|
9/11 bill prompts civil liberties groups, some Dems to warn of racial profiling |
|
By Manu Raju
|
|
Posted: 07/26/07 08:13 PM [ET] |
As Democratic leaders crowed Wednesday about nearing completion of a bill to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, some civil liberty advocates and lawmakers were furious that conferees slipped in language that they said could substantially increase racial profiling across the country.
The measure would grant liability protection for people who divulge information to authorities about possible terrorist actions. It was included in the conference report at the insistence of Republicans, with support from a key independent and some Democrats.
The final provision is not as far-reaching as previous versions. It would only apply to people giving information in good faith and would not protect those making false statements with “reckless disregard” for the truth, aides said.
The Senate could vote on final passage of a bicameral conference report by week’s end, followed by House action. The White House has voiced strong opposition to the measure but stopped short of a veto threat.
The provision was not included in either the original House or Senate version of the 9/11 bill, but it was included in a separate transit security bill that the House passed in March. That has irked some Democratic senators, who say the upper
chamber has not had a chance to review the measure’s ramifications.
The so-called “John Doe” provision “has not had any committee review or hearings in the Senate and had not been in the original 9/11 bill, so its inadvertent effects had not been examined,” said an aide to Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). “Looking before legislating is important because court-stripping bills tend to be overly broad.”
Supporters dispute the suggestion that the measure would lead to racial profiling. As they argue, it would forbid someone to base his or her reporting strictly on the suspect’s looks and instead require a focus on the behavior of the suspected individual.
“I never would have supported it if I thought it was a racially profiling bill,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “I don’t ever want anybody who sees something happening that may be associated with a terrorist act to hesitate to call the police immediately because they fear they may be sued.”
The dispute comes as congressional Democrats are eagerly seeking a major legislative accomplishment to counter GOP charges that the 110th Congress has only a short list of measures that have become law. Sending the bill to the president’s desk would give Democrats a victory on a high-profile piece of anti-terror legislation that they promised to enact during the 2006 elections.
Senate Democratic leaders held a news conference Wednesday to tout the likely enactment of the 9/11 bill and their efforts to pass a $38 billion homeland security funding bill. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued a statement that Democrats were delivering on their promises “now that Republicans have dropped their opposition to the bill.”
Separately, Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami called the controversial provision “a solid compromise that ensures security in a manner that is mindful of civil rights concerns.”
To get the bill this far, Democrats have already heeded some Republican demands, angering some of their most ardent supporters. To overcome Senate Republican objections to moving to conference negotiations, Democrats agreed to drop a union-backed provision that would have granted collective bargaining rights to airport screeners. Now Democrats have angered some civil rights groups, who fear the provision could open the door for average citizens to allege suspicious behavior based simply on the color of a person’s skin.
“It certainly immunizes anybody who says, ‘I don’t want someone who looks Arab on my plane,’” said Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It goes really, really far in legitimizing racial profiling.”
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the group has concerns with language encouraging citizens to target people who are Muslim or are perceived to be Muslim. But the group does not have a problem with the provision’s language that says it only affects those acting in “good faith,” he added.
The provision stems from a lawsuit lodged by several Muslim men who were removed from an airplane last year because a passenger complained about suspicious activity.
“Taking aim at one pending case is treacherous, since such measures can widely undermine or even eliminate the legal rights of ordinary Americans in ways that aren’t always easy to predict,” said the Leahy aide.
For their part, supporters have pointed to the foiled attack at Fort Dix, N.J., earlier this year, in which a citizen reported suspicious activity that eventually led to the arrests of suspected terrorists.
|
