
Contact HRF Communications
(212) 845 5245 media@humanrightsfirst.org
October
26, 2001
Human Rights First ON COUNTER-TERROR
BILL: The USA PATRIOT bill signed into
law today grants unprecedented new powers to the Attorney General to
detain non-citizens he certifies as a threat to national security. Human Rights First has closely
followed the evolution of these provisions of the bill as it has been
considered by Congress over the last four weeks. Although a number of safeguards
that we and others have pressed for have been added to the original
proposal put forward by the administration, the final bill still raises
several very serious concerns, which we outline
below. IMPORTANT SAFEGUARDS INCORPORATED INTO NEW
LAW The original version of the bill
proposed on September 19 by Attorney General Ashcroft would have granted
the Attorney General virtually unchecked authority to detain indefinitely
any non-citizen he certified as a threat to national security. There was no time limit on such
detentions, and the legislation explicitly stated that the substantive
basis for certification could not be reviewed by any
court. The bill signed
into law today adds these important
safeguards: ·
After seven days of detention, the Attorney General must
charge a detainee with a crime, initiate immigration procedures for
deportation, or release the individual. ·
The Attorney General’s certification of an individual as a
suspected terrorist must be reviewed every six months and either renewed
or revoked. ·
Individuals who have been ordered deported but are still in
detention 90 days after the removal order, and who the government is
unlikely to be able to deport in the foreseeable future, may be kept in
jail for additional six-month periods only if the government can
demonstrate that their release would endanger national security or the
safety of the community.
·
The substantive basis for the Attorney General’s
certification is now subject to judicial review. ·
Judicial review can be sought at any federal district court
nationwide. In earlier
versions of the bill, review was limited to the federal district court in
Washington D.C., which would have made it extremely difficult for indigent
non-citizens to challenge their detention. NEW LAW provides inadequate due
process protections Public reporting on the legislation
has emphasized “safeguards” created by two elements of the bill: the
seven-day limit on detention without charge, and the sunset clause. In fact, neither of these
provisions provides adequate safeguards: the risk of indefinite detention
begins after the seven-day
period, and is still possible under the bill. Additionally, the sunset clause
does not apply to the detention provisions at
all. Our
continuing concerns ·
In what is likely to be a significant number of cases, the
new law will result in long-term detention of non-citizens who have never
been charged with a crime but who have violated their immigration status
in some way. Long-term
detention may result for people who do not have travel documents or whose
countries will not take them back.
This will be a likely result if a person has been certified by the
Attorney General as a threat to U.S. national security. ·
The new law does not provide guidance on what process the
Attorney General must follow in making and reviewing the decision to
certify an individual as a suspected terrorist. Nor does the law provide guidance
to the courts on what evidence they should consider in assessing the
reasonableness of the Attorney General’s decision, whether detainees will have access
to the evidence on which such decisions are based and the standards for
review of such evidence. ·
In some countries, governments compile lists of suspected
“terrorists,” a label they attach both to those who have committed acts of
indiscriminate violence against innocent people but also to those who are
non-violent critics or political opponents of the government. When such lists are given to the
U.S. government, they must not be the sole basis for the Attorney General
to exercise this broad new detention power or for the courts to uphold the
Attorney General’s decision. ·
These sweeping new detention powers are now a permanent
feature of our law. The sunset provisions, which were wisely incorporated
into other sections of the USA PATRIOT bill, do not apply to the detention
provisions. Need
for close oversight of new law’s
Implementation Where we go from
here The USA PATRIOT bill is now
law. The Justice Department
and the Courts will be involved in implementing it. We urge interested groups and
individuals with concerns about the new law to focus on three
areas: ·
Monitor the Justice
Department’s implementation process: ·
Advocate for appropriate methods of
judicial review and oversight: ·
Demand ongoing legislative oversight:
The Safeguards it
Provides, the Dangers it Presents,
and the Need to Monitor
its Application in the Months Ahead
The Attorney General will need
to develop internal guidelines as well as formal regulations to govern
both the certification procedure and the semi-annual review of detention
cases. Of key concern will be
the Attorney General’s standard or evidentiary threshold to be used for
certifying an individual as a threat to national security.
The federal courts will have an
important role in reviewing the Attorney General’s decision to certify and
detain individuals as suspected terrorists. Among the important issues
that may be contested will be what standards will apply, the extent of
evidence the courts will be allowed to review, and whether detainees or
their lawyers will have full access to this evidence. Because the new law does not
provide for court-appointed counsel in these cases, the burden will fall
on the legal profession to provide counsel on these
cases.
Because Congress did not provide a sunset clause for the detention
provisions of the new law, ongoing legislative oversight is all the more
important. Congress should
set a reasonable target date when it will closely review how this new
detention law is working in practice, with a view towards adding
safeguards where
necessary.