prairie fire organizing committee

CIVIL LIBERTIES PRESENTATION

Elgin, Illinois
Melinda Power for Prairie Fire Organizing Committee
9/28/02

I recently read a book entitled Many Are the Crimes - McCarthyism in America by Ellen Schrecker. Although it discusses the U.S. in the 40s and 50s it has much to say about the current reality we face.

The book examines the impact that McCarthyism had on many sectors of U.S. society. During the McCarthy period the government successfully intimidated into silence, acquiescence and acceptance the vast majority of people in this country with notable exceptions.

The central question Dr. Schrecker asked is, "Why did so many otherwise well-meaning, intelligent, even liberal Americans collaborate with the political repression of the late 1940s and 1950s? The question is crucial not only for reckoning with McCarthyism, but also for coming to terms with the way repression operates in a democratic society and understanding how even today so many Americans can condone similar injustices carried out in the name of the state. For above all, it was the adoption of an anti-communist agenda by the federal government that brought the rest of the nation into the crusade. Patriotism expedited the injustices of McCarthyism." pg. xvi.

Why was the government successful? Because it skillfully portrayed the Communist Party (CP) as an organization that posed such an imminent and violent threat that the government had to have the power to do whatever was necessary to quash the "Red Menace" and we, as loyal and patriotic Americans, had to accept whatever the government did.

The worst thing to be in the U.S. in the 50s was a Communist. Those who were tainted as communists lost their jobs, many of their friends and often were incarcerated. For example, the first woman President (in 1970!) of the National Lawyers Guild, Doris Brin Walker, was a member of the CP. She was fired from her job in 1949 because of her membership in the CP. The Supreme Court upheld her firing. As a good example of people who did defy the government at that time, the National Lawyers Guild welcomed her into our organization.

I believe that there are similarities and dissimilarities between the 50s and today. Before I discuss in more detail the USA Patriot Act and its impact, let me stress one question that is of particular current concern to me. How has the government been able to pass such incredibly repressive legislation and carry out such unconstitutional actions since September 11, 2001? Because, as in the 50s, fear permeates our society.

To explore this question, I want to talk about an incident that occurred two weeks ago that illustrates this point very well. The federal government shut down the Florida interstate for hours based on a conversation of three men suspected of being Muslims overheard by a white woman from Georgia. The three men were not "terrorists" but medical students en route from Illinois to work at a hospital in Miami. They were locked up for 18 hours. The government found nothing indicating their involvement in terrorism and after much questioning, without a lawyer present, the three men were released. What did the husband of the woman who claimed to have heard the three men's conversation say upon hearing this? He said, "Well, we have to watch out for them."

The hospital where they were to work has refused to let them work there, stating that it has have received over 2000 emails, most of them unfavorable to the men. Happily, another hospital has accepted them.

This is the climate in which we live. I'm sure that the woman saw three Muslim men eating at her local Shoneys and freaked out - not because the three men did anything but because they fit the terrorist bill - Muslim men in America. The government then totally and illegally overreacted. No apology has come from either the woman or the government to the three men whose lives they so unjustly disrupted.

What do the emailers reveal? Unfortunately, they illustrate the blind, illogical and racist fear towards Muslims that many people have here. Even though the government declared they were innocent of any wrongdoing, the e-mailers stated "we don't want them here they are terrorists." Then, instead of the hospital taking the honorable position of welcoming the men, the hospital refused to give them their positions.

In Chicago, a prosecution initiated and personally conducted by Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald, the new U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, illustrates the consequences of the U.S. government's new powers to arrest without probable cause and deny bail to those accused or suspected of connections with terrorism. In the case of U.S. A. v. Benevolence International Foundation, Inc. and Enaam M. Arnaout, the government has incarcerated Mr. Arnaout since April without bail on the charge of perjury for allegedly signing false court documents. The government suspects that Mr. Arnaout has given money to "terrorists" yet apparently does not have proof of that suspicion. Thus, the government charged him with the relatively minor charge of perjury. By smearing him as a supporter of terrorism, the government successfully got him held without bail. The government did not allege that Mr. Arnaout had ever falsely testified in court or even in a deposition which is an essential element for the perjury charge. As Judge Gottschall wrote in her opinion dismissing the charge, perjury refers to sworn testimony either in court or in a deposition. Is it possible that Mr. Fitzgerald didn't know this? And if he didn't, one would have to question his capabilities as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District. I suggest that he seized advantage of the political and legal climate to falsely incarcerate Mr. Arnaout.

During the almost six months Mr. Arnaout was incarcerated, why was there no public protest of his situation? I know of none, except for a protest two weeks ago at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago where he is incarcerated. Now that this charge has been dismissed, where is the outcry that a man was incarcerated on such a patently false charge? What is the government's response? No apology, none at all. In fact, before Mr. Arnaout could even walk out the prison door, the government brought another perjury charge against him. And now the U.S. Attorney is arguing that Judge Gottschall has no jurisdiction to hear this new charge despite its similarity with the previous perjury charge.

There may be many reasons why people have not protested this arrest. Certainly, one of the reasons is because we were afraid to appear to support "terrorists" - even if that person was not convicted of any crime and, as we now know, was falsely charged. We need to challenge ourselves to overcome this fear and stand up for what we know is right. We need to say to ourselves, is this the kind of society we want to live in? If not, what can we do to challenge what is happening?

In this climate of fear, shaped by the acceptance that "the other" - the Arab male - is one towards whom we have the right to be suspicious, we need to reject fear. And we can. For example, last year the ACLU and the NLG organized lawyers to represent the over 8,000 Arab men who were questioned here and nationwide by the FBI. Luckily, many lawyers came forward to volunteer. But, many did not. As political activists, as people concerned about the world in which we live, we need to make sure that we do not behave as did many people in the 50s. We cannot let fear paralyze us into inaction. But, obviously, if that were the case, you wouldn't be here today. Since I have now addressed the political climate that has permitted the government to enact such repressive legislation, let's discuss what that legislation is.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. said in February 2002 that Bush's military and homeland defense proposals as outlined in the State of the Union address amount to a police state.

The situation has not improved since that date. Unfortunately, he is not exaggerating nor is he describing an entirely new reality for many people in the U.S. As we discuss the new reality in the U.S. we need to keep in mind that police repression is nothing new for many communities in the U.S. For example:

• 45% of Black men in Chicago are in jail, prison, on probation or parole
• Black women make up the fastest growing prison population in the U.S.
• Chicago police routinely and without justification stop and search Puerto Rican youth in the Humboldt Park area of town where I work.

Congress enacted the USA Patriot Act, allegedly to combat terrorism, on October 26, 2001 with a 98 for and 1 vote against. Its definition of terrorism is very broad: "illegal acts dangerous to human life that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". This allows the government and its agencies, including the police, to implement the so-called Patriot Act with broad discretion. It will remain in effect for four years but could be extended.

The Act makes changes in the following areas:

• the government has almost unlimited power to conduct surveillance and gather intelligence;
• there are new criminal laws, enhanced penalties and longer statue of limitation which means the government can wait longer to bring charges and
• non citizens have few,if any, rights.

Surveillance

• No probable cause or a reason for the surveillance is needed - just a bare assertion that this surveillance is needed to protect the country from terrorism.
• wiretaps can be placed on the person not a particular phone so that any phone used by a suspected person can now be tapped. The government claims it will listen only to criminal activity on the phone, but who believes that?
• e-mail - the new Carnivore program is a tracking system that intercepts all internet activity and allows the government to read e-mail messages. Using the same reasoning that it's the person who is being surveilled, anywhere an e-mail is used can be surveilled, i.e. public libraries.

Let me offer one piece of advice. Don't say anything on the phone or e-mail you don't want the government to know about.

Infiltrators

Are now permitted to gain information about supposed terrorist activity. Given the above definition of terrorism, not only should we expect government informants to infiltrate many Arab and Muslim organizations, but also political organizations and activities such as this one. Under the government's definition of terrorism, actions such as the November 2002 massive civil disobedience opposing the School of the Americas at Ft. Benning Georgia could be prosecuted under the a Patriot Act.

Searches

The government can search a person's home or work place without letting that individual know prior to the search. This allows the government to engage in searches knowing that the legality of the search can be challenged prior to the search.

Records

The government can get access to sensitive personal records simply by claiming that they are needed for an investigation into terrorism.

Non U.S. citizens

Basically, they have no rights. The government says only U.S. citizens are entitled to certain rights. This is a flawed approach. The rights exist because society has determined that there are rights to which all people are entitled, not based on one's status in the U.S. Further, rights that had served to protect all people in the U.S. were put in place to ensure that government agencies, such as the police and the FBI, didn't engage in nefarious behavior. At least 1200 non citizens have been taken into custody as suspected terrorists since 911. Not a single one has been charged with any terrorist activity. Attorney General Ashcroft refuses to divulge their names and identities claiming he is only trying to protect them, but really he wants to ensure their isolation. According to a recent Washington Post story, most have been released or deported. 112 have been criminally charged, mainly with immigration offenses, such as lying on immigration papers. This round up has been a total failure. The government should admit it, apologize and compensate the 1200 victims.

The government can now demand that schools turn over records on non U.S. citizen students class attendance, courses they take and school activities. Unfortunately, most universities have complied.

Military tribunals

Theoretically, military tribunals apply only to non U.S. citizens however, the government has discussed trying Jose Padilla, the Puerto Rican man from Chicago, in a military tribunal.

Military tribunals have little legal protection: secret trials, the death sentence can be imposed by a 2/3 vote and the government has a reduced burden of proof in order to have the defendant be found guilty.

The American Bar Association, composed of 408,000 lawyers, has opposed the above reduced legal protections.

This summer, Attorney General Ashcroft revealed the government's TIPS program: (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) to recruit Americans, particularly mail carriers, utility workers and others to spy on other Americans. There has been a public outcry, but we don't know what is really happening regarding this program. This is part of an attempt to encourage people to view others - particularly the "other" - with suspicion and turn us into volunteer spies for the government.

Although not operating as a result of any legislation, the situation in Guantanamo has to be mentioned. Right now, there are at least 598 prisoners from 43 countries labeled "enemy combatants." Who are these prisoners? Why are they there? No one seems to know - and few seem to care. The New York Times, in a September 14,2002 article, refers to them as the "human detritus of terrorism". The government has not charged them. There are no trial dates, nor are there any release dates. Is it any surprise that thirty-four of the prisoners have tried to kill themselves and eighty prisoners are in solitary confinement due to emotional problems? This is a situation that we must address.

All is not hopeless, for example there has been a change in public opinion since shortly after 911. In a September, 2002 poll by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, there has been a shift to support civil liberties and away from overwhelming support for any governmental action carried out in the name of security. Now, 44% of those polled state it's more important to ensure civil liberties vs. 47% who say it's more important to find every potential terrorist than to protect civil liberties. In contrast, in November 2001, 66% of Americans supported stopping and searching Arab or Middle Eastern people to see if they might be involved in terrorist activities.

Finally, on September 10 2002, the N.Y. Times had an editorial entitled "The War on Civil Liberties" decrying the loss of civil liberties, recognizing belatedly that "to slash away at liberty in order to defend it is not only illogical, it has proved to be a failure". The New York Times did not oppose the attack on civil liberties until very recently.

But, if the U.S. invades Iraq, or a so-called terrorist act happens in the U.S., what will the N.Y. Times say? It's up to us to impact the New York Times and others by our actions. If we don't more repression may come. I recently spoke with a friend who was active in the resistance to the Nazis during WW2. She compared the situation in the U.S. with the rise of fascism in Germany. Unfortunately, she said there has been much less resistance to the repressive measures here than there was in Germany.

The government wants us to be too afraid to protest - afraid that we will be viewed as anti U.S.; afraid of repression; afraid of the real consequences taking unpopular positions will have on our jobs or our future. The government relies on fear to rule. We need to challenge that fear. It's great that people have continues to protest. For example, every week there are peace vigils in DeKalb. There will be a major demonstration October 7, 2002, one year after the U.S. began to attack Afghanistan, in Chicago. Our main demand is to oppose war on Iraq. We also will march to the Israeli consulate in support of the Palestinian people. We need you there. It's essential that we support arrested people, particularly Arabs and Muslims who are presently the most vulnerable sectors of U.S. society.

Our actions can and do make a difference.