--- Begin Message ---
Bush's New Rules to Fight Terror Transform the Legal Landscape By
MATTHEW PURDY
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/politics/25LEGA.html?todaysheadlines
NY Timess November 25, 2001 Pentagon officials begin designing
military tribunals for suspected terrorists, they are considering
the possibility of trials on ships at sea or on United States
installations, like the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The
proceedings promise to be swift and largely secret, with one military
officer saying that the release of information might be limited to
the barest facts, like the defendant's name and sentence. Transcripts
of the proceedings, this officer said, could be kept from public
view for years, perhaps decades.
The military tribunals are the boldest initiative in a series of
laws and rewritten federal regulations that, taken together, have
created an alternate system of justice in the aftermath of Sept.
11, giving the government far greater power to detain, investigate
and prosecute people suspected of involvement in terrorism.
Those changes, described by legal experts and government and law
enforcement officials, are likely to affect mostly residents of
the country who are not citizens but who, until now, have had many
of the constitutional rights and protections of citizens.
The Bush administration says its agenda commands strong public
support, a view bolstered by recent polls. Even most critics
acknowledge the need for enhanced security measures, but the
administration's new approach has stirred unease both inside and
outside government, as well as overseas.
Some senior law enforcement officials believe that the military
tribunals are unnecessary and that the government's record in
prosecuting terrorists in federal court over the last decade
justifies continuing that approach.
Spanish officials told the United States last week that they would
not extradite eight men suspected of involvement in the Sept. 11
attacks without assurances that their cases would be kept in civilian
court.
Although it remains unclear how widely these new powers will
ultimately be applied, the provisions alter some basic principles
of the American judicial system - like the right to a jury trial,
the privacy of the attorney-client relationship and strong protections
against the use of preventive detention.
The steps taken by the administration reflect outrage that the
Sept. 11 terrorists were foreigners who lived freely and undetected
in the United States, even though some had violated their visas,
and the fear that potential terrorists or people with information
about terrorist acts are among the millions of immigrants in the
country.
"We're an open society, we give people access to the American
dream," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director.
"With that privilege there is a responsibility. That responsibility
has not always been lived up to, and it's not always been asked
that they live up to it, either."
President Bush's authorization of secret military tribunals for
noncitizens accused of terrorism and the systematic interviewing
of 5,000 young Middle Eastern men in the country on temporary visas
is well known.
But broad new powers are also contained in more obscure provisions.
A recent rule change published without announcement in the Federal
Register gives the government wide latitude to keep noncitizens in
detention even when an immigration judge has ordered them freed.
And under new laws, the attorney general can detain for deportation
any noncitizen who he has "reasonable grounds to believe" is "engaged
in any activity that endangers the national security of the United
States,"
according to a recent internal Immigration and Naturalization
Service memorandum.
Critics have said that the administration's measures often mean
singling out people on the basis of nationality or ethnicity.
"We have decided to trade off the liberty of immigrants - particularly
Arabs and Muslims - for the purported security of the majority,"
said David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University who often
represents detained foreigners.
In the guidelines for carrying out the 5,000 interviews with young
Middle Eastern men, Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote to federal
prosecutors that the selection of the men was not meant to imply
"that one ethnic group or religious group is more prone to terrorism
than another." Yet local law enforcement officials in several cities
have balked at carrying out the interviews because of the impression
of profiling.
Secrecy is a hallmark of the wartime judicial system, just as the
free flow of information is a signature of the nation's normal
criminal procedures. The names of about a dozen people being detained
for months as material witnesses in the Sept. 11 investigation have
been kept confidential because, officials explain, they are witnesses
in grand jury proceedings. In ordinary cases, while grand jury
proceedings are closed to the public, witnesses are rarely held in
jail.
A full accounting of law enforcement activity related to the Sept.
11 investigation has not been made public. The Justice Department
has not said precisely how many people are being detained, how many
have been questioned and released and where people are being held
and on what charges.
The new administration powers, amassed during wartime, have made
the normally delicate balance between individual rights and collective
security that much more precarious.
"My view on the military tribunals will be formed by how they're
used,"
said Warren B. Rudman, the former Republican senator from New
Hampshire and the chairman of the president's foreign intelligence
advisory board.
"If they're done carefully and with deliberation - and I really
expect they will be - I don't have a problem with it.
"As far as ethnic profiling; it's very troubling. It pains me to
say this, but some of it may have to be done. We just have to
recognize that we cannot bend over backwards in our innate American
fairness to overlook that there are some people trying to hurt us."
The Act: Bill With Long Name, and Longer Reach
The biggest changes in the government's power over residents who
are not citizens were spelled out in a law known as the U.S.A.
Patriot Act, hastily passed after the attacks. The measure's
potential reach is summarized in the full name that was needed to
create that acronym - the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001.
Besides providing more money to strengthen border security, the
act greatly expands the notion of who should be considered a
terrorist and provides the attorney general with remarkable personal
powers to detain such people.
In the past, entry into the United States was denied only to members
of 28 groups that were formally designated as terrorist organizations
by the State Department. But under the new law, any foreigner who
publicly endorses terrorist activity, or belongs to a group that
does, can be turned away at the border or deported.
The term "terrorist activity" has also been broadened to include
any foreigner who uses "dangerous devices" or raises money for a
terrorist group, whether or not he or she knows the group is engaged
in terrorism.
And perhaps most strikingly, the law allows the government to detain
any foreigners whom the attorney general certifies as endangering
national security.
The attorney general can order such detention if he simply has
"reasonable grounds to believe" that the foreigner might be a
threat. The Justice Department has to bring criminal or deportation
charges against such people within seven days, but it can hold them
indefinitely.
Mr. Ashcroft has said that such aggressive detention policies are
"vital to preventing, disrupting or delaying new attacks. It is
difficult for a person in jail or under detention to murder innocent
people or to aid or abet in terrorism."
The administration has also changed rules to make it easier for
officials to keep watch on both citizens and noncitizens while they
are in federal custody. In one change, it has eased officials'
ability to eavesdrop on communications between lawyers and their
clients in federal custody when it would "deter future acts of
violence or terrorism."
Defense lawyers say that new rule erodes a basic right of the
accused to confer privately with their lawyers. But civil liberties
lawyers have found more to object to in the wide provisions of the
Patriot Act.
Noel Saleh, an immigration lawyer and vice president of the Arab
Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit, called
the act "an extremely dangerous law in terms of the very expansive
definition of the concept of terrorism. The consequences of being
labeled a terrorist are extreme in that one can be detained
indefinitely."
Mr. Saleh added, "That could theoretically happen to someone who
at the end of Ramadan does their charitable tithing to an orphanage
in South Lebanon that was established by Hezbollah."
Law enforcement officials have said they have not used the new
powers yet because they already have enough authority to detain
material witnesses and visa violators who have been picked up in
the investigations.
The officials also said that many arrests of Middle Eastern men
have been made not as a result of profiling but from a flood of
tips pouring in about suspicious activities. And in many cases,
the focus on Arabs and Muslims simply reflects the public's perception
of where the current dangers lie.
Mr. Saleh said that since Sept. 11, the immigration service has
held some of the detainees longer than usual by opposing their
release on bail, forcing them to appeal to judges for bonds, a
process that can add three to four weeks to their time in jail.
"I obviously think that this is improper," said Mr. Saleh, who
represents six Middle Eastern clients detained in the recent
investigations. "It's an abuse of discretion." Still, Mr. Saleh
said he would not complain about what others see as selective
enforcement, because clamping down on visa violators is what the
immigration service is "supposed to do."
And if anything, some law enforcement officials say, the agency
has been too timid. Conscious of the concerns about racial profiling,
the agency has been reluctant to cull its files for people who have
overstayed their visas, and it has generally detained only those
Middle Easterners who have been of interest to the F.B.I.
It also has begun to turn back some visitors who once would have
passed easily into the country.
At the F.B.I.'s prodding, in mid-October, the immigration service
refused entry at Kennedy International Airport in New York to a
Jordanian who is an official of the Palestine Liberation Organization,
law enforcement officials said. They said the man was on his way
from Cairo to Los Angeles to do something that suddenly seemed a
little worrisome: he was planning to attend flight school. He was
put back on a plane to Cairo.
The Tribunals: Swift, Secret Justice, and No Appeals
At the Pentagon, very little has been disclosed regarding the shape
of the military tribunals that President Bush has ordered, but one
thing is clear: they will be unlike any judicial proceedings in
this country since the end of World War II.
Suspected terrorists will be tried not before a jury but rather a
commission made up primarily - though not necessarily exclusively
- of military officers. The suspects and their lawyers, who may
also be military officers appointed to represent them, will be
tried without the same access to the evidence against them that
defendants in civilian trials have. The evidence of their guilt
does not have to meet the familiar standard "beyond reasonable
doubt" but must simply "have probative value to a reasonable person."
There will be no appeals.
"The commission itself is going to be unique," said one military
officer involved in the discussions. "It will be separate and
distinct from a civilian criminal trial. It will be separate and
distinct from a court-martial."
Mr. Bush's order establishing the tribunals - issued on Nov. 13
not as an executive order but rather as a military order by the
president in his constitutional capacity as commander in chief of
the armed forces - set only broad guidelines for the tribunals. It
said, for example, that convictions and sentences could be reached
by only a two-thirds vote of the commission's members. It also left
to Mr. Bush himself the decision on who would face prosecution in
the tribunals.
The rest of the details - the rules of evidence, the composition
of the tribunals, the forums to be used - are now being debated
inside the Pentagon.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said that he had ordered
the Pentagon's civilian general counsel, William J. Haynes 2nd, to
begin drafting the procedures.
"The president's order is not terribly specific," one senior officer
said.
"Who prosecutes? Who defends? All of those things are up for grabs
right now."
So far no one has been brought up before a tribunal, though some
administration and Pentagon officials said it could happen soon.
Officials are debating whether to prosecute Zacarias Moussaoui,
33, a French citizen of Moroccan descent being held in New York,
through the tribunal process.
Mr. Bush's aides justified his decision by citing similar tribunals
held throughout American history, from the Revolution through the
Civil War and international tribunals in Nuremberg after World War
II.
Mr. Bush's decision has provoked criticism from across the political
spectrum, but legal experts are divided over the tribunals.
Phillip Allen Lacovara, a former deputy solicitor general, said
military tribunals promised a more proportional prosecution of
what, in the case of the attacks of Sept. 11, amounted to crimes
of war than any criminal trial in a civilian court could.
Some federal law enforcement officials questioned the need for
tribunals, given the government's success at convicting terrorists
in civilian courts. But Mr. Lacovara noted the length of those
prosecutions, including the trials of some of those charged in the
1993 World Trade Center bombing. He said the Bush administration
was almost certainly considering the greater feasibility in a
military tribunal of imposing the death penalty.
"People charged with violations of the laws of war are not entitled
to the same level of guarantees as civilians charged with crimes,"
he said, citing Supreme Court rulings that have upheld the tribunals
in the past, "as long as the proceedings are fundamentally fair."
The Reasoning: Trails Lead to Middle Easterners
The White House insists that the new emphasis on preventing terrorist
attacks has not led to racial profiling a practice that has become
increasingly discredited in recent years with disclosures that the
state police in New Jersey and elsewhere had pulled over disproportionate
numbers of black men.
In the weeks since Sept. 11, said Mr. Bartlett, the White House
communications director, investigators have simply followed the
tips and evidence they had. "The idea was not that we were going
to find all visa violators from the Middle East," he said. "That
may have been the result."
But some law enforcement officials acknowledge that they have
focused extra attention on young men whose last names suggest Middle
Eastern origins. Just last month, detectives in New York City's
warrants division culled through the police department's computers
for people with Middle Eastern names for whom there were outstanding
arrest warrants for petty crimes. Nearly 100 people were picked up
and questioned about terrorism, an investigator said, with the
warrants used to encourage full cooperation.
The federal government has conducted its own, wide-ranging interview
program. In recent days, investigators have begun conducting
"voluntary"
interviews with 5,000 young Middle Eastern men who have entered
the United States in the past two years from countries with links
to terrorism.
The interviews are voluntary because under the Fourth Amendment,
an involuntary detention for questioning might well be a "seizure"
requiring justification, at a minimum, on the basis of some reason
to suspect a particular individual of a particular crime.
The federal investigators are looking for evidence that they do
not yet have, evidence that might shed light on the terrorist
network that planned the Sept. 11 attacks or that might still be
in the process of planning others.
On more than 200 college campuses federal investigators have
contacted administrators to collect information about students from
Middle Eastern countries: what they are studying, where they are
living, how they are doing. The investigators are also paying
unannounced visits on the students themselves, asking anything from
their views on Osama bin Laden to their educational plans.
Unlike the actual detention of hundreds of Arab men, these
investigatory sweeps have aroused little public controversy or
criticism with one exception. Some police chiefs, having worked
hard to put racial profiling to rest, have said they would not
cooperate with the F.B.I. because the sweep appears to violate
departmental policy or state or local laws against racial profiling
or intelligence gathering for political purposes.
Walter E. Dellinger, acting solicitor general in the Clinton
administration, said he had qualms about measures that applied to
select groups of people.
"I am more willing to entertain restrictions that affect all of us
like identity cards and more intrusive X-ray procedures at airports
and somewhat more skeptical of restrictions that only affect some
of us, like those that focus on immigrants or single out people by
nationality," he said.
But Mr. Dellinger said infiltration and surveillance were necessary
to combat terrorists. "We're going to find it impossible to physically
protect every location," he said, "so we have to take significant
steps that lead to a new level of intrusion."
This article was reported and written by Richard L. Berke, Christopher
Drew, Steven Greenhouse, Steven Lee Myers, Robert Pear and Benjamin
Weiser, with Mr. Purdy.
======================
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE
acknowledge the original source. ***
--- End Message ---
