Chapter 4

Arab and Muslim Civil Rights Issues in the Chicago Metropolitan Area Post-September 11

In the briefing the Illinois Advisory Committee held on March 29, 2002, in Chicago, Muslim and Arab leaders expressed strong concern that any study of civil rights issues following the events of September 11 must include an investigation of government policies. In this chapter, the Committee does not intend to investigate or make conclusions regarding government policies. However, it does hope to allow the concerns and voices of community leaders and representatives to be heard. It also hopes to spur further open discussion and public debate on the issues.

The government has taken some measures. And for homeland security purposes, I'm sure that these measures are well intentioned and done in good faith. I'm not here to point fingers at the United States government, but I am here to say that what they're doing is affecting our community. It's having a negative effect. It's ostracizing and separating our community from the American mainstream. The U.S., a patriotic people, took that as some sort of targeting of Arab Americans or some sort of focusing on Muslims in our community.

With the increased governmental search powers and the detention of foreigners right after the 9/11 attack, most of whom were Middle Eastern, some of whom ironically were Jews, there were 1,100 to 1,400 immigrants who were at that time detained and kept. Many of them were kept for several months. One of them died who had not committed any act of terrorism; who was not involved in anything.

Claims of ethnic and racial profiling are rampant throughout the United States. I'm sure it s exaggerated, but it's perceived in our community in a bad way. We saw 5,000 to 8,000 Middle Eastern men targeted for voluntary interrogation by law enforcement. Some police chiefs wouldn't do it. I don't know how effective it was. It might be legitimate law enforcement. You go to the neighborhood, question people, and try to find out what's going on, but it created a bad perception in our community. The media might have fired that up, too. The State Department expelled 6,000 illegal alien Middle Eastern men. Well, there are a lot of illegal aliens in the United States. Again, our community took this badly. The fingerprinting of thousands of foreign visitors coming into the United States from the Middle East this will be probably over a 100,000 before it's over with is creating some concern in our community. The government alerts that are being issued all the time, look out for suspicious activity. Well, my goodness, what's that? In my opinion, it is the FBI getting calls about people that have thick, ethnic accents and who are or may look Middle Eastern. They're bogus calls, but people are starting to inform on one another.

The laws that are coming into effect, personally, I welcome. I welcome laws that secure our nation. The problem that we see is that the laws seem to be pointing at one particular group. The latest proposal of fingerprinting immigrants that come from Middle Eastern or Muslim countries is troubling, not because they're going to do that we welcome the security aspect but because you're targeting one particular group. Do it across the board.

Kareem Irfan, President Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago

As we address concerns about civil rights, I would like to cover some escalating concerns of many Americans, Muslims included, about the role that our government is playing in the nation's war on terrorism. Our concern is particularly with government policies based on religious and ethnic profiling and targeting. These have yielded little, if any, value and have merely led to harassment, abuse of authority, and trampling of individual rights and liberties, which are the linchpin of our free society. The representative in this category is the subjection of hundreds of legal Muslim and Arab visa holders to so-called voluntary interviews. Also, the detention of hundreds of Muslims without due process in conditions that, even now, despite a variety of legal challenges, remain largely secret. Of the more than 300,000 illegal immigrants who ignore deportation orders, we have concerns that only Muslims and Arabs among them were detained. The recent Department of Justice guidelines that target Muslim visitors for photographing, for fingerprinting, and registration cap off this disturbing trend in the post-September 11 era.[1]

We are concerned that these initiatives merely sanction the targeted harassment of innocent students, tourists, committed workers, and relatives of Americans who actively contribute to keep American society running. And when you couple this with the recent Department of Justice announcement freeing FBI agents, among other questionable approvals, to spy on religious institutions such as mosques and synagogues and churches who may be engaged in thoroughly legal activities, these initiatives can only alienate millions of law-abiding, peaceful, and innocent members of American society whose support is absolutely essential as we continue our war on terrorism.[2]

We are extremely concerned about the policies that are being adopted by the Justice Department: fingerprinting of the immigrants, especially the immigrants from the Middle East and Muslim immigrants.[3] We believe it's an extremely unfortunate decision, and several people have already pointed out that that may not even improve the security here, considering the fact that after September 11, the major arrests that were made, whether you take Mr. Lindh or Mr. Padilla, were not people of Middle Eastern origin. They were not people who are being targeted at this time for fingerprinting. So, it begs the question, do you really improve the security when you implement these types of regulations?

Look at the catch phrases that [the government] uses. They use combatants, they use war on terror, they coin phrases just so they can grab people. I don't like that. It is a direct violation of our Fourth Amendment, and it seems to be okay with the general public because the war on terrorism is kept in our face. We know the dangers of the war on terror, but we also must protect what this country stands for: its Constitution and its Bill of Rights. That's more important. And you must maintain that. Someone has to tell these people that you cannot be doing this because we think more of the Constitution than we do of some person on a mission.

What's been thrust upon the Americans in general and the Muslims in particular are very general, nebulous laws that seek to eradicate terrorism. The most fundamental question is, whose defining who is a terrorist? Muslims have no role in that process. We've seen just by this recent indictment of the executive director of the Benevolence Foundation here in the western suburbs that one of the things that the Justice Department relied on was an association that that man had nearly 10 years ago when the government itself was supporting the Afghan people in the fight against the Soviet Union. So, now we're talking about associations. Association somebody had allegedly with Osama bin Laden 10, 12 years ago. At least from what we've heard to date, there hasn't been any evidence as to what wrongdoing that individual has done.[4]

But the point that I'm trying to make here this afternoon is now we have a situation where if you have someone either in your midst, in the midst of a conversation or within the halls of your community center or mosque, now is it necessary to monitor everything that they say? And then to the extent that they do say something that doesn't reflect the attitude of the United States government, is it then incumbent upon them to label a disclaimer across everything that they said to kick them out, to bar their access to this institution?

Here's a situation. I mean, if we draw on your background, how many religious institutions in the United States have now had to call on an attorney to craft policy guidelines to tell them what people can say when they come into their place of worship? That's what we've been asked to do; Come in and tell us because oh, we don't want someone to be labeled a terrorist. And now we know the next issue is, do we now need to start to investigate an individual's background? Well, we know based on what the criminal prosecutions have been instituted here in the Northern District of Illinois, we need to go back at least 10 years to see if you have had any associations with somebody who has now been declared a terrorist by the executive branch of this government? This is a very chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of Muslim Americans in the United States.

Azhar Usman, Spokesman Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago

A delicate constitutional balancing act is what is happening. And I think as any attorney knows, probably even a lot of educated nonattorneys know, the government has an obligation to show a compelling state interest when it wants to effect the rights of people in a very disparate way. And in this case, I think what we've seen is a delicate balancing act between combating terrorism, which is, of course, the compelling state interest, and the negative impact it had on civil rights and civil liberties. And as any constitutional scholar will tell you, the government, when it can show that it has a compelling state interest, must also show that it employed the least restrictive and least burdensome means to effect whatever change it is after. In this case, combating terrorism.

In other words, if the government can prove, which it of course has, that fighting terrorism is a legitimate and compelling state interest, it must use tactics which are least burdensome on civil liberties. And I think in this case, what we've found is that the government simply has gone too far. I don't think that any one in the Arab or Muslim community in America is complaining that fighting terrorism is not a compelling interest. Nobody who talks that talk or walks that walk would frankly find any support.

It is quite obvious that we're living in a very difficult time and particularly in the aftermath of September 11, all of us need to be on alert concerning terrorism. However, when the government goes so far as to dissolve the rules of evidence when it went to set up a court process that really cannot be categorized as anything but a kangaroo court one that you might expect to find in the Middle East, in a repressive regime where some of these alleged terrorists are coming from I think all of us have to really take a step back and ask ourselves whether or not our government has gone too far. When it conducts raids against legitimate Muslim charities, when it detains individuals with no basis or reasonable suspicion, when it effectively eviscerates the attorney-client privilege, when it criminalizes civil litigants, and when it goes so far as that they have created a mosaic of evidence which is a code word for secret evidence, which is, of course, a code word for no evidence I think all of us should be concerned as Americans.

First of all, we understand as all Americans understand that there is an important and critical government interest in making our land safe for all persons. But we also believe that the rule of law and fairness and equality must be adhered to, or we would have lost the very things that are at issue in the war on terrorists.

It has been our experience that government is doing a bad job in trying to achieve that balance. We have seen that repeatedly. We think it s laudable, for example, that the President of the United States saw fit to visit a mosque in the days after September 11, and counsel that we should have no animosity towards Muslims or to Arabs. However, in fact, his actions and those of other government players give quite a different message. We believe that we are seeing a great deal of institutionalized discrimination against persons thought to be Muslim or Arab, or of Arab descent here in Illinois. It's a discomforting thought that discrimination profiling, as we have come to call it, is occurring at the level that it is because it's a disservice to the interest that government seeks to achieve.

We believe that profiling does not work. That it does not make us safer. That it diverts resources from where they should be to a kind of mindless and bigoted purge of the very communities that this government needs to be able to reach out to and establish rapport with in order to ensure that, in fact, our country is safe.

We've been down this road before. For decades law enforcement officials here in Chicago, in Illinois, all over the country targeted African Americans and Hispanic Americans in the war on drugs. That policy was a total failure. Study after study demonstrated that the more that police officers engage in racial profiling, the less they find contraband because race is simply not the indicator of criminality. In short, we believe that racial, ethnic, and religious profiling is immoral and will physically endanger our country. Nonetheless, we believe that it is occurring.

The first instance of racial profiling that we saw in the aftermath of 9/11 was the mass detention of over 1,200 young men between the ages of 18 and 35 who were primarily on nonimmigrant visas here in the United States. Many of our offices all over the country were contacted in the aftermath of the initial roundup, and that occurred with our office as well. There are people who were detained from Illinois who were living in Illinois at the time of their arrest and detention who were taken to New York City, who initially were identified as having some interest by the FBI. They were bounced back and forth between detention centers in Brooklyn, a holding facility in Hudson County, New Jersey, and other INS detention facilities around the country. For months and months no one could really get a handle on what was happening to those people, and some of you may know the ACLU has filed lawsuits; one in Washington, D.C., against the Justice Department to get the information of who these detainees are.[5] We know that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds have been released, but over 100 men continue to be in detention. But we still don't know who they are and where they are, and we don't know in large measure what the basis of their detention is. All we know is that they are Muslim, they are Arab, they are South Asian and that very few, if any, of them have any relationship to terrorism.

The second instance that we saw of racial profiling here in Illinois was the mass interrogations that took place. The Ashcroft 5,000 as that group of nonimmigrant visa holders was characterized. Those young men came from all over the Chicago metropolitan area; that is, those who were in the Northern District of Illinois. I'd like to tell you that we sent out letters from my office to all of the U.S. attorneys in the state of Illinois. We sent a letter to Charles Grace in the Southern District in East St. Louis. We sent one to the Central District. We sent one to the Northern District of Illinois, and the response was really mixed from the U.S. attorney. We were actually kind of surprised how they approached that. As many of you know, a large number of the Ashcroft 5,000 interviews took place in Detroit where there's a large, substantial population of Arab Americans. And the U.S. attorney there I think set a good spirit, a good tone, for those interviews, if they had to take place at all, by sending out letters to individuals advising them of their right to counsel. Giving them names of persons who would provide counsel to them. Here in the Northern District the response was a little strange, and my co-speaker and I, along with other lawyers, organized a group of lawyers to provide services to anybody who sought representation in those interviews.

The U.S. attorney in the Northern District here indicated in a letter that he sent out to the prospective interviewees that he would provide the phone number of the hot line that we had set up for lawyers. In fact, whether it was intentional or not, no number was ever included in that letter.[6] And as a consequence, the letter itself I think was more confusing than it was helpful. Nevertheless, the hot line that we had set up was well publicized and subscribed to. We either counseled or attended approximately 20 interviews. Those interviews were virtually worthless. I didn't think that there was a moment of useful information or colloquy that occurred in any of the interviewees that I was a party to, or that any of the lawyers in my office either were a party to or consulted. They were just a waste of time, and I think that in large measure we've heard from the national press that the FBI was not enamored of the idea of these interviews. It came down from the top to conduct these interviews.

But I can tell you that I have had clients who have been interviewed by the FBI before and this was a unique experience. It truly was I think scary and intimidating for the individuals who got those letters. Government looks a little different in many of the countries where these gentlemen came from than it does in our own country, and while the FBI agent couldn't have been more courteous in the manner in which he conducted those interviews. Nevertheless, they were difficult interviews for the individuals to go through and they benefited government not at all. And I think if anything, it's another example of mindless profiling.

Perhaps the most invidious of all of this profiling that has occurred is the watch list. I don't know how many of you have heard that phrase since 9/11, but in fact, there are several watch lists. One watch list is an FBI watch list, and that watch list seems to be pasted and glued together from virtually any source that's willing to share information with the FBI. It's very sketchy. It has names on it. Sometimes it has country of origin, sometimes it doesn t. Sometimes it has physical description, sometimes it doesn t. A gentleman presented himself in our office several months ago and he is U.S. citizen, born in Egypt, family man, strong roots to the community, owns a business, has owned a business for a long time in the suburbs. He was flying and presented himself at the airport. He has a name which I am told if you were to look in the Cairo phone book you would find pages of his name. It is as common as John Smith is in our country. He was stopped that day. FBI agents and local police authorities refused to allow him to board an airplane. He was detained for several hours in custody. He was searched. He was interrogated. His bags were searched. He was not allowed to fly out of the airport that day to visit his sister who was visiting from another country on the sole basis that his name was John Smith.

I think we have to ask ourselves a question. If the only information that the FBI has was that they were looking for a person named John Smith, do you think they'd stop every John Smith that flew an American airplane on any given day and detain them for two hours in a locked room, search them, interrogate them, subject them to heart palpitations. This was a middle-aged gentleman who was so intimidated by this process that he started suffering palpitations during the process.

I think that the interfaith communities have talked about government policies since September 11 in a very general sense. However, we only go as far as to say that on a theoretical level, constitutional rights and civil rights are important. I think after 9/11, it's time to really test the waters, in a sense. Meaning that we as Americans really place a humongous emphasis on the whole notion of rights, constitutional rights, civil rights, and so forth. We can talk all we want about that. We can talk about that as politicians and parents, as institutions. The question is, when issues come up such as 9/11 or World War II or others how then do we as American people, as well as American institutions, then interpret the Constitution and how do we react?

Maybe my ideals are too ambitious and too high, but I have not seen the kind of support for Muslim civil rights and constitutional rights from those proponents of these kinds of ideals as really there should be. And perhaps this is only a Muslim issue, only Muslims should be advocating Muslim rights perhaps. Besides the local groups that I ve worked with, I haven't seen on a national setting various religious and other kinds of organizations come out to protect and advocate a strong emphasis on Muslim civil rights. What I've heard instead is well, this is an exception, this is a different time; we're fighting terrorism. And slowly, we're beginning to see U.S. citizens who are being implicated without any kind of due process, being denied access to courts, and lawyers, and so forth. Now, this is something I think we as American people, and even the Commission such as yourself is something that is going to have to keep an eye on because this is something that's going to affect us.

Most recently I am representing a young man who was a student at the University of Illinois in Champaign. This man is a Moroccan citizen. He is very active in terms of organizing events for the Palestinians. He is very concerned with what is happening with the Palestinians in the West Bank and in Gaza.

He made one big mistake. He was out of student status because he was depressed one semester and he dropped out of school. So, on May 30,2002, the FBI came to see him, and they arrested him. They turned him over to immigration.

Normally when you get turned over to immigration because you're out of status, you get a bond set by the district director. You may not be able to afford to make it, the bond may be too high, but you get a bond set. They refused to set a bond in this case. Usually, the only time you don't get a bond set is if you have been convicted of a crime. He had never been convicted of a crime and never been arrested.

Last Wednesday, we went to immigration for the bond hearing. Finally, he got them up here about a week and a half later and I find out he s under this special investigation, special inquiry. He's actually being held by immigration, and that's why there's no bond. In the Haddad case, the Sixth Circuit says you have to have an open hearing.[7] But when I raised that point, they said that the prosecutor is a private attorney and that's the Sixth Circuit, this is the Seventh Circuit. Two weeks ago, after the Sixth Circuit decision, immigration came out with new regulations about closing hearings, even though the Sixth Circuit told them they couldn t do that in Haddad's case.[8]

So what did they do? They cleared the courtroom of all the spectators. The government asked for a continuance of the bond hearing, and he is still being held with no bond. And I was told that next Friday, that is this coming Friday, that they may introduce secret evidence. You know, secret evidence that I can't see just for the bond hearing to keep him locked up. And after many, many conversations with this young man, going out and talking to him at the DuPage County jail, I think the only thing he did, like I said, he was very outspoken. He was organizing on campus for Palestinian issues, and when he first went to the university he went to a mosque and I think he may have donated money at the mosque and the mosque may have belonged to a charity or something. But that's all he did. He's never been convicted of a crime. Nobody said he committed a crime. But he is being held here on secret evidence that we can t see and no bond.

And those are the things that have been happening since 9/11, which is really, really bad.

The one concern I do have, if the persons are being detained as material witnesses, they have the right to appear before the federal district judge. They're presented to the federal district judge and told this person is a material witness. The judge can set bail and have them released. And the government has the burden to show why it is that that person will not be here for the opportunity to testify before the grand jury, and why it is that their information or testimony is important. If, during that process, the government doesn't reveal everything it knows about someone, which frankly if it were my case, I'd like to let the judge know we're investigating a bank robbery, we're investigating a terrorist plot, or terrorist financing, the judge puts limits and says, Okay, well, I understand they're going into grand jury next Wednesday, you should be done by a certain date. And if it is not done, I will hear back from you. Those attorneys have a right to go back into court, and that's not different.[9]

So, they do have attorneys, it's being handled by a district judge, and I think there's a perception out there that the rules are not being followed. And that's not true. Material witness warrants have existed well before 9/11. They were used well before 9/11 in a variety of different cases, and there are ground rules. Sometimes the attorneys are not happy that their clients are held as material witness, but they have the vehicle to walk into the United States District Court and vindicate those rights. Nothing has changed about that. I recognize there is a huge perception problem, which we're trying to battle. But it's hard to fight in the shadows and rebut cases that you don't know the specifics of. They have attorneys, they have dates in court, they have rights under the statute.

I guess the two major actions, and you can refresh me if I'm missing one, since 9/11 is we did participate in the interview process where a number of persons who had come from certain countries were interviewed. And in that process, we made plain to everyone that the people being interviewed were not suspects. And I can tell you, we carried out the interviews by making sure the people knew they were not suspects. I personally wanted to make sure that every state and local law enforcement officer and FBI who went out to conduct one of these interviews not only knew they were supposed to tell the person they were not a suspect, but believed it. I gathered with Tom Kneir and Brian Perryman, all the state and local law enforcement officers participating in those interviews, and I told them I was personally representing that the persons were not subjects. And I caused all the names of people to be interviewed to be run through all the appropriate databases to make sure they were not suspects. Because, frankly, if the person was a suspect, we did not want to go out and interview them. I did not want to put a law enforcement officer unknowingly in harm's way. I think by understanding that we had personally verified that these people were not suspects, that people who conducted the interviews understood that.

We received no complaints about how those interviews were conducted. We sent the questions out to the public in advance. That is not how we would conduct an investigation. We also sent letters in advance at the request of the community to let people know we were looking to speak with them about information they might have. That was a request made by the community at the last minute. We thought they were right. We sent those letters. We also received a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union saying they were prepared to provide counsel free of charge to anyone being interviewed. We included that notice in the letter asking them to participate in the interview. We gave them the toll-free number to call the ACLU. When conducting that effort, we did not hesitate to make people know that they were not suspects. We did not hesitate to give them access to counsel as provided by the ACLU. We conducted the interviews as if the people were not suspects, because they were not. Nothing was held back in terms of national security in terms of addressing the people being interviewed about what we were doing.

The story gets melded between people who are picked up because they were ordered by a court to be deported and have illegally been in the country, despite a ruling, for several years. Cases where people were picked up for other various reasons, cases where people who are material witnesses who are being held so they can provide information, they have an attorney, and a judge who can set bail and say, If you're not going to resolve this matter in the next six days, the witness goes free. In criminal cases, we tend to lose sight of them and meld them together in numbers. In some of those cases where people have indicated they do not want their names released, it is the witnesses who do not want their names released. And that's because frankly, many of them come from countries where they have the perception, which may well be the reality, that if their name is at all associated with an investigation, whether or not, in fact, it turns out they're cleared, that that name will forever tarnish their image back in their home country because of the repercussions to their families when they travel back there. So, in many cases, it's the nonterrorism context where we have an obligation to take people who are arrested in foreign countries, and then they will have the right to tell their consulate that they're in jail so they can come see them and make sure they're being taken care of. They have a lawyer. They will insist that we not tell the consulate. They want the secrecy. They want the protection to know that their family back home is not harmed. So, some of the secrecy that does come up is at the request of the people that are being held.

We do understand there is a major perception issue out there. Some of the things that have happened have happened before. The Oklahoma City bombings, one of the persons was held as a material witness. Many of the statutes being used or law enforcement techniques being used before, people associate them with the new Patriot Act. So, I think that there is less going on than people think, but there is a perception.

Our continuing dialogue with members of the Arab American, South Asian, and Muslim communities of metropolitan Chicago has allowed us to identify matters of particular concern to community members.[10] The most significant issues raised are matters of national policy. Some of these policies have been established legislatively by Congress. Other matters of significant concern have arisen from policies promulgated by the attorney general or by the commissioner at the INS. Among the policy issues that have been brought to our attention and are continuing discussions with members of the Arab American, Muslim, and South Asian communities are the following: closed immigration proceedings; detainee access to counsel; selective enforcement of minor immigration violations; alien absconder initiative, phase one; the impact on United States citizen children of arrests arising from the alien absconder initiative; secret detentions; cooperation between the INS and local law enforcement agencies; Department of Justice legal opinion concerning local law enforcement authorities having inherent authority to enforce immigration laws; freezing of assets of Muslim charities; airport security procedures; monitoring of attorney communication with individuals in federal custody; delay in processing refugee admissions; proposed rule to limit visitor and student visas; and, finally, national security entry and exit registration system.

As director of the INS in Chicago, I'm not in a position to address national policy mandates. I can assure you, however, that as we become aware of community concerns, we've consistently communicated them to INS headquarters or to other agencies to within whose jurisdiction they fall. We will continue to do so.

I'm submitting to you today data for our enforcement operations at the Chicago district, which I hope will give you a picture of our operations since September 1, 2001, which describes the number of nationalities of aliens who have been identified as being deportable or removable from the United States because of violations of immigration law.[11] This report indicates that the largest number of deportable aliens we have located since September 1, 2001, still come from Mexico, 69 percent. Only 4 percent come from countries which have predominantly Arab or Muslim populations. Although it's often been stated during the public discussion of the department's antiterrorism efforts, that the INS is holding in custody for immigration violations persons who are being deprived of their right to counsel, this is not true in this district, and I don't believe anywhere else, to my knowledge. All aliens arrested in this district since 9/11 for immigration violations continue to receive their notice of right to retain counsel at their own expense, and their right to speak to their counsel or officer if they choose to do so. The aliens arrested as a direct result of our operations and direct result of the FBI's antiterrorism efforts all have retained counsel of their own choice prior to their matters being heard before the immigration court, the Executive Office of Immigration Review. This office has worked hard to educate the Arab, Muslim, and South Asian communities about the immigration process and the rights of aliens in such proceedings and at the time of arrest. The INS office in Chicago is committed to a continuing dialogue with these and other communities that we serve.

Thomas Kneir, Special Agent in Charge Federal Bureau of Investigation Chicago

[1] Registration and Monitoring of Certain Nonimmigrants, 67 Fed. Reg. 52584 (2002) (codified at 8 C.F.R. pts. 214 and 264).

[2] U.S. Department of Justice, The Attorney General's Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Terrorism Enterprise Investigations, 2002, VI.A.2 Visiting Public Places and Events, p. 22 (authorizes the FBI to visit any place and attend any event open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally) <http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/index.html>.

[3] Registration and Monitoring of Certain Nonimmigrants, 67 Fed. Reg. 52584 (2002) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pts. 214 and 264); Registration and Monitoring of Certain Nonimmigrants from Designated Countries, 67 Fed. Reg. 57032 (2002) (applies to nationals or citizens of Iran, Iraq Libya, Sudan, and Syria).

[4] United States v. Enaam M. Arnaout, No. 02 CR 892, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1635 (D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2003); United States v. Enaam M. Arnaout, 236 F. Supp. 2d 916 (D. Ill. 2003); United States v. Enaam M. Arnaout, No. 02 CR 892, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24262 (D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2002); United States v. Enaam M. Arnaout, 231 F. Supp. 2d 797 (D. Ill. 2002); United States of America v. Benevolence Int l Found., Inc. and Enaam M. Arnaout, No. 02 CR 414, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17223 (D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2002).

[5] Ctr. for Nat l Sec. Studies v. United States DOJ, 217 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

[6] See appendix I.

[7] Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2002). But see ACLU of New Jersey v. County of Hudson, 352 N.J. Super. 44; 799 A.2d 629 (2002).

[8] Protective Orders in Immigration Administrative Proceedings, 67 Fed. Reg. 36799 (2002).

[9] 8 U.S.C. 3144 (2003) (if it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and order him to be detained).

[10] See appendix J.

[11] See appendix K.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights