| With the Bush Administration's increasingly fervent clamor for war in Iraq, much of the mainstream media's journalistic emphasis has shifted from domestic to international concern. But, for those Americans who are engaged in the pursuit of social justice and civil liberty, the biggest battle has already been fought... and lost. With the recent passage of the Homeland Security Act in November, 2002 (which further entrenched the draconian spirt of its precedent PATRIOT Act), the United States has entered a new era of constricted freedom that many legal experts say is unprecedented. And, while there has been a substantial record of mainstream complaint about the frightening nature of the post-911 legislation, the majority of American citizens have little sense of how these new laws directly affect their daily lives. In a recent interview with Riva Enteen, Program Director at the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild, GNN (Guerrilla News Network) asked the career libertarian to break down the basic aspects of the PATRIOT and Homeland Security Acts. Taking it a step further, Riva recounted some of the more dramatic cases of FBI action against civilians since the September 11 attacks. As you will see, the perimeter of impact stretches far beyond the immediate suspects of terrorist activity. Real Patriots Defend The Constitution Assessing the Impact of Post-9/11 Anti-Terror Legislation GNN: Hey Riva. Why don’t we start by asking you what your name is, where we are right now… and what organization you’re from. Riva Enteen: I’m Riva Enteen. I’m the Program Director with the National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter. We’re the largest chapter in the country and this is our building, which we share with the Tenants Union in the mission in San Francisco. GNN: Great. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about the history of the organization… like, how and why it got started and what was the need for the organization at that time. Riva: Sure. We have a proud history. We formed in 1937 because then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked progressive attorneys to come together to defend the ‘New Deal’ which was under attack in the courts. So we formed at his request to defend the ‘New Deal’. Secondly, the American Bar Association was, at that time, segregated, so we were the first racially integrated bar. And that was our founding in 1937. And we’ve been through the periods from the labor struggles, civil rights, Japanese internment, McCarthy period, anti-war, and now this incredible period of repression that, frankly, our elder members say is unprecedented. GNN: We’ve been hearing that too. And there are some people who think that there’s been a steady progression, an evolutionary threat to the Constitution and the civil rights over the past thirty years. Would you say that’s true? How would you characterize the way that history has treated the American Constitution, since the end of the so-called Civil Rights era. Riva: It is up and down, and it’s a really good question. One thing also that I think distinguishes the National Lawyers Guild from other progressive legal organizations is we recognize that it takes a political movement to create a political context in which the courts respond and frankly, do the right thing. So, if there wasn’t a civil rights movement, the Supreme Court would not have passed Brown V. Board to integrate the schools. If there wasn’t a women’s movement, we would not have abortion rights provided by Roe V. Wade. So we recognize the need to both litigate and agitate, and that’s part of what we have to do to move things forward. And the courts have responded to pressure in the past. GNN: September 11th. We all know what happened that day, we know what’s happened since. Maybe you can characterize for us the society we lived in just before then - maybe just a couple of years before, during the Clinton administration - and now. How have things changed? Riva: Well, it’s important to understand. I tend to be of the opinion that, you know, post 9-11 it’s a different world. And I think it somewhat is, and I’ll be specific about that. But that’s not to minimize the degree to which immigrants, for example, have been targeted for a long time. In 1996, there was the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which began reducing the remedies for people on death row; that affected Mumia Abu Jamal, for example, and that also impacted on rights of immigrants to get asylum and to have other rights accorded to them. What’s different is that the extent of attack is greater. And that, again, what our elder members are saying that’s unique is… even in other periods, like McCarthy, for example, when people were locked up for being Communists, or alleged Communists, or for knowing Communists, at least they had right to an attorney and right to see a judge and the charges against them. What’s different now is that the Constitution, itself, is under attack. So the extreme example is ‘enemy combatants’. It’s a term yet undefined. They admit they haven’t defined ‘enemy combatants’ but, under that provision, any citizen who falls into this category can be held indefinitely. No access to an attorney, no access to a judge, no charges against them. It’s unprecedented. And that’s the difference. One of my favorite quotes to illustrate this is from Bill Goodman, who’s the legal director the Center for Constitutional Rights. Who said, recently: "My job is to protect the constitution from it’s enemies, right now it’s enemies are the White House and the Justice Department". GNN: Wow. Now how would the White House and the Justice Department respond to that? Obviously, I mean, they spin it their own way, and they would tell the American people they are in fact defending or resurrecting the constitution for modern times. But, from what you understand of their position, how do they characterize these new provisions? Riva: Well, a couple of things. One thing is that the Constitution still stands even in a state of war and a state of emergency. That’s number one. Another thing, in terms of the Constitution, I also like to remind people that the founding fathers were not radicals, right? Back then, blacks couldn’t vote, women couldn’t vote, non-property owners couldn’t vote. These weren’t flaming radicals. But they understood abuse of power, and they created 3 branches of government to maintain a balance of power. And one of the jokes I say, people laugh is: "Remember when we had 3 branches of government?" The answer is, really, we have an out-of-control, un-elected Executive branch right now. So, how they spin it is they’re gonna say ‘state of emergency.’ But, frankly Congress has abdicated its power. And the courts, in terms of the other branch - and people are saying this frequently now - that the courts are standing up to the out-of-control Executive branch. For example, when the federal court said "I think you should release the names of the detainees," and Ashcroft told them, "I don’t care what you say, we’re not gonna do it anyway." That’s an out-of-control, un-elected Executive branch. [Note: The DoJ was later ordered to release the names of the detainees. ] You can’t have a sitting judge, for 20 years, be ignored, by one of the 3 branches of government. So I don’t know how the Executive spins it. Yes, they say it’s a state of emergency, we have to be prepared, we’re under attack… but we have a constitutional system that’s endured more than 200 years and we have to abide by it… and real patriots defend the Constitution. It’s really kind of funny, ‘cause I sound like a real patriot for the first time in my life. But that’s really what we’re talking about: defend the Constitution, it still stands. GNN: Let’s move into the specifics now. Let’s talk about the specific legislation that was brought in after 9-11. Can you tell us when and how fast the laws came in… when and what the names of the acts were. Riva: Okay. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed 6 weeks after September 11th. It was Oct 25. One thing that is significant - and this is somewhat speculative - nobody really believes that it was just written after September 11th. It’s 352 pages long. What we believe is that there’s been a right-wing agenda in the pike for a while, which could be the right wing agenda of those who brought Bush into the White House. And they had it in the pike ready for this opportunity. Another thing that’s significant is that it actually wasn’t printed and available for reading when they voted on it, which also makes a farce of democracy. So they’re shredding 200 years of Constitutional law without even reading what they’re passing. Another thing that somebody reminded me recently - as I’d forgotten about the order of things because it’s been such a compact 12 months now - but, right before the PATRIOT ACT was signed, and passed by Congress, the whole anthrax scare happened. And they targeted people in Congress. And I think that’s one of the factors why a lot of these Democrats, who might have been a little bit more concerned with civil liberties, were so directly threatened that they were like: ‘Okay, whatever you say, we have to do something.’ That was the mentality: ‘We have to do something, we have to bomb Afghanistan, we have to do something". GNN: So, what, let’s talk about the present. Because after the PATRIOT ACT passed, there was suddenly a whole new set of provisions that impacted our civil society. So what was, specifically, pinpointed in the act, and how has it, you know… what has changed in the United States? Riva: Okay. I’ll bring up some examples of the PATRIOT Act, but then, in addition to the PATRIOT Act which is 352 pages, there are these Executive Orders, which is purely the Executive branch. There are more than 30 of them, and they’ve added to the PATRIOT Act. I like to mention that so people know that’s it’s really just continuing legislation. Some of the highlights, or low points, of the PATRIOT Act… one is what they call the ‘sneak and peek’ provision. They can come in and search your home without a warrant, although frankly, if you are at home they still need a warrant. If I can give one little example, we have a hotline for people who are contacted by the INS and the FBI. We provide free attorneys for people who are contacted. The basic right that we remind people about is: that people have a right not to talk to any government agent - that’s citizen, non-citizen, and juvenile - and, if anybody is contacted by a government agent, we recommend that you call us for an attorney. We got a call from somebody of Middle Eastern decent in the Bay area the day after the PATRIOT Act was signed last year. It was a Saturday. He said the FBI came to his door and asked to search his house and he said: ‘Where’s your warrant?’ and they said ‘Ha! Since yesterday, we don’t need it anymore.’ Well, they lied, and people need to know the FBI lies. So the PATRIOT Act did expand the warrantless searches, but only if people are not home. Then they have to provide it 30 days after. He was home, they should have had a warrant, and they didn’t. So there’s the ‘sneak and peek’, there’s um… roving wiretaps. It used to be that warrants were specific to your phone, now it’s any phone that you might touch; it could be a friends phone, it could be a work phone, any phone that you touch is now subject to a tap and you’d never know it. They have access to financial records at universities, banks, medical records, they have access to library records to see what people are taking out of libraries, out of book stores. And another thing that’s significant… the ACLU did a pretty good breakdown of the 352 pages - it’s on their web site - and one of the subcategories they have is about how the PATRIOT Act put the CIA back in the business of spying on Americans. And, it basically revived the potential for a CoIntelPro program, which tore down the Panthers and Anti-war movement, and which was based on uncontrolled spying and sharing of information between the CIA and the FBI and other agencies. CoIntelPro was out of hand, it was covert, it was beyond the pale. And it was at Church hearings that this all came out. The committee published the Church report in which they said "No, it’s not ok. We have to put up a firewall between the CIA and the FBI. The CIA does international spying, the FBI does domestic spying." But the PATRIOT Act just took that firewall down. Now, everybody’s sharing information with everybody. Overseas, people’s families could be at risk. And it’s not even covert anymore. It’s legal, according to the PATRIOT Act. That, frankly, is one of the most scary parts, in addition to, again, these Executive Orders which allow indefinite detention, no access to attorneys, no specific charges, and no access to a judge. Then, another thing, one of the Executive Orders is if you have access to an attorney, there’s no attorney/client privilege. The New York civil rights criminal defense attorney Lynn Stewart, who’s also a (National Lawyer’s) Guild member, she facing 40 years for basically representing a client that the government doesn’t like because they listened in on her phone conversation during her visit with him in prison. GNN: Wow. And the newly passed Homeland Security Act? Riva: The Homeland Security Act, which passed about a year after the PATRIOT Act, in November 2002, outlines in great detail the degree to which the government can now spy, listen in, record, get access to… internet, library cards, bookstore records, medical records, school records, phone conversations. The PATRIOT Act did some of this, the Homeland Security expands it… so that there’s really no area of our lives that is free from government intrusion. GNN: Now some average Americans would say, you know, ‘well, this is necessary and we need to protect ourselves from terrorism’. And ‘hey, I'm not doing anything wrong anyway so why should I be worried about what's happening to the Constitution’... how would you counter that? Why should people be wary of talking to government or offering the kind of access to their private lives that is demanded under the PATRIOT Act? Riva: Everybody would agree that we want to feel safe, we want to feel safe ourselves, we want to feel safe in our homes, we want to feel safe with our families and our friends and our loved ones. But I don't believe anything this government is doing is making us safer. When they planted these military guys with semi-automatics on the (San Francisco) Bay bridge it just escalated fear. It really did nothing to take care of people’s concerns. And frankly, the way to take care of our vulnerability is to look at our foreign policy, which generates the anger. But in terms of why people should not talk to government agents here are some examples: One hotline call was from a man of Middle Eastern descent, from the Bay Area who called and he said "unfortunately I was on vacation in the North East on Sept 11th." That made him a suspect. So they asked him questions and he gave them the wrong information about the motel that he was staying at. It's a federal crime to lie to a government agent. I don't think he got picked up for that, but of the 1200 people, give or take, that were picked up and brought to New York early on, a number of them were there just for lying to a federal agent. Another example; those "voluntary" interviews that they had, well first of all, I don't know how voluntary they were… some people were told they’re voluntary, but ‘if you don't talk to us, we'll put you on another list’. Ok, when people answered the questions, one of the most common questions was, this is to immigrants, "is anybody in your family out of status?" so people are put in a position of ‘do I lie to a federal agent, or do I rat on my aunt?’ Ok? Another example, we got a call from an attorney in a very prestigious law firm. The FBI contacted him. He's of Middle Eastern descent. We're not exactly sure why they contacted him, we think he listed things on a list serve for Arab Americans posting Washington Post articles, but he called and he said, "I'm an attorney, but I know I need an attorney there". The people need to know that they have the right. The right is there for a reason, they have to be sure that everything they say is accurate, they need to be sure that their rights are protected and it doesn't mean that they have anything to hide. In fact, we're working through and have done some skits, role-plays to encourage people to stand up to these tough big guys and badges and say: "I'm sorry, I don't need to talk to you, I need to talk to my attorney first." GNN: Right, that's crucial. But, back to the question. What I was actually asking was like, let’s say you have a guy who lives in Montana. Who's a banker or who works at a gas station. He might say, "Hey, we need to be defended, we need to be safe. We need these laws." You countered that in your answer. But let’s be brutally honest. What if the guy said: "But how do these laws, this change, affect the average American who isn't of Middle Eastern origin, who isn't going to be approached by federal agents?" Or worse, how do you respond when they say: "This doesn't affect me, so I don't care." How would you respond to that? Does it affect everybody? Riva: Well, it does if they're looking at books that you take out from the library and bookstores. Or, for example, medical records. But you get me into another angle, because even though most of the people who've called the hotline are immigrants, mostly of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent, there's an increasing number of people who are American-born citizens, white, who are contacted purely for political association, political belief. So, for example, one of the best examples of this is was in the Bay Area. This guy was very public. He’s a 60 year old retired phone operator guy working out in a health club. And, it was soon after the bombing started in Afghanistan, he's talking to the guys at the health club about the war, the bombing, oil, and the Bush family. He goes home, gets a knock on the door. Two FBI agents: "We hear you were talking at the health club." So he starts talking to them and at a certain point they say "Well we know you have a right to freedom of speech, but we have to write a report on you". And at that point, he says "Thank you, I have nothing else to say," and he calls us. People have been visited by FBI agents for having "unamerican" material in their house, which included a poster of George W Bush and the death penalty in Texas. Prison activists, certainly Middle East activists, Cuba Solidarity activists... what I say is it's not a war against terrorism, it's a war against dissent and that's what we're looking at. GNN: How would you then characterize, like the way that America has been changed since 9/11. I mean, like, where are we as a country and has something eroded that we worked a long time to construct? Is it something that will ever galvanize the mainstream – people who would never consider themselves part of the GNN audience - into some form of action? Riva: I think so. Because I actually look at mainstream to see, you know, to check their barometer. And I look at the Bay Area, mostly the San Francisco Chronicle to get that slant. But when all this stuff started happening, including the facts about Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they are talking about torture, they're openly talking about sensory deprivation. Which is a form of torture. Many of the mainstream papers, basically the New York Times and the Washington Post, are really quite concerned about the civil liberties issue. So in terms of who the audience might be, and if they're out of the mainstream and not used to being in the minority, more people agree with us than we would think. We're not a smaller minority. People really believe in privacy in this country, and frankly, I don't think the country's done a very good job of showing how this is going to help our security, at all… At all. They're just whipping up more fear. So I think people need to assert the fact that the Constitution existed for 200 years, and that we were born of revolution, frankly. And we have thrived in dissent, and we pride ourselves on dissent. We say that we have a free press and criticize the countries around the world who don't. And that's part of what makes us a rich country. And if you talk on that level, I think, you’ll find that many people are very concerned with the fact that citizens are being spied on in unprecedented ways. In fact, in terms of the spying, the operation TIPS. I want to remind people about that. It's a national system for concerned workers to report suspicious activity. The government talked about it at a certain point and then they got all this flak, and they took it off the table. But it turns out that it's not off the table and they're still talking about it. And they hope to enlist 1 million volunteers within months, in 10 cities and eventually to have 11 million people signed up. These are civilians, citizens. Signed up, 11 million people... that's 4% of the US population they want signed up to spy on their neighbors. If you talk to your average American, I don't think they'll be happy about that. GNN: Let's get into this issue of where you think it might devolve to. You speculated a little bit earlier in the interview. But to take it a step further, I mean, we describe our foreign policy as a slow-motion holocaust… something that happens so slowly, that it's almost hard to decipher it, hard to understand it, unless you're on the other end of it. In the same way, are we having like a slow motion effect in the erosion of rights, and where can it lead us? Riva: Where it can lead us to is the most serious period of repression that we've ever seen. In terms of - I like that image of a slow-motion holocaust... I would disagree a little bit though. In these 12 months, it has not been slow motion, it has been so fast... I talk to people who are like... ‘who would have thought 16 months ago, that we would have indefinite detention of citizens with no access to attorneys, no charges, no right to see a judge?’ Nobody could have foreseen that. And needless to say, we knew we were not living in a progressive era. But nobody could have foreseen this. But in terms of, on the other hand, the slow move of what we're developing… of resistance, for example. The huge numbers assembled to oppose the Iraq war... I think we've actually already had a victory in that they were hoping to have a war with Iraq before the new year. That's a victory and we need to hold onto it. And that's because people are outraged and saying "no". Another little victory which I don’t think is so little, but it's the power of the people… and persistence, is: I was part of a delegation last January to (California Senator) Feinstein’s office. It was led by people demanding an investigation into what led up to 9/11, what the government knew and didn't know, and, at the time, I didn't think there was a chance that we would get that. Well, we got it. There are going to be hearings. They're not going to be independent, they're probably not going to get to the root of it, but the outrage is there. So many people are outraged and we just have to build on that. Like I say, I think we've already delayed this war. People are beginning to look into more about what really went on with the FBI in terms of 9/11, and, again, to really look at what we can do to make ourselves, as a culture - and as world frankly, we're a world community - a safer place. And we need to be introspective, we need to be analytical, we need to be strategic. You know, for people to say, ‘well, we have to bomb Afghanistan because we have to do something...’ that's not strategic foreign policy. We need to look at what this country does that generates the wrath of people around the world that we're exploiting. And that's the way we can all feel safer, and I think if people talk like that, we'll have progress. GNN: That's excellent, I have one more question and then Ian may have something. You just gave a great analysis of what we should do, what we can do when looking at foreign policy. Now, what are some of the things NLG is doing and what can individual people do on the domestic front? What do we need to do? Riva: Ok. Well, aside from providing our hotline for help… and again, to repeat, everyone has a right not to talk to any government agent; we recommend that they don't and that they call the National Lawyers Guild for help. We've also done a lot of speaking engagements… we're averaging still twice a week, which means more than 100 in the past year. And at first the questions were ‘tell us about the PATRIOT Act’, and now the questions are more ‘tell us about the PATRIOT Act and tell us about what to do about it’. Which is progress. People, you know… were shell-shocked. It's like, ‘what do we do about it?’ And, now there's a lot of momentum at the local level. It seems like we work at the local level, there's a lot of effort to repeal the PATRIOT Act, for example. There's a lot of efforts at the local level to get local law enforcement to agree to not to cooperate with Feds. So that's one area that I would really encourage people to work on. At this point there are 30 municipalities, at minimum, that have passed resolutions to repeal all or part of the PATRIOT Act. The National Lawyers Guild had it's convention, national convention a few months ago and we passed a resolution declaring that there should be a campaign to repeal the entire PATRIOT Act. Others are saying "some of", we say repeal the whole thing and then you can negotiate. But in terms of what people need to do? Again, real patriots defend the constitution. And the best way to defend the constitution is by repealing the PATRIOT Act because it is unconstitutional and, unfortunately, like I said, not only do lawyers need people on the ground, on the streets to demand that the courts are responsive, the law also takes a really long time. So you know, people keep saying "when is somebody gonna challenge the constitutionality of the PATRIOT Act?" It will take a long time. When it happens, we have to be there, in the trenches, saying the constitution exists, even in a state of war or national emergency. And we demand our right to have due process and that includes, again: right to see a judge, right to have an attorney and no indefinite detention... for as long they declare this undeclared war on terrorism that's gonna go till who knows when. GNN: Great. You mentioned that the PATRIOT Act was something that you think may have been written a long time before, or at least started before 9/11. Why do you think that these types of laws were being written or thought about before 9/11? Like, what's going on, you know, with the current Administration that they feel that they need to enact these laws? Riva: Well, at the minimum, it's what I said. That the agenda is a war on dissent, right? It's a war on dissent. And it's interesting to think of it that way, because I guess that means that we've been somewhat effective, even though we felt that the movement is sort of like slumbering and not really active, but we've been there. We've been there, we don't have the numbers that we've needed, but to whatever extent the movement has been there, and frankly, we've challenged the legitimacy of this illegal Presidency. We've challenged the illegitimacy of this presidency from the very beginning. That's one form of dissent... That fiasco in Florida, again... many, many more mainstream people were upset with that. And it's just one example of this bubbling dissent that the PATRIOT Act is trying to attack, because it threatens the right wing agenda, and I don't know if I can be any more specific than that. But to whatever extent we challenge the legitimacy of the government, we challenge the legitimacy of foreign policy, all of those ways that we have engaged in dissent is a threat to the status quo and they have been trying to cut back on that. Let alone the fact they are going forward with other parts of their agenda. For example, didn't they just pass a law... yeah, that fetuses will now get health insurance? That's a way to undermine abortion. They're cutting back on gay marriage. They're… you know the whole thing about busting the medical marijuana providers? It's all the right wing agenda that's just been in the pike. And they're using this opportunity to say ‘we're gonna get our thing through, no matter what, we don't care about what the people say.’ And we need to say: "Yes this is a democracy, it's important what the people say, that's what a democracy's based on." GNN: But I guess, to expand a little bit more, I mean, do you think this is just a tactic particularly by this Administration to maintain their regime or their, you know, their power, or is there something out there that they are getting ready for? We often talk, about the phenomena of an event horizon - something that they're aware of, that they're preparing for, that we seem not to be ready for… Riva: It's true, I like that ‘event horizon’ and I wish I had a crystal ball for a lot of reasons. But you're right, they’ve planned for the long haul. You know, I think one weakness of the Left, the movement, is that: not only are we defensive, and reactive, but we rarely have long term planning. But no, they've been planning this for a while, it could probably even be before Bush got into the White House. And they're planning for a long period, to seriously erode, again, these 200 years of constitutional protections. And we need to look at the parts of the PATRIOT Act that are going to sunset, the lesser impacting ones. I can't exactly tell you which ones and whether they sunset is a fight we are going to have. But they planned this as a long term agenda, and, frankly, it's no extreme prediction to say that we're looking at the advent of fascism in this country. GNN: Good. Thank you so much, Riva. Riva: You got it. |
 |