It is quiet in his office at the Muslim Community Center, but Amjad is unable to silence the storm of thoughts swirling through his mind. He has just gotten off the telephone with Brenda Jones, the executive director of a local human rights organization. Brenda had called to invite the Muslim Community Center to join other community-based, religious, and human rights organizations in Minneapolis in a campaign to protest government bias and new federal legislation restricting the rights of immigrants. There had been many times over the past several months that Amjad had hoped such an initiative might emerge. Now that he faces the decision of whether or not to encourage his community members to participate, he feels conflicted. The Muslim community of Minnesota grieved with other Americans over the senseless loss of life in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Like them, Amjad felt saddened, scared and angry about the terrorist attacks. He remembers, in particular, the young Muslim mother who had told him shortly after the attacks:
“I feel bad that I shouldn’t be wearing a veil because of what happened on September 11. Because I wear a veil, people associate me with bad things.”
Amjad also remembers feeling proud that President George Bush visited the Islamic Cultural Center in Washington, DC and proclaimed to the media:
“America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect … Moms who wear cover must not be intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.”
Amjad remembers the anger that he felt after learning that a teenage boy who often came to pray at the Community Center was beaten up by a group of his classmates after school and told, “Go back to your own country. Terrorists are not welcome here.” He remembers also his disappointment when government legislation passed by the President and the Congress to fight the war on terrorism resulted in an inappropriate link between immigration and terrorism. Moreover, the legislation restricted civil liberties for all Americans. He thinks of the reports, including one authored by the Department of Justice, that describe how hundreds of immigrants, mostly Muslim men, are being detained in U.S. jails without being charged with crimes, sometimes in secret, without access to lawyers. His heart aches as he remembers how he cautioned other members against speaking out about their opposition to the war with Iraq. He had said:
“After September 11 there is no freedom of speech for Muslim-Americans who may arouse suspicion or become a target if their true opinions are expressed publicly.”
Had he been wrong? As an American, isn’t it his duty to exercise his democratic citizenship including his first amendment right to freedom of speech? As a leader isn’t it his duty to encourage others in his community to do so also? In his heart he wants to campaign with Brenda and the others for the City Council to pass a resolution stating that Minneapolis would not cooperate with some provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Yet he is afraid that he and others in his community will be branded as “unpatriotic” or worse, “supporting terrorism.”
During their telephone conversation, Brenda had told him that Attorney General John Ashcroft will be visiting Minneapolis tomorrow morning to meet with police and government officials to promote the PATRIOT Act. “The time to act is now,” she had said. A protest is being planned, but because of the secrecy surrounding the Attorney General's visit, Brenda said she was concerned that few people will find out about it in time to participate. She also had said that it will significantly help the campaign if representatives from all of Minnesota’s refugee and immigrant communities will be there in solidarity with one another. Brenda asked Amjad to join her at the protest and to make an announcement during prayers that night.
Amjad wants his community to participate. Muslims in Minnesota are fearful of the government response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. At the same time, Amjad is worried. He is afraid that his own participation might draw attention to the Community Center and put those who pray there at risk. He is worried that if other community members follow his example, they might be targeted for hate crimes, FBI investigation, or even worse, arrested by the FBI at the protest. He has heard that non-citizens can now be investigated for activities protected by the First Amendment, including political protests. He wonders if he is over-reacting. His right to freedom of speech has not yet been forcefully taken away. True, the FBI has gained the power to secretly obtain records and personal belongings of citizens and permanent residents, including library records and Internet habits, but the government lacks the time to investigate everyone who disagrees with it. Besides, he has nothing to hide. He is a patriotic American and not a terrorist. The members of the community do not have any terrorist connections. Why should they be afraid to voice their opinions publicly?
Amjad only has a few minutes left to decide what to do before going upstairs for prayers. The protest is scheduled for tomorrow. This is his only opportunity to make the announcement.
Controversy surrounding the U.S. government response to September 11
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks and expands government surveillance capabilities, toughens criminal penalties for terrorists, and allows greater sharing of intelligence information. At the same time, human rights groups, civil liberties organizations, libraries, and the governing councils of more than three states and 150 cities have criticized the PATRIOT Act across the U.S. because it contains provisions that diminish the constitutional protections and civil rights of U.S. citizens, refugees, and immigrants.
Fear of the U.S. government is stifling free speech among Arabs, Muslims, and people of South Asian backgrounds. Memberships and donations at mosques have dramatically declined due to fear of the expansion of government powers under the PATRIOT Act. It has become more difficult for groups to deliver support services to refugees. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Japanese American Citizens League, among others, have spoken out against new laws that allow FBI agents to secretly obtain records and personal belongings of innocent people in the United States. The groups also oppose the laws that permit the FBI to secretly and indefinitely detain individuals of interest without charging them with crimes or permitting them access to lawyers or the domestic court system. According to the ACLU's Associate Legal Director:
"Sadly, our government has an ugly history of using its investigative powers to squelch dissent. We saw it during the Japanese internments of World War II, the Red Scare of the 1950s, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and now we see it in the post- September 11 investigations and detentions of Arabs and Muslims."
Not only are civil rights groups afraid of the effects of the actual act, but they also argue that legislation like the PATRIOT Act has a "chilling effect" on public discourse. If people think that their conversations, e-mails and reading habits are being monitored, then they will feel less comfortable saying what they think and may censor their own speech. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has responded to this criticism by saying:
"Debate about civil liberties is a good thing. In no way do I want to silence debate. I want to participate in the debate, to help people understand the truth of what we're doing and how we are defending Americans against terrorists."
He argues that the Act has been a winning tool to counter terrorism. "Make no mistake, our strategy and tactics are working. Our tools are effective. We are winning the war on terror." Faced with the mounting criticism of the PATRIOT Act, the Attorney General argues that the government is "protecting the American people while honoring the Constitution and preserving the liberties we hold dear" and dismisses the opposition as an unfounded "hysteria." Despite these claims Congress is considering several bills that would amend or repeal large sections of the PATRIOT Act, including those criticized by civil rights and human rights organizations.
Case Study of Democratic Citizenship Epilogue Minneapolis Legislation
On April 4, 2003, Minneapolis joined three states and more than 150 other cities and towns across the United States in passing a resolution stating their intention not to cooperate with provisions of the PATRIOT Act that they deem unconstitutional. The City Council Resolution urges police and other local officials to refuse cooperation and to refrain from using police time and money to assist FBI investigations involving PATRIOT act powers that violate Constitutional rights. The bill had the support of the Minnesota Library Association and other national free speech and civil liberties groups. The preamble of the Minneapolis resolution states that the PATRIOT Act "effectively eliminates judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance" and grants the FBI broad access to personal information including library records, "without having to show evidence of a crime, and without a court order." The Minneapolis resolution also criticizes investigative powers that include: detaining persons without charges, without right to a lawyer, and without a public and speedy trial, as well as spying on religious and political meetings. The City Council also urged members of Minnesota's Congressional Delegation to support legislation that revokes parts of the PATRIOT act that limit fundamental rights and freedoms. The Resolution also requested the Director of the Minneapolis Library to post a notice to all library users that their personal property records may be obtained by the federal government under the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Minneapolis Library has declined to post these notices out of fear that library users will be afraid to use library services.