House About to Strip More Civil Liberties in Name of Anti-terrorism

The NewStandard ^ | 10-7-2004 | Madeleine Baran

[MagnusMaximus1]

---

 

 

 

NewStandard Home

Iraq in Crisis

Civil Liberties & Security

U.S. Business & Economy

News Article
House About to Strip More Civil Liberties in Name of Anti-terrorism
by Madeleine Baran (bio)

Oct 6 - Civil liberties and immigrant rights advocates say House Republicans are using legislation based on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations as cover to implement a series of troubling, un-related reforms condoning torture, limiting immigration and increasing surveillance of both non-citizens and citizens.

The House will vote on the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act this week. Opponents say the Republican leadership rushed the legislation to the floor without much time for debate or public input, just as Congress prepares to recess for a pre-election break.

In addition to overhauling national security agencies, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, the legislation would also allow the US government to deport immigrants to countries that allow torture, severely restrict asylum seekers, and compile a massive database of information on law-abiding citizens. The 9/11 Commission did not recommend any of these reforms, some of which were found in the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, commonly known as "Patriot II" -- legislation so alarming, public outcry kept it from coming to a vote. Recently lawmakers in both the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would revive pieces of that controversial bill (previous coverage).

"The House is acting as a rogue group," Tracy Hong, director of policy for the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, a civil rights and advocacy group. "They're defying the 9/11 Commission."

House Republicans disagree, saying the bill would prevent terrorists from entering the US. In a written statement, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), said the bill "will improve terrorism prevention and prosecution, so we can get the terrorists -- and those who help them -- before they get us. It will improve border security and make it harder for terrorists to travel to America. It will improve international cooperation and better coordinate anti-terrorism efforts with our allies."

Congressman F. James Sessenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), a leading supporter of the bill, also released a statement calling the bill "a firm, serious stand against terrorism," which will both protect civil liberties and make the country safer.

The Senate version, also expected to come to a vote this week, contains few of the extra provisions. If the House bill passes, the differing versions will be reconciled in committee.

The bill would allow the government to deport non-citizens who committed serious crimes or human rights violations to countries where they would likely be tortured. The provision appears to be in direct violation of the Convention Against Torture, signed by the US in 1989 Article Three of which states: "No State Party shall expel, return…or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

Erin Corcoran, staff attorney for Human Rights First's asylum program, said violating the Treaty could put Americans at risk abroad. "If we can carve out exceptions, why can't another country carve out exceptions?" she asked. "If you let someone torture someone, you're condoning torture. If you don't want an absolute ban, you shouldn't have signed on to this convention."

The bill would also allow immigration officials to deport non-citizens to countries without a recognized government, unless the receiving country "physically prevents" the individual from entering.

The bill contains numerous other provisions affecting immigrants, particularly those seeking asylum. Under the proposed bill, most immigrants would be denied the right to remain in the US while the federal courts review their case. Currently, individuals can apply for a temporary "stay of removal," typically granted to immigrants who appear to have a valid claim for asylum and would face torture or hardship if returned to their native country.

Corcoran said the provision could have drastic consequences for asylum seekers. If their claims of persecution are valid, she said, and they are returned to their country pending court review, "they are going to be dead or in prison."

Immigration officials would also be allowed to deport non-citizens who have been in the US more than a year but less than five years, without any judicial or administrative review of their claims.

Hong said the legislation would result in the deportation of immigrants who have a legal right to stay, because there would be no opportunity to present an argument for remaining in the country. "Let's just say [the immigrant is] married to a US citizen," Hong said. "There would be no context for him or her to raise that issue."

The bill would also take away noncitizen immigrants' rights to request a review of their case before the federal court. Immigrants seeking to challenge the decisions of immigration officials currently bring their case before the Immigration Court, then the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then by filing a writ of habeas corpus before the federal court. Under the proposed legislation, that final option would be eliminated.

Corcoran said the federal review is especially important because recent reforms by Attorney General John Ashcroft have drastically decreased immigrants' chances of winning an appeal at the Board of Immigration Appeals level. "[The Board review] procedure has been gutted," she said. "The only place that most people are able to get relief and get asylum is the federal court."

In addition, the legislation would require asylum seekers to prove that their race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership in a particular social group was the central motive for their persecution – a provision no other country requires, according to human rights advocacy group Human Rights First. Advocates say that proving a central motive for persecution is often impossible.

Corcoran said the legislation would make proving gender-based persecution especially difficult. "I think the best example is a woman being beaten by her husband," she said. "It's probably for a lot of reasons -- including that he thinks she is his property, but maybe also because he's drunk or had a bad day at work." Cases like these, she said, would be difficult to win if the House bill passes.

The severity of the reforms has alarmed many advocates for asylum seekers and other immigrants, who say the changes will take away due process from some of the most vulnerable individuals in the legal system.

"[These provisions] weren't included at all in the original 9/11 Commission report," said Michele Waslin, immigration policy analyst for the National Council of la Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy organization. "Clearly the House Republicans are looking at this as a vehicle to pass anti-immigrant legislation."

Civil liberties activists say the legislation also contains disturbing provisions increasing government surveillance of law-abiding citizens. The Senate version would create an "Information Sharing Network," combining commercial and government information into a massive database, similar to the controversial Matrix (previous coverage) system already rejected by most states.

Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU, said the legislation would also allow private individuals to access the data, with "no real protections for privacy." Edgar added that companies like Seisint, creators of Matrix, could attempt to sell their extensive databases to the government if the bill passes. Matrix came under scrutiny when state officials and civil liberties activists raised concerns about the safety of the data, which included everything from hunting and fishing licenses to photographs of neighbors and business associates.

The House version also contains sections originally found in a leaked draft of the controversial "Patriot II" legislation, including the "lone wolf" provision, which would allow the government to extend secret surveillance power, granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), to non-citizens who do not have a connection to a foreign power or terrorist group and without requiring investigators to show probable cause.

In joint testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant and Barry Sabin, chief of the criminal division of the counter-terrorism section in the Justice Department, said, "[T]he reality today is that a terrorist who seeks to attack the United States may be a 'lone wolf' who is not connected to a foreign terrorist group, or someone whose connection to a foreign terrorist group is not known."

But in a counter testimony, Edgar, the ACLU counsel, said pre-9/11 laws are sufficient. He argued that the Justice Department has not been able to provide a single example of a case in which they were unable to obtain the surveillance power they needed either through existing criminal law or through a FISA warrant.

The House bill would also expand the definition of "providing material support" for terrorists and make it a federal crime for any US citizen to receive "military-type training" from a group designated as a terrorist organization by the US government. "Military-type training" is defined as training "in means or methods that can cause death or serious bodily injury, destroy or damage property, or disrupt services to critical infrastructure, or training on the use, storage, production, or assembly of any explosive, firearm or other weapon, including any weapon of mass destruction." The provision would apply to everyone who receives such training, regardless of whether they ever act on the training or renounce their allegiance to the group.

In addition, the bill would change the definition of providing personnel to terrorist groups to include providing oneself. In a written statement, the ACLU notes, "In other words, mere association or membership in the group can be a crime, even if no money or other resources are provided. It would apply even to a person that has nothing to do with the group's violent activities and even to a member that is trying to persuade the group to give up violence and join the political process."

The bill would also allow employers to access potential worker' arrest records. Although the records will come with a notice that the individual has not been charged, indicted or convicted, the ACLU says employers are "still very likely to take a mere arrest into account when making hiring decisions."

Civil liberties and immigrant advocates say they hope many of the provisions will be removed, and are encouraging people to contact their senators and representatives to voice their concerns, but add that the legislation is expected to move quickly through the House and Senate this week, with little time for discussion.

© 2004 The NewStandard. See our reprint policy.

[Shryke]

Glock, does your often-used quote mean that we should do away with metal detectors and such at airports?

[Eaker]

Why don't you go easy on the use of "troll" newbie?

Hillary could designate the NRA a terrorist organization. What then???

[Publius6961]

Too bad that some Republicans believe in raping the Constitution, too.

The morons who have stretched the Constitution until it means whatever they want it to mean have raped the old girl into hopeless uselessness long before Congress got to her this time.

[glock rocks]

... or IDPA.

[snooker]

Have you ever done a credit check on yourself? Background check? You are living in a dreamworld if you think you have some privacy left. Privacy long went over the hill with plastic.

Try the credit check trick. Better still just put your name, phone number or SSN in google and see what pops up. Or log into your local county real estate tax board and run your property through the hoops. Might surprise you.

[Ramonan]

The Author's BIO tells it all:
Madeleine Baran

Madeleine Baran is a freelance journalist who writes frequently about work and labor issues. Her articles have appeared in The Brooklyn Rail, Dollars & Sense, Clamor, Maximum Rock N Roll and a variety of other progressive publications. Most recently, she has written about the assassination of union activists at Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia and the growing campaign to hold Coke responsible. Madeleine is originally from Wisconsin, but is currently finishing her Master's degree in journalism at NYU.


OTHER COLUMNS
Labor Organizers Call Bush’s Threat to Workers ‘Unprecedented’
Owatonna migrant workers to vote on a union
Sears firing of black worker ‘racially motivated’

[MineralMan]

"What does that mean? These so-called advocates could represent the most extreme of Marxist or other nutball groups. They even could represent pro-Islamic terror groups. Until I'm satisfied this comes from a legitimate source, I'll take these dire warnings with a grain of salt."

Uh, just as the ACLU is trying to keep Limbaugh's medical records out of court, sometimes two opposing sides can be working against the same thing, for different reasons.

You'll notice that a number of Freepers are opposed to this legislation. Not for the reasons the liberals are, of course, but for other reasons. Read the thread. See if they don't have a point.

Don't simply be for something just because some liberal organization is against it. Pay attention and you may be against it too, but for other reasons. If you own firearms, you should definitely be concerned with this legislation. If you belong to any organizations that have a very narrow point of view of anything, you should be alarmed.

[Teacher317]

The House is acting as a rogue group," ... "They're defying the 9/11 Commission."

And here I thought the House of Representatives was beholden to the voters, and not some oddball Commission. I guess represeting your constituency makes them a "rogue group" when they're not falling over themselves to promote Leftist socialist causes.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Right up your alley

[Eaker]

Glock, does your often-used quote mean that we should do away with metal detectors and such at airports?

I do.

If citizens as defined by the Constitution and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were allowed to arm themselves as they see fit then metal detector would not be needed anywhere.

[MineralMan]

"The Author's BIO tells it all:
"

It is a mistake to base your opinion of a piece of legislation based on who is opposed to it. Take a look at this thread. Lots of Freepers are opposed to this legislation as well.

Read the legislation, then decide for yourself.

While the ACLU often represents people who are not compatible with conservatism, they also represent civil liberties in other cases. In this case, they're on your side.

[Publius6961]

I predict a division among Freepers on this post. Some will offer up their civil rights to "protect America," while others will point out that their civil rights are inviolable.

Oh ye of little imagination...

There is at least one more alternative view of the problem: there are no longer civil liberties to give up. If my government has allowed special groups to threaten and kill me with impunity, I don't need to fear the central government. The results are the same.

Q.E.D.

[Little Ray]

Well, lessee. Potential illegal military training includes

Martial arts training
Firearms training
Reloading
Blacksmithing
Boy Scouts
Most engineering training

All they have to do is decide that they don't like your "group." I wonder if it is retroactive? If I got my firearms training in the Boy Scouts (thirty years ago!), and President Hillary! decides the Boy Scouts are terrorists, does this make me a guilty of "providing material support" for terrorists?
This is pretty silly. Unfortunately, it is about par for congresscritters.

[MineralMan]

"There is at least one more alternative view of the problem: there are no longer civil liberties to give up. If my government has allowed special groups to threaten and kill me with impunity, I don't need to fear the central government. The results are the same."

---

I'm not that pessimistic. Sorry.

[glock rocks]

Glock, does your often-used quote mean that we should do away with metal detectors and such at airports?

I'd have to ponder that. I don't fly, so maybe we could discuss seat belt or helmet laws... I do think that a national database and national ID card would be more destructive.

[mountaineer]

If you belong to any organizations that have a very narrow point of view of anything, you should be alarmed.

Are you kidding? I wouldn't belong to any organization that would have me for a member! (apologies to Groucho Marx). You seem to have misinterpreted my post. I simply suggested there would be no kneejerk reaction from me, especially when I was unfamiliar with the particular biases of the website posting the article. Like anything else, the allegations should be examined thoroughly, not just accepted at face value.

[MineralMan]

"All they have to do is decide that they don't like your "group.""

Bingo!

Now, I doubt they'd pick the BSA. I doubt they'd pick the NRA...it's too darned big. But, what about the GOA? What about some of the other RKBA organizations that are a bit smaller and have less political clout?

What about all those other organizations that are a bit on the fringe? Those are the ones that are the most likely to be targeted by an unfriendly administration.

They're all over the place. I can see it now. Why, there are Freepers who hint at civil disturbances here all the time. Maybe FR might be targeted.

There are many reasons to oppose this legislation. The liberals have some, and so do conservatives. It's a bad bill.

[Shryke]

If citizens as defined by the Constitution and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were allowed to arm themselves as they see fit then metal detector would not be needed anywhere.

Tell me how you, armed with your pistol on an aircraft, would stop a suicide bomber from detonating his briefase full of explosives?

[glock rocks]

If citizens as defined by the Constitution and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights were allowed to arm themselves as they see fit then metal detector would not be needed anywhere.

Yep... and Delta would get some of my money.

[rennatdm]

"THE PRISONER" We want information...information...information............... #2: I am the new number two... Prisoner: Who is number one? #2 You are number six... Prisoner: I am not a number I am a FREE MAN!!! #2 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA......................