court would establish an electronic filing system.
“I believe it will be on Pacer,” she said. “And I don’t believe we will be able to charge for it,” she added.
发表回复