Governmental War Measures Affecting Arabs and Muslims in the United States

Introduction

Americans of Arabic descent and American Muslims joined with other Americans to condemn the criminal attacks on the United States of America by Middle Eastern terrorists on September 11, 2001. Several hundred Arabs and Muslims were killed in World Trade Center bombings, some were firemen and policemen (Chicago Tribune, 9/20/01)

There are about 3 million Arab Americans living in the United States according the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Most of them are Christians-many of whom came here about a hundred years ago. There are major concentrations in California (Los Angeles), Michigan Detroit/Flint) and New York (Brooklyn), Illinois (Chicago), Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas and Virginia. (US Commission on Civil Rights) There are 5 to 7 million Muslims in the USA, most of whom are not from the Middle East. (The Economist, 10/14/00 and The Washington Post, 10/16/00) In the Chicago area alone, there are over 400,000 Americans of Arabic descent and Muslims.

Experts say that Americans of Arabic descent are among America's best-educated and most affluent citizens. Notable Arab-Americans include scientists such as: Nobel prize winners Elias Corey and Ahmed Zewail, famed M.D. Michael Debakey; Apollo/Nasa scientist Farouk El-Baz; Business leaders such as Jacques Nasser of Ford, John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Joseph Aboud, and J.M. Hagger; Political leaders like Senators George Mitchell, Spencer Abraham (Department of Interior), James Abourezk, and James Abdnor; Congressmen Nick Rahall, Pat Danner, Ray Lahoud; John Sinunu, Selwa Roosevelt, Donna Shalala, Phillip Habib, and Ralph Nader; Sports figures such as Doug Floute, Jeff George, Bill George, Ron Seikaly, Bobby Rahol, and Joe Robbie; Entertainers such as Danny Thomas, Paul Anka, Frank Zappa, Paula Abdul, Tiffiny, Casey Kasem, Rosalind Elias, Jamie Farr, Khrystne Hage, Kristy McNichol, Tony Shalhoub, Kathy Najimy, Salma Hayek, and F. Murray Abraham.

Arab-Americans have fought for the United States in every war in the 20th Century. The last of them to have died in the service of America was Albert Haddad (USMC) of Lewisville, Texas, who perished in the Gulf War. The first jet ace in Korea, Colonel James Jabara, was an Arab American. Others were four star General George Joulwan who commanded NATO and Christa McAuliffe, the "first teacher in space" who died in the space shuttle Challenger.

The Wave of Discrimination Following 9/11

Crimes and acts of discrimination against Arabs and Muslims in the United States rose immediately following the 9/11 attacks. News reports in Washington, Texas, California, Michigan and Illinois were replete with stories of murder, armed assault and battery (guns, knives, pepper spray, cars, trucks, and rifles), arson and firebombing and vehicular driving attacks upon schools, mosques, and churches. In an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll conducted days after the attacks, 43 percent of Americans said they thought the attacks would make them "personally more suspicious" of people who appear to be of Arab descent.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller stated on February 13, 2002 that the FBI had initiated 318 hate crime investigations involving Arab, Muslim, and Sikh American victims, with eight persons being charged federally. Additionally, some 70 persons have been charged with state and local crimes in connection with those investigations. (Arab-American Institute Report, 2/13/02) In Chicago, where the police reported four documented hate crimes against Arab-Americans in all of 2000, 13 were reported within days of the 9/11 attacks. (See Chicago Police Department Hate Crimes Report) A man walked into a south side grocery store carrying a briefcase, saying to the Arab-American proprietor: "I'm going to blow up this store the same way the World Trade Center was blown up." A south suburban Muslim group reported 50 death threats via phone and e-mails and advised parents to keep their children at home. North suburban police reported an Arab-American cab driver and his passenger who resembled an Arab-American were chased by two motorcyclists and beaten. One of the assailants was a corrections officer who said, "This is what you get, you mass murderer." A mob in Bridgeview marched on a mosque carrying confederate flags and pelting Arab-American owned grocery stores with rocks and bricks, reminiscent of the brown shirts seen decades ago in Germany. Arsons were committed at a north side Assyrian Catholic Church and a south side Muslim community center.

In an effort stop the violence, the Arab-American Bar Association of Illinois issued its "Preliminary Report on Hate Crimes Against Arabs and Muslims in the United States," with findings and resolutions (See arabbar.org) on September 26, 2002 at a news conference joined by the Cook County State's Attorney and the Presidents of the Illinois State Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association, and the Jewish Judges Association. Representatives of the American Bar Association, the Decalogue Society of Jewish Lawyers, the Justinian Society of Lawyers, and the Ethnic Bar Coalition also attended, as did all the major broadcast and print news media.

Historical Perspective of Governmental "Special Measures" Against Foreigners Before 9/11

Special legal measures effecting foreign minorities is not new to the United States. During America's "undeclared war" with Napoleonic France in 1798, President John Adams signed The Alien and Sedition Acts. Historian David McCullough describes the desperate atmosphere in the United States:

There was rampant fear of the enemy within. French émigrés in America... by now numbered 25,000 or more... In addition to the French, there were the "wild Irish" refugees from the Irish Rebellion of 1798 who were thought to include dangerous radicals.

The Alien Act authorized the President to "expel any foreigner" he considered "dangerous" and the Sedition Act made it a crime to make any "false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government..."

Even where there was no legislative authority, America's Presidents have suspended rights when national security was threatened. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln issued unilateral proclamations without an act of Congress where he suspended the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus and created military style tribunals that were sometimes utilized to punish draft resisters, southern sympathizers, and critics of the Civil War. In 1866, the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan outlawed Lincoln's use of military style tribunals. Suspicion of foreign-born immigrants surfaced during the Civil War in the Battle of Chancellorsville when Ohio's XI Corp of German born solders was wiped out because Union General Lewis Howard refused to sacrifice his reserves to protect the right flank of "foreigners".

Ethnic discrimination surfaced again in the United States after Japan's sneak attack of Pearl Harbor when President Roosevelt interned 120,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry in 1941. Although the Supreme Court did not uphold the Japanese internment, it did uphold Roosevelt's utilization of military tribunals that lead to the execution of six foreign saboteurs. Public fear after Pearl Harbor caused the government to prosecute several relatives of the saboteurs living in the United States, as seen in Chicago where relatives of an executed saboteurs were charged and quickly convicted of treason. These convictions were all reversed on appeal. (See Chicago Magazine, February 2002)

The Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin held that the Constitution did not protect foreign combatants charged with war crimes. The President was empowered to order a secret military trial that resulted in the summary execution of the prisoners. However, more recent court decisions have taken a contrary view, holding that the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution provide that "no person shall be deprived live, liberty or property without due process of laws" and equal protection under the law. U.S. Const., Amend. V & XIV. In Reno vs. Flores, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment entitles all aliens within the United States to due process of law "in any proceedings". In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982), the Supreme Court reiterated that the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the United States Constitution apply citizens and resident aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996:

Although the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 was not committed by foreigners, Congress reflected its suspicion of them through the passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 which created "designations" of foreign terrorist organizations and has since been largely enforced against Middle Eastern aliens. (See International Law Section Forum on Secret Evidence, ABA Convention, Chicago, August 5, 2001) This law was passed amid much criticism by civil liberties organizations, law professors, and constitutional rights advocates as "one of the worst assaults on the Constitution in decades." President Bush and many congressmen have candidly objected to the "secret evidence" provision of the Act as an instrument of "profiling". The Immigration and Naturalization Service has avoided constitutional scrutiny of that provision by relying upon administrative court proceedings under the Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, rather than proceeding in federal district courts where it would be duty-bound to charge aliens as "terrorists" and prove that they "engaged in... terrorist activity". However, in those rare administrative matters that did reach the scrutiny of a federal district court, the so-called "secret evidence" was always found to be flawed or non-existent. (See International Law Section, ABA Convention, Chicago, August 5, 2001) The negative impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act upon the Muslim community was demonstrated in a poll conducted by Zogby International in June of 2000 which showed that 87% of Muslims polled expressed a strong belief that the Muslim community was the main target of "the Immigration and Naturalization Service's controversial authority to use secret evidence in its proceedings against persons accused of unlawful immigration."

Current Perspective of Governmental "Special Measures" Against Foreigners After 9/11

US Patriot Act:

The passage of the US Patriot Act provoked protests from civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union. Here is a brief discussion of some of the controversial provisions of the Act.

(1) Detention of Immigrants: The Attorney General may "certify" the detention of non-citizens for seven days based upon reasonable grounds to believe that he endangers national security. After seven days criminal or immigration charges must be filed to continue the detention. Where the non-citizen is deported, but no nation will accept him, he may be detained indefinitely.

(2) Prosecution of Designated Domestic Terrorist Groups: This provision empowers the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to select domestic groups for designation as "terrorist organizations". (Previously, under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act only "foreign" groups could be so designated, and only by the Secretary of State.) The Act declares it a crime for anyone to knowingly make a material contribution to a "designated" terrorist group, and the Act permits the use of "secret evidence" at trial. Theoretically, knowingly donating money to the "ladies sodality" that supports the IRA could be a technical violation of the Act. However, since nearly all such "designations" have been Middle Eastern groups, only Arabs and Muslims are at risk. This provision has not met with court scrutiny, but rather was used in the past to leverage cooperation from illegal immigrants facing jail or deportation.

(3) The Crime of Domestic Terrorism---the "Greenpeace/Right to Life" Provision: Section 802 of the US Patriot Act now defines Domestic Terrorism to include any criminal act in the United States that is "dangerous to human life" which appears to be "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion", or to "affect the conduct of government. The ACLU opines that this provision could be applied to any minor criminal offense perpetrated by an activist group such as Greenpeace and the Right to Life proponents. Indeed, most acts of civil disobedience during the 1960s civil rights struggle or the anti-war protests during the Vietnam conflict might now be considered "domestic terrorism" under this Act.

(4) Electronic Surveillance: Where there is a customary criminal investigation with a relationship to significant foreign intelligence gathering, then there will be expanded electronic surveillance of private persons with minimal judicial supervision. Such surveillance includes access of business records, the Internet, and wiretaps.

(5) Expansion of "Secret Searches": Rather than the required notification of the execution of a search warrant, there will be expanded secret searches of individuals by law enforcement in criminal cases

Detention of Foreigners:

One of the first measures of concern was the Justice Department's authorization of the detention of over 1100 immigrants (while the vast majority of these were persons of Arabic descent, some were Jews). As of February 2002, 1400 people had been detained. (The Monitor, 3/27/02) The detentions raised widespread media and congressional concern. ABC reported that detainees were being held in isolation, denied access to legal representation, suffered beatings, sleep deprivation, and blindfolded during interrogations. (ABC, "National Security vs. Citizens' Rights", Bill Blakemore) One detainee was the Health Commissioner of Chester, Pennsylvania, Dr. Irshad Shaikh, a John Hopkins educated immigrant who was released after the FBI broke down his door and mistakenly arrested him for suspicion of anthrax terrorism. Former FBI Director, William Webster, was among eight former ranking FBI officials who said that these detentions might constitute an "abuse of civil liberties" because it "carries a lot of risk with it". (Washington Post, 11/28/01) Those detentions were supported by new rules issued by the Justice Department and the INS that allowed for the detention of non-citizens who were otherwise adjudged eligible for release from custody by immigration judges where there is "reasonable grounds to believe he is engaged in any activity that endangers the national security of the United States." (See New York Times, "Bush's New Rules", Matthew Purdy, November 25, 2001)

News reports indicated that the detainees were initially held in communicato without access to anyone, including lawyers, and their identities were reportedly kept secret; except in the case of Mr. Mohammed Rafiz Butt, a 55 year old Pakistani detainee who, according to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, died in his cell of a heart attack. His incarceration, according to Senator Leahy, was later admitted to be "a mistake". (See Comments of Senator Patrick Leahy on "Meet the Press", National Broadcasting Company, 11/25/01) United States Senator Russ Feingold called "unsatisfactory" the Justice Department's early claim that the publication of the identities of the detainees would invade their privacy, could impede the criminal investigation, or deter suspects from cooperating. (ABC, "Justice Declines to Identify Sept. 11 Detainees", Josh Gerstein, 11/21/01) According to the Monitor some 326 of the detainees remain in INS custody and another 114 detainees face deportation. (Monitor, 3/27/02, see also the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 2/13/02)

Voluntary Interrogations of Foreigners:

In November of 2001, a memo was issued by the Justice Department directing local law enforcement to conduct "voluntary" interrogations of 5000 foreigners residing in the United States, namely male Arabs and Muslims between ages 18 and 33. In March of 2002 interviews of 3000 more young Arab men were planned by the Justice Department, raising the age limit from 33 to 46. (Chicago Tribune, US to Interview Arab Nationals, Naftali Bendavid, 3/21/02) The initial announcement of these interviews evoked strong reactions. The Associated Press reported that some police chiefs were "in open revolt against it", because they were hesitant to appear to be engaging in ethnic profiling. Chicago's police Superintendent Terry Hillard, who professes a long-standing policy against racial profiling, withheld the support of his Department. The Portland, Oregon Police Chief, Andrew Kirkland, refused to follow the directive, saying that the law does not permit the police to "go out and arbitrarily interview people whose only offense is immigration" to the United States. (See Associated Press Reports, "Portland Cops Jilt Feds", November 22, 2001; and "Ashcroft to Testify, Jonathan Salant, November 26, 2001; and New York Times, "Wait Until Dark", Frank Rich, November 24, 2001)

Only half of the initial 5000 interviews ever occurred. However, the Department of Justice claimed that some interviews were helpful to their investigation of the Florida flight training and fraudulent documentation made available to suspected terrorists. The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee conceded the initial "program was carried out as smoothly as we could have hoped under the circumstances", but that the "question of investigating thousands of people and compiling dossiers and entering them into a computer" was in disregard to individual rights. (Chicago Tribune, US to Interview Arab Nationals, Naftali Bendavid, 3/21/02)

Racial/Ethnic Profiling:

Shortly after 9/11, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee reported that racial profiling of Arab and Muslims in the United States had resulted in 500 alleged hate crimes and more than 400 reports of employment discrimination. (Chicago Tribune, "Americans on Alert for Terror", Karen Brandon and Dahleen Glanton, November 25, 2001) Such negative connotations of "profiling" have not always been the case. Law enforcement agencies have historically succeeded in utilizing legally acceptable scientific profiles to identify suspected drug smugglers and hijackers. In private industry, employers have successfully reduced workplace violence through the use of objective, scientific psychological profiling and testing to identify potential violent employees.

After 9/11 some overzealous private security and law enforcement officers abandoned the use of scientific "identifiers", but instead employed subjective, arbitrary profiling. Shortly after 9/11 many airline passengers who merely appeared Middle Eastern were summarily ejected from domestic and international flights as "a security risk". This includes some Jews found praying in Hebrew on board an international flight from the United States. Last December an Arab-American secret service agent assigned to fly to Texas to protect the President was refused passage on an American Airlines flight because his credentials were suspicious. The Federal Aviation Administration acknowledged that airport security screeners are profiling Arab-Americans based upon religion, accent or ethnic appearance: "There appears to have been a rash of improper and insensitive searches," (New York Times, "Directive on Searches", Laurie Goodstein, 11/25/01) Although there appears to be less unprofessional profiling in the airline industry, suspicion lingers in the Arab and Muslim Communities.

Governmental "profiling" was reportedly seen in connection with the State Department's formal announcement to put a halt to the immigration of any young, male immigrants from the Middle East and, further, to expel 6000 illegal Arab and Muslim aliens, notwithstanding the millions of other illegal immigrants presently residing in the United States. The perception of government profiling is reportedly fostered by periodic innocuous warnings issued by law enforcement "to be on the lookout for suspicious activity" of terrorists without any articulable definition or description of what being "on the lookout" means. The Chicago Tribune reported that "many innocent people" because of their ethnic features or foreign accents have been reported to the FBI.

Military Tribunals for Non-citizens:

President Bush announced last November that he had signed a military order allowing for the trial of non-citizens suspected of terrorism before special military commissions. At first many believed that this process would likely be "swift and largely secret":

The release of information might be limited to the barest facts, like the defendant's name and sentence". (Washington Post, "Liberty and the Pursuit of Terrorists, Charles Lane, 11/25/01)

In the past, such tribunals convened in secret before military officers (selected by the Defense Department) who could convict by a two- third's majority. (See Reuters, Anton Ferreira, November 23, 2001). Traditionally, non-citizen suspects would be denied a public trial, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right of counsel of choice (lawyers are appointed by the military), the right of the unanimous verdict by a jury of peers, the right of cross examination, and the right of appeal.

Public clamor over the initial announcement of the anticipated utilization of military tribunals was widespread. Spain refused to extradite eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists who are believed to have been involved in the September 11, 2001 bombings from Spain without guarantees from the United States that they will not face a trial in a military court, saying that such a process falls below "judicial norms" established by the 15-nation European Union. (See New York Times, "Bush's New Rules", Matthew Purdy, November 25, 2001 & Associated Press, "Spain Seeks Extradition Promise", J. Socolovsky, 11/25/01) New York Times columnist William Safire reasoned in his November 15, 2001 essay, entitled "Seizing Dictatorial Power", that the President has assumed "what amounts to dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens suspected of terrorism" through the proposed use of a "kangaroo court [which] can conceal evidence, make up its own rules, find defendant guilty even if a third of officers disagree, and execute alien with no review by any civilian court". Concurring with Safire was Richard Goldstone, chief prosecutor for the United Nations war crimes tribunal, who dubbed the President's plan to try foreign suspects before military courts as "second-or third-class justice", contending that abandonment of the United States constitutional system of "centuries on fair and due process"...would demean the "very values for which the United States stands". (See Reuters, "Legal Expert Attacks Plan for Military Courts", Anton Ferreira, November 23, 2001)

The Washington Post reported comments of those defending such use of tribunals, saying:

Lincoln's military tribunals tried U.S. citizens, sometimes for little more than antiwar speech. By contrast, the military trials Bush authorized two weeks ago are aimed at non-citizens directly involved in terrorism, or who may be captured in battle.

After the dust settled from all of the debate, the Bush Administration announced on March 21, 2002, its remodified rules for trials of suspected terrorists before military tribunals: (1) defendants are provided court-appointed military lawyers or allowed to privately retain counsel of choice, (2) rules of evidence are relaxed to allow hearsay testimony and less foundation for the admission of evidence obtained from the "battlefield", (3) trials are "public" in that journalists are allowed to observe, (4) proceedings are closed where there is discussion of classified material, (5) conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a two-thirds vote of the court, but the invocation of the death penalty requires a unanimous verdict, and (6) appeals would be heard by panels of military and/or civilian specialists. (Chicago Tribune, Bush Sets Rules, John Diamond, March 21, 2002)

Freezing Assets:

In still another exercise of executive authority, on December 4, 2001 the President announced that the Treasury Department was freezing the assets of two overseas banks and the Holy Land Foundation [to be distinguished from the "United Holy Land Fund"]. The Foundation and the banks are accused of providing funds to a listed "terrorist organization" under the 1995 Anti-Terrorism Act; i.e. the Hamas. Although Foundation attorneys claimed that the government's motives were political in an attempt to smear the Foundation, an FBI memo published in the Dallas News revealed surveillance evidence that the Hamas leaders met with key officials in the Holy Land Foundation in 1993 to discuss collecting funds to help the Hamas and defeat a self-rule government in Palestine by waging a "holy war". Attendees agreed that the United States provided a good venue for raising funds, providing a perfect legal atmosphere to obtain financial and political support for the Hamas (referred to as "samah") The FBI reported that Hamas initially funded the Holy Land Foundation with over $200,000. (N.Y. Times, The Money Trail, David Firestone, 12/6/01)

The Results of Governmental Measures After 9/11

Traditional law enforcement investigative methods are time consuming, as demonstrated by the investigations by the French regarding the Algerian terrorists and the British regarding the IRA terrorists. Although over 1400 persons were detained in the United States and nearly 200 were detained in Europe, very few have been charged in connection with 9/11. Zacarias Moussaoui was the only person charged in the United States and he was in custody at the time of the attacks/ (Monitor, 3/27/02) Some intelligence experts feel that the mass arrests of suspects "were designed for public consumption" without serving any "real purpose". (Monitor, 3/27/02) Others say that such measures have a deterrent effect, regardless that the traditional law enforcement was unable to make many meaningful arrests. Attorney General Ashcroft made a similar comment regarding Justice's program of voluntary interrogations.

Perhaps the entire process of public announcements of interviews, freezing assets, detentions, military tribunals, and new anti-terrorism laws is designed to both deter the enemy and render confidence to the people. However, since all of these measures focus upon Arabs and Muslims, there is a necessary consequence---suspicion, hate, discrimination and profiling. A CNN/ABC poll after 9/11 showed that 43% of the American people are "suspicious" of Arab Americans. The question is whether the government has done enough to protect the ethnic and religious minorities who were negatively affected by these war measures.

Governmental Measures to Stop Hate Crimes and Discrimination After 9/11

After 9/11 President Bush was joined by all of America's living past Presidents, and by a host of Mayors, Governors, and law enforcement officials to condemn the hate crimes perpetrated against the life and property of Americans of Arabic ancestry and Muslims. Some major bar associations have focused upon discrimination, profiling, and rights issues, as seen at the American Bar Association's forum on February 3, 2002 in Philadelphia, "Confronting Racial/Ethnic Profiling...The Dilemma of Arab Americans the Individual of Muslim Faith". More forums are planned nationwide. Local law enforcement agencies have vociferously taken action against those who would commit crimes and discriminate. Chicago's police superintendent regularly chairs community relations forums with effected ethnic minorities after 9/11.

Since 9/11 the President dispatched the Director of the Federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to major cities to invite Americans of Arabic Ancestry and Muslims to file job discrimination complaints. Indeed, within two months of 9/11 the EEOC had reported that nearly 100 people of Arab descent had filed job discrimination complaints of being "singled out for mistreatment ... harassment, or they were fired". Many say this represents only a fraction of the incidents that are not fully reported due to fear and suspicion of the government or the employers such as Wal-Mart, Leading Edge Aviation, Boeing, BDM/TRW Corporation, and Veres Consulting. [After Sept. 11, Complaints of Job Bias Mount, Pam Belluck, 11/25/01]

The President has ordered the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to aggressively pursue reports of discrimination and hate crimes since 9/11. The Attorney General has ordered that Department to canvass grass roots groups in the Middle Eastern/American community, inviting them to report discriminatory activity and hate crimes, as was recently evidenced in the Justice Department's swift action against a major hotel chain that denied facilities to an Arab-American group after 9/11.

Other agencies such as the US Commission on Civil Rights are seen as providing the public with information through websites and forums. Federal, State and local government have also held forums and discussions such as the meetings held by Chicago Police Superintendent Hillard, and some community meetings hosted by various civil rights organizations.

The Effect of Hate Crimes, Discrimination, and Governmental Measures upon the Community

The United States is at war. One might rightly observe that, in comparison to previous administrations during time of war, current federal, state and local governments have shown more leadership and resolve to protect its minority citizens than ever before. Previous administrations in time of war have engaged in massive expulsion of foreign nationals, massive detention of ethnic minorities, and the eradication of due process of law to its citizens. This government has seemingly limited its attention to the investigation of identifiable suspects, the expulsion of illegal aliens, and the interrogation of possible witnesses.

Unfortunate to many, the victimizing of Americans of Arabic descent and Muslims is real and it is serious. First, as citizens, they also were victims of the attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. Second, as Arab-Americans and Muslims, they were singled out and discriminated against in the work place, at school, at church, at mosque, on the streets, in their businesses, at the shopping malls, and on college campuses. Finally, this ethnic/religious community witnessed a glut of highly visible "special measures and policies" initiated by federal and local governments that seemingly focused attention upon Arab and Muslims. Although these measures may have bolstered domestic security and public confidence, they have negatively affected the community.

Consequently, there are clear signs that the community has somewhat withdrawn from the political, social and professional process in the United States since 9/11. Attendance at religious, social and professional gatherings is significantly down, as seen, for example, at an annual "professional networking" reception in Chicago last February, or the meeting of a local "Arab-American Democratic Club" on candidates night in March. At a sparsely attended dinner for Arab-American journalists recently a medical doctor commented that "my referrals are down 50%" since 9/11. For a time Muslim women were afraid to leave their home to shop, and they forbid their children from attending school.

In an attempt to counter-balance the adverse effects of 9/11 upon Arab Americans and Muslims, the federal government has made an effort to fight hate crimes and discrimination through some of its agencies. Representatives from the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, United States Commission on Civil Rights, and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission have traversed the United States encouraging the community to report discrimination and hate crimes. However, the community has not responded accordingly. One reason for this is the perception that governmental measures have largely been ineffective. For example, some feel that many crimes have not been "categorized" as hate crimes by local police, making the accuracy of the reports understated. Discrimination in the work place, although obvious to the community, is largely hidden from view by fear and humiliation. The reports to EEOC and other agencies have not been publicized and little "punishment" has been realized. Most important are the human conditions of fear, humiliation, confusion, and despair that prevent the victims from exercising their rights.

Another reason for the poor response to governmental services available through Justice, EEOC and Civil Rights agencies is the community's perception that their sister agencies are still investigating, interrogating, detaining, and deporting foreigners who are Muslims and Arabs. This creates a lack of faith and trust in the civil and criminal justice system. There are three concerns with respect these perceptions:

1. Should another significant terrorist incident occur in the United States, the public's negative perception may precipitate a massive backlash of death, injury, and loss of life to Arab-Americans and Muslims and, importantly, those Americans who resemble them.

2. International relations with our allies in the Middle East and throughout Islam will be adversely affected if those nations perceive governmental or societal abuse of Arabs and Muslims in the United States. This would undermine United States efforts to forge alliances in our war against terrorism. It is important to note that most Muslim nations, such as Egypt, are mainly populated by youthful constituencies who have overnight access to Al-Jazeera and other media networks, and importantly the Internet. News can no longer be "managed" by our allies.

3. The United States has historically experienced traumatic internal violence, "retaliation", and even disloyalty among small segments of minority communities who have perceived themselves as severely disenfranchised. This is a highly unlikely scenario among Arabs and Muslims in the United States who have traditionally been better educated, highly motivated, and loyal participants in the political and social process of our country.

Recommendations

Following are measures that are not new. Most were recommendations made by the Arab-American Bar Association of Illinois on September 26, 2001 at a news conference announcing its white paper entitled Preliminary Report on Hate Crimes Against Arabs and Muslims in the United States.

1. The threat of widespread discrimination, hate crimes, and civil disturbances against the millions of blameless Americans of Arabic descent and Muslims constitutes a real and present danger. Our government is obligated to protect everyone's right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which, according the American Bar Association, includes taking "appropriate action to prevent disorder... and to deal property and effectively with disorder when it occurs." Therefore, in addition to government's response to hate crimes and discrimination, it should further develop and coordinate: (a) preventive measures to protect the rights of Arab-American and Muslim citizens, and (b) pre-constructed strategies to protect the lives and property of Arab-American and Muslim citizens in the event of an escalation of hate crimes against them.

2. An Interim Advisor on Arab and Muslim Affairs: Just as the government's Homeland Security has been highly visible, so also might the government visibly launch a minority security program to coordinate federal and state agencies to deal with the prevention of hate crimes and discrimination. The point is to provide this vast ethnic and religious minority with visible and credible leadership within the Administration that could mobilize the Arab and Muslim communities and quell international scrutiny of our domestic policies to stop terrorism.

3. Governmental Appointments: Federal, state and local government should continue to appoint qualified persons from the Arab and Muslim communities to meaningful governmental positions. A new emphasis of governmental appointments would signify confidence in Arab Americans and Muslims to the general population and to our foreign allies.

4. Watch the Rhetoric: It is difficult to demonize an "enemy" who physically resembles several million American citizens. The terrorists were Middle Eastern Muslims. There are millions of citizens in the United States with cultural and religious ties to the Middle East and Islam. Societal, institutional, and journalistic characterizations of this segment of our citizens have been unfortunate. Government should continue to lead the way with political and administrative leadership.

5. Education: The implementation of government grants that would fund Arabic studies programs that would both educate the American people and instill pride among Arab Americans. It is unclear whether Arab-Americans are legally classified as a "minority" by the federal government.