JOIN THE FBI – SEARCH YOUR NEIGHBORS WITHOUT “PROBABLE CAUSE” (Civil Rights Leaflet)

 JOIN THE FBI – SEARCH YOUR NEIGHBORS WITHOUT “PROBABLE CAUSE”

 

Legislation and Executive Orders since September 11, as well as laws from before then, strip away a surprising number of civil liberties and civil rights from both US citizens and aliens (such as permanent residents).  Police no longer need probable cause to eavesdrop or physically search anyone in the US.  Aliens have been almost entirely stripped of their right to free speech and association.  Due process has been suspended for aliens, and hearsay can be used against them in military trials where there is a precedent for swift executions without appeal.

 

How have foreigner’s civil rights changed since September 11?

 

Under the new anti-terrorism bill, an alien could be barred from returning to the US after a trip abroad if their speech “undermines” the anti-terrorism efforts; in other words, if you criticize the US, you can’t come back.  This is according to Section 411 of the USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act.

Even if aliens stay quiet, they can still be deported for doing something that wasn’t illegal at the time.  Aliens can be deported for associating with a group the government considers terrorist even if the group was not considered a terrorist group when the alien was associating with the group.  The alien will also have to prove that they could not know that their assistance to a group (not designated as terrorist) would further terrorist activity.

 

What sort of evidence needs to be demonstrated before law enforcement can go after someone?

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, FISA (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act) rules apply – the government does not need to show probable cause to eavesdrop or physically search anyone. 

FISA was passed in 1978 when it was revealed that the FBI was conducting illegal wiretaps and break-ins during the civil rights and anti-war movements.  FISA is administered by a secret court, and the justifications for surveillance are kept secret from the defendant’s lawyers.  In 1995, FISA was extended to include physical searches, and FISA orders increased 46% (576 to 839) from 1994 to 1996.  This act applies to US citizens and aliens. (Sources: USA PATRIOT Act (http://thomas.loc.gov) / “Spies Like Us”, Steve Watrous, API, News Digest Vol 19 #42, October 15, 1998).

 

Speaking of the evidence, what is it, and how good is it?

The INS can use secret evidence which is withheld from prisoners and their lawyers (Source: “On Secret Evidence,” The Washington Post, October 21, 1997).  This form of evidence is not permitted for criminal or even national security cases, but since the 1950 an obscure provision has allowed it to be used for “immigration” proceedings.  (Source: “Rarely Used Law Now Falls Most Heavily On Arabs”, William Branigin, Washington Post, October 19, 1997)  Here is an example of one case:

 

“As his family looked on, agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and FBI, accompanied by local sheriff's deputies, took Najjar away in handcuffs.  That was on May 19. Six months later, Najjar, 40, is still being held in a Florida county jail. Although he was arrested on a charge of overstaying his student visa, his continued detention stems from a more serious accusation, but one that U.S. authorities refuse to spell out.

“Like more than a dozen other Arabs around the country, Najjar, former editor of an Islamic journal and a pastor at a Tampa mosque, has been denied bond on the basis of secret evidence the government only will say indicates an association ‘with a known terrorist group.’ So far, none of those being detained has been charged with any crime.

“In trying to defend Najjar, ‘his lawyers felt they were fighting a ghost,’ said his sister, Nahla Arian, a naturalized U.S. citizen. She said he belonged to a Tampa committee that supported the Palestinian uprising known as the intifada before disbanding in 1992, but denied he has any connection to Middle Eastern terrorists. (continued on reverse)

“After Najjar's arrest, his sister said, FBI agents interrogated him for two hours and offered to help solve his immigration problems for cooperation in their investigation. The FBI office in Tampa declined comment on grounds that the inquiry is ‘ongoing.’” 

(Source: “Rarely Used Law Now Falls Most Heavily On Arabs”, William Branigin, Washington Post, October 19, 1997)

 

When the INS tried to deport six Iraqis, who had been evacuated to the US by the CIA during a failed rebellion, former CIA director James Woolsey stepped in.  Woolsey was able to reveal what the INS’s secret evidence was, as the New York Times describes:

 

“Finally free to read what the government had fought to conceal, he was astonished to discover that the case against his clients was, as he put it, ‘a joke.’ One of the Iraqis, for example, had been the victim of an Iraqi attempt to kill him with thallium, a rat poison so lethal that it is banned in the United States. Yet the F.B.I. had solemnly reported that this resistance fighter (the object of two other assassination attempts) had been taking thallium as a ‘recreational drug.’ Dr. Ali Karim, who had treated visiting C.I.A. officers at an Iraqi resistance base, was, unrealistically, suspected of spying for both Iran and Iraq (bitter enemies), partly on the basis of a few childhood trips to Iran and a medical degree from Baghdad.”

Woolsey says: “My expectation had been that there would be something real in the material, some sign of ordinary human intelligence at work…  But this was junk, just junk.” 

(Source: “The Radicalization of James Woolsey”, New York Times, Andrew Cockburn, July 23 2000)

 

Secret evidence applies to everyone suspected of terrorism, right?

At least six members of the Irish Republican Army were threatened with secret evidence in immigration hearings, but Attorney General Janet Reno suspended the use of secret evidence; she suggested that peace in Northern Ireland could be disrupted by applying secret evidence rules to Irish people “linked” to terrorism.

(Source: “Rarely Used Law Now Falls Most Heavily On Arabs”, William Branigin, Washington Post, October 19, 1997)

 

A man unwittingly carried a loaded handgun through security a checkpoint in New Orleans on October 25, 2001 , and boarded a plane.  He realized that he had the handgun after take-off and handed the gun to a flight attendant.  The man was not charged, although a security employee was suspended.

(Source: “A Nation Challenged; Man Takes Gun on Plane”, New York Times, October 25, 2001)

On the other hand, three days later Salam El-Zaatari, a student at the Pittsburgh Art Institute, was arrested at the Pittsburgh International Airport when a box cutter was found in his computer case.  After arresting Salaam, the FBI turned him over to the INS.

(Source: “Man With Box Cutter Arrested at Airport”, The Pittsburgh Channel, October 29 2001)  It was later clarified that it was, in fact, an X-Acto knife (a craft tool), not a boxcutter that was found in his case. 

 

What about outside the INS?

Starting on November 13, people suspected of terrorism can now be tried by a military tribunal where the sources and methods of investigation are “protected” and not subject to scrutiny.  This is now legal because of an order signed by President GW Bush,  an order that does not require approval from Congress.  Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says, “To have successful prosecutions, we might have to give up sources and methods…. We don't want to have to do that.”

Michael Ratner, an international law and war crimes expert at Columbia University said, “I am flabbergasted …military courts don't have the same kind of protections, you don't get the same rights as you do in a federal court.”   The prosecution will be allowed to use hearsay as evidence, and the opportunity to appeal will be curtailed.  When these tribunals were used in World War II, secret trials lead to the “swift” conviction and execution of six people.

New York attorney Victor St. John said, “There is certainly a greater sense of security and formality that

might keep things from dissolving into a circus” – out of the circus and into the kangaroo court? 

(Sources: “Bush Order: Terror Trials by Military”, Ron Fournier, AP, November 13 2001 / “Terrorists Could Face Military Trial”, Anne Gearan, AP, November 14, 2001).

“What’s your favorite restaurant?” and other National Security Concerns (Civil Rights Leaflet)

“What’s your favorite restaurant?” and other National Security Concerns

 

Large “man-hunts” have been launched by the Justice Department to prevent further attacks.  Foreign students, tourists, and businessmen are being asked questions of dubious value, and in some cases there is verifiable harassment and intimidation by law enforcement officials who then pressure foreigners to reveal the names of Middle Eastern foreigners they know.

 

Since September 11, the FBI has been questioning Middle Eastern students in over 200 college campuses on topics such as “the names of their favorite restaurants” and “their views on Osama bin Laden.”  Students from Arab countries have been interviewed – no students from Germany , the country some of the hijackers came from, were visited.

“One of the reasons they want to know where a student lives is so that they can come find them when necessary or simply watch them,” said Catheryn Cotten, Director of the International Student Office at Duke University .

 

One Saudi student said he was asked about his politics and that he was afraid – “I know they can do anything they want to you.”   The student’s name was provided to the government by two other Saudi students after being detained for taking photographs of their university’s sports arena – they were in a photography class.  The student’s interview ended with government agents telling him to “expect to see us again.”

(Source: “In Sweeping Campus Canvasses, U.S. Checks on Mideast Students”, Jacques Steinberg, New York Times, November 12, 2001)

 

Until September 11, the government had asked colleges and universities to stop sending information on foreign students because “the I.N.S. could not scale the mountain of paperwork.” Now, even though no terrorist student has been found through asking questions about their favorite restaurant, it seems worthwhile to process the large amounts of paperwork.  Schools have no real choice but to cooperate: “By alienating the government, a school could risk losing its authority to request visas for foreign students, most of whom pay full tuition.”

(Source: “In Sweeping Campus Canvasses, U.S. Checks on Mideast Students”, Jacques Steinberg, New York Times, November 12, 2001)

 

There have been very few campus protests in support of the civil rights of foreign students, unlike the outrage expressed when university and law enforcement officials profiled American-born students in the past.  After an assault on an elderly woman in 1992, SUNY-Oneonta provided the state police with a list of every Black and Hispanic Student – this resulted in weeks of campus protest.  

(Source: “In Sweeping Campus Canvasses, U.S. Checks on Mideast Students”, Jacques Steinberg, New York Times, November 12, 2001)

 

What is the result?  Over 300 Saudi Arabian students have suspended their studies in the US and returned home, complaining of “widespread abuse, harassment and maltreatment mainly by government agencies.” 

(Source: “300 Saudi students return home from US”, AFP, Nov 10 2001)

 

What about foreigners in general?

 

Prosecutors around the USA have been ordered by the Justice Department to work with the police to find and question 5,000 male students, tourists, and businessmen between the ages of 18 and 33.  The DOJ refuses to name which countries’ male citizens are being sought after, and spokeswoman Mindy Tucker says, “We've allowed them to come into this country and we expect them to help.”

(Source: “Justice Dept. Widens Terror Probe”, Karen Gullo, AP, November 13, 2001)

HOW TO STOP CRIMINALS – LEARN FROM THE PROS! (Civil Rights Leaflet)

HOW TO STOP CRIMINALS – LEARN FROM THE PROS!

 

"Anyone with dark skin or who spoke with an accent was taken aside and searched," said the passenger, Mike Glass, 43, of Seattle. "And then they went to any male with too much facial hair." 

(Source: “10 Held at Kennedy Airport and La Guardia, Closing Both”, Clifford J. Levy, New York Times, Sept 14, 2001)

 

Who are all these dark skinned people who’ve been pulled over since September 11?  Probably Middle Eastern terrorists, right?

 

On September 12, a Sikh man was pulled off a train in Rhode Island and arrested for carrying a “knife” – keep in mind that Sikh men are obliged by their religion to carry a ceremonial knife.  Sikhs are not Muslims and are also usually not Middle Eastern, but nevertheless the man “was driven away in a police cruiser as the crowds that had been gathered at the station cheered… State and Providence police had surrounded the rail station around 2 p.m. , when it was evacuated and searched. The state bomb squad entered the station carrying equipment and with dogs.” 

(Source:  “Police take man into custody at Providence rail station”, Providence Journal, September 12 2001)

 

But it’s not just terrorists- local, state, and federal law enforcement agents are doing their best to protect us from more mundane criminals, such as drug dealers and traffic violators:

 

In Maryland in 1997, Charles and Etta Carter, an elderly African-American couple from Pennsylvania, were stopped by Maryland State Police on their 40^th wedding anniversary. The troopers searched their car and brought in drug-sniffing dogs. During the course of the search, their daughter’s wedding dress was tossed on one of the police cars and, as trucks passed, blown to the ground. Mrs. Carter was not allowed to use the restroom during the search because police officers feared that she would flee. Their belongings were strewn along the highway, trampled and urinated on by the dogs. No drugs were found and no ticket was issued.

(Source: The Daily Record, reprinted in “Driving While Black”, an ACLU special report, June 1999)

 

“The majority of people they are searching and humiliating are black people. That’s why I was so angry. I went from being an ordinary and decorated officer to a criminal in a matter of minutes”

    (Aaron Campbell, a major in the Metro-Dade Police Department who was stopped, wrestled to the ground, hit with pepper spray, and arrested, supposedly due to an illegal lane change and an obscured license tag, reported in the Washington Times, 1997)

But these are just isolated incidents, right?

“I arraign approximately one-third of the felony cases in New York County and

have no recollection of any defendant in a Port Authority Police Department drug

interdiction case who was not either Black or Hispanic”

(New York City Criminal Court Judge, early 1990s, reprinted in “Driving While Black” an ACLU special report, June 1999)

66% of Blacks believe they are treated less fairly by the police in their community

44% of Blacks and 29% of Hispanics feel that the police have stopped them at some time in their life because of their race or ethnic background

21% of Blacks reported unfair dealings with the police in the past month, rising to 27% of those under 35, and 31% of Black men

(Source: Gallup Poll on Race Relations in America, 2001 Update)

A study of stop and arrest data on the New Jersey turnpike from 1988 to 1991 showed that Blacks comprised 13.5% of the drivers and 15% of the speeders, but represented 35% of those stopped and 73.2% of those arrested.

A similar study in Maryland showed that while 74.7% of speeders were White and 17.5% were black, 79.2% of the drivers searched were Black

(Source: "A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection Systems", Northwestern University, for the US Department of Justice)

 

But racial profiling is justified because minorities are more likely to be involved in crimes, right?

 

In low-discretion cases, such as red-light violations or speeding detected with radar equipment, where police have less of a personal decision whether or not to stop someone, the percentage of minorities goes down, while the percentage of whites increases.  In Montgomery County, Alabama, Hispanics made up 11.4% of total stops, but only 8.8% of red light/radar stops; The figures for Black Drivers were 27.3% and 26.2%, respectively. Whites, in contrast, made up 56.3% of radar/red light violations, but 52.7% of stops as a whole

(Source: "Traffic Stop Rates Show Disparities" Washington Post, Nov 2, 2001)

 

In the Maryland study, 28.4% of Black drivers who were searched were found to have contraband, compared to 28.8% of Whites- a difference of only 0.4%.

In New Jersey, between 1997-1998, 10.5% of searches involving Whites resulted in an arrest, compared to 13.5% of searches involving Blacks, a difference of only 3%.

(Source: "A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection Systems" Northwestern University for the US Department of Justice)

 

Well, even if it is widespread, it’s the result of personal racism, not any sort of institutional bias, right?

 

In 1985, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issued guidelines for the police on "The Common Characteristics of Drug Couriers". The guidelines cautioned troopers to be suspicious of “rental cars, ... drivers wearing ’lots of gold’ or who do not ’fit the vehicle’, and "ethnic groups associated with the drug trade."

(Source: "Driving While Black- Racial Profiling On Our Nation's Highways", ACLU special report, June 1999)

 

"One form of deterrence might be to develop a proclivity toward the type of persons and vehicles which are usually involved in these crimes."

(Source: Internal memo written by the Chief of Tumbul, Connecticut’s all-white police force, Ambrosini in 1993)

 

New Jersey State Trooper Emblez Longoria filed a lawsuit in 1999 claiming that he was "required to work in an atmosphere where the routine violation of constitutional rights of motorists and citizens of color was not only standard practice, but encouraged and required by his supervisors."

(Source: "Trooper Says State Police in New Jersey Discriminate", New York Times, Feb 6, 1999)

 

“Governor Christine Todd Whitman and Attorney General Peter G. Verniero concede for the first time that some New Jersey state troopers singled out Black and Hispanic drivers on highways and that at least 77 percent of those drivers troopers sought to search were minorities... Whitman says that while there was no official policy allowing profiling, various policies combined to create an atmosphere that went beyond simple racism.”

(Source: "Whitman Says Troopers Used Racial Profiling", New York Times April 21, 1999)