You, Too, Could Be A Suspected Terrorist
Anthony Romero and Barbara Brenner
Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union; Director of Breast Cancer Action
Thursday, August 19, 2004; 2:00 p.m. ET
Is your name on the Treasury Department’s list of “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons?” Executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony Romero, discovered his name on the government watch list when his organization considered signing a federal funding agreement. And here’s what he had to say about it:
“All Americans have an important obligation and role in this country's efforts to protect us from those who would harm us. But these lists, which are notoriously vague and riddled with errors, are not the best way to fight terrorism. Just take me as an example.”
Anthony Romero will be live online with coalition member Barbara Brenner at 2 ET on Thursday, August 19, to discuss cautions needed in the war on terrorism.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Alexandria, Va.:
While I've heard of this list, I must admit I don't understand exactly what it is supposed to be and who and how it is used. Can you enlighten me ?
: We're now learning more about these lists and how they are to be used. The Combined Federal Campaign lists several watch lists that it now tells participating charities that we are to consult. These are government watch lists that are notoriously riddled with error.
After the controversy with the CFC, the ACLU began doing some more research and uncovered the 1977 law that I reference in my op-ed, which creates liability for all US employers and persons who transact with individuals on these lists.
We worry about the proliferation of such lists, and the fact that innocent people might suffer injury as more and more employers and individuals are forced to consult them.
_______________________
Glenmont, Md:
You seem critical of almost every attempt the government has to counter the islamic terrorist threat. Is it your opinion that the government should just ignore the threat?
: No-- the government shouldn't ignore the threat. The ACLU office is only 9 blocks from ground zero. We also lost a tremendous man in the 9/11 attacks who was a member of the ACLU Board of NY, and also a NY police officer.
We believe that the government does have an affirmative obligation to keep us safe from harm. But -- and this is an important "but" -- it must do so in way that also protects the best of American values and traditions.
We argue that America must be "safe and free" -- and that the measures that the government enacts must be effective. Ambiguous watch lists that are riddled with errors won't make us safer. We need to focus on those reforms that do.
But thanks for raising the critical question that we all have to address.
_______________________
San Francisco, Ca.:
In response to the danger of a terrorist attack killing thousands of people, as happened on 9/11/01, does the ACLU still take the unrealistic position that absolutely no civil liberties should be limited in any way, or do you agree to certain common sense restrictions of some civil liberties so that we can have increased safety? If so, what compromises does the ACLU agree to? And please don't repeat any tired, obsolete quotes from Ben Franklin because that was then, when they had slavery, and this is now, when we face terrorists who might get weapons of mass destruction.
Anthony Romero: With all due respect, I never thought that Ben Franklin was obsolete or tired!! If you're not careful, you might find yourself on one of the Justice Department watch lists becuase you are insulting our founding fathers (smile). After all, the FBI is interrogating all kinds of folks who seem to be doing nothing more than criticizing the government.
In an all seriousness, and your question merits a serious response, we DON'T oppose all the government's efforts to keep us safe. In fact, we have never called for the complete repeal of the Patriot Act -- only those sections that we believe are unconstitutional. And joining in those criticisms are many Republicans (Butch Otter, Dick Armey, Bob Barr, etc), who believe that the government went too far, too fast.
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.:
No one can deny that alot of the post-9/11 security measures range from usless to rediculous to even counter-productive. The Color Threat-Level warning system is a perfect example. However, no one can also deny that people from different national/religious backgrounds do represent a greater threat than others. For your organization to disagree with placing muslim/arab citizens in a higher risk shows an unwillingness to accept the threat of terrorism. Your thoughts?
Anthony Romero: I agree with you to the extent that we have to focus on reforms and efforts that make a difference.
But, using race and religion as proxies for suspicion is not effective law enforcement. By focusing on broad categories of people (rather than on individuals who act suspiciously), we are casting too broad a net and squandering limited law enforcement dollars.
Such measures also alienate the very communities that we ought to be relying upon for assistance.
Finally, we can't use immigration status or national origin as proxies either. Look at the nationality of many of the individuals who have been apprehended by the government.
John Walker Lindh (American)
Richard Reid (British)
Moussouai (sp?) (French)
Padilla (American)
Hamdi (American)
Let's focus on the suspects where we have individualized criminal suspicion -- rather than on broad categories.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
It seems a certainty that if we have another major terrorist attack in the U.S., the public and politicians will all be willing to make significant sacrifices to our civil liberties. The Justice Department will be first in line to start crossing out lines in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Is there anything that can be done in advance of an attack to ensure that mass hysteria does not cause us to lose sight of why our rights are so important?
Anthony Romero: That's the reason why we're here on this web chat.
We need to engage the broader public in this important debate. And if we wait to do so after another terrorist attack, we will find the same stampede that led to the enactment of the Patriot Act within 45 days of 9/11, which few members of Congress actually ever read.
And we can't leave this important debate to lawyers or lobbyists. That's why one of our efforts has been to encourage communities to pass these local resolutions in more than 330 cities/towns and 4 states saying that the Patriot Act needs to be brought back in line with the Constitution.
Remember that it was John Ashcroft who 3 months after the terrorist attacks told the Senate Judiciary Committee that if anyone questioned the actions of the government, they would "aid the terrorists." That he got away with that most unpatriotic of statements was ASTONISHING, and we need to make sure that we have the most robust debate that this democracy can muster...
And that's why I welcome all the questions here...
_______________________
Flagstaff, Az.:
How far can the government go to abduct/hold me without trial and imprison me if I were a person on the list or made a terrorist threat or comment? Would I have any legal recourse and would anyone of my family/friends know what happened besides that I was missing?
Anthony Romero: If that happens, you can always call your local ACLU and we'll be there!
It's a complicated set of questions you ask. The government has more power to arrest and detain immigrants -- holding them 7 days without charge (as per the Patriot Act).
But we are also fighting the power that the government has assumed in arresting/detaining American citizens and holding them without charge and initially without access to their lawyers. That's the case of Mr. Padilla (and Mr. Hamdi).
These cases aren't about somebody else's rights.. it's about your and my rights...
_______________________
Culpeper, Va.:
Perhaps you could discuss with us the ramifications being on this list has had for you? Are you familiar with the idea of a "de minimus" harm? I know you think there is a principle at stake here, but what I think you fail to see is that sometimes it is okay to let our priciples suffer in small ways when there are other competing interests.
Anthony Romero: The problem is that I can't tell you what the impact on my life will be if these lists begin to proliferate, and if employers or all persons in the US begin to take them seriously.
As an aside, I can tell you that more often than not on certain airlines, I am subjected to greater scrutiny (more consistently) than other travelers. Maybe now I know the reason why.
But the issue I tried to flag in the op ed was that these lists have serious implications for all employers and persons in the US. We risk criminal or civil sanctions if we knowingly or unknowingly hire individuals on these lists. And complying with the legal requirements can involve serious invasions of privacy or violations of federal law in the employment context.
Those don't seem like "de minimus" harms to me...
_______________________
Escanaba, Mi.:
Good afternoon. I have heard rumors that people who participated in anti-war or anti-Bush demonstrations have their names end up on a watch list. In fact, I heard a rumor that even a group of nuns were prevented from boarding a plane because they had participated in an anti-war demonstration. Is this true? If it is, it has me quite frightened to participate in any more anti-war demonstrations. Also, if it is true, it seems this is more of a way of hassling dissenters rather than protecting us from terrorists.
Barbara Brenner: Hello "Escanaba",
I haven't heard of a group of nuns. But I do know of one nun, Sister Virgine Lawringer, who was prevented from boarding a plane because she had an "activist" background. She is a lovely 70+ year old nun, (like a lot of the nuns who taught me in school) and yet she now finds herself on such a list.
And she's not alone.
This week, there has been a series of stories in the New York Times about FBI agents interrogating and harassing young activists, who have done nothing more than just express a viewpoint with which the government disagrees.
Look for the stories on line.
_______________________
Annapolis, Md.:
People are rushing to say we have to watch certain religions and certain people because of 9/11. I think that they are forgetting:
Oklahoma City church burnings in the south dragging and killing for no other reason than being gay. These things are fairly recent and were done by white Americans. We need to follow the crimes and criminals not the people who have the Constitutional right to protest their government.
Barbara Brenner: I couldn't agree with you more.
And let's not forget that the Oklahoma City bomber (Tim McVeigh) did not fit a "racial profile."
Thanks for making this point.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.:
After reading that question from Flagstaff, AZ, I'm struck. Yes, the list of names is a bumbling one at best, I suspect - but why even ask how long the government can hold you if you make a terrorist threat/comment? To some extent, can you blame the government? The list of names again, is wrong, but I think we're in an age when public comments/jokes about terrorism are very sensitive. It's like pulling the fire alarm in a building made of dried hay.
Barbara Brenner: This is a very good point. And the requirements imposed by the Combined Federal Campaign attempt to forceBreast Cancer Action, along with many, many other non-profit organizations, to pull the fire alarm.
Our job is to help save lives and help women with breast cancer and their families, and we need to use our limited resources to do that, not to check our employee names against flawed lists.
_______________________
Barbara Brenner: Hello,
My name is Barbara Brenner. I am the Executive Director of Breast Cancer Action, a national grassroots organization whose mission is to carry the voices of people affected by breast cancer to inspire and compel the changes necessary to end the breast cancer epidemic.
One of the things we do is provide information to women all over the country who have been diagnosed with breast cancer.
We are concerned, as all of us should be, about terrorism, and we believe that everyone in this country – and the world – has a role to play in reducing the threat. But The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) requirement imposes a burden on the non-profit community that it should not have to bear.
Threats of terror are not the only things affecting U.S. residents. Breast cancer strikes a woman every 2.5 minutes. Our work at Breast Cancer Action is to make sure that when a woman is diagnosed she has access to the most current information and to the best resources available. Our job is to reduce the terror of a breast cancer diagnosis, not to run interference for misguided policies of the United States government when they trample on the civil liberties of people who work at this life-saving organization.
The horror of the scourge of breast cancer is compounded by these objectionable CFC requirements. The majority of Breast Cancer Action’s support comes from individuals, many of whom work for the federal government. We should not be forced to choose between accepting the CFC restrictions and putting federal employees’ contributions to good use to help women confronting a life-threatening illness.
I happy to answer questions about the Combined Federal Campaign, and why these rules matter so much to an organization like ours.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
As a native Floridian, I am troubled by reports of sheriff deputies and others going to minority voters homes to question them on their voting habits. That coupled with the felony purge list that turned out be riddled with errors (and only discovered after the media sued for access to the list). Is the ACLU working in Florida in any of these areas?
Barbara Brenner: This is Anthony: Yes, the Florida ACLU is very much involved with the voting rights problems we are seeing in Florida -- from the purging of former felons, to the problems with the electronic voting schemes, to the intimidation of minority voters. You can find out more on our website aclu.org.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
I'm very torn on this very topic. I agree that the list is wrong in so many ways, but what other recourse does the government have to protect the country from terrorism.
I was sent on assignment the other day to NYC... I boarded the plane. The airport security were removing and badgering a middle-eastern-type man from the plane. I later found it that one of the passengers "witnessed" suspicious behavior. C'mon... I feel there is a panic among the American public whenever they see a Middle Eastern-Arab-like person board a plane.
Barbara Brenner: Anthony here again...
And we have a number of clients who experienced exactly that level of mistreatment. On our website (aclu.org), we have a complaint form for individuals who are subjected to airline passenger profiling.
In one of our cases, the man in question was removed off a plane because other passengers were uncomfortable; he was put on the next plane without any additional scrutiny, and his luggage went on the first flight. Is that security, or that good ole fashioned prejudice???
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
I'm very much confused as to what Terrorism has to do with Breast Cancer. Did I miss something?
Barbara Brenner: No, you haven't missed a thing, since we're confused too about why the federal government would as us to help them check names against a terror list.
Seriously, we got involved with this involuntarily because there are federal employees who want to support our work. To do that, they have to make their work-place donations throught the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). The CFC has imposed a new requirment that says we have to certify that none of our employees are on the governments terror lists.
But our job is to help women (and men) deal with the terror of a breast cancer diagnosis.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.:
It occured to me, when I read of the police surrounding someone photographing train tracks in Manhattan, that I had photographed the same tracks years ago. I thought they made a nice picture. I now realize a scenic shot of skyscrapers with a train tunnel could get be labeled a suspected terrorist and, with a foreign name, perhaps I could have been detained without charge. We need to ask: what kind of world are we living in, when we should be targeting intelligence on terrorism groups and not on everyday things people do?
Barbara Brenner: I agree with you completely. Among the every day things that happen to people is, tragically, breast cancer, as a woman is diagnosed with the disease every 2 and a half minutes in this country. Those women need help and information. We're not a terrorist group -- we're a non-profit organization trying to save lives.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Right before the September 11 terrorist attacks, there was a building scandal of baggage handlers in the Philadelphia airport going through unlocked luggage and stealing stuff. Now we are required to keep our luggage unstuffed. Isn't it interesting we've made the world easier for thieves, all in the interest of making us feel safer to fly?
Barbara Brenner: This is Anthony: Notwithstanding the problems you point out, the one place where there has been some improvement after 9/11 is in the area of "airport security." The fortifying of the cockpit doors, matching of luggage against passenger lists are all good reforms that the ACLU had advocated BEFORE 9/11.
On the other hand, the ACLU opposed the "no fly lists" we were discussing earlier because they don't provide individuals with an explanation of how they got on the list, or how to get themselves off if they are mistakenly identified.
_______________________
Flagstaff, Az.:
The case of the FBI bulletin was that there wer e no tactics explicit for the FBI and police to carry out. So the bulletin in itself did not violate constituational rights. But the actions of the JTTF and the FBI local police seem to cross the line. The same seems to happen with local police in my area. They are given instructions which are no doubt legal, but the way they carry out their actions may be harmful and unconstitutional. EG. Green party protesters were supposedly assaulted at a John Kerry rally in Flagstaff. They were reportedly (By the victims) jailed and beaten and held on false charges of assaulting a police officer. Is there a void between what the law and policy makers say and how the actions are actually implemented. Does this void allow for the unquestionable violation of civil liberties unless you have hard evidence(video camera) or enough money for a lawyer?
Barbara Brenner:
If there is a violation of civil liberties, or if the police violates the First Amendment rights of individuals involved in protest, the affected individuals should contact their local ACLU. We don't get paid to take on such cases -- we do it because it's the right thing to do.
And it does seem that the government is increasingly crossing the line and targeting individuals who are doing nothing more than engage in lawful dissent and protest. The tone is set at the top, however, and the FBI bulletin you reference also blurs what are lawful protest activities and criminal (even terrorist) conduct. When the local law enforcement officials cross those lines it's because they have been encouraged by the country's highest ranking officials -- including Mr. Ashrcroft.
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
| 
