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).
