Critical Race Theory

Harm - Historical Surveillance

Download 0.7 Mb.
Size0.7 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   32

Harm - Historical Surveillance

FBI has targeted Black rights groups and hindered racial progression—intervention in the Black Panthers Party

Davis 92 (James K. author of Assault On the Left: The FBI and the Sixties Antiwar Movement Spying on America: the FBI's domestic counterintelligence program Praeger 1992 Page 111-113, cayla_)

Another, far less violent COINTELPRO strategy was to create tension and mistrust within the groups, so as to neutralize their effectiveness from the inside. In several situations, FBI COINTELPRO actions attempted to destroy group members’ marriages. In Saint Louis, a black-nationalist group member’s wife—described by friends as an intelligent and respectable woman—received an anonymous bureau letter saying that her husband had “been making It here” with other women in his organization and that “he gives us this jive ‘bout their better in bed than you.” In San Francisco, the wife of a Panther leader received an anonymous letter that accused her husband of having affairs with several teenage girls, and taking some of the girls on trips with him. In another situation in Saint Louis, a husband who had expressed concern about his wife’s activities in a biracial group received an anonymous letter that cause him and his wife to separate. The letter said, in part, “Look man. Guess your old lady doesn’t get enough at home or she wouldn’t be shucking and jiving with our Black men in this group.” In Chicago another type of internal discord was created. In March 1969, a local Panther leader made known his fears that a party faction led by Fred Hampton and Bobby Rush was “out to get him.” The bureau capitalized on the situation by sending an anonymous letter to Fred Hampton in an effort to create additional strain in the Panther’s relations with another group—the Blackstone Rangers—and within the Panther group itself. The letter read, “Brother Hampton: just a word of warning. A Stone friend tells me [name deleted] wants the Panthers and is looking for somebody to get you out of the way. Brother Jeff [leader of the Blackstone Rangers] is supposed to be interested. I’m just a black man looking for blacks working together, not more of this gang banging.” The FBI Key Black Extremist Program which was incorporated into the COINTELPRO strategy, began in 1970. Key black extremists were defined as “black activists who were particularly agitated, extreme, and vocal in their demands for terrorism and violence.” Reports on these extremists were to be submitted every ninety days. One of the bureau’s most successful efforts at creating internal strife within the Black Panthers played on the schism that had developed between the followers of Eldridge Cleaver and those who followed Hue Newton. This program began in March 1970 while Cleaver was in exile in Algeria and Newton was in prison. An anonymous bureau letter was sent to Cleaver in Algeria to tell him that certain Panther officials in California were actively working against him. The letter was a master-piece of deceit. Cleaver responded immediately by expelling three leaders form the party, and a furious exchange of letters between Panther leaders in California and Cleaver soon followed. On August 13, 1970, Huey Newton was released from prison. The Philadelphia Panther office, as well as the national headquarters, received an anonymous bureau letter questioning Newton’s competence and leadership. FBI wiretaps at Panther headquarters and at other offices, together with informant reporting, confirmed that the anonymous letters were very unsettling to the party as a whole. In the summer of 1970 Cleaver led a delegation to North Vietnam and North Korea. A letter was sent to Cleaver, criticizing Newton for not having arrange adequate press coverage.

Federal Surveillance was a way to subjugate and control the black population—the Black Power Movement proves

Joseph 06 (Peniel E. PhD founder of Black Power Studies, Professor of History at Tufts University “Black Power’s Powerful Legacy” The Chronicle Review (7/21/06) , cayla_)
**We do not endorse the ableist language
Yet beneath Carmichael's call for "Black Power" lies a more complicated story. His volatile image at the 1966 march marked both black power's first year of public recognition and shifting national priorities of civil-rights activism. Carmichael's increasing calls to oppose the Vietnam War (often punctuated at protests by chants of "Hell no, we won't go") would lead him to become one of the country's most vocal antiwar activists during the next year. His invocation of self-determination would increasingly lead him to embrace a Pan-Africanist vision in hope of restoring Africa as a world power.
The pages of FBI files that I received courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act detail Carmichael's interviews with foreign news media when he traveled, transcripts of speeches in America, and agency efforts to prosecute him on charges of sedition for his outspoken antiwar activities. Since only about a quarter of the almost 20,000 pages of Carmichael's files have been released to date, much remains to be discovered — about his role and the movement to which he gave a name. The documents reflect bureau surveillance of Carmichael through the tumultuous summer of 1967, a year when major American cities experienced devastating riots. Not as well remembered as 1968 and its infamously cataclysmic and violent events, 1967 might be described as the "Year of Stokely Carmichael" — all the more remarkable given the fact that he spent five months of it abroad, on a whirlwind international tour that cemented his reputation as the most dangerously charismatic activist of the black-power era. At the start of 1967, Carmichael found himself trailed by ex-convict-turned-journalist (and future Black Panther) Eldridge Cleaver for a story in Ramparts magazine and mediating disputes among militants in the San Francisco Bay Area eager to be considered the vanguard of California's burgeoning black-power movement. By the spring, Carmichael was one of the featured speakers, along with King and Benjamin Spock, at New York City's massive mobilization against the Vietnam War. Leading groups of marchers waving Vietcong flags, he vowed to fight "LBJ's racist war." In May, after stepping down as chairman of S.N.C.C., Carmichael vowed to return to grassroots organizing in Washington, D.C., the site of some of his youthful activism as a Howard student. His promise to take over the city "lock, stock, and barrel" by promoting black rule made the FBI, local authorities, and political pundits take notice. "Stokely Carmichael says he's coming," warned The Wall Street Journal, "and the nation's capital is in a sweat." Such fears, however, turned out to be premature. By July Carmichael was touring the world, first in London, where he shared the dais with radical intellectuals like Herbert Marcuse and proclaimed that American cities would become "populated by peoples of the third world" who would not tolerate racism; then in Cuba, where he befriended Fidel Castro and held up the Cuban revolution as a daring experiment in freedom. In 1968 he began a short-lived alliance with the Black Panthers before leaving the United States for Conakry, Guinea (his favorite stop on his global tour, and where he lived in between speaking tours in the United States until he died in 1998). The Black Panthers briefly represented the face of the new radicalism. Like surrealist painters, the Panthers imagined a world not yet in existence, but one they could will into being. Made up of reformed troublemakers, college students, and ex-cons, the Panthers brandished guns and law books in an at times quixotic effort to foment revolution from below. The Panthers, whose personal lives and often limited professional opportunities were shaped by the impoverished landscape of Oakland, Calif., set out to organize the black working class. Huey P. Newton, the seventh child of a preacher and a housewife who had been transplanted from Louisiana to Oakland, huddled in the offices of the North Oakland Service Center in October 1966 and dictated the party platform; Bobby Seale, his slightly older, equally driven but more practical friend, wrote it down. The Black Panther Party's 10-point manifesto, issued in 1966, called for black self-determination, decent housing and education, and the end to police brutality and exploitation in the ghetto. The revolution the Panthers so confidently predicted did not go off as planned. Financially crippled, physically harassed by federal surveillance, and burdened by the descent of once-promising leaders into self-destructive behavior and corruption — highlighted by factional splits and Newton's escalating drug abuse — the Panthers had retreated to local organizing in Oakland by the early 1970s. They seemed far removed from their daringly romantic beginnings. Black power's intellectual and political legacy is often obscured by the cringe-inducing polemics, threats of violence, and galloping sexism of the words of fire issued by activists like Carmichael, Cleaver, and Newton. Removed from the tumultuous historical setting of 1960s America, those words seem little more than the angry rhetoric of a justly forgotten era, of black nationalists blaming whites for the nation's worsening urban crisis and gun-toting Panthers vowing to lead a political revolution with an army of the black underclass. In popular memory, black power is a tragedy; a wrong turn from King's hopeful dream to hateful polemics. It has become a twisted bit of folklore, a cautionary tale about angry militants dragging down more promising movements for social justice.

Solvency – Supreme Court

The Supreme Court actively initiates wars on black neighborhoods through ‘War on Drugs’ privacy rulings

Alexander 10 (Michelle associate professor of law at Ohio State University, a civil rights advocate and a writer “The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness” New York: The New Press. 2010 , cayla_)
Courts and scholars agree that the Fourth Amendment governs all searches and seizures by the police and that the amendment was adopted in response to the English practice of conducting arbitrary searches under general warrants to uncover seditious libels. The routine police harassment, arbitrary searches, and widespread police intimidation of those subject to English rule helped to inspire the American Revolution. Not surprisingly, then, preventing arbitrary searches and seizures by the police was deemed by the Founding Fathers an essential element of the U.S. Constitution. Until the War on Drugs, courts had been fairly stringent about enforcing the Fourth Amendment's requirements. Within a few years after the drug war was declared, however, many legal scholars noted a sharp turn in the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. By the close of the Supreme Court's 1990-91 term, it had become clear that a major shift in the relationship between the citizens of this country and the police was under way. Justice Stevens noted the trend in a powerful dissent issued in California v. Acevedo, a case upholding the warrantless search of a bag locked in a motorist's trunk: In the years [from 1982 to 1991], the Court has heard argument in 30 Fourth Amendment cases involving narcotics. In all but one, the government was the petitioner. All save two involved a search or seizure without a warrant or with a defective warrant. And, in all except three, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the search or seizure. In the meantime, the flow of narcotics cases through the courts has steadily and dramatically increased. No impartial observer could criticize this Court for hindering the progress of the war on drugs. On the contrary, decisions like the one the Court makes today will support the conclusion that this Court has become a loyal foot soldier in the Executive's fight against crime.9 The Fourth Amendment is but one example. Virtually all constitutionally protected civil liberties have been undermined by the drug war. The Court has been busy in recent years approving mandatory drug testing of employees and students, upholding random searches and sweeps of public schools and students, permitting police to obtain search warrants based on an anonymous informant's tip, expanding the government's wiretapping authority, legitimating the use of paid, unidentified informants by police and prosecutors, approving the use of helicopter surveillance of homes without a warrant, and allowing the forfeiture of cash, homes, and other property based on unproven allegations of illegal drug activity. For our purposes here, we limit our focus to the legal rules crafted by the Supreme Court that grant law enforcement a pecuniary interest in the drug war and make it relatively easy for the police to seize people virtually anywhere—on public streets and sidewalks, on buses, airplanes and trains, or any other public place—and usher them behind bars. These new legal rules have ensured that anyone, virtually anywhere, for any reason, can become a target of drug-law enforcement activity.

Solvency -- Congress

The federal political and legal system has failed to curtain racial profiling in its surveillance

ACLU 9 (a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." “The Persistence of Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the United States: A Follow-Up Report to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination” August 2009 , cayla_)
In paragraph 14 of its Concluding Observations to the U.S., the Committee focused on two particular concerns: the failure to pass federal legislation to stop the practice of racial profiling, and the failure to end the National Security Entry and Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program, which targets individuals on the basis of national origin and religion.28 The Committee expressed its concern as follows: The Committee notes with concern that despite the measures adopted at the federal and state levels to combat racial profiling – including the elaboration by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice of the Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies – such practice continues to be widespread. In particular, the Committee is deeply concerned about the increase in racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attack, as well as about the development of the National Entry and Exit Registration System (NEERS) [sic] for nationals of 25 countries, all located in the Middle East, South Asia or North Africa (arts. 2 and 5 (b)). Bearing in mind its general recommendation No. 31 (2005) on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system, the Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its efforts to combat racial profiling at the federal and state levels, inter alia, by moving expeditiously towards the adoption of the End Racial Profiling Act, or similar federal legislation. The Committee also analysis ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S FOLLOW-UP SUBMISSION TO CERD ON RACIAL PROFILING [D]espite clear evidence that racial profiling continues to be a problem for federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, the U.S. government has taken little action to investigate, prosecute or combat the practice. The Persistence of Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the United States 17 draws the attention of the State party to its general recommendation No. 30 (2004) on discrimination against noncitizens, according to which measures taken in the fight against terrorism must not discriminate, in purpose or effect, on the grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, and urges the State party, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1 (c), of the Convention, to put an end to the National Entry and Exit Registration System (NEERS) [sic] and to eliminate other forms of racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians.29 The U.S. government’s response acknowledges that no progress had been made on enacting federal legislation to ban racial profiling.30 The U.S. government’s submission does not explain, however, that there was little public support from the executive branch for such legislation.31 While Congress is responsible for passing laws, it is critical that the leaders of the executive branch call for and urge the passage of such important legislation. Sadly, such leadership has been lacking for several years. The U.S. response also acknowledges the widespread criticism of the NSEERS program and seeks to justify governmental inaction by noting that the judicial branch continues to be available for those whose rights have been violated by the program. However, the U.S. submission fails to examine the ongoing ramifications of the program for individuals and families affected by the registration process.32 Nor is there explanation of why the program is necessary or should be continued. Insufficient Action Taken by Executive Branch Agencies The U.S. response focuses on the actions of the executive branch – particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – to prevent and respond to incidences of racial profiling. Though the submission mentions four investigations launched by the Department of Justice since November of 2007, only one (Puerto Rico) involves racial profiling; and the submission includes no information beyond the opening of the investigations. The submission also fails to include any details about or results of the “numerous” investigations opened by DHS’ Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. In addition, although the submission recognizes the authority of federal agencies to investigate “patterns or practices of violations” of racial profiling, the U.S. government omits any recent examples of racial profiling investigations leading to settlements.33 The two settlements cited by the U.S. (reached in 1999 with the State of New Jersey and in 2000 with the Los Angeles Police Department) are now several years old, and have failed to effectively combat racial profiling.34

Racial Profiling has few restrictions, and those are not obeyed – The federal government must set the standard

ACLU 9 (a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." “The Persistence of Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the United States: A Follow-Up Report to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination” August 2009 , cayla_)
The U.S. follow-up submission reiterates the importance of the Justice Department’s 2003 Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, claiming that it is “binding on all federal law enforcement officers.”44 However, it is important to cite the guidance itself, which clearly falls short of ICERD standards, especially with regard to the absolute lack of enforceability: This guidance is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch. It is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, trust, or responsibility, whether substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any person, nor does it create any right of review in an administrative, judicial or any other proceeding.45 In addition to failing to establish enforceable standards under which law enforcement agents can be held accountable, the guidance creates a significant loophole that allows for racial profiling for reasons of “national security,” a term that can be deployed to justify a wide variety of unjust practices: In investigating or preventing threats to national security or other catastrophic events (including the performance of duties related to air transportation security), or in enforcing laws protecting the integrity of the Nation’s borders, Federal law enforcement officers may not consider race or ethnicity except to the extent permitted by the Constitution and laws of the United States.46 Importantly, the guidance is only for federal law enforcement and is not applicable to state and local law enforcement agencies, where many racial profiling violations occur. The federal government has imposed numerous requirements on state and local law enforcement in exchange for federal funding in many areas, including post- 9/11 law enforcement measures, yet no effort has been made to require compliance with the guidance as a condition of this funding.

Linguistic change is a pre-requisite for social transformation that leads to successful policy

Oliver 94 (Mike, Professor of Disability Studies University of Greenwich, London “Politics and Language: Understanding the Disability Discourse” Dept of Psychotherapy, University of Sheffield , cayla_)

The discourse of rights, both human and civil, has played a major role in disability politics in recent years and this requires us to broaden our understanding of the issues in fundamental ways. To begin with, our current segregative practices and segregated provision, which continue to dominate the education of disabled children, have to be seen for what they are; the denial of rights to disabled people in just the same way as others are denied their rights in other parts of the world. As I wrote in a review of a recent re-appraisal of special education. "The lessons of history through the segregation of black people in the United States and current struggles to end segregation in South Africa have shown this to be so. To write as if segregation in schools, or from public transport systems or from public spaces or inter-personal interactions in our own society is somehow different, is to depoliticise the whole issue ". (Oliver 1991) What is both interesting and unfortunate about the integration/segregation discourse in the area of education however, has been its narrowness, both in terms of its failure to see integration as anything other than a technical debate about the quality of educational provision. Its failure to explicitly develop any connections with other debates about segregation of, for example, disabled from public transportation systems, of black people in South Africa, of blind people from public information, or of the poor from major parts of our cities, has been a major omission. An important reason for this is that legislation, as a concept, has been taken over by politicians, policy makers, professionals and academics, who have discussed and debated it, divorced from the views of disabled people themselves. Even my own discipline of sociology, which has a justifiable reputation for criticising everything in sight including itself, has focused little on the exclusion of disabled people from society and its institutions (Oliver 1990). While it is certainly true that in the early eighties sociologists played a significant role in exposing the humanitarian ideology underpinning the segregation of children with special needs and exposing the various vested interests concerning (Tomlinson 1982. For et al 1982), this was somehow seen in isolation from other exclusionary processes (Oliver 1985). Further, sociologists have spent less time examining and criticizing the theory and practice of integration except for a questioning of the romanticism of the integration movement (Barton and Tomlinson 1984) and an articulation of its moral and political basis (Booth 1989). What is at stake in this dispute within the integration/segregation discourse is nothing less than our view of both the nature of social reality and the role of politics in society. One view sees integration as a humanitarian response to unintended consequences in our past history which can be changed by the development of paternalistic policies. The alternative view suggests that “Integration is not a thing that can be delivered by politicians, policy makers or educators, but a process of struggle that has to be joined” (Oliver 1989. 143) And in recognition of that, it is perhaps time we changed the name of the discourse to that of inclusion/clusion rather than integration/segregation. The reason for this change is that the discourse of integration has largely been a static one about location whereas inclusion is a process which “… fundamentally challenges the traditional approach which regards impairment and disabled people as marginal, or an ‘afterthought’, instead of recognizing that impairment and disablement are a common experience of humanity, and should be a central issue in the planning and delivery of a human service such as education”. (Mason and Rieser 1994.41) 6. Conclusion In this Unit, I have not discussed the issue of language in ways that suggest that what is at stake is merely changing the labels and terminology we use. Instead I have written about language as a political issue structured by relations of power and have attempted to locate this within post-modernist social theory. I have argued that language is inextricably linked to both policy and practice and it is precisely because of these inextricable links that the right wing critics of political correctness are wrong. We do not use language just to describe the world and name our own experiences of it. Nor does language merely enable us to deconstruct the world and practices we engage in. It can enable us to conceptualise a better world and begin the process of reconstructing it. We can only believe that attempting to do so is ‘mind control’ or ‘linguistic terrorism’ as far as disabled people or those with special needs are concerned, if we believe that everything is fine and the worlds we inhabit do not need deconstructing and reconstructing. If we believe that we can improve the quality of all our lives through better policy and changed practice, then we have to recognize that language has a central role to play in this improvement.

Congress must act to end ‘Racial Profiling’ as per recommendations of the UN Human Rights Council

ACLU 9 (a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." “The Persistence of Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the United States: A Follow-Up Report to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination” August 2009 , cayla_)
Inaction on Problematic Federal Bureau of Investigation Guidelines The U.S. follow-up submission acknowledges the serious concerns of many Members of Congress and advocacy groups about new guidelines (adopted in October 2008) regulating the domestic operations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).70 The follow-up submission states: “Although the guidelines maintain the status quo with respect to the use of race or ethnicity in investigations, they have been criticized by advocacy groups and members of Congress for not going far enough to eliminate racial profiling, particularly in national security investigations.”71 The Bush administration took no steps to address the concerns raised, and the guidelines are now operational. Recently, in response to concerns about the guidelines raised by Senator Russ Feingold during Attorney General Eric Holder’s Senate confirmation hearings, Attorney General Holder committed to taking a “close look” at the guidelines early in his tenure to consider whether changes need to be made.72 Thus far, the Obama administration has taken no further action.73 It is imperative that new policies regarding the FBI guidelines and other law enforcement agency regulations be consistent with U.S. treaty obligations under ICERD and all other human rights commitments. See section 4 for additional information and concerns about the new FBI guidelines. Finally, it is significant to note that in May and June 2008, after the CERD review, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance visited the United States to conduct a formal country visit. In his report, recently presented to the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur focused on racial profiling as one of his priority concerns, and made the following relevant recommendations: As a matter of urgency, the [U.S.] Government should clarify to law enforcement officials the obligation of equal treatment and, in particular, the prohibition of racial profiling. This process would benefit from the adoption by Congress of the End Racial Profiling Act. State Governments should also adopt comprehensive legislation prohibiting racial profiling. To monitor trends regarding racial profiling and treatment of minorities by law enforcement, federal, state and local governments should collect and publicize data about police stops and searches as well as instances of police abuse. Independent oversight bodies should be established within police agencies, with real authority to investigate complaints of human rights violations in general and racism in particular. Adequate resources should also be provided to train police and other law enforcement officials.74 The U.S. government should act swiftly to implement the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations.

Solvency – Social Movements

Surveillance of social movements destroys membership

Amster et al 06- professor at Georgetown University teaches and publishes on subjects including peace/nonviolence, homelessness/poverty, social/environmental movements, and political theory (Amory Starr, Luis Fernandez, Randall Amster, Lesley Wood, “The Impact of Surveillance on the exercise of political rights: an interdisciplinary analysis” ,, p.7)

Relations with government organizations are also likely to be impaired. [Boykoff 2006: 179; Marx 1989]. From the perspective of the social movement organization, being the target of covert forms of repression may increase its distrust of the government. Mutual police and protester distrust may limit the possibility of police-protester negotiations before demonstrations, thus putting social movement groups at risk for being labeled “bad” protesters by the police and, thus, subject to stricter controls during demonstrations [Noakes, Klocke, and Gillham 2005; della Porta and Reiter 1998]. Several studies have suggested that covert forms of repression can result in challengers substituting violent behavior for non-violent activity [Lichbach 1987, White 1989]. As surveillance increases the cost of action to social movement actors, it can contribute to the decline of organizations and movements. Movement decline is associated with exhaustion, and a frequent polarization and increasing distrust between militants and moderates. In movement decline, moderates who are most likely to compromise with authorities are more likely to defect from an organization, and militants who seek continued confrontation are more likely to persist. [Tarrow 1998, 147-8]

Solvency – Racial Profiling Mosques

Federal law enforcement agencies secretly monitor worshippers at mosques

Lininger 04- defense attorney and a graduate of Kent State University with a BA in Political Science and graduated from the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law (Tom Lininger “Sects, Lies, and Videotape: The Surveillance and Infiltration of Religious Groups” , p.1206- 07)

Published reports indicate that the F.B.I. has used a variety of investigative techniques to monitor worshippers at mosques." The F.B.I. has Plan to Count Mosques Stirs Protests, INTER PRESS SERV., Feb. 17, 2003, available at 2003 WL 6914199. Utilized confidential informants, undercover agents, surveillance cameras, flyovers, and subpoenas for phone records, among other investigative techniques.17 Federal law enforcement agencies have not only infiltrated mosques in the United States, but also in foreign countries."8 This Article will consider whether the prior limits on investigations of religious institutions should be reinstated, and if so, by what means. In particular, I will consider the possibility that state bars' ethical codes could be revised to prohibit prosecutors from supervising the surveillance and infiltration of religious organizations absent a specific suspicion of criminal activity by the organization or its members. This issue has not yet attracted the attention of any other commentators.19

The Federal Surveillance of Muslims violates their privacy rights

Lininger 04- defense attorney and a graduate of Kent State University with a BA in Political Science and graduated from the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law (Tom Lininger “Sects, Lies, and Videotape: The Surveillance and Infiltration of Religious Groups” , p.1206)

A surveillance camera was installed on a utility pole near a mosque in Lackawanna, New York. The camera was aimed at the entrance of the mosque. The Lackawanna Police Chief acknowledged the presence of the camera, but said that his department had no involvement in placing it there. Dan Herbeck, Alwan Spoke with Bin Laden, BUFF. NEWS, Jan. 25, 2003, at Al, available at 2003 WL 6435470. The camera was installed during the time period when the F.B.I. was investigating a "terrorist sleeper cell" known as the Lackawanna Six, but the F.B.I. declined to comment about whether it had placed the camera on the utility pole. Id. Jim Holstun, a professor of English at S.U.N.Y. Buffalo, has posted a photo of the camera on the Internet on a Web site entitled Lackawanna Mosque-Watch 2003, available at 030201holstun.html (last visited Feb. 11, 2004) (on file with the Iowa Law Review). In another case, an F.B.I. informant videotaped a mass wedding at a mosque, and then provided the videotape to an F.B.I. agent. Affidavit in Support of Arrest Warrant at 19-20, United States v. Mohammed Ali Hasan AI-Moayad, M-03-0016 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2003), available at http://news. (last visited Feb. 11, 2004) (on file with the Iowa Law Review).

TSA violating 4th amendment for prejudice motives increases Muslim racism

Kleinder 10- litigation attorney at U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York and graduated from Tufts University and Boston College Law School (Yevgenia S. Kleiner “Racial Profiling in the Name of National Security: Protecting Minority Travelers’ Civil Liberties in the Age of Terrorism Note” p.106-08)

Of all of the federal agencies criticized for abusing their discretion under the PATRIOT Act, the TSA has perhaps suffered the most vehement attacks for violating travelers' civil liberties.19 Formed in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the TSA is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for screening all airline passengers.20 Now that airlines can no longer use independent contractors to supply their security personnel, all of the screeners currently employed in U.S. airports are federal employees.21 In implementing directives aimed at ensuring the nation's security, TSA employees, and thus the federal government, have been accused of dis- criminating against minority travelers in violation of constitutionally protected rights.22 As the experiences of the Irfan family and countless others demonstrate, the TSA's current methods of ensuring passengers' safety often result in unnecessary delays and examinations prompted by loose directives and unconstitutional prejudices. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 introduced a fear of ter- rorism into Americans' daily lives and inspired in many a suspicion of immigrants of Muslims and Middle Eastern descent.24 Compounding the dangerous environment of racism these fears engender is whatJef- frey Goldberg, an acclaimed Israeli-American journalist, calls American "security theater.'25 Goldberg argues that airport security in America is a sham, entirely incapable of dealing with a myriad of security vulner- abilities, and accuses the security system of being able to catch only the most careless and "stupid" of terrorists.26 If Goldberg is right, his argu- TSA in August 2007 for its role in refusing to let a man wearing a t-shirt that read "We Will Not Be Silent" in English and Arabic board a JetBlue Airways flight.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   32

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page