REAUTHORIZATION OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT

(CONTINUED)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 10, 2005

Serial No. 109–29

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT (CONTINUED)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–913 PDF 2005

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT

(CONTINUED)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 10, 2005

Serial No. 109–29

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 10, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..... 1

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 1

WITNESSES 

Ms. Carlina Tapia Ruano, First Vice-President, American Immigration Lawyers Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8

Mr. James J. Zogby, President, Arab American Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28

Ms. Deborah Pearlstein, Director, U.S. Law and Security Program 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 32

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34

Mr. Chip Pitts, Chair of the Board, Amnesty International USA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 37

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 61

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas .................................................................. 62

Responses from Amnesty International to request for additional information 

requested by Chairman Sensenbrenner ............................................................. 70

‘‘Behind the Wire,’’ submitted for the record by Deborah Pearlstein, Director, 

U.S. Law and Security Program ......................................................................... 72

‘‘Getting to Ground Truth,’’ submitted for the record by Deborah Pearlstein, 

Director, U.S. Law and Security Program ......................................................... 117

‘‘Guantanamo and Beyond: The Continuing Pursuit of Unchecked Executive 

Powers,’’ submitted for the record by Chip Pitts, Chair of the Board, Amnesty International USA, and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. ...................... 147

Materials for Hearing Record, ‘‘Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act 

(Continued),’’ (June 10, 2005), submitted by Congressman John Conyers, 

Jr. 

Article, James Sturcke, ‘‘General Approved Extreme Interrogation Methods,’’ Guardian, March 30, 2005 .................................................................. 311

Article, Bob Herbert, ‘‘America a Symbol Of...,’’ New York Times, 

May 30, 2005, available on Westlaw at 2005 WLNR 8545594 ................. 313

Article, Neil A. Lewis & Christopher Marquis, ‘‘A Nation Challenged: 

Immigration, Longer Visa Waits for Arabs,’’ New York Times, November 10, 2001, available on Westlaw at 2001 WLNR 3372678 ................... 315

Page

IV

Materials for Hearing Record, ‘‘Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act 

(Continued),’’ (June 10, 2005), submitted by Congressman John Conyers, 

Jr.—Continued

Article, Bob Herbert, ‘‘Stories from the Inside,’’ New York Times, February 7, 2005, available on Westlaw at 2005 WLNR 1682135 ................. 321

Article, Tim Golden, ‘‘Threats and Responses: Tough Justice; After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law,’’ New York Times, October 

24, 2004, available on Westlaw at 2004 WLNR 4788371 .......................... 324

Article, Douglas Jehl, Neil A. Lewis, & Tim Golden, ‘‘The Reach of War: 

Guantanamo: Pentagon Seeks to Shift Inmates from Cuba Base,’’ New 

York Times, March 11, 2005, available on Westlaw at 2005 WLNR 

3773506 .......................................................................................................... 340

Article, Tim Golden, Ruhallah Khapalwak, Charlotte Gall, & David 

Rohde, ‘‘The Bagram File: In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan 

Inmates’ Deaths,’’ New York Times, May 20, 2005, available on 

Westlaw at 2005 WLNR 7990089 ................................................................ 346

Article, Tim Golden, ‘‘The Bagram File: Army Faltered in Investigating 

Detainee Abuse,’’ New York Times, May 22, 2005, available on Westlaw 

at 2005 WLNR 8112977 ............................................................................... 363

Report, American Civil Liberties Union, ‘‘Independence Day 2003,’’ July 

3, 2003 ............................................................................................................ 370

Report, Human Rights Watch, ‘‘We Are Not the Enemy,’’ November 2002 393

Report, Human Rights Watch, ‘‘Presumption of Guilt,’’ August 2002 ......... 435

Report, Human Rights Watch, ‘‘The Road to Abu Ghraib,’’ June 2004 ....... 534

Report, Human Rights Watch, ‘‘Still At Risk,’’ April 2005 ........................... 570

Report, Human Rights Watch, ‘‘Getting Away With Torture?,’’ April 2005 664

Report, American Civil Liberties Union, ‘‘Sanctioned Bias,’’ February 

2004 ................................................................................................................ 758

Report, American Civil Liberties Union, ‘‘Unpatriotic Acts,’’ July 2003 ...... 782

Report, Irene Kahn, Amnesty International, ‘‘Denounce Torture, Report 

2005, Forward,’’ May 25, 2005 ..................................................................... 808

Statement, Alexandra Arriaga, Amnesty International, ‘‘Stop Outsourcing 

of Torture,’’ May 10, 2005 ............................................................................ 813

Amnesty International, ‘‘United States of America, Guantanamo—an icon 

of lawlessness,’’ January 6, 2005 ................................................................. 815

Report, Amnesty International, ‘‘Human Dignity Denied: Torture and 

Accountability in the War on Terror,’’ October 27, 2004 ........................... 822

Report, Center for Civil Rights, ‘‘The State of Civil Liberties One Year 

Later,’’ 2002 ................................................................................................... 1024

Report, Nancy Chang & Alan Kabat, Center for Civil Rights, ‘‘Summary 

of Recent Court Rulings on Terrorism-Related Matters having Civil 

Liberties Implications,’’ March 8, 2004 ....................................................... 1044

Report, Anjana Malhotra, ‘‘Overlooking Innocence: Refashioning the Material Witness Law to Indefinitely Detain Muslims Without Charges’’ ... 1084

Report, American Civil Liberties Union, ‘‘Conduct Unbecoming: Pitfalls 

in the President’s Military Commissions,’’ March 2004 ............................ 1092

Report, American Civil Liberties Union, ‘‘America’s Disappeared: Seeking 

International Justice for Immigrants Detained After September 11, 

January 2004 ................................................................................................. 1109

Report, American Civil Liberties Union, ‘‘Seeking Truth From Justice, 

PATRIOT Propaganda: The Justice Department’s Campaign to Mislead 

The Public About the USA PATRIOT Act,’’ July 2003 .............................. 1136

Article, New York Times, ‘‘Just Shut It Down,’’ May 27, 2005 .................... 1149

Article, USA Today, ‘‘Biden: U.S. needs to close Cuba prison,’’ June 

6, 2005 ............................................................................................................ 1151

Letter to the Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the 

United States ................................................................................................ 1153

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE

USA PATRIOT ACT (CONTINUED) 

FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The meeting will be in order, a 

quorum for the taking of testimony is present. This hearing has 

been called by the Democratic Members of the Committee pursuant 

to clause 2(j)(1) of Rule 10 of the Rules of the House of Representatives. They have chosen the witnesses. They have also chosen the 

topic of the hearing, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Michigan, Mr. Conyers to make his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is a special hearing brought by the request of the Democratic side of the House of 

Representatives. I thank you for complying with it. There are few 

issues more important to this Committee, and I might add, the 

Congress, than the war against terror and the PATRIOT Act that 

accompanied it from a legislative perspective. 

This not only affects the rights and privacy of every American, 

but it impacts, the extent to which our Nation is able to hold itself 

out as a beacon of liberty as we advocate for democracy, both here 

and around the world. 

For many of us, this process of hearings is not merely about the 

extension of 16 expiring provisions that sunset in the PATRIOT 

Act, but it is about the manner in which our Government uses its 

legal authority to prosecute the war against terror, both domestically and abroad. 

And as we hear from our witnesses today, I think we will demonstrate that much of this authority has been abused. 

We learn from Amnesty International about the routine torture 

and degradation of detainees in American-run prisons that clearly 

and obviously violate American and international law. 

Both then White House counsel Gonzalez and the then Attorney 

General of the Department of Justice, all with others, conspired to 

create an end run around the international and United States laws 

that criminalize that sort of behavior. While the Justice Department has supposedly reversed these opinions, it still refuses to 

charge those in its jurisdiction. 

We expect that there will be testimony concerning the illegal detention and mistreatment of individuals at Guantanamo Bay. A 

2

Federal Court has found their detention and denial of legal process 

to be unconstitutional under the fifth amendment. 

And after the recent confirmation that jailers have, in fact, desecrated the Koran on more than one occasion, it is clearly time for 

the military to shut the Guantanamo facility down, and I join with 

those Members of Congress that have urged that that happen. We 

will also learn about the abuse of the immigration system to 

unjustifiably detain and harass men of Middle Eastern descent. 

The Department of Justice has held over 1,000 people in the wake 

of 9/11 and the Inspector General has found the detentions to violate the law. But no one has been punished and nothing has been 

done to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. 

Finally, we will hear about the failure of our Administration’s racial profiling tactics employed in the war against terror. Not only 

are tactics like these immoral, they have been proven to be completely useless in the war on terror. 

For example, the Government’s registration of 80,000 Middle 

Eastern men who did nothing, did nothing but create a deportation 

nightmare for families who had long been upstanding members of 

our communities. And not a single terrorist was found. 

Yesterday, the President announced with the usual fanfare that 

we need to not only reauthorize—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

As I said earlier when I called this hearing to order, this hearing 

was requested by the Democratic Minority. The Democratic Minority also stated what the scope of this hearing would be, which 

would be the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. I am disturbed that some of the testimony that has been presented in written form by the witnesses today are far outside the scope of the 

hearing which the Democratic Minority called and which they said 

in their letter. 

I am also disturbed that a number of the Members of this Committee who decided it was important to have this hearing and who 

sent me the letter, which I complied with, aren’t here this morning. 

Members have changed their travel schedules in order to participate in the hearing which they called. But, apparently they decided 

it wasn’t important enough to show up, even though they thought 

it was important enough to have this hearing. And I am going to 

read off their names because these are the people who decided the 

hearing was important enough to call, but not important enough to 

participate in. Rick Boucher of Virginia, Zoe Lofgren of California, 

Anthony Weiner of New York, Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, Gerald Nadler of New York, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, and Adam Schiff of California. 

They are AWOL. And apparently they have decided that this 

hearing is not important enough to participate in. Now——

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I didn’t interrupt you, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. I wanted to raise a point of order but I will be 

happy to wait. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Now, this Chair has bent over backwards to be fair to the Minority and everybody else and to provide 

plenty of due process on the question of reauthorizing the PAVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:36 Jul 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\FULL\061005\21913.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21913
3

TRIOT Act. We have had eleven hearings at the full and Subcommittee level here. The Minority has been offered to provide witnesses at all of the Subcommittee hearings. The two full Committee 

hearings included the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney 

General. And this shows that I have worked in a bipartisan manner to give everybody an opportunity to express their concerns 

about the 16 sections of the PATRIOT Act that were subjected to 

the sunset. 

At each one of the hearings which were held at the Subcommittee level, the Minority had at least one witness, sometimes 

two, and there was an additional Subcommittee hearing that was 

held at the end of last month at the request of the Minority, where 

they were able to choose the scope of the topics that were discussed 

at this hearing. 

I also point out the American Civil Liberties Union has testified 

four times before at the Subcommittee level. I guess they weren’t 

able to say what they planned to say, and that is why they’re 

brought back here for the fifth time. 

Now, since commencing this latest series of oversight hearings on 

the PATRIOT Act, we have examined those provisions that are set 

to expire at the end of this year and the scope of the hearings has 

been broadened at the request of the Democrats to include provisions that will not sunset and some issues that are only tangentially related to the PATRIOT Act have also received formal Committee consideration. This was at the request of the Minority. And 

it is a request that I was happy to grant so that there would be 

full and complete discussion of this law. 

Now, the American people expect and deserve that Members of 

Congress will approach terrorism prevention in a thoughtful, factual and responsible manner. All too often, opponents of the PATRIOT Act have constructed unfounded and totally unrelated conspiracy theories, erected straw men that bear no relation to reality, 

engaged in irresponsible and totally unfounded hyperbole, or unjustly criticized or impugned the honorable law enforcement officials entrusted with protecting the security of the American people. 

These efforts that which often bear no relation to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, coarsen public debate and undermine the 

responsible, substantive examination which must inform this Committee and Congress’ consideration of this critical issue. 

As the Members of this Committee know, I have great respect for 

the Rules of the House, and believe they should be enforced fairly 

and uniformly. In keeping with the spirit of those rules, it is the 

Chair’s intention to limit the scope of the hearing to the topic that 

was chosen by the Democratic Minority that called this hearing 

and chose the witnesses, which is the ‘‘Reauthorization of the USA 

PATRIOT Act.’’ This should be a serious hearing on a serious subject and not a forum for assertions or complaints that concern matters unrelated to the PATRIOT Act. 

Members and witnesses are advised that questions and testimony not falling within the subject matter of the hearing chosen 

by the Democrats will not be included in the hearing record pursuant to House Rule 11, section (k)(8). 

We will now hear testimony from the witnesses. Gentlemen from 

Michigan. 

4

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. I would like to—— Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I would like to strike the requisite number 

of words, Mr. Chairman, if I might at this time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. I want to, again, thank you for complying with the 

rules. But, I mean, we can do this in a friendly tone or a hostile 

tone. I think that tells the story to everybody about what the real 

environment is like here. But first of all, we have never had the 

meeting that we were going to set. Number two, we have never, we 

have never determined what the limits will be on this hearing, because I never talked with you about it. Number four, it is very important that we understand that in this Committee and in the 

other body, we have gone way beyond the 16 sunsetting provisions 

as we all know and there are more coming every day. 

So to suggest to me and our membership that we are now going 

to talk about the 16 sunsetting provisions precisely misses the 

point of why we have asked for the hearing. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield. 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair has complied with the 

rules. The Chair believes in complying with the rules. And the 

Chair expects all of the other Members to comply with the rules, 

which includes the Rules of the House of Representatives relative 

to pertinence and relevancy and the Chair will enforce the rules as 

they are written. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am happy to have yielded for that information. But section 1001 of the PATRIOT Act gave the Inspector General the responsibility of investigating ‘‘complaints alleging abuses 

of civil rights and civil liberties by employees and officials of the 

Department of Justice.’’ All of the topics today that are before us with these four witnesses fall under this category. It does not say only civil liberties 

abuses under the PATRIOT Act, but civil liberties in general in 

their totality. And all of the witnesses today I claim are experts in 

this area. 

So we didn’t come here to have a special hearing to be told that 

we are only going to investigate 16 sunsetting provisions. That is 

what we have had, nine, 10, 11 hearings about. The question is 

about the issues of violations or abuses alleged of civil rights and 

civil liberties. So we didn’t come here today to be muted by some 

well-intentioned recitations of the rules by the Chairman. 

And, I thank you. And I return the time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair strikes the last word and 

recognizes himself for a very brief 5 minutes. First of all, the Rules 

of the House and specifically, Rule 11 clause 2(j)(1) under which 

this hearing is called, requires that the subject matter of the hearings requested under this rule be confined to that measure or matter, which was the subject of the earlier hearing. Furthermore, the 

letter that I received from the Democratic Members of the Committee, dated June 7, exercising the provisions of this rule, reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:36 Jul 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\FULL\061005\21913.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21913
5

quested at least one additional day of oversight hearings be authorized or be conducted, ‘‘on the Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT 

Act.’’

So both the rule and the letter requires that the testimony, in 

order to be pertinent and relevant, be on the subject of the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, and that is specifically the 

16 sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, which were sunsetted in the 

law which was passed 31⁄2 years ago. I would like to get to the——

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have a personal privilege. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman will state his point. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I gather that my name 

was mentioned specifically by the Chair as not being present despite the fact that I signed the letter. I point out for the record that 

I walked in here at 8:27 a.m., put my jacket on the chair, put my 

Diet Coke over here, put my papers here and walked out to the 

staff room. The Chairman may not have noted my presence, but I 

was here prior to 8:30. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair notes your presence now. 

Mr. NADLER. Now, Mr. Chairman may I strike the last word? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well if the gentleman does not want 

to listen to the witnesses, the gentlemen may strike the last word. 

Mr. NADLER. I am very desirous of listening to the witnesses, and 

I will be very brief. I would simply observe—I would simply, first 

of all, second what the distinguished Ranking Minority Member 

said about the role of this hearing and about the breadth of it. And 

I would wonder why the Chairman seems so fearful of elucidating 

any information beyond what he thinks proper. Are we afraid of 

learning about this misconduct by agents of the executive branch 

that traduce civil liberties? If that happened, if it happened, we 

should know about it and we should discuss in this Committee 

what actions to take about it. We should not be fearful of knowledge and we should not be fearful of laying out to the American 

people such information, officially laying out to the American people information, the readers of much of which the readers of any 

newspaper in the United States or the world knows. 

Much conduct has occurred, I shouldn’t say that. Much conduct 

has allegedly occurred which, if true, disgraces this country, spoils 

its good name and action should be taken about that if true. And 

we should learn about it. And I hope we are not fearful of learning 

about the truth or falsity of those statements that we have all read 

in the general press. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chairman will swear the witnesses in. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Today we are joined by Carlina 

Tapia Ruano, who serves as first vice-president for the American 

Immigration Lawyers Association. Next is Dr. James J. Zogby, 

president of the Arab American Institute. Deborah Pearlstein is the 

director of U.S. Law and Security Program, at Human Rights First. 

And finally Chip Pitts is chair of the board of Amnesty International USA. 

I thank all of these witnesses for their attendance today and admonish the witnesses to confine their testimony pursuant to the 

Rules of the House and the scope of the letter that was sent to me 

6

by the Democrats calling this hearing. Would all of the witnesses 

please raise your right hand and stand and take the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Let the record show that all of the 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. Without objection, the witnesses prepared testimony, will be included in the record at the 

point they give their verbal testimony. We would ask that the witnesses confine their verbal testimony to 5 minutes. And, first up 

is Ms. Tapia Ruano. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Ms. Tapia Ruano is testifying. 

TESTIMONY OF CARLINA TAPIA RUANO, FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. Good morning. My name is Carlina Tapia 

Ruano. I am an immigration attorney practicing in Chicago, Illinois. I am also the first vice-president of the American Immigration 

Lawyers Association, a National Bar Association that represents almost 9,000 immigration lawyers and professors of immigration law. 

I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, and also Representative Conyers for allowing me the opportunity to address you 

this morning. And also the fellow Committee Members, which includes Representative Jackson Lee from Texas, who is present this 

morning. 

I would like to talk about the PATRIOT Act and other initiatives 

related to the PATRIOT Act post 9/11. But let’s begin with the PATRIOT Act. The American Immigration Lawyers Association is 

deeply troubled by some of the provisions found in this Act, such 

as section 411 of the act, which expands the grounds of removability and deportability for individuals that engage in conduct that 

we believe is constitutionally protected. 

In addition, section 412 creates a certification process whereby 

individuals can be designated suspect terrorists without ever being 

formally charged as terrorists, thereby depriving these individuals 

from the ability to defend themselves or to explain facts that may 

have led to their incorrect certification. We would ask that Congress address these provisions. We understand that in a democracy, especially such as ours, which is in need of security, we must 

have provisions which enhance security but we would also ask that 

these provisions not deprive individuals of their individual rights 

in the process of reaching the security. These provisions in the PATRIOT Act are very troubling, but also troubling are other administrative initiatives that took place post 9/11 which are irrevocably 

interconnected with the PATRIOT Act and what it is attempting to 

achieve. 

In my written testimony, I have provided an addendum that lists 

chronically some of these administrative initiatives. 

Today I would like to just address three in particular. First, the 

blanket closure of administration judge’s proceedings; number two, 

the failure to file charges against individuals being detained, in effect, indefinitely; and third, the evisceration of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the only body that reviews decisions made by the 

Immigration Agency. 

7

We, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, believe that 

the Civil Liberties Restoration Act is a bill which should be strongly supported by Congress and it addresses fairly in a measured 

way these three concerns I have just addressed. 

Lets go back and talk about them in a little more detail. Closing 

of the immigration hearings. This took place as a result of the September 21, 2001, memo by the Department of Justice, which has 

become known as the Creppy memo, which the Department of Justice repeatedly denied, existed for months. As a result of this 

memo, hearings were ordered to be held in secret, not only the 

hearing preventing the family members, friends, and of course, the 

press, from attending, but the very fact that the hearing was taking place and its location and date and its subject matter was considered a matter of secrecy. 

We believe that hearings should be held open. We believe that 

in an open and democratic society such as ours, open hearings are 

a necessity. And closed hearings, such as these, are a normal tool 

of repressive regimes. Number 2, our concern with holding noncitizens in jail indefinitely. Again, the Department of Justice on September 20, 2001, just a day before the Creppy memo and a full 

month before the PATRIOT Act was enacted, authorized individuals, non-citizens, to be able to be held in custody for 48 hours, or 

an unspecified additional amount of time, if necessary. These are 

regulations that circumvent, that totally ignore congressional mandate in the very PATRIOT Act of putting a limit of 7 days to individuals who can be held in custody without charge. 

The Department of Justice has not had to depend on the Immigration Agency and the PATRIOT Act and its 7-day limitation. It 

simply ignores them and it relies on its own regulation which results in indefinite custody. The Department of Justice’s own internal report, inspector general report dated April 2003, documented 

that most of these post 9/11 detainees were held not only days, 

weeks, months in custody without being charged. Ultimately those 

individuals were charged with civil immigration violations. Not one 

was ever charged with any offense related to the 9/11 attacks. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Ms. Tapia Ruano, could you wrap it 

up? Your time is expired. 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. I would like to jump to the last concern, and 

that is the Board of Immigration Appeals. And I will conclude my 

comment with that. The Board of Immigration Appeals has, in fact, 

been reduced to a nonexistent body. As a result of alleged reforms, 

that body was dismantled, and in reducing the number of individuals that was allegedly going to reduce the backlog, all, in essence, 

it resulted in transferring its entire backlog to the Federal courts. 

I practice in the Seventh Circuit. A circuit, which is not known 

to be, in the past, friendly to overturning board decisions. Yet in 

the last 2 years, it has been, has become renowned for overturning 

board decisions as a result of the lack of review that exists due to 

the BIA reforms. We would urge the Committee to look to policies 

that provide security for our country, but not ignore or trample on 

individual rights. Thank you for allowing me to address. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tapia Ruano follows:]

8

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARLINA TAPIA RUANO


CTR0001.eps
9


CTR0002.eps
10


CTR0003.eps
11


CTR0004.eps
12


CTR0005.eps
13


CTR0006.eps
14


CTR0007.eps
15


CTR0008.eps
16


CTR0009.eps
17


CTR0010.eps
18


CTR0011.eps
19


CTR0012.eps
20


CTR0013.eps
21


CTR0014.eps
22


CTR0015.eps
23


CTR0016.eps
24


CTR0017.eps
25


CTR0018.eps
26


CTR0019.eps
27

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Dr. Zogby. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ZOGBY, PRESIDENT,

ARAB AMERICAN INSTITUTE 

Mr. ZOGBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 

Member Conyers and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the 

convening of this hearing and thank you for inviting me today. 

The horrific terrorist attacks of September 11th were a profound 

and painful tragedy for all Americans. None of us will ever forget 

the awful day when thousands of innocent lives were lost. The attacks were dual tragedy for my community. As Americans, it was 

our country that was attacked. Arab Americans died in the attacks. 

Arab Americans were also firefighters and police officers in New 

York and in Washington who aided in the rescue efforts. Some lost 

their lives doing so. Sadly, however, many in my community were 

torn away from their morning, because we became targets of hate 

and discrimination. Some assumed our collective guilt. Arab Americans and American Muslims and others perceived to be Arabs and 

Muslims were victims of hundreds of bias incidents. 

Thankfully the American people rallied to our defense. President 

Bush spoke forcefully against hate crimes. Both the Senate and 

House of Representatives unanimously passed resolutions condemning hate crimes. Federal, State and local law enforcement investigated and prosecuted. I received death threats. My family and 

I did. Two individuals have been prosecuted and convicted for those 

crimes. My community and I personally will always been grateful 

that our fellow Americans defended us at a critical time. 

Much has been done in the past 31⁄2 years to combat the threat 

of terror. Among other significant accomplishments is we created 

the Department of Homeland Security. We have taken steps to enhance airport and border security and we have improved information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement. However, 

as someone who has spent my entire professional life working to 

bring Arab Americans into the mainstream of American politics 

and to build a bridge between my country and the Arab world, I 

am concerned about the direction of some of our efforts to combat 

the terrorist threats and the impact that some of these efforts have 

had on my community and my country. 

Unfortunately the Administration has devoted too many resources to some measures that threaten civil liberties while doing 

little to protect our community. I share the concerns of my colleagues with some provisions of the PATRIOT Act that give law enforcement broad authority to monitor the activities of innocent 

Americans with inadequate judicial oversight. 

These concerns, I might add, are shared by Americans across the 

political spectrum. I am supportive of reasonably reforms like those 

recommended in the Security and Freedom Enhancement, or SAFE 

Act. I am concerned as well about a series of high profile initiatives 

not authorized by the PATRIOT Act, which have explicitly targeted 

tens of thousands of innocent Arabs and Muslims and have resulted in the detention and deportation of thousands. 

Policies and statements that have conflated undocumented Arab 

and Muslim immigrants with terrorists has cast a cloud of suspicion over the entire community and contributed to additional disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:36 Jul 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\FULL\061005\21913.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21913
28

crimination. I therefore support passage of the Civil Liberties Restoration Act. 

Look, the measures I am talking about are counterproductive. 

They’re counterproductive, and I want to talk about why. What 

policies am I talking about? For example, I am talking about the 

initial round up of 1,200. I am talking about the two so-called voluntary call-ins, and especially, I am talking about the national special registration program, NSEERS. That did not result in apprehending terrorists. They did not do anything but waste law enforcement resources. The FBI says that as well. They created fear and 

broke trust with many in the immigrant communities that law enforcement needs cooperation with in order to do its job, and they 

resulted in placing thousands in deportation, often for mere technical reasons because the INS simply had a backlog and couldn’t 

get to their forms. 

In addition, they were placed based on the mistaken notion that 

you conflate immigration policy with any terrorism policy. All it did 

was cast a wide net and alienated communities that law enforcement needs to have cooperation with. They ran counter to the basic 

principles of policing. And took a toll on my community, a serious 

toll. They also took a particular toll on Americans abroad and I 

want to make that point as I close. 

As a result it has become more difficult for our allies to cooperate 

with us, and it has made America less popular abroad. Now that 

may not mean something to some people. But it means something 

to me and it ought to mean something to our country because we 

are engaged in a long-term conflict in that region. 

President Bush is right when he links the spread of democracy 

to the war on terrorism. But civil liberties abuses against Arabs 

and Muslims in America and the indefinite secret detention and 

highly coercive interrogation techniques used in Guantanamo Bay 

and elsewhere have undermined our ability to advocate credibly for 

democratic reform. In fact, some Arab governments now point to 

our policies to justify their policies. We have learned anti democratic practices and human rights abuses produce instability and 

create conditions that breed terrorism. Democratic reformers and 

human rights activists used to look to America as the city on the 

hill. We once set a high standard for the world. We have lowered 

the bar. The damage to our image, to our values, and all that we 

have sought to project and our ability to deal with the root causes 

of terror have been profound. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Dr. Zogby. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zogby follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES J. ZOGBY

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, thank you for convening this important hearing and for inviting me to be with you today. 

The horrific terrorist attacks of September 11 were a profound and painful tragedy for all Americans. None of us will ever forget that awful day when thousands 

of innocent lives were lost. 

The attacks were a dual tragedy for Arab Americans. We are Americans and it 

was our country that was attacked. Arab Americans died in the attacks. Arab Americans were also part of the rescue effort. Dozens of New York City Police and rescue 

workers who bravely toiled at Ground Zero were Arab Americans. 

Sadly, however, many Arab Americans were torn away from mourning with our 

fellow Americans because we became the targets of hate crimes and discrimination. 

29

Some assumed our collective guilt because the terrorists were Arabs. Arab Americans and Muslims and other perceived to be Arab and Muslim were the victims of 

hundreds of bias incidents. According to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, ‘‘The incidents have consisted of telephone, internet, mail, and face-to-face 

threats; minor assaults as well as assaults with dangerous weapons and assaults 

resulting in serious injury and death; and vandalism, shootings, and bombings directed at homes, businesses, and places of worship.’’ As a result of the post-9/11 

backlash, in 2001, the FBI reported a 1600% increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes 

and an almost 500% increase in ethnic-based hate crimes against persons of Arab 

descent. 

Thankfully, the American people rallied to our defense. President Bush spoke out 

forcefully against hate crimes, as did countless others across the nation. Both the 

Senate and the House of Representatives unanimously passed resolutions condemning hate crimes against Arab Americans and Muslims. Federal, state and local 

law enforcement investigated and prosecuted hate crimes, and ordinary citizens defended and protected us, refusing to allow bigots to define America. My family and 

I received death threats and two individuals have been prosecuted by the FBI and 

convicted for these hate crimes. My community and I, personally, will always be 

grateful that our fellow Americans defended us at that crucial time. 

Much has been done in the past three and one-half years to combat the threat 

of terrorism. Among other significant accomplishments, we have created the Department of Homeland Security, taken steps to enhance airport and border security, and 

improved information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement. 

Arab Americans are proud to have played a crucial role in these efforts, serving 

on the front lines of the war on terrorism as police, firefighters, soldiers, FBI agents, 

and translators. The Arab American Institute has worked with federal, state and 

local law enforcement to assist efforts to protect the homeland. We helped to recruit 

Arab Americans with needed language skills and we have served as a bridge to connect law enforcement with our community. Unfortunately, our best efforts have been 

somewhat frustrated by the difficulties that many Arab Americans who possess the 

requisite language skills and a strong desire to serve our nation have experienced 

with obtaining security clearances. 

Working with the Washington Field Office of the FBI, the Arab American Institute helped to create the first Arab American Advisory Committee, which works to 

facilitate communication between the Arab-American community and the FBI. I 

served as a member of that FBI Advisory Committee, which we still hope will be 

a model to be copied across the United States. 

As someone who has spent my entire professional life working to bring Arab 

Americans into the mainstream of American political life and to build a bridge between my country and the Arab world, I am very concerned about the direction of 

some of our efforts to combat the terrorist threat and the impact these initiatives 

have on our country and my community. 

Unfortunately, the administration has devoted too many resources to 

counterterrorism measures that threaten our civil liberties and do little to improve 

our security. I share the concerns of my colleagues with some provisions of the Patriot Act that give law enforcement broad authority to monitor the activities of innocent Americans with inadequate judicial oversight. These concerns, I might add, are 

shared by Americans across the political spectrum. I am supportive of reasonable 

reforms like those recommended in the Security and Freedom Enhancement, or 

SAFE, Act. 

I am as concerned, if not more, about a series of high-profile initiatives, not authorized by the Patriot Act, which have explicitly targeted tens of thousands of innocent Arabs and Muslims and have resulted in the detention and deportation of thousands. Policies and statements that conflate undocumented Arab and Muslim immigrants with terrorists cast a cloud of suspicion over the Arab American community 

that contributed to additional discrimination. I support passage of the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which would help to end such counterproductive policies. 

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department rounded up at least 

1200 immigrants, the vast majority of whom were Arab or Muslim. The DOJ refused 

to release any information about the detainees, and charged that the detentions 

were related to the 9/11 investigation. At the time, the Arab American Institute and 

others in the Arab-American community expressed concern about the broad dragnet 

that the Justice Department had cast in Arab immigrant communities. We fully 

supported the government’s efforts to vigorously investigate the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but we questioned the efficacy of this dragnet approach. Based on reports 

from family members of the detainees, we also were very concerned about the conditions in which the detainees were confined, and their ability to contact counsel and 

their families. 

30

Pursuant to Section 1001 of the Patriot Act, in 2002, the Justice Department’s Inspector General issued a report which vindicated our concerns. The IG found that 

the Justice Department classified 762 of the detainees as ‘‘September 11 detainees.’’ The IG concluded that none of these detainees were charged with terrorist-related 

offenses, and that the decision to detain them was ‘‘extremely attenuated’’ from the 

9/11 investigation. The IG concluded that the Justice Department’s designation of 

detainees of interest to the 9/11 investigation was ‘‘indiscriminate and haphazard.’’ and did not adequately distinguish between terrorism suspects and other immigration detainees. 

The IG also found detainees were subjected to harsh conditions of confinement, 

including cells that were illuminated 24 hours per day, and confinement to their 

cells for all but one hour per day. Disturbingly, the IG also found, ‘‘a pattern of 

physical and verbal abuse by some correctional officers at the MDC [Metropolitian 

Detention Center] against some September 11 detainees, particularly during the 

first months after the attacks.’’ In testimony before this committee exactly one 

month ago, Inspector General Glenn Fine raised concerns that, with regard to abuse 

allegations at MDC, ‘‘The BOP [Bureau of Prisons] initiated its own investigation 

based on the OIG’s findings to determine whether discipline is warranted. Yet, more 

than a year later, the BOP review still is ongoing. We believe that this delay is too 

long and that appropriate discipline should have been imposed in a more timely 

fashion.’’ I’m not suggesting that the government should never use immigration charges to 

detain a suspected terrorist, but the broad brush of terrorism should not be applied 

to every out-of-status immigrant who happens to be Arab or Muslim. Moreover, if 

detained, they should most certainly not be subjected to abusive and degrading 

treatment. Our immigration system is fundamentally broken. Comprehensive immigration reform is required to address this problem. We should not confuse the problems with our immigration system with our efforts to combat terrorism. Detaining 

large numbers of undocumented Arab and Muslim immigrants will not aid our efforts to combat terrorism, and might actually harm them. 

Another example of conflating immigration enforcement against Arab and Muslims with counterterrorism was the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) ‘‘call-in’’ program (also known as Special Registration), which required male visitors from 24 Arab and Muslim countries and North Korea, to register with local INS offices. By singling out a large group of mostly Arabs and Muslims, Special Registration involved a massive investment of law enforcement resources with negligible return. It also created fear of law enforcement in our immigrant communities, whose cooperation law enforcement needs. At the same time, 

these discriminatory practices validated and even fed the suspicion that some have 

of Arabs and Muslims. 

From the outset, NSEERS was plagued by implementation problems. Due to inadequate publicity and INS dissemination of inaccurate and mistranslated information, many individuals who were required to register did not do so. Many who were 

required to register in the call-in program were technically out of status due to long 

INS backlogs in processing applications for permanent residency. Many such individuals have been placed in deportation proceedings. 

Across the country, many were detained in harsh conditions due to the government’s inability to process registrants in a timely fashion. For example, in December 

2002, the INS in Los Angeles detained hundreds of men and boys who report they 

were denied access to legal counsel and their families, held in handcuffs and leg 

shackles, and forced to sleep standing up due to overcrowding. 

In response to criticism that the ‘‘call-in’’ program discriminated against Arabs 

and Muslims, Justice Department officials originally said that it would be expanded 

to include visitors from all countries. When the program was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the administration announced that the program 

was being terminated. However, those who were already required to register, including male visitors from every Arab country, are still subject to the program’s requirements and penalties for noncompliance, including deportation. ‘‘Call-in’’ registration 

is over, but its consequences are still with us. 

The Department of Homeland Security reported that more than 80,000 people registered in the call-in. Of these, more than 13,000 have been placed in deportation 

proceedings. If a goal of Special Registration was to track possible terrorists, deporting those who complied with the program undermined this aim, especially since it 

may reduce future compliance. The Special Registration ‘‘call-in’’ program did not 

result in the apprehension of any terrorists. This clearly raises questions about the 

efficacy of the program. 

In a similar vein, the Justice Department also launched the ‘‘Interview Project,’’

to interview thousands of Arabs and Muslims, including U.S. citizens. The latest 

31

round of FBI interviews, the so-called ‘‘October Plan,’’ coincided with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiative which apparently used the NSEERScompiled database to prioritize leads. Given the pre-election nature of this initiative, 

the Arab American Institute expressed concern, at the time, that these tactics may 

have had a chilling effect on the participation of some segments of the Arab American and American Muslim communities in the election. We have found that these 

interviews created fear and suspicion in the community, especially among recent immigrants, and damaged our efforts to build bridges between the community and law 

enforcement. 

Like other DOJ programs that cast a wide net, the interviews created a public 

impression that federal law enforcement viewed our entire recent immigrant community with suspicion, which, in some cases, fostered discrimination. For example, 

we received reports of instances where the FBI visited individuals at their workplace, and then these individuals were subsequently demoted or terminated by their 

employers. 

FBI officials with whom I have spoken also questioned the project’s usefulness as 

a law enforcement and counter-terrorism program. They told me it involved a significant investment of manpower, produced little useful information, and damaged 

their community outreach efforts. 

The General Accounting Office reviewed the Interview Project and concluded:

How and to what extent the interview project—including investigative leads 

and increased presence of law enforcement in communities—helped the government combat terrorism is hard to measure . . . More than half of the law enforcement officers that [the GAO] interviewed raised concerns about the quality 

of the questions or the value of the responses.

According to the GAO, ‘‘Attorneys and advocates told us that interviewed aliens 

told them that they felt they were being singled out and investigated because of 

their ethnicity or religious beliefs.’’ The GAO also concluded that many of those 

interviewed ‘‘did not feel the interviews were truly voluntary,’’ and feared ‘‘repercussions’’ if they declined to be interviewed. 

I am concerned about these and other government efforts that infringed upon civil 

liberties for several reasons. First, it is wrong to single out innocent people based 

on their ethnicity or religion. This runs contrary to the uniquely American ideal of 

equal protection under the law. 

By casting such a wide net, these efforts squandered precious law enforcement resources and alienated communities whose cooperation law enforcement needs. They 

ran counter to basic principles of community policing, which rejects the use of racial 

and ethnic profiles and focuses on building trust and respect by working cooperatively with community members. 

According to polls conducted by the Arab American Institute and Zogby International, the Justice Department’s efforts took a toll in the Arab American community. Immediately after 9/11 Arab Americans were heartened by President Bush’s 

strong display of support for the community. In October 2001, 90% said that they 

were reassured by the President’s support, while only six percent were not reassured. By May 2002, those who felt reassured dropped to 54% as opposed to 35% 

who were not. In a July 2003 poll, the ratio dropped even further, with only 49% 

now saying that they feel assured by Bush’s support for the community while 38% 

say that they are not assured. By 2004 this number dropped to the 20% range. In 

addition, we found that thirty percent of Arab Americans reported having experienced some form of discrimination, and 60% said they were concerned about the 

long-term impact of discrimination against Arab Americans. 

Civil liberties abuses against Arabs and Muslims have been well-publicized in the 

Arab world, and there is a growing perception that Arab immigrants and visitors 

are not welcome in the United States. As a result, America is less popular, and it 

is more politically difficult for our Arab allies to cooperate with our counter-terrorism efforts. 

According to polls conducted by the Arab American Institute and Zogby International, Arab public opinion attitudes toward the United States had dropped to 

dangerously low levels even before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. We found that 

Arabs had strong favorable attitudes toward American values, and also had largely 

favorable attitudes toward the American people. However, they had extremely negative attitudes toward U.S. policy, which shaped their views of America. To be sure, 

U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq contributed to these attitudes, but perceptions of civil liberties abuses against Arab and Muslims Americans 

are also a contributing factor. In fact, in a 2004 poll of Arab attitude toward the 

US, we found that our treatment of Arab and Muslim immigrants had eclipsed PalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:36 Jul 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\FULL\061005\21913.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21913
32

estine and Iraq as the number one reason for negative attitudes toward Americans 

in some Arab countries. 

The countries polled included some of the United States’ strongest allies in the 

Middle East: Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. 

In an earlier AAI/ZI poll, done in March of 2002, we found that U.S. favorable ratings were already quite low. The most significant drops in U.S. ratings occurred in 

Morocco and Jordan. In 2002, for example, 34% of Jordanians had a positive view 

of the United States as compared with 61% who had a negative view. By 2004, only 

10% of Jordanians held a positive view of the United States, while 81% see the 

country in a negative light. Similarly in Morocco the favorable/unfavorable rating 

towards the United States in 2002 was 38% to 61% percent. Two years later, it was 

9% favorable and 88% unfavorable. 

The U.S. favorable/unfavorable rating was already quite low in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. It has remained low. 

Buttressing these poll results are my experiences in the Arab world, where I travel frequently. In conversations with opinion leaders across the region, the concern 

they raise most frequently is American civil liberties abuses against Arabs and Muslims. 

Due to a variety of factors, including fear of discrimination, many fewer Arabs 

come to the U.S. for medical treatment, tourism, study, or business. In the past, 

Arab visitors to the U.S. have had a chance to observe first-hand the unique nature 

of American democracy and freedom and have returned to the Arab world as ambassadors for our values. 

President Bush has rightly linked the spread of democracy to the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, civil liberties abuses against Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. 

and the indefinite secret detention and highly coercive interrogation of Arab and 

Muslim detainees in Guantanamo Bay and other locations has undermined our 

openness and harmed our ability to advocate credibly for democratic reforms in the 

Middle East. In fact, some Arab governments now point to American practices to 

justify their own human rights abuses. As President Bush suggested, and as we 

have learned so painfully, anti-democratic practices and human rights abuses promote instability and create the conditions that breed terrorism. Democratic reformers and human rights activists used to look to the U.S. as an exemplar, the city 

on a hill. Now they are dismissed by their countrymen when they point to the American experience. 

Once we set a high standard for the world, now we have lowered the bar. The 

damage to our image, to the values we have sought to project, and to our ability 

to deal more effectively with root causes of terror have been profound.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Ms. Pearlstein. 

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN, DIRECTOR,

U.S. LAW AND SECURITY PROGRAM 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Conyers, for inviting Human Rights First to share our views today 

on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. 

My name is Deborah Pearlstein, and I direct the U.S. Law and 

Security Program at Human Rights First, which is formerly the 

Lawyers Committee For Human Rights. 

We are grateful for the opportunity to speak and we welcome 

your review today of the PATRIOT Act as part of a much needed 

move to engage in more aggressive congressional oversight of U.S. 

counterterrorism laws and policies. I would like to focus on these 

brief remarks on the profound need for greater oversight in this 

area, and particularly the critical importance of building on the 

scope of section 804 of the PATRIOT Act, which recognizes the 

need for enforcing U.S. laws and U.S. operations overseas. This 

idea of oversight and accountability is one that the PATRIOT Act 

itself squarely incorporates in a provision we urge this Committee 

to champion anew. Section 804 of the act amends the definition of 

special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States to 

33

include ‘‘offenses committed by or against a national of the United 

States.’’ On diplomatic, consular or military premises overseas, the act 

thus now makes clear that the Department of Justice now has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes by or against U.S. persons committed 

on these sites as part of the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction. 

In light of the sustained public focus on the ongoing detention of 

foreign nationals throughout the world and the substantial hit our 

national security interests have taken as a result of these practices, 

using the power of the PATRIOT Act in this respect has never been 

more important. We believe that the way to build on this provision 

of the act is by establishing a bipartisan independent commission 

to look comprehensively at U.S. detention and interrogation operations in the war on terror. We believe such a commission is not 

only critical to restoring America’s commitment to protecting basic 

human rights, but also is an increasingly urgent requirement to 

prevent U.S. national security. 

Let me explain briefly why I believe this is the case. Since September 11, 2001 the scope of U.S. detention and intelligence collection operations worldwide has grown dramatically. Far from diminishing in importance is U.S. missions in Afghanistan and Iraq have 

matured, detention operations are picking up permanence and pace 

with the numbers of individuals in U.S. custody worldwide close to 

12,000 today. Despite the sustained nature of these operations, a 

startling number of questions about the U.S. global detention system remain shrouded in secrecy. What is the legal basis of detaining those held? And what are the plans for their future? Does the 

International Red Cross now have access to all held in U.S. custody 

or do we continue to hold ghost detainees beyond the reach of humanitarian aid or law? Critically, what methods of interrogation 

and conditions of detention do U.S. held detainees face and are we 

now in compliance worldwide with basic constitutional and treaty 

prohibitions on torture as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading 

treatment of any kind. 

One need not be an expert in U.S. international and human 

rights law to recognize the urgency of these questions. According 

to the Pentagon’s own figures, more than 100 people have died in 

U.S. custody since 2002. This includes 28 cases classified already 

by the Pentagon as homicides. At least half of those were people 

who were literally tortured to death. 

To be clear, this is not a problem about a handful of actors from 

Abu Ghraib. Only one of the criminal homicides identified by the 

Department of Defense occurred at Abu Ghraib. The rest occurred 

at others of the two dozen-some detention facilities the United 

States maintains worldwide, well beyond the few young soldiers 

facing courts martial from Abu Ghraib. 137 U.S. soldiers so far 

have been punished for acts of torture or abuse, perhaps worse, the 

problem appears to be ongoing. At least 45 detainees have died in 

U.S. custody since Secretary Rumsfeld was informed of the torture 

at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004. 

This is not a problem, first and foremost, about our brave troops. 

This is about command responsibility and congressional oversight. 

Our concern for the scope and nature of this problem is Americans 

34

and human rights lawyers have been matched and indeed exceeded 

by our friends and colleagues in the military and intelligence communities who believe current policies have been devastating both 

to the safety of our troops and the security interests of our nations. 

As a distinguished coalition of retired admirals and generals wrote 

last fall, ‘‘understanding what is going wrong and what can be done 

to avoid systemic failure in the future is essential to ensure that 

the effectiveness of the U.S. military and intelligence operation is 

not compromised by an atmosphere of permissiveness, ambiguity or 

confusion.’’ Even more starkly as one U.S. Army interrogator returning from 

Afghanistan noted, ‘‘The more a prisoner hates America, the harder 

he will be to break. The more a population hates America, the less 

likely its citizens will be to lead us to a suspect.’’ Our detention practices have inflamed our enemies and alienated 

potential allies and they continue to run contrary to the security 

imperatives this body seeks to protect. 

Finally, there can be no question that the investigations to date 

have been inadequate. As Human Rights first detailed at length in 

our recent report, Getting to Ground Truth, Government investigations so far have suffered from a lack of independence, failures to 

investigate relevant agencies and personnel, cumulative reporting, 

increasing the risk that error and omissions are perpetuating in 

successive reports, contradictory conclusions, questionable use of 

security classification withheld information, failures to address senior military and civilian responsibility, and an absence of any comprehensive game plan for corrective action. Human rights for the 

past 4 years—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. Can I conclude briefly? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Briefly. 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. Our past 4 years of active engagement on these 

issues has persuaded us a 9/11-style commission, independent, bipartisan and of unassailable credibility is critical to understand finally what has gone wrong in the U S detention interrogation operations, and to chart a way forward to accountability and correction. 

Today’s hearing can be a valuable first step in taking seriously the 

cause of liberty and safety. And we thank you for your consideration. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pearlstein follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN

Thank you for inviting Human Rights First to share our views on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. My name is Deborah Pearlstein. I am the Director of the 

US Law and Security Program at Human Rights First. We greatly appreciate the 

opportunity to speak, and welcome your review today of the Patriot Act in the context of a much needed Congressional assessment of all U.S. counter-terrorism laws 

and policies. In my testimony today I would like to offer a few basic principles we 

hope the Committee will consider as it exercises its critical responsibility for reviewing and overseeing the authority given the Executive Branch under the PATRIOT 

Act. 

For nearly 30 years, Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for 

Human Rights, has worked in the United States and abroad to advance the values 

we believe all Americans share: a respect for justice and human dignity, and a commitment to the rule of law. One role we have worked hard to play is in providing 

35

dispassionate legal analysis and pragmatic policy advice to help craft solutions to 

the most pressing human rights problems facing the world today. 

It was with these values—and this approach to our work—that Human Rights 

First responded to the attacks of September 11 by creating a new U.S. Law and Security Program to engage on the human rights questions presented by U.S. national 

security policies. As the first director of that program, and a constitutional lawyer 

by training, I approach this work starting from three guiding principles. 

First, Al Qaeda poses a very serious security threat to the American people, and 

the U.S. Government has the right and duty to protect Americans from attack. We 

thus welcome efforts to improve coordination among federal, state and local agencies, and between law enforcement and intelligence officials. Equally welcome are 

greater efforts to protect the nation’s infrastructure supporting energy, transportation, food and water; efforts to strengthen the preparedness of our domestic frontline defenders, police, firefighters and emergency medical teams, as well as those 

working in public health. That recognition has meant for us, among other things, 

reaching out to members of the U.S. military and intelligence communities to understand the nature of the security challenge we face, and to discuss rights-respecting 

solutions that are equal to the challenge. We are proud to say that we have found 

many allies in these communities, and many areas of common cause. 

The second principle is that the governments that are most effective in safeguarding human security are those that operate strictly under the rule of law: that 

is, under a system in which people are governed by public laws that are set in advance, applied equally in all cases, and are binding and enforceable on both individuals and on the government that serves them. For this reason, we have worked hard 

to engage all three branches of government in fulfilling their responsibilities to sustain our rule-of-law system. We have participated as monitors at Guantanamo Bay 

as the President’s military commission trials began; advocated in the courts to ensure in all cases independent judicial review; and urged the vigorous exercise of congressional oversight in all aspects of U.S. counterterrorism activities—most recently 

in leading bipartisan calls for Congress to appoint an independent commission to 

study the challenges of detention and interrogation in Afghanistan , Iraq, at Guantanamo and elsewhere. In this spirit, we strongly welcome this hearing today. 

Finally, we believe that the relationship between security and liberty is not zerosum. That taking rights away does not necessarily improve security. And likewise, 

that some of the most effective security-enhancing measures we have seen since 

September 11—including efforts to improve tracking of cargo containers coming into 

the United States, and a renewed commitment to disease surveillance to safeguard 

against biological attack—are broadly neutral with respect to rights. 

It is because we believe that the security costs and benefits that flow from laws 

cannot be gleaned simply from what rights they burden that we believe the PATRIOT Act discussion remains one in which more questions than answers remain. 

Homeland Security Department Secretary Chertoff emphasized recently the importance of risk-management principles in designing an effective approach to minimizing the threat of terrorism, urging that in ‘‘weigh[ing] the risks of a particular 

action, you conduct a cost-benefit analysis, and you factor these into your considerations.’’ Four years in to the PATRIOT Act’s implementation, we still lack a full, 

public accounting from the Department of Justice of the Act’s use and its effects, 

for good and ill. Without this, we all remain poorly equipped to measure how much 

liberty or security we should cede. 

Underlying all of these principles is an idea the PATRIOT Act itself incorporates, 

in a provision we urge this Committee to champion anew—the idea of accountability. Section 804 of the Act in particular amends the definition of ‘‘special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States’’ to include ‘‘offenses committed 

by or against a national of the United States’’ on diplomatic, consular or military 

premises overseas. The Act thus now makes clear that the Department of Justice 

has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes by or against U.S. persons committed on these 

sites as part of this ‘‘special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.’’ In light the sustained public focus on the ongoing detention of foreign nationals throughout the 

world, and the substantial hit our national security interests have taken as a result 

of these practices, using the power of the PATRIOT Act in this respect has never 

been more important. 

This Committee should oversee, enhance, and enforce this aspect of the PATRIOT 

Act—and the Justice Department’s pivotal role in carrying it out. With the powers 

that this Act and others like it provide comes the strict responsibility to enforce the 

laws as they exist. In including Section 804 in the Act originally, we believe Congress meant to signal its commitment to coupling new grants of power with equal 

measures of oversight and enforcement. Now is the time for Congress to strengthen 

its oversight of offenses committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdicVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:36 Jul 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\FULL\061005\21913.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21913
36

tion of the United States. And where the Department of Justice falls short, this 

body must bear the weight. 

Thank you for considering our views. We welcome your active engagement and 

the opportunity to continue to work with you on these vitally important issues.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Pitts. 

TESTIMONY OF CHIP PITTS, CHAIR OF THE BOARD,

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, distinguished Chairman, Ranking Member and Committee Members. Amnesty international’s millions of 

activists in the U.S. and in over 100 countries around the world 

call human rights violations as we see them, based on rigorous research and regardless of the government or armed group committing them. 

Our touchstone is international law, including the universal declaration of human rights and the Geneva conventions, international 

instruments that the U.S. helped create. Amnesty vigorously condemns terrorists attacks like the horror of 9/11. We also understand history’s clear lesson that human rights and the rule of law 

are indispensable prerequisites to true security for all. The PATRIOT Act, along with other post 9/11 laws, executive orders and 

policies seriously undermine human rights, weaken the global 

human rights framework and contribute both to human rights violations and, we believe, increased terror attacks. The mere existence of such measures has a chilling effect on fundamental freedoms, including speech and association, religion and belief, privacy, 

due process and equal protection. 

These are U.S. constitutional rights. But they’re also binding 

international law treaty obligations. Encouraging the presumption 

of guilt rather than innocence, the PATRIOT Act sweeps innocent 

people within its ambit. It has inspired a cascade of similar laws 

around the world that weaken the rule of law, so essential to protecting human rights, including the right to be protected from terrorist attacks. 

With active U.S. encouragement almost every country around the 

world now has new anti-terror legislation, often modeled on the 

USA PATRIOT Act. Abusive governments globally, including 

China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Colombia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, now cite 

U.S. actions to justify their own violations. 

We urge Congress to correct the deficiencies of the PATRIOT Act 

by three main measures, restoring checks and balances, restoring 

individualized fact-based suspicion, and thirdly, independent judicial review. Amnesty is especially concerned about section 802’s 

broad definition of domestic terrorism, which has already discouraged free association and peaceful dissent. Section 412’s allowing 

indefinite detention merely upon the Attorney General’s say-so, violating U.S. and international rights to due process and nondiscrimination, reduced or eliminated judicial review in sections 

like 215 and 505 which allow secret Government invasions of free 

thought, belief, religion, expression, press and privacy, and section 

213’s overbroad sneak-and-peak home search provision also infringing privacy rights. 

Congress should enforce the Patriot Act’s current sunset provisions or modify them significantly to protect individual rights and 

37

1 Amnesty International is a grassroots organization with 1.8 million members worldwide 

working to promote and defend human rights. For information, contact Ms. Alex Arriaga or Ms. 

Jumana Musa at 202–544–0200, or visit www.aiusa.org. 

eliminate, modify or sunset the other provisions infringing individual rights. Congressional oversight should also evaluate Justice 

Department compliance with section 1001 to ensure that abuses 

under the PATRIOT Act are fully investigated, especially those 

against Muslim, Arab and immigrant communities. Amnesty’s racial profiling report last year found that such practices increased 

dramatically after 9/11. 

We agree with Human Rights First and others that section 804, 

which expands U.S. jurisdiction to include offenses committed by or 

against a national of the U.S. provides grounds for Congress to 

support appointment of a special counsel and an independent commission to comprehensively investigate the torture and ill treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. 

Over 500 people have been detained without charge at Guantanamo for over 3 years, and tens of thousands more in Iraq, Afghanistan and secret detention centers around the world. The rest of the 

world knows of this. And, they also know about the more than 100 

deaths in U.S. custody, including the, at least, 28 homicides referred to. And the world views all this as an egregious abuse of 

power and a denial of the most fundamental rights of human existence. 

In Amnesty’s 2005 annual report, we noted that U.S. tolerance 

for torture and ill treatment sends a tragic and counterproductive 

message to the world that human rights may be sacrificed in the 

name of security. 

Right now the U.S. domestic and foreign approaches are both 

preemptive, secretive, unchecked, subjective, counter to the presumption of innocence, unilateral, unreliable and abusive. Instead 

of being fair, legal, objective, fact-based, tested, cooperative and 

most importantly perhaps effective. 

Congress must reiterate that human rights are an integral part 

of true security. Policies that facilitate torture at Guantanamo and 

elsewhere make us less safe and true security cannot be achieved 

without respect for human rights and the rule of law. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Pitts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIP PITTS

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, on 

behalf of Amnesty International USA 1 thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today. 

Amnesty International’s 1.8 million members in over 100 countries—including 

hundreds of thousands in the United States—are committed to exposing human 

rights violations committed by governments and armed groups around the world. 

Amnesty International is guided by international human rights and humanitarian 

law, and the standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 

the Geneva Conventions, international instruments the United States championed 

and helped create half a century ago. The organization was founded to defend the 

right of individuals incarcerated for the peaceful expression of their views and to 

oppose the use of torture on any person. Its members have helped free over 40,000 

political prisoners, many of whom are survivors of torture, and continues to work 

for the eradication of torture worldwide and the implementation of relevant international instruments that establish universal human rights standards. 

38

The USA Patriot Act was adopted in the weeks after the horrific attack on September 11, 2001. Amnesty International vigorously condemned the 9/11 attack as 

a brutal assault and a crime against humanity, and recognized the duty of every 

nation to protect its citizens and to seek fair justice. Amnesty International vigorously condemns terrorist attacks, and upholds the international human right to be 

safe from terrorism. The organization also maintains that the lesson of history is 

that preserving human rights and the rule of law is the indispensable and preferred 

route to true security. 

We are concerned that the USA Patriot Act, combined with other, related post9/11 legislation, executive orders, and policies, undermines the human rights of 

Americans and non-citizens in this country, weakens the framework for promoting 

human rights internationally, and contributes to a climate conducive to human 

rights violations as well as increased incidents of terror. 

Amnesty International believes that the USA Patriot Act, as it exists today, is out 

of step with the legal requirement and critical need to preserve core principles, constitutional freedoms, and adherence to human rights even in times of crisis. The Patriot Act and related measures threaten rights otherwise protected in the U.S. Constitution and international instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. 

Provisions of the Patriot Act have had a chilling affect on freedom of speech and 

association, freedom of religion and belief, and privacy. The law jeopardizes due 

process and fair trial procedures by encouraging a presumption of guilt until proven 

innocent, instead of the normal presumption of innocence. The Patriot Act is of concern both in itself, and also because it has inspired a significant cascade of similar 

legislation around the world that weakens the rule of law which is so essential to 

the protection of human rights, including the right to be defended against terrorist 

attacks. 

The overly braod and heavy-handed approach of the Patriot Act is also reflected 

in other US laws, executive orders, policies and tactics that have led to excesses in 

the ‘war on terror’ and have allowed abusive governments around the world to cite 

the United States as an example to justify their own violations. The policies of the 

world’s superpower disproportionately influence other nations. Governments in 

countries as diverse as Britain, China, Colombia, Cuba, India, Jordan, and 

Uzbekistan have stepped up efforts to enact or expand similarly restrictive policies. 

According to U.S. officials, at least 180 countries—almost every country in the 

world—have followed suit with legislation of their own since the USA Patriot Act 

was passed. 

Amnesty International urges Congress to correct the deficiencies of the Patriot Act 

by restoring checks and balances, fact-based individualized suspicion, and independent judicial review over government implementation of the Patriot Act. These 

corrections are necessary both to protect fundamental civil and human rights and 

to more thoughtfully enhance the law’s contribution, if any, to curbing terrorism. 

Provisions of special concern to Amnesty International include the following:

• The USA Patriot Act creates a broad definition of ‘‘domestic terrorism’’ that 

discourages the right to free expression and association. Section 802 of the 

law defines ‘‘domestic terrorism’’ as acts committed in the United States ‘‘dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws’’ if the US government determines that they ‘‘appear to be intended’’ to ‘‘influence the policy 

of a government by intimidation or coercion,’’ or ‘‘to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.’’ Already, the Patriot Act has emboldened some school administrators to discourage participation in free speech activities, and has discouraged some peaceful dissenters from protesting.

• The USA Patriot Act allows non-citizens to be detained without charge and 

held indefinitely once charged, if the US Attorney General certifies that there 

are ‘‘reasonable grounds’’ to believe this person is engaged in conduct that 

threatens national security. This runs counter to US and international rights 

to due process and to non-discrimination.

• And the USA Patriot Act infringes on the right to privacy and removes many 

types of judicial review over law enforcement and intelligence activities, 

which may in turn facilitate the commission of abuses of other human rights. 

For example, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act permits the government to 

scrutinize peoples’ reading habits through monitoring of public library and 

bookstore records and requires bookstores and libraries to disclose, in secrecy 

and under threat of criminal prosecution, personal records of reading and 

websurfing habits. This harms freedom of thought, belief, religion, expression, 

39

press, as well as privacy. Librarians have stated publicly that they are torn 

between abiding by the law and violating their patron’s right to privacy. The 

Patriot Act also allows for ‘‘sneak and peek’’ search warrants to conduct physical searches of property and computer records without providing notification, 

wiretapping and monitoring of e-mail, access to financial and educational 

records, among other areas. The right to be free from arbitrary interference 

with individual privacy is protected in both the US Constitution and the 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United 

States is a party.

Amnesty International urges the U.S. Congress to enforce the sunset provisions 

currently in the USA Patriot Act, or modify them significantly to protect individual 

rights, and eliminate, modify, or place sunsets on other provisions that infringe on 

individual rights of all Americans and non-citizens. 

We urge the U.S. Congress to exercise its important oversight role to examine implementation of the USA Patriot Act. In particular, Amnesty International is concerned by abuses against Muslim and Arab communities in the United States, and 

the generally hostile climate against immigrants. Amnesty International last year 

released a report on racial profiling in the United States and found that racial 

profiling practices by law enforcement have expanded in the government’s ‘‘war on terror’’ and threaten to affect an estimated 87 million individuals in the United 

States. The report, ‘‘Threat and Humiliation: Racial Profiling, Domestic Security, 

and Human Rights in the United States’’ finds that law enforcement’s use of race, 

religion, country of origin, or ethnic and religious appearances as a proxy for criminal suspicion undermines national security. Racial profiling blinds law enforcement 

to real criminal threats and creates a hole in the national security net. 

Congress should evaluate the Department of Justice compliance with Section 1001 

of the law with regard to complaints alleging abuses of civil rights and civil liberties 

by employees and officials of the Department of Justice. Congress must ensure that 

department policies prevent racial profiling and abuse. This is a matter of upholding 

civil and human rights, applying the rule of law, and enhancing national security 

by protecting the human rights and freedoms of all. 

Amnesty International also urges the U.S. Congress to exercise its important 

oversight role in examining the performance of the U.S. Government in implementing Section 804 of the Patriot Act. Section 804 amended the definition of ‘‘special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States’’ to include ‘‘offenses 

committed by or against a national of the United States’’ on diplomatic, consular 

or military premises. The U.S. government has failed to date to support a truly 

independent and comprehensive investigation into abuses against detainees in U.S. 

custody. 

That is why Amnesty International continues to call on the U.S. Congress to establish a truly independent commission , which has not happened yet, and to urge 

the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate reports of torture 

and ill-treatment of detainees held in U.S. custody in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu 

Ghraib, and detention centers—including secret detention centers—around the 

world. For over three years, over 500 individuals have been held in indefinite detention in Guantanamo in conditions that spurred the International Committee of the 

Red Cross to break its tradition of silence and protest publicly U.S. mistreatment 

of detainees. General Richard Myers has indicated that at least 68,000 individuals 

have been detained around the world in the so-called ‘‘war on terror’’. We have all 

seen the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib, but we may not know that there have 

been over 100 deaths in custody, of which at least 27 have been ruled ‘‘homicides’’. 

Amnesty International recently released its 2005 Annual Report which summarized human rights conditions in 149 countries and territories. Upon releasing the 

report, Amnesty International noted that the images of detainees tortured in Abu 

Ghraib shocked the world. As evidence of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in 

US custody in other countries continues to emerge, the United States is sending an 

unequivocal and severely damaging message to the world that human rights may 

be sacrificed ostensibly in the name of security. Congress must act to reverse this 

message, ensure an independent investigation into abuses, and uphold the rule of 

law and international standards of human rights for all. We are not safer when we 

abuse others. But we are safer when we promote conditions that allow every person 

to exercise their human rights and freedoms. 

Thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair will recognize Members 

under the 5-minute rule. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

40

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first begin by praising the four witnesses who, on such short notice were able to pull 

these excellent statements together. I want to put out these questions because, as you know, 5 minutes is a very short amount of 

time. And you may respond to them as you feel inclined. What 

changes do you think need to be made in the PATRIOT Act to prevent legal and innocent people from being unjustly punished or 

persecuted? That is the first question. The second, the Inspector 

General found that the detention of aliens after 9/11 ‘‘indiscriminate and haphazard.’’ Do you believe that the Department of Justice’s approach in this matter has become any better? Do you believe the Administration has adequately investigated allegations of 

torture, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo? 

And, is there anyone here that does not support an independent 

commission or select committee to investigate? And is any one of 

you experts here aware of a single terrorist arrest or conviction 

that came from the registration of or interview of over 10,000 men 

of Middle Eastern descent? Please, those of you who are witnesses 

may. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Who wants to be first? 

Mr. CONYERS. You can begin. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Ladies first. 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. Thank you, Mr. Pitts, and I would like to address some of these questions, not all of them, since I understand 

it is as we feel willing and with regards to the detention of illegals 

as it relates to non-citizens that, at this time, Department of 

Homeland Security is, you know, is a newly-created department 

and has been very distracted with reorganizing itself and that has 

definitely contributed to its ability to detain less people. I do think 

less people at this time are being detained as a result of post 9/

11 investigations. But I also think it is important to note that the 

Department has recognized the failures of its prior policies and of 

its prior initiatives. 

And, as any good agency, is attempting not to repeat its failures. 

I would also say that, of course, I would support an independent 

commission to investigate this. And no, as an immigration attorney 

which considers herself pretty well informed as to what happens in 

the country with regards to immigration detentions, I am not 

aware, and that is all that I can address to—I am not aware of a 

single occasion where any of the individuals that were brought in, 

noncitizens, as a result of these post 9/11 investigations were, in 

fact, charged with any 9/11 terrorist activity. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Congressman. In answer to your first 

questions about changes needed to prevent unjust persecution in 

the PATRIOT Act, we think again that there are three broad categories, adding checks and balances, adding independent judicial 

review, and adding requirements of individualized fact-based suspicion. We think that those are essential to make sure you are not 

stereotyping innocent Muslims or Arabs. And it is interesting how 

much ignorance there is on this issue. People assume that Muslims 

are Arabs and vice versa when Arabs are a small minority of Muslims in the world and the U.S., and, of course, Muslims are of as 

41

infinite variety as the world itself. One out of every 5 people in the 

world. So the anti-foreigner provision in section 412 of the PATRIOT Act, for example, which allows rolling and potentially indefinite detention, and is discriminatory based on the subjective 

say-so of one man is a good example of the discriminatory disrespect for the objective rule of law that we need to have effective 

action against terrorism, not stereotyping but identifying the real 

threats. 

Similarly, our racial profiling report last year pointed out that 

racial profiling just doesn’t work. Think for a second about the 

most famous alleged members of al-Qaeda, Richard Reid, the shoe 

bomber, British national of West Indian descent; or the white guy 

from California, John Walker Lind, for example, or Jose Padilla, 

Hispanic gang member. You cannot possibly say that we are going 

to profile against people who look Middle Eastern and expect to be 

successful against Al Qaeda. What we need to do is not just have 

formal rhetoric against racial profiling, but recognize that the huge, 

gaping national security exception is illegitimate. It allows discrimination and a resurgence of religious, national origin and racebased discrimination that doesn’t work. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The chairperson will recognize the 

witnesses and the time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. I thank the Chairman and I appreciate the witnesses 

being here today and those Members of the Committee that are 

here today, and I had the privilege of adjusting my travel plans to 

be someone who could benefit from this testimony today. Some of 

the things that come to mind, I think, I will direct initially to Mr. 

Pitts. 

Could I ask you, if you could define for this Committee, the distinction between the standards in a criminal investigation with regard to subpoenas, that have been long accepted in the United 

States as something that protects and preserves the human rights 

of all citizens in this country. The distinction between that standard and the standard that is implemented by the PATRIOT Act 

with regard to that same type of search warrant. 

Mr. PITTS. Absolutely, Congressman King. Thank you for the opportunity to clear up the rampant confusion on this point. In fact, 

just a couple of days ago with Deputy Attorney General James 

Comey’s testimony before this Committee, he said that the standard in the PATRIOT Act is the same thing, probable cause. And 

he reiterated that there is probable cause to be an agent of a foreign power. That is a bit misleading, because when you read the 

actual language of the statute, at several points, for example, in 

section 215, the actual standard in the law is that an investigation 

is launched by the subjective interest of the law enforcement powers, and the information is sought for the purposes of that investigation. That is not a probable cause standard. Neither is the 

standard in section 505, which isn’t even a relevant standard, the 

national security letter. 

So there is a dramatic difference between the regular criminal 

authority, which can be challenged. A grand jury subpoena can be 

42

challenged. That is not allowed under the gag orders of those sections of the PATRIOT Act. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Pitts, I want to point out that you stated before 

this Committee that your opinions are based upon rigorous research, and I would ask the Committee to note that you brought 

a lot of that with you today. I have not seen one quite so prepared 

with their office in front of them. It looks like my office, at any 

rate. 

Mr. PITTS. Sorry for littering your table. 

Mr. KING. But the distinction between the legal standard of the 

search warrant being the distinction on a grand jury subpoena 

versus a court order, could you speak to that? 

Mr. PITTS. Absolutely. I welcome again the opportunity to clear 

this up. The FISA warrants of the secretive FISA court, which are 

a secret court that are mandated, they have no discretion to refuse 

the application if they find an informal order is very different from 

the normal criminal process, whether it is a grand jury subpoena, 

which, as I said, can be challenged, or whether it is a search warrant, which actually is premised on information that generally has 

a probable cause to think that the person or place is guilty of a 

crime or terrorism. 

Mr. KING. And you are also aware that there is a report required 

to come before Congress, if there are any abuses of the PATRIOT 

Act, and I would ask if you could name a specific case where there 

has been someone in a library, in a bookstore, that has had their 

human rights violated based upon the language in the PATRIOT 

Act. 

Mr. PITTS. Absolutely, Representative King. This is another important point that I welcome the opportunity to clarify. The notion 

that there hasn’t been an abuse is one of the most egregious myths 

about this act. First of all, the mere existence of these laws as I 

said is an abuse. It is a chilling effect on Americans’ rights to get 

library records. Secondly, in the climate of secrecy under the PATRIOT Act, there is no way that we can know what abuses have 

occurred. But thirdly we all have, at the ACLU, at Amnesty, the 

American Library Association, the Bill of Rights, defend committees, the other witnesses here, have all independently received 

word of abuses. 

I got an e-mail last week from a librarian, sir, in Seattle, Washington, who had been approached by the FBI to give a list of all 

people who had checked out a biography of Osama Bin Laden since 

9/11. Now she had the courage to refuse that. But how are we 

going to understand our enemy and understand Al Qaeda and the 

truth the threat the violent extremism poses if we can’t expose 

Government vulnerability? 

Mr. KING. I understand your list of allegations, but I wonder if 

you can give us a specific list of people, individuals with names, 

specific cases that could be looked into by this Committee to see 

if there actually have been specific cases of violation of the PATRIOT Act and violations of people’s human rights rather than the 

allegations under your vigorous research standard? 

Mr. PITTS. Sure. There are a number of people who have been 

affected. Again, it is difficult to know exactly how many because librarians are under a—subject to criminal prosecution if they report 

43

these things. But a number of librarians courageously came to me 

in Dallas, Texas and I heard from people that they have been approached. 

Mr. KING. Could I ask you, Mr. Pitts, to present that list to this 

Committee? Would you provide that information about specific 

cases? 

Mr. PITTS. I did mention a couple before the Dallas City Council 

when we had a bill of rights defense committee resolution on this 

subject. Toby Baldwin is the name of one librarian, for example, 

who experienced a request. 

Mr. KING. Has that been looked into, do you know? Is that factual or is it an allegation at this point? 

Mr. PITTS. No. We know that lots of librarians have been approached for records. Often the PATRIOT Act is not formally——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pitts, let me follow 

through on the probable cause thing, because they shout probable 

cause in a criminal investigation, you have to have probable cause 

that a crime has been committed. Is that not right. 

Mr. PITTS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And under the FISA warrant, you only have to have 

probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign government 

and you are trying to get foreign intelligence which may be criminal or not, is that right? 

Mr. PITTS. That is correct. And a key point is that the PATRIOT 

Act, reduces that standard even further in ways that have not yet, 

I think, been realized by the public at large. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mean, like the probable cause is the agent of foreign government and a substantial reason for the wiretap is foreign 

intelligence, but it may not be the main reason, so you could be 

talking about something that is not even a crime, that is not even 

the primary reason you are getting the wiretap. 

Mr. PITTS. That is right. That is the problem with one of the——

Mr. SCOTT. So when they shout probable cause, you have to listen very carefully because it is not probable cause that any crime 

is even being alleged as part of the reason for the wiretap? 

Mr. PITTS. Exactly. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned 100 deaths, 27 homicides. What is the 

status of those? How many have been arrested in those homicides? 

Mr. PITTS. I am going to let Ms. Pearlstein address that. 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And thank you, Mr. 

Pitts. The status of many of those cases remains unclear because 

of the level of secrecy surrounding the investigations, the individual investigations. But to the extent they are known, there have 

been some prosecutions within the context of the military justice 

system and those are welcome. 

The record, however, is completely inadequate, that is to say, 

there are deaths, gruesome deaths, to be frank, that have occurred 

in U.S. custody, people who have been tortured to death. Their stories to some extent have appeared on the front pages of the paper. 

And to date, no one, no individual has been held criminally or otherwise liable for those deaths. So, not only is this a challenge for 

the Department of Justice, this is a challenge for the Department 

44

of Defense. And, I think, at this point now that these deaths are 

several years old and the trail of evidence and so forth, of course, 

grows cold, it is time for Congress to engage. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Dr. Zogby, you mentioned the fact that 

America may be less popular. What impact does that have on our 

war against terrorism? Does it make a difference? 

Mr. ZOGBY. Sure it does. 

Number one it makes some foreign governments less willing to 

publicly cooperate. Number two, it creates a groundswell of support 

for those who would do harm to our country. The less popular we 

are, the more popular those who attack us are. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what difference does that make? 

Mr. ZOGBY. The difference is that the pool of those who are available to be recruited to do harm against America grows larger, and 

the ability of governments to act together with America becomes 

smaller. And I will also say that we have seen repressive policies 

instituted by governments in the Middle East. Contrary to the 

President’s own program, wanting to promote democracy, some of 

our allies have become more repressive precisely because there is 

an anti-American groundswell in those countries as a result of our 

policies. And when we polled in the region, we always found that 

issues like the Arab-Israeli conflict, and more recently Iraq, were 

sources of discontent. 

In the most recent poll that was done by Zogby International in 

the Middle East, we found that America’s treatment of Arab and 

Muslim immigrants have, in some countries, eclipsed those other 

issues as the number one source of anger with America and the 

frustration of America in not projecting its values, even as it applies to those who live within their borders. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the translation is that the activities make us 

less safe. 

Mr. ZOGBY. Decidedly so. And I think that we ought not fall prey 

to spinning our successes. We ought to look at the reality on the 

ground. You wouldn’t run for office without doing some polling. 

And we do polling, and what we find in our polling is that America 

is actually less popular, and I believe less safe as a result of those 

policies. 

[9:30 a.m.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Tapia Ruano, can you talk about holding people 

without charges, and the checks and balances that are available 

when people are held as enemy combatants or material witnesses 

indefinitely? 

Ms. RUANO. Well, what I would like to address, from individuals 

who are alleged to be charged for being here engaging in 9/11 terrorist activities, and ultimately result in only being charged with 

civil minor immigration violations. And those individuals, again, as 

I mentioned before, do not have the opportunity to even know why 

they’re being detained; they’re held in custody for months. This is 

something that, to our knowledge, is not happening at the present 

time. It definitely is documented as having taken place immediately post-9/11 and for a few months thereafter. 

Mr. SCOTT. What are the checks and balances available, and 

when do people get to be heard as an enemy combatant? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

45

The gentleman from California Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you for holding this hearing. 

I would just—I say that at the outset, I’ve been involved in these 

issues for a long time. I served for a year and a half on a panel 

that looked at, in retrospect, our treatment of Japanese nationals 

and Japanese-Americans during World War II, where we were able 

to review mistakes that were made at that time. 

When I ran for Congress this last time, I was accused of being 

soft on terrorism and soft on immigration because I supported legislation which gave rights to people who were immigrants. I had 

to respond to an attack that I thought was unduly critical and racially and religiously profiling certain groups as a part of a political 

attack. 

Having said that, however, I am somewhat disturbed by the contours of the request for this hearing. I wonder why those who 

asked for this hearing did not ask for any witnesses from the Administration to be able to respond specifically to the allegations 

that are raised, number one. 

Number two—— Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, I only have 5 minutes, and the gentleman 

has had 15, I think, so far. 

Number two, some of the statements suggesting that we had routine torture that somehow causes the rest of the world to respond 

negatively to us are way over the top. The investigations have 

shown specific examples of inappropriate activity, criminal activity 

by individuals, and they’re being prosecuted at the present time. 

A statement made about the routine desecration of the Koran is 

absolutely contrary to the facts of the investigation that were 

shown. And the gentleman, Mr. Zogby’s, statements that those 

kinds of things, that kind of evidence gives us a negative response 

in the non-U.S. world, the Arab community, the Muslim community, ought to be cautionary to those of us when we look at these 

sorts of things. 

One should look in detail at the report with respect to the instance involving the Koran. And one, I think, would be impressed 

by the care which is taken by those that at Guantanamo Bay with 

respect to the protection of religious rights there. And in those specific instances where there have been violations, those have been 

investigated; action has been taken against those people. 

So I just would hope that those on the other side would understand the concerns some of us have about the contours of this particular activity. 

Secondly, the Creppy memo is no longer followed by the Administration. We had testimony to that effect by Mr. Comey, testimony 

to the effect of Mr. Comey that they were trying to do things immediately after 9/11 to try and respond to the risk and the threat as 

they saw it at that time, but they have made changes, and it is not 

being followed. That was the direct testimony of Mr. Comey under 

oath here, and I wish that to be entered into the record. 

And finally, with respect to section 215, let’s understand what 

section 215 is. Section 215 has to be an application to a court that 

has to make a determination, number one, that it involves a forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:36 Jul 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\FULL\061005\21913.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21913
46

eign agent; number two, that it is relevant to an investigation 

against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; number three, that it is not directed against a United States 

person solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. All of those things 

have to be shown to the court. The court has to make a determination that, in fact, those things are present. So the idea that somehow section 215 is being used willy-nilly to go after people merely 

because they check out books in one particular place or another is 

just not correct. The court does make those determinations. We 

have made specific inquiry with respect to that and found that to 

be the case. 

And finally, I would just say this: It is patently absurd to create 

a moral equivalence between the United States and China, 

Zimbabwe and other countries, as your statement, Mr. Pitts, has 

suggested. If the suggestion is they need examples to prop up the 

activities that they engage in versus their citizens, that’s patently 

absurd. The suggestion that somehow, because of the passage of 

the PATRIOT Act, we are leading those kinds of countries to involve themselves in abuses of other countries is, frankly, I think, 

seriously amiss. 

This Committee has had—actually, Mr. Chairman, we’ve had 11, 

not 7, 11 oversight hearings in the Subcommittee and full Committee on the PATRIOT Act. We have gone over section by section 

by section——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from North Carolina Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 

Chairman for convening the hearing, even though he is doing it according to the rules, and it started out kind of testy. 

And I also thank the Chairman for not interrupting the witnesses and applying an overly technical view of this hearing. I 

think it would have served a very negative purpose to do that, and 

I want to applaud you publicly for not doing that during the testimony of these witnesses. 

Briefly, I’d just like to reiterate a point that I made yesterday in 

a speech I gave to the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, interestingly enough, in which I said that it is not unusual in the aftermath of things like Enron or things like the accounting scandals 

or things like 9/11 for the legislative process to overreact and do 

more than is necessary to address or correct the problem, and that 

the true test of a legislative body is really our ability not so much 

to overreact sometimes, but to, once we have overreacted, understand the impact of that overreaction and then make the necessary 

adjustments, because all of us are engaged in not a science, but a 

process of trying to find what the appropriate and right balance is 

in all of these situations. And it seems to me that if we try to find 

that balance listening only to the people who have defended the action or reaction that the legislative process has made, either to 

Enron or to 9/11 or to accounting scandals or whatever we’re doing 

in the legislative process, if we’re not listening to all of the people 

who are impacted by these decisions, then we do ourselves, as legislators, a real disservice, and we do our country a real disservice. 

47

So I think really that’s what we are involved in here, trying to 

find what that appropriate balance is, what was, should have been, 

should be going forward. We found a balance in this Committee 

which we unanimously endorsed, only to see it changed in the PATRIOT Act when it went to the Rules Committee. 

And so I just want to generally thank the Chair for the series 

of hearings and these witnesses for being here today to help us try 

to find that balance. 

Now, my colleague on the other side has made a number of comments, which I could tell each of you are anxious to respond to, and 

him having run out of time, perhaps I should give Ms. Pearlstein 

at least an opportunity to respond. 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. Thank you very much, and thank you for your 

comments. 

I want to just respond briefly to the suggestion about the prosecution of individual acts of torture and abuse that have been identified by the Pentagon as occurring in U.S. detention facilities overseas. A handful of these have been prosecuted under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice. A much larger number of them, to the extent they’ve been dealt with at all, have been dealt with by administrative or incredibly light disciplinary punishment; that is, revoking of mess hall privileges. The vast majority of them have yet to 

be addressed. This is a failure of the Department of Justice. This 

is a failure of the Pentagon. This is why we believe an independent 

commission is needed to look at these things. 

On the point of why the international community and many 

Americans may be frustrated by this——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Arizona Mr. Franks. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Arizona Mr. 

Franks is recognized. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman will state his point of 

order. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, it has generally been the practice of 

this Committee that witnesses are permitted to finish the sentence 

so that what they’re saying will not be interrupted in 

midsentence—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The rules state that the Chair has 

the prerogative to recognize Members and to enforce the time limits. The Chair is enforcing the time limits, and the gentleman from 

Arizona Mr. Franks is recognized. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, sometimes an open, democratic Republic like the 

United States of America is so transparent that both its warts and 

its qualities are seen before the world, and that’s a healthy practice. But, Mr. Chairman, in recent days we’ve seen and heard comparisons of the policies of the United States and the practices even 

in prisons with the Soviet gulags, that somehow the United States 

has become a negative for the cause of human freedom in the 

world. And I find that to be something that completely defies reason in the mind of any person who has any historical view of the 

United States. 

48

And I think sometimes we do a great disservice to the cause of 

human freedom when we tear down the greatest force for human 

freedom that the world has ever known, and that’s the United 

States of America. And, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I’d like 

to direct a couple of questions to Dr. Zogby. 

Dr. Zogby, in your recent testimony, you made the complaint that 

the Justice Department had detained immigrants in the aftermath 

of the 9/11 attacks, but isn’t it true that the investigation of these 

individuals had absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act, 

and, in fact, these events occurred before the PATRIOT Act was 

even enacted; is that correct? 

Mr. ZOGBY. Some of them were before, and some of them were 

after. The call-ups that occurred following this in October, and then 

later on, I think, in January of 2002 and special registration went 

well beyond the initial round-up, the numbers of which we actually 

don’t know. They were making numbers public, and at one point 

they stopped making numbers. People got stuck on the 1,200, but 

frankly the numbers appeared to go much higher. 

We don’t know the outcome of all of those. There have been independent reviews, both within the Department of Justice and by 

groups outside, who have interviewed several of the people, both 

still here in the United States and those overseas. The inspector 

general’s report, I think, was very clear on the number of those 

cases that reported abuse, reported horrific treatment within the 

prisons. And I think it is important to recognize this is an issue 

that requires closer scrutiny. 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. If I may also respond to that question? 

Mr. FRANKS. Let me ask an additional question, Dr. Zogby, and 

then you feel free to respond. 

In your written testimony you also mentioned that the detainees—in Guantanamo Bay in general, but isn’t it a fact that those 

being held in Guantanamo Bay are not being detained pursuant to 

any authority contained in the PATRIOT Act? And, in fact, if the 

PATRIOT Act was repealed today, would it have any effect on the 

status of these detainees in Guantanamo Bay at all? 

Mr. ZOGBY. I’m not aware and can’t speak to that issue, but I 

will tell you the issues I mentioned were Guantanamo and other 

locations around the world. And I was speaking about that in the 

context of what it has done to our image internationally. 

And I want to address that and want to address as well the remarks raised by Congressman Lungren. The issue of torture. You 

know, once we’re authorized the use of practices that previously 

were considered and in international law are considered torture, 

and lowered the standard of what constitutes torture so that now 

sleep deprivation, use of creating stress in those under detention, 

and even physical abuse to some degree is not constituting torture, 

then of course the number of those cases that we’re going to prosecute are going to be less because we absolve people of priority of 

torture by saying this no longer constitutes torture. 

And this is what concerns me is that we have governments in the 

Middle East and elsewhere in the world who now say, we do not 

torture people, we do what the United States of America does. That 

bothers me, and it ought to bother everybody on this Committee. 

49

It’s not covered in the PATRIOT Act, but it is an issue that we 

ought to be concerned about. 

Mr. FRANKS. Dr. Zogby, just for the record, I think to suggest 

that deliberate routine torture is the committed policy or the deliberate policy of the United States defies any sort of credibility. 

Mr. ZOGBY. Sir, I didn’t write the memos, I didn’t write the 

memos; the memos are there. There is a paper trail about what we 

have done. And I think that the degree to which we continue to 

deny that we’ve done it, we do not look good in the eyes of the 

world, nor should we feel good about ourselves as we face the 

American people. We have an issue that must be addressed, and 

it will be addressed either by us or future generations—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from New York Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me express my 

appreciation for your civility to the witnesses. 

Ms. Pearlstein, you talked about 12,000 prisoners in major new 

permanent detention. Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act, I think Ms. 

Tapia Ruano mentioned that under section 412 the Attorney General can detain alien terrorist suspects that he designates as such 

for up to 7 days, and that he must certify he has reasonable 

grounds to believe—et cetera. Within 7 days the Attorney General 

must initiate removal of criminal proceedings or release the alien. 

The President, under military order number 13, allows the Secretary of Defense to detain designated alien terrorist suspects within the United States without express limitation and condition, and 

apparently without any length of time restriction. Under what legal 

authority did the President issue that order? And how do they get 

around the 7-day restriction, which was very carefully negotiated 

in this Committee in section 412 of the PATRIOT Act? 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. I think the short answer to your question is 

there is no clear answer from the Administration to what the basis 

of the legal authority is, and I think it is important to distinguish——

Mr. NADLER. Has that been challenged in court? 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. The basis of the legality of the detention of people being detained at Guantanamo Bay, that people being detained 

in the United States, in particular Jose Padilla, who was subsequently released following a ruling of the Superior Court, and the 

detentions in Afghanistan and Iraq have been challenged in U.S. 

courts only in the context of civil litigation challenges brought by 

people who were subsequently released from detention, challenging 

acts of torture and abuse that they were subject to while in detention. 

There is currently no mechanism of which I’m aware and no 

suits or any other proceeding through which I’m aware of anybody 

held in custody in Afghanistan and Iraq to challenge the legality 

of their detention in U.S—— Mr. NADLER. Under section 804 of the PATRIOT Act, I think you 

said, giving jurisdiction abroad,why can’t you get a writ of habeas 

corpus? 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. Section 804 of the PATRIOT Act provides only 

that the Department of Justice now has jurisdiction to prosecute offenses that are committed——

50

Mr. NADLER. But does not give jurisdiction for the defense attorney to question his intentions. 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. Under that particular provision. All that is 

about is the U.S. Government’s prosecutorial authority. The Federal habeas statute, which exists on the books separate from the 

USA PATRIOT Act, is still on the books. To my knowledge it has 

not been deployed by a current detainee abroad. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Tapia Ruano, is it true that immigrants who have been 

found eligible for bail have been kept from being released? 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. Yes. And it’s even more outrageous to consider 

that immigrants who have been granted legal permanent residence 

after their full merits hearings have also, as a result of 9/11, detainee status been retained in jail until they received a clearance 

from the United States. 

Mr. NADLER. Under what authority? 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. Under the regulation that allows individuals 

to be kept under—it’s not a regulation, I’m sorry, under the understanding of policy memos—I can’t point to them directly because 

we haven’t seen them in writing, but we know it exists—but it is 

a policy, it’s a cooperation that until the individual is ‘‘cleared by 

the FBI, such individual is not released, regardless of the decision 

by the agency.’’

Mr. NADLER. Regardless of the decision of the agency. And why 

aren’t people subject to habeas corpus release? 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. Based on my understanding of the law, until 

those individuals are subject to some final order, those individuals, 

in fact, don’t have an opportunity to file a habeas. Since the Real 

ID Act was passed very recently, now I would suspect—and I 

haven’t been able to study it well enough to advise you—but I 

would suspect that that would also limit any right that individuals 

have to take habeas court proceedings if it involves immigrationrelated relief. 

Mr. NADLER. So an immigration-related case, even after they 

have been found eligible for bail, they can be detained indefinitely? 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. The individuals normally—and this happens 

today—individuals, noncitizens, can be detained after they have 

been granted bail by a judge by having the agency, the prosecutor, 

issue a stay of that order——

Mr. NADLER. The prosecutor or a court? 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. The prosecutor. 

Mr. NADLER. The prosecutor can stay the court’s judgment? 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. Absolutely. And that happens every day. 

Mr. NADLER. Do you know of any other area of law where a prosecutor can overrule a judge? 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. I’m unfamiliar with other areas of law, so I 

can’t really answer that question. 

Mr. NADLER. Anybody on the panel know of any other area of 

law where a prosecutor can overrule a judge’s decision to release 

a person on bail? 

Mr. PITTS. Well, it is happening right now. The Supreme Court 

of the United States decided in the Rasul case a year ago, the 

enemy combatant case, that detainees in Guantanamo were entiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:36 Jul 28, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\FULL\061005\21913.000 HJUD1 PsN: 21913
51

tled to a lawyer and to Federal court review, and that has not happened—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from North Carolina Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

being here. 

I too want to thank Mr. Scott and Members of the Democrat and 

Republican side of the aisle and staffers who have worked with me 

as we conducted nine oversight hearings under the Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and I think this is 

the 12th hearing. And I take great umbrage, Mr. Chairman, when 

I hear people say, well, you all are trying to ram through the PATRIOT Act. 

We’re not trying to ram through it at all. After nine hearings— and, by the way, the nine hearings were very productive, I think. 

Now, in some instances the witnesses departed from the PATRIOT 

Act, as I may do in my statement, and I was generous about that, 

and I didn’t admonish anybody. But I’ve heard some folks claim 

that the United States has the worst human rights record in the 

world. Folks, that boggles my mind. I’m not suggesting that you all 

said that; others have said that to me. Conversely, I think we probably have one of the best human rights record than anybody in the 

world. Perfect? No, not by any means, but far more than most 

countries. 

Abu Ghraib, do I support what was done there? Indeed not. But, 

folks, I’m not going to use a broad paint brush to portray our men 

and women in the armed services as being human rights abusers. 

Now, there were a couple, perhaps a limited number, of stupid acts 

that have been addressed through a court martial, I’m told, and 

that is, indeed, appropriate. 

I guess what gets my juices flowing, Mr. Chairman, is when I see 

these thugs, whose faces are concealed by masks that cover their 

face, anxiously waiting to behead innocent hostages, when I see 

that on the one hand, which is a 1-day news story, and then we 

hear about Abu Ghraib, and—and again, I’m not defending Abu 

Ghraib, but the Abu Ghraib story appears to be eternal. The thugs 

who are anxious to behead innocent hostages is a 1-day story and 

obviously not newsworthy. Folks, it’s damn newsworthy to me and 

to most Americans. 

And I think these hearings are healthy; I think we are plowing 

sometimes new ground, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes we are plowing 

the ground that has been plowed nine times before, but I don’t 

mind doing that if we can get to the truth, if we can improve the 

situation. 

Dr. Zogby, I think you mentioned about 9/11. It’s a day that will, 

indeed, live in infamy. We were minding our business, and then we 

were attacked, and over 3,000 people killed, and you say many 

Arab Americans, inexcusable. And if I appear to be subjectively involved, I am subjectively involved. And before I get too subjectively 

involved, before the Chairman comes down on me, before that red 

light illuminates, I’m going to yield back my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Maryland Mr. 

Van Hollen. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

52

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. State your order. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me, first of all, thank my distinguished colleagues Mr. Van 

Hollen and Ms. Wasserman Schultz——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman will state her 

point of order. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE.—for being willing to yield to me. I want to 

make it clear——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is not stating a 

point of order, and the gentleman from Maryland Mr. Van Hollen 

is recognized. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I was in the room before my 

two colleagues; however, I will yield to my two colleagues because 

of the disorientation of the Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, and I thank all the witnesses for their testimony this morning. 

And, Mr. Zogby, I wanted to follow up on a couple of points you 

made, because you talked about the impact on people around the 

world of actions taken here in the United States, and the perceptions that that gave to people. And you mentioned those in the context of the PATRIOT Act, but also Abu Ghraib and some of the indefinite detentions that took place. And you made what I think is 

a very important point that needs to be emphasized, which is, this 

is not about winning a popularity contest. Yes, it’s nice to be liked 

around the world, but the most important thing that we can do as 

Americans is to make sure that we protect our security. 

But essential to protecting our security is making sure that people around the world in many cases have a positive impact upon 

the United States, especially when we’re pursuing an effort to encourage and promote democracy around the world. And as you said, 

we all share the view that the United States must be a leader in 

promoting democracy and human rights around the world, and if 

we’re going to be encouraging elections, free and open and fair elections, in places in the Middle East, if we’re going to be encouraging 

free and fair elections in many other places around the world, then 

it’s important to us how people who are going to be voting in those 

elections perceive the United States, because we hope that they 

will elect leaders who will be supportive and friendly toward the 

United States’ interests, and to the extent they have a negative 

view of the United States, it’s much easier for those who would 

want to demagogue the United States to win in those elections. 

And so an integral part of our democracy promotion effort overseas, it seems to me, is making sure that the United States continues to be perceived, as it has been in the past, as a great leader 

for freedom and a great leader for human rights. And to the extent 

that we tarnish that image, we hurt our own national security interests, and we hurt our ability to fight the war on terrorism. 

You’ve done a lot of work in this area. Could you please talk a 

little bit more about how those negative perceptions of the United 

States can undermine our own efforts to promote democracy in 

those regions in a way that is consistent with our national security 

interests? 

53

Mr. ZOGBY. And, Congressman, I thank you. And I would say I’m 

not sure I could do it more eloquently than you’ve just done. I think 

you have made the case very clear. 

But I would say to you that this is not about us being the best 

or the worst. At the end of the day, there is not a scale that judges 

America with other countries. And I think Congressman Coble is 

right about that. We set a higher standard and always have. We 

have always been and wanted to see ourselves be the city on the 

hill, and that’s why democratic reformers have looked to us. When 

they no longer look to us in their governance, instead look to us 

to validate policies that bring about repression, then I think we 

have to examine ourselves not only for our foreign policy purposes, 

but I think also for a sense of are we being true to ourselves and 

to our Founders, and to the sense of the value of America that we 

teach our children. I think that is really fundamental here. 

The pictures of Abu Ghraib were not a 1-day story, and they 

shouldn’t have been, because that’s not who we are. And those pictures are going to be soon replicated by other pictures from Abu 

Ghraib that will come out at the end of the month, and we will be 

reminded again and the world will be reminded again that America 

stopped being America. 

The stories of the Koran are not a few, but there are many, number one. And number two, the inspector general reported that the 

Department of Justice shows that those very practices took place 

domestically in metropolitan detention centers. 

We need to be fair to who we are. If we deny who we are, I think 

we lose our ability to lead in the world. When foreign governments 

become more repressive—because as people become more angry at 

America and become more angry at their government’s leadership 

for being supportive of America, we are, in effect, creating a 

groundswell for terrorism. As we said, antidemocratic practices 

produce terrorism. By those very practices that we are encouraging 

or by example leading other governments to pursue, we are making 

other countries in the world less free, we’re making the countries 

less democratic, and we’re making America a role model for less 

democratic and less free practices. And there is a tragedy in all of 

that because it undercuts our effort to fight terrorism and make us 

more secure. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. And let me just say—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Indiana Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 

long series of hearings that you have held on the PATRIOT Act; 

they have been enormously informative to me as a Member of this 

Committee who was involved in drafting this PATRIOT Act. 

I also want to thank the panel. It is not easy to come before Congress, and I am grateful for your patriotism and your citizenship 

displayed today. 

I want to direct my remarks and my questions specifically and 

respectfully to the Chairman of the Board of Amnesty International, Mr. Pitts. And let me say I’m a bit of a fan of Amnesty 

International. I actually went to the floor a week before the initiation of hostilities against Iraq and for a full hour quoted Amnesty 

54

International’s outstanding research on the profound and appalling 

human rights record of Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands incarcerated. I, frankly, found your research to be very moving. Quite 

a few people in precincts around the country didn’t appreciate this 

conservative Republican quoting Amnesty International to justify, 

in part, the war, but I have appreciated your work. 

It’s in that context that I must tell you, Mr. Pitts, I was very 

troubled by your description of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as a gulag of our times. There has been a lot said by 

Mr. Van Hollen a few moments ago and other colleagues about the 

importance of our image in the world, and I think prison abuse is 

an appalling thing, and I’m pleased at the aggressive prosecutions 

that have taken place of military personnel who have been accused 

of that, and believe that that should be the case. But I also believe 

that anti-historical, irresponsible rhetoric, like referring to the U.S. 

detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as the gulag of our times, endangers the lives of Americans in uniform by fueling the very worst 

stereotypes of our enemies about this country in the world. 

The gulag, of course, was a Soviet system of forced labor camps. 

The word is a Russian abbreviation for the term chief administration of camps. In The Gulag Archipelago, the famous book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, he brought the story of the gulags to the world; 

28.7 million people put into forced labor. The death rates in those 

camps reached their apex in World War II. The total number of 

prison deaths is impossible to calculate. It ranges from a low end 

of 3 million people systematically executed or starved to death or 

worked to death in the gulags to numbers of 10, 12 and even 20 

million. 

In the book, Gulag: A History, a journalist named Anne 

Applebaumgate writes that after 1937 the camps ‘‘transformed 

themselves from indifferently managed prisons in which people 

died by accident into genuinely deadly camps where workers were 

deliberately worked to death or murdered.’’

It is extraordinary to think of a comparison between a U.S. detention facility, where maybe mistakes have been made and have 

been made by American personnel, to the systematic death camps 

of the Soviet empire. It’s also peculiar to me that Amnesty International would refer to Guantanamo as the gulag of our times 

when there is a much better candidate in the Kwan-li-co couldn’t 

find system of concentration camps in North Korea. North Korea 

is a bona fide Soviet state run by the son of a man who was actually put into power by Stalin. In fact, Kim Jong-il was reportedly 

born in a training camp in Siberia where his father was groomed 

for power. But to suggest that, you know, in all of the world the 

gulag of our times is not the death camps that are the natural 

progeny of the gulags of the Soviet empire that exist today in 

North Korea, but that Guantanamo Bay is, that seems to me, as 

I said, anti-historical, irresponsible and the type of rhetoric that 

endangers American lives. 

Now, I’m not alone in this. It was former Soviet political prisoner 

Vladimir Bukowski who characterized your term as ‘‘stupid’’ and 

‘‘an insult to the memory of millions who perished in Soviet 

camps.’’

55

With all of that said, and I ask this respectfully, Mr. Pitts, are 

you or is Amnesty International prepared to retract your statement 

that the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo is the gulag of our 

times, or are you prepared before this hearing to qualify that before 

this hearing, given the extraordinary record of history of the gulags 

and the reality of gulags in our times in countries like North 

Korea? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Florida—— Mr. NADLER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman will state his point of 

order. 

Mr. NADLER. I believe it is improper under our rules to cast aspersions on the integrity of our witnesses, and I would like to give 

the witness an opportunity to respond to that. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. First of all, that is not a proper 

point of order; secondly, I believe the gentleman——

Mr. NADLER. It’s a point of decency. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, point of decencies are determined other than by rulings of the Chair. 

The statements that were made by the gentleman from Indiana 

were not impugning the integrity of any of the witnesses, including 

Mr. Pitts, before the Committee; they were value judgments on the 

part of the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, on statements that 

have been made by representatives of Amnesty International other 

than the witness that is before us. 

Mr. NADLER. I would ask that the witness have an opportunity 

to respond. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the witness may 

proceed. 

Mr. PITTS. I would like to respond to Mr. Pence’s question, and 

also some of the other statements made that Amnesty has in some 

way applied amoral equivalency either with the horrendous regime 

of Stalin, which we were at the forefront of condemning the perpetuation of that system in the Soviet Union in the 1970’s and 1980’s. 

And we’re not suggesting moral equivalency, Mr. Pence, with 

China, or North Korea or Iran. Our point is that it’s not Amnesty 

International that is putting the U.S. in this position, and it’s not 

just Amnesty International’s reports—although we have issued several reports, hundreds of pages in each, enumerating numerous instances of torture that would break our heart—and I’m prepared 

to read them if you would like. But as we’ve heard today, it is the 

Government’s own reports, it is the reams of Government memos 

that show that we created a black hole, and that the same principles or practices that were at play in the gulag—disappearances, 

putting people in the gulag, stripping them, beating them—these 

are practices that people that were there we are now seeing in 

Guantanamo. 

How can the U.S. have credibility in condemning North Korea as 

it does, or Iran or Cuba, for arbitrary detentions, for beatings, for 

torturing people when the same things are going on in Guantanamo? And Secretary Rumsfeld himself approved techniques like 

forced nudity, like stripping, like hooding people. One of the people 

hooded in Guantanamo, whose name was Manadel al-Jamadi, we 

56

know died from the hooding, the beating. He was one of the ghost 

detainees that Secretary Rumsfeld personally approved. 

And so I don’t think it’s absurd for Amnesty International to 

make these points, I think it is absurd for the U.S. to create that 

legal black hole. And it’s time to fill in that legal black hole and 

shut Guantanamo. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair would point out that the 

activities of the Department of Defense are not within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but are within the jurisdiction of 

the Armed Services Committee, and it is their responsibility to investigate allegations and to conduct oversights over the Department of Defense. 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentlelady yield to me just briefly? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Of course. 

Mr. CONYERS. I would like to point out that it is the jurisdiction 

of the Judiciary Committee to consider human rights, civil rights, 

civil liberties violations. That is not an inappropriate subject for 

this Committee. As a matter of fact, we have the sole jurisdiction 

over those concerns. 

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You’re welcome. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to join this Committee. It is a 

baptism by fire for me as a new Member. And as the gentleman 

from Arizona stated, sometimes the world does see our version of 

democracy, warts and all. This proceeding would be one version of 

that democracy. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Zogby if he could discuss the Justice Department’s claims that it is not racially profiling, but is profiling by 

country of passport. For me, because I represent communities in 

south Florida where we have many Hispanic Americans and many 

Hispanic immigrants who have darker skin, I think that they 

would beg to differ on that difference, and that it would be deemed 

as a difference without distinction. And actually, if I could get my 

questions out to the three of you, and then I will be quiet so I can 

hear your answers and not use up my 5 minutes talking. 

My other question would be first, Ms. Tapia Ruano, your testimony discussed the secret immigration hearings that are taking 

place. Can you talk a little bit about why the secrecy is a problem, 

and why it’s important for the American public and the world to 

know who has been detained? And do we even know how many 

people and who has been detained and for how long? And in general, between the two of you, if you can discuss what changes you 

think need to be made to the PATRIOT Act, because obviously that 

is a product that we would like to bring forward from the results 

of this hearing so that legal and innocent immigrants, and Americans, who have been unjustly punished or detained can receive justice. Thank you. 

Mr. ZOGBY. Congresswoman, you are right, it is a difference 

without distinction, bottom line. When all the people brought in in 

the call-ins, when people from Arab or Muslim countries, there is 

a single set of characteristics there that constitutes profiling. There 

was no behavior issue at stake; there was no broader definition of 

those who were the target audiences. As one law enforcement said, 

57

we’re looking for a needle in the haystack, and all the Department 

of Justice keeps doing is adding more hay to the stack. 

So there are 160,000 in the field with special registration, about 

83,000 registered. Almost 14,000 of them are held deportable, but 

no terrorist suspects and no information about terrorism resulted 

from any of this. And so the result is that it was ineffective, created fear, and it was based on crude profiling. It didn’t work, and 

yet it caused irreparable damage to a whole lot of young, innocent 

people across the country who are now facing dramatic, life-changing decisions because of this program. 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. With regard to these closed hearings, these 

hearings were held in secret, and you asked what is the problem 

with that. Well, we believe part of a democratic society which is 

open, that this is an important concept. Not only were the individuals not allowed to have their family members and also have other 

individuals there for moral or other support, but family members 

often didn’t even know where these individuals were, the fact that 

they were being held by the agency, where they were transferred 

to, the fact that they were facing any possible expulsion from the 

United States. And that created an enormous amount of anxiety. 

What’s the solution? Well, eliminate closed hearings with regard 

to blanket closed hearings, which is what these rules allow, just 

blanket closed hearings, without taking a look at was it justified, 

was there any possible reason to sustain the need to have a hearing closed. 

We believe that the act that I mentioned just before, the Civil 

Liberties Restoration Act, is a solution to that by prohibiting closed 

hearings except in situations where a judge, after reviewing the individual facts, determines that it is in the interest of national security, or because of sensitive information, or at the choice of the individual detained. Those are rational, legal, fair reasons to have a 

closed hearing. But blanket closures, without the consent of the 

parties involved, appears to be abhorrent to our system. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, if I can just also point 

out and request permission to note that I apologize for being tardy. 

I arrived at 8:38, and wanted to have my presence noted for the 

record. And I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And your presence is noted, and 

your contribution is appreciated. 

The gentlelady from Texas Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers, for your 

insight on holding what I think may be one of the more crucial constitutional hearings that we may have in the history of this particular judiciary body. 

Let me also thank Mr. Coble and Mr. Scott, as a Member of their 

Subcommittee, for the number of hearings that have been held, as 

well recognize the fact that this hearing is being held today. 

I don’t want this hearing to center around any one Member, but 

I do want to relate what I think we’re trying to do today, and I 

really hope that we can do this in a bipartisan manner. 

I think you remember, Dr. Zogby, that we did produce a bipartisan PATRIOT Act out of this Committee, with the partnership of 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member and all of us. Ultimately 

when the bill went to the floor, it lost all of its bipartisanship and 

58

began to become a product of the Majority. In essence, the tyranny 

of the Majority ruled. 

What I’m concerned about is that we’re being clouded by our 

rightness on an issue, refusing to look at how we can fix problems. 

Reminds me of the time when this country held slaves for 400 

years and refused to acknowledge the wrongness of that terrible 

act, and again, we were ruled by the tyranny of the Majority. Even 

reflecting upon President Lincoln’s decision, history will tell you 

that it was not for the humanitarian needs of the slaves, but for 

some other reasons. 

Then I cite prior to the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor 

our refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust that was going on in the 

1930’s before we entered World War II; again, refusing to acknowledge dark times in our history. 

The brutality of the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 

1960’s, we refused, for a period of time, to acknowledge the dark 

time in the history of America; just a few years ago when we 

turned the lights out on the brutality of a million people in Rwanda. 

So I think what we have an opportunity to do today, as we all 

embrace those who lost lives and the families of 9/11, I don’t think 

there was an American of any race, color or creed that did not 

mourn, did not fall to their knees, did not pray to their person of 

faith, who they believed in during that time. And so I think where 

we’re going here today and the tone that I’ve heard by some of my 

colleagues is again trying to turn the lights out on absolute abuses. 

My question is, one, are there any checks and balances under the 

PATRIOT Act to even prove one’s innocence? That is a general 

question that I have. 

Ms. Ruano, I want to know what have we done by diminishing 

the powers of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals so that there is 

no due process? How do Americans understand that by due process 

being eliminated from that Bureau, you are really beginning to 

eliminate due process rights for others as well? 

Dr. Zogby, I think it’s important, a point that you made earlier, 

that immigration does not equate to terrorism. Tell me, what kind 

of intimidation is fusing through the Muslim community in the 

United States and around the world because of that synonym now 

seems to be coming together? 

Amnesty International, I’d appreciate if you would again speak 

to Guantanamo and as well the specifics of why the sort of elusiveness or unclarity, if I might say, of what Guantanamo means is 

putting young soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq in jeopardy of their 

lives. 

And, Ms. Pearlstein, I would ask you as well about—if you would 

again speak to this whole question of detention, people being 

picked up randomly. And others may wish to comment on this 

whole registration of Muslims or Pakistani individuals which generated, I believe, no conviction and no arrests of terrorism. 

And lastly let me say under the PATRIOT Act we have Minutemen at the border. That is what we are being driven to at this 

point. America needs to understand that we’re in dark days that 

is not reflective of our fears of 9/11. And I would appreciate your 

59

answers on those questions. I hope we can turn the lights on in 

this room. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Nineteen seconds left of her 5 minutes. 

Mr. ZOGBY. I would like to submit my testimony in full for the 

record to those questions for my part. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Ms. TAPIA RUANO. And I will just say one comment. The concern 

is, when you abuse noncitizens’ due process rights, it is not going 

to take much more to abuse citizens’ rights. 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. If I could just also submit for the record the recent report of the Human Rights First called Behind the Wire—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.] 

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. And also a recent report called Getting to 

Ground Truth, which responds, I think, to the questions——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. PITTS. And I will submit our report on the specifics of Guantanamo. But I want to point out briefly that not just Amnesty, but 

academic institutions, Rand, International Institute for Strategic 

Studies, our own State Department have noted that terrorism is on 

the rise. And I think that’s more than just correlation, it’s causation. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentlelady 

from Texas be given enough time to have brief remarks from any 

of the witnesses before we close down. She is the last—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. How much time does the gentleman 

from Michigan request that the gentlewoman from Texas be granted? 

Mr. CONYERS. Four minutes, 1 minute for each of the witnesses. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Is there objection to the request of 

the gentleman from Michigan to give each—an objection is heard. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a list of documents that I 

ask unanimous consent to submit to the record. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair now recognizes himself. 

First, the Chair would like to thank all the witnesses for coming 

and appearing, and particularly preparing your testimony on short 

notice. 

Let me say that the purpose for which this hearing was called 

and the scope of the hearing was stated in a letter that was submitted to me, signed by the Democratic Members, which was the 

reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. I have sat here listening 

very patiently to the testimony and the answers to the questions, 

and much of what has been stated is not relevant to the 16 sections 

of the USA PATRIOT Act which were sunsetted when the law was 

enacted in October of 2001. 

One of the things that people who are opposed to the PATRIOT 

Act have been doing is stating that the PATRIOT Act was responsible for a whole host of frustrations or objections to Administration 

60

policy. This hearing confirmed that fact, that the PATRIOT Act is 

being used as a buzzword for people who have very broad-brush objections. 

I think that when Congress debates the reauthorization of the 

PATRIOT Act, we ought to stick to the subject, and that subject is 

the 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act which we must consider and 

decide whether to reauthorize, whether to lapse or whether to 

amend. 

The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo; the PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants; the PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions. Those 

were provisions of other sections of the law, many of which occurred prior to the enactment of the PATRIOT Act in October of 

2001. 

The so-called Creppy memorandum, which had a blanket closure 

of immigration proceedings, was issued before the PATRIOT Act 

was enacted, and the Deputy Attorney General testified earlier this 

week that it’s no longer being followed. 

And some of the testimony related to provisions of the PATRIOT 

Act that were not sunsetted, and this Committee put the sunset on 

provisions of the law which actually increased the powers of law 

enforcement, but did not put the sunset on those provisions of the 

law which restated the powers that law enforcement had had prior 

to October of 2001. 

I think particularly irresponsible and indicative of the broadbrush accusations of the PATRIOT Act was what I just heard, saying the PATRIOT Act has resulted in Minutemen being on the border. That’s not true, and that’s irresponsible, and I think anybody 

who knows what is going on——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No, I will not yield—will see that 

fact. 

Let me say that I think this hearing very, very clearly shows 

what the opponents of the PATRIOT Act are doing. They will talk 

about practically everything but what’s in the PATRIOT Act and 

what this Committee is considering. The only really relevant testimony that I heard was from Mr. Pitts, relative to section 215 of the 

PATRIOT Act that said that librarians have been receiving all 

kinds of questions from law enforcement. I’d like to ask you, Mr. 

Pitts, to submit for the record the names of the librarians that 

have received actual section 215 orders from the FISA Court to 

produce business records, and we will give you a week to put that 

in the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. So thank you all for coming today. 

I thank the Members——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:23 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(61)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE

ON THE JUDICIARY

There are few issues that are more important to this Committee or this Congress 

than the PATRIOT Act and the war against terror. This not only affects the rights 

and privacy of every American, but impacts the extent to which our nation is able 

to hold itself out as a beacon of liberty as we advocate for democracy around the 

world. 

For many of us, this process of hearings is not merely about whether we should 

extend 16 expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act; it is about the manner in 

which our government uses its legal authority to prosecute the war against terror, 

both domestically and abroad. As we will hear from our witnesses today, those authorities have been abused. 

We will learn from Amnesty International about the routine torture and degradation of detainees in American-run prisons that clearly violate American and international law. Both then-White House Counsel Gonzales and the Department of Justice conspired to create an end-run around the international and U.S. laws that 

criminalize that sort of behavior. While the Justice Department has supposedly reversed those opinions, it still refuses to charge those in its jurisdiction. 

We will also receive testimony concerning the illegal detention and mistreatment 

of individuals at Guantanamo Bay. A federal court has found their detention and 

denial of legal process to be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment and illegal. And after the recent confirmation that jailers there desecrated the Koran, it’s 

clearly time for the military to shut the Guantanamo facility down. 

We will also learn about the abuse of the immigration system to unjustifiably detain and harass men of Middle Eastern descent. Our Justice Department held over 

1,000 people in the wake of 9/11, and the Inspector General has found the detentions to violate the law. But no one has been punished, and nothing has been done 

to ensure it doesn’t happen again. 

Finally, we will receive testimony concerning the failure of our Administration’s 

racial profiling tactics. Not only are tactics like these immoral, they have been proven to be completely useless in the war on terror. For example, our government’s registration of 80,000 Middle Eastern men did nothing but create a deportation nightmare for families who had long been upstanding members of our communities. And 

not a single terrorist was found. Let me repeat that—not a single terrorist was 

found. 

Yesterday, the president announced with much fanfare that we need to not only 

reauthorize but expand the PATRIOT Act. But rather than making us safer, the 

abuses and excesses of our war against terrorism are actually tarnishing our nation’s reputation and making us less safe. The testimony we are receiving today—

and introducing into the record—will make that point abundantly clear.

62

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS


SJL1.eps
63


SJL2.eps
64


SJL3.eps
65


SJL4.eps
66


SJL5.eps
67


SJL6.eps
68


SJL7.eps
69


SJL8.eps
70

RESPONSE BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

REQUESTED BY CHAIRMAN SENSENBRENNER


AIB.eps
71


AIB1.eps
72

‘‘BEHIND THE WIRE’’ SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN, 

DIRECTOR, U.S. LAW AND SECURITY PROGRAM


BW0001.eps
73


BW0002.eps
74


BW0003.eps
75


BW0005.eps
76


BW0006.eps
77


BW0007.eps
78


BW0009.eps
79


BW0010.eps
80


BW0011.eps
81


BW0012.eps
82


BW0013.eps
83


BW0014.eps
84


BW0015.eps
85


BW0016.eps
86


BW0017.eps
87


BW0018.eps
88


BW0019.eps
89


BW0021.eps
90


BW0022.eps
91


BW0023.eps
92


BW0024.eps
93


BW0025.eps
94


BW0027.eps
95


BW0028.eps
96


BW0029.eps
97


BW0030.eps
98


BW0031.eps
99


BW0032.eps
100


BW0033.eps
101


BW0035.eps
102


BW0037.eps
103


BW0039.eps
104


BW0040.eps
105


BW0041.eps
106


BW0042.eps
107


BW0043.eps
108


BW0044.eps
109


BW0045.eps
110


BW0046.eps
111


BW0047.eps
112


BW0048.eps
113


BW0049.eps
114


BW0050.eps
115


BW0051.eps
116


BW0052.eps
117

‘‘GETTING TO GROUND TRUTH’’ SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY DEBORAH

PEARLSTEIN, DIRECTOR, U.S. LAW AND SECURITY PROGRAM


GGT0001.eps
118


GGT0002.eps
119


GGT0003.eps
120


GGT0005.eps
121


GGT0006.eps
122


GGT0007.eps
123


GGT0009.eps
124


GGT0010.eps
125


GGT0011.eps
126


GGT0012.eps
127


GGT0013.eps
128


GGT0014.eps
129


GGT0015.eps
130


GGT0016.eps
131


GGT0017.eps
132


GGT0018.eps
133


GGT0019.eps
134


GGT0020.eps
135


GGT0021.eps
136


GGT0022.eps
137


GGT0023.eps
138


GGT0024.eps
139


GGT0025.eps
140


GGT0026.eps
141


GGT0027.eps
142


GGT0028.eps
143


GGT0029.eps
144


GGT0030.eps
145


GGT0031.eps
146


GGT0032.eps
147

GUANTANAMO AND BEYOND: THE CONTINUING PURSUIT OF UNCHECKED EXECUTIVE

POWERS’’ SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CHIP PITTS, CHAIR OF THE BOARD, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA


AIA0001.eps
148


AIA0002.eps
149


AIA0003.eps
150


AIA0004.eps
151


AIA0005.eps
152


AIA0006.eps
153


AIA0007.eps
154


AIA0008.eps
155


AIA0009.eps
156


AIA0010.eps
157


AIA0011.eps
158


AIA0012.eps
159


AIA0013.eps
160


AIA0014.eps
161


AIA0015.eps
162


AIA0016.eps
163


AIA0017.eps
164


AIA0018.eps
165


AIA0019.eps
166


AIA0020.eps
167


AIA0021.eps
168


AIA0022.eps
169


AIA0023.eps
170


AIA0024.eps
171


AIA0025.eps
172


AIA0026.eps
173


AIA0027.eps
174


AIA0028.eps
175


AIA0029.eps
176


AIA0030.eps
177


AIA0031.eps
178


AIA0032.eps
179


AIA0033.eps
180


AIA0034.eps
181


AIA0035.eps
182


AIA0036.eps
183


AIA0037.eps
184


AIA0038.eps
185


AIA0039.eps
186


AIA0040.eps
187


AIA0041.eps
188


AIA0042.eps
189


AIA0043.eps
190


AIA0044.eps
191


AIA0045.eps
192


AIA0046.eps
193


AIA0047.eps
194


AIA0048.eps
195


AIA0049.eps
196


AIA0050.eps
197


AIA0051.eps
198


AIA0052.eps
199


AIA0053.eps
200


AIA0054.eps
201


AIA0055.eps
202


AIA0056.eps
203


AIA0057.eps
204


AIA0058.eps
205


AIA0059.eps
206


AIA0060.eps
207


AIA0061.eps
208


AIA0062.eps
209


AIA0063.eps
210


AIA0064.eps
211


AIA0065.eps
212


AIA0066.eps
213


AIA0067.eps
214


AIA0068.eps
215


AIA0069.eps
216


AIA0070.eps
217


AIA0071.eps
218


AIA0072.eps
219


AIA0073.eps
220


AIA0074.eps
221


AIA0075.eps
222


AIA0076.eps
223


AIA0077.eps
224


AIA0078.eps
225


AIA0079.eps
226


AIA0080.eps
227


AIA0081.eps
228


AIA0082.eps
229


AIA0083.eps
230


AIA0084.eps
231


AIA0085.eps
232


AIA0086.eps
233


AIA0087.eps
234


AIA0088.eps
235


AIA0089.eps
236


AIA0090.eps
237


AIA0091.eps
238


AIA0092.eps
239


AIA0093.eps
240


AIA0094.eps
241


AIA0095.eps
242


AIA0096.eps
243


AIA0097.eps
244


AIA0098.eps
245


AIA0099.eps
246


AIA0100.eps
247


AIA0101.eps
248


AIA0102.eps
249


AIA0103.eps
250


AIA0104.eps
251


AIA0105.eps
252


AIA0106.eps
253


AIA0107.eps
254


AIA0108.eps
255


AIA0109.eps
256


AIA0110.eps
257


AIA0111.eps
258


AIA0112.eps
259


AIA0113.eps
260


AIA0114.eps
261


AIA0115.eps
262


AIA0116.eps
263


AIA0117.eps
264


AIA0118.eps
265


AIA0119.eps
266


AIA0120.eps
267


AIA0121.eps
268


AIA0122.eps
269


AIA0123.eps
270


AIA0124.eps
271


AIA0125.eps
272


AIA0126.eps
273


AIA0127.eps
274


AIA0128.eps
275


AIA0129.eps
276


AIA0130.eps
277


AIA0131.eps
278


AIA0132.eps
279


AIA0133.eps
280


AIA0134.eps
281


AIA0135.eps
282


AIA0136.eps
283


AIA0137.eps
284


AIA0138.eps
285


AIA0139.eps
286


AIA0140.eps
287


AIA0141.eps
288


AIA0142.eps
289


AIA0143.eps
290


AIA0144.eps
291


AIA0145.eps
292


AIA0146.eps
293


AIA0147.eps
294


AIA0148.eps
295


AIA0149.eps
296


AIA0150.eps
297


AIA0151.eps
298


AIA0152.eps
299


AIA0153.eps
300


AIA0154.eps
301


AIA0155.eps
302


AIA0156.eps
303


AIA0157.eps
304


AIA0158.eps
305


AIA0159.eps
306


AIA0160.eps
307


AIA0161.eps
308


AIA0162.eps
309


AIA0163.eps
310


AIA0164.eps
311

ARTICLE, JAMES STURCKE, ‘‘GENERAL APPROVED EXTREME INTERROGATION

METHODS,’’ GUARDIAN, MARCH 30, 2005


01001.eps
312


01002.eps
313

ARTICLE, BOB HERBERT, ‘‘AMERICA A SYMBOL OF ...,’’ NEW YORK TIMES,

MAY 30, 2005, AVAILABLE ON WESTLAW AT 2005 WLNR 8545594


02001.eps
314


02002.eps
315

ARTICLE, NEIL A. LEWIS & CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS, ‘‘A NATION CHALLENGED: IMMIGRATION, LONGER VISA WAITS FOR ARABS,’’ NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 10, 2001, 

AVAILABLE ON WESTLAW AT 2001 WLNR 3372678


03001.eps
316


03002.eps
317


03003.eps
318


03004.eps
319


03005.eps
320


03006.eps
321

ARTICLE, BOB HERBERT, ‘‘STORIES FROM THE INSIDE,’’ NEW YORK TIMES,

FEBRUARY 7, 2005, AVAILABLE ON WESTLAW AT 2005 WLNR 1682135


04001.eps
322


04002.eps
323


04003.eps
324

ARTICLE, TIM GOLDEN, ‘‘THREATS AND RESPONSES: TOUGH JUSTICE; AFTER TERROR, 

A SECRET REWRITING OF MILITARY LAW,’’ NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 24, 2004, 

AVAILABLE ON WESTLAW AT 2004 WLNR 4788371


05001.eps
325


05002.eps
326


05003.eps
327


05004.eps
328


05005.eps
329


05006.eps
330


05007.eps
331


05008.eps
332


05009.eps
333


05010.eps
334


05011.eps
335


05012.eps
336


05013.eps
337


05014.eps
338


05015.eps
339


05016.eps
340

ARTICLE, DOUGLAS JEHL, NEIL A. LEWIS, & TIM GOLDEN, ‘‘THE REACH OF WAR: 

GUANTANAMO: PENTAGON SEEKS TO SHIFT INMATES FROM CUBA BASE,’’ NEW YORK

TIMES, MARCH 11, 2005, AVAILABLE ON WESTLAW AT 2005 WLNR 3773506


06001.eps
341


06002.eps
342


06003.eps
343


06004.eps
344


06005.eps
345


06006.eps
346

ARTICLE, TIM GOLDEN, RUHALLAH KHAPALWAK, CHARLOTTE GALL, & DAVID ROHDE, 

‘‘THE BAGRAM FILE: IN U.S. REPORT, BRUTAL DETAILS OF 2 AFGHAN INMATES’

DEATHS,’’ NEW YORK TIMES, MAY 20, 2005, AVAILABLE ON WESTLAW AT 2005 

WLNR 7990089


07001.eps
347


07002.eps
348


07003.eps
349


07004.eps
350


07005.eps
351


07006.eps
352


07007.eps
353


07008.eps
354


07009.eps
355


07010.eps
356


07011.eps
357


07012.eps
358


07013.eps
359


07014.eps
360


07015.eps
361


07016.eps
362


07017.eps
363

ARTICLE, TIM GOLDEN, ‘‘THE BAGRAM FILE: ARMY FALTERED IN INVESTIGATING DETAINEE ABUSE,’’ NEW YORK TIMES, MAY 22, 2005, AVAILABLE ON WESTLAW AT 2005 

WLNR 8112977


08001.eps
364


08002.eps
365


08003.eps
366


08004.eps
367


08005.eps
368


08006.eps
369


08007.eps
370

REPORT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ‘‘INDEPENDENCE DAY 2003,’’

JULY 3, 2003


09001.eps
371


09002.eps
372


09003.eps
373


09004.eps
374


09005.eps
375


09006.eps
376


09007.eps
377


09008.eps
378


09009.eps
379


09010.eps
380


09011.eps
381


09012.eps
382


09013.eps
383


09014.eps
384


09015.eps
385


09016.eps
386


09017.eps
387


09018.eps
388


09019.eps
389


09020.eps
390


09021.eps
391


09022.eps
392


09023.eps
393

REPORT, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ‘‘WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY,’’ NOVEMBER 2002


100001.eps
394


100002.eps
395


100003.eps
396


100004.eps
397


100005.eps
398


100006.eps
399


100007.eps
400


100008.eps
401


100009.eps
402


100010.eps
403


100011.eps
404


100012.eps
405


100013.eps
406


100014.eps
407


100015.eps
408


100016.eps
409


100017.eps
410


100018.eps
411


100019.eps
412


100020.eps
413


100021.eps
414


100022.eps
415


100023.eps
416


100024.eps
417


100025.eps
418


100026.eps
419


100027.eps
420


100028.eps
421


100029.eps
422


100030.eps
423


100031.eps
424


100032.eps
425


100033.eps
426


100034.eps
427


100035.eps
428


100036.eps
429


100037.eps
430


100038.eps
431


100039.eps
432


100040.eps
433


100041.eps
434


100042.eps
435

REPORT, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ‘‘PRESUMPTION OF GUILT,’’ AUGUST 2002


110001.eps
436


110002.eps
437


110003.eps
438


110004.eps
439


110005.eps
440


110006.eps
441


110007.eps
442


110008.eps
443


110009.eps
444


110010.eps
445


110011.eps
446


110012.eps
447


110013.eps
448


110014.eps
449


110015.eps
450


110016.eps
451


110017.eps
452


110018.eps
453


110019.eps
454


110020.eps
455


110021.eps
456


110022.eps
457


110023.eps
458


110024.eps
459


110025.eps
460


110026.eps
461


110027.eps
462


110028.eps
463


110029.eps
464


110030.eps
465


110031.eps
466


110032.eps
467


110033.eps
468


110034.eps
469


110035.eps
470


110036.eps
471


110037.eps
472


110038.eps
473


110039.eps
474


110040.eps
475


110041.eps
476


110042.eps
477


110043.eps
478


110044.eps
479


110045.eps
480


110046.eps
481


110047.eps
482


110048.eps
483


110049.eps
484


110050.eps
485


110051.eps
486


110052.eps
487


110053.eps
488


110054.eps
489


110055.eps
490


110056.eps
491


110057.eps
492


110058.eps
493


110059.eps
494


110060.eps
495


110061.eps
496


110062.eps
497


110063.eps
498


110064.eps
499


110065.eps
500


110066.eps
501


110067.eps
502


110068.eps
503


110069.eps
504


110070.eps
505


110071.eps
506


110072.eps
507


110073.eps
508


110074.eps
509


110075.eps
510


110076.eps
511


110077.eps
512


110078.eps
513


110079.eps
514


110080.eps
515


110081.eps
516


110082.eps
517


110083.eps
518


110084.eps
519


110085.eps
520


110086.eps
521


110087.eps
522


110088.eps
523


110089.eps
524


110090.eps
525


110091.eps
526


110092.eps
527


110093.eps
528


110094.eps
529


110095.eps
530


110096.eps
531


110097.eps
532


110098.eps
533


110099.eps
534

REPORT, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ‘‘THE ROAD TO ABU GHRAIB,’’ JUNE 2004


120001.eps
535


120003.eps
536


120004.eps
537


120005.eps
538


120006.eps
539


120007.eps
540


120008.eps
541


120009.eps
542


120010.eps
543


120011.eps
544


120012.eps
545


120013.eps
546


120014.eps
547


120015.eps
548


120016.eps
549


120017.eps
550


120018.eps
551


120019.eps
552


120020.eps
553


120021.eps
554


120022.eps
555


120023.eps
556


120024.eps
557


120025.eps
558


120026.eps
559


120027.eps
560


120028.eps
561


120029.eps
562


120030.eps
563


120031.eps
564


120032.eps
565


120033.eps
566


120034.eps
567


120035.eps
568


120036.eps
569


120037.eps
570

REPORT, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ‘‘STILL AT RISK,’’ APRIL 2005


130001.eps
571


130002.eps
572


130003.eps
573


130004.eps
574


130005.eps
575


130006.eps
576


130007.eps
577


130008.eps
578


130009.eps
579


130010.eps
580


130011.eps
581


130012.eps
582


130013.eps
583


130014.eps
584


130015.eps
585


130016.eps
586


130017.eps
587


130018.eps
588


130019.eps
589


130020.eps
590


130021.eps
591


130022.eps
592


130023.eps
593


130024.eps
594


130025.eps
595


130026.eps
596


130027.eps
597


130028.eps
598


130029.eps
599


130030.eps
600


130031.eps
601


130032.eps
602


130033.eps
603


130034.eps
604


130035.eps
605


130036.eps
606


130037.eps
607


130038.eps
608


130039.eps
609


130040.eps
610


130041.eps
611


130042.eps
612


130043.eps
613


130044.eps
614


130045.eps
615


130046.eps
616


130047.eps
617


130048.eps
618


130049.eps
619


130050.eps
620


130051.eps
621


130052.eps
622


130053.eps
623


130054.eps
624


130055.eps
625


130056.eps
626


130057.eps
627


130058.eps
628


130059.eps
629


130060.eps
630


130061.eps
631


130062.eps
632


130063.eps
633


130064.eps
634


130065.eps
635


130066.eps
636


130067.eps
637


130068.eps
638


130069.eps
639


130070.eps
640


130071.eps
641


130072.eps
642


130073.eps
643


130074.eps
644


130075.eps
645


130076.eps
646


130077.eps
647


130078.eps
648


130079.eps
649


130080.eps
650


130081.eps
651


130082.eps
652


130083.eps
653


130084.eps
654


130085.eps
655


130086.eps
656


130087.eps
657


130088.eps
658


130089.eps
659


130090.eps
660


130091.eps
661


130092.eps
662


130093.eps
663


130094.eps
664

REPORT, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ‘‘GETTING AWAY WITH TORTURE?,’’ APRIL 2005


140001.eps
665


140003.eps
666


140004.eps
667


140005.eps
668


140006.eps
669


140007.eps
670


140008.eps
671


140009.eps
672


140010.eps
673


140011.eps
674


140012.eps
675


140013.eps
676


140014.eps
677


140015.eps
678


140016.eps
679


140017.eps
680


140018.eps
681


140019.eps
682


140020.eps
683


140021.eps
684


140022.eps
685


140023.eps
686


140024.eps
687


140025.eps
688


140026.eps
689


140027.eps
690


140028.eps
691


140029.eps
692


140030.eps
693


140031.eps
694


140032.eps
695


140033.eps
696


140034.eps
697


140035.eps
698


140036.eps
699


140037.eps
700


140038.eps
701


140039.eps
702


140040.eps
703


140041.eps
704


140042.eps
705


140043.eps
706


140044.eps
707


140045.eps
708


140046.eps
709


140047.eps
710


140048.eps
711


140049.eps
712


140050.eps
713


140051.eps
714


140052.eps
715


140053.eps
716


140054.eps
717


140055.eps
718


140056.eps
719


140057.eps
720


140058.eps
721


140059.eps
722


140060.eps
723


140061.eps
724


140062.eps
725


140063.eps
726


140064.eps
727


140065.eps
728


140066.eps
729


140067.eps
730


140068.eps
731


140069.eps
732


140070.eps
733


140071.eps
734


140072.eps
735


140073.eps
736


140074.eps
737


140075.eps
738


140076.eps
739


140077.eps
740


140078.eps
741


140079.eps
742


140080.eps
743


140081.eps
744


140082.eps
745


140083.eps
746


140084.eps
747


140085.eps
748


140086.eps
749


140087.eps
750


140088.eps
751


140089.eps
752


140090.eps
753


140091.eps
754


140092.eps
755


140093.eps
756


140094.eps
757


140095.eps
758

REPORT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ‘‘SANCTIONED BIAS,’’ FEBRUARY 2004


150001.eps
759


150002.eps
760


150003.eps
761


150004.eps
762


150005.eps
763


150006.eps
764


150007.eps
765


150008.eps
766


150009.eps
767


150010.eps
768


150011.eps
769


150012.eps
770


150013.eps
771


150014.eps
772


150015.eps
773


150016.eps
774


150017.eps
775


150018.eps
776


150019.eps
777


150020.eps
778


150021.eps
779


150022.eps
780


150023.eps
781


150024.eps
782

REPORT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ‘‘UNPATRIOTIC ACTS,’’ JULY 2003


160001.eps
783


160002.eps
784


160003.eps
785


160004.eps
786


160005.eps
787


160006.eps
788


160007.eps
789


160008.eps
790


160009.eps
791


160010.eps
792


160011.eps
793


160012.eps
794


160013.eps
795


160014.eps
796


160015.eps
797


160016.eps
798


160017.eps
799


160018.eps
800


160019.eps
801


160020.eps
802


160021.eps
803


160022.eps
804


160023.eps
805


160024.eps
806


160025.eps
807


160026.eps
808

REPORT, IRENE KAHN, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, ‘‘DENOUNCE TORTURE,

REPORT 2005, FORWARD,’’ MAY 25, 2005


17A0001.eps
809


17A0002.eps
810


17A0003.eps
811


17A0004.eps
812


17A0005.eps
813

STATEMENT, ALEXANDRA ARRIAGA, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL,

‘‘STOP OUTSOURCING OF TORTURE,’’ MAY 10, 2005


17B0001.eps
814


17B0002.eps
815

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, ‘‘UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GUANTANAMO—AN ICON

OF LAWLESSNESS,’’ JANUARY 6, 2005


17C0001.eps
816


17C0002.eps
817


17C0003.eps
818


17C0004.eps
819


17C0005.eps
820


17C0006.eps
821


17C0007.eps
822

REPORT, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, ‘‘HUMAN DIGNITY DENIED: TORTURE AND

ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE WAR ON TERROR,’’ OCTOBER 27, 2004


190001.eps
823


190002.eps
824


190003.eps
825


190004.eps
826


190005.eps
827


190006.eps
828


190007.eps
829


190008.eps
830


190009.eps
831


190010.eps
832


190011.eps
833


190012.eps
834


190013.eps
835


190014.eps
836


190015.eps
837


190016.eps
838


190017.eps
839


190018.eps
840


190019.eps
841


190020.eps
842


190021.eps
843


190022.eps
844


190023.eps
845


190024.eps
846


190025.eps
847


190026.eps
848


190027.eps
849


190028.eps
850


190029.eps
851


190030.eps
852


190031.eps
853


190032.eps
854


190033.eps
855


190034.eps
856


190035.eps
857


190036.eps
858


190037.eps
859


190038.eps
860


190039.eps
861


190040.eps
862


190041.eps
863


190042.eps
864


190043.eps
865


190044.eps
866


190045.eps
867


190046.eps
868


190047.eps
869


190048.eps
870


190049.eps
871


190050.eps
872


190051.eps
873


190052.eps
874


190053.eps
875


190054.eps
876


190055.eps
877


190056.eps
878


190057.eps
879


190058.eps
880


190059.eps
881


190060.eps
882


190061.eps
883


190062.eps
884


190063.eps
885


190064.eps
886


190065.eps
887


190066.eps
888


190067.eps
889


190068.eps
890


190069.eps
891


190070.eps
892


190071.eps
893


190072.eps
894


190073.eps
895


190074.eps
896


190075.eps
897


190076.eps
898


190077.eps
899


190078.eps
900


190079.eps
901


190080.eps
902


190081.eps
903


190082.eps
904


190083.eps
905


190084.eps
906


190085.eps
907


190086.eps
908


190087.eps
909


190088.eps
910


190089.eps
911


190090.eps
912


190091.eps
913


190092.eps
914


190093.eps
915


190094.eps
916


190095.eps
917


190096.eps
918


190097.eps
919


190098.eps
920


190099.eps
921


190100.eps
922


190101.eps
923


190102.eps
924


190103.eps
925


190104.eps
926


190105.eps
927


190106.eps
928


190107.eps
929


190108.eps
930


190109.eps
931


190110.eps
932


190111.eps
933


190112.eps
934


190113.eps
935


190114.eps
936


190115.eps
937


190116.eps
938


190117.eps
939


190118.eps
940


190119.eps
941


190120.eps
942


190121.eps
943


190122.eps
944


190123.eps
945


190124.eps
946


190125.eps
947


190126.eps
948


190127.eps
949


190128.eps
950


190129.eps
951


190130.eps
952


190131.eps
953


190132.eps
954


190133.eps
955


190134.eps
956


190135.eps
957


190136.eps
958


190137.eps
959


190138.eps
960


190139.eps
961


190140.eps
962


190141.eps
963


190142.eps
964


190143.eps
965


190144.eps
966


190145.eps
967


190146.eps
968


190147.eps
969


190148.eps
970


190149.eps
971


190150.eps
972


190151.eps
973


190152.eps
974


190153.eps
975


190154.eps
976


190155.eps
977


190156.eps
978


190157.eps
979


190158.eps
980


190159.eps
981


190160.eps
982


190161.eps
983


190162.eps
984


190163.eps
985


190164.eps
986


190165.eps
987


190166.eps
988


190167.eps
989


190168.eps
990


190169.eps
991


190170.eps
992


190171.eps
993


190172.eps
994


190173.eps
995


190174.eps
996


190175.eps
997


190176.eps
998


190177.eps
999


190178.eps
1000


190179.eps
1001


190180.eps
1002


190181.eps
1003


190182.eps
1004


190183.eps
1005


190184.eps
1006


190185.eps
1007


190186.eps
1008


190187.eps
1009


190188.eps
1010


190189.eps
1011


190190.eps
1012


190191.eps
1013


190192.eps
1014


190193.eps
1015


190194.eps
1016


190195.eps
1017


190196.eps
1018


190197.eps
1019


190198.eps
1020


190199.eps
1021


190200.eps
1022


190201.eps
1023


190202.eps
1024

REPORT, CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS,

‘‘THE STATE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES ONE YEAR LATER,’’ 2002


200001.eps
1025


200002.eps
1026


200003.eps
1027


200004.eps
1028


200005.eps
1029


200006.eps
1030


200007.eps
1031


200008.eps
1032


200009.eps
1033


200010.eps
1034


200011.eps
1035


200012.eps
1036


200013.eps
1037


200014.eps
1038


200015.eps
1039


200016.eps
1040


200017.eps
1041


200018.eps
1042


200019.eps
1043


200020.eps
1044

REPORT, NANCY CHANG & ALAN KABAT, CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, ‘‘SUMMARY OF

RECENT COURT RULINGS ON TERRORISM-RELATED MATTERS HAVING CIVIL LIBERTIES IMPLICATIONS,’’ MARCH 8, 2004


210001.eps
1045


210002.eps
1046


210003.eps
1047


210004.eps
1048


210005.eps
1049


210006.eps
1050


210007.eps
1051


210008.eps
1052


210009.eps
1053


210010.eps
1054


210011.eps
1055


210012.eps
1056


210013.eps
1057


210014.eps
1058


210015.eps
1059


210016.eps
1060


210017.eps
1061


210018.eps
1062


210019.eps
1063


210020.eps
1064


210021.eps
1065


210022.eps
1066


210023.eps
1067


210024.eps
1068


210025.eps
1069


210026.eps
1070


210027.eps
1071


210028.eps
1072


210029.eps
1073


210030.eps
1074


210031.eps
1075


210032.eps
1076


210033.eps
1077


210034.eps
1078


210035.eps
1079


210036.eps
1080


210037.eps
1081


210038.eps
1082


210039.eps
1083


210040.eps
1084

REPORT, ANJANA MALHOTRA, ‘‘OVERLOOKING INNOCENCE: REFASHIONING THE

MATERIAL WITNESS LAW TO INDEFINITELY DETAIN MUSLIMS WITHOUT CHARGES’’


220001.eps
1085


220002.eps
1086


220003.eps
1087


220004.eps
1088


220005.eps
1089


220006.eps
1090


220007.eps
1091


220008.eps
1092

REPORT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ‘‘CONDUCT UNBECOMING: PITFALLS IN

THE PRESIDENT’S MILITARY COMMISSIONS,’’ MARCH 2004


230001.eps
1093


230002.eps
1094


230003.eps
1095


230005.eps
1096


230006.eps
1097


230007.eps
1098


230008.eps
1099


230009.eps
1100


230010.eps
1101


230011.eps
1102


230012.eps
1103


230013.eps
1104


230014.eps
1105


230015.eps
1106


230016.eps
1107


230017.eps
1108


230018.eps
1109

REPORT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ‘‘AMERICA’S DISAPPEARED: SEEKING

INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE FOR IMMIGRANTS DETAINED AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, JANUARY 2004


240001.eps
1110


240002.eps
1111


240003.eps
1112


240004.eps
1113


240005.eps
1114


240006.eps
1115


240007.eps
1116


240008.eps
1117


240009.eps
1118


240010.eps
1119


240011.eps
1120


240012.eps
1121


240013.eps
1122


240014.eps
1123


240015.eps
1124


240016.eps
1125


240017.eps
1126


240018.eps
1127


240019.eps
1128


240020.eps
1129


240021.eps
1130


240022.eps
1131


240023.eps
1132


240024.eps
1133


240025.eps
1134


240026.eps
1135


240027.eps
1136

REPORT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ‘‘SEEKING TRUTH FROM JUSTICE, PATRIOT PROPAGANDA: THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S CAMPAIGN TO MISLEAD THE

PUBLIC ABOUT THE USA PATRIOT ACT,’’ JULY 2003


250001.eps
1137


250002.eps
1138


250003.eps
1139


250004.eps
1140


250005.eps
1141


250006.eps
1142


250007.eps
1143


250008.eps
1144


250009.eps
1145


250010.eps
1146


250011.eps
1147


250012.eps
1148


250013.eps
1149

ARTICLE, NEW YORK TIMES, ‘‘JUST SHUT IT DOWN,’’ MAY 27, 2005


26A.eps
1150


26B.eps
1151

ARTICLE, USA TODAY, ‘‘BIDEN: U.S. NEEDS TO CLOSE CUBA PRISON,’’ JUNE 6, 2005


27A.eps
1152


27B.eps
1153

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE ALBERTO R. GONZALES,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES


AGLet1.eps
1154


AGLet2.eps
1155


AGLet3.eps
1156


AGLet4.eps
1157


AGLet5.eps
1158


AGLet6.eps
1159

Æ


AGLet7.eps