Religious Organizations Express Concern over First Amendment Freedoms, Immigrant Rights, and Privacy Protections Threatened by the Terrorism Bills

October 19, 2001

Dear Member of Congress,

We, the undersigned religious organizations, in keeping with our historic commitment to freedom of conscience, write to express our concerns with several provisions of the anti-terrorism legislation that undermine important civil liberties, including religious freedoms.

We appreciate the hard work you and other Members have done on these bills. We understand that making changes to current law may be necessary to more adequately protect the nation from further attacks.

We also believe that it is possible to go too far, and that various provisions of the House and Senate bills do just that. Without significant improvements to the language pertaining to First Amendment freedoms, immigrant rights, and privacy protections, we are likely to oppose the final version of this legislation.

Concerns regarding First Amendment Freedoms Elements of the *USA Act* and the *To Combat Terrorism* bill create a broadly-defined new crime of domestic terrorism that could, by its sweeping definition, include acts of civil disobedience and nonviolent dissent. The retroactive application of this new crime is particularly disturbing.

Throughout history, leaders from many faith traditions have spoken to moments of national crisis*words of comfort, hope and healing. At other times religious people bring a prophetic voice of truth, dissent, and challenge into the public arena. It is a role preserved by the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. To define domestic terrorism with such broad strokes will, in essence, eradicate the very freedoms that national security is to protect. We urge you to include only a narrowly-tailored definition of terrorism which does not inadvertently include domestic acts of civil disobedience or other non-violent activity.

Concerns regarding Immigrant Rights These bills would require the Attorney General to take into custody any alien he certifies as a threat to national security. While both versions contain language that appears to limit detention without charges to seven days, closer examination shows that individuals could indeed be held indefinitely, either through administrative bureaucracy or on minor criminal charges unrelated to national security or immigration. The House bill similarly seems to place a *limitation on indefinite detention,* but it too is little more than a loophole. The standard required in that section*that an alien's release must protect national security or ensure the safety of the community or any person*is both irregular and unreasonable. Reasonable measures pertaining to immigration in relation to national security should include standard legal procedures and judiciary review of the certification and deportation process, and only definite detention. Additionally, the bill should establish safeguards to ensure that Fourth Amendment and due process protections guide the translation of immigration information into criminal prosecution and vice versa. Exercising the rights of speech and association protected by the First Amendment should not result in the detention or deportation of documented immigrants.

Concerns regarding Privacy Protections Numerous provisions within the "USA Act" and the "To Combat Terrorism" bill seek to expedite criminal investigations by expanding investigative powers and eliminating judicial oversight. Narrowly-written measures that offer considerably greater security with relatively little impact on innocent persons may be acceptable. However, we are concerned that several provisions within the two versions might have a grave impact on innocent people, and are not worth the marginal additional security. In keeping with the Fourth Amendment, a high standard should be used to determine if the benefit to national security is enough to justify exposing people to what would otherwise be unreasonable search and seizure.

Particularly troubling measures are those that would:

Cast so wide a net that innocent people would be put at risk merely by association, such as through roving wiretaps; Permit the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, with little or no judicial oversight; and Reduce or eliminate the necessity of judicial approval for incredibly invasive searches, such as "sneak and peak" warrants.

We believe additional safeguards must be added to this legislation. Innocent people should only be put at risk after a very strong case has been made that it is necessary for national security. There must be meaningful judicial oversight of any new law enforcement powers for surveillance purposes. There must be a high standard for information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and regular judicial oversight of that process.

As organizations of faith, we have a responsibility to be a moral voice in the public dialogue. Not surprisingly, in the weeks since September 11 attendance at religious services has increased dramatically. People are looking to faith communities for support and leadership in this difficult time.

We would not be faithful to our calling if our leadership did not extend into the realm of public policy. We are calling on you, Members of Congress and the Administration, to support changes to this legislation that would better protect fundamental civil liberties. The goal of our national security should be defending our freedom, not limiting it.

Our organizations represent millions of Americans and immigrants living in the United States. We understand the need to fight terrorism and hold its perpetrators accountable. Yet we cannot support legislation that undermines First Amendment protections, denies immigrants due process and basic civil rights, and eliminates basic Fourth Amendment protections.

Again, without significant improvements, including narrower language and additional judicial safeguards, it is likely that many of our organizations will oppose the final version of this legislation.

Sincerely,

American Baptist Churches USA American Friends Service Committee, Washington Office American Muslim Council Church Women United Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker) Islamic Society of North America Mennonite Central Committee US, Washington Office Muslim Students Association of the US and Canada National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations United Church of Christ--Justice and Witness Ministries

Cc: The President; Attorney General; House and Senate Leadership; Leadership of the Judiciary Committees