The Current Online

by Farhan Zahid

A proposed measure to narrow the far-reaching powers of government surveillance and law enforcement enacted by 2001′s PATRIOT Act, the Security and Freedom Enhanced (SAFE) Act, bill S. 1709, was introduced in the U.S. Senate and House last month. The SAFE Act would provide stronger standards for judicial review and oversight.

The PATRIOT Act was pushed through Congress by the Bush administration in a matter of days, with little debate and few dissenting votes in the wake of the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks. The PATRIOT Act permits the use of “sneak and peek” measures and delayed notification searches, in practically any criminal investigation. The deadline for notifying the subject of the search is indefinite. The bill was followed up with a plethora of similar executive orders, regulations and policies, such as establishing military commissions not adhering to due process norms and denying the right to a fair trial for citizens and non-citizens labeled “enemy combatants.” The Justice Department asserts that these extra measures are necessary to thwart terrorists before they strike.

The new bill has broad bi-partisan support. Sponsors in the senate include Democrats Russ Feingold (WI) and Ron Wyden (OR) and Republicans Larry Craig (ID) and John Sununu (NH). In the house, sponsors include Democrats Dennis Kucinich (OH) and Barney Frank (MA) and Republicans Butch Otter (ID) and Ron Paul (TX). Liberal and conservative organizations alike, sharing a mutual concern for civil liberties, are advocating the SAFE Act. This includes the American Conservative Union, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association and Gun Owners of America. Lara W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, says on the organization’s website that the strong bi-partisan support is indicative of the vast extent to which the Bush administration has strayed from our traditional system of checks and balances against overreaching government authority.

The SAFE Act would allow the “sneak and peek” authority to be used only in circumstances in which a federal judge rules that without the delayed notification, an individual’s physical safety will be endangered, someone will flee prosecution, or evidence faces destruction. The notification deadline would also be changed to seven days.

However, law enforcement would be able to seek indefinite extensions issued on a weekly basis by a federal judge. The proposed law also requires a semi-annual report to congress from the U.S. attorney general in regard to the status, permitted or denied, of delayed notification searches and extensions. Moreover, the SAFE Act has a provision that repeals its sneak and peek power in 2005, only to be reinstated if voted for in Congress.

Among the most controversial provisions in the PATRIOT Act is section 215, which grants the FBI permission to obtain Americans’ business, library, medical and genetic records without probable cause. Under the SAFE Act, the government must prove to a federal judge that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power to receive this privilege.

The house version of the bill goes further than its senate counterpart by replacing the PATRIOT Act’s broad and vague definition of “domestic terrorism,” which could cover some acts of civil disobedience by non-violent political protestors. The new definition associates domestic terrorism with serious violent crimes such as bombing, kidnapping and hijacking.

More than 200 cities, towns and counties in 34 states, including Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Oakland, Seattle, Detroit and Baltimore, with a combined population of around 26 million, have passed resolutions in opposition to the PATRIOT Act and declared themselves “civil liberties safe zones.” Local police are forbidden to engage in racial profiling, enforce immigration laws or participate in federal investigations that violate civil liberties. Dozens of state library associations have also passed-anti-PATRIOT-Act resolutions.

Since Jan 27, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) had been holding special registrations for men–many of whom are students–visiting our country from certain Middle Eastern nations.
Special registration, officially called the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), is a system that allows the government to track non-immigrants in the U.S. The system requires those visitors who are in the U.S. on temporary visas to register with and report to the INS. There are four elements to the program: entry processing, periodic reporting requirements, address change notification and departure control.
The first step of the process is a detailed interview with the traveler at the time of entry into the country. The traveler will be finger printed and photographed, and questioned about the details of his or her trip including planned activities, visits, residence and meetings. Records of the interviews will be kept on the INS database and the traveler is obligated to keep the INS informed of his or her activities.
For any special registrants who are in the country more than 30 days, an in-person interview is required during the ten-day period following the thirtieth day after his or her entry into the country. The special registrant will be fingerprinted and photographed again as proof of identity, questioned about their activities and future plans, and required to provide documentary evidence proving that he or she has maintained a lawful immigration status. For example, a non-immigrant student must present school records, transcripts and proof of tuition payment.
In addition to the 30-day interview, any special registrant who is in the country for more than a year must report for an in-person interview within the ten-day period following the anniversary of his or her last entry into the country.
Special registrants, like all non-immigrants, are required to notify the INS of any changes of address. Unlike other non-immigrants, special registrants must also notify the INS of any changes of employment and educational institution.
Finally, any special registrants wishing to depart the country must use specially designated ports that have the proper processing facilities. He or she must meet with an INS officer at the port on the date of departure, be subjected to final fingerprinting and photographing, questioned about their activities and required to provide final paperwork proving the lawfulness of their stay in the U.S.

by PAULA BLANTON

American Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell angered many Muslim-Americans with a statement he made about the prophet Muhammad.
“I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough by both Muslims and non-Muslims [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war.” Falwell made these comments in a taped interview on”60 Minutes in October.
According to an article from the BBC, when news of the remarks hit worldwide it set off riots, including one in India where it left at least eight people dead. Later, Falwell apologized about his comments and insisted that he’s always respected other faiths and religions. Of course, Falwell is not a stranger to controversial comments. Just last year, right after the attacks, Falwell publicly attacked atheists, gays and civil-rights activists, saying that they had angered God.
While the rest of the nation was marking the one-year anniversary of the attacks last month, three Florida students were being accused of plotting terrorist attacks. Kambiz Butt, Ayman Gheith and Omer Choudhary, all resident student doctors, were dining at a Shoney’s in Georgia when customer Eunice Stone allegedly overheard them talk and joke about the Sept. 11 attacks. Stone got frightened and called the State Patrol. While leaving the area, the students’ cars were pulled off the highway to be sniffed by dogs and robots. An empty bag was blown up that authorities believed may have carried explosive devices. Authorities even accused the students of going through a tollbooth without paying,. Tapes later proved the charge to be false. During this whole ordeal, the students were held for questioning for 17 hours. It was only later, when the students talked to reporters nationwide, that the whole story came out that they were discussing ways to bring a car from Kansas City, MO to Miami, FL.
All of the students were interning at Larkin Community Hospital in South Miami, FL. Unfortunately, the hospital declined to accept them back at this time because of racist threats directed to them and the students. Luckily, the three students were released without any charges against them and a hospital in the Caribbean has decided to take them in.

Muslim-American groups were angered by not only what the students were accused of but also by authorities who assumed that they were terrorists because of their ethnic background and subjected them to a search by nearly 600 officers.
“The whole incident was a complete over-reaction based on stereotypes,” says Attaf Ali, Chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Muslim-Americans are not the only ones who feel this way. Muslim-Canadians reportedly feel similar as well. The Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada (CAIR-CAN) conducted a survey of about 300 participants on how they’ve been treated in the past year. Sixty percent felt they’ve been subjected to discrimination while an overwhelming 80 percent know someone who has. Even some Canadian columns and editorials have described Muslims as “murderous” and”"barbaric.” Nearly half of all non-Muslim-Canadians favored some form of racial profiling or another.
Here in America, much of this is not uncommon. Jewish- and Italian-Americans were discriminated against earlier this century, while Japanese-Americans were detained in interment camps across the west coast during World War II. With the “war against terrorism” going on right now it seems like we, as Americans, haven’t learned a thing about embracing other cultures, only repeating our own mistakes.

Getting from A to B has gotten more complicated

by HEBAH AMIN

The events of September 11, 2001 have changed the United States. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the airports.
Stronger x-ray scanning machines, more frequent and random searches—we’ve all heard of them. I had the (mis)fortune to encounter all three implementations during my family’s annual trip to Egypt.
At first glance, Kansas City International Airport looks the same as always, but on second inspection, it’s apparent that the security: traveler ratio is decidedly higher than last year, pre-September 11.
The clerks behind the check-in desk were friendly enough. We had to put our luggage through a high-powered x-ray. A sign warns that the x-rays might damage any film in the luggage. Guess what was buried in the bottom of my luggage, thereby inaccessible? I haven’t developed my film yet, but I suspect it was exposed in the x-ray machine.
The fun part of the airport experience came when I went to enter the gate area. I made sure to take off all of my jewelry, my watch, anything that might possibly set off the metal detector. I walked through. It beeped.
I walked through again. It beeped again. One of the female guards wanded me, and we discovered the cause—my shoes, the ones my family affectionately dubbed “combat boots.” Apparently, the metal detectors for international departures are set to a higher sensitivity, because I wore the same boots through airport security earlier in the summer without setting off a single alarm. Finally, I had to take off my boots so they could be put on the belt and x-rayed. After all that fuss, they decided there was nothing wrong and I put my boots back on to wait to board.
When it was our turn to board, we were diverted to a blocked off area, thanks to the newly implemented “random” searches. The woman collecting passes explained that the “SSSS” printed on the bottom of the boarding pass was the airline’s system for random selection. What we found slightly suspicious about the affair was that four people, traveling together, with Arab-sounding last names, heading for the “Middle East” all got randomly selected.
Another female guard wanded me down and, once again, my boots made the wand beep. For the second time within half an hour, I had to take off my boots. Meanwhile, another guard rifled through my purse. He didn’t find anything dangerous, although he did find lots of gum wrappers, two books, a hand mirror, my wallet, my car key. The good news was that I didn’t have any nail clippers in there. He did flip rather suspiciously through my Wheel of Time book. What he was expecting to find, I have no idea.
In the end, we were declared harmless and were allowed to board.
On the return trip, I wore sandals.

by MEGAN LOGAN

Heightened security. How tight is security at a federal courthouse September 11, 2002 one year later.

On a normal day at the courthouse, visitors can only enter through the front doors and walk to the security desk. There, you have to produce your photo ID, state why you are there, put all of your belongings on the x-ray belt, turn off and turn in cellular phones and pagers and finally walk through the metal detector. From there you are free to go to your floor and continue your business as usual.

On September 11, 2002, security was a little tighter. More guards both outside and inside the lobby. The biggest change was not the security but the attitudes and the tempers of those at the courthouse. Visitors were told to remain in the lobby for a remembrance service that was going to be held. All were given a red white and blue ribbon and a small American flag. The flags were raised for the moment of silence. The quite ahh of the crowd was almost unnerving as the pictures of the rubble and destruction that were displayed. The devastation in the faces of the people in the pictures was also felt by the people that stood in the lobby.

As the ceremony ended and people dried their eyes and returned to the courthouse, were all reminded of why we were there and how important our job is to the amazing country that we live in.