The following is a 2/16/2005 floor statement by Rep. Bernard Sanders in opposition to The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act 2005.
By US Rep. Bernie Sanders
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we do not want our children exposed to obscenity on the public airwaves. That goes without saying.
As someone who last year voted in favor of similar legislation, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I will not be voting for this bill today. This censorship is being conducted by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media. And it is being done by the government. This result is an insidious chill on free expression on our airwaves.
There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about freedom, freedom and freedom but, apparently, they do not really believe that the American people should have the "freedom" to make the choice about what they listen to on radio or watch on TV. There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about the intrusive role of "government regulators," but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I disagree with that. A vote for this bill today will make America a less free society.
Mr. Speaker: I am not a conservative. But on this issue I find myself in strong agreement with Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the Director of Telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute - a very conservative think tank. And here is the very common sense, pro-freedom position that he brings forth:
"Those of use who are parents understand that raising a child in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times. But that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children.
"Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must do this job for me and every other American family.
"Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole nation is permitted to see, hear or think.
"I've always been particularly troubled by the fact that so many conservatives, who rightly preach the gospel of personal and parental responsibility about most economic issues, seemingly give up on this notion when it comes to cultural issues."
Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America today, and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it. What America is about is not necessarily liking what you have to say or agreeing with you, but it is your right to say it. Today, it is Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or Howard Stern's vulgarity. What will it be tomorrow?
Let me give just a couple of examples of increased censorship on the airwaves. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in creating the federal deficit. Last November, sixty-six ABC affiliates refused to air the brilliant World War II movie "Saving Private Ryan," starring Tom Hanks, for fear that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. This ironically was a movie that showed the unbelievable sacrifices that American soldiers made on D-Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC affiliates around the country didn't feel free to show it. Last November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to their Church. The networks felt that it was "too controversial" to air. And just last month, many PBS stations refused to air an episode of Postcards with Buster, a children's show, because Education Secretary Spellings objected to the show's content, which included Buster, an 8-year old bunny-rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup from a family with two mothers in Vermont.
Mr. Speaker, each of these examples represent a different aspect of the culture of censorship that is growing in America today. My fear is that the legislation we have before us today will only compound this problem and make a bad situation worse.
This legislation would impose vastly higher fines on broadcasters for so-called indecent material. But this legislation does not provide any relief from the vague standard of indecency that can be arbitrarily applied by the FCC. That means broadcasters, particularly small broadcasters, will have no choice but to engage in a very dangerous cycle of self-censorship to avoid a fine that could drive some of them into bankruptcy. Broadcasters are already doing it now. Imagine what will happen when a violation can bring a $500,000 fine. If this legislation is enacted, the real victim will be free expression and Americans' First Amendment rights.
In the past week I have sought out the views of broadcasters in my own state of Vermont and I have heard from many of them. Without exception they are extremely concerned about the effect this legislation will have on programming decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing a copy of a statement by Mr. John King, President and CEO of Vermont Public Television.
Statement of Mr. John King, President and CEO of VT Public Television on H.R. 310:
Vermont Public Television, like other local broadcasters, does its best to serve the needs and interests of its local community. It's a great privilege and a great responsibility to have a broadcast license. While we acknowledge that there must be sanctions for broadcasters who misuse the public airwaves, we believe the sanctions proposed in HR 310 are extreme.
The FCC's proposals for increased fines for obscenity, indecency and profanity have already had a chilling effect on broadcasters nationally and locally, including Vermont Public Television. The legislation also makes lodging a complaint easier and puts the burden of proof on the station. Codifying these proposals into law will make the situation worse.
While many people might assume the new sanctions are aimed at commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters are feeling the effects every day. Public television's educational programming for children has always provided a safe haven. The same public television stations that take such care of their young viewers also respect the intelligence and discretion of their adult viewers to make the best viewing choices for themselves.
Vermont Public Television has always operated responsibly in our programming for adults. At times, our programs included adult language and situations appropriate to the informational or artistic purpose of a program. While there have always been prohibitions against gratuitous indecency, the FCC always took context into account. Now, it seems that context is no longer considered.
Much as we might like to invoke our First Amendment rights, we dare not risk the large fine that could come with a single violation. The $500,000 maximum fine could put a small station like VPT out of business.
Last year, when the FCC proposed increased fines and told broadcasters there was one word that would never be appropriate on the air, PBS and its member stations, including Vermont Public Television, began to make content choices so as not to run afoul of the new FCC restrictions.
PBS programmers began making edits to national programs being distributed to stations. An "American Experience" documentary on Emma Goldman was scrutinized for what might possibly look like a bare breast and edited, just to be sure. On "Antiques Roadshow," a nude poster was edited. This month, most PBS stations will air a drama from HBO called "Dirty War ." In the story, a woman showers to remove radiation. When the program airs on PBS, the shower scene will be edited.
Our programming director, and no doubt most local programmers, have become very cautious. Once the FCC starts telling broadcasters they must not use certain words or situations, programmers tend to avoid producing and airing programs with words and situations that might even come close to content that could be subject to fines.
At VPT, we produce many live local programs with panelists representing many points of view. We take calls from viewers live on the air. There has never been a problem with language, but the legislation's reference to using a "time delay blocking mechanism" makes us worry. We don't use a time delay. Are we subject to a fine if a panelist or a caller uses a word considered obscene, indecent or profane?
Our programming director says the FCC proposals have already made us rule out airing independent films on our "Reel Independent" program. Films by Vermont filmmakers that we would have aired in past years are not being accepted for broadcast now.
We cannot support HR 310 as it is written.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Women and Elections
The following article was written by Raid Qusti and published in Arab News, one of the Middle East's leading English language dailies. It is reproduced here with the permission of the author.
By Raid Qusti
Covering the recent municipal elections in the Kingdom was a thrilling experience. On one hand, as a journalist, I was able to meet both candidates and voters. On the other hand, as a Saudi, the whole process was unprecedented in our nation’s history. Along with many others, I hope the elections marked the beginning of public participation in decision-making. Almost all of those I spoke to said that they were doing this from a feeling of national duty. Their love for their country, first and foremost, was what compelled them first to register as voters and then cast their votes to choose their candidates. They also felt the whole process has begun a new era in Saudi Arabia that will pave the way for larger elections: The entire municipal council and the Shoura Consultative Council as well.
The Riyadh municipality elections were also an opportunity for foreign journalists to speak openly to Saudis and ask them about their reactions and feelings. It was a chance for them to make their analysis as a result of direct contact with the people and not from talking to other journalists, international analysts or even those who regularly comment on things in Saudi Arabia but have never actually managed to visit the country.
What I noticed from the questions asked by foreign journalists in the press conferences organized by the Election Commission was that they were focused mainly on two issues: Women not being allowed to vote and also on whether these small elections would lead to larger ones in future.
Commission officials cited the reasons why the government was unable to include women in these elections. The reasons were, as we have heard many times, the technical difficulties of having separate voting centers for women, as well as employing women in cities and rural areas to receive women voters. Because of the limited time available, it simply was not possible, they said. Even though many women readers of Arab News criticized me in the past for supporting the government’s reasons for not including women in this round, I still believe them to be practical. Interestingly, this same topic was brought up round a dinner table with my relatives.
Both my father-in-law and my wife — herself a media person and a supporter of women’s rights — believe that at present, allowing women to vote would not have been practical due to the social conditions in Saudi Arabia.
Their views as well as mine do not mean, however, that a woman who chooses to vote or nominate herself should be prevented from doing so in the future. As a citizen, that should be her right. From my point of view, I am not concerned about the practicalities of setting up separate women’s centers or employing women to do certain jobs in cities or rural areas. Those things could be overcome with proper planning and carried out without problems. What is beyond that is what I want to comment on.
Having seen how candidates in Riyadh plastered their photos on street advertisements and in local newspapers, how would a woman candidate have run her campaign? We must bear in mind that many Saudis still believe that a woman’s picture should only be viewed by close relatives and certainly not by unrelated members of the public.
Let’s get practical. Would a Saudi woman actually want to place her picture and her full name on a street advertisement or in a newspaper advertisement? She wouldn’t. And even if she were allowed to do so by the authorities, only a handful of the female community would actually consider doing it. If we open our daily newspapers and read columns by female journalists, we will see that the writers are faceless. Not because the law prevents a woman from putting her photo beside her column but because she chooses not to for social and cultural reasons.
Hypothetically, let us say that women did not need to place street advertisements or advertisements in newspapers. How else would they reach the public? Would they set up tents like their male counterparts? And even if they did, since the religious leaders here deem mixing sinful, how would she receive men and women who are curious to ask about her platform? Would the tents be split in half, one side for men and the other for women? Would she even allow herself to go to the male’s side to address them and answer questions?
Or would it all have to be done over microphones or split units? And continuing hypothetically, let us say one of the women won a seat on the council. She then becomes an official. Would our society accept the fact of a woman appearing in public in a press conference, talking to the media and making official announcements, as is the case in neighboring Gulf states? And what about the municipality itself? How would male and female colleagues within the municipality interact since they would have to be in separate buildings or departments; would all contact be over the phone?
Clearly that would be the only possibility since mixing the sexes is considered sinful.
Readers should not misunderstand me. We are not Bahrain or Kuwait or any other Gulf state.
As long as traditions and customs that are not universal in the 21st century prevail in the Kingdom and as long as we continue to teach in our universities that “Listening to a woman’s voice is sinful,” women who honestly believe they have a role in our society’s development will be either labeled “brainwashed by the West” or “sinners.”
By Raid Qusti
Covering the recent municipal elections in the Kingdom was a thrilling experience. On one hand, as a journalist, I was able to meet both candidates and voters. On the other hand, as a Saudi, the whole process was unprecedented in our nation’s history. Along with many others, I hope the elections marked the beginning of public participation in decision-making. Almost all of those I spoke to said that they were doing this from a feeling of national duty. Their love for their country, first and foremost, was what compelled them first to register as voters and then cast their votes to choose their candidates. They also felt the whole process has begun a new era in Saudi Arabia that will pave the way for larger elections: The entire municipal council and the Shoura Consultative Council as well.
The Riyadh municipality elections were also an opportunity for foreign journalists to speak openly to Saudis and ask them about their reactions and feelings. It was a chance for them to make their analysis as a result of direct contact with the people and not from talking to other journalists, international analysts or even those who regularly comment on things in Saudi Arabia but have never actually managed to visit the country.
What I noticed from the questions asked by foreign journalists in the press conferences organized by the Election Commission was that they were focused mainly on two issues: Women not being allowed to vote and also on whether these small elections would lead to larger ones in future.
Commission officials cited the reasons why the government was unable to include women in these elections. The reasons were, as we have heard many times, the technical difficulties of having separate voting centers for women, as well as employing women in cities and rural areas to receive women voters. Because of the limited time available, it simply was not possible, they said. Even though many women readers of Arab News criticized me in the past for supporting the government’s reasons for not including women in this round, I still believe them to be practical. Interestingly, this same topic was brought up round a dinner table with my relatives.
Both my father-in-law and my wife — herself a media person and a supporter of women’s rights — believe that at present, allowing women to vote would not have been practical due to the social conditions in Saudi Arabia.
Their views as well as mine do not mean, however, that a woman who chooses to vote or nominate herself should be prevented from doing so in the future. As a citizen, that should be her right. From my point of view, I am not concerned about the practicalities of setting up separate women’s centers or employing women to do certain jobs in cities or rural areas. Those things could be overcome with proper planning and carried out without problems. What is beyond that is what I want to comment on.
Having seen how candidates in Riyadh plastered their photos on street advertisements and in local newspapers, how would a woman candidate have run her campaign? We must bear in mind that many Saudis still believe that a woman’s picture should only be viewed by close relatives and certainly not by unrelated members of the public.
Let’s get practical. Would a Saudi woman actually want to place her picture and her full name on a street advertisement or in a newspaper advertisement? She wouldn’t. And even if she were allowed to do so by the authorities, only a handful of the female community would actually consider doing it. If we open our daily newspapers and read columns by female journalists, we will see that the writers are faceless. Not because the law prevents a woman from putting her photo beside her column but because she chooses not to for social and cultural reasons.
Hypothetically, let us say that women did not need to place street advertisements or advertisements in newspapers. How else would they reach the public? Would they set up tents like their male counterparts? And even if they did, since the religious leaders here deem mixing sinful, how would she receive men and women who are curious to ask about her platform? Would the tents be split in half, one side for men and the other for women? Would she even allow herself to go to the male’s side to address them and answer questions?
Or would it all have to be done over microphones or split units? And continuing hypothetically, let us say one of the women won a seat on the council. She then becomes an official. Would our society accept the fact of a woman appearing in public in a press conference, talking to the media and making official announcements, as is the case in neighboring Gulf states? And what about the municipality itself? How would male and female colleagues within the municipality interact since they would have to be in separate buildings or departments; would all contact be over the phone?
Clearly that would be the only possibility since mixing the sexes is considered sinful.
Readers should not misunderstand me. We are not Bahrain or Kuwait or any other Gulf state.
As long as traditions and customs that are not universal in the 21st century prevail in the Kingdom and as long as we continue to teach in our universities that “Listening to a woman’s voice is sinful,” women who honestly believe they have a role in our society’s development will be either labeled “brainwashed by the West” or “sinners.”
Monday, February 14, 2005
We Need Our Best, Brightest to Improve Our Global Image
The article below was written by Khaled Almeena, editor of Arab News, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, one of the Middle East's leading English language newspapers. It is reproduced here with his permission.
By Khaled Almaeena
The prime minister of Hungary apologized last week for joking that the Saudi soccer team had “very many terrorists” on its roster. Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany made the remark at a Socialist Party event, referring to Hungary’s 0-0 tie against Saudi Arabia in Turkey last week.
“I think that there were many terrorists also among the Saudi soccer players and our sons fought with death-defying bravery against the terrorists, so a draw away from home is a fantastic result,” Gyurcsany was quoted as saying by the state news agency.
On Tuesday, he said his comments were made in the context of a TV show parody, and anyone who took them seriously is driven by “political intolerance or even ill-will.”
Even his apology was halfhearted. Gyurcsany, a former communist, knows nothing about Saudi Arabia. His remarks shocked many Hungarians who also do not know much about the Kingdom but believe that a person in such a responsible position should not utter irresponsible remarks about a country that has its own status in the world and a special place in the hearts of more than a billion Muslims.
Apparently his advisers did not tell him that an international counterterrorism conference was being held in Riyadh at the time he was uttering his foolish and frivolous remark.
He had no idea that municipal elections were going to be held.
He had no idea that Saudi Arabia was one of the key players in the battle against communism and that Hungarian Freedom Day is the result of those countries that faced the communist onslaught and were steadfast to contain it.
Prime Minister Gyurcsany is unaware he offended not only Saudis but also Muslims the world over. I spoke to a senior journalist who said that there was a protest and that the 11 Arab ambassadors in Budapest have viewed this statement with “seriousness.”
I am happy to note it; however, I believe that a more effective response should be made.
To show our displeasure, we can even recall our ambassador for a short time. Economic activities should be downgraded or even suspended temporarily.
I am not exaggerating. Would this prime minister utter such scandalous remarks about other nations? When a German minister spoke unfavorably about the United States, she was forced to resign.
When Prince Harry wore a Nazi armband on his sleeve at a fancy costume party, the gates of hell broke open. There were calls from Israel for him to visit the crematoriums at Auschwitz.
When Marlon Brando made a remark that Hollywood was dominated by Jews (he in no way insulted them) he was forced to apologize. But we are fair game! People, institutions and governments attack institutions, our religion and us. John Ashcroft, former US attorney general, made some very disparaging remarks about our religion.
US Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, considered a hero by many Americans, also created a stir by making inflammatory comments.
The list goes on and on.
What then are we going to do about it?
Just as we don’t think it’s proper to make offensive remarks about other cultures and religions, we are offended by remarks made about us.
Should we, with the advice of public relations firms with their own interests at heart, place ads in Hungarian and American newspapers, saying, “There are no terrorists on the Saudi soccer team!!”?
Should we send a delegation to Hungary “explaining” our position?
What should we do?
I firmly believe that we must take a proactive stand. I am a strong advocate of free speech and the right of any individual to speak out, but it should be implicit that those rights come with responsibility, logic, tolerance and — most importantly — truth.
The statement of the Hungarian prime minister was bereft of these virtues.
In the light of this incident and others certain to come, it is crucial that our embassies abroad forge strong connections with local media and be ready to respond to such verbal attacks immediately.
Our diplomats should have insight into the happenings in their host countries and do what foreign ambassadors do here — visit the newspapers, exchange views and even arrange for journalists to visit their countries.
The main thing is to establish personal contacts.
Let’s not leave the management of our nation’s image in the hands of public relations companies more concerned with their contract terms than our reputation around the globe.
We already have enough examples of its consequences. It is also important that we review the selection process of those going abroad on diplomatic missions.
They have to be truly global.
I know of one (and there are many) who spent a decade in a country and didn’t bother to learn the language, let alone perfect it.
In the 21st century, in a highly complex world with a focus on speed, technology, immediate decision-making and a probing global media, we cannot afford to be complacent.
Fortunately, our country has a large number of highly qualified and committed men and women who can stand up against the best of the world and spread an understanding of our people, our culture and our faith. All they need is less bureaucracy and the chance to excel.
They would be viewed more favorably than some of our present diplomats are because they would be able to expand upon the good will that already exists for our country worldwide and present an image in which we all can take pride.
By Khaled Almaeena
The prime minister of Hungary apologized last week for joking that the Saudi soccer team had “very many terrorists” on its roster. Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany made the remark at a Socialist Party event, referring to Hungary’s 0-0 tie against Saudi Arabia in Turkey last week.
“I think that there were many terrorists also among the Saudi soccer players and our sons fought with death-defying bravery against the terrorists, so a draw away from home is a fantastic result,” Gyurcsany was quoted as saying by the state news agency.
On Tuesday, he said his comments were made in the context of a TV show parody, and anyone who took them seriously is driven by “political intolerance or even ill-will.”
Even his apology was halfhearted. Gyurcsany, a former communist, knows nothing about Saudi Arabia. His remarks shocked many Hungarians who also do not know much about the Kingdom but believe that a person in such a responsible position should not utter irresponsible remarks about a country that has its own status in the world and a special place in the hearts of more than a billion Muslims.
Apparently his advisers did not tell him that an international counterterrorism conference was being held in Riyadh at the time he was uttering his foolish and frivolous remark.
He had no idea that municipal elections were going to be held.
He had no idea that Saudi Arabia was one of the key players in the battle against communism and that Hungarian Freedom Day is the result of those countries that faced the communist onslaught and were steadfast to contain it.
Prime Minister Gyurcsany is unaware he offended not only Saudis but also Muslims the world over. I spoke to a senior journalist who said that there was a protest and that the 11 Arab ambassadors in Budapest have viewed this statement with “seriousness.”
I am happy to note it; however, I believe that a more effective response should be made.
To show our displeasure, we can even recall our ambassador for a short time. Economic activities should be downgraded or even suspended temporarily.
I am not exaggerating. Would this prime minister utter such scandalous remarks about other nations? When a German minister spoke unfavorably about the United States, she was forced to resign.
When Prince Harry wore a Nazi armband on his sleeve at a fancy costume party, the gates of hell broke open. There were calls from Israel for him to visit the crematoriums at Auschwitz.
When Marlon Brando made a remark that Hollywood was dominated by Jews (he in no way insulted them) he was forced to apologize. But we are fair game! People, institutions and governments attack institutions, our religion and us. John Ashcroft, former US attorney general, made some very disparaging remarks about our religion.
US Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, considered a hero by many Americans, also created a stir by making inflammatory comments.
The list goes on and on.
What then are we going to do about it?
Just as we don’t think it’s proper to make offensive remarks about other cultures and religions, we are offended by remarks made about us.
Should we, with the advice of public relations firms with their own interests at heart, place ads in Hungarian and American newspapers, saying, “There are no terrorists on the Saudi soccer team!!”?
Should we send a delegation to Hungary “explaining” our position?
What should we do?
I firmly believe that we must take a proactive stand. I am a strong advocate of free speech and the right of any individual to speak out, but it should be implicit that those rights come with responsibility, logic, tolerance and — most importantly — truth.
The statement of the Hungarian prime minister was bereft of these virtues.
In the light of this incident and others certain to come, it is crucial that our embassies abroad forge strong connections with local media and be ready to respond to such verbal attacks immediately.
Our diplomats should have insight into the happenings in their host countries and do what foreign ambassadors do here — visit the newspapers, exchange views and even arrange for journalists to visit their countries.
The main thing is to establish personal contacts.
Let’s not leave the management of our nation’s image in the hands of public relations companies more concerned with their contract terms than our reputation around the globe.
We already have enough examples of its consequences. It is also important that we review the selection process of those going abroad on diplomatic missions.
They have to be truly global.
I know of one (and there are many) who spent a decade in a country and didn’t bother to learn the language, let alone perfect it.
In the 21st century, in a highly complex world with a focus on speed, technology, immediate decision-making and a probing global media, we cannot afford to be complacent.
Fortunately, our country has a large number of highly qualified and committed men and women who can stand up against the best of the world and spread an understanding of our people, our culture and our faith. All they need is less bureaucracy and the chance to excel.
They would be viewed more favorably than some of our present diplomats are because they would be able to expand upon the good will that already exists for our country worldwide and present an image in which we all can take pride.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
CHINA AND THE MIDDLE EAST
The following is an editorial from The Daily Star, Beirut. It is reproduced here with permission.
Middle Eastern governments would do well to follow China's example.
The Prophet Mohammed, in conveying the divine word to Muslims, commanded them to search for knowledge "even though it be in China," calling such a pursuit a "duty" for the faithful. Ironically today, we should be learning a lot from our friends in the Far East. There has been a recent push for the application of a certain knowledge in China that would be useful to the survival of regimes in the Islamic world. In the past few years, China has made great strides to define and develop a justice system that will protect and uphold the legal rights of its citizens. In 2001, the Chinese Justice Ministry invited International Bridges to Justice (IBJ), a non-governmental organization that works to ensure that citizens of all countries have access to basic legal rights, to help develop legal aid and defender services. Through the work of the ministry and NGOs on legal reform, China is now poised, as IBJ's President Karen I. Tse put it, for "a revolution in legal rights."
Here in the Arab world, we are still lagging behind in this global revolution. We are still living under military dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and unconstitutional monarchies. While China is enjoying the development of a society built upon the rule of law, our societies are stagnating under the strangling grip of security regimes.
Strengthening the rule of law is the key not only to promoting democracy, but also to protecting human rights, expanding economic growth and eliminating poverty. If local leaders are serious about bettering the lives of their citizenries, then they must work to adopt legal systems that will protect and promote the rule of law.
America, too, can play a role. If the U.S. wants to be true to its Greater Middle East initiative and stated goal of promoting democracy in the region, we must see a real push for legal reform, not just a push for stability. The U.S. must work to promote justice in tandem with its "war on terrorism." For far too many heavy-handed regimes in the region have been allowed to trample on or ignore legal rights in the name of "security." And the disenfranchized are turning in greater and greater numbers to the solutions offered up by Islamic fundamentalists. The United States cannot defeat terrorism in the region without promoting democracy and reform.
We must realize a new future for ourselves in a just and effective legal system. To climb this wall, we should take China's lead and enact reforms to secure a legal system based on the rule of law.
Middle Eastern governments would do well to follow China's example.
The Prophet Mohammed, in conveying the divine word to Muslims, commanded them to search for knowledge "even though it be in China," calling such a pursuit a "duty" for the faithful. Ironically today, we should be learning a lot from our friends in the Far East. There has been a recent push for the application of a certain knowledge in China that would be useful to the survival of regimes in the Islamic world. In the past few years, China has made great strides to define and develop a justice system that will protect and uphold the legal rights of its citizens. In 2001, the Chinese Justice Ministry invited International Bridges to Justice (IBJ), a non-governmental organization that works to ensure that citizens of all countries have access to basic legal rights, to help develop legal aid and defender services. Through the work of the ministry and NGOs on legal reform, China is now poised, as IBJ's President Karen I. Tse put it, for "a revolution in legal rights."
Here in the Arab world, we are still lagging behind in this global revolution. We are still living under military dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and unconstitutional monarchies. While China is enjoying the development of a society built upon the rule of law, our societies are stagnating under the strangling grip of security regimes.
Strengthening the rule of law is the key not only to promoting democracy, but also to protecting human rights, expanding economic growth and eliminating poverty. If local leaders are serious about bettering the lives of their citizenries, then they must work to adopt legal systems that will protect and promote the rule of law.
America, too, can play a role. If the U.S. wants to be true to its Greater Middle East initiative and stated goal of promoting democracy in the region, we must see a real push for legal reform, not just a push for stability. The U.S. must work to promote justice in tandem with its "war on terrorism." For far too many heavy-handed regimes in the region have been allowed to trample on or ignore legal rights in the name of "security." And the disenfranchized are turning in greater and greater numbers to the solutions offered up by Islamic fundamentalists. The United States cannot defeat terrorism in the region without promoting democracy and reform.
We must realize a new future for ourselves in a just and effective legal system. To climb this wall, we should take China's lead and enact reforms to secure a legal system based on the rule of law.
Friday, February 11, 2005
INSANE ASYLUM
By William Fisher
In the same week that the U.S House of Representatives passed restrictive new legislation that would make it far more difficult for refugees to gain asylum in the U.S., another arm of government, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (CIRF), issued a report charging that asylum-seekers are often jailed for long periods, treated like criminals, deported in a capricious and inconsistent manner that shows “extreme disparities” in who is granted asylum or deported, and are likely win asylum only if they have lawyers.
The House passed the REAL-ID Act, authored by conservative Republican James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin by a vote of 261 to 161, with 42 Democrats joining 219 Republicans in the majority. President Bush endorsed the measure, but did not actively lobby for its passage. Instead, he is pressing for a ‘guest worker’ program that would facilitate the entry of more immigrants, especially from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, who provide low-cost labor for jobs Americans do not seem to want.
The REAL-ID bill now goes to the U.S. Senate, where it is likely to face stiff bipartisan opposition. Sensenbrenner introduced a similar bill in the last session of Congress as part of the intelligence reorganization legislation designed to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but immigration provisions were largely stripped from the final bill by the Senate as a compromise to assure passage of the broader legislation.
The bill would block states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, restrict asylum , and complete a controversial border fence between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico. The White House said in a policy statement issued hours before debate began that the bill would "strengthen the ability of the United States to protect against terrorist entry into and activities within the United States." But immigration advocates, groups supporting civil and privacy rights, and state government organizations opposed the bill. They said it would make it harder for those fleeing persecution to seek asylum in this country and would endanger public safety and national security by denying driver's licenses to millions of illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (CIRF), established under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), announced results of a study of how a new immigration procedure – Expedited Removal – was affecting asylum-seekers.
The study found that asylum-seekers are consistently detained in jails or jail-like facilities, along with criminals and aliens who have committed criminal offenses.
Immigration judges, the study concluded, had significantly different rates of granting or denying asylum claims, even within the same court, and immigration officers sometimes improperly encouraged asylum-seekers to withdraw their applications for admission.
In 15 percent (12/79) of observed cases, the study said, when an arriving alien expressed a fear of return to the inspector, the alien was not referred for a hearing. “Among these twelve cases were several aliens who expressed fear of political, religious, or ethnic persecution, which are clearly related to the grounds for asylum. In seven of these twelve cases, the inspector incorrectly indicated on the sworn statement that the applicant claimed he had no fear of return.”
Most DHS procedures lack effective quality assurance measures to ensure that they are consistently followed, the study declared. “Consequently, the outcome of an asylum claim appears to depend not only on the strength of the claim, but also on which officials consider the claim, and whether or not the alien has an attorney.“ Asylum-seekers without a lawyer had a much lower chance of being granted asylum (2%) than those with an attorney (25%).
While DHS policy favors the release of asylum-seekers who have established credible fear, identity, community ties, and no likelihood of posing a security risk, implementation of these criteria also varies widely from place to place. The study found there was little documentation in the files to allow a determination of how these criteria were actually being applied.
The study said that in denying asylum applications on the basis of credibility, immigration judges frequently cited documents the study found to be unreliable and incomplete.
It added that there are serious impediments to communication and information-sharing within DHS. Unreliable and/or incomplete documentation “is susceptible to being misinterpreted”, or “misapplied by the immigration judge, and may ultimately result in the denial of the asylum-seeker’s claim.”
The study noted that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustained 24% of Expedited Removal asylum appeals in fiscal year 2001, only 2-4% of such appeals have been granted since 2002, when the court began allowing the issuance of “summary affirmances” rather than detailed decisions. “It is highly unlikely that any asylum seeker denied by an immigration judge will find protection by appealing to the BIA.”
It noted that Expedited Removal has been expanded twice in recent years, “without first addressing the flaws in the system which undermine the protections for asylum seekers”.
The study recommended that the incoming Secretary of Homeland Security “ensure that it is no longer he – but a high ranking official who reports to him – who is responsible for coordinating refugee and asylum matters among the various bureaus. Without day-to-day oversight of asylum policy and its implementation department-wide, the flaws in the system identified in this study cannot be effectively addressed”, leaving asylum-seekers “at risk of being returned to countries where they may face persecution.”
The study also recommended that the DHS should: Create an office -- headed by a high-level official --authorized to address cross-cutting issues related to asylum and expedited removal; ease the burden on the detention system, the immigration courts, and bona fide asylum seekers by allowing asylum officers to grant asylum in approvable cases at the time of the credible fear interview; promulgate regulations to promote more consistent implementation of existing parole criteria to ensure that credible asylum-seekers are released from detention; reconcile conflicting field guidance to require that any expression of fear at the port of entry must result in either a referral for a credible fear determination or contact with an asylum officer to speak to the alien via a telephonic interpretation service to determine whether or not the alien needs to be referred; facilitate legal assistance for asylum seekers subject to expedited removal; and implement and monitor quality assurance procedures to ensure more reliable information for homeland security purposes, and to ensure that asylum seekers are not turned away in error.
CIRF is an independent, bipartisan federal agency created to monitor religious freedom in other countries and advise the President, Secretary of State and Congress on how best to promote it.
The two key government departments in immigration matters – the DOJ and the DHS – have new leadership in the second Bush term. Former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales has become the new Attorney General, and a former DOJ official and now a Federal Judge, Michael Chertoff, is expected to be confirmed next week to head the DHS. Both have been criticized by human rights groups for helping shape post 9/11 U.S. policies on immigrant detention and prisoner abuse.
In the same week that the U.S House of Representatives passed restrictive new legislation that would make it far more difficult for refugees to gain asylum in the U.S., another arm of government, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (CIRF), issued a report charging that asylum-seekers are often jailed for long periods, treated like criminals, deported in a capricious and inconsistent manner that shows “extreme disparities” in who is granted asylum or deported, and are likely win asylum only if they have lawyers.
The House passed the REAL-ID Act, authored by conservative Republican James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin by a vote of 261 to 161, with 42 Democrats joining 219 Republicans in the majority. President Bush endorsed the measure, but did not actively lobby for its passage. Instead, he is pressing for a ‘guest worker’ program that would facilitate the entry of more immigrants, especially from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, who provide low-cost labor for jobs Americans do not seem to want.
The REAL-ID bill now goes to the U.S. Senate, where it is likely to face stiff bipartisan opposition. Sensenbrenner introduced a similar bill in the last session of Congress as part of the intelligence reorganization legislation designed to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but immigration provisions were largely stripped from the final bill by the Senate as a compromise to assure passage of the broader legislation.
The bill would block states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, restrict asylum , and complete a controversial border fence between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico. The White House said in a policy statement issued hours before debate began that the bill would "strengthen the ability of the United States to protect against terrorist entry into and activities within the United States." But immigration advocates, groups supporting civil and privacy rights, and state government organizations opposed the bill. They said it would make it harder for those fleeing persecution to seek asylum in this country and would endanger public safety and national security by denying driver's licenses to millions of illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (CIRF), established under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA), announced results of a study of how a new immigration procedure – Expedited Removal – was affecting asylum-seekers.
The study found that asylum-seekers are consistently detained in jails or jail-like facilities, along with criminals and aliens who have committed criminal offenses.
Immigration judges, the study concluded, had significantly different rates of granting or denying asylum claims, even within the same court, and immigration officers sometimes improperly encouraged asylum-seekers to withdraw their applications for admission.
In 15 percent (12/79) of observed cases, the study said, when an arriving alien expressed a fear of return to the inspector, the alien was not referred for a hearing. “Among these twelve cases were several aliens who expressed fear of political, religious, or ethnic persecution, which are clearly related to the grounds for asylum. In seven of these twelve cases, the inspector incorrectly indicated on the sworn statement that the applicant claimed he had no fear of return.”
Most DHS procedures lack effective quality assurance measures to ensure that they are consistently followed, the study declared. “Consequently, the outcome of an asylum claim appears to depend not only on the strength of the claim, but also on which officials consider the claim, and whether or not the alien has an attorney.“ Asylum-seekers without a lawyer had a much lower chance of being granted asylum (2%) than those with an attorney (25%).
While DHS policy favors the release of asylum-seekers who have established credible fear, identity, community ties, and no likelihood of posing a security risk, implementation of these criteria also varies widely from place to place. The study found there was little documentation in the files to allow a determination of how these criteria were actually being applied.
The study said that in denying asylum applications on the basis of credibility, immigration judges frequently cited documents the study found to be unreliable and incomplete.
It added that there are serious impediments to communication and information-sharing within DHS. Unreliable and/or incomplete documentation “is susceptible to being misinterpreted”, or “misapplied by the immigration judge, and may ultimately result in the denial of the asylum-seeker’s claim.”
The study noted that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustained 24% of Expedited Removal asylum appeals in fiscal year 2001, only 2-4% of such appeals have been granted since 2002, when the court began allowing the issuance of “summary affirmances” rather than detailed decisions. “It is highly unlikely that any asylum seeker denied by an immigration judge will find protection by appealing to the BIA.”
It noted that Expedited Removal has been expanded twice in recent years, “without first addressing the flaws in the system which undermine the protections for asylum seekers”.
The study recommended that the incoming Secretary of Homeland Security “ensure that it is no longer he – but a high ranking official who reports to him – who is responsible for coordinating refugee and asylum matters among the various bureaus. Without day-to-day oversight of asylum policy and its implementation department-wide, the flaws in the system identified in this study cannot be effectively addressed”, leaving asylum-seekers “at risk of being returned to countries where they may face persecution.”
The study also recommended that the DHS should: Create an office -- headed by a high-level official --authorized to address cross-cutting issues related to asylum and expedited removal; ease the burden on the detention system, the immigration courts, and bona fide asylum seekers by allowing asylum officers to grant asylum in approvable cases at the time of the credible fear interview; promulgate regulations to promote more consistent implementation of existing parole criteria to ensure that credible asylum-seekers are released from detention; reconcile conflicting field guidance to require that any expression of fear at the port of entry must result in either a referral for a credible fear determination or contact with an asylum officer to speak to the alien via a telephonic interpretation service to determine whether or not the alien needs to be referred; facilitate legal assistance for asylum seekers subject to expedited removal; and implement and monitor quality assurance procedures to ensure more reliable information for homeland security purposes, and to ensure that asylum seekers are not turned away in error.
CIRF is an independent, bipartisan federal agency created to monitor religious freedom in other countries and advise the President, Secretary of State and Congress on how best to promote it.
The two key government departments in immigration matters – the DOJ and the DHS – have new leadership in the second Bush term. Former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales has become the new Attorney General, and a former DOJ official and now a Federal Judge, Michael Chertoff, is expected to be confirmed next week to head the DHS. Both have been criticized by human rights groups for helping shape post 9/11 U.S. policies on immigrant detention and prisoner abuse.
LEGAL HUBRIS
By William Fisher
Shortly before he left office, former Attorney General John Ashcroft told employees at the Department of Justice (DOJ) that America is “a freer nation than before because our families can live peacefully in their communities, our wives, daughters and mothers can travel the streets safely, and our children are turning away from illegal drugs.”
But it would be difficult to convince Rodi Alvarado that she is “freer”.
Mrs. Alvarado is a Guatemalan refugee who is at the center of a 10-year debate over whether battered women can successfully gain asylum in the U.S. Her case had been in the hands of Mr. Ashcroft, who said two years ago he would decide her fate. But just before he stepped down, he passed the responsibility to his successor, Alberto Gonzales, former White House Counsel.
Ashcroft decided neither to grant nor deny asylum to Alvarado. He said a decision should await new regulations from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which supervises most immigration matters. The DHS says its new regulations would make domestic abuse a valid legal basis for asylum-seekers. The government started working on such regulations many years ago, long before the DHS was created.
The DHS says it will not press for Mrs. Alvarado’s deportation regardless of how much longer it may take the agency to finalize the new regulations. Meanwhile, Mrs. Alvarado remains in legal limbo. Though she can remain in the U.S., that is only a partial victory since she cannot be reunited with her children, who remain in Guatemala.
Mrs. Alvarado’s husband, a former soldier in the Guatemalan military, brutally beat her over a period of 10 years while the Guatemalan police and courts ignored her repeated attempts to get help. When she ran away, her husband found her and beat her unconscious. Finally, in 1995, she fled to the U.S. in search of safety. She now works as a housekeeper at a convent in San Francisco.
Mrs. Alvarado’s case has created a firestorm of bipartisan criticism of U.S. Government immigration policies. Advocates for women and immigration rights had hoped Alvarado's situation would already have led to a change in U.S. policy to recognize asylum cases filed by victims of domestic violence. Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno proposed such a change in her final hours in office in 2001.
With the change in administrations and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the proposal languished. Opponents have said new asylum rules would lead to a surge in claims, an assertion disputed by advocates.
Under U.S. law, asylum applicants have to show they can't go home because they face persecution because of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The regulation proposed by Reno would have allowed battered women to be considered members of a social group.
The Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinic Women’s Refugee Project, which filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief in the Alvarado case, said, “While we are disappointed that Attorney General Ashcroft did not follow the full recommendation of the Department of Homeland Security, and grant Mrs. Alvarado permanent asylum as he absolutely should have, we are encouraged that a basic regulatory framework -- at least in proposed form -- has been established which may allow for a principled approach to this issue." Nancy Kelly and Deborah Anker of Harvard said in a joint statement. "It is critical that women victims of violence be treated fairly and evenhandedly under U.S. law."
A coalition of organizations signed the Women Refugees Project's amicus brief and have supported Alvarado's efforts to obtain asylum. These organizations include the Center for Refugee Studies, Human Rights First and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, as well as Amnesty International-USA, the National Immigration, the Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the Women's Commission for Refugee Women & Children, and the Women’s Division of Human Rights Watch.
The Refugee Project says there is broad, bipartisan support for granting asylum to Alvarado, including from many conservative organizations and Republican
officeholders such as Concerned Women for America, World Relief, and U.S.
Republican Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine.
Mrs. Alvarado’s case could well be complicated by political environment created by the ongoing congressional controversy over immigration and asylum. Last week, the House of Representatives passed the so-called REAL I.D. act. The bill would block states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, restrict asylum , and complete a controversial border fence between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico. The White House said in a policy statement issued hours before debate began that the bill would "strengthen the ability of the United States to protect against terrorist entry into and activities within the United States."
But immigration advocates, groups supporting civil and privacy rights, and state government organizations opposed the bill. They said it would make it harder for those fleeing persecution to seek asylum in this country and would endanger public safety and national security by denying driver's licenses to millions of illegal immigrants.
The REAL-ID bill now goes to the U.S. Senate, where it is likely to face stiff bipartisan opposition. Sensenbrenner introduced a similar bill in the last session of Congress as part of the intelligence reorganization legislation designed to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but immigration provisions were largely stripped from the final bill by the Senate as a compromise to assure passage of the broader legislation.
Shortly before he left office, former Attorney General John Ashcroft told employees at the Department of Justice (DOJ) that America is “a freer nation than before because our families can live peacefully in their communities, our wives, daughters and mothers can travel the streets safely, and our children are turning away from illegal drugs.”
But it would be difficult to convince Rodi Alvarado that she is “freer”.
Mrs. Alvarado is a Guatemalan refugee who is at the center of a 10-year debate over whether battered women can successfully gain asylum in the U.S. Her case had been in the hands of Mr. Ashcroft, who said two years ago he would decide her fate. But just before he stepped down, he passed the responsibility to his successor, Alberto Gonzales, former White House Counsel.
Ashcroft decided neither to grant nor deny asylum to Alvarado. He said a decision should await new regulations from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which supervises most immigration matters. The DHS says its new regulations would make domestic abuse a valid legal basis for asylum-seekers. The government started working on such regulations many years ago, long before the DHS was created.
The DHS says it will not press for Mrs. Alvarado’s deportation regardless of how much longer it may take the agency to finalize the new regulations. Meanwhile, Mrs. Alvarado remains in legal limbo. Though she can remain in the U.S., that is only a partial victory since she cannot be reunited with her children, who remain in Guatemala.
Mrs. Alvarado’s husband, a former soldier in the Guatemalan military, brutally beat her over a period of 10 years while the Guatemalan police and courts ignored her repeated attempts to get help. When she ran away, her husband found her and beat her unconscious. Finally, in 1995, she fled to the U.S. in search of safety. She now works as a housekeeper at a convent in San Francisco.
Mrs. Alvarado’s case has created a firestorm of bipartisan criticism of U.S. Government immigration policies. Advocates for women and immigration rights had hoped Alvarado's situation would already have led to a change in U.S. policy to recognize asylum cases filed by victims of domestic violence. Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno proposed such a change in her final hours in office in 2001.
With the change in administrations and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the proposal languished. Opponents have said new asylum rules would lead to a surge in claims, an assertion disputed by advocates.
Under U.S. law, asylum applicants have to show they can't go home because they face persecution because of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The regulation proposed by Reno would have allowed battered women to be considered members of a social group.
The Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinic Women’s Refugee Project, which filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief in the Alvarado case, said, “While we are disappointed that Attorney General Ashcroft did not follow the full recommendation of the Department of Homeland Security, and grant Mrs. Alvarado permanent asylum as he absolutely should have, we are encouraged that a basic regulatory framework -- at least in proposed form -- has been established which may allow for a principled approach to this issue." Nancy Kelly and Deborah Anker of Harvard said in a joint statement. "It is critical that women victims of violence be treated fairly and evenhandedly under U.S. law."
A coalition of organizations signed the Women Refugees Project's amicus brief and have supported Alvarado's efforts to obtain asylum. These organizations include the Center for Refugee Studies, Human Rights First and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, as well as Amnesty International-USA, the National Immigration, the Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the Women's Commission for Refugee Women & Children, and the Women’s Division of Human Rights Watch.
The Refugee Project says there is broad, bipartisan support for granting asylum to Alvarado, including from many conservative organizations and Republican
officeholders such as Concerned Women for America, World Relief, and U.S.
Republican Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine.
Mrs. Alvarado’s case could well be complicated by political environment created by the ongoing congressional controversy over immigration and asylum. Last week, the House of Representatives passed the so-called REAL I.D. act. The bill would block states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, restrict asylum , and complete a controversial border fence between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico. The White House said in a policy statement issued hours before debate began that the bill would "strengthen the ability of the United States to protect against terrorist entry into and activities within the United States."
But immigration advocates, groups supporting civil and privacy rights, and state government organizations opposed the bill. They said it would make it harder for those fleeing persecution to seek asylum in this country and would endanger public safety and national security by denying driver's licenses to millions of illegal immigrants.
The REAL-ID bill now goes to the U.S. Senate, where it is likely to face stiff bipartisan opposition. Sensenbrenner introduced a similar bill in the last session of Congress as part of the intelligence reorganization legislation designed to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but immigration provisions were largely stripped from the final bill by the Senate as a compromise to assure passage of the broader legislation.
OUR SECRET GOVERNMENT
By William Fisher
From Washington this week came more evidence that the Bush Administration has no plans to change its excessive secrecy policies. The U.S Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) removed more than 20 significant documents from its website, and the Justice Department (DOJ) told an advocacy group it will cost them nearly $400,000 to obtain records they requested about immigrants detained after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Documents removed from the USCCR’s website include a number of reports that could embarrass the Bush Administration. For example: Briefing on Boundaries of Justice: Immigration Policies Post-September 11; Briefing on Civil Rights Issues Facing Muslims and Arab Americans in Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, and North Dakota Post-September 11; Briefing on the Consequences of Government Race Data Collection Bans on Civil Rights; and The Supreme Court Revisits Affirmative Action.
A majority of commissioners on the USCCR voted along party lines to remove the documents. The USCCR is a government agency. Of its seven commissioners, four are chosen by the President (currently Republicans) and three (currently two Democrats and one Independent) by Congress. Its mandate is to investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin; study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice; appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice; and serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws.
In another secrecy-related development, an advocacy group, People for the American Way (PAW) requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), all documents related to the decision to seal the records of immigrants detained in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. PAW believes the unusually large price tag is DOJ’s latest move in an ongoing struggle to withhold the information.
The civil rights organization filed the FOIA request more than a year ago. The Justice Department immediately denied the request on the grounds of privacy and then denied the organization’s appeal. PAW, unsatisfied with the Justice Department’s claims, filed a lawsuit in August 2004 seeking the records.
Two days before the deadline for arguing why the lawsuit should be summarily denied, the Justice Department reported that it had changed its position and would search for the requested records. PAW was told that an initial canvass of U.S. Attorneys’ offices led to an estimated search time of 13,314 hours. at $28 an hour, would make the total search fee approximately $373,000.
PAW requested the information so it could produce a public report about the
government’s efforts to use secrecy against hundreds of unidentified detainees
who were arrested and held for months without criminal charges following the
9/11 attacks.
Between 9/11 and the present time, some 5,000 people – mostly Arabs, other Muslims, and South Asians, have been arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), part of the DOJ. There have been no terrorist-related convictions. Most of the detainees were held in a prison system operated by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Many were held without charge or access to family or attorneys for months. Many were deported for typically minor visa violations, and some were returned to countries where they would likely be arrested and imprisoned by local security authorities. The DOJ has consistently refused to release the names of the detainees.
One of the architects of the post 9/11 detention policy was President Bush’s lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, who was recently confirmed to be the next Attorney General. Another former DOJ official, Judge Michael Chertoff, is thought to have been a key player in designing the policy; he has been nominated by President Bush to be the next heads of the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the immigration prison system.
PAW said it hopes to publish a report about government secrecy efforts against hundreds of unidentified detainees.
The organization’s president, Ralph G. Neas, said the DOJ’s fee demand is “outrageous, and another in a series of strategies to deny access to public information. Apparently, they’ve taken the ‘free’ out of ‘Freedom of Information.’ If you want to learn about secret trials carried out by your government with your money, you’re going to need deep pockets,” said Neas.
“It’s clear that this is just the latest tactic in the Justice Department’s ongoing effort to hide information from the American public, particularly about ‘secret’ legal proceedings for immigrants held for months and sometimes years in the wake of the terrorist attacks,” said Neas.
In an editorial, The New York Times said the DOJ was charging a “huge fee (that) is well beyond established criteria and amounts to an insult to intent of Freedom of Information Act”. The FOIA was signed in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and was intended to give citizens more access to government documents.
PAW’s request was prompted by the secret case of a Deerfield Beach, Fla., resident, Mohamed Kamel Bellahouel, an Algerian native and one of hundreds of men of Middle East origin detained without criminal charge by federal agents following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Bellahouel, a waiter, was detained by FBI agents for overstaying his student visa after they learned he'd probably served food to some of the hijackers and may have been seen going into a movie theater with a hijacker.
He spent five months in custody and was called to testify before the grand jury that indicted accused Sept. 11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. He was released in March 2002, without any criminal charge. But his habeas case proceeded secretly for another year until it was mistakenly placed on the docket at the appellate court in Miami.
While he was still in custody, in January 2002, Bellahouel filed a habeas corpus case in The Southern District of Florida. The case proceeded in complete secrecy on orders of U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck. A clerk's error at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2003 briefly let Bellahouel's name surface, allowing a newspaper to discover his case. Now, Bellahouel's name appears nowhere on the Southern District's public docket.
Last year, PAW joined a coalition formed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, including 23 media, law and public interest organizations -- including the New York Times and American Lawyer Media, the Daily Business Review's parent, that unsuccessfully sought to formally intervene in Bellahouel's heavily censored case, which was then before the Supreme Court for possible review. The Daily Business Review is the newspaper that discovered the error made by the court clerk.
From Washington this week came more evidence that the Bush Administration has no plans to change its excessive secrecy policies. The U.S Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) removed more than 20 significant documents from its website, and the Justice Department (DOJ) told an advocacy group it will cost them nearly $400,000 to obtain records they requested about immigrants detained after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Documents removed from the USCCR’s website include a number of reports that could embarrass the Bush Administration. For example: Briefing on Boundaries of Justice: Immigration Policies Post-September 11; Briefing on Civil Rights Issues Facing Muslims and Arab Americans in Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, and North Dakota Post-September 11; Briefing on the Consequences of Government Race Data Collection Bans on Civil Rights; and The Supreme Court Revisits Affirmative Action.
A majority of commissioners on the USCCR voted along party lines to remove the documents. The USCCR is a government agency. Of its seven commissioners, four are chosen by the President (currently Republicans) and three (currently two Democrats and one Independent) by Congress. Its mandate is to investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin; study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice; appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice; and serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws.
In another secrecy-related development, an advocacy group, People for the American Way (PAW) requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), all documents related to the decision to seal the records of immigrants detained in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. PAW believes the unusually large price tag is DOJ’s latest move in an ongoing struggle to withhold the information.
The civil rights organization filed the FOIA request more than a year ago. The Justice Department immediately denied the request on the grounds of privacy and then denied the organization’s appeal. PAW, unsatisfied with the Justice Department’s claims, filed a lawsuit in August 2004 seeking the records.
Two days before the deadline for arguing why the lawsuit should be summarily denied, the Justice Department reported that it had changed its position and would search for the requested records. PAW was told that an initial canvass of U.S. Attorneys’ offices led to an estimated search time of 13,314 hours. at $28 an hour, would make the total search fee approximately $373,000.
PAW requested the information so it could produce a public report about the
government’s efforts to use secrecy against hundreds of unidentified detainees
who were arrested and held for months without criminal charges following the
9/11 attacks.
Between 9/11 and the present time, some 5,000 people – mostly Arabs, other Muslims, and South Asians, have been arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), part of the DOJ. There have been no terrorist-related convictions. Most of the detainees were held in a prison system operated by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Many were held without charge or access to family or attorneys for months. Many were deported for typically minor visa violations, and some were returned to countries where they would likely be arrested and imprisoned by local security authorities. The DOJ has consistently refused to release the names of the detainees.
One of the architects of the post 9/11 detention policy was President Bush’s lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, who was recently confirmed to be the next Attorney General. Another former DOJ official, Judge Michael Chertoff, is thought to have been a key player in designing the policy; he has been nominated by President Bush to be the next heads of the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the immigration prison system.
PAW said it hopes to publish a report about government secrecy efforts against hundreds of unidentified detainees.
The organization’s president, Ralph G. Neas, said the DOJ’s fee demand is “outrageous, and another in a series of strategies to deny access to public information. Apparently, they’ve taken the ‘free’ out of ‘Freedom of Information.’ If you want to learn about secret trials carried out by your government with your money, you’re going to need deep pockets,” said Neas.
“It’s clear that this is just the latest tactic in the Justice Department’s ongoing effort to hide information from the American public, particularly about ‘secret’ legal proceedings for immigrants held for months and sometimes years in the wake of the terrorist attacks,” said Neas.
In an editorial, The New York Times said the DOJ was charging a “huge fee (that) is well beyond established criteria and amounts to an insult to intent of Freedom of Information Act”. The FOIA was signed in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and was intended to give citizens more access to government documents.
PAW’s request was prompted by the secret case of a Deerfield Beach, Fla., resident, Mohamed Kamel Bellahouel, an Algerian native and one of hundreds of men of Middle East origin detained without criminal charge by federal agents following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Bellahouel, a waiter, was detained by FBI agents for overstaying his student visa after they learned he'd probably served food to some of the hijackers and may have been seen going into a movie theater with a hijacker.
He spent five months in custody and was called to testify before the grand jury that indicted accused Sept. 11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. He was released in March 2002, without any criminal charge. But his habeas case proceeded secretly for another year until it was mistakenly placed on the docket at the appellate court in Miami.
While he was still in custody, in January 2002, Bellahouel filed a habeas corpus case in The Southern District of Florida. The case proceeded in complete secrecy on orders of U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck. A clerk's error at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2003 briefly let Bellahouel's name surface, allowing a newspaper to discover his case. Now, Bellahouel's name appears nowhere on the Southern District's public docket.
Last year, PAW joined a coalition formed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, including 23 media, law and public interest organizations -- including the New York Times and American Lawyer Media, the Daily Business Review's parent, that unsuccessfully sought to formally intervene in Bellahouel's heavily censored case, which was then before the Supreme Court for possible review. The Daily Business Review is the newspaper that discovered the error made by the court clerk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
