Washington Report to Presbyterians

Homeland Security Concerns vs. Civil Liberties

by Eleanora Giddings Ivory

August 2002 marks almost one year since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the downing of United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. Among many reactions to this devastating blow was the call to clamp down on civil and religious freedoms while the nation hunted for the terrorists. Advocates for these liberties argued that we should not set our liberties aside so easily and that we do not want the rest of the world to see that these rights, privileges and liberties are fragile in the face of challenge.

Rather than write another article on this topic, I thought it best to share with our readers a letter from the Washington religious community to members of Congress and Attorney General Ashcroft. Among the signers were the American Baptist Churches USA, Council on Islamic Relations, Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker), Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Mennonite Central Committee US Washington Office, Presbyterian Church USA, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations and the United Church of Christ.

Religious community letter to Attorney General Ashcroft and Congress

None of us remains untouched by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and subsequent events. We are bound together by a grief that is shared, a future that is uncertain, and a newfound sense of our own vulnerability. Who among us does not yearn for some further measure of control over personal safety? Who among us does not support that which is truly necessary to protect our nation from further danger and harm?

Since September 11, our leaders have sought to improve our nation's security, to protect all who live in our country, and to minimize our vulnerability to further terrorist attack. These actions are in keeping with the distinct roles and responsibilities of government to maintain social order, to promote the general welfare and to protect persons and their rights from external threat.

Yet government must also protect the rights of individuals from internal erosion. As communities of faith, we are forever asking moral questions about public policy. Never is this more difficult-or more important-than when the nation is rallied for war and charged with patriotism, for these are the times when fundamental rights are most likely to be cast aside. Among these are:

• The Right to Due Process
  Persons must be free from arbitrary arrest and detention; must have a just and open trial with the opportunity to confront accusers; and must have access to meaningful judicial oversight.
  
  We are concerned that provisions of the anti-terrorism law (PL 197-56) and a number of new regulations issued by the Executive Branch reduce the due process protections for all who reside in the United States, including undocumented aliens, lawful immigrants, and citizens. Under these new powers, immigrants may be detained indefinitely while a mysterious process takes place within the Justice Department to "clear" them of accusations - which they have no opportunity to confront - that they are somehow connected to terrorism. We know that since September 11th many individuals have been secretly held without charges for long periods of time and have been prevented from communicating with attorneys or family members. We are concerned that the Justice Department has the power to detain-without evidence-persons that an Immigration Judge has ordered released. We are further concerned that in these and other cases individuals have little or no access to meaningful judicial oversight.
  
  
• The Right to be Free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
  Individuals must be free from unreasonable searches of their person, homes, and workplaces.
  
  We are concerned that federal law enforcement officials are increasingly using "sealed warrants" to enter homes and offices and confiscate large quantities of documents, records, and computer searches, and that these searches may be being conducted primarily on the basis of the ethnic identity or association with a particular group of those being searched. Sealed warrants, while deemed necessary in a small number of circumstances, impede public oversight and protection of individual rights.
  
  
• The Right to Privacy
  Persons must be free to communicate in their homes, and have confidential conversations, and written correspondence.
  
  We are concerned that provisions of the anti-terrorism law (PL 197-56) may weaken the right of individuals to communicate, free of government interference, by expanding the authority of the federal government to use wiretaps and obtain information about emails without a search warrant. We are likewise concerned by changes in Justice Department policy that weaken our nation's long-standing tradition of protecting attorney-client confidentiality by allowing authorities linked to the prosecution to listen-in on conversations between some federal prisoners and their attorneys.
  
  
• The Right to Free Speech and Assembly
  Persons must be free to express their own beliefs, including dissent, individually or in groups, on government, public policy and society without fear.
  
  Free and open discussion is essential if we as people-and people of faith-are to address the challenges that face our nation and world. In such discussions, respect for persons who hold differing views is essential. Rather than question the loyalty of those with whom we are in disagreement, we ought to recognize that true patriotism requires expression that is critical of injustice and misguided governmental policy, as well as showing support for the values, policies and practices that are just and good.
  
  
• The Right to Religious Liberty
  Persons must be free to hold religious belief or unbelief without coercion, to meet together for public worship and witness, to speak prophetically from religious conviction to government and society, to live out their religious beliefs, and to be free from government intrusion, coercion, and control of the free exercise of conscience and religion.

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 enforcement only reinforces this fear, and fosters an environment in which individuals regularly feel 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 United States 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.

Will the U.S. Abandon the Mine Ban Treaty?

by Catherine Gordon

On June 20th, the 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) approved an overture calling on the President, the Secretary of State and the members of the U.S. Senate to take every necessary step to assure U.S. ratification of the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.

Each year between15,000 and 20,000 people in more than 80 countries are maimed or killed by anti-personnel landmines. Most of the victims are civilians.

Farming, travel, and economic development are severely inhibited by the terrifying presence of mines. The Ottowa Convention, also known as the Mine Ban Treaty, obligates its participants to completely and permanently discontinue the use, production, stockpile, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines; to destroy stockpiles within four years; to clear mines within their own territories within 10 years, and to provide continuing assistance to mine survivors.

The Mine Ban Treaty, which went into effect on March 1, 1999, has been signed by nearly three-fourths of the world's nations; it came into force faster than any other multilateral global agreement. Participants include all of the western hemisphere, except the U.S. and Cuba, and all NATO countries except the U.S. and Turkey. Most African and many Asian countries have joined. As of May 25th, there are 143 signatories and 124 rati- fications, accessions or approvals.

The United States, however, has 11 million anti-personnel landmines stockpiled, the third largest arsenal in the world, and it is one of only 14 countries that refuses to halt production of anti-personnel landmines. From 1969 to 1992, the United States exported 4.4 million anti-personnel mines, mostly to Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Somalia, and Vietnam. U.S.-made or supplied anti-personnel mines have been found in 32 countries, including Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, the U.S. gov- ernment, rather than moving toward ratification of the Mine Ban treaty, has begun a review of U.S. landmines policy and may step back from the minimal commitments made by the Clinton Administration toward complying with the treaty and toward eventual ratification.

As part of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Defense Department has made recommendations to President Bush that the U.S. abandon all efforts to join the Treaty. The Clinton Administration's policy, Presidential Directive (PDD) 64, stated that the U.S. would stop using anti-personnel landmines by 2003, except those contained in "mixed mine" systems (meaning anti-tank mines delivered with anti-personnel mines) every- where in the world except Korea. By the year 2006, if alternatives have been found, the U.S. would cease use of all anti-personnel mines and would join the Mine Ban Treaty. (This timetable, although leading toward eventual ratification, still puts the U.S. almost 10 years behind its allies and most of the rest of the world in banning landmines.)

One mistake, which has prevented the U.S. from joining the treaty, is the idea that if the U.S. does not have anti-personnel landmines in the demilitarized zone of Korea, our servicemen could be at risk in the event of an attack. But in a recent letter to President Bush, eight senior retired U.S. admirals and generals, including a former commander of U.S. troops in Korea, dismissed the utility of anti-personnel landmines. "[They] are outmoded weapons that have, time and again proved to be a liability to our own troops. We believe that the military, diplomatic, and humanitarian advantages of speedy U.S. accession to the treaty far outweigh the minimal military utility of these weapons." In addition, more than 500 U.S. veterans from all 50 states sent a similar letter citing the fact that mines have caused over 100,000 U.S. army casualties since 1942, including one-third of all casualties in Vietnam and in the Gulf War. It is no surprise that American soldiers have again experienced the destructive force of landmines in Afghanistan.

While U.S. servicemembers have continually been confronted with the dangers of landmines, the largest number of victims are children. UNICEF estimates that 30-40 percent of mine victims are children under 15. The Campaign to Ban Landmines estimates that there are 80 million landmines in the ground in more than 80 countries. We need U.S. leaders to guide the rest of the nations toward ratifying the Mine Ban Treaty. Now is the time to speak to your Senators, President Bush, and Secretary Powell about this cruel weapon. Ask your friends and family to join you, and let policymakers know of your dismay at hearing the United States may be moving away from joining the Mine Ban treaty.

By Leah Hrachovec

On Wednesday, June 26th, the Senate Finance Committee finished work on their version of the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) reauthorization bill. TANF took the place of the old welfare system when it was authorized in 1996. The House has already passed its version of TANF reauthorization, which is markedly different from the Senate version.

The Senate bill maintains the total weekly work hour requirement for TANF recipients at 30 hours per week. Conversely, the House bill proposes to increase the requirement to 40 hours per week, with no exception for single mothers with children ages 1 to 6, as is the case with current law. The Senate version replaces the existing "caseload reduction credit" that states have enjoyed with an "enhanced employment credit" which is intended to motivate states to move families into good jobs rather than simply pushing people off the roles.

Employment and training get more attention in the Senate bill: low-income workers could spend 24 months (currently 12 months) in education and training programs and count it as a work activity. The bill also proposes excluding teen parents from the 30% cap on the portion of a state's caseload that can be involved in education and training. Currently, only 30% of the total number of teen parent and adult welfare recipients can be enrolled in education and training programs at any one time.

Access to Medicaid benefits would also be restored to legal immigrant pregnant women and children under the proposed Senate TANF bill. The Committee also adopted a Bingaman (D-NM) amendment that would allow states to use their own funds to provide medical care to immigrants.

The Senate Committee TANF bill contains the much-debated marriage promotion component, but their version authorizes $200 million (compared to the House bill's $300 million appropriation, roughly 3% of total TANF funds) for a broader range of programs, including marriage promotion, teen pregnancy prevention, and domestic and sexual violence prevention programs.

While the Senate Committee-passed version of TANF reauthorization makes these and other improvements, it could still be made better. Urge your Senators to advocate for the following improvements in Senate TANF bill when it comes to the Senate floor for a vote:

• Increase funding for child care. Only one in seven eligible children currently receives child care assistance.
  
• Exclude income supplements to low-wage workers from the definition of "assistance" -families who are working full time but not earning adequate wages should not be cut off from getting help for child care and other necessities when their time runs out.
  
• Further increase access to education and training to help the large number of low-income parents who lack basic employment qualifications (high school diploma or GED, English proficiency, literacy) or have barriers to employment (mental illness, substance abuse).
  
• Include provisions to ensure racial equity, fair treatment and due process protections to welfare parents.
  
• Ensure that family violence is addressed when speaking of any programs to promote marriage; almost one-third of women receiving TANF assistance report having experienced domestic abuse in the last year.*

*According to NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund

By Elenora Giddings Ivory

This program began eleven years ago with a request from the Peacemaking Committee of Baltimore Presbytery. Members of that Presbytery wanted the Washington Office staff to set aside a regular time for them to come to the Washington Office and get regular briefings on the current issues being debated in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The staff thought that Tuesday morning was more likely to be a time when we would all be available. We, therefore, designated the Second Tuesday of each month from 10:00 until 12:00 as a time for briefing the Baltimore group and any Presbyterian who happened to come by. The issues are both international and national in scope. We do not have a briefing session when Congress is not in session. That would typically mean no Second Tuesday Briefing in July, August and December.

Checking back over my old appointment calendars, I found that the first Briefing visit for Baltimore that lead up to the establishment of the Second Tuesday Briefings was not even held on a Tuesday. It was held on Wednesday, September 25, 1991. This means that September 2002 will mark the 11th year that they have been coming to the Washington Office for briefings from the staff. They board a commuter train in Baltimore and take the 30-minute ride to Union Station on Washington's Capitol Hill. They then walk the three blocks to our offices in the United Methodist Building located between the Supreme Court, the Capitol and the Senate Office Buildings.

There is usually anywhere from 10 to 15 of them. Two or three people from National Capital Presbytery often join them. About once or twice each year a youth group, vacationing family, college group or a presbytery committee from Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, West Virginia or Virginia will add to their numbers-but Baltimore is always the core group. Once the briefing is over, the Baltimore participants walk across the street to keep their prearranged appointment with a member of the Maryland Congressional delegation to do advocacy on one or two issues. Other visitors make or keep appointments with their own member of congress.

It is probably fair to say that in the nearly 11 years of these briefings, the one that was scheduled for September 11, 2001, was perhaps the most out of the ordinary. Just as the group was emerging from the train at Union Station at around 9:30 am, they were aware that something was happening. As they entered the Washington Office, they found the staff standing in front of the television getting news about the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Since it was hard to imagine being able to go ahead with the regular briefing and not knowing what was to happen next, I suggested that we cancel the Briefing and that everyone should go home.

The events of September 11, 2002 were of course not typical. We invite you to join us in future briefings. Remaining 2002 Second Tuesday Briefings are scheduled for September 10, October 8 and November 12. You or your group is welcome to attend. There is no charge. Just give us a call to let us know that you are coming so that we can be sure to have enough chairs for everyone.