Since the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, federal agencies tasked with protecting U.S. citizens have gone to great lengths to make America safer, with some success. But a great number of innocent people have been implicated as being associated with the Islamic extremist groups that threaten the safety of the United States. Some have been held while being investigated for terror-related crimes, then convicted and sentenced for lesser offenses. Some were never charged at all. Others - some of whom are naturalized citizens - have been threatened with deportation for inconsistencies on immigration paperwork.
The Post's Dan Eggen has reported on the Department of Justice's mixed success in finding and prosecuting persons suspected of having ties to terrorist groups. Mary Beth Sheridan has reported on the severe consequences faced by individuals whose immigration applications or records don't pass muster in the current climate of intense government scrutiny.
Dan Eggen and Mary Beth Sheridan were online Monday, June 13, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss report.
Read the report: U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges.
Immigration Law as Anti-Terrorism Tool.
A transcript follows.
____________________
Washington, D.C.: I guess one argument is that it isn't fair to "target" specific groups with immigration enforcement. I agree. How about this as an approach: We deport ALL illegal aliens. Then, the potential terrorists, as well as the rest of them, would be out of here, and there would be no claim of "unfairness." Do you agree?
Mary Beth Sheridan: Obviously I think the government should enforce the law, including immigration law. The tricky part is that there are so many people in the U.S. illegally--an estimated 10 million. Homeland Security only has a few thousand agents dedicated to enforcement inside the country (it has more, obviously, at the border). I also think there isn't remotely enough detention space for millions of illegal immigrants (typically people who are picked up for deportation get hearings first). I think that explains in part why you don't see a large-scale effort to deport illegal immigrants. In addition, lawyers argue there are people who fall out of status not because they're flouting the law but simply because there's a long backlog in processing immigration forms.
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.: Can you give any examples of innocent people being implicated? I haven't seen any.
Dan Eggen: I'm not sure what you mean by "innocent." If you mean innocent of terrorism, we identified 180 cases in which no ties to terrorist groups or activity could be found. Furthermore, out of the remaining cases, only 39 resulted in terrorism or national security convictions. We also profiled in depth several cases that did not involve terrorism, including a group of immigrants in New Jersey who had smuggled cornflakes nearly two years before 9/11.
If you mean innocent of any crime, that is a different question, although many on the list were prosecuted for minor crimes--lying on immigration forms, etc.--that are not commonly pursued.
_______________________
Columbia, Md.: Thank you for your live session today. I have a question about immigration law related to other illegal aliens. On Lou Dobbs CNN program he reported that 85,000 of the total illegal aliens in this country are wanted on criminal charges already and these are not immigration violations. Why are these people not detained and deported? Don't these people also represent a threat to our economy and citizenry as much as those mentioned in your reports?
Mary Beth Sheridan: Homeland Security has made a big effort to determine which people in jail are deportable (i.e. prisoners who are in the country illegally, or have been convicted of an aggravated felony and thus can lose their legal residency). But it seems they don't have enough staff to check all the prisoners. So some are released after serving their sentences. Homeland Security has also made a priority of trying to find people with criminal records who've been ordered deported but failed to leave. But again, they don't seem to have enough agents to go after them all.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Has the DOJ used the idea that we are 'at war' to justify any policy or actions ? Are we in a state of war? If so, what event will determine the end of the war?
Dan Eggen: Certainly it is true that the Bush administration believes that we are in an unconventional war with terrorists, and that as a result more powers were necessary for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Congress and most of the U.S. public appears to agree.
Our point in this series was the narrower question of how the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security have pursued cases that they deem to be terrorism-related and how they have presented their track record to the public.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: What's a terrorist, anyway? It's telling of the White House's "flexible" definition of the word that they let Luis Posada Carriles - the former CIA operative who downed a Cuban airliner killing 73 innocents - roam the country unimpeded for several months (until international press coverage finally shamed them into hauling him in). Perhaps foreigners fighting immigration charges here need only express aloud a few virulent anti-Castro sentiments, and any deeds or suspicions will be overlooked.
Dan Eggen: The definition of terrorism and terrorists is central to this debate over the Justice Department's terrorism statistics. In the months after 9/11, virtually any case handled by either the FBI's 9/11 team or by Joint Terrorism Task Forces across the country was designated as such and put on the list that the Post examined. Justice officials now say they have tightened their definitions.
In either case, however, the definition depends only on the initial suspicion or tip--not whether or not the person really was connected to any terrorist group or activity. I think that is one of the issues here.
_______________________
Nashville, Tenn.: I am more concerned about the loss of civil liberties of citizens than of immigrants. I don't think the FBI would need to be taking this shotgun, grab everything and everyone approach, if they had a Virtual Case File system that they could be confident in. Your views about that?
Dan Eggen: I'm not sure what impact a lack of decent computers might have had on these sorts of cases. In a broader sense, though, members of Congress, the Justice Department inspector general, the 9/11 Commission and many others have taken the FBI to task for failing to get up to speed quickly (and efficiently) enough in rebuilding its technology systems. The failure of VCF--which was abandoned at a loss of at least $104 million--is the latest example of the problem.
_______________________
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Mary Beth, thank you for a terrific article and exposing the problems countless immigrants are facing. Your article states it's the second of two - where's the first? Could you please post a link to it?
Also, I realize Homeland Security officials say they're not targeting any specific religious or ethnic group, but have you come across or has DHS officials provided any cases where our government went after minor immigration infractions of immigrants from, say, the U.K., Canada, Scandinavia?
The problem is that no one in this government has the guts to come out and say publicly that they're targeting Muslims and Arabs.
Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks! The first article was by my colleague Dan Eggen and ran on the front page of the paper yesterday. I think there's a link to it at the top of the discussion page.
As for your other question: I think Homeland Security agents do detain people from lots of different countries on immigration charges; but they succeed in arresting only a small percentage of the illegal population, because DHS doesn't have the staff to go after everybody. They clearly have focused more on looking at people who they consider possible national-security threats. Many Muslims and Arab-Americans feel they're being hit with/charges very few others face. They're true in some cases. The issue there is whether they've violated the immigration law, and whether there's reason to scrutinize them. The government argues it's not profiling but checking out information it receives that links the individuals to some kind of threat.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: I'm sure that sleeper cell terrorists living in the U.S. are very pleased with your report. Nice work criticizing the government for using perfectly legal and logical methods as part of their effort to keep us safe.
Dan Eggen: It's not clear to me how branding innocent immigrants as terrorists impacts the plans of any real terrorists in our midst. Such tactics might actually hurt counterterrorism efforts in two ways: by alienating law-abiding members of immigrant communities who can help the FBI and other authorities, and by wasting law enforcement time and resources.
Being clear and truthful about the statistics would hardly undermine the war on terror, but it would give the public a better idea of what's really happening. Please read our stories: We found 142 cases with a reasonable allegation of a connection to terrorism. There is no reason the government couldn't use such a number, which is sizable.
_______________________
Woodbridge, Va.: What is the Homeland Security's response when tactics are used (such as hovering helicopters and SWAT teams) and they then realize that the folks they are interviewing are not terrorists and not a threat? Can they justify their actions?
Mary Beth Sheridan: I think Homeland Security would have to answer the second part of the question. When I asked why they used a helicopter and SWAT-style team to arrest a Burke man on immigration charges, they said they had information he had had weapons and martial-arts training. The man, a Lebanese immigrant, said that he indeed had a black belt in judo, and knew how to use weapons because he'd lived in Lebanon during the war there. Homeland Security officials also pointed out he had a shotgun under his bed. Obviously, federal agents have to protect themselves when they go into a potentially dangerous situation, but my impression was that this man didn't pose much danger. (He doesn't face a terrorism charge and was promptly released from prison by a judge). By the way, I was told the helicopter was used both to watch for anyone trying to escape out the back door, and to treat anyone who suffered an injury (there was a medic or doctor on board).
_______________________
Dallas, Tex.: Quite frankly, I believe both the government and the media in this country have vastly overblown the terrorist presence as well as their capabilities. It has been 3.5 yrs since 9/11 and the convictions you mentioned in the article show the FBI holding an empty hand. Is it too much for the Bureau to say they overreacted and that Americans are much safer from terrorism than the hysterical claims of the media/governments?
Dan Eggen: This is certainly the big question of our time. The lack of a follow-up attack can be argued both ways: either to support the efforts that the FBI and other agencies have made both here and overseas to combat al Qaeda, or to argue that there is not much presence here to begin with.
We can only go so far based on the data we examined from the Justice Department. But based on the cases that have been brought, it is fair to say that they do not support the idea that hundreds of suspects with terrorist ties have been arrested or detected. Other independent analyses, including a recent bulletin by the FBI and CIA, also have raised questions about the extent of an al Qaeda network in the U.S.
That said, U.S. officials make the good point that it only takes one successful cell to bring calamity, as happened on 9/11.
_______________________
Nashville, Tenn: "most of the U.S. public appears to agree" I for one don't agree. The type of actions that are being used by the government to round up terrorists today are approaching the actions used by the Soviet Union, which in turn were used to justify the fighting in Vietnam. Also you ducked the question of how and when the GWOT will declared over.
Dan Eggen: I base my assessment of public opinion on the last couple elections, which certainly have gone the GOP's way.
As for the global war on terrorism (GWOT), the administration hasn't put a timeline on it but has repeatedly characterized it as a conflict that could last a generation or more. Obviously there are critics who disagree.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: You owe your readers better research than to casually refer to "overstaying a visa" as a routine charge. I see similar references in Washington Post articles all the time. It shows a profound lack of understanding of U.S. immigration law.
There are two fundamental categories of U.S. visas: immigrant and non-immigrant, also known respectively permanent and temporary.
Immigrant visas may be revoked for cause, but never expire due to the running of time, hence the term permanent.
Any visa that can expire must be a non-immigrant or "temporary" visa (NIV). That category of visa is only awarded to people wishing to come to the U.S. for a specific purpose, such as business, study, or tourism. In order to qualify, the applicant must have a permanent residence outside the U.S. which the applicant does not intend to abandon. If the person wants to enter as an immigrant he/she is ineligible for an NIV and must apply for an immigrant visa. Furthermore, most NIVs do not allow the holder to work or establish a permanent residence. Anyone obtaining a nonimmigrant visa by concealing their intention to enter to immigrate commits an act of fraud.
So when you write that someone has "overstayed a visa" you either display a fundamental lack of understanding of U.S. immigration law (and should not be writing the article) or you deliberately deceive your readers (who read to learn) by concealing the fact that the "immigrant" violated the conditions of the visa by working or establishing a permanent U.S. residence and probably obtained the visa by fraud.
The Post should know better and do better. Immigration is a serious and controversial topic. It is made worse by misleading reporting.
Mary Beth Sheridan: I confess to not being an immigration lawyer, though I speak to them all the time. As a reporter covering immigration, I would take issue with the idea that every foreigner who overstays his or her legally-alloted time has committed fraud to get a visa. I think people come here as students or temporary workers or tourists or whatever, and sometimes stay beyond when they're supposed to leave, because they discover they love life here or can make money working, or whatever. I'm not defending that--I think everyone should follow the law--but I don't think such behavior always reflects a long-thought-out plan. And as you know, people can get visas that permit them to come to the United States over a period of years. I do agree with you, however, that this is a serious and controversial issue.
_______________________
Nashville, Tenn.: "180 cases in which no connection to al Qaeda . . . found in court records" Your article mentions that they had to get Al Capone on income tax evasion. On many "Law&Order" TV programs they get the person on whatever they can. Is there a difference here?
Dan Eggen: Yes, there is a difference. To stretch the Al Capone analogy a bit, the 180 would be people who don't even know a gangster and have never been one.
In other words, this group of cases in our analysis is quite clear cut. Examples include the 20 hazmat-related defendants in Pennsylvania, the cornflake pilferers, a Sudanese actor with a similar name to a terror suspect, a Michigan man with the same name as the leader of Hezbollah, etc. etc. etc. These are not even close calls. They ended up on the terror list because of bogus tips, circumstantial connections, etc.
If the case had any reasonable connection to a terrorist group or activity, we labeled it as related to terror and gave the government the benefit of the doubt.
But it should be pointed out that even many of the latter cases turned out to be either benign or highly debatable.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: How much does the INS depend upon secret evidence in these cases, and wasn't secret evidence allowed as part of an immigration bill passed during the Clinton administration? My point is that this may not have that much to do with 9/11 and more to do with religious and racial profiling that was a big topic of public debate during the Clinton administration?
Mary Beth Sheridan: Few of these cases seem to involve secret evidence in terms of the accusations. They all involve ordinary immigration charges--lying on a naturalization or green-card form, holding a job while a student (which many student visas forbid), etc. That's the charge the government has to prove. There have been some cases in which immigration hearings have been ordered closed, but they seem to be pretty infrequent in the last year or two. The issue of a person's alleged terrorist ties may emerge in a bond or sentencing hearing, but I haven't seen any pattern of secret evidence being presented to the judges.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Thanks for two excellent reports.
Both pieces point out problems that the U.S. government is creating for itself in the area of public diplomacy. As someone who travels outside the U.S., including in the Arab and Muslim world, I can attest that incidents of law enforcement efforts that are perceived to be - and in some case are in fact - unjust, capricious or disproportionate contribute to an image of America that is increasingly negative.
Do you have any evidence that this issue is taken into account by policy makers? Is there any direction being given at senior levels of government to make law enforcement in the U.S. more transparent and more fair?
Dan Eggen: The Justice Department has not officially released their list of terrorism cases since they published a much shorter version containing less than 100 names shortly after 9/11. Officials say they are concerned, among other things, about the legal ramifications of releasing a list of names associated with "terrorism-related" probes. However, officials continue to use the numbers from the list in speeches and other public statements.
_______________________
Pittsburgh, Pa.: Have you come across any cases where DHS/ICE arrested Muslim or Arab immigrants after receiving, say, a letter or a phone call from someone essentially trying to settle a grudge?
I realize this document got very little play in the media, certainly not like the Abu Ghraib report, but Glenn Fine's massive report on our treatment of 9/11 detainees was very telling. Have either of you looked at that report?
Mary Beth Sheridan: I did read the Fine report while researching my story, and it was really interesting. Obviously as the IG he had access to a lot of information. I don't know specific instances in which someone was identified as a national-security threat by an acquaintance with a grudge, but I could see how that could happen. Anti-terrorism agents certainly get anonymous tips that they investigate. In fairness, though, the agents have to run down every report that seems like it could be credible. And if they discover the person is innocent of any terror ties but is in the country illegally, I think it's legitimate to charge the person with that.
_______________________
Dan Eggen: Thanks to everyone for your great questions. Keep reading!
_______________________
Mary Beth Sheridan: Thanks from me too. Sorry we couldn't answer all your questions, but we noted every one. We appreciate your thoughts.
Mary Beth
_______________________
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
