Albright's New Terrorist List

From the issue of Free Arab Voice published on 15 November 1997:

An in-depth analysis by Nabila Harb to the effect that Albright's new 'Terrorist List' is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and an attempt to stifle Arab-American political action.

ALBRIGHT'S NEW TERRORIST LIST

With the publication of a list of 30 foreign alleged 'terrorist'
organisations a few weeks ago, the U.S. government ushered in a new era
of intimidation for those who support causes that are unpopular with the
powers that be in this country.

The policy behind the McCarran-Walter Act, overturned by Congress in
1990, has been resurrected. Persons who are not citizens of the U.S. can
be refused entry solely because of humanitarian support of groups on a
political list. As far as U.S. citizens are concerned, they may be
imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined if they provide humanitarian
relief to institutions that are affiliated with the groups listed.

The list published by Secretary of State Albright was created pursuant
to a statute enacted in 1996 ostensibly in response to the Oklahoma City
bombing. One question that immediately comes to mind is: if this law was
enacted in response to that incident, why does it deal almost
exclusively with 'international terrorist organisations'? No foreign
'terrorist' groups were involved with the bombing!

Unfortunately, when the U.S. speaks of terrorists, it usually is
referring to various groups that are fighting for independence and
freedom in other countries, and once again, the U.S. is punishing the
wrong people for crimes committed by others.

What is the real purpose of this statute if not to combat terrorism?

Basically, whatever the law states, it is designed to punish individuals
who have the audacity to disagree with official U.S. interests abroad.
'National security' as defined in this statute is not only 'the national
defense' but 'foreign relations, or economic interests of the U.S.' as
well.

In other words, security is whatever the government wishes it to be, and
any organisation can be designated as a 'foreign terrorist organisation'
on this basis. It is clear that this is as arbitrary as the old laws of
treason, and the State here is declaring: 'you will be punished if I do
not agree with your aims, if your goals threaten my friends, or the
interests of my investors.'

The intent of this law is intimidation, pure and simple. "Here is a list
of our enemies, whom we intend to crush in any manner at our disposal,
whether open or covert, legal or illegal.' The statute does in fact
encourage the President to 'use all necessary means, including covert
action and military force' in pursuit of this goal.

There are echoes here of the official Israeli reaction to its botched
assassination attempt a few weeks ago, which was to override any
considerations of the sovereignty of other nations or international law
to state an intention to continue with such attempts. An attempted
murder on foreign soil: if this is not international terrorism, what is?

What are the practical implications of this law? Now, to use an example
given by the ADC, if a person were to donate blankets to a hospital
associated with Hamas or to an orphanage connected to Hezbollah, that
person could be sentenced to 10 years in prison. The offence is giving
'material support or resources' to any group on the list and 'material
support or resources' is defined as any 'physical assets' including,
inter alia, 'lodging, communications equipment, personnel and
transportation'.

Thus, support or resources could be as simple a matter as the loan of a
car, a telephone, a bed for the night, or the offer to perform any task,
however innocent, for some one connected to one of these groups.

Questions of proof, because secret evidence is allowed here, become
difficult to assess. This is different from cases involving the
Communist Party, as membership in organisations such as these is not a
matter of carrying a card.

As Greg Nojeim, counsel for the ACLU, stated, with respect to law's
application to immigration, 'By expanding the bar to admission to mere
membership in a group, the government now decides which ideas from
abroad Americans can hear, and which ideas it believes are too dangerous
for us to hear. These groups do not distribute membership cards.
Inevitably, the government will bar as 'members' of foreign terrorist
organisations individuals who give speeches in support of the political
goals of the group, not men or women who are actually dangerous.'

Above all, what is unconscionable here is the attempt by Congress to
prohibit all aid to the humanitarian organisations to which these groups
are connected. In many areas, particularly in some of the Palestinian
refugee camps, schools, medical clinics and orphanages are run by
members of these political groups. To deny humanitarian aid to these
institutions is an abomination. The spurious reasoning Congress gives is
this:

That 'foreign organisations that engage in terrorist activity are so
tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an
organisation facilitates that
conduct.'

Prohibition of humanitarian aid is an outrage; it may be
unconstitutional as well.

So far, there has been no direct challenge of this law, except for a
challenge by House Members as to the presence of the Iranian Mujahadeen
as a foreign terrorist organisation on the list. Those challenging its
inclusion called the Mujahadeen 'a legitimate resistance against one of
the most brutal dictatorships in modern history'.

There are those who would describe Hamas and Hezbollah in comparable
terms, as well as other organisations placed on this list. This call for
review on the part of House members only emphasises the arbitrary nature
of a list of this sort, which is solely based on policy rather than on
any real rule of law. When is armed struggle a legitimate means of
winning freedom? When is a movement legitimate and when is it a
'terrorist' organisation? The answer here is: when the U.S. says so.

Although there has been no challenge in constitutional terms as of yet,
this statute will be fought.

Human rights groups are determined not to allow this to go unchallenged.
Meanwhile, Arab-Americans and Muslims follow their consciences at their
own risk.

There will be more cases of deportation based on secret 'evidence' such
as that used to deport Ali Termos recently. Surveillance will increase,
and the U.S. government no doubt will continue to create the illusion
that terrorism flows naturally from the spring of Islam in the Arab
world.

It is an illusion that has served this State well, allowing it to
protect many of its sordid economic interests under the guise of
defending 'democracy' and other inspiring concepts, equally false.