UNITED STATES: Counterterrorism Bill Worries Civil Rights Groups

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

NEW YORK, Jun 21 1995 (IPS) - Muslims breathed a collective sigh of relief two months ago when the culprits of the Apr 19 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City were found to be white, Christian Americans.

They may have felt relief too soon. Now, some Muslim leaders and civil rights group worry that the counterterrorism bill approved by the Senate in the wake of the bombing can clamp down hardest on them.

In particular, the bill — which only eight of 100 Senators opposed in the harsh post-Oklahoma climate — may make it far easier to deport foreigners suspected of terrorism.

The bill also bans financial support of groups the U.S. government defines as terrorist — including Palestine’s Islamist Hamas organisation or Lebanon’s Hezbollah (Party of God). And it allows for the sweeping expansion of federal authority to investigate personal records or use wiretaps to get information.

“The bill will be effective in making us less free,” says Greg Nojeim of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “It is not at all clear that it will make us safer.”

The ACLU worries that, under the Senate bill, “terrorism” comprises any use of violence in violation of federal or state laws for political or social ends.

Arab and Muslim groups, who have faced suspicion in recent years for such policies as opposition to U.S. policy on Israel, fear they may be frequently scapegoated as terrorists under that definition.

“The bill is anti-Arab, not anti-terrorist,” says Hamzi Moghrabi, chair of the Washington-based American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee (ADC).

“We must now ensure that this legislation will not be used to deport individuals who have not engaged in any illegal activity, but whose political beliefs may be unpopular,” he adds.

Ibrahim Hooper, director of Washington’s Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR) agrees, saying the bill could “criminalise any political opposition to the state of Israel.”

Muslim groups have pointed to the thorniness of the language concerning funding terrorist groups. Under that language, any individual could be branded a terrorist even for unwittingly funding charitable activities controlled by named ‘terrorist’ groups.

The U.S. State Department, in an April statement defending efforts to cut off funding to such overseas groups, argued: “Groups that engage in terrorist activities are terrorist organisations regardless of whatever charitable activities they may undertake.”

The statement adds that the bill allows funds to be given to any organisation provided the giver can show the funds will “not be used to offset a transfer of funds to be used in terrorist activity.”

As one Arab activist speaking on condition of anonymity argues, Palestinians funding school meal programmes in the West Bank can be arrested if Washington finds that the money would allow Hamas to spend more on violent activities.

As a result, she says, spending on Palestinian causes has been chilled.

The bill has frightened more than just Arabs. Father Sean McManus of the Irish National Council has been one of the leading lobbyists against the Senate measure, noting that until recently, the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein was similarly deemed terrorist. So was South Africa’s ruling African National Congress.

Domestic groups also may suffer from the expanded definition of terrorism. Some critics have noted wryly that, although conservatives have approved the legislation, violent anti-abortion activists may be targetted for their efforts to damage or destroy federal abortion clinics.

“I think this is going to be one of those things that people look back on with regret,” Hooper says. “Anyone who takes any act of any sort, whether violent or not, could be labelled a terrorist and dealt with accordingly.”

And Republican Representative Steven Schiff of New Mexico adds that the proposals may amount to a “fishing expedition” against all people who hold unpopular views.

Currently, groups on the left and right are being baited in the post-Oklahoma mood. The New York Times recently featured an article questioning whether the anti-abortion movement was involved in an anti-government “conspiracy,” while white rightist militias have been demonised for their extremist views.

But the left and minority groups have also been attacked, with the neo-conservative New Republic recently calling U.S.-based Muslims “the other fundamentalist threat.” It said the Muslims were more dangerous than the militia movement.

In this climate, it has almost been forgotten that none of the specific measures in the Senate-passed bill would have prevented the Oklahoma bombing, in which 167 people were killed.

The two ex-soldiers arrested in the case are not alleged to have received foreign assistance, nor were they foreign-born. The expanded powers for wiretaps would also have been unhelpful in preventing the crime, some Senators argued this month.

But such issues are unlikely to derail the anti-terrorist traing, which is already well down the tracks towards final approval. The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on its own version, which was approved by its Judiciary Committee this week.

“As it goes along, it seems to be getting worse,” Hooper says of the bill’s progress through the heavily rightist, Republican- controlled House.