By William Fisher
The law to reorganize US intelligence services was passed at the 11th hour in the last Congress partly because of a compromise that eliminated a number of controversial anti-immigration provisions. But the sponsor of those provisions says he intends to reintroduce them as “must pass” legislation “on the first day of the 109th Congress in January.” With President Bush, many human rights groups, most Democrats, and a number of civil libertarian conservatives arrayed against measure, the action is destined to trigger a fierce battle on Capitol Hill.
Said Congressman James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin and powerful chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee: “These common-sense provisions are aimed at preventing another 9/11-type attack by plugging holes in our homeland security efforts. We must address these vulnerabilities very soon because we know America’s enemies diligently probe our vulnerabilities to carry out their deadly intentions.”
Most media coverage of last session’s immigration proposals focused on such issues as establishing uniform security standards for drivers’ licenses and border security, such as closing the three-mile hole in the U.S./Mexico border fence near San Diego, California.
But the provisions that are far more worrying to human rights groups and civil libertarians relate to tightening asylum regulations. For example, the legislation would allow immigration judges to determine witness credibility in asylum cases with significantly reduced opportunity for appeal, stipulate that all terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility are grounds for deportation, and provide for the ‘expedited deportation’ of immigrants and visitors, even to countries where they are likely to face prison torture.
Human rights groups have been unanimous in their opposition to these provisions.
According to Susan Benesch of Amnesty International USA, the Sensenbrenner provisions “would prevent refugees from finding save haven in the United States and erode their chance for due process in presenting their asylum claims.” She told IPS in an email interview that “these anti-refugee and anti-immigrant measures were not recommended by the 9-11 commission for good reason -- they would not improve our national security. On the contrary -- they would deny safety to people whose own security is in danger.” Amnesty, she added, “also opposes the outsourcing of torture - - the United States is bound by the UN Convention Against Torture to prevent or punish torture, certainly not to facilitate it.”
The legislation reorganizing the intelligence community was based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, established to investigate the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Sensenbrenner recommendations were not part of the Commission’s recommendations.
Much of the controversy surrounding the Sensenbrenner immigration provisions stems from the widespread round-ups of primarily Arab and Muslim immigrants and visitors after the 9/11 attacks and again just prior to the 2004 presidential election. More than 5,000 people were arrested, and many detained for long periods with access to legal counsel. None were charged with any terror-related crime. Many were deported, some to countries where they were likely to be arrested again and face torture in detention. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has refused to disclose the names of any of the detainees.
But Amnesty’s Benesch says her organization “would be equally opposed if no Muslims had been rounded up” because the government was denying long-established asylum rights.
Mark Dow, author of ‘American Gulag: Inside US Immigration Prisons told IPS, “even sympathetic observers continue to believe that though the post-911 roundup failed to catch terrorists, it was intended to do so. This ignores the evidence that roundups were at least in part a cover to make it look like the Justice Department was doing something.” He added: “It is less the case, as is commonly asserted, that roundups of Arabs and Muslims were intended to fight terrorism than that terrorism was used as a pretext to justify the roundups -- a pattern that is in full force today around the country”. The INS was separated into three agencies, one of which is the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). All are now part of the new Department of Homeland Security.
One of the few Sensenbrenner provisions that made it into the final law increased the numbers of beds in detention facilities. Of this, Dow calls it “unconscionable to give DHS more detention capacity. Instead, Congress should establish a permanent independent oversight system to review the legality and humaneness of all current and future immigration detainee cases, and to monitor the treatment of all detainees. Ultimately, detention authority should be removed from DHS except in emergencies and for strictly limited periods. The immigration service has shown its unwillingness and inability to run a humane and lawful detention system.”
Washington sources believe most of the original Sensenbrenner proposals are likely to make it into the new bill. These include:
·“Expedited Removal” – allowing immigration enforcement officers to deport without a hearing any non-citizen not admitted to the U.S. by immigration authorities and who has been here for less than five years. This could result in the summary deportation of people who could face serious harm if deported. According to Human Rights First (HRF), an advocacy group, “These provisions place broad uncontrolled power in the hands of immigration officers whose decisions are not subject to formal administrative or judicial review.”
·Summary deportation of battered spouses, children whose unlawful entry into the U.S. was connected to the abuse they suffered, and victims of human trafficking and victims of serious crimes such as rape, torture, trafficking, incest, domestic violence, sexual assault, involuntary servitude, kidnapping, and abduction.
·“Preventing Terrorists from Obtaining Asylum” is, according to HRF, “is NOT about preventing terrorists from getting asylum. Terrorists are already barred from asylum.” This section, the group says, would allow genuine refugees to be denied asylum if they were unable to document relevant conditions in their countries through State Department reports, could not prove their persecutor’s central reason for harming them, or had any inconsistencies between statements made to any U.S. government employees and their testimony before an immigration judge.
·Permitting adjudicators to deny asylum because they are unable to provide corroborating evidence of “certain alleged facts pertaining to the specifics of their claim.” This provision, says HRF, “would disproportionately harm asylum seekers who are held in jails and detention facilities, and the many who are not represented by legal counsel.”
·Giving adjudicators broad leeway to deny applicants asylum based on factors such as their perceived “demeanor”.
·Allowing an asylum applicant to be denied asylum on grounds of credibility if the abuse suffered or feared was not documented in the annual country conditions reports of the Department of State.
·Eliminating stays of removal pending judicial review, allowing refugees to be returned to the persecution they fear while their cases are pending in federal court. According to HRF, “This provision, applicable to ALL immigration cases, would have a particularly devastating impact on refugees and persons facing torture if they are deported.”
·Eliminating all judicial review for persons claiming protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) who are barred from direct review by the court of appeals.
·Requiring that anyone not deported be detained indefinitely. This provision, says HRF, “runs afoul of international legal standards against arbitrary detention. In addition, the Supreme Court has already stated that ‘a statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem’.”
·Allowing the Department of Homeland Security to designate as a “specially dangerous alien” and detain indefinitely anyone who is barred from withholding of removal but has not been granted any protection against removal, while requiring the indefinite detention—without any showing or even allegation of dangerousness.
While the US media has largely focused on border security issues, US asylum policy has come under less scrutiny. However, “The New York Times” wrote in a September 25, 2004 editorial: “In jails and prisons across the United States, thousands of people are detained who have never been accused of crimes. The guards treat them like criminals, and the criminals they bunk with often abuse them. They are held for months, sometimes even years, but unlike the criminals, they do not know when their sentences will end. They receive this treatment because they are foreigners who arrived in the United States saying that they were fleeing persecution at home… They come here chasing America's promised liberty, and they end up in chains…locking up thousands of people who pose no risk and are accused of no crimes is expensive, unnecessary and a betrayal of America's commitment to the persecuted.”
For years, the INS has failed to furnish accurate numbers of asylum-seekers to the Congress, despite a Federal law requiring this data. Thus precise data is difficult to come by. The US Government suggests that there are about 22,000 detainees in US immigration prisons at any one time, and that on average several thousand of these will be asylum-seekers. Non-governmental sources estimate the numbers as many times higher. Other sources have estimated that in 2001, 86,180 people sought asylum in the United States; 68,400 applications were reportedly granted. Yet other sources report that in 2000, there were 48,054 asylum-seekers to the US, and 47,584 cases in the first nine months of 2001. Only a few hundred of the Muslims and Arabs rounded up after September 11th, 2001, were asylum-seekers, but many more were reportedly refugees.
President George W. Bush opposed some of the Sensenbrenner proposals, as well as measures introduced by others, in the bill he signed into law earlier this month. However, it is unclear whether he did so only to facilitate the compromise that allowed the bill to pass. The immigration issue is further complicated by President Bush’s own proposal for a ‘guest worker’ program. This program would grant multi-year work permits to non-citizens, including illegal aliens. The idea has drawn widespread bi-partisan opposition in Congress.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Sunday, December 19, 2004
BACK-PEDALING AT THE TREASURY
By William Fisher
From Washington this week comes proof that high-profile individuals can sometimes force the Bush Administration to reverse some of its anti-human rights policies.
The high-profile individual is Prof. Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian dissident who was the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Prize. This is the story of how she and her colleagues got the US Treasury Department to stop a certain train wreck.
Prof. Ebadi was told she couldn’t publish her memoirs in the United States because of regulations that prohibit ‘trading with the enemy’. “The enemy”, in Prof. Ebadi’s case, is Iran, against whom the US currently has sanctions. The Trading With The Enemy Act (TWTE), passed in 1917, allows the president to bar transactions during times of war or national emergency. Though the law has been amended to exempt publishers, the Treasury Department continued to rule it illegal “to enhance the value of anything created in Iran without permission” -- including books.
The Department suggested Prof. Ebadi apply for a special license. But instead, Prof. Ebadi and her agent joined a lawsuit filed a month earlier against the Treasury Department by several American organizations representing publishers, editors and translators. These organizations had conducted fruitless negations for more than a year with Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which administers the TWTE regulations. Prof. Ebadi’s book is described as an effort to "help correct Western stereotypes of Islam, especially the image of Muslim women as docile, forlorn creatures." The TWTE regulations currently apply to countries against which the US has sanctions – Iran, Sudan and Cuba.
The lawsuit said, “At a time when the US calls for citizens of other countries to follow the example of American democracy, preventing writers in certain countries from reaching the American public sends exactly the wrong message. Writers in Iran, Cuba and Sudan cannot publish freely in their own countries. It is a tragic and dangerous irony that Americans may not freely publish the works of those writers here, either.”
“We seek to overturn the regulations on what Americans can and cannot read in the United States”, Prof. Ebadi wrote in “The New York Times” (November 16) about the lawsuit. The suit was filed by the PEN American Center, the Association of American Publishers Professional and Scholarly Publishing division (AAP/PSP), the Association of American University Presses (AAUP), and Arcade Publishing. Arcade is the publisher of PEN’s “Anthology of Iranian Literature”. PEN is a writers’ advocacy group.
Prof. Ebadi wrote that she “was surprised and angered when I learned that regulations in the United States make it nearly impossible for me to write a book for Americans. Despite federal laws that say that American trade embargoes may not restrict the free flow of information, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control continues to regulate the import of books from Iran, Cuba and other countries. In order to skirt the laws protecting the flow of information, the government prohibits publishing ‘materials not fully created and in existence’. Therefore, I could publish my memoir in the United States, but it would be illegal for an American literary agent, publisher, editor or translator to help me.” Rule-breakers are subject to prison sentences of up to 10 years or fines of up to $1,000,000.
Human rights, she said, “including the freedom to read whatever one wishes, are universal values that transcend national boundaries. Therefore, just as I take on court cases in Tehran to defend others' rights, so must I follow my conscience and take on a lawsuit in the United States to defend my own rights and the rights of Americans.”
The organizations asked the court to strike down OFAC regulations that require publishers, writers, and translators to seek a license from the government to perform the routine services necessary to publish foreign literature in the United States.
Those rulings and the regulations they interpret mandate that Americans may not publish work not already published in embargoed countries, promote or market the work, nor provide vaguely defined "artistic or substantive alterations or enhancements" to the work.
Prof. Ebadi and her colleagues charged that the regulations violate both the intention of Congress, articulated in the 1989 Berman Amendment, and the 1994 Free Trade in Ideas Act, which exempts transactions involving "information and informational materials" from embargoed countries, as well as the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The author of the Berman Amendment is Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat of California, who has long been an advocate for the free flow of information from embargoed nations.
In March, Rep. Berman wrote the Treasury Department to criticize its “narrow and misguided interpretation of the law”. He added: “I fail to see how this serves the interests of the United States in any way, shape or form.”
PEN, the AAP/PSP, AAUP, and Arcade contended that OFAC's regulations overreached the office's statutory authority and endangered US citizens' constitutional rights.
Last week, the Treasury Department abruptly reversed its interpretation of the TWTE Act, to largely exempt writers, publishers, editors, translators and literary agents from the regulations governing the publication of informational materials, including medical and scientific publications as well as books, from countries subject to US trade embargoes.
Edward Davis, whose law firm represents the publishing organizations as well as PEN, called the Treasury Department’s decision “a very encouraging first step toward restoring the freedom of expression”, but cautioned that “the government has not yet undone all the restrictions imposed.” He told IPS, “Prof. Ebadi’s reputation and notoriety undoubtedly played a role in getting the government to change its rules.” Davis’s law firm, Davis, Wright, Tremaine, has not yet withdrawn the lawsuit.
There is an ironic twist to the Ebadi story. At the same time the Treasury Department was denying Prof. Ebadi the right to publish her book, the US State Department – which is reportedly in charge of ‘winning the hearts and minds’ of people who live under repressive, authoritarian regimes – was lauding her on its website as one of Iran’s “Voices Struggling To Be Heard.”
The website notes that she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 “for her life-long campaign to protect vulnerable and persecuted groups within Iranian society.” And it quotes the citation from the Norwegian Nobel Committee: “As a lawyer, judge, lecturer, writer and activist, she has spoken out clearly and strongly in her country, Iran and far beyond.”
The State Department website goes on to explain, “Since being forced from her position as the president of the city court of Tehran, she has used her legal expertise to promote and protect some of the most basic and necessary human rights…. she has provided legal representation to many activists who are the targets of government harassment because of dissident opinions and democracy promotion. She has courageously fought for equitable and just treatment for women in Iranian society, and she has also helped to organize efforts to publicize and alleviate the harsh conditions of ‘street children’ in Iran.”
Prof. Ebadi, a former judge who was forced by the Iranian regime to step down from the bench, is now a law professor at the University of Tehran. In her “New York Times” op-ed, Prof. Ebadi wrote, “I cannot publish my memoir in Iran. The book would either be banned altogether or censored to such an extent that it would be rendered useless. Publishing my book in the United States would involve risk and repercussions for me back in Iran. I believe, however, that the message of the book is so important that I will happily accept the risk and its possible consequences.”
The State Department website notes that in 2000 Prof. Ebadi “was arrested and accused of distributing a videotape that implicated prominent hard-line leaders of instigating attacks against advocates of reform. She received a suspended sentence and a professional ban. She was then detained after attending a conference in Berlin on the Iranian reform movement.”
It says she also provided legal representation for “highly politicized and sensitive cases” such as the students killed during the 1999 Tehran University protests by vigilante groups operating under the influence of hard-line clerics, and two prominent political activists who were stabbed to death in 1998 by “rogue” elements within the Intelligence Ministry.
Even President Bush lauds Prof. Ebadi. In Iran, he says, “the demand for democracy is strong and broad as we saw when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi…The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy."
.
From Washington this week comes proof that high-profile individuals can sometimes force the Bush Administration to reverse some of its anti-human rights policies.
The high-profile individual is Prof. Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian dissident who was the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Prize. This is the story of how she and her colleagues got the US Treasury Department to stop a certain train wreck.
Prof. Ebadi was told she couldn’t publish her memoirs in the United States because of regulations that prohibit ‘trading with the enemy’. “The enemy”, in Prof. Ebadi’s case, is Iran, against whom the US currently has sanctions. The Trading With The Enemy Act (TWTE), passed in 1917, allows the president to bar transactions during times of war or national emergency. Though the law has been amended to exempt publishers, the Treasury Department continued to rule it illegal “to enhance the value of anything created in Iran without permission” -- including books.
The Department suggested Prof. Ebadi apply for a special license. But instead, Prof. Ebadi and her agent joined a lawsuit filed a month earlier against the Treasury Department by several American organizations representing publishers, editors and translators. These organizations had conducted fruitless negations for more than a year with Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which administers the TWTE regulations. Prof. Ebadi’s book is described as an effort to "help correct Western stereotypes of Islam, especially the image of Muslim women as docile, forlorn creatures." The TWTE regulations currently apply to countries against which the US has sanctions – Iran, Sudan and Cuba.
The lawsuit said, “At a time when the US calls for citizens of other countries to follow the example of American democracy, preventing writers in certain countries from reaching the American public sends exactly the wrong message. Writers in Iran, Cuba and Sudan cannot publish freely in their own countries. It is a tragic and dangerous irony that Americans may not freely publish the works of those writers here, either.”
“We seek to overturn the regulations on what Americans can and cannot read in the United States”, Prof. Ebadi wrote in “The New York Times” (November 16) about the lawsuit. The suit was filed by the PEN American Center, the Association of American Publishers Professional and Scholarly Publishing division (AAP/PSP), the Association of American University Presses (AAUP), and Arcade Publishing. Arcade is the publisher of PEN’s “Anthology of Iranian Literature”. PEN is a writers’ advocacy group.
Prof. Ebadi wrote that she “was surprised and angered when I learned that regulations in the United States make it nearly impossible for me to write a book for Americans. Despite federal laws that say that American trade embargoes may not restrict the free flow of information, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control continues to regulate the import of books from Iran, Cuba and other countries. In order to skirt the laws protecting the flow of information, the government prohibits publishing ‘materials not fully created and in existence’. Therefore, I could publish my memoir in the United States, but it would be illegal for an American literary agent, publisher, editor or translator to help me.” Rule-breakers are subject to prison sentences of up to 10 years or fines of up to $1,000,000.
Human rights, she said, “including the freedom to read whatever one wishes, are universal values that transcend national boundaries. Therefore, just as I take on court cases in Tehran to defend others' rights, so must I follow my conscience and take on a lawsuit in the United States to defend my own rights and the rights of Americans.”
The organizations asked the court to strike down OFAC regulations that require publishers, writers, and translators to seek a license from the government to perform the routine services necessary to publish foreign literature in the United States.
Those rulings and the regulations they interpret mandate that Americans may not publish work not already published in embargoed countries, promote or market the work, nor provide vaguely defined "artistic or substantive alterations or enhancements" to the work.
Prof. Ebadi and her colleagues charged that the regulations violate both the intention of Congress, articulated in the 1989 Berman Amendment, and the 1994 Free Trade in Ideas Act, which exempts transactions involving "information and informational materials" from embargoed countries, as well as the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The author of the Berman Amendment is Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat of California, who has long been an advocate for the free flow of information from embargoed nations.
In March, Rep. Berman wrote the Treasury Department to criticize its “narrow and misguided interpretation of the law”. He added: “I fail to see how this serves the interests of the United States in any way, shape or form.”
PEN, the AAP/PSP, AAUP, and Arcade contended that OFAC's regulations overreached the office's statutory authority and endangered US citizens' constitutional rights.
Last week, the Treasury Department abruptly reversed its interpretation of the TWTE Act, to largely exempt writers, publishers, editors, translators and literary agents from the regulations governing the publication of informational materials, including medical and scientific publications as well as books, from countries subject to US trade embargoes.
Edward Davis, whose law firm represents the publishing organizations as well as PEN, called the Treasury Department’s decision “a very encouraging first step toward restoring the freedom of expression”, but cautioned that “the government has not yet undone all the restrictions imposed.” He told IPS, “Prof. Ebadi’s reputation and notoriety undoubtedly played a role in getting the government to change its rules.” Davis’s law firm, Davis, Wright, Tremaine, has not yet withdrawn the lawsuit.
There is an ironic twist to the Ebadi story. At the same time the Treasury Department was denying Prof. Ebadi the right to publish her book, the US State Department – which is reportedly in charge of ‘winning the hearts and minds’ of people who live under repressive, authoritarian regimes – was lauding her on its website as one of Iran’s “Voices Struggling To Be Heard.”
The website notes that she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 “for her life-long campaign to protect vulnerable and persecuted groups within Iranian society.” And it quotes the citation from the Norwegian Nobel Committee: “As a lawyer, judge, lecturer, writer and activist, she has spoken out clearly and strongly in her country, Iran and far beyond.”
The State Department website goes on to explain, “Since being forced from her position as the president of the city court of Tehran, she has used her legal expertise to promote and protect some of the most basic and necessary human rights…. she has provided legal representation to many activists who are the targets of government harassment because of dissident opinions and democracy promotion. She has courageously fought for equitable and just treatment for women in Iranian society, and she has also helped to organize efforts to publicize and alleviate the harsh conditions of ‘street children’ in Iran.”
Prof. Ebadi, a former judge who was forced by the Iranian regime to step down from the bench, is now a law professor at the University of Tehran. In her “New York Times” op-ed, Prof. Ebadi wrote, “I cannot publish my memoir in Iran. The book would either be banned altogether or censored to such an extent that it would be rendered useless. Publishing my book in the United States would involve risk and repercussions for me back in Iran. I believe, however, that the message of the book is so important that I will happily accept the risk and its possible consequences.”
The State Department website notes that in 2000 Prof. Ebadi “was arrested and accused of distributing a videotape that implicated prominent hard-line leaders of instigating attacks against advocates of reform. She received a suspended sentence and a professional ban. She was then detained after attending a conference in Berlin on the Iranian reform movement.”
It says she also provided legal representation for “highly politicized and sensitive cases” such as the students killed during the 1999 Tehran University protests by vigilante groups operating under the influence of hard-line clerics, and two prominent political activists who were stabbed to death in 1998 by “rogue” elements within the Intelligence Ministry.
Even President Bush lauds Prof. Ebadi. In Iran, he says, “the demand for democracy is strong and broad as we saw when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi…The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy."
.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
LETTER FROM IRAQ
By William Fisher
One of my dearest friends is the director of a major project in Iraq funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). She emails me periodically to report on the situation there. Below is her communiqué from December 15.
“I have not been to Baghdad for almost two months. I am running this project through email and telephone, and from time to time my colleagues from Baghdad come to see me. They report, as does our security group there, that things are bad, lawless in some areas, and indeed lots of people are getting killed. It is hard sometimes to distinguish between insurgency and criminality. Baghdad has always bounced back - what's a car bomb or two? But the bounce these days is not as high and is slower in coming. The city is much quieter, though that could be from the lack of gasoline and electricity.
“There is a relative news blackout, which says to me that the good guys are really kicking butt or really getting their butts kicked. I suspect it is the former, though not uniformly so. Mosul is a mess, fighting continues in Fallujah, the two triangles (Sunni and death) just keep rumbling on, and the security reports are uneven in their forecasts and assessments. The best news is that large numbers of parties, include the biggest amongst the Sunnis have decided to contest the election. My Iraqi friends and colleagues are unambiguously excited about the elections, and while there is not the type of political debate that we have the US, I have a feeling that this election is going to more successful than one would assume based on what the situation looks like now.
“Yesterday, I made my first, and I hope it will be my only trip to pay my condolences to the widow of one of my employees. One of my guards, while off-duty, traveled to Mosul to purchase building material for construction of a new house. He was with a group of cousins and brothers. The group was approached by masked gunmen who inspected their IDs one by one. The gunmen found my guard's badge, so he was shot in the arm and dragged away. The cousins and brothers fled. A few days later my guard's brother found him lying dead in a street in Mosul. His name was Saed. His funeral was a few days ago and my deputy attended (as you know, funerals are only
for men).
“How pathetic the situation is. Saed's widow is but a girl, no more than 17 or 18 years old, with two little kids, a boy and girl. We sat on a carpeted floor, bare but for a kerosene heater in the center. I was offered a cup of sugary tea. Her brother-in-law, a high ranking Iraqi army officer, sat with us, as did Ahmed my security guy. The brother-in-law did what little talking there was. He described his brother as loyal and strong, dedicated to his family and tribe. Ahmed made a collection from the project staff, and accumulated a wild looking stack of multicolored Iraqi notes and US dollars. We had a goal of giving him his annual salary, $5000, and we succeeded with a little help from the project slush fund. I handed this to the girl without ceremony, and she accepted with but a hint of gratitude.The gesture made much more impact on the officer and the others in the village who came to witness the goings-on. We also offered to pay to finish the house that Saed was building. The brother-in-law officer assured me that the girl will be taken care of, in fact, she will probably become a wife of another brother.
“And on this same day, Paul Bremer got his Presidential Medal of Honor,along with (General Tommy ) Franks and (former CIA chief George) Tenet. Instead of receiving medals they should be the ones attending the funerals and handing over paltry sums to innocent Iraqis. This is why I am so angry. None of this had to happen.”
There is little one can add to this kind of crie de couer. Except to underline my friend’s last sentence: “None of this had to happen.” The list of those who should be held accountable is too long to publish here. But, as Harry Truman famously remarked, “The buck stops here” – which means George W. Bush.
One of my dearest friends is the director of a major project in Iraq funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). She emails me periodically to report on the situation there. Below is her communiqué from December 15.
“I have not been to Baghdad for almost two months. I am running this project through email and telephone, and from time to time my colleagues from Baghdad come to see me. They report, as does our security group there, that things are bad, lawless in some areas, and indeed lots of people are getting killed. It is hard sometimes to distinguish between insurgency and criminality. Baghdad has always bounced back - what's a car bomb or two? But the bounce these days is not as high and is slower in coming. The city is much quieter, though that could be from the lack of gasoline and electricity.
“There is a relative news blackout, which says to me that the good guys are really kicking butt or really getting their butts kicked. I suspect it is the former, though not uniformly so. Mosul is a mess, fighting continues in Fallujah, the two triangles (Sunni and death) just keep rumbling on, and the security reports are uneven in their forecasts and assessments. The best news is that large numbers of parties, include the biggest amongst the Sunnis have decided to contest the election. My Iraqi friends and colleagues are unambiguously excited about the elections, and while there is not the type of political debate that we have the US, I have a feeling that this election is going to more successful than one would assume based on what the situation looks like now.
“Yesterday, I made my first, and I hope it will be my only trip to pay my condolences to the widow of one of my employees. One of my guards, while off-duty, traveled to Mosul to purchase building material for construction of a new house. He was with a group of cousins and brothers. The group was approached by masked gunmen who inspected their IDs one by one. The gunmen found my guard's badge, so he was shot in the arm and dragged away. The cousins and brothers fled. A few days later my guard's brother found him lying dead in a street in Mosul. His name was Saed. His funeral was a few days ago and my deputy attended (as you know, funerals are only
for men).
“How pathetic the situation is. Saed's widow is but a girl, no more than 17 or 18 years old, with two little kids, a boy and girl. We sat on a carpeted floor, bare but for a kerosene heater in the center. I was offered a cup of sugary tea. Her brother-in-law, a high ranking Iraqi army officer, sat with us, as did Ahmed my security guy. The brother-in-law did what little talking there was. He described his brother as loyal and strong, dedicated to his family and tribe. Ahmed made a collection from the project staff, and accumulated a wild looking stack of multicolored Iraqi notes and US dollars. We had a goal of giving him his annual salary, $5000, and we succeeded with a little help from the project slush fund. I handed this to the girl without ceremony, and she accepted with but a hint of gratitude.The gesture made much more impact on the officer and the others in the village who came to witness the goings-on. We also offered to pay to finish the house that Saed was building. The brother-in-law officer assured me that the girl will be taken care of, in fact, she will probably become a wife of another brother.
“And on this same day, Paul Bremer got his Presidential Medal of Honor,along with (General Tommy ) Franks and (former CIA chief George) Tenet. Instead of receiving medals they should be the ones attending the funerals and handing over paltry sums to innocent Iraqis. This is why I am so angry. None of this had to happen.”
There is little one can add to this kind of crie de couer. Except to underline my friend’s last sentence: “None of this had to happen.” The list of those who should be held accountable is too long to publish here. But, as Harry Truman famously remarked, “The buck stops here” – which means George W. Bush.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
THE TARNISHED FIGLEAF
By William Fisher
Arab leaders meeting in Morocco for the Freedom Forum of the G-8 industrialized countries told US Secretary State Colin Powell that "their support for reform in the region will go hand-in-hand with their support for a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Arab League chief Amr Musa echoed the sentiments of all his Arab colleagues when he insisted that Palestinian peace was necessary before the reforms envisioned by the US-proposed Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative could be achieved. He said an independent Palestine "is a must" if the US plan is to have any chance of working. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Faisal put it even more bluntly, telling the conference that the perceived US bias towards Israel was the main obstacle to promoting reform in the region.
But what Mr. Musa and his cohorts forgot to explain is the connection between these two propositions. And for good reason: there is no connection.
For three decades, the authoritarian and unelected governments of the Arab Middle East have used the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as a figleaf to conceal their own unwillingness to embrace transparency, accountability and representative governance. And they have done so while giving little save rhetoric to the Palestinian people or to solving their wretched dilemma.
One has to wonder what these leaders will ever do if, by some miracle of diplomacy and geopolitics, a two-state solution should actually happen -- and the figleaf should drop!
Equitable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian scourge is the desire of all reasonable people. And most of them would agree that US policy is, and is perceived to be, unreasonably pro-Israel. But that merely limits the ability of the United States to function as a truly honest broker. It says nothing about the glacial pace of Arab reform, or of the capacity of the Arab world to accelerate it.
If reform was a real goal among the Arab states, why would they need a US-backed plan in the first place? They already have all the power they need to speed up the process. What they don’t have is the political will and the conviction that reform is what their people deserve.
In a recent article, Rami Khoury, the executive editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut, posed a tantalizing question: What if the roadmap to democratic reform ended up leading not through Baghdad but through Ramallah? What if the Palestinians were able to elect their new president? What if that president were able to rein in their more violent elements? What if the Israelis and the Palestinians then returned to the table and successfully negotiated an end to the bloodshed?
What would the rest of the Arabs do if the State of Palestine became the first Arab democracy to the Middle East? And their last excuse for doing nothing disappeared?
Maybe it’s a longshot, but watch this space!
Arab leaders meeting in Morocco for the Freedom Forum of the G-8 industrialized countries told US Secretary State Colin Powell that "their support for reform in the region will go hand-in-hand with their support for a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Arab League chief Amr Musa echoed the sentiments of all his Arab colleagues when he insisted that Palestinian peace was necessary before the reforms envisioned by the US-proposed Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative could be achieved. He said an independent Palestine "is a must" if the US plan is to have any chance of working. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Faisal put it even more bluntly, telling the conference that the perceived US bias towards Israel was the main obstacle to promoting reform in the region.
But what Mr. Musa and his cohorts forgot to explain is the connection between these two propositions. And for good reason: there is no connection.
For three decades, the authoritarian and unelected governments of the Arab Middle East have used the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as a figleaf to conceal their own unwillingness to embrace transparency, accountability and representative governance. And they have done so while giving little save rhetoric to the Palestinian people or to solving their wretched dilemma.
One has to wonder what these leaders will ever do if, by some miracle of diplomacy and geopolitics, a two-state solution should actually happen -- and the figleaf should drop!
Equitable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian scourge is the desire of all reasonable people. And most of them would agree that US policy is, and is perceived to be, unreasonably pro-Israel. But that merely limits the ability of the United States to function as a truly honest broker. It says nothing about the glacial pace of Arab reform, or of the capacity of the Arab world to accelerate it.
If reform was a real goal among the Arab states, why would they need a US-backed plan in the first place? They already have all the power they need to speed up the process. What they don’t have is the political will and the conviction that reform is what their people deserve.
In a recent article, Rami Khoury, the executive editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut, posed a tantalizing question: What if the roadmap to democratic reform ended up leading not through Baghdad but through Ramallah? What if the Palestinians were able to elect their new president? What if that president were able to rein in their more violent elements? What if the Israelis and the Palestinians then returned to the table and successfully negotiated an end to the bloodshed?
What would the rest of the Arabs do if the State of Palestine became the first Arab democracy to the Middle East? And their last excuse for doing nothing disappeared?
Maybe it’s a longshot, but watch this space!
Saturday, December 11, 2004
RIGHT HAND, LEFT HAND
By William Fisher
Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe performs a genuine public service by calling our attention to yet another screw-up in America’s war against the Axis of Evil.
This one can only make us wonder if the government’s right hand knows what its left hand is doing.
Ms. Goodman points out that Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian dissident who is the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, “is being prevented from publishing her memoirs in the United States because of regulations that prohibit ‘trading with the enemy’." Her book is an effort to "help correct Western stereotypes of Islam, especially the image of Muslim women as docile, forlorn creatures."
But at the same time, the US State Department – which is allegedly in charge of ‘winning the hearts and minds’ of people who live under repressive, authoritarian regimes -- posts on its website a Fact Sheet entitled, “Iran: Voices Struggling To Be Heard.”
And prominent among these ‘Voices’ is – you guessed it -- Shirin Ebadi, who is described as one of Iran’s ‘Voices of Hope’.
It says of her: Shirin Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “for her life-long campaign to protect vulnerable and persecuted groups within Iranian society.” And it quotes the citation from the Norwegian Nobel Committee: “As a lawyer, judge, lecturer, writer and activist, she has spoken out clearly and strongly in her country, Iran and far beyond.”
The State Department goes on to explain, “Since being forced from her position as the president of the city court of Tehran, she has used her legal expertise to promote and protect some of the most basic and necessary human rights…. she has provided legal representation to many activists who are the targets of government harassment because of dissident opinions and democracy promotion. She has courageously fought for equitable and just treatment for women in Iranian society, and she has also helped to organize efforts to publicize and alleviate the harsh conditions of ‘street children’ in Iran.”
The State Department then reminds us that in 2000 Ms. Ebadi “was arrested and accused of distributing a videotape that implicated prominent hard-line leaders of instigating attacks against advocates of reform. She received a suspended sentence and a professional ban. She was then detained after attending a conference in Berlin on the Iranian reform movement.”
It says she also provided legal representation for “highly politicized and sensitive cases” such as the students killed during the 1999 Tehran University protests by vigilante groups operating under the influence of hard-line clerics, and two prominent political activists who were stabbed to death in 1998 by “rogue” elements within the Intelligence Ministry.
Even President Bush lauds Ms. Ebadi. In Iran, he says, “the demand for democracy is strong and broad as we saw when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy."
Ms. Ebadi herself says, “Any person who pursues human rights in Iran must live with fear from birth to death, but I have learned to overcome my fear.”
But can she overcome US government bureaucracy? The problem with publishing her book in the US, Ms. Goodman writes, is a 1917 law that “allows the president to bar transactions during times of war or national emergency.” The law has been amended to exempt publishers, but the Treasury Department has ruled it illegal “to enhance the value of anything created in Iran without permission” -- including books.
Moreover, as Ms. Goodman points out, if Ms. Ebadi's literary agent were to help prepare the manuscript for an American audience, she too would be subject to punishment -- 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for an individual or $1 million for a publishing house.
The Treasury Department suggests that Ms. Ebadi apply for a special
license. But, as Ellen Goodman points out, “no American needs a license to publish a book. Neither this free-speech lawyer nor her supporters are going to ask the government for permission.”
Instead, Ms. Ebadi and her agent are suing the Treasury Department. Which obviously hasn’t yet told the State Department.
Publication of the Ebadi book in the US would be perfectly OK with Treasury if the book were already published in Iran. But the Catch-22 here is that the ayatollahs have already foreclosed this option.
And now an anachronistic US law is having the same effect.
When Ms. Ebadi received her Nobel Prize, Kenneth Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, said, “The Nobel Committee has sent a powerful message to the Iranian Government that serious human rights violations must end. We hope they hear that message."
We hope the US government hears it first.
Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe performs a genuine public service by calling our attention to yet another screw-up in America’s war against the Axis of Evil.
This one can only make us wonder if the government’s right hand knows what its left hand is doing.
Ms. Goodman points out that Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian dissident who is the first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, “is being prevented from publishing her memoirs in the United States because of regulations that prohibit ‘trading with the enemy’." Her book is an effort to "help correct Western stereotypes of Islam, especially the image of Muslim women as docile, forlorn creatures."
But at the same time, the US State Department – which is allegedly in charge of ‘winning the hearts and minds’ of people who live under repressive, authoritarian regimes -- posts on its website a Fact Sheet entitled, “Iran: Voices Struggling To Be Heard.”
And prominent among these ‘Voices’ is – you guessed it -- Shirin Ebadi, who is described as one of Iran’s ‘Voices of Hope’.
It says of her: Shirin Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “for her life-long campaign to protect vulnerable and persecuted groups within Iranian society.” And it quotes the citation from the Norwegian Nobel Committee: “As a lawyer, judge, lecturer, writer and activist, she has spoken out clearly and strongly in her country, Iran and far beyond.”
The State Department goes on to explain, “Since being forced from her position as the president of the city court of Tehran, she has used her legal expertise to promote and protect some of the most basic and necessary human rights…. she has provided legal representation to many activists who are the targets of government harassment because of dissident opinions and democracy promotion. She has courageously fought for equitable and just treatment for women in Iranian society, and she has also helped to organize efforts to publicize and alleviate the harsh conditions of ‘street children’ in Iran.”
The State Department then reminds us that in 2000 Ms. Ebadi “was arrested and accused of distributing a videotape that implicated prominent hard-line leaders of instigating attacks against advocates of reform. She received a suspended sentence and a professional ban. She was then detained after attending a conference in Berlin on the Iranian reform movement.”
It says she also provided legal representation for “highly politicized and sensitive cases” such as the students killed during the 1999 Tehran University protests by vigilante groups operating under the influence of hard-line clerics, and two prominent political activists who were stabbed to death in 1998 by “rogue” elements within the Intelligence Ministry.
Even President Bush lauds Ms. Ebadi. In Iran, he says, “the demand for democracy is strong and broad as we saw when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy."
Ms. Ebadi herself says, “Any person who pursues human rights in Iran must live with fear from birth to death, but I have learned to overcome my fear.”
But can she overcome US government bureaucracy? The problem with publishing her book in the US, Ms. Goodman writes, is a 1917 law that “allows the president to bar transactions during times of war or national emergency.” The law has been amended to exempt publishers, but the Treasury Department has ruled it illegal “to enhance the value of anything created in Iran without permission” -- including books.
Moreover, as Ms. Goodman points out, if Ms. Ebadi's literary agent were to help prepare the manuscript for an American audience, she too would be subject to punishment -- 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for an individual or $1 million for a publishing house.
The Treasury Department suggests that Ms. Ebadi apply for a special
license. But, as Ellen Goodman points out, “no American needs a license to publish a book. Neither this free-speech lawyer nor her supporters are going to ask the government for permission.”
Instead, Ms. Ebadi and her agent are suing the Treasury Department. Which obviously hasn’t yet told the State Department.
Publication of the Ebadi book in the US would be perfectly OK with Treasury if the book were already published in Iran. But the Catch-22 here is that the ayatollahs have already foreclosed this option.
And now an anachronistic US law is having the same effect.
When Ms. Ebadi received her Nobel Prize, Kenneth Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, said, “The Nobel Committee has sent a powerful message to the Iranian Government that serious human rights violations must end. We hope they hear that message."
We hope the US government hears it first.
Friday, December 10, 2004
HOW DOES THIS MAKE US MORE SECURE?
By William Fisher
Since 9/11, millions of words have been written about the ‘terrorists in our midst’. Most congratulated US law enforcement for finding and jailing them. Fewer questioned whether the principles of American human rights and civil liberties were being compromised by an over-zealous government gripped by fear.
But both sides of this controversy have usually overlooked something important in this delicate minuet of constitutional protections versus another terrorist attack: the human faces of ‘the other victims’ of 9/11.
In the days and weeks following 9/11, the FBI rounded up and imprisoned thousands of immigrants and visitors to the US. Now, in a new report, the American Civil Liberties Union documents what happened to thirteen of these ‘other victims’ and their families. “Worlds Apart” describes “How Deporting Immigrants After 9/11 Tore Families Apart and Shattered Communities.”
The story of how the US Government responded to 9/11 has been written about extensively, but remains relatively little known. The short version, from the ACLU report, is that the United States “incarcerated petitioners in degrading and inhumane conditions. Although the immigrants generally were detained on non-criminal immigration charges, many were kept in cells for 23 hours a day and were made to wear hand and leg shackles when leaving their cells. Some were kept in solitary confinement for extended periods with no explanation. Lights were left on 24 hours a day, immigrants were denied the use of blankets, and many were denied telephone calls and visits with family members.”
For many, says the ACLU, “the nightmare began with their arrest. FBI and immigration officials dragged some people out of their houses in the middle of the night in front of frightened wives and children. Others were picked up for being in the wrong place”, like the man “arrested by agents who had come looking for his roommate but took him instead. Still others were arrested after routine traffic stops. For many, it would be days before they could contact their families with their whereabouts and weeks before they could access legal help. The government refused to release the names of people it had detained. Behind bars, many suffered from harassment and even physical abuse.”
Conditions in US detention facilities – America’s most secretive prison system – have been chronicled by Mark Dow, a former employee of a detention facility, in his chilling book, “American Gulag”. These facilities were operated by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
None of the thousands of people detained by the INS were found guilty of any terrorism-related offense or connected in any way with the September 11 attacks, the ACLU says, adding, “Yet the Justice Department website still boasts that hundreds of immigrants ‘linked to the September 11 investigation’ have been deported.”
The report charges, “the government’s unlawful policies had profound effects not only on the people who were unlawfully imprisoned but also on their families and communities. Families were torn apart. Communities were shattered. And the stories told in this report are just a sample. For each of the stories told in this report, there are hundreds of similar stories that haven’t been told. Children separated from fathers, wives separated from husbands, parents separated from sons.”
The stories of the thirteen deportees, whose stories are chronicled in the new ACLU report, are based on interviews with deportees in Pakistan, arranged with the help of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission.
Their stories vary widely. Says the report: “Some men drove cabs, some delivered pizzas and still others pumped gas. Some spoke Urdu and others Arabic. Some came from tiny villages, others from major, cosmopolitan cities. Some had children who attended public schools, speaking perfect English and playing basketball with American friends. Others supported their families in Pakistan or Jordan, sending money for school fees, home repairs or life-saving medicines. Many had been here for years, others for only a few months.”
But, says the ACLU, “the stories of these men are similar in important ways. All came to the United States seeking a better life for themselves and their families. All were Muslim, from South Asia or the Middle East. After September 11, all were caught in a government dragnet that swept up hundreds of Muslims indiscriminately. And all were denied basic rights normally afforded to those detained in the United States and other democratic countries.”
Many, the report says, “have been deported to countries where they haven’t lived in years, and where unemployment rates are high and salaries are low. Many have been harassed because of their connections to the U.S. or taunted for being deported.”
For example, “Sadek Awaed’s friends in Jersey City, New Jersey stopped speaking to him after the FBI questioned them and suggested that he was involved with terrorists. Asylum-seeker Benamar Benatta, who is still behind bars in New York, worries that the charges will haunt him if he ends up being returned to Algeria. Anser Mehmood’s young sons were threatened and teased in their New Jersey school for having a “terrorist” for a father. Haneen is the 14-year-old U.S.-born daughter of Khaled Abu-Shabayek. Her family moved to Jordan in 2002 after her father was detained and deported. “I can’t take it anymore, and I’m very angry,” she said. “Everyone [in my family], they’re always angry, they’re not happy.” Anza is the nine-year-old daughter of Khurram Altaf. For the first time this year, she will not be able to attend the special school that accommodates her hearing disability — such schools don’t exist in Pakistan, where she moved after her father was deported. “
Their communities in the U.S. were negatively affected, too, the report says. “Neighborhoods that were vibrant and full are suddenly half-empty and quiet. Merchants are struggling; many have been forced out of business. And people are scared that they could be the next to be awakened in the middle of the night by immigration officials.”
The ACLU reports that in January 2004, lawyers filed a petition with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on behalf of the thirteen men who had been detained in the United States, and whose stories are told in the new report. All but one of the petitioners has now been deported.
The petitioners alleged that: “The United States detained petitioners as suspected terrorists even where there was no evidence – let alone credible evidence – that they had engaged in criminal activity of any sort; the United States imprisoned petitioners under a “hold until cleared” policy that effectively imposed a presumption of guilt (under the policy, detainees were held until the FBI decided that they were innocent; compounding the injury, some petitioners were detained even after the FBI had affirmatively cleared them of all charges);the United States’ arbitrary and haphazard arrest and detention policies were directed almost entirely against Muslim men of South Asian or Middle Eastern descent; the United States denied petitioners access to counsel, failed to inform them promptly of the charges against them or to bring them before a judge, and categorically denied them release on bond.”
The UN requested and has received a response to the complaint from the US State Department. It is currently awaiting the UN’s judgment.
The ACLU report concludes: “In the weeks and months after September 11, the people whose stories are told in this report did not count. The United States government arrested them without suspicion, imprisoned them without charge, and abused them without consequence. All of this took place in secret. To this day, the government still refuses to release the names of the people who were imprisoned.”
In a democratic society, the report says, “the government should not be permitted to sweep human beings under the rug, to pretend that they don’t count. The government should not be permitted to make people disappear.”
It adds: “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like the United States Declaration of Independence, recognizes that every human being has rights, that every person counts. The United States government correctly condemns other countries when they violate the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. We have to be equally vigilant, however, in making sure that those rights are not violated here at home.”
Since 9/11, millions of words have been written about the ‘terrorists in our midst’. Most congratulated US law enforcement for finding and jailing them. Fewer questioned whether the principles of American human rights and civil liberties were being compromised by an over-zealous government gripped by fear.
But both sides of this controversy have usually overlooked something important in this delicate minuet of constitutional protections versus another terrorist attack: the human faces of ‘the other victims’ of 9/11.
In the days and weeks following 9/11, the FBI rounded up and imprisoned thousands of immigrants and visitors to the US. Now, in a new report, the American Civil Liberties Union documents what happened to thirteen of these ‘other victims’ and their families. “Worlds Apart” describes “How Deporting Immigrants After 9/11 Tore Families Apart and Shattered Communities.”
The story of how the US Government responded to 9/11 has been written about extensively, but remains relatively little known. The short version, from the ACLU report, is that the United States “incarcerated petitioners in degrading and inhumane conditions. Although the immigrants generally were detained on non-criminal immigration charges, many were kept in cells for 23 hours a day and were made to wear hand and leg shackles when leaving their cells. Some were kept in solitary confinement for extended periods with no explanation. Lights were left on 24 hours a day, immigrants were denied the use of blankets, and many were denied telephone calls and visits with family members.”
For many, says the ACLU, “the nightmare began with their arrest. FBI and immigration officials dragged some people out of their houses in the middle of the night in front of frightened wives and children. Others were picked up for being in the wrong place”, like the man “arrested by agents who had come looking for his roommate but took him instead. Still others were arrested after routine traffic stops. For many, it would be days before they could contact their families with their whereabouts and weeks before they could access legal help. The government refused to release the names of people it had detained. Behind bars, many suffered from harassment and even physical abuse.”
Conditions in US detention facilities – America’s most secretive prison system – have been chronicled by Mark Dow, a former employee of a detention facility, in his chilling book, “American Gulag”. These facilities were operated by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
None of the thousands of people detained by the INS were found guilty of any terrorism-related offense or connected in any way with the September 11 attacks, the ACLU says, adding, “Yet the Justice Department website still boasts that hundreds of immigrants ‘linked to the September 11 investigation’ have been deported.”
The report charges, “the government’s unlawful policies had profound effects not only on the people who were unlawfully imprisoned but also on their families and communities. Families were torn apart. Communities were shattered. And the stories told in this report are just a sample. For each of the stories told in this report, there are hundreds of similar stories that haven’t been told. Children separated from fathers, wives separated from husbands, parents separated from sons.”
The stories of the thirteen deportees, whose stories are chronicled in the new ACLU report, are based on interviews with deportees in Pakistan, arranged with the help of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission.
Their stories vary widely. Says the report: “Some men drove cabs, some delivered pizzas and still others pumped gas. Some spoke Urdu and others Arabic. Some came from tiny villages, others from major, cosmopolitan cities. Some had children who attended public schools, speaking perfect English and playing basketball with American friends. Others supported their families in Pakistan or Jordan, sending money for school fees, home repairs or life-saving medicines. Many had been here for years, others for only a few months.”
But, says the ACLU, “the stories of these men are similar in important ways. All came to the United States seeking a better life for themselves and their families. All were Muslim, from South Asia or the Middle East. After September 11, all were caught in a government dragnet that swept up hundreds of Muslims indiscriminately. And all were denied basic rights normally afforded to those detained in the United States and other democratic countries.”
Many, the report says, “have been deported to countries where they haven’t lived in years, and where unemployment rates are high and salaries are low. Many have been harassed because of their connections to the U.S. or taunted for being deported.”
For example, “Sadek Awaed’s friends in Jersey City, New Jersey stopped speaking to him after the FBI questioned them and suggested that he was involved with terrorists. Asylum-seeker Benamar Benatta, who is still behind bars in New York, worries that the charges will haunt him if he ends up being returned to Algeria. Anser Mehmood’s young sons were threatened and teased in their New Jersey school for having a “terrorist” for a father. Haneen is the 14-year-old U.S.-born daughter of Khaled Abu-Shabayek. Her family moved to Jordan in 2002 after her father was detained and deported. “I can’t take it anymore, and I’m very angry,” she said. “Everyone [in my family], they’re always angry, they’re not happy.” Anza is the nine-year-old daughter of Khurram Altaf. For the first time this year, she will not be able to attend the special school that accommodates her hearing disability — such schools don’t exist in Pakistan, where she moved after her father was deported. “
Their communities in the U.S. were negatively affected, too, the report says. “Neighborhoods that were vibrant and full are suddenly half-empty and quiet. Merchants are struggling; many have been forced out of business. And people are scared that they could be the next to be awakened in the middle of the night by immigration officials.”
The ACLU reports that in January 2004, lawyers filed a petition with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on behalf of the thirteen men who had been detained in the United States, and whose stories are told in the new report. All but one of the petitioners has now been deported.
The petitioners alleged that: “The United States detained petitioners as suspected terrorists even where there was no evidence – let alone credible evidence – that they had engaged in criminal activity of any sort; the United States imprisoned petitioners under a “hold until cleared” policy that effectively imposed a presumption of guilt (under the policy, detainees were held until the FBI decided that they were innocent; compounding the injury, some petitioners were detained even after the FBI had affirmatively cleared them of all charges);the United States’ arbitrary and haphazard arrest and detention policies were directed almost entirely against Muslim men of South Asian or Middle Eastern descent; the United States denied petitioners access to counsel, failed to inform them promptly of the charges against them or to bring them before a judge, and categorically denied them release on bond.”
The UN requested and has received a response to the complaint from the US State Department. It is currently awaiting the UN’s judgment.
The ACLU report concludes: “In the weeks and months after September 11, the people whose stories are told in this report did not count. The United States government arrested them without suspicion, imprisoned them without charge, and abused them without consequence. All of this took place in secret. To this day, the government still refuses to release the names of the people who were imprisoned.”
In a democratic society, the report says, “the government should not be permitted to sweep human beings under the rug, to pretend that they don’t count. The government should not be permitted to make people disappear.”
It adds: “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like the United States Declaration of Independence, recognizes that every human being has rights, that every person counts. The United States government correctly condemns other countries when they violate the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. We have to be equally vigilant, however, in making sure that those rights are not violated here at home.”
HOW DOES THIS MAKE US MORE SECURE?
By William Fisher
Since 9/11, millions of words have been written about the ‘terrorists in our midst’. Most congratulated US law enforcement for finding and jailing them. Fewer questioned whether the principles of American human rights and civil liberties were being compromised by an over-zealous government gripped by fear.
But both sides of this controversy have usually overlooked something important in this delicate minuet of constitutional protections versus another terrorist attack: the human faces of ‘the other victims’ of 9/11.
In the days and weeks following 9/11, the FBI rounded up and imprisoned thousands of immigrants and visitors to the US. Now, in a new report, the American Civil Liberties Union documents what happened to thirteen of these ‘other victims’ and their families. “Worlds Apart” describes “How Deporting Immigrants After 9/11 Tore Families Apart and Shattered Communities.”
The story of how the US Government responded to 9/11 has been written about extensively, but remains relatively little known. The short version, from the ACLU report, is that the United States “incarcerated petitioners in degrading and inhumane conditions. Although the immigrants generally were detained on non-criminal immigration charges, many were kept in cells for 23 hours a day and were made to wear hand and leg shackles when leaving their cells. Some were kept in solitary confinement for extended periods with no explanation. Lights were left on 24 hours a day, immigrants were denied the use of blankets, and many were denied telephone calls and visits with family members.”
For many, says the ACLU, “the nightmare began with their arrest. FBI and immigration officials dragged some people out of their houses in the middle of the night in front of frightened wives and children. Others were picked up for being in the wrong place”, like the man “arrested by agents who had come looking for his roommate but took him instead. Still others were arrested after routine traffic stops. For many, it would be days before they could contact their families with their whereabouts and weeks before they could access legal help. The government refused to release the names of people it had detained. Behind bars, many suffered from harassment and even physical abuse.”
Conditions in US detention facilities – America’s most secretive prison system – have been chronicled by Mark Dow, a former employee of a detention facility, in his chilling book, “American Gulag”. These facilities were operated by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
None of the thousands of people detained by the INS were found guilty of any terrorism-related offense or connected in any way with the September 11 attacks, the ACLU says, adding, “Yet the Justice Department website still boasts that hundreds of immigrants ‘linked to the September 11 investigation’ have been deported.”
The report charges, “the government’s unlawful policies had profound effects not only on the people who were unlawfully imprisoned but also on their families and communities. Families were torn apart. Communities were shattered. And the stories told in this report are just a sample. For each of the stories told in this report, there are hundreds of similar stories that haven’t been told. Children separated from fathers, wives separated from husbands, parents separated from sons.”
The stories of the thirteen deportees, whose stories are chronicled in the new ACLU report, are based on interviews with the deportees in Pakistan, arranged with the help of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission.
Their stories vary widely. Says the report: “Some men drove cabs, some delivered pizzas and still others pumped gas. Some spoke Urdu and others Arabic. Some came from tiny villages, others from major, cosmopolitan cities. Some had children who attended public schools, speaking perfect English and playing basketball with American friends. Others supported their families in Pakistan or Jordan, sending money for school fees, home repairs or life-saving medicines. Many had been here for years, others for only a few months.”
But, says the ACLU, “the stories of these men are similar in important ways. All came to the United States seeking a better life for themselves and their families. All were Muslim, from South Asia or the Middle East. After September 11, all were caught in a government dragnet that swept up hundreds of Muslims indiscriminately. And all were denied basic rights normally afforded to those detained in the United States and other democratic countries.”
Many, the report says, “have been deported to countries where they haven’t lived in years, and where unemployment rates are high and salaries are low. Many have been harassed because of their connections to the U.S. or taunted for being deported.”
For example, “Sadek Awaed’s friends in Jersey City, New Jersey stopped speaking to him after the FBI questioned them and suggested that he was involved with terrorists. Asylum-seeker Benamar Benatta, who is still behind bars in New York, worries that the charges will haunt him if he ends up being returned to Algeria. Anser Mehmood’s young sons were threatened and teased in their New Jersey school for having a “terrorist” for a father. Haneen is the 14-year-old U.S.-born daughter of Khaled Abu-Shabayek. Her family moved to Jordan in 2002 after her father was detained and deported. “I can’t take it anymore, and I’m very angry,” she said. “Everyone [in my family], they’re always angry, they’re not happy.” Anza is the nine-year-old daughter of Khurram Altaf. For the first time this year, she will not be able to attend the special school that accommodates her hearing disability — such schools don’t exist in Pakistan, where she moved after her father was deported. “
Their communities in the U.S. were negatively affected, too, the report says. “Neighborhoods that were vibrant and full are suddenly half-empty and quiet. Merchants are struggling; many have been forced out of business. And people are scared that they could be the next to be awakened in the middle of the night by immigration officials.”
The ACLU reports that in January 2004, lawyers filed a petition with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on behalf of the thirteen men who had been detained in the United States, and whose stories are told in the new report. All but one of the petitioners has now been deported.
The petitioners alleged that: “The United States detained petitioners as suspected terrorists even where there was no evidence – let alone credible evidence – that they had engaged in criminal activity of any sort; the United States imprisoned petitioners under a “hold until cleared” policy that effectively imposed a presumption of guilt (under the policy, detainees were held until the FBI decided that they were innocent; compounding the injury, some petitioners were detained even after the FBI had affirmatively cleared them of all charges);the United States’ arbitrary and haphazard arrest and detention policies were directed almost entirely against Muslim men of South Asian or Middle Eastern descent; the United States denied petitioners access to counsel, failed to inform them promptly of the charges against them or to bring them before a judge, and categorically denied them release on bond.”
The UN requested and has received a response to the complaint from the US State Department. It is currently awaiting the UN’s judgment.
The ACLU report concludes: “In the weeks and months after September 11, the people whose stories are told in this report did not count. The United States government arrested them without suspicion, imprisoned them without charge, and abused them without consequence. All of this took place in secret. To this day, the government still refuses to release the names of the people who were imprisoned.”
In a democratic society, the report says, “the government should not be permitted to sweep human beings under the rug, to pretend that they don’t count. The government should not be permitted to make people disappear.”
It adds: “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like the United States Declaration of Independence, recognizes that every human being has rights, that every person counts. The United States government correctly condemns other countries when they violate the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. We have to be equally vigilant, however, in making sure that those rights are not violated here at home.”
Since 9/11, millions of words have been written about the ‘terrorists in our midst’. Most congratulated US law enforcement for finding and jailing them. Fewer questioned whether the principles of American human rights and civil liberties were being compromised by an over-zealous government gripped by fear.
But both sides of this controversy have usually overlooked something important in this delicate minuet of constitutional protections versus another terrorist attack: the human faces of ‘the other victims’ of 9/11.
In the days and weeks following 9/11, the FBI rounded up and imprisoned thousands of immigrants and visitors to the US. Now, in a new report, the American Civil Liberties Union documents what happened to thirteen of these ‘other victims’ and their families. “Worlds Apart” describes “How Deporting Immigrants After 9/11 Tore Families Apart and Shattered Communities.”
The story of how the US Government responded to 9/11 has been written about extensively, but remains relatively little known. The short version, from the ACLU report, is that the United States “incarcerated petitioners in degrading and inhumane conditions. Although the immigrants generally were detained on non-criminal immigration charges, many were kept in cells for 23 hours a day and were made to wear hand and leg shackles when leaving their cells. Some were kept in solitary confinement for extended periods with no explanation. Lights were left on 24 hours a day, immigrants were denied the use of blankets, and many were denied telephone calls and visits with family members.”
For many, says the ACLU, “the nightmare began with their arrest. FBI and immigration officials dragged some people out of their houses in the middle of the night in front of frightened wives and children. Others were picked up for being in the wrong place”, like the man “arrested by agents who had come looking for his roommate but took him instead. Still others were arrested after routine traffic stops. For many, it would be days before they could contact their families with their whereabouts and weeks before they could access legal help. The government refused to release the names of people it had detained. Behind bars, many suffered from harassment and even physical abuse.”
Conditions in US detention facilities – America’s most secretive prison system – have been chronicled by Mark Dow, a former employee of a detention facility, in his chilling book, “American Gulag”. These facilities were operated by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
None of the thousands of people detained by the INS were found guilty of any terrorism-related offense or connected in any way with the September 11 attacks, the ACLU says, adding, “Yet the Justice Department website still boasts that hundreds of immigrants ‘linked to the September 11 investigation’ have been deported.”
The report charges, “the government’s unlawful policies had profound effects not only on the people who were unlawfully imprisoned but also on their families and communities. Families were torn apart. Communities were shattered. And the stories told in this report are just a sample. For each of the stories told in this report, there are hundreds of similar stories that haven’t been told. Children separated from fathers, wives separated from husbands, parents separated from sons.”
The stories of the thirteen deportees, whose stories are chronicled in the new ACLU report, are based on interviews with the deportees in Pakistan, arranged with the help of the Pakistan Human Rights Commission.
Their stories vary widely. Says the report: “Some men drove cabs, some delivered pizzas and still others pumped gas. Some spoke Urdu and others Arabic. Some came from tiny villages, others from major, cosmopolitan cities. Some had children who attended public schools, speaking perfect English and playing basketball with American friends. Others supported their families in Pakistan or Jordan, sending money for school fees, home repairs or life-saving medicines. Many had been here for years, others for only a few months.”
But, says the ACLU, “the stories of these men are similar in important ways. All came to the United States seeking a better life for themselves and their families. All were Muslim, from South Asia or the Middle East. After September 11, all were caught in a government dragnet that swept up hundreds of Muslims indiscriminately. And all were denied basic rights normally afforded to those detained in the United States and other democratic countries.”
Many, the report says, “have been deported to countries where they haven’t lived in years, and where unemployment rates are high and salaries are low. Many have been harassed because of their connections to the U.S. or taunted for being deported.”
For example, “Sadek Awaed’s friends in Jersey City, New Jersey stopped speaking to him after the FBI questioned them and suggested that he was involved with terrorists. Asylum-seeker Benamar Benatta, who is still behind bars in New York, worries that the charges will haunt him if he ends up being returned to Algeria. Anser Mehmood’s young sons were threatened and teased in their New Jersey school for having a “terrorist” for a father. Haneen is the 14-year-old U.S.-born daughter of Khaled Abu-Shabayek. Her family moved to Jordan in 2002 after her father was detained and deported. “I can’t take it anymore, and I’m very angry,” she said. “Everyone [in my family], they’re always angry, they’re not happy.” Anza is the nine-year-old daughter of Khurram Altaf. For the first time this year, she will not be able to attend the special school that accommodates her hearing disability — such schools don’t exist in Pakistan, where she moved after her father was deported. “
Their communities in the U.S. were negatively affected, too, the report says. “Neighborhoods that were vibrant and full are suddenly half-empty and quiet. Merchants are struggling; many have been forced out of business. And people are scared that they could be the next to be awakened in the middle of the night by immigration officials.”
The ACLU reports that in January 2004, lawyers filed a petition with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on behalf of the thirteen men who had been detained in the United States, and whose stories are told in the new report. All but one of the petitioners has now been deported.
The petitioners alleged that: “The United States detained petitioners as suspected terrorists even where there was no evidence – let alone credible evidence – that they had engaged in criminal activity of any sort; the United States imprisoned petitioners under a “hold until cleared” policy that effectively imposed a presumption of guilt (under the policy, detainees were held until the FBI decided that they were innocent; compounding the injury, some petitioners were detained even after the FBI had affirmatively cleared them of all charges);the United States’ arbitrary and haphazard arrest and detention policies were directed almost entirely against Muslim men of South Asian or Middle Eastern descent; the United States denied petitioners access to counsel, failed to inform them promptly of the charges against them or to bring them before a judge, and categorically denied them release on bond.”
The UN requested and has received a response to the complaint from the US State Department. It is currently awaiting the UN’s judgment.
The ACLU report concludes: “In the weeks and months after September 11, the people whose stories are told in this report did not count. The United States government arrested them without suspicion, imprisoned them without charge, and abused them without consequence. All of this took place in secret. To this day, the government still refuses to release the names of the people who were imprisoned.”
In a democratic society, the report says, “the government should not be permitted to sweep human beings under the rug, to pretend that they don’t count. The government should not be permitted to make people disappear.”
It adds: “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like the United States Declaration of Independence, recognizes that every human being has rights, that every person counts. The United States government correctly condemns other countries when they violate the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. We have to be equally vigilant, however, in making sure that those rights are not violated here at home.”
CIVIL RIGHTS AND INTELLIGENCE REFORM
By William Fisher
Many of the more draconian provisions adversely affecting privacy, secrecy and the rights of asylum-seekers, originally included in the “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004”, were omitted in the final version of the law. But the compromise agreed to by the US House of Representatives and Senate continues to contain language that troubles human and civil rights organizations.
For example, the House version of the bill would have allowed non-citizens -- including those likely to face torture if returned to their home countries -- to be deported without an immigration court hearing, made it much more difficult for genuine refugees to prove their asylum cases, and deprived judicial review to victims of torture and other forms of persecution.
This and similar provisions were removed under pressure from the White House, leaders of both political parties, the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and members of the 9/11 Commission, on whose recommendations the intelligence overhaul is based.
“These provisions would have put the lives of refugees at real risk,” said a statement from Human Rights First, an advocacy group. “The fact that they were dropped is a victory for America’s commitment to protecting the persecuted”, the organization said.
Under US law, both House and Senate must pass legislation separately. If the two versions contain disagreements, they are reconciled in a House-Senate Conference Committee. The 9/11 Commission did not recommend changes in US immigration law, and most observers found the Senate version much closer to the Commission’s recommendations. Removal of the House’s immigration language, as well as other provisions, allowed both legislative bodies to pass a compromise bill for the president’s signature.
While the harshest refugee and immigration proposals were dropped from the final version, the bill now passed by both houses of congress includes a requirement that the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress’ investigative arm, conduct a study and report, “to evaluate the extent to which weaknesses in the United States asylum system and withholding of removal system have been or could be exploited by aliens connected to, charged in connection with, or tied to terrorist activity.”
Under the new measure, people indicted on terror charges will find it much more difficult to gain their freedom on bail. A legal presumption would be established denying bail for anyone indicted by a grand jury on terrorism charges. Although the suspect could appeal to a judge, the burden of proof would be on the defendant rather than on the government.
Previously, that stipulation applied to suspects in violent and drug crimes, but not to alleged terrorists. Skeptics say the provision has the potential to be abused, possibly resulting in long detentions for people ultimately found innocent.
According to the Associated Press (AP), Sen. Russell Feingold, a democrat from the state of Wisconsin, claims the current Justice Department “has a record of abusing its detention powers post-9/11 and of making terrorism allegations that turn out to have no merit."
The new legislation also expands the FBI's ability to obtain eavesdropping warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Under current law, these secret warrants are reserved for non-U.S. citizens who the government can show are affiliated with a foreign power or international terrorist group, such as al-Qaida. But the Department of Justice (DOJ), to which the FBI reports, has made it known that they would favor a “USA Patriot Act II” to expand their powers even further. Both Republican and Democratic civil libertarians have opposed such expansion.
The current USA Patriot Act, hurriedly passed by Congress weeks after the 9/11 attacks, gave the government broad powers to conduct secret searches, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance. Sections of it are scheduled to expire in 2005, and there has been heated debate about whether they should be extended.
The new intelligence legislation also broadens prohibitions against providing material support to terror groups, makes it a crime to visit a terror camp that provides military-style training and allows the FBI to obtain secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" extremists not known to be tied to a specific terrorist group. It also makes terrorism hoaxes a federal crime and toughens penalties against people who possess weapons of mass destruction.
"Overall, it's another threat to civil liberties in this country," a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union told the AP. "It's just a continuation of what the administration's been doing."
The final bill also presents problems relating to government secrecy policy. For example, the Senate version of the bill authorizes disclosure of the gross amount of the nation’s intelligence budget – reportedly now about $40 billion annually. However, this disclosure was rejected by House negotiators, despite the unanimous recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and the endorsement of the full Senate.
According to the Government Secrecy Project of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), this “is a setback that tends to reinforce the arbitrary and excessive secrecy that the 9/11Commission found in the intelligence bureaucracy.”
FAS adds: “Perhaps the most important secrecy-related feature of the
Intelligence Reform Act is what is not in it: the authority to create an entirely autonomous new classification system for intelligence.” It notes that the Act ”revivifies the dormant Public Interest Declassification Board, formally established four years ago but never convened, and assigns it the additional task of ‘reviewing’ congressional requests for declassification of particular records.”
During the Bush Administration, the numbers of documents designated as ‘classified’ have increased dramatically, triggering a corresponding increase in the numbers of requests for information under the government’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The FOIA was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, and was designed to increase public access to government documents.
FAS notes that the final bill “does not expand authority under which information is classified…but rather directs the (new) National Intelligence Director (NID) to establish and implement guidelines for the intelligence community for the purpose of such classification of information."
Human rights advocates are also concerned about what the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a Washington-based advocacy group, calls the “fundamental tension between intelligence gathering and civil liberties”.
Said a statement from the ACLU: “Where government is focused on gathering intelligence information not connected to specific criminal activity, there is a substantial risk of chilling lawful dissent. Such inquiries plainly have a chilling effect on constitutional rights.” It called for “specific safeguards for domestic collection of intelligence information that preserve the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) while ensuring against the use of spy tactics against Americans through strengthened guidelines and other checks and balances to bar political spying.”
Civil liberties advocacy groups have been sharply critical of the FBI
and immigration officials in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for detaining thousands of visitors to the US for immigration violations without access to legal counsel or appeal. The DHS is in charge of America’s immigration prison system, from which many have of these detainees have been deported. Since the 9/11 attacks, the FBI has rounded up and detained several thousand US citizens and visitors – most of them Arabs or Muslims. However, no one has yet been convicted of a terror-related charge.
Human rights organizations are also troubled by the mechanism the new law sets up to protect civil rights. While it establishes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review federal policies and practices, it gives the president the authority to appoint its members and denies it subpoena power. The FAS says that while the Board will have little independent authority, it “may turn out to serve as a useful forum for adjudicating classification disputes.”
The final version of the legislation stripped out a provision creating an Inspector General position in the office of the National Intelligence Director. Inspectors-General typically conduct independent investigations of abuses within government departments. They are present in virtually all major departments, including the DOJ, the DHS, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Other provisions of the new law criminalize giving material support to suspected terrorists and provide new investigative authority to pursue "lone wolf" terror suspects not affiliated with other known groups or foreign powers; require extensive sharing of intelligence and law enforcement information among federal, state, local and private entities; directs the DHS to develop a national strategy for transportation security, and adds at least 2,000 Border Patrol agents and 800 customs agents each year for five years and 8,000 beds a year to house immigration detainees and people suspected of terrorism.
Supporters of stricter laws governing US immigration reform and border protection have promised a comprehensive debate in the new Congress, which convenes in January. The border protection and immigration issues have been championed by Representative James A. Sensenbrenner, a Republican from the state of Wisconsin, who is the powerful chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Rep. Sensenbrenner is responsible much of the anti-refugee language in the House version of the bill.
For this reason, few government-watchers expect the controversy over intelligence reform to end with the passage of the new law. As noted by Howard Fineman in Newsweek magazine, “The intraparty battle between the Bush White House and recalcitrant House Republicans over intelligence reform is just the overture to the opera, a discordant melody we're going to hear over and over again during the next two years.”
Many of the more draconian provisions adversely affecting privacy, secrecy and the rights of asylum-seekers, originally included in the “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004”, were omitted in the final version of the law. But the compromise agreed to by the US House of Representatives and Senate continues to contain language that troubles human and civil rights organizations.
For example, the House version of the bill would have allowed non-citizens -- including those likely to face torture if returned to their home countries -- to be deported without an immigration court hearing, made it much more difficult for genuine refugees to prove their asylum cases, and deprived judicial review to victims of torture and other forms of persecution.
This and similar provisions were removed under pressure from the White House, leaders of both political parties, the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and members of the 9/11 Commission, on whose recommendations the intelligence overhaul is based.
“These provisions would have put the lives of refugees at real risk,” said a statement from Human Rights First, an advocacy group. “The fact that they were dropped is a victory for America’s commitment to protecting the persecuted”, the organization said.
Under US law, both House and Senate must pass legislation separately. If the two versions contain disagreements, they are reconciled in a House-Senate Conference Committee. The 9/11 Commission did not recommend changes in US immigration law, and most observers found the Senate version much closer to the Commission’s recommendations. Removal of the House’s immigration language, as well as other provisions, allowed both legislative bodies to pass a compromise bill for the president’s signature.
While the harshest refugee and immigration proposals were dropped from the final version, the bill now passed by both houses of congress includes a requirement that the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress’ investigative arm, conduct a study and report, “to evaluate the extent to which weaknesses in the United States asylum system and withholding of removal system have been or could be exploited by aliens connected to, charged in connection with, or tied to terrorist activity.”
Under the new measure, people indicted on terror charges will find it much more difficult to gain their freedom on bail. A legal presumption would be established denying bail for anyone indicted by a grand jury on terrorism charges. Although the suspect could appeal to a judge, the burden of proof would be on the defendant rather than on the government.
Previously, that stipulation applied to suspects in violent and drug crimes, but not to alleged terrorists. Skeptics say the provision has the potential to be abused, possibly resulting in long detentions for people ultimately found innocent.
According to the Associated Press (AP), Sen. Russell Feingold, a democrat from the state of Wisconsin, claims the current Justice Department “has a record of abusing its detention powers post-9/11 and of making terrorism allegations that turn out to have no merit."
The new legislation also expands the FBI's ability to obtain eavesdropping warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Under current law, these secret warrants are reserved for non-U.S. citizens who the government can show are affiliated with a foreign power or international terrorist group, such as al-Qaida. But the Department of Justice (DOJ), to which the FBI reports, has made it known that they would favor a “USA Patriot Act II” to expand their powers even further. Both Republican and Democratic civil libertarians have opposed such expansion.
The current USA Patriot Act, hurriedly passed by Congress weeks after the 9/11 attacks, gave the government broad powers to conduct secret searches, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance. Sections of it are scheduled to expire in 2005, and there has been heated debate about whether they should be extended.
The new intelligence legislation also broadens prohibitions against providing material support to terror groups, makes it a crime to visit a terror camp that provides military-style training and allows the FBI to obtain secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" extremists not known to be tied to a specific terrorist group. It also makes terrorism hoaxes a federal crime and toughens penalties against people who possess weapons of mass destruction.
"Overall, it's another threat to civil liberties in this country," a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union told the AP. "It's just a continuation of what the administration's been doing."
The final bill also presents problems relating to government secrecy policy. For example, the Senate version of the bill authorizes disclosure of the gross amount of the nation’s intelligence budget – reportedly now about $40 billion annually. However, this disclosure was rejected by House negotiators, despite the unanimous recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and the endorsement of the full Senate.
According to the Government Secrecy Project of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), this “is a setback that tends to reinforce the arbitrary and excessive secrecy that the 9/11Commission found in the intelligence bureaucracy.”
FAS adds: “Perhaps the most important secrecy-related feature of the
Intelligence Reform Act is what is not in it: the authority to create an entirely autonomous new classification system for intelligence.” It notes that the Act ”revivifies the dormant Public Interest Declassification Board, formally established four years ago but never convened, and assigns it the additional task of ‘reviewing’ congressional requests for declassification of particular records.”
During the Bush Administration, the numbers of documents designated as ‘classified’ have increased dramatically, triggering a corresponding increase in the numbers of requests for information under the government’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The FOIA was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, and was designed to increase public access to government documents.
FAS notes that the final bill “does not expand authority under which information is classified…but rather directs the (new) National Intelligence Director (NID) to establish and implement guidelines for the intelligence community for the purpose of such classification of information."
Human rights advocates are also concerned about what the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a Washington-based advocacy group, calls the “fundamental tension between intelligence gathering and civil liberties”.
Said a statement from the ACLU: “Where government is focused on gathering intelligence information not connected to specific criminal activity, there is a substantial risk of chilling lawful dissent. Such inquiries plainly have a chilling effect on constitutional rights.” It called for “specific safeguards for domestic collection of intelligence information that preserve the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) while ensuring against the use of spy tactics against Americans through strengthened guidelines and other checks and balances to bar political spying.”
Civil liberties advocacy groups have been sharply critical of the FBI
and immigration officials in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for detaining thousands of visitors to the US for immigration violations without access to legal counsel or appeal. The DHS is in charge of America’s immigration prison system, from which many have of these detainees have been deported. Since the 9/11 attacks, the FBI has rounded up and detained several thousand US citizens and visitors – most of them Arabs or Muslims. However, no one has yet been convicted of a terror-related charge.
Human rights organizations are also troubled by the mechanism the new law sets up to protect civil rights. While it establishes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review federal policies and practices, it gives the president the authority to appoint its members and denies it subpoena power. The FAS says that while the Board will have little independent authority, it “may turn out to serve as a useful forum for adjudicating classification disputes.”
The final version of the legislation stripped out a provision creating an Inspector General position in the office of the National Intelligence Director. Inspectors-General typically conduct independent investigations of abuses within government departments. They are present in virtually all major departments, including the DOJ, the DHS, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Other provisions of the new law criminalize giving material support to suspected terrorists and provide new investigative authority to pursue "lone wolf" terror suspects not affiliated with other known groups or foreign powers; require extensive sharing of intelligence and law enforcement information among federal, state, local and private entities; directs the DHS to develop a national strategy for transportation security, and adds at least 2,000 Border Patrol agents and 800 customs agents each year for five years and 8,000 beds a year to house immigration detainees and people suspected of terrorism.
Supporters of stricter laws governing US immigration reform and border protection have promised a comprehensive debate in the new Congress, which convenes in January. The border protection and immigration issues have been championed by Representative James A. Sensenbrenner, a Republican from the state of Wisconsin, who is the powerful chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Rep. Sensenbrenner is responsible much of the anti-refugee language in the House version of the bill.
For this reason, few government-watchers expect the controversy over intelligence reform to end with the passage of the new law. As noted by Howard Fineman in Newsweek magazine, “The intraparty battle between the Bush White House and recalcitrant House Republicans over intelligence reform is just the overture to the opera, a discordant melody we're going to hear over and over again during the next two years.”
Monday, December 06, 2004
THE SPOILS OF WAR
By William Fisher
There was a time, not too long ago, when the Presidential Medal of Freedom really meant something. That was when its recipients included such genuine American heroes as George Kennan, Dean Acheson, Felix Frankfurter, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy.
That time come will come to an end next week, when President Bush confers the nation’s highest civilian honor on former CIA chief George Tenet, Iraq Viceroy L. Paul Bremer III, and General Tommy Franks, who led the US invasion of Iraq.
Can we not be forgiven for being just a tad cynical about these three recipients? After all, it was George Tenet who told the president that finding WMD in Iraq would be a slam-dunk, and is generally believed to have been pushed out of office. It was General Franks who gave us Mr. Bush on the aircraft carrier trumpeting, “mission accomplished”. And it was Ambassador Bremer who allowed the unchecked looting of Baghdad, dissolved the Iraqi Army, and was father to a host of other uninformed decisions that opened the way for the current insurgency.
But, hey, maybe a medal is not too high a price to pay to reward Gen. Franks for campaigning for the president, or for the silence of Mr. Tenet and Ambassador Bremer, whose greatly anticipated kiss and tell books might just prove an embarrassment for the Administration.
We all know how Mr. Bush feels about loyalty. Didn’t he just reward it by giving the Secretary of State job to a National Security Advisor who greatest skills appear to be piano playing, ignoring the advice of counter-terrorism experts like Richard Clarke, and telling the boss what he wants to hear? By extending the tenure of a Secretary of Defense who has consistently used his charisma and charm to paper over the huge cracks in our military establishment? By nominating as his new Attorney General a lawyer who finds the Geneva Conventions obsolete and ‘quaint’?
George Tenet will receive his Medal of Freedom even as his successor burns the midnight oil to tear up his old and dysfunctional agency. Ambassador Bremer may have been passed over for the Secretary of State slot, but will get his medal nonetheless –and only a few weeks after he started his campaign to blame others for our shortcomings in Iraq, and then was coaxed to quickly retract his ‘off the record’ comments about our not having enough troops to get the job done.
Not to misunderstand. Paul Bremer, Tommy Franks and George Tenet are good people who did their best.
But the Presidential Medal of Freedom? When Harry Truman established the award in 1945, it was to recognize ‘exceptional meritorious service’ in the war. When President Kennedy reintroduced it in 1963, it was to be an honor "for especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, or world peace, or cultural or other significant public or private endeavors".
There may be just a few people who have trouble seeing these three recipients as having contributed much to world peace, national security or “cultural or other significant public or private endeavors".
Think about it.
There was a time, not too long ago, when the Presidential Medal of Freedom really meant something. That was when its recipients included such genuine American heroes as George Kennan, Dean Acheson, Felix Frankfurter, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy.
That time come will come to an end next week, when President Bush confers the nation’s highest civilian honor on former CIA chief George Tenet, Iraq Viceroy L. Paul Bremer III, and General Tommy Franks, who led the US invasion of Iraq.
Can we not be forgiven for being just a tad cynical about these three recipients? After all, it was George Tenet who told the president that finding WMD in Iraq would be a slam-dunk, and is generally believed to have been pushed out of office. It was General Franks who gave us Mr. Bush on the aircraft carrier trumpeting, “mission accomplished”. And it was Ambassador Bremer who allowed the unchecked looting of Baghdad, dissolved the Iraqi Army, and was father to a host of other uninformed decisions that opened the way for the current insurgency.
But, hey, maybe a medal is not too high a price to pay to reward Gen. Franks for campaigning for the president, or for the silence of Mr. Tenet and Ambassador Bremer, whose greatly anticipated kiss and tell books might just prove an embarrassment for the Administration.
We all know how Mr. Bush feels about loyalty. Didn’t he just reward it by giving the Secretary of State job to a National Security Advisor who greatest skills appear to be piano playing, ignoring the advice of counter-terrorism experts like Richard Clarke, and telling the boss what he wants to hear? By extending the tenure of a Secretary of Defense who has consistently used his charisma and charm to paper over the huge cracks in our military establishment? By nominating as his new Attorney General a lawyer who finds the Geneva Conventions obsolete and ‘quaint’?
George Tenet will receive his Medal of Freedom even as his successor burns the midnight oil to tear up his old and dysfunctional agency. Ambassador Bremer may have been passed over for the Secretary of State slot, but will get his medal nonetheless –and only a few weeks after he started his campaign to blame others for our shortcomings in Iraq, and then was coaxed to quickly retract his ‘off the record’ comments about our not having enough troops to get the job done.
Not to misunderstand. Paul Bremer, Tommy Franks and George Tenet are good people who did their best.
But the Presidential Medal of Freedom? When Harry Truman established the award in 1945, it was to recognize ‘exceptional meritorious service’ in the war. When President Kennedy reintroduced it in 1963, it was to be an honor "for especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, or world peace, or cultural or other significant public or private endeavors".
There may be just a few people who have trouble seeing these three recipients as having contributed much to world peace, national security or “cultural or other significant public or private endeavors".
Think about it.
What is Putin up to?
The article below is from an email from Sharon Tennison, President of the Center for Citizen Initiatives, an American NGO that conducts programs to assist Russian entrepreneurs. She wrote this from St. Petersburg.
The big questions in all Russia watcher's minds these days are,
"What is Putin up to?", "Is Putin really an authoritarian who is
turning Russia back to totalitarianism?", "What are we to make of
Putin's recent decisions?"
I've just returned from Moscow, where I had the most interesting and
most high-level group of meetings ever. It happened mainly because I
was able to get in touch with some specialists in Moscow who have
grown in prominence since I was last in contact with them.
In any case, this fact conspired to allow me interviews with several
well-known Russians who, to my surprise, have had recent meetings
with Vladimir Putin concerning Russia's economy, media, corruption
and the reforms. None of them are in the government; all could be
said to be "informal advisors" or at least respected by Putin for
their specific expertise. They don't consider themselves supporters
or non-supporters of Putin - rather independent thinkers and
analysts. None had had discussions regarding the Ukraine events
since these exploded after the last time they met with Putin.
I won't mention names since for the most part they are my friends,
but rather I will try to give a short summary of discussions with
them regarding their take on the situation in the Kremlin and Putin's
recent decision making. First, they are honest people and
specialists, given to deep and penetrating analysis, not cover-ups or
sensationalism. I didn't mention any of my discussions with other
appointments to them. To my knowledge none of them know each other
well, if at all, but certainly by name. All believe instinctively
in democratic principles and healthy globalism.
The general picture they give is that Putin is in an extremely
precarious place now, even though he still enjoys phenomenal
popularity with the masses despite the beginnings of his social
reforms; that his experience in Germany and his ability to speak
German fluently (therefore understanding European culture and
thinking) deeply impacted his basic concepts regarding democracy and
free markets; that without doubt Putin is still a reformer at heart;
but the challenge is "how" to make it work in Russia, a nation of
endemic corrupt practices and citizens with little to no experience
with democratic principles and institutions. This includes everyone
in the chain of power from local district heads, to regional
governors, up to and including the State Duma.
Russian specialists in Moscow think tanks have, as it turns out,
pondered these governance issues, some for 25 years. One said that
in 1971, they and their institute looked at all the nation's
parameters and knew that the USSR was economically doomed. They began
studying the experience of other nations for conversion to a
different form of government by making exploratory trips to other
countries which had stepped from a centralized top-down economy to a
free market economy; e.g. Chile and others. It wasn't until the 80s
that Putin was put in Germany where he observed daily, the pluses and
minuses of closed and open societies. But the average Soviet on the
street was still immersed in communism and felt it would last forever
- while top leadership carried on as long as they could with blinders
in place. Gorbachev finally began to tear the blinders off.
Putin's current choices and dilemma as explained to me: In
his first term, he had to clean out as much of the Yeltsin influence
as possible. Putin appointed to chief posts, lawyers he knew
personally, perhaps thinking they could be trusted and would be the
brightest and best able to deal with legislative changes. However,
it was pointed out to me that Russian lawyers aren't known for
creative thinking, that for the most part they think "in the box"
and Putin's choices have been no different. He has been disappointed
with their thinking and actions and at present is using them less and
depending more on his own instincts. No president can afford to do
this for long, given that one person's instincts for a whole nation
cannot produce reliable decision making. This situation is of deep,
deep concern for those with whom I spoke.
I would also add an all-important point to my mind and that is: Putin
came to office in his first term without a constituency... unlike
presidents of other countries who are swept in by hoards of bright
and not so bright people. Putin had no party which elected him;
indeed, he had to get rid of the prevailing power that brought him to
the presidency - the oligarchs who ran the Kremlin under Yeltsin.
That he was able to wrench their hands from the steering wheel of
the state and personally survive, was a feat that I and others didn't
believe he could accomplish. For the most part, he has succeeded and
is still alive - something of a miracle since these super rich are
reported to have been involved with contract killings, etc.
So Putin had no built-in support system when he came to power, no
wide knowledge of who to select for the many posts which required new
heads during his four years. He's been ridiculed for stacking
Russia's appointee seats with University friends from StPetersburg
and former members of the KGB with whom he had worked. While not
wise, what would any do in similar predicament? We would most likely
choose those we knew and thought we could trust. As for the old
guard in Russia, there were precious few, if any, who he could trust.
None of those I spoke with last week think Putin is personally "power
hungry." It seemed to them a ridiculous question to ask and was
brushed off. They believe he wants the best for Russia and that he
wants Russia to be integrated into the world of free nations. None
believe that he wants a return to rank authoritarianism. All believe
he is in a harrowing spot trying to figure out "how" to get from
where the nation is today to where it needs to go, but not knowing
the means to get there, whom to trust to help - and is working in
near isolation at this juncture. This is both tragic for him and
dangerous for Russia.
I'd like to add another personal comment which to my mind complicates
Putin's task as president and that is the behaviors and practices of
Russia's citizenry. We assume that Russian and Western citizens are
alike, that we think alike, that we reason alike. For the most part
we do. On the educational and intellectual end, Russians in general
surpass Americans educationally and in classical culture. However,
there is one small but very decisive aspect of their public and
collective experience which has a near void.
This includes the very crux of what it takes to create a civil
society: a near void in the impulse of citizens to unite, the
willingness to stand up publicly for change; the inclination to
challenge authorities; the stomach to run for public office to change
things; the willingness to take on informal leadership; the
experience to organize and facilitate effective ad hoc meetings; the
ability to lead or to accept leadership from each other; the capacity
to trust one another. This void is understandable; they have had no
practice, no models in these spheres. For three generations, even
centuries, any of these attempts were punished by imprisonment and
even death. However, in combination, they vastly complicate Russia's
ability today to move toward democratic behaviors and institutions,
and local self governance. Any country's executive leadership needs
a viable, strong collective voice from the bottom up to inform and
balance executive power. There is a Russian proverb that says
something like, the Tsar who doesn't listen to boyars is damned...
The question of freedom of the media comes up here, and yet it is
more than that. People uniting creates voice, developing and
lobbying societal needs, business needs, gets attention. This void
must be filled by Russian citizens themselves.
Hopefully the current experience of assertiveness by citizens in
Ukraine, whether Russians agree with Ukrainians goals or not, will
provide Russians with a model and embolden them to see what can
happen when citizens unite and stand for what they believe they
deserve.
One important aspect to acknowledge: Russians who have developed
businesses, those who help facilitate the building of business
sectors (like CCI offices across Russia's regions), and those who
have had out-of-country experience, tend to have much better
understanding of what's needed to develop civil society and have a
readiness to stand up and be counted, than do those who haven't had
this combination of experiences.
Thanks to all of you who have hosted Russian entrepreneurs in your
businesses, homes and communities where they have been able to fill
in the blanks left by their near unique history - which they aren't
responsible for - but nonetheless needs to be replaced by a more
open, assertive society if Russia moves to its rightful place in the
21st century. Thanks also to the Department of State which has
helped fund PEP and other CCI programs and recently has worked
diligently to help CCI move the PEP program into perpetuity.
I'm told that Putin is currently putting together a "public
chamber" to try to stimulate innovative thinking and input from
high-level professionals across Russia, thus providing additional
brain power at the top. It is said that the chamber will be composed
of volunteer specialists with no remuneration, cars, dachas or
privileges. They will have revolving term limits.
The big questions in all Russia watcher's minds these days are,
"What is Putin up to?", "Is Putin really an authoritarian who is
turning Russia back to totalitarianism?", "What are we to make of
Putin's recent decisions?"
I've just returned from Moscow, where I had the most interesting and
most high-level group of meetings ever. It happened mainly because I
was able to get in touch with some specialists in Moscow who have
grown in prominence since I was last in contact with them.
In any case, this fact conspired to allow me interviews with several
well-known Russians who, to my surprise, have had recent meetings
with Vladimir Putin concerning Russia's economy, media, corruption
and the reforms. None of them are in the government; all could be
said to be "informal advisors" or at least respected by Putin for
their specific expertise. They don't consider themselves supporters
or non-supporters of Putin - rather independent thinkers and
analysts. None had had discussions regarding the Ukraine events
since these exploded after the last time they met with Putin.
I won't mention names since for the most part they are my friends,
but rather I will try to give a short summary of discussions with
them regarding their take on the situation in the Kremlin and Putin's
recent decision making. First, they are honest people and
specialists, given to deep and penetrating analysis, not cover-ups or
sensationalism. I didn't mention any of my discussions with other
appointments to them. To my knowledge none of them know each other
well, if at all, but certainly by name. All believe instinctively
in democratic principles and healthy globalism.
The general picture they give is that Putin is in an extremely
precarious place now, even though he still enjoys phenomenal
popularity with the masses despite the beginnings of his social
reforms; that his experience in Germany and his ability to speak
German fluently (therefore understanding European culture and
thinking) deeply impacted his basic concepts regarding democracy and
free markets; that without doubt Putin is still a reformer at heart;
but the challenge is "how" to make it work in Russia, a nation of
endemic corrupt practices and citizens with little to no experience
with democratic principles and institutions. This includes everyone
in the chain of power from local district heads, to regional
governors, up to and including the State Duma.
Russian specialists in Moscow think tanks have, as it turns out,
pondered these governance issues, some for 25 years. One said that
in 1971, they and their institute looked at all the nation's
parameters and knew that the USSR was economically doomed. They began
studying the experience of other nations for conversion to a
different form of government by making exploratory trips to other
countries which had stepped from a centralized top-down economy to a
free market economy; e.g. Chile and others. It wasn't until the 80s
that Putin was put in Germany where he observed daily, the pluses and
minuses of closed and open societies. But the average Soviet on the
street was still immersed in communism and felt it would last forever
- while top leadership carried on as long as they could with blinders
in place. Gorbachev finally began to tear the blinders off.
Putin's current choices and dilemma as explained to me: In
his first term, he had to clean out as much of the Yeltsin influence
as possible. Putin appointed to chief posts, lawyers he knew
personally, perhaps thinking they could be trusted and would be the
brightest and best able to deal with legislative changes. However,
it was pointed out to me that Russian lawyers aren't known for
creative thinking, that for the most part they think "in the box"
and Putin's choices have been no different. He has been disappointed
with their thinking and actions and at present is using them less and
depending more on his own instincts. No president can afford to do
this for long, given that one person's instincts for a whole nation
cannot produce reliable decision making. This situation is of deep,
deep concern for those with whom I spoke.
I would also add an all-important point to my mind and that is: Putin
came to office in his first term without a constituency... unlike
presidents of other countries who are swept in by hoards of bright
and not so bright people. Putin had no party which elected him;
indeed, he had to get rid of the prevailing power that brought him to
the presidency - the oligarchs who ran the Kremlin under Yeltsin.
That he was able to wrench their hands from the steering wheel of
the state and personally survive, was a feat that I and others didn't
believe he could accomplish. For the most part, he has succeeded and
is still alive - something of a miracle since these super rich are
reported to have been involved with contract killings, etc.
So Putin had no built-in support system when he came to power, no
wide knowledge of who to select for the many posts which required new
heads during his four years. He's been ridiculed for stacking
Russia's appointee seats with University friends from StPetersburg
and former members of the KGB with whom he had worked. While not
wise, what would any do in similar predicament? We would most likely
choose those we knew and thought we could trust. As for the old
guard in Russia, there were precious few, if any, who he could trust.
None of those I spoke with last week think Putin is personally "power
hungry." It seemed to them a ridiculous question to ask and was
brushed off. They believe he wants the best for Russia and that he
wants Russia to be integrated into the world of free nations. None
believe that he wants a return to rank authoritarianism. All believe
he is in a harrowing spot trying to figure out "how" to get from
where the nation is today to where it needs to go, but not knowing
the means to get there, whom to trust to help - and is working in
near isolation at this juncture. This is both tragic for him and
dangerous for Russia.
I'd like to add another personal comment which to my mind complicates
Putin's task as president and that is the behaviors and practices of
Russia's citizenry. We assume that Russian and Western citizens are
alike, that we think alike, that we reason alike. For the most part
we do. On the educational and intellectual end, Russians in general
surpass Americans educationally and in classical culture. However,
there is one small but very decisive aspect of their public and
collective experience which has a near void.
This includes the very crux of what it takes to create a civil
society: a near void in the impulse of citizens to unite, the
willingness to stand up publicly for change; the inclination to
challenge authorities; the stomach to run for public office to change
things; the willingness to take on informal leadership; the
experience to organize and facilitate effective ad hoc meetings; the
ability to lead or to accept leadership from each other; the capacity
to trust one another. This void is understandable; they have had no
practice, no models in these spheres. For three generations, even
centuries, any of these attempts were punished by imprisonment and
even death. However, in combination, they vastly complicate Russia's
ability today to move toward democratic behaviors and institutions,
and local self governance. Any country's executive leadership needs
a viable, strong collective voice from the bottom up to inform and
balance executive power. There is a Russian proverb that says
something like, the Tsar who doesn't listen to boyars is damned...
The question of freedom of the media comes up here, and yet it is
more than that. People uniting creates voice, developing and
lobbying societal needs, business needs, gets attention. This void
must be filled by Russian citizens themselves.
Hopefully the current experience of assertiveness by citizens in
Ukraine, whether Russians agree with Ukrainians goals or not, will
provide Russians with a model and embolden them to see what can
happen when citizens unite and stand for what they believe they
deserve.
One important aspect to acknowledge: Russians who have developed
businesses, those who help facilitate the building of business
sectors (like CCI offices across Russia's regions), and those who
have had out-of-country experience, tend to have much better
understanding of what's needed to develop civil society and have a
readiness to stand up and be counted, than do those who haven't had
this combination of experiences.
Thanks to all of you who have hosted Russian entrepreneurs in your
businesses, homes and communities where they have been able to fill
in the blanks left by their near unique history - which they aren't
responsible for - but nonetheless needs to be replaced by a more
open, assertive society if Russia moves to its rightful place in the
21st century. Thanks also to the Department of State which has
helped fund PEP and other CCI programs and recently has worked
diligently to help CCI move the PEP program into perpetuity.
I'm told that Putin is currently putting together a "public
chamber" to try to stimulate innovative thinking and input from
high-level professionals across Russia, thus providing additional
brain power at the top. It is said that the chamber will be composed
of volunteer specialists with no remuneration, cars, dachas or
privileges. They will have revolving term limits.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
WORKING IN IRAQ
By William Fisher
Somewhere between Haliburton and CARE, there is a cadre of contractors in Iraq that is far less publicized, but just as vital to the country’s future. These are the consulting firms that help Iraqis create jobs by promoting entrepreneurism, improving agricultural and manufacturing efficiency, privatizing loss-making state-owned companies, building stronger private sector institutions, stimulating investment, developing information technology skills, and encouraging an independent judiciary and greater transparency in business and government.
The US government – principally the US Agency for International Development (USAID) -- is currently spending some $ 3.3 billion annually on contracts with these kinds of firms and their expert consultants. But these men and women are finding it increasingly frustrating to get anything done.
Their problem – like that of everyone else in Iraq -- is security. They are spending some 25-30 percent of their contract revenues hiring armored cars and small private armies. But even then they are constantly at risk, often unable to move around the country to work with the people they have been hired to help, and frequently forced to leave Iraq for periods for the relative safety of Jordan or Kuwait.
“I think it is almost impossible to do good work there right now, but the optimist in me hopes that will change”, said a senior executive for one contracting firm. Said another: “There is really very little getting done in Iraq these days, for obvious reasons.” Like almost all the firms contacted for this article, they spoke on condition on anonymity.
One contractor described her company’s elaborate security set-up. “We had to hire a militia, 80 Kurdish pesh merghas, to protect us. These are mountain fighters from the north of Iraq who were trained by US and British paramilitary during the time of the sanctions. Each fighter has an AK-47, many of them have pistols, grenades, and RPGs, and none of them would hesitate to use their weapons.”
But the “rules of engagement” have changed as the insurrection became more intense. Says the head of one program, “In April, when the Mehdi Brigade revolted in the south and overran some compounds of American contractors, we told our fighters that if a mob threatened the compound they should shoot to maim, wound people as necessary, but do not kill. Now, the situation is quite different, and our fighters will shoot to kill.”
Getting around has also become a far more serious problem – limiting the consultants’ opportunities to work with their Iraqi clients “When I go outside the compound in Baghdad”, says one consultant, “I have two cars and eight guards, all heavily armed. The cars are low profile. I sit in the back in the middle, squeezed in between two guards, and in the front seat are a driver and guard. The second car, filled with guards, follows directly behind my car. This is what Mrs. Hassan of CARE did not have. Her lightly or unarmed guard and driver could not overpower the people who abducted her. We have known for some time that women are considered high value targets for kidnapping, and it is a shame she did not assume that she was a potential target.” Margaret Hassan, a British-Iraqi who had worked in Iraq for thirty years, was kidnapped and murdered by insurgents last month.
Finding skilled consultants presents a mixed picture. Despite the considerable risks, some contractors are finding no shortage of Americans eager to work in Iraq, as well as many Iraqi experts. Most of them appear to like their work and many return for additional assignments. Other consulting firms tell IPS, “It has become very difficult to recruit skilled American consultants during these last few months. This does not negate the statement that there are many highly skilled consultants there, and that many of them return. But there is a greatly diminished number willing to go under current conditions.”
Asks one consultant rhetorically: “How I can possibly like my job?” There are days when I love it, and days when I am frustrated. It is compelling and the people are great. Every consultant I have had wants to return to Baghdad. Today, one of my good consultants returned with great delight for his fourth trip to Baghdad. And there are plenty of others like him, just as crazy as I am.”
But some consulting firms with experience in Iraq have declined to bid a second time as prime contractors, since prime contractors are responsible for costly security arrangements. One major consulting firm told IPS, “We have taken the position that in the long run we want to work in Iraq. But last May, as conditions started to deteriorate, we predicted they would continue to worsen. We were correct. Until security and operating conditions improve we will not be a prime bidder on any contract. And we will only bid as a subcontractor if we are relatively confident that the prime contractor has an effective security apparatus.”
Unlike these consulting organizations, many not-for-profit humanitarian aid groups have left Iraq. Tiziana Dearing, executive director of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, wrote in the Boston Globe, “of the dozens of international [aid] organizations that entered Iraq in 2003, fewer than 10 remain. CARE withdrew its operations from Iraq earlier this month. The perception is fading that relief is independent, neutral, and exclusively for humanitarian ends.”
One of the major challenges facing consulting firms – and all those seen to be associated with the US-led coalition -- is the reality that the Iraqi economy is being restructured by what is widely perceived to be an occupying force, and with little input from Iraqi society.
Nevertheless, few consulting firms have left Iraq permanently and most say they are managing to get their work done, though usually far more slowly than they planned. Says one: “I know of no contractors who have left Iraq permanently. Some go to Amman for periods, others travel to Arbil in the Kurdish area, as we do. For the first time in a year we closed our Baghdad office last week, just before the Falluja assault, and placed our local staff on administrative leave. We work through email with staff from their homes, and even with the conflict going on now they are able to conduct a reduced level of business.”
Typical of the major projects being carried out by consulting firms is USAID’s $20 million Economic Governance contract with Bearing Point, Inc., a giant consulting firm headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Its mission is to develop and implement international economic practices aimed at improving economic governance in Iraq and developing a policy-enabling environment for private sector-led growth in the country. The three-year contract is expected to assist in reforming tax, fiscal and customs policies as well developing an IMF-acceptable monetary policy through building the capacity of Iraq's Central Bank.
USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios is aware of the difficulties of working in Iraq’s hostile environment, but points to solid achievements. He recently told Congress that “Iraqis are good businessmen, and economic activity is picking up significantly despite the violence. But jobs remain a vital issue.” He says USAID grants “have put more than 77,000 people to work on public programs.”
Natsios also points to achievements in commercial banking, commercial law, agricultural reconstruction and development, micro-credit, restoration of the country's wetlands, democracy and governance, and helping human rights organizations.
One major contractor acknowledges that “there indeed is a lot of good going on in Iraq, but the fact that I cannot go to Baghdad because I might get my head cut off by a Zarqawi terrorist is not made better because Texas A&M brought in 1000 pounds of wheat seed.”
Somewhere between Haliburton and CARE, there is a cadre of contractors in Iraq that is far less publicized, but just as vital to the country’s future. These are the consulting firms that help Iraqis create jobs by promoting entrepreneurism, improving agricultural and manufacturing efficiency, privatizing loss-making state-owned companies, building stronger private sector institutions, stimulating investment, developing information technology skills, and encouraging an independent judiciary and greater transparency in business and government.
The US government – principally the US Agency for International Development (USAID) -- is currently spending some $ 3.3 billion annually on contracts with these kinds of firms and their expert consultants. But these men and women are finding it increasingly frustrating to get anything done.
Their problem – like that of everyone else in Iraq -- is security. They are spending some 25-30 percent of their contract revenues hiring armored cars and small private armies. But even then they are constantly at risk, often unable to move around the country to work with the people they have been hired to help, and frequently forced to leave Iraq for periods for the relative safety of Jordan or Kuwait.
“I think it is almost impossible to do good work there right now, but the optimist in me hopes that will change”, said a senior executive for one contracting firm. Said another: “There is really very little getting done in Iraq these days, for obvious reasons.” Like almost all the firms contacted for this article, they spoke on condition on anonymity.
One contractor described her company’s elaborate security set-up. “We had to hire a militia, 80 Kurdish pesh merghas, to protect us. These are mountain fighters from the north of Iraq who were trained by US and British paramilitary during the time of the sanctions. Each fighter has an AK-47, many of them have pistols, grenades, and RPGs, and none of them would hesitate to use their weapons.”
But the “rules of engagement” have changed as the insurrection became more intense. Says the head of one program, “In April, when the Mehdi Brigade revolted in the south and overran some compounds of American contractors, we told our fighters that if a mob threatened the compound they should shoot to maim, wound people as necessary, but do not kill. Now, the situation is quite different, and our fighters will shoot to kill.”
Getting around has also become a far more serious problem – limiting the consultants’ opportunities to work with their Iraqi clients “When I go outside the compound in Baghdad”, says one consultant, “I have two cars and eight guards, all heavily armed. The cars are low profile. I sit in the back in the middle, squeezed in between two guards, and in the front seat are a driver and guard. The second car, filled with guards, follows directly behind my car. This is what Mrs. Hassan of CARE did not have. Her lightly or unarmed guard and driver could not overpower the people who abducted her. We have known for some time that women are considered high value targets for kidnapping, and it is a shame she did not assume that she was a potential target.” Margaret Hassan, a British-Iraqi who had worked in Iraq for thirty years, was kidnapped and murdered by insurgents last month.
Finding skilled consultants presents a mixed picture. Despite the considerable risks, some contractors are finding no shortage of Americans eager to work in Iraq, as well as many Iraqi experts. Most of them appear to like their work and many return for additional assignments. Other consulting firms tell IPS, “It has become very difficult to recruit skilled American consultants during these last few months. This does not negate the statement that there are many highly skilled consultants there, and that many of them return. But there is a greatly diminished number willing to go under current conditions.”
Asks one consultant rhetorically: “How I can possibly like my job?” There are days when I love it, and days when I am frustrated. It is compelling and the people are great. Every consultant I have had wants to return to Baghdad. Today, one of my good consultants returned with great delight for his fourth trip to Baghdad. And there are plenty of others like him, just as crazy as I am.”
But some consulting firms with experience in Iraq have declined to bid a second time as prime contractors, since prime contractors are responsible for costly security arrangements. One major consulting firm told IPS, “We have taken the position that in the long run we want to work in Iraq. But last May, as conditions started to deteriorate, we predicted they would continue to worsen. We were correct. Until security and operating conditions improve we will not be a prime bidder on any contract. And we will only bid as a subcontractor if we are relatively confident that the prime contractor has an effective security apparatus.”
Unlike these consulting organizations, many not-for-profit humanitarian aid groups have left Iraq. Tiziana Dearing, executive director of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, wrote in the Boston Globe, “of the dozens of international [aid] organizations that entered Iraq in 2003, fewer than 10 remain. CARE withdrew its operations from Iraq earlier this month. The perception is fading that relief is independent, neutral, and exclusively for humanitarian ends.”
One of the major challenges facing consulting firms – and all those seen to be associated with the US-led coalition -- is the reality that the Iraqi economy is being restructured by what is widely perceived to be an occupying force, and with little input from Iraqi society.
Nevertheless, few consulting firms have left Iraq permanently and most say they are managing to get their work done, though usually far more slowly than they planned. Says one: “I know of no contractors who have left Iraq permanently. Some go to Amman for periods, others travel to Arbil in the Kurdish area, as we do. For the first time in a year we closed our Baghdad office last week, just before the Falluja assault, and placed our local staff on administrative leave. We work through email with staff from their homes, and even with the conflict going on now they are able to conduct a reduced level of business.”
Typical of the major projects being carried out by consulting firms is USAID’s $20 million Economic Governance contract with Bearing Point, Inc., a giant consulting firm headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Its mission is to develop and implement international economic practices aimed at improving economic governance in Iraq and developing a policy-enabling environment for private sector-led growth in the country. The three-year contract is expected to assist in reforming tax, fiscal and customs policies as well developing an IMF-acceptable monetary policy through building the capacity of Iraq's Central Bank.
USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios is aware of the difficulties of working in Iraq’s hostile environment, but points to solid achievements. He recently told Congress that “Iraqis are good businessmen, and economic activity is picking up significantly despite the violence. But jobs remain a vital issue.” He says USAID grants “have put more than 77,000 people to work on public programs.”
Natsios also points to achievements in commercial banking, commercial law, agricultural reconstruction and development, micro-credit, restoration of the country's wetlands, democracy and governance, and helping human rights organizations.
One major contractor acknowledges that “there indeed is a lot of good going on in Iraq, but the fact that I cannot go to Baghdad because I might get my head cut off by a Zarqawi terrorist is not made better because Texas A&M brought in 1000 pounds of wheat seed.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
