The Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide: Another Notch on the Belt of FBI's Suspect Activity?

The FBI is currently under investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General for reported cheating on tests administered for agents regarding the guidelines for limits on surveillance.

The agents underwent 16 hours of training to understand the guidelines—named, the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide—which the FBI says is a “guide [that] equips agents with lawful and appropriate tools so the agency can transform itself into an intelligence-driven organization that investigates genuine criminal and national security threats.” The alleged cheating is in the form of some agents finishing the test suspiciously early, while others worked together as a group to take the test. FBI Director Robert Mueller claimed that these incidents are to be blamed on miscommunication and misunderstanding among FBI offices as to the procedure of how the test was to be administered. While the need for investigation is concerning on its own, the actual guidelines are also considered an invasive manual for investigation.

The operations manual gives agents the authority to “create maps of ethnic-oriented businesses, behaviors, lifestyle characteristics and cultural traditions in communities with concentrated ethnic populations.” The guidelines essentially allow investigation not based on hard evidence of criminal activity, but instead on what the FBI considers “proper purpose”—a term that masks what is most likely reasons based on suspicion and alarm. It is also believed that the guidelines permit intrusive investigation of mosques, churches, and synagogues—once again without evidence of criminal activity. The system of data collection as outlined by the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide is problematic in that it may lend itself to an unconstitutional system of racial profiling by law enforcement.

Concerns for the conspicuous nature of the FBI’s operations guidelines are voiced by many special interest groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and Muslim legal groups, such as Muslim Advocates. Farhana Khera, the director of Muslim Advocates, has stated that “Law-abiding American Muslims have experienced increasing levels of discriminatory, invasive and abusive conduct by federal agents.” The guidelines do not target Muslims specifically and the ACLU is filing Freedom of Information Act requests in 29 states and Washington—in order to find out how the FBI is acquiring information and what information about race and ethnicity is used for.

The issues created by this operations manual are not just pertaining to an invasion of privacy in the lives of many ethnic-community members, but problems arise in regards to the relationship between law enforcement and the community at large. Michael German, ACLU lawyer and former FBI agent, believes that the implementation of this sort of information collection simply drives an even larger wedge between law enforcement and the people that they are supposed to serve. He also states that “the FBI should be focusing its efforts on people it has a factual basis for suspecting of wrongdoing, not targeting communities with race-based investigations.” By applying a method of investigation that is invasive in nature, the FBI may be instilling even further distrust in the hearts of community members that feel that they have to constantly be on the defense for obtrusive violations of their privacy. Instead, it would probably be more useful to expand on meaningful, collaborative relationships with not only the Muslim community, but various ethnic and religious groups.

This operations manual seems to be further perpetuating the problem with how the United States, and its varied agencies and organizations, is handling anti/counter-terrorism. Using anti-terrorism techniques, like the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, to invade the privacy of many is not the proper way to go about preventing further national security risks. This guide joins the ranks of the No-Fly List and the protesting of the “Ground Zero Mosque” as methods that are proved—or will be proved—as ineffective for the prevention of any further terrorism. While these tactics appear to be America’s only choice for moving closer to complete security, they are doing the opposite of what is intended.

These methods simply demonize certain ethnicities and religions, rather than working together with the communities to create a bond that would foster open communication and provide incentive for exchanging useful information.

Vacationers Beware

You might want to think again if you were planning on traveling overseas this summer to visit family or enjoy a relaxing getaway.

Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." And in article 13 we are guaranteed "the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Increasingly though, American Muslims have found themselves trapped in foreign countries because, unbeknownst to them, their names appear on the "No Fly List" and are therefore unable to return home to the United States after traveling abroad.

Here are some things you might not know about the No Fly List. First of all, the list is not made public, nor are people on the list notified that their name has been added. There is no way of knowing if you've been put on the list until after your ticket has already been purchased and you're stopped at the airport. The list really is just a list; a list of names not linked with descriptors such as date of birth, ethnicity, height, weight or any other form of identification. So basically, if you have the same name as someone who may have legitimately earned their place on the list, tough luck. There is, however, an appeals process for individuals who believe they've been misidentified. The problem is, you're not notified as to whether or not your name has been removed. How do you find out if your appeal has been successful? You buy another ticket and cross your fingers hoping to make it through security next time around. One can be placed on the list if they "may" be a "risk" to civil aviation. What's the criteria for that? No one knows.

It also makes no difference whether you're an American born citizen or not. Recently, American citizens have found that traveling to foreign countries is easy enough, but when it's time to return, their names appear on the list.

The number of names on the No Fly List has sharply increased since last December when Umar Farouk Abdumutallab attempted to detonate an underwear bomb on a Detroit-bound plane. Though the No Fly List has been around since 2001 following the attacks on September 11, the would-be terrorist's name did not appear on the list. Even after beefing the list up since December, Faisal Shahzad was able to board a plane just 2 days after he attempted to explode a car bomb in Times Square. To me, these two instances would be indications that the list has no effectual use. But in lieu in innovative solutions to better protect our country, Homeland Security continues to add more and more names to a list that doesn't seem to work.

There are several examples of American citizens with no real link to terrorism who have been and who currently are trapped in foreign countries because they have funny sounding names. Raymond Earl Knaeble IV is a convert to Islam who studied Arabic in Yemen. When he tried returning to the U.S. from Bogota, Colombia he was notified about being on the No Fly List and had his passport confiscated. He was then taken to the U.S. embassy where he was questioned about his views on Jihad and whether or not he knew the underwear bomber or the Fort Hood shooter. Living in limbo in a hotel in Colombia with only the $500 given to him by the FBI, Knaeble lost his job which he was intending to start upon his return to the United States. The Muslim American Society (MAS) has noted a 50% increase in similar cases since last December, amounting to about 16 per month.

CAIR has also seen a rise in these types of cases and recently wrote a letter to Attorney General Holder to put an end to the practice of barring U.S. citizens from returning home. The letter also highlighted in particular the case of Yahya Weheli of Fairfax, Virginia. Wehelie is a Muslim of Somali descent who, like Knaeble, studied Arabic in Yemen for a year and half before attempting to board a plane back to the United States from Egypt. It was in Egypt that he learned his name was on the No Fly List and found he wouldn't be returning to Virginia again any time soon. Instead, his passport was promptly confiscated, and though he committed no crime, he was subject to over eight interrogations, polygraph tests, and was asked to spy on the American Muslim community in exchange for his freedom. He was eventually cleared to travel to the U.S., however, not by plane.

These are just two examples of this ugly new reality. Innocent people, innocent Americans none-the-less are being exiled from their country of birth and are in many cases being interrogated and intimdated under the banner of the American flag with the cooperation of officials from countries whom we often publicly condemn for their lack of freedom; this is hypocrisy. It seems that at least in these few instances, the U.S. has forgotten what it means to be a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This may seem harsh, and it kind of is. When I've talked to different people about these issues critically they say things to me like "well, it's a whole lot worse in countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia." And to that I say, "really?" Do we really want to compare ourselves to Egypt or Saudi Arabia? No, we're better than that... or at least we should be. This is precisely why our mothers and fathers moved here from those countries to begin with.

"Ideological Exclusion" Still A Problem

CAIR-Chicago is honored to have Tariq Ramadan as the keynote speaker at our 6th Annual Banquet on April, 10th. Having him speak will be a monumental occasion not only because of his decades of scholarly work, but also because this will be Tariq Ramadan's first time in the United States since being unjustly banned from in 2004 under the Bush Administration.

Despite Mr. Ramadan's outspoken, consistent, and firm condemnation of all forms of terrorism and extremism, his extensive work on the compatibility of Islam and democracy, and his critiques of less-than-democratic systems such as in Egypt, his visa was suddenly and inexplicably revoked in August of 2004. He was just days away from beginning his tenured teaching position at Notre Dame's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. Since the revocation of his visa, Mr. Ramadan was appointed to work on the U.K.'s government task force to examine the roots of extremism in Great Britain, was named one of Time Magazine's "Top 100 Innovators," and was in 2009 ranked one of Foreign Policy Magazine's "Top Global Thinkers" all of which demonstrate his broad-reaching respectability.

Although Mr. Ramadan was initially offered no explanation as to why his visa was revoked, it was later revealed that he was banned under the "ideological exclusions" provision (section 411) of the U.S. Patriot Act which states that any alien who "used their position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities."

What this means in that the Secretary of State can decide who is allowed over the border and who isn't based on his or her threat perception, which the actions of individuals have no real bearing, but instead their rhetoric does. Apparently Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice perceived Mr. Ramadan's critical views on the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to somehow threaten American national security. This was allowed to happen, the ACLU asserts, because "the [U.S.] government is using the [ideological exclusions] provision more broadly to deny entry to people whose political views it disfavors" and that "the government's use of the statute to exclude Professor Ramadan is illustrative of the statute's malleability and reach."

With this broad interpretation being used, not only Tariq Ramadan, but dozens of other foreign scholars have been denied access into the U.S. In light of this border censorship, in 2006 the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging this particular section of the Patriot Act charging the provision was "being used to prevent United States citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment." Also, in March of 2009 a coalition of 75 civil rights and professional organizations including the ACLU, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, the Muslim Bar Association of New York, and Feminists for Free Expression wrote to then newly-appointed Secretary of State Clinton stressing their concerns and urging action in regards to "ideological exclusion." Ms. Clinton was asked to re-examine the cases of several prominent scholars whose visas were revoked, and to end the practice of censorship by banning scholars who are critical of U.S. policy.

This January, Secretary of State Clinton signed orders lifting the ban on Tariq Ramadan, as well as University of Johannesburg professor, Adam Habib, allowing them to reapply for visas. Since January, both have successfully obtained 10-year visas and can once again freely travel to the U.S.

Yes, this should be seen as a major success and the Obama administration must be commended for their efforts in commencing the beginning of the end of a dark era of censorship. But we must also remember that this is just the beginning of a process. Though Mr. Ramadan, and Mr. Habib were fortunate enough to be allowed back into the country, many still have not. And even if the bans are lifted on every single scholar, there is no true victory until this section of the Patriot Act is reformed or repealed altogether.

In Tariq Ramadan's own words "although the exclusions are carried out in the name of security and stability, they actually threaten both by closing off the open, critical, and constructive dialogue that once defined this country." Indeed, freedom of expression, religious tolerance, and vivacious debate are all what set this country apart and make it so great. Just as we got through the embarrassing era McCarthyism during the cold war when scholars and artists with dissenting viewpoints had their visas revoked, Secretary of State Clinton has signaled that perhaps the end is near for this new wave of "ideological exclusion" and will thereby make the past several years a mere blemish on the nation's greater history.

Body Scanners Coming to an Airport Near You

O’Hare International Airport recently added full-body scanners to its security system in the hopes of preventing any future attacks on airlines. It is believed that the scanners will improve security because of their ability to show hidden objects on the body like plastic or chemical explosives and non-metallic weapons. Paid for with money from President Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan, each scanner costs between $130,000 and $190,000. So far, over 20 U.S. airports have received these scanners and many, many more are on their way to airports across the nation. While these body scanners have been available for years, deployment has been slowed because of privacy objections which center on the fact that the scanners use low dose X-rays that can see through passenger’s clothing and reveal the size and shape of the entirety of one’s body with clarity. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has denounced the machines as a “virtual strip search.”

Usage of the scanners varies at different airports. Some airports are using the scanners as their primary form of security, while others are using them as a secondary search mechanism, e.g. if someone fails a metal detector test or is randomly selected for the scan. Most airports with scanners, however, are moving toward using them as their primary form of security.

According to the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), once scanned, images are sent to a remote location where a technician, who cannot see the passenger, examines the image and communicates, via wireless headset, with the officer assisting the passenger. To protect passenger privacy, millimeter wave technology blurs all facial features and deletes images from the system after the passenger has been cleared. Additionally, officers evaluating the scanner images are not allowed to have cameras, cell phones, or other photo-enabled devices in the resolution room that could be used to create a copy of the scan. If a passenger chooses not to go through the body scanner for whatever reason, they will “receive an equal level of screening, including a physical pat-down”. If this is the case, the TSA is equating a physical pat-down with a piece of equipment costing the equivalent of a house. This phrase alone exposes the TSA's blatantly irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars for the sake of a little more efficiency in airport security lines.

Despite these precautions, many are still weary that the scanners violate their rights. Numerous Muslim groups along with members of other Jewish and Christian faiths have expressed concern over whether or not the scanners violate their beliefs on modesty. In a Fox News interview, CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmad Rehab reiterated this idea by noting that the scanners “violate religious and privacy rights of Americans.”

One such incident of a privacy violation took place at London’s Heathrow Airport. There, a male security employee made lewd comments to a female colleague after she passed through a body scanner. This incident highlights some of the moral and ethical concerns over the scanners expressed by opponents. Although a harassment warning has been issued to the perpetrator, he retains his job despite a clear abuse of his position and overt disregard for the privacy of another human being.

Additionally, concerns over the safety of these machines have been stifled by scanner manufacturers, who insist that the machines are safe. However, a study conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory found that the energy particles used to generate the nude image of the body can have a negative effect on intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication in the body. Without any clinical trials performed by a third party or FDA approval on these machines, there is currently no way to demonstrate that the scanners are safe for multiple use over time.

At a time when Muslims are already under so much scrutiny, they don’t want to have to make a choice between their religion and national security. Especially since there is doubt among experts, including the British Government, as to whether or not the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, or others like him carrying low-density items would have been stopped by one of these scanners, it is important to really understand their effectiveness in preventing another attack before using it as a primary means of security. Already, a Muslim woman was banned from a flight to Pakistan after refusing to undergo a full-body scan at Manchester Airport in the U.K.

If history tells us anything, it is that terrorists have no problem adapting to new security measures, especially when they know what security officials are looking for. What if the next bomber with concealed explosives opts for a pat-down and is let through security? What will the next step be? Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office says it best when she notes that “There is no one measure or magic solution to keeping us safe, and while our government should strive for the best security possible, it must adhere to respect Americans’ civil liberties." That being said, should we as Americans in a time of heightened economic and national security tension, rely so heavily on such a financially extravagant and easily avoidable means of keeping our skies safe?

For a full list of airports that are currently using full-body scanners and for more information on the scanners, please visit the TSA website.