Racial Profiling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JedDRzmmvpc&feature=relmfu

Using Patriotism to Deny Constitutional Rights

In a country divided on many issues, Americans may define patriotism with the same words, and they may read the same, and only, Constitution of the United States, but the way they feel about “country”, and how they act on the idea of “patriotism,” can vary greatly.  In inquiries of defining patriotism, one will find definitions equivalent to Merriam Webster’s definition as, “love for or devotion to one’s country.”  Due to individual’s differing views on the meanings of devotion, support and defense of one’s country, we are faced with the challenge of uniting beliefs in order to take action when crisis occur.  The September 11^th terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001 were catastrophic examples in US history where Americans and government officials had to come together to make decisions on what actions to take.  In one of the fastest verdicts of its kind in history, The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“The Patriot Act”) was passed by Congress on October 25^th, and signed into law October 26^th by President George W. Bush.  In a forty-five day fury fueled by fear, grief and vengeance, the USA Patriot Act, written in “general” terms, granted government and authorities, broad reaching abilities to obtain citizen records and information, as well as detain suspect individuals without the existing procedures that insured protection of civil rights.  While some feel the Patriot Act was necessary and continues to be pertinent to national security, the act has come under attack for its deceitful way of denying constitutional rights to US inhabitants.  Supporters argue that there are adequate stipulations against racial profiling and discrimination in the Patriot Act, but with blatant examples of racial profiling occurrences from The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and other government institutions, I argue that The Patriot Act does indeed condone racial profiling.  

State By State Legislation on Racial Profiling

In arguing that the US Patriot Act gives “permission” to utilize racial profiling, it is apparent how different Americans’ views are in relation to patriotism, civil rights, and upholding Constitutional Amendments.  When the terrorist attacks of 9/11 occurred in 2011, I was a senior in high school, and really only understood the events on an emotional level.  Even though I am part of a seemingly politically aware family, I was not privy to the political implications of the legislative measures I was hearing through the airwaves as “Patriotic,” “American,” and “necessary to the safety of our Nation.”  Nor was I aware of how seemingly unconscious, and normal it would become for Americans, including myself, to stereotype Middle-easterners as suspicious, radical, threatening and as potential “terrorists.”  It wasn’t just seventeen year olds like me that were uninformed of the meanings and significance of political action being taken in the aftermath of September 11^th; it was an entire nation of grieving and fearful citizens, authorities in uniform, and members of Congress, who were very willing to put in place laws that would help us prevent future attacks.  Personal insight gives me some understanding into the arguments in favor of the US Patriot Act, but it has now been over ten years since its passing, and evidence supports the Patriot Act is a betrayal of constitutional amendments.  Specifically, there have been many reports of its constitutional abuses with regards to racial profiling in the TSA and with the FBI.  Since September 11, 2001 Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern Americans, as well as other racial and ethnic minorities, have been discriminated against in unfair suspicion of terrorist activities or having “radical” Islamic sentiments.   Although some Americans believe that the Patriot Act has been successful in its efforts against terrorism, Coleen Rowley of the FBI stated differently in her letter to FBI Director Robert Muller, published in Time Magazine, saying,

“the vast majority of the one thousand plus persons “detained” in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists….[A]fter 9-11, headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes.  Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism” (Feb 26, 2003). 

Since Coleen Rowley’s statements, an independent examination of the FBI has also been cited in the 2007 investigation by the Justice Department Office of the Inspector General, as abusing its National Security Letters (NSL) authority under the Patriot Act, “including the FBI’s provision of false information to Congress, and obtaining records of persons without evidence that such persons were suspected of wrongdoing” (www.muslimadvocates.org, 2011).  In accordance with Amendment IV of the US Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  The ACLU states that records up to May of 2011 show that only 39 individuals of the Justice Department’s “400 convictions” were actually convicted of crimes related to terrorism.  Despite only 39 of the individuals being convicted, nearly all of those detained were not given due-process of the law, and had their civil rights violated. 

It is not just the 4^th Amendment of the Constitution that is violated by the US Patriot Act.  By the definition of racial profiling from the 2011 census publication of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights the constitutional conflict is obvious.  Their very comprehensive definition states,

“Racial profiling" refers to the targeting of particular individuals by law enforcement authorities based not on their behavior, but rather their personal characteristics. It is generally used to encompass more than simply an individual's race….it encompasses race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion—and means the impermissible use by law enforcement authorities of these personal characteristics, to any degree, in determining which individuals to stop, detain, question, or subject to other law enforcement activities.”

There are innumerous civil rights organizations that similarly define racial profiling, but it is the, "Guidance Regarding the Use of Race By Federal Law Enforcement Agencies,” issued by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2003 that upholds the U.S. Supreme Courts stance on the practice of racial profiling.  The Supreme Court has held that racial profiling violates the constitutional requirement that all persons be accorded equal protection of the law, and the Justice Department “guidance” publication states:

"Racial profiling" at its core concerns the invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures. It is premised on the erroneous assumption that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in misconduct than any particular individual of another race or ethnicity.

Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society.”

These two definitions alone seem to make an easy case of the illegality of racial profiling in the US, so we have to wonder how a piece of legislation like the Patriot Act, that makes broad allowances for the practice, came into law.  In 2006 sociologist David Althiede published an article on, “Terrorism and the Politics of Fear.”  In his journal article he investigates how the concept of, “The War on Terrorism,” came to exist, and concludes that the language government has used since 9/11 promotes fear and generates support for, “any means necessary,” to keep out terrorists. 

              There was only one leader who spoke out against the Patriot Act in 2011.  The sole dissenting vote was that of Russell D. Feingold, at the time the Democratic Senator of Wisconsin.  In his forward of the “Losing Liberty: The State of Freedom 10 Years After the Patriot Act,” he says, “All over Washington, I witnessed a dangerous and deeply offensive attitude develop: if you wanted to support your country you had to support the Patriot Act.  The political pressure seemed almost overwhelming, and, sadly, even some of our strongest leaders succumbed to the intimidation.”  Investigations and surveys done by most trusted media outlets since 9/11, have many Representatives and Senators admitting that they did not thoroughly read through the 340 plus pages of the Patriot Act.  Shortly after the bill was enacted, dissenters, including average citizens and government officials, likened the Patriot Act to government repression that took place in World War II with Japanese Americans, and the witch hunts of the McCarthy era in 1950.  While Americans may not see the consequences of the Patriot Act as overtly as these past examples, we can similarly link the current “justified” racial profiling as undermining the very democracy the Act seeks to protect.  While supporters argue that the Patriot Act is necessary; that it has been successful and instrumental to our nation’s security, the act is controversial because of what opponents call an attack on civil liberties and erosions of constitutional amendments.  Racial profiling of Middle Eastern and Muslim Americans, condoned by the US Patriot Act violates core American values of fairness and equality for all.

In a New York Times report on August 11, 2012, “More than 30 federal officers in an airport program intended to spot telltale mannerisms of potential terrorists say the operation has become a magnet for racial profiling, targeting not only Middle Easterners but also blacks, Hispanics and other minorities.”  Ten years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks we are seeing the discriminatory responses to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s recommendations, turned into law, to combat terrorism, through the Patriot Act.  Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s fears have come to fruition.  In a statement following a visit to Ground Zero in early 2002 she said, “We're likely to experience more restrictions on personal freedom than has ever been the case in this country."

The history of the United States is fraught with discrimination and suppression, which is exactly why we have constitutional amendments in place to protect all individuals residing on US soil; citizens, immigrants and minorities alike.  Legislation that allows racial profiling, like the US Patriot Act, erodes the very principles of freedom and liberty that America stands for.  On September 11, 2001 we experienced tragedy like none before, and it united many Americans in support of helping each other heal.  If patriotism stands for love and defense of our diverse country, we must implement legislation, like the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA) that reflects our respect of differences and protects our constitutional rights.  The US Patriot Act will only be “patriotic” when it considers all Americans, regardless of color, race or religion, equally protected under the Constitution of the United States. 

                                                     TSA is accused of racial profiling.