The American Civil Liberties Union, a New York-based civil rights and legal foundation, has begun distributing wallet-sized cards in Arabic that inform immigrants in the United States of their rights if confronted by law enforcement officials.
The issuance of the cards is a response to the US Justice Department’s effort to contact — and possibly detain — thousands of young Middle Eastern men as part of its wide legal dragnet for the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
The cards inform immigrants that they have the right to remain silent, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and the right to speak to an attorney. US law enforcement officials and diplomats brush off concerns by the ACLU and other critics that America’s new war on terrorism poses a threat to civil liberties.
"Our efforts have been deliberate, they’ve been coordinated, they’ve been carefully crafted to not only protect America but to respect the Constitution and the rights enshrined there," US Attorney General John Ashcroft said in Washington last Thursday.
"Some have sought to condemn us with faulty facts or without facts at all," Ashcroft added, speaking at a Nov. 29 awards ceremony for US attorneys. "Others have simply rushed to judgment, always eager to assume the worst of their government before they’ve had a chance to understand it."
John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the United Nations is another American official rising in defense of the law enforcement sweeps targeting Arab immigrants. Last Thursday, Negroponte dismissed concerns by the United Nations human rights chief and two European organizations that governments — including the United States — were violating human rights in their pursuit of radicals and terrorists.
A communiqué issued jointly by High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe warned that governments must refrain from "excessive steps" that target ethnic groups or infringe on freedom of expression.
Negroponte said in an interview he could not comment directly on the communiqué, which he first saw on Nov. 28. But, he said: "The attack on Sept. 11 was against our way of life and our values and I think any comments that in any way equate us with the terrorist attackers would be a very, very misguided thing indeed.
"As far as what we do to respond to these terrorist attacks, I just am totally convinced that whatever we do it is going to be completely consistent with our political and historical values. I don’t have any concern in that regard, and I don’t think Mary Robinson should have any concern." The statement of alarm, issued in London, is not the first time the UN officials or European leaders have expressed concern over new laws and executive orders introduced in the United States since September 11 ."We call on all governments to refrain from any excessive steps, which might particularly affect the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture, privacy rights, freedom of expression and assembly, and the right to seek asylum," the joint statement said."Anti-terrorism measures targeting specific ethnic or religious groups would also be contrary to human rights law and international commitments and would carry the risk of sparking a dangerous upsurge of discrimination and racism," it said.
"The purpose of anti-terrorism measures is to protect human rights and democracy, not to undermine these fundamental values of our societies."
Walter Schwimmer, the secretary-general of the 43-nation Council of Europe, and Gerard Stoudmann, head of the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s human rights department, as well as Robinson signed the statement. The three also offered to assist states in developing and monitoring anti-terrorism efforts.Their communiqué does not mention any specific nations, but the United States, Britain and Canada are among those to have proposed or passed broad — some say Draconian — counter terrorism measures since September 11. These have included restrictions on asylum-seekers and new laws allowing unprecedented surveillance and interrogation of suspects, the majority of which are Arab or Islamic.
Human rights advocates, politicians and lawmakers have expressed concern about the human rights implications of such measures. An executive order issued in September by US President George W. Bush permitting the use of military tribunals to try terror suspects in the United States has drawn the sharpest criticism both here and abroad.
Late last month, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said his government was reluctant to extradite 14 detained Al-Qaeda suspects who could face military trials, and perhaps the death penalty. However, in a Rose Garden ceremony with President Bush on Wednesday the two played down their differences.
Richard Goldstone, the South African judge and a former chief prosecutor for the UN war crimes tribunal, denounced the military courts as "second- or third-class" justice that would not have credibility in the international community.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday that the military courts would be used only "in limited cases, if any."
