ISLAND VOICES
U.S. civil rights crackdown is offensive

Amanda El-Dakhakhni is a student at La Pietra Hawaii School for Girls, class of 2005.

Returning from Egypt in early January, my father and I were stopped by U.S. Customs for well over an hour. Our passports were temporarily confiscated, our documents photocopied and our identities questioned.

One of the four customs agents searching our luggage found an information packet concerning a seminar assignment for my Advanced Placement United States History class. I had highlighted information to support my thesis that James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, deserved to be the "Man of Early American History." The agent, for some reason, was confused by this, and asked me why I was interested in studying American history. The agent's question, which suggested he doubted why anyone of my heritage would desire to study American history, utterly offended me.

Moreover, the experience led me to a new appreciation for the right to privacy all Americans are supposedly guaranteed in our Constitution.

When the Framers of the Constitution drafted America's most historic document in 1787, they failed to directly address the issue of how to protect ordinary American citizens from tyranny and abuses of power. Subsequently, the first Congress of the United States wrote a set of 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, to ensure specific civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion and the press. The Bill of Rights also serves as a protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and guarantees the individual's right to counsel and the writ of habeas corpus.

Although these early American leaders envisioned the possibility of a future government's attack on civil liberties, they could never have foreseen the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

Passed in both the House and the Senate by Republicans and Democrats alike, and signed by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, shortly after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the act allows the Bush administration to go where no other American administration has gone before. The act permits the FBI to access highly personal medical, financial and electronic records and conduct secret searches that do not require notification of the subject of the investigation. Although created as a safeguard against terrorism, the act's provisions expand federal authority into the lives of ordinary and innocent citizens on the sole claim of gathering information for "intelligence purposes." The implications for American citizens are considerable.

The act's implications for non-citizens are just as great; the attorney general can choose to detain a non-citizen if he believes there are "reasonable grounds" that the individual may pose a threat to national security. Those detained may be held indefinitely without due process or access to a writ of habeas corpus. Such is the case for both Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, who are actually U.S. citizens not charged with any crime, and yet who are being held indefinitely and not granted rights normally given military prisoners. The two could actually face military tribunals, but their trials would be held in secret, and even with a verdict of not guilty, the men could remain in United States' custody indefinitely.

The State Department has stressed that Egypt abandon military tribunals in its war on terrorism, just as it has criticized secret trials in South America and China. Since when has America been about double standards? I could take a reasonable guess and say since national security has become more important than protecting our Constitution and the inalienable rights the Bill of Rights guarantees.

In his January 2004 State of the Union Address President Bush proclaimed, "I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom." I could not agree more. However, because the act encourages racial and religious profiling, along with encroachments on individuals' rights, I no longer have the freedom to pray in a mosque without at least the potential of the FBI demanding a list of its members. Even then, I might never learn that my name, merely because it is of Middle Eastern origin, led to my becoming a suspected terrorist.

This summer, Congress will consider and debate the re-authorization of the act, portions of which are due to sunset on Dec. 31, 2005. Claiming that the "terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule," President Bush advised Congress in his State of the Union speech to renew the act to keep certain sections of the law intact. Among those portions that would expire are sections that permit police to conduct warrantless Internet surveillances and share gathered information with the CIA and other security agencies, and allow the FBI access to a person's library records.

Meanwhile, both liberal and conservative members of Congress have expressed support for bills that would grant the courts increased oversight of government investigations and would define the type of records that law-enforcement agents could acquire.

However, many sections of the act have no expiration date. For example, the portion that permits "sneak and peek" searches, along with another section that allows police to detect the identities of a suspected person's e-mail correspondents, will not expire on the scheduled date.

In fact, Hawai'i's Legislature was the first in the nation to pass a joint resolution calling for the repeal of those sections of the act that deny individual freedoms. Our state has recognized our need to remain safe from both terrorism and the power of the federal government, sending a strong message to America that the Aloha State is intent on maintaining our civil liberties. To protest the looming re-authorization of the act this summer, readers can call or write to their members of Congress.

Although the act, in many ways, has prompted distrust and resentment in Arab-American communities, its provisions should evoke an equivalent cause for alarm in the greater American community as well. The war on terrorism is not likely to be a short one. Likewise, the war on civil liberties will continue so long as our government persists in challenging the cornerstones our nation was founded upon.

Our nation was founded upon the principle that all Americans have a right to liberty, a right that must not be compromised for any reason, even for the sake of national security. How long will it take us to realize the threat restrictions on civil liberties pose to the true safety and freedom of our nation?