Once the shock subsided, we set out to determine what new powers the government would seek in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The smoke billowing from the Pentagon was visible over Washington as I met with several 老澳门开奖结果 colleagues from around the country in a Dupont Circle hotel. We watched the tragedy unfold on television, looking out on streams of frightened pedestrians uncertain the attacks were over.
"Ten years later, as we remember and mourn those who died on Sepetember 11th, our nation still faces the challenge of remaining both safe and free."
We listed those new powers, realizing our government would react quickly to determine who committed these monstrous acts and to prevent future attacks. Based on our country鈥檚 reactions to previous acts of terrorism, such as the Antiterrorism Act passed in response to the Oklahoma City bombing, we worried government might sweep too broadly, targeting the innocent along with the guilty based upon their race, religion, immigration status, and political views. We knew the 老澳门开奖结果 would serve a crucial role protecting constitutional rights and American values over the following months. None of us imagined we鈥檇 be waging that battle 10 years later, or that policy priorities moving forward then, such as immigration reform and a ban on racial profiling, would be thwarted because some lawmakers would use fear of terrorism to manipulate public policy.
The list we created barely scratched the surface. The unprecedented powers granted to the government created an insatiable security machine blurring the lines between national security, policing, and intelligence work at home and abroad. In the process, a dramatic transformation of privacy, surveillance, our concept of war, and government took place. This monstrous security apparatus uses fear to justify its ever-expanding, and largely secret, budget.
While the threat was new, racial and religious discrimination and political oppression are not. The Red Scare of the 20th century saw a wave of terrorist violence leading to thousands of warrantless raids, arrests, and the improper deportation of innocent immigrants based on national origin, speech, associations and political views. Japanese internment in the 1940鈥檚 and McCarthy-era investigations in the 1950鈥檚 all demonstrated what government is capable of when turned against its citizens. In the 1970s, abuses of intelligence and law enforcement powers saw the government routinely spying on anti-war and civil rights organizations.
Each era of civil liberties abuses was followed by courageous Americans reclaiming their rights, establishing legal precedents that protected political speech and non-violent political organizing. We passed civil rights laws ensuring equal access to voting and equal protection under the law. We even made great strides in exposing the injustice of racial profiling, proving it is as ineffective as it is illegal and immoral. Before 9/11 we were frustratingly close to obtaining a nationwide ban. Even President George W. Bush had , racial profiling 鈥渋s wrong and we will end it in America.鈥�
Unfortunately, after 9/11 our government opted to violate the constitutional and legal limits designed to protect the rights of the innocent. The guidance the Justice Department produced in response to President Bush鈥檚 call to ban racial profiling contained loopholes for national security and border integrity investigations. The loopholes made the rule ineffective, as tactics originally justified as necessary and temporary infringements on liberty to ensure security from foreign terrorists are now, predictably, used to address ordinary crime. Law enforcement agencies now identify behaviors as innocuous as public photography and note-taking as precursors of terrorism and crime, and have developed formal programs to collect reports of this behavior, leading to improper police stops and detentions.
Once again, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are using race and ethnicity as primary factors in deciding whom to investigate. The FBI has a racial and ethnic mapping program directing investigations on an array of criminal activity and potential national security threats to communities identified by race, ethnicity and national origin. This is racial profiling on steroids. The FBI is not alone: the Los Angeles Police Department started , but shut it down as a result of public outrage, and recent , potentially in violation of its legal prohibition against domestic spying, to engage in broad surveillance targeting the Muslim community.
Americans know racial discrimination is wrong. We must summon our courage and push back on fear and the erosion of civil liberties, turning our attention again to the promise of America by ending racial profiling, reforming disastrous immigration policies, and ensuring Americans are treated equally under the law. America can be both safe and free.
On Thursday, September 15 at 4 p.m. EDT, we鈥檒l be hosting a live chat on . We hope you鈥檒l join us; send your questions to with #老澳门开奖结果chat and #911 hashtags, or leave them in the comments section below.
Learn more about racial profiling: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON 鈥� The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, 老澳门开奖结果 and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project: 鈥淲hile this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We鈥檙e profoundly frustrated that the administration didn鈥檛 take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.鈥� -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government鈥檚 case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. 鈥� This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 case, his claims challenging the government鈥檚 detention of him would fail. 鈥淩eviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we鈥檙e heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,鈥� said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Center for Democracy. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.鈥� In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court鈥檚 ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. 鈥淢r. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,鈥� said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. 鈥淗e cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.鈥� Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the University of Chicago Law School鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.