Confronting September 11: The Balance of Freedom and Safety
- ‹ previous
- 12 of 15
- next ›
In
democracies that strive to be pluralistic, there are often questions
about the role of religion in public life. Those questions are often
compounded in times of stress. What role do religious beliefs, or other
markers of identity, have in profiling potential criminals? Since
September the United States government has taken measures, both inside
and outside of the nation's borders, to prevent further terrorist
attacks on American interests. Recent proposals to restructure
America's intelligence services are under consideration, including a
call for a homeland defense agency in an effort to fight the "war on
terrorism." While deeply concerned about safety, some civil
libertarians and human rights advocates have cautioned that in the
quest for safety we need to protect the freedom that Americans value.
The Justice Department is responsible for
investigating domestic terrorism. To prevent future attacks they have
taken many strategies, including freezing bank accounts of suspected
terrorist fronts, requesting a revision of phone and computer wiretap
laws, and extending the time that authorities are able to hold suspects
without charging them with a specific crime. Many of the Justice
Department's requests were granted under the USA Patriot Act, which was
signed into law on October 26, 2001. One piece of the strategy caused a
dilemma for many local law enforcement officials. On November 9, the
Attorney General of the United States, John Ashcroft, outlined plans to
interview 5,000 men currently residing in the United States who "may
know something that could be helpful" to the investigations into the
attacks on September 11th and any further terrorist activity. Nearly
all of these men were Muslim. Those men identified for interviews were
notified by mail. The Attorney General's plan then relied on the
support and cooperation of U.S. attorneys general across the United
States as well as federal, state, and local enforcement officers.
This reading focuses on the choices made
by those in law enforcement immediately following the attacks as they
tried to balance individual freedom with their responsibility to
protect the safety of the nation as a whole. To examine that challenge,
this reading uses excerpts from several different sources. The first
excerpt is from a letter requesting an individual to set up an
interview. The second piece is an excerpt of the questions that will be
asked in the interviews. The third piece is a New York Times story
reported by Fox Butterfield that offers perspectives from several
police chiefs throughout the nation.
The following is a letter sent to an individual requesting an interview:
-
As you
know, law enforcement officers and federal agents have been acquiring
information that may be helpful in determining the persons responsible
for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Furthermore, they are pursuing all leads that may assist in preventing
any further attacks. I am asking that you assist us in this important
investigation.
Your name was brought to our attention because, among other things, you came to Michigan on a visa from a country where there are groups that support, advocate, or finance international terrorism. We have no reason to believe that you are, in any way, associated with terrorist activities. Nevertheless, you may know something that could be helpful in our efforts. In fact, it is quite possible that you have information that may seem irrelevant to you but which may help us piece together this puzzle.
Please contact my office to set up an interview at a location, date, and time that is convenient for you. During this interview, you will be asked questions that could reasonably assist in the efforts to learn about those who support, commit, or associate with persons who commit terrorism.
While this interview is voluntary, it is crucial that the investigation be broad based and thorough, and the interview is important to achieve that goal. We need to hear from you as soon as possible -- by Dec. 4. Please call my office . . . between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. any day, including Saturday and Sunday. We will work with you to accommodate your schedule. 1
These excerpts were compiled by the New
York Times as background to several articles on November 27, 2001,
describing the reaction to the attorney general's request for
interviews. Following are excerpts from a memorandum from the Justice
Department advising the United States Attorneys how to conduct
interviews of 5,000 men, mostly from Middle Eastern nations, who have
arrived on temporary visas since January 1, 2000.
-
TELEPHONE NUMBERS You should obtain all telephone numbers used by the individual and his family or close associates.
RESIDENCE You should ask the individual where he is residing and about any other residences that he has used since his arrival in this country. If he lives with others, you should inquire as to their identities. You should note any information that would assist in locating the individual in the future.
FOREIGN TRAVEL You should ask the individual what foreign countries he has visited, the dates of those visits and the reasons he went to those countries. You should inquire specifically whether he or anybody he knows has ever visited Afghanistan. . . .
REASON FOR THE INDIVIDUAL'S VISIT The individual should be asked about his reasons for visiting the United States. If the individual is here to attend school, you should learn what you can about his studies and future plans. If the individual is here as a tourist, you should inquire as to the cities, landmarks and other sites that he has visited or plans to visit. You should ask when the individual plans to leave the United States and where he plans to go. You should also ask the purpose of any trips the individual has made outside of the United States since his entry.
REGARDING THE EVENTS OF SEPT. 11, 2001 You should ask the individual whether he knows, or is aware of anyone who knows, anything about the Sept. 11 attacks or the perpetrators.
REACTION TO TERRORISM You should ask the individual if he noticed anybody who reacted in a surprising or inappropriate way to the news of the Sept. 11 attacks. You should also ask him how he felt when he heard the news.
INVOLVEMENT IN TERRORISM You should inquire whether the individual knows anybody who has had involvement in advocating, planning, supporting or committing terrorist activities, and whether he has ever had any personal involvement in such activities.
KNOWLEDGE OF WEAPONS The individual should be asked whether he or anybody he knows has access to guns or to any explosives or harmful chemical compounds, or has any training in the development or use of such weapons. You should also ask if he knows of anyone who is capable of developing any biological or chemical weapons such as anthrax.2
The following article "Police Are Split
on Questioning of Mideast Men" by Fox Butterfield appeared on page one
of The New York Times on Thursday, November 27, 2001.
-
Police
chiefs across the nation are torn between a desire to assist the
investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks by following Attorney General
John Ashcroft's request that they help interview thousands of Middle
Eastern men and a concern that the plan seems like racial profiling.
In Portland, Ore., the acting police chief has refused to participate in the effort, saying it conflicted with state laws that bar local police from questioning immigrants when they are not suspected of a crime.
Several other chiefs interviewed recently also expressed qualms, saying they were concerned about violating civil liberties and worried about undoing the gains they had achieved in their local communities.
"We're standing with the fundamental rights of individuals under the constitution and the state constitution and our municipal law," said Chief Charles Wilson of the Detroit Police Department.
The Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation listed 83 people in Detroit for questioning, but Chief Wilson said he did not want his officers to "go out and treat people like criminals or even go out and find these people."
Mr. Ashcroft announced the plan to find and interview 5,000 men, most of whom hail from Middle Eastern countries, in a Nov. 9 memorandum. Some police chiefs have said they have no problem with the effort. But the plan has prompted a kind of role reversal, with the police now the guardians of civil liberties, instead of being criticized for violating them.
It is also a reversal of sorts of the roles for local police departments and the federal government. In recent decades, some police forces have been criticized for aggressive tactics and racial profiling, and the Justice Department has gotten consent decrees to stop these practices.
Now, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, some police chiefs are complaining that the Justice Department and the F.B.I. are doing the profiling and saying they are the ones trying to apply the brakes.
In Tucson, Ariz., Capt. John Leavitt, the police liaison to the city manager, said the department had strict guidelines against any form of racial profiling. While it would comply with any Justice Department request, he said, it would not do so in a way that violated the guidelines.
The chiefs are also concerned that their focus on community policing - reaching out to local neighborhoods to build trust and acquire information to help prevent - could be jeopardized by the effort.
The interest by local law enforcement agencies in maintaining good relations with community residents has created a natural tension with the directive, said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a group in Washington. "The police want to help," he said, "but they need to be able to explain to their communities what they are doing."
This is the heart of the problem, Mr. Wexler suggested: In several cases the local United States Attorney's office or the local F.B.I. office has not communicated well with the police chief, failing to explain why certain names were put on the list. All that has been said is that the men have legally traveled to the United States in the past two years from nations with suspected terrorist links.
In Portland, the acting police chief, Andrew Kirkland, said he would not participate because questioning immigrants simply because they were immigrants violated Oregon law.
"If the F.B.I. has something specific about a crime they are investigating, or a potential crime that these people might commit, then we would reconsider," he said.
Ken Yarbrough, the police chief of Richardson, Tex., a Dallas suburb that is home to one of the oldest mosques in the state, said that officers by law must have reasonable suspicion to question people; without that, he said, such interviews must be consensual. "There is going to be some heartburn on the part of police chiefs to take on this role because this is not how we usually do business," he said. The Justice Department has said that the interviews should be consensual, but "it is when that consent runs out that this problem exists," Chief Yarbrough said.
Some chiefs saw no problem with compliance. Edward Flynn, the police chief in Arlington County, Va., outside Washington, has not been officially notified of any interviews, but said he would be happy to cooperate if needed.
Chief Flynn said he thought the constitutional issues had been overblown. "A fair analogy is that this is like a standard police neighborhood canvass after a crime occurs and we go into an area to ask questions."
Some police officials cited a lack of communication with federal law enforcement agencies, a longstanding issue that intensified after Sept. 11. Some police chiefs said the F.B.I. was not providing enough information to investigate potential terrorists in their cities or to stay abreast of the threat of anthrax.
"There is a disconnect between federal and local law enforcement," said Edward Norris, the Baltimore police commissioner, who said he had not even been officially informed of whether any of the 5,000 people the F.B.I. wanted to interview were in Baltimore. "The F.B.I. has always kept things close to its vest."
In many cases, the Justice Department has not told the local police chiefs whether it wants their help in conducting the interviews.
Gina Talamona, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said it was up to each local office to decide who would carry out the interviews. Where the number of subjects in a city was small, Ms. Talamona said, the questioning might be done just by F.B.I agents.
In Dearborn, Mich., home to a large number of Middle Eastern immigrants, the police said they would help interview the 250 individuals whose names the F.B.I. furnished. But Greg Guibord, the police chief, said he planned to meet next week with Arab and Muslim community leaders before the interviews begin.
"We don't want to lose our trust that we built up throughout the years with the Arab community," Chief Guibord said. "This is strictly voluntary. If they don't want to talk, they don't have to talk to anybody. Nobody is going to twist their arms." 3
After the first round of questioning, the
Justice Department was able to complete only 2,200 of the desired
interviews and was unable to locate many of those it wished to contact.
Only a very small number of the men contacted refused to be questioned.
On March 20, 2002, the Justice Department announced plans to interview
an additional 3,000 subjects.
CONNECTIONS
- What role should religious identity have in a pluralistic democracy?
- How do nations preserve the security of their citizens in a time of peace? How is it different in a time of war? What criteria should be used in balancing freedom and safety? Who should make the decision?
- Since September 11th, many Muslims have felt stereotyped and targeted because of their religious beliefs. In a report produced by the South Asian American Leaders for Tomorrow, they record reports of 645 bias incidents including assault, arson and shootings, against those perceived to be Muslims or Arabs in the week of September 11, 2001 - September 17, 2001 alone. How would you explain the number of incidents?
- What is a civil liberty? How is it different from a civil right? Are there also civil responsibilities? What would they be?
- What is patriotism? How do people show their patriotism in a time of crisis? Who is asked to prove loyalty in a time of crisis? Who isn't?
- Is it unpatriotic to question national policy in a time of crisis? What are the arguments that could be made on both sides of that question?
- What is the dilemma facing the police chiefs? What arguments are made in support of the interviews? What arguments are made against participation in the interview process?
- Read the letter sent to the individual requesting they set up an interview. What language do you find striking? How would you describe the tone?
- Did the request for interviews violate the rights of 5,000 men or was it a reasonable request?
- How else could the requested information be obtained?
- What is racial profiling? How do you evaluate the charge that the Justice Department's plan is racial profiling? Is racial profiling ever acceptable?
- Read the list of suggested interview questions. Do any surprise you? Are there other questions that should be asked?
- What suggestions would you make to the Justice Department and those conducting the interview to make the interview go smoothly?
- Choose a quote from Fox Butterfield's article that best represents your view of the interviews. Why did you select that quotation?
- What power do the president, the courts, the military, and ordinary citizens have to respond to terrorist attacks? Recently a few American citizens have been accused of being "enemy combatants." How does this complicate the delicate balance of freedom and safety?
1 Detroit Free Press, November 27, 2001
2 From the New York Times, November 27, 2001, 1.
3 New York Times, Nov. 22, 2001
- ‹ previous
- 12 of 15
- next ›
