[News] Spread of racial profiling since 9-11

[News at freedomarchives.org]

1a73aa.jpg

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0431/lee.php

The spread of racial profiling since 9-11
Civil Rights Rollback
by Chisun Lee
August 3rd, 2004 10:10 AM

1a73f9.jpg

Attorney LaShawn Warren, a leader in the fight for a federal law banning 
racial profiling
(photo: Rick Reinhard)


In Focus: Election 2004
<http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0431//issues/0431/powers.php>On: 
Shovin' It Democrats and hardballing pundits, pleasantly embedded in the 
economic elite 
<http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0431//issues/0431/mondo1.php>Mondo 
Washington: Who's in Attack Mode? Kerry tries the conventional approach, 
but Bush puts him on alert 
<http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0431//issues/0431/coates.php>When 
Music Moguls Attack Russell Simmons gets high on Rockefeller­again 
<http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0431//issues/0431/schanberg.php>Brothers-in-Cover-up 
When Kerry worked with Cheney on Vietnam P.O.W.'S 
<http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0431//issues/0431/perlstein.php>The 
End of Republican Rule Righteous populism holds the key to vanquishing Bush 
forever
<http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0431//infocus/election2004.php>See 
More ...

1a7495.jpg
our years ago the nation stood at the cusp of a major civil rights victory. 
Activists from across the country rallied in Washington, D.C., to end 
racial profiling. Polls showed a majority of Americans opposed the 
practice. Al Gore vowed that as president he would make a law banning it, 
"the first civil rights act of the 21st century."

George W. Bush agreed with his opponent. "I can't imagine what it would be 
like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed," he said 
during one 2000 debate. "That's just flat wrong." Then he did Gore one 
better: "There is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. 
Arab Americans are racially profiled. . . . People are stopped, and we got 
to do something about that."

But today his administration's reaction to the 2001 terrorist attacks has 
not only betrayed Bush's own rhetoric, but worse, it has undermined the 
political force of the anti-profiling movement in general­the force that 
made it a profound civil rights cause, not just a policy debate. By 
couching group-based profiling as necessary to homeland security, the 
government has traded the principles of universal equality and individual 
dignity for the presumption of safety. Nearly no one this election year has 
been bold enough to hint at the outrage that once powered a bipartisan 
movement. It has become impossible to be righteous about racial profiling 
without encountering the inevitable "But what about 9-11?"

What about it? Three years out, the question demands more than a knee-jerk 
nod. A thoughtful look will show that the terrorist attacks did not make 
such profiling any less wrong than it was on September 10, 2001. In fact, 
it is all the more insidious today, because the war on terrorism has lent 
profiling the veneer of legitimacy­even urgency, after alerts such as the 
one regarding financial centers last weekend. As this modern civil rights 
movement begins to put itself back together, with a renewed push for 
federal legislation, it is important to realize that racial profiling has 
not gotten any less wrong­the government is just more willing to do the 
wrong thing. And to be willing to do the wrong thing is a devastating 
rejection of the values of American life.


One and the same

"Racial profiling is being stopped driving while black or driving while 
Hispanic. This is not racial profiling," said Mark Corallo, spokesperson 
for the Department of Justice, when asked about the administration's 
9-11–related operations. He voiced precisely the kind of thinking that has 
obscured the crisis of profiling for the past three years.

Trawling for terrorists and pulling over motorists in search of drugs are 
in fact the same thing. While it may be acceptable to target people based 
on a racial or ethnic description if­and only if­there is some specific 
indication that those particular people are actually criminals, broad 
sweeps based on general traits are never OK. Not only are they unlikely to 
yield "hits" and certain to humiliate innocent parties, but such dragnets 
also violate this nation's fundamental principle that people will be 
treated as individuals and not according to stereotypes.

"You either have racial profiling, or you don't have racial profiling. You 
can't have it both ways," says LaShawn Warren, a leader in pushing for 
passage of the End Racial Profiling Act of 2004, currently a bill with 
support from 124 members of the House and 16 of the Senate. As a national 
legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, she has been 
struggling to show Congress members that FBI questioning and immigration 
roundups of people who appear to be Arab or Muslim­whatever that looks 
like­are "no different than the old kind of racial profiling that we said 
was wrong."

There is little wonder that some people refuse to believe her. The Bush 
administration has led the way. In his long-promised racial profiling ban, 
announced with great fanfare in June 2003, Bush told federal 
law-enforcement agencies that "racial profiling is wrong and will not be 
tolerated" and that "stereotyping certain races as having a greater 
propensity to commit crimes is absolutely prohibited." (The directive, 
which is not a law, lacks any enforcement mechanism, so the prohibition is 
absolute only in theory.) But he created a crippling exception: "The above 
standards do not affect current federal policy with respect to law 
enforcement activities and other efforts to defend and safeguard against 
threats to national security."

In effect, that "national security" loophole has become the exception that 
would erase the rule. Like a political ray gun, it neutralizes any critic 
who would cry racism or xenophobia when it comes to 9-11–related profiling.

Corallo pointed out, "There were 19 hijackers who were from an Islamic 
background." Certainly it makes sense to hunt for people like them­but like 
them how? There was once a time when people defended the "driving while 
black" variety of profiling, because searching certain minorities for drugs 
was said to make sense. But as publicindignation mounted over the years, 
the U.S. Customs Service, for example, scaled back its profiling and turned 
to behavior-and intelligence-based investigations instead. Drug-runner 
apprehensions more than doubled.

This administration has not scored big points for its investigative depth. 
Nevertheless, it "outright rejects" allegations that it engages in broad, 
stereotype-based profiling, Corallo said. "I understand what they're saying 
when they feel there's a focus on them," he said of Arab, Muslim, and South 
Asian immigrants and citizens who complain of biased treatment, "but 
there's not."

Maybe it depends on how one defines "focus."


Pervasive pattern

Tens of thousands of people from Muslim, Arab, and South Asian backgrounds 
have been targeted by the government in a slew of sweeps since 9-11. 
Teenage boys and men from 25 predominantly Muslim countries, none accused 
of any crime, at one point were ordered to report to immigration offices 
for questioning and fingerprinting, or risk arrest and deportation. By the 
end of the "special registration," over 82,000 individuals had complied and 
over 13,000 were slated for deportation as a result.

The FBI initiated two official rounds of interviews it called "voluntary" 
with some 8,000 immigrants and citizens of Arab, Muslim, and South Asian 
backgrounds. Community advocates claim that agents show up unannounced all 
the time­although Corallo said, "People are not getting knocks on the door 
and questioned." In everyday encounters with local police, co-workers, and 
neighbors, thousands more have been reported to authorities and detained, 
according to these advocacy groups. The Justice Department's own internal 
watchdog revealed in 2003 that scores of immigrants experienced physical 
abuse or due process violations while in government custody.

No matter that exactly zero terrorism-related charges have emerged from 
these initiatives, and that all the high-profile cases have resulted from 
real investigative work or pure accident. (From Timothy McVeigh to John 
Walker Lindh, the most infamous national security threats do not fit the 
Arab terrorist profile at all.) The roundups continue, according to weekly 
e-mail updates among immigration lawyers and advocates.

Well, these are immigrants, one argument goes. They're not supposed to be 
here in the first place, and they don't enjoy the same rights as citizens. 
Corallo claims that border control has "stopped 12 known terrorists from 
getting into the country. We also caught hundreds of convicted felons." 
(The Voice could find no mention of these figures, outside of Corallo's 
comment.) The vast majority jailed as a result of the immigration 
crackdowns are, in fact, guilty of something­although almost universally of 
technical infractions like staying past a visa deadline or not taking 
enough class credits to fulfill the student-visitor requirements. Putting 
aside the important debate about whether prolonged detention is the right 
response to a paperwork problem, these folks technically are subject to 
monitoring by the U.S. government.

Yet this monitoring has hardly been equally applied. "They weren't calling 
in immigrants from Great Britain," the ACLU's Warren points out. "There's a 
really unjustifiable distinction being made."

That distinction is where 9-11–related profiling and the more traditional 
notion of racial profiling meet. That distinction is stereotype. Whether 
based on race, religion, or national origin, the special burden of a 
profiled person is being plagued by negative assumptions tagged to his or 
her "type."

The result of such profiling is not just indignation but rank inequality. 
Says Leti Volpp, author of a widely cited 2002 law article entitled "The 
Citizen and the Terrorist," "Being a citizen means enjoying all the rights 
of a citizen. But 'driving while black' was a sign that African Americans 
could only enjoy second-class citizen-ship." She explains that people who 
are perceived to be Arab or Muslim face the same injustice. Instead of the 
right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, for instance, they 
"have to prove themselves innocent."

Just last week it emerged that the Census Bureau had given detailed 
location and national-origin data on Arab Americans­U.S. citizens­to the 
Department of Homeland Security. DHS claimed it wanted the information in 
order to post Arabic language signs in the right airports. But as the news 
shot around civil rights listservs, people recalled how census data was 
used during World War II to identify Japanese Americans who would be sent 
to U.S. internment camps.

Though the administration may deny it, former federal appellate judge 
Timothy Lewis, who was appointed to the Third Circuit by the first 
President George Bush, insists that there has been a widespread pattern of 
unjustified profiling by the government since 9-11. He agreed to chair a 
series of national public hearings on "war on drugs" and "war on terror" 
profiling last year for Amnesty International USA, only after the 
organization agreed to invite law enforcement representatives for 
fairness's sake.

"What struck me more than anything was the pervasiveness of the practice," 
said Lewis, who was also once a federal prosecutor and is now of counsel at 
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis in Washington, D.C. "I'm talking about 
going after people without any criminal predicate. Racial profiling is a 
national phenomenon. And the hearings barely scratched the surface."

The profiling of blacks and Latinos continues to thrive, even as the once 
robust opposition to it has deflated "in the frenzied atmosphere after 
9-11," as Lewis put it. From Massachusetts to Missouri to Texas, studies as 
recent as this May showed that minorities were still disproportionately­in 
one state as much as 40 percent more often­subjected to traffic stops, at 
rates unjustified by their actual record of possessing drugs. In one 
egregious situation, police in Charlottesville, Virginia, indiscriminately 
demanded DNA samples from area black men in their hunt for a serial rapist. 
The dragnet continued for over two years before public scrutiny this spring 
finally convinced authorities to stop.


Private hate, public problem

For 9-11–related-profiling victims, the element of "foreignness" gives 
discrimination a special twist, says Volpp. "People who look a certain way 
are assumed not to be citizens to begin with," but rather un-welcome 
outsiders, she says. That perception makes them especially vulnerable, not 
just to government intrusions but to private acts of violence.

Over a thousand 9-11–related bias incidents, including harassment and 
physical attacks, have been recorded since 2001 by groups such as the 
Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Sikh Coalition, and by the 
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. They have included assaults, 
arson, and even killings. And those are just the incidents that have been 
reported by people confident or informed enough to seek out these resources.

Official profiling and private bias are connected, says Muneer Ahmad, an 
associate professor at American University Law School. Although no one can 
legislate away personal prejudices, he says, "The government sends signals 
and cues all the time as to what is permissible. The end of racially 
discriminatory laws against African Americans didn't translate instantly 
into substantive equality. But when the government said segregation was 
okay, it was communicating a lot about what was appropriate. It's one thing 
for racial prejudice to be a part of society, but you provide people 
license to engage in that kind of behavior if you don't have a policy that 
condemns it."

The federal government has vigorously prosecuted some hate crimes, for 
example one in which a Sikh postal carrier in California was shot in the 
neck with a pellet rifle. And President Bush has repeatedly admonished the 
nation not to engage in bias against Muslims and Arabs.

But Ahmad says those statements must be juxtaposed with the official 
profiling of people from certain backgrounds. "Condemning the private 
violence gives the administration political cover. If you morally condemn 
something, you elevate yourself."


Racial profiling can only be eradicated by a renewed social movement that 
exposes and opposes it. Politicians can't be trusted to buck 9-11 politics 
and challenge the practice on their own, without strong popular support, 
since they fear being labeled soft on terror. And profiling victims have 
almost never found justice in the courts, since judges are notoriously 
reluctant to apply the Constitution's equal treatment mandate in a way that 
might interfere with police discretion.

Indeed, President Bush was oddly prescient when he said in 2000, "Racial 
profiling isn't just an issue with local police forces. It's an issue 
throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we're going to 
have to deal with it more and more."

He couldn't have known how much more urgent that message would become after 
four years of his leadership. But at this moment when reasonable fears of 
terrorism too often find expression in unreasonable fears of certain 
people, and the government flatly denies that it is part of the prejudice 
problem, only a broad social movement can achieve the civil rights victory 
that seemed so possible four years ago. The effort to end racial profiling 
is part of the ongoing struggle to make the American dream of equality and 
dignity come true for everyone.


Research assistance: Kris Wilton and Ben Shestakofsky


The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20040804/3a393742/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1a73aa.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14692 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20040804/3a393742/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1a73f9.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 69631 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20040804/3a393742/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1a7495.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 938 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20040804/3a393742/attachment-0002.jpg>