The last paragraph stated:
“September 11th has had a chilling effect on the religious expression of certain faith groups, particularly Muslims. We are concerned that ethnic, national, and religious profiling by law endorsement only reinforces this fear, and fosters an environment in which individuals regularly felt unable or that it is unwise to exercise their right to religious expression. We are very concerned that the Department of Justice has relaxed surveillance restrictions on domestic religious organizations. As communities of faith, we are concerned that changes in federal law and policy are causing innocent people to suffer needlessly. We believe that the efforts of our nation to confront and counter terrorism should be conducted with the least restrictive means necessary, as determined through open debate and deliberation. In our efforts to protect the freedom of our country against aggression from without, we must be vigilant against the suppression of freedom from within the U.S. itself. In providing a defense against possible attacks on the liberty of our people, we ought not adopt methods by which we compromise the very liberty we seek to defend.”

The particular issues of concern at the time of this previous writing were:

• The Right to Due Process;
• The Right to be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure;
• The Right to Privacy;
• The Right to Free Speech and Assembly;
• The Right to Religious Liberty1 (See Washington Report to Presbyterians, Vol. 24, No. 4, or go to www.pcusa.org/washington/jul-aug02)

These concerns are still relevant and must be guarded. Congress is now about to introduce additional bills to address national security. Drafts of certain bills have been called to our attention: the Washington advocacy community refers to these as “Patriots Act II.”

One such bill, the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” projects more than 100 changes in current law. The public may have seen some of the recommendations in newspapers or on “Now with Bill Moyers” the February 7, 2003 interview with Charles Lewis, of the Center for Public Integrity (CPI). (On February 7, CPI posted a copy of the confidential draft on its website, dated January 9, 2003.)

Most notably, the press has picked up on the Act’s call for the collection of DNA samples from suspected terrorists, including anyone associating with suspected terrorist groups. It would strip citizenship from people lawfully supporting groups allegedly engaged in terrorism; and invalidate state consent decrees seeking to curb police spying. It also suggests that new powers should be implemented to obtain information about credit reports of individuals as well as to monitor voice and Internet communications of Web-enabled cell phones. It would allow officials to be imprisoned for revealing the existence of an anti-terrorism investigation. There would be more reliance on the death penalty as a response. We would be open to further government intrusion into our personal lives.

We refer to this legislation as a draft; it has not been officially introduced. In fact, government officials have often denied that they were even contemplating a “Patriot’s II,” while not categorically dismissing the 86-page draft. Under the heading of ‘nipping it in the bud,’ the advocacy community is requesting that our members voice concerns to their elected officials. If enough voices are raised, it could limit the number of co-sponsors on a final version of the bill.

Highlights of the Act:2 (Analysis from Jeanne Herrick-Stare, Friends Committee on National Legislation.)
Increases secret surveillance. The proposed act would create broad new powers of surveillance by the administration, broadening the definitions of who can be secretly watched, the certification that the administration must make to receive a warrant, and the circumstances in which the administration can conduct surveillance without a warrant. It would terminate or alter consent decrees set up to curb illegal surveillance by local law enforcement authorities.
Increases control over immigrants. The proposed act would expand the control of the Justice Department over immigration matters, including expedited deportation. It would criminalize many regulatory viola- tions and remove judicial discretion from some immigration rulings.
Establishes new crimes, criminal procedures, and sanctions. The proposed act would create new crimes, criminal procedures, and punishments relating to non-violent activities that could be linked to terrorism or groups deemed to be “terrorist groups” by the administration. It would give the Justice Department new powers concerning certification of evidence, submission of secret evidence, and mandatory pretrial detention. It would permit surveillance of the content of home computers and multi-use handheld devices, and would permit surveillance of banking and credit. It would expand the Justice Department’s subpoena power to include “administrative subpoenas,” issued without judicial oversight. It would increase the government’s control over banking activities and enhance money-laundering provisions. It would make even standard encryption of Internet and e-mail messages an enhancement to other felonies.
Names new death penalty crimes. The proposed law would provide for imposition of the death penalty for certain terrorism-related crimes.
Grants right to autopsy. The proposed act would give federal officials power to order an autopsy without permission during a federal criminal investigation if the death occurred from terrorist attack or “other deadly crimes.”
Decreases access to public information. The proposed act would restrict public Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access to public information about those detained during terrorism investigations. It would restrict available public information about potential pollution by private chemical businesses, curtailing environmental and local government oversight. The proposed act would also prohibit disclosure of information by witnesses and others subpoenaed in terrorism cases, transforming these investigations from public to secret.
Establishes a new terrorist-related DNA database. The proposed act would create a DNA database under Justice Department control. Anyone the administration suspects of association with terrorism would be forced to contribute DNA samples. Any “reasonably necessary” means could be used to get the samples, and failure to comply would bear criminal penalties. The DNA database information could be shared with state and local law enforcement agencies.
Alters procedure for taking away U.S. citizenship. The proposed act would allow the government to strip a citizen of his or her citizenship by government inference of intent to relinquish citizenship, inference rising from behavior including fighting with a hostile foreign government or terrorist organization, or even engaging in lawful activities of a group designated as a “terrorist organization” by the Attorney General.
Allows extradition without treaty and expanded deportation. The proposed act would permit extradition of individuals to countries with whom the U.S. has no extradition treaty. It would permit deportation to any location deemed acceptable by the Attorney General if deportation to the country of origin is “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible,” even if the destination’s government is not recognized by the U.S. or it has no government at all.

The proposed act is laced with interactions between federal law enforcement activities and foreign intelligence activities. It would further intermingle traditionally separated federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The proposed act completely bypasses the Homeland Security Department, new home to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and numerous crime and foreign intelligence operations. In addition, the provisions of this proposed act would represent a fundamental change from the Constitutional framework of separation of powers of the branches of government, to delegating power to the Executive Branch without oversight or accountability. It would further decrease information about government functions to the public. It would remove numerous protective walls between government agencies, erected by statute and regulation to correct past abuses.

Foreign Intelligence Collection Improvement Act of 2003
Senator Edwards (D-NC) has called for improvements in our national security. His bill, S 410, would create a Homeland Intelligence Agency that would take over many of the functions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This new department could take on many of the characteristics of the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act.” According to its sponsor: “It is the purpose of this Act to create a new element of the Intelligence Community of the United States Government, within the Department of Homeland Security, whose primary mission will be the collection and dissemination of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence inside the United States, including the plans, intentions, and capabilities of international terrorist groups operating in the United States. The mission of such entity, the Homeland Intelligence Agency, shall be conducted with appropriate respect for the privacy and civil liberties of United States persons.”

We urge caution that racial or religious profiling does not become a characteristic of these security measures. This is all very scary, for those of us who remember the infiltration of American religious services by intelligence agencies during the Central American ‘contra wars.’ Former Moderator John Fife’s church (Southside Presbyterian in Tucson, Arizona) was infiltrated by government agencies. This left many worshipers feeling that their private prayers and words were being recorded and scrutinized by persons who sat with them but were not truly participants in the religious activity under surveillance.
Some members of the religious community feel it is acceptable to allow this kind of scrutiny in the name of security. Others feel that once we give up our rights and freedoms, we may never get them back.

Suggested Action

It is not clear when Congress will act on these issues. But it is not too early to express your opinion to Members and the administration:

President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
(202) 456-1414
President@whitehouse.gov

Attorney General Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 514-2001
www.usdoj.gov

The Honorable
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Ask these elected officials to preserve civil liberties. Pick a particular point in the letter above and say why you have concerns. The American Muslim Council in Washington has similar concerns. They have shared the following activity with the interreligious community:

1. Use worship services and other gatherings to educate your congregation about this and other unjust policies, such as the registration and detention of Muslim men from certain countries;
2. Write a letter (either personally, or, as the congregation to the FBI field office in your area. CC Mr. Robert Mueller, the Director of the FBI, at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20535. www.fbi.gov.
3. Alert the organizations with whom you work about this policy; ask them to speak out as an organization.
4. Work with other faith groups to secure a meeting with your local FBI field office director. Ask that they provide you with a copy of all relevant policies and surveillance reports. If necessary, file a Freedom of Information Act request to get this information.
5. Alert the civil rights organizations in your community about this policy and ask them to also join in protest.
6. Issue a press release that provides an open invitation to the public to visit the mosque to demonstrate that there is no basis for any public fear or concern about what goes on in a mosque.
7. Create or join a monitoring group.

General Assembly

“Transformation of Churches and Society Through Encounter with New Neighbors”

• Reaffirm[s] the guiding theological and ethical principles contained in the historical review of Presbyterian policy on immigration/refugee issues, and commit to rediscover its identity as a church of the stranger.

1. Christians believe in the intrinsic worth of each human as a person made in the image of God.
2. The Christian confession of Jesus Christ as Lord transforms “strangers” into neighbors who are welcomed into our communities.
3. Churches are called to ministry with refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants, and to public witness.
4. Christians have the responsibility to challenge and to shape government policy regarding refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants.
5. Love of neighbor requires Christians to seek justice for refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants.
6. Faithfulness to Christ means Christians always live in tension with national values and policies. (Minutes, 1999, pp. 353-355)

[The 206th General Assembly brings to the attention of the church the significant developments that have occurred during 1993 concerning the conditions of human rights in the countries named in the 1993-94 Human Rights Update.] “This General Assembly stands in solidarity with those who are deprived of their human rights, recognizing that the whole church is called into a community that challenges those who violate the God-given dignity of others.
We affirm that the possibility of sustainable and trusting relations between governments and people require full human rights for everyone. The church and its members are called upon to advocate social justice and to work for an end to discrimination, whether by race, creed, tribe, or gender. Without social justice, there is broken community and violation of those whose dignity is denied.

We … call on the church to embody its belief in social justice by advocating human rights. We … call on the church to embody its belief in social justice by advocating human rights with a firm commitment to human rights at home and in every land so that security, peace, and freedom will be accessible for all… (Minutes, 1994, pp. 296-297)

…American Christians, who live under the mandates of the gospel and who share the rights and privileges of constitutional government and the freedoms attached thereto, must speak out to defend human rights everywhere ... (Minutes, UPCUSA, 1974, p. 598)

…The rationalization offered by the state to justify its suppression of human liberties cannot excuse the church from examining the depersonalizing effects of harsh policies such as the prolonged imposition of martial law and governance by emergency decree ... (Minutes, UPCUSA, p. 596)

That the 113th General Assembly express its concern for all persons held in prison unjustly, in their own land and around the world, and call on the General Executive Board to publicize the plight of these prisoners in an effort to influence opinion in the church and world to the end that such prisoners may be given relief. (Minutes, PCUS, 1973, p. 114)