1995 Congressional HearingsIntelligence and Security
1995 Congressional Hearings
American Muslim Council
STATEMENT
OF
AZIZAH Y. AL-HIBRI, J.D., Ph.D.
NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
AMERICAN MUSLIM COUNCIL
ON
"THE COMPREHENSIVE ANTITERRORISM ACT
OF 1995"
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
BEFORE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JUNE 13, 1995
Dr. Azizah al-Hibri
June 13,1995
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the House
Judiciary Committee for allowing me to speak on the
"Comprehensive Anti terrorism Act of 1995". I speak on
behalf of the American Muslim Council. I would like to note
that this testimony is of historical significance to the
American Muslim community. It represents that first time
ever that Mu slims, qua Muslims, have been invited, since
they have been present in America at least since the 16th
century.
Speaking of behalf of no less than six million American
Mu slims, I would like to join our fellow Americans in
expressing support for measures that would protect this
country and its citizens from the threat of terrorism and
all other forms of violence. We also join other fellow
Americans in demanding that these measures be reasonable,
appropriate and not over-board, in order not to run afoul of
the fundamental constitutional guarantees that have made
this country so great.
The specter of terrorism and violence in their myriad
forms and sources haunts all of us. Any one could become its
unwitting victim. Unfortunately, however, we American Mu
slims know this fact only too well. In the emotionally
charged days that followed the Oklahoma bombing, Muslim
Americans all over the country suffered doubly and
intensely. Like their compatriots, they agonized over the
senseless death of the Oklahoma victims, but unlike their
compatriots, they were denied the opportunity to mourn in
dignity.
Instead, they were immediately viewed as suspect. They
were subjected to both official and unofficial acts of
harassment, intimidation and discrimination. These acts
included detention and interrogation of Mu slims by law
enforcement officials, media broadcasts of opinions by
so-called "experts" which conflated the latter's political
views with a negative stereotype of Islam, individual scorn
and even mob reprisal attacks. One such mob stoned a Muslim
house. As a result, baby "Salam", carried by his mother
almost to full term, died. He is thus another innocent
victim of the Oklahoma bombing.
For a full 60 hours, our community was denied its most
basic constitutional rights by being presumed, and even
declared by some, guilty collectively until proven innocent.
Some Mu slims were afraid to go to work. Even young children
feared going to school because of unrelenting attacks,
accusations and other expressions of hostility by their
classmates. These children too are secondary victims of the
Oklahoma bombing.
This is truly unfortunate in a country which prides
itself on its religious tolerance. Islam after all is a
world religion with over a billion followers. Islam has
inspired some of the world's greatest civilizations-~that
actually contributed, directly or indirectly, to our
American civilization today. It is also one of the three
Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. In
particular, Islam is a religion which says that the killing
of a single innocent person is tantamount to the killing of
all of humanity. It is a religion which recognized not only
human rights but animal rights and environmental concerns
fourteen hundred years before these matters became
fashionable.
It is therefore with great sorrow that Mu slims witness
the daily misrepresentation of their religion, the silencing
of their voices and the erosion of their civil rights. We
are finally speaking out because we think it patently unfair
to brand a whole religion by the actions of a few, just as
it is patently unfair to judge Christianity by the
Inquisition, Judaism by Jewish extremist groups, or the
worth of a person by the color of the skin. We, Mu slims,
Christians and Jews in these United States stand for the
proposition that the era of religious strife is a bygone era
and that our day is the day of interfaith dialogue based on
mutual respect, equality and justice. let not those who live
in the past succeed in destroying our promising American
vision.
H.R.1710, the anti terrorism bill, has been proposed
against the backdrop of prejudice and hostility we
described. This fact concerns us because it can infect the
final form and use of the bill. Yet while there are many
problematic provisions in the bill, given its accelerated
status, we have no choice but to focus your attention on
only two sections. These sections involve the use of secret
evidence in alien removal proceedings and the imposition of
fund raising limitations. Each provision presents serious
constitutional concerns.
The Use of Secret Evidence in Alien Removal Proceedings
Under this bill, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service ("INS") would be permitted to use undisclosed secret
evidence to deport aliens who are merely accused of engaging
in or supporting terrorist activities. The INS would create
a special court and permit the government to introduce
secret evidence to the court proceedings. The bill allows
for the creation of a panel of attorneys with security
clearances to review in camera evidence and challenge its
validity on behalf of the accused. The problem, however, is
that these attorneys cannot be chosen by the accused, nor
can they disclose to her or her counsel the evidence they
have reviewed. We find it extremely unlikely that a proper
defense can be prepared when an attorney cannot release to
her client the evidence against her. This procedure simply
denies an alien her right to due process, one of the most
basic and highly cherished American legal rights.
Additionally, the bill provides that if an alien is
deemed a risk to national security or if she is regarded as
one who would harm another person, then no summary would be
provided. While the contemplated threat in this case is
significant, it must still be balanced against the right of
the accused for an effective defense; for in this country we
have the presumption of innocence deeply ingrained in our
legal system.
In our rush to protect ourselves from terrorism, let us
not trample on our principles. As Benjamin Franklin said,
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." We
urge that if classified information is involved, then the
alien be always provided with at least an adequate summary
of the evidence, regardless of the nature of the charges.
This way, she could have some possibility of an effective
defense.
Fund raising
This provision is troublesome because it permits
political factors to be injected in decisions involving the
constitutional rights of American citizens. It gives the
President the ability to designate, with no effective
recourse, certain groups as terrorist. We have already seen
how much the attitude towards various political groups
around the world can be influenced by the political views of
the American Administration that is in office at the time.
Several groups have already been elevated from a pariah
status, simply because the present American Administration
changed its position on certain policy matters or reached a
political understanding with these groups. This is to some
extent quite legitimate; but we do need to keep in mind that
the President is more susceptible to political pressure by
special-interest groups than, for example, the courts.
Perhaps we should therefore de-politicize this matter by
placing the power to designate with the judiciary or at
least giving the Judiciary power to review the fairness of
such presidential designation. Otherwise, the procedure for
designation as it presently stands is so flawed that it
invites serious abuse of power. This could lead in turn to a
restriction on legitimate fund-raising for humanitarian
purposes.
For example many Muslim Good Samaritans and many Muslim
charitable organizations in the United States (like their
Christian and Jewish counterparts) donate funds to help
those who are less fortunate or who have been ravaged by war
and/or hunger. These include, for example, wounded civilians
or orphaned children in Bosnia, Kashmir, Afghanistan and
Somalia. These areas have been engulfed in conflict and
turmoil recently, but while their political picture
changes almost daily, the suffering of their innocent
remains constant. Under this fund raising provision, the
Good Samaritans and charitable organizations are criminally
prosecutable if the President decides to designate a
hospital receiving their donations as a terrorist affiliated
hospital. The designation may be based on a tenuous belief
that the hospital treats a large number of individuals who
are members of a politically disfavored group and on an even
more tenuous conclusion that the hospital therefore engages
in activity that threatens the national security of the
United States. Nevertheless, the bill does not provide an
adequate mechanism to contest this designation. As a result,
the poor, elderly, the sick and hungry, all go without
further assistance, and the Good Samaritan or charitable
organization face criminal charges!
Our concern is that this section of the bill will be
used and will be effective not in preventing terrorism - but
in preventing fund raising for political viewpoints that are
unpopular. This is antithetical to our American democratic
values and our American system of justice.
We do not believe that a box of Band-Aids, penicillin,
prescription drugs or medical equipment can be equated with
aiding and abetting terrorism. We have heard the argument
over and over again from the Administration and the State
Department that money is fungible. We agree. However, in the
absence of convincing proof that the funds are being used to
support terrorism, lawful humanitarian activities should not
be criminalized. Again, let not our fear smother our
humanitarian principles. For, what is a man profited if he
gains the whole world and loses his own soul?
We urge you therefore to eliminate this very
controversial provision from the bill altogether. It
violates the First Amendment right of association. Indeed,
we believe that a court of law is likely to find such a
provision unconstitutional.
Thank you.