The House 9/11 Commission bill (H.R. 10) politicizes the attempts to reform the intelligence community by including controversial measures that have nothing to do with intelligence. The 9/11 Commission did not recommend expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act, or the gutting of due process rights for our nation’s immigrants. Yet, that’s exactly what H.R. 10 will do.

The House passed H.R.10 on October 8th by a vote of 282-134. Several amendments were offered that would have deleted the anti-immigrant and Patriot II provisions. They failed by only a few votes. Now the House and Senate will meet in conference committee to reconcile HR 10 with its Senate counterpart, S. 2845.

Below you’ll find the controversial measures contained in the House bill only:

Expanding The Patriot Act By Codifying Patriot II And Other Controversial Measures

Broadly expands government surveillance powers (Section 2001). This section broadly expands government surveillance powers by removing the requirement that non-citizen targets of secret intelligence surveillance are connected to a foreign power. The surveillance would be undertaken without probable cause of a crime against non-citizens (except legal permanent residents) suspected of involvement in terrorism. Removing the requirement would undercut the basic rationale for secret intelligence powers—relating their use to surveillance of a foreign power. The standard for secret surveillance included in Section 2001 is commonly known as the “lone wolf provision” or “Moussaoui fix,” since proponents of the change argue that it is needed because the FBI lacked the authority to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui before 9/11. Yet Congress’ own investigation found that the FBI simply misunderstood the legal standard. Surveillance was clearly available to the bureau; the problem was one of bad lawyering, not bad law.

Broadly expands the “guilt by association” material support provisions contained in the USA PATRIOT Act (Section 2043). The “guilt by association” provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act have been some of the most controversial. H.R. 10 would further broaden the USA PATRIOT Act’s already vague definition of material support. A U.S. citizen’s mere association or membership in a designated terrorist group would be a crime, even if no resources or funds are provided to the group. Liability would attach to a person with no involvement in the group’s violent activities and even to a group member that is trying to persuade the group to give up violence and join the political process. Moreover, the definitions of “terrorist organization” and “terrorist activity” are already vague and overbroad. The United States has never before in history made it a crime for citizens merely to be a member of any organization, unless membership involved violent or illegal activity. These definitions raise serious First Amendment concerns for organizations and individuals acting in the time-honored tradition of nonviolent civil disobedience.

H.R. 10 Is An Attack On Immigrants’ Rights
Deport individuals to countries where they will face torture (Section 3032).

Under this section, individuals facing deportation by the United States would be prohibited from invoking the protections of the Convention Against Torture, even if they face a grave risk of torture, as long as the country accepting the deportee provides “diplomatic assurances” that the detainee will not be tortured. The United States along with 135 other countries signed the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits nations from engaging in torture directly or sending people to a nation where they risk being tortured. This provision allows deportations of individuals to nations where they will face torture if the individuals engaged in past terrorist activities, which the USA PATRIOT Act defines so broadly as to make innocent persons subject to prosecution as terrorists. This section amounts to government approval of torture.

Deport without a hearing non-citizens present in the United States for less than 5 years (Section 3007). HR 10 expands “expedited removal” to allow for deportation without a hearing, and without judicial review, of any non-citizen anywhere in the United Sates that an immigration officer says was not lawfully admitted and has been physically present less than 5 years.

Suspend writ of habeas corpus, severely limiting power of courts to review detention and deportation, including some claims that a detainee will be tortured if returned (Section 3010). Limits the power of federal courts to review immigration actions by explicitly suspending, for the first time since the Civil War, the “Great Writ” of habeas corpus, limiting all judicial review of detention and deportation to one appeal to the federal courts of appeals, under an extremely narrow standard that allows the courts to consider only ”pure questions of law” or constitutional claims. Claims that are explicitly barred from review include some claims under the Convention Against Torture, claims for discretionary humanitarian relief (such as a non-citizen father of a severely disabled U.S. citizen child who is the child’s sole caregiver), and all claims involving criminal convictions, even in cases that occurred years or decades ago involving lawful permanent residents who came to the United States at an early age.

Deport non-citizens to countries without a functioning government (Section 3033). This section allows deportation of non-citizens to countries without functioning governments as long as the country does not physically prevent the deportation. This will subject many deportees to serious human rights violations, torture and even death. The Supreme Court is scheduled to adjudicate this issue in late 2004.

Create National ID that won’t be allowed for many immigrants (Sections 3051 to 3056). HR 10 effectively creates a national ID by federalizing state-issued drivers’ license requirements to provide that a state may not issue a drivers license without documents that many immigrants (including legal immigrants) cannot have.

Millions Of Americans And Two Federal Courts Have Taken A Stand Against The USA Patriot Act

Four states and more than 350 cities and towns, including 24 municipalities in New York State, have passed resolutions that call for repeal of USA PATRIOT Act provisions that violate our rights of privacy, speech and due process. Two federal judges have declared parts of the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional. Yet H.R. 10 would expand these controversial powers. Congress should not expand the USA PATRIOT Act, but rather repeal those provisions that infringe on civil liberties and civil rights.