ZGram - October 6, 2004 - "House About to Strip More Civil Liberties in Name of Anti-terrorism"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

Zgram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

October 6, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Remember how last summer I placed three full-page ads in the 
Washington Times, alerting the Senate and Congress to the 
extrajudicial kidnapping of Ernst Zundel?  One of those ads - which, 
incidentally, can now be found in the Zundel file kept in the Justice 
Department, as we found out through the Freedom of Information Act - 
was specifically directed at Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  Never did I hear a peep out of 
his office - not even a courtesy call! 

Now I know why.

Please read the article below very carefully - and let it sink in 
what it means.  And whether or not YOU might be a "terrorist" or 
"human rights" thought criminal will entirely depend on your 
government's say-so, probably egged on by special interest groups. 

[START]

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1074

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the legislation would require asylum seekers to prove 
that their race, religion, political opinion, nationality or 
membership in a particular social group was the central motive for 
their persecution - a provision no other country requires, according 
to human rights advocacy group Human Rights First. Advocates say that 
proving a central motive for persecution is often impossible.
Corcoran said the legislation would make proving gender-based 
persecution especially difficult. "I think the best example is a 
woman being beaten by her husband," she said. "It's probably for a 
lot of reasons -- including that he thinks she is his property, but 
maybe also because he's drunk or had a bad day at work." Cases like 
these, she said, would be difficult to win if the House bill passes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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