Government Refusing to Turn Over Records on Exclusion of Foreign Scholars, Lawsuit Charges November 10, 2005
NEW YORK -- The State Department and other government agencies are illegally withholding records concerning the practice of excluding foreign scholars and other prominent intellectuals from the United States because of their political views, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center.
Government Practice of "Ideological Exclusion" Threatens Academic and Intellectual Freedom, Says ACLU
NEW YORK -- The State Department and other government agencies are illegally withholding records concerning the practice of excluding foreign scholars and other prominent intellectuals from the United States because of their political views, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center.
"The right to hear a full range of ideas and opinions is a vital part of American democracy," said ACLU attorney Melissa Goodman. "The government should not be in the business of censoring ideas that it deems inappropriate for the American public to hear."
The groups charge that the government's refusal to turn over documents violates its obligation to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the ACLU in March. The ACLU's FOIA request, filed with the State Department, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency, seeks information on the government's use of immigration laws, including a provision added by the Patriot Act, to exclude scholars and other prominent individuals from entering the United States because of their political views.
Section 411 of the Patriot Act permits the government to exclude foreign scholars from the country if -- in the government's view -- they have "used [their] position of prominence to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or to persuade others to support terrorist activity." However, the ACLU said that there is evidence that the government is using the provision more broadly to deny entry to people whose political views it disfavors.
News reports suggest the government invoked Section 411 in 2004 to deny admission to Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss intellectual who is widely regarded as a leading scholar of the Muslim world. As a result, Ramadan was forced to resign his teaching position at the University of Notre Dame. Ramadan was previously granted a U.S. visa in 2002 to carry out his lecture tour, which included a presentation sponsored by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
"The government should not be barring scholars from the country simply because it disagrees with what they have to say," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney. "The government's abuse of immigration laws skews and impoverishes political debate in the United States and deprives citizens of information that they need in order to make informed decisions about government policy."
Several other prominent figures who have been denied entry to the United States in recent years similarly appear to have been excluded for ideological reasons. For example, in 2005, Dora María Telléz, a leader in the 1979 movement that overthrew Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, was forced to turn down a position as the Robert F. Kennedy visiting professor in Latin American studies at Harvard University after she was denied a visa. Telléz, who has traveled to the United States several times in the past on personal visits and business trips, said she was shocked when officials told her she was denied entry because of supposed involvement with "terrorism."
In October 2004, 61 Cuban scholars, who were scheduled to attend the Latin American Studies Association's international congress, were denied entry less than two weeks before the congress convened. According to the State Department, the denials were in keeping with the Bush administration goal to hasten democratic reform in Cuba.
In 2002, John Clarke, an organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, was stopped at the customs booth at the U.S.-Canada border while on his way to a speaking engagement in Michigan. After officials checked his identification, Clarke was asked if he was opposed to the "ideology of the United States." Officials then searched his car and Clarke was forced to wait until a State Department agent drove up from Detroit to interrogate him. He was turned away after five hours.
The ACLU expressed concern that the recent exclusions mark a return to a time when the government "blacklisted" prominent figures because of their political associations or for criticizing U.S. policy. During the Cold War, the United States routinely used the immigration laws to deny entry to those associated with the Communist Party. Under this policy, the government excluded writers and playwrights such as Graham Greene, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Dario Fo, Pablo Neruda and Carlos Fuentes, as well as former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and former NATO Deputy Supreme Commander Nino Pasti.
For more information and a list of prominent scholars who have been denied U.S. entry on ideological grounds, go to: http://www.aclu.org/exclusion
-- Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"Don't just question authority, Don't forget to question me." -- Jello Biafra
James A. Donald
2005-11-11 00:11:54 EST
-- On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:46:36 -0800, Dan Clore > Section 411 of the Patriot Act permits the government > to exclude foreign scholars from the country if -- in > the government's view -- they have "used [their] > position of prominence to endorse or espouse terrorist > activity or to persuade others to support terrorist > activity." However, the ACLU said that there is > evidence that the government is using the provision > more broadly to deny entry to people whose political > views it disfavors. > > News reports suggest the government invoked Section > 411 in 2004 to deny admission to Tariq Ramadan, a > Swiss intellectual who is widely regarded as a leading > scholar of the Muslim world. As a result, Ramadan was > forced to resign his teaching position at the > University of Notre Dame. Ramadan was previously > granted a U.S. visa in 2002 to carry out his lecture > tour, which included a presentation sponsored by the > Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
But Tariq Ramadan *did* use his "position of prominence to endorse or espouse terrorist activity"
If that is the best example the ACLU has, the government is acting responsibly.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YvOLOeFyRZAIZI4d8Ia8INspi9rDSnqO4oekLYt2 40owu2bZRi2iKRgx1YrpTxJX/Ye2Iu3Z9WKo44ry9
Toby
2005-11-11 00:34:09 EST
> > But Tariq Ramadan *did* use his "position of prominence > to endorse or espouse terrorist activity" > > If that is the best example the ACLU has, the government > is acting responsibly.
I thought you were against the government....?
Toby
C*@gmail.com
2005-11-11 01:56:55 EST
Toby wrote: > > > > But Tariq Ramadan *did* use his "position of prominence > > to endorse or espouse terrorist activity" > > > > If that is the best example the ACLU has, the government > > is acting responsibly. > > I thought you were against the government....?
His statement was perfectly unobjectionable and rather narrow in context. Which you snipped, thereby broadening its apparent meaning.
Toby
2005-11-11 04:37:01 EST
<*i@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1131692215.671995.102910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Toby wrote: >> > >> > But Tariq Ramadan *did* use his "position of prominence >> > to endorse or espouse terrorist activity" >> > >> > If that is the best example the ACLU has, the government >> > is acting responsibly. >> >> I thought you were against the government....? > > His statement was perfectly unobjectionable and rather narrow in > context. Which you snipped, thereby broadening its apparent meaning.
I beg to differ. What I snipped is irrelevant to the point: James goes on and on about how terrible the government is--a bunch of con men, thugs and extortionists--and then he applauds their actions vis-a-vis a foreign threat. So which way do you want it--no state and no protection against foreign threats, or are you actually willing to admit that the state has useful functions?
Toby
James A. Donald
2005-11-11 05:21:29 EST
-- On 11 Nov 2005 03:37:01 -0600, "Toby" <*o@gool.com> wrote: > I beg to differ. What I snipped is irrelevant to the > point: James goes on and on about how terrible the > government is--a bunch of con men, thugs and > extortionists--and then he applauds their actions > vis-a-vis a foreign threat. So which way do you want > it--no state and no protection against foreign > threats, or are you actually willing to admit that the > state has useful functions?
The state is not necessary to protect against foreign threats, but when it does protect against foreign threats, rather than preventing people from protecting themselves against foreign threats, it acts legitimately.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG PYK1+BDYfy8X3Fxhh2xPIjgwCa7l8JApljfakcnX 4t9BXCHUsn8gP15/CiVvGITSc4eBxAecfLr2cHYsa
M J Carley
2005-11-11 05:25:12 EST
In the referenced article, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> writes:
>But Tariq Ramadan *did* use his "position of prominence to endorse or >espouse terrorist activity"
When and how did he did this? -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
Josh Dougherty
2005-11-11 05:35:34 EST
"Toby" <zdftokyo@gool.com> wrote in message news:437465f8$0$187$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com... > > <constantinopoli@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1131692215.671995.102910@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Toby wrote: > >> > > >> > But Tariq Ramadan *did* use his "position of prominence > >> > to endorse or espouse terrorist activity" > >> > > >> > If that is the best example the ACLU has, the government > >> > is acting responsibly. > >> > >> I thought you were against the government....? > > > > His statement was perfectly unobjectionable and rather narrow in > > context. Which you snipped, thereby broadening its apparent meaning. > > I beg to differ. What I snipped is irrelevant to the point: James goes on > and on about how terrible the government is--a bunch of con men, thugs and > extortionists--and then he applauds their actions vis-a-vis a foreign > threat. So which way do you want it--no state and no protection against > foreign threats, or are you actually willing to admit that the state has > useful functions? > > Toby
You didn't actually take all that anarchist stuff seriously did you?
Ha-Emet
2005-11-11 08:05:41 EST
Outside of the United States and his fundamentalist Christian base, who doesn't now have complete contempt for George W. Bush? What foreign leader can feel the same way about America it once did? Why does the rest of the world fear us? And they do fear us. Once, not long ago, America was admired. Because of George Bush, they do not like or trust us. By proclaiming they are either for us or against us has now put them all firmly against us.
"He's poisoned alliances; he's torn up treaties. He has convinced foes they had better get nuclear weapons, and get them quick. He's made America the global enemy of law and order. No enemy of human rights, or of the environment, or of a realistic approach to dealing with the problems of living sanely on this planet is friendless as long as George W. Bush is in the White House." 1
"George Bush has destroyed belief in America's goodness and America's wisdom among hundreds of millions of people. Gratuitously, with his trademark smirk, he's turned a friendly world into a hostile world. Nations and people who once saw America as a global protector now see the United States as the greatest threat to civilized human values currently at large in the world."
Continued here: http://pnews.org/ArT/WaR/CoP.shtml
----- / o o \ ===OO=====OO=========================== http://pnews.org/ - http://up-yours.us =======================================
Ha-Emet
2005-11-11 08:07:15 EST
If the U.S. was honestly interested in justice and an equitable distribution of borders to suit ethnic divisions and prevent much future conflict between Kurds, Iraqis, Syrians, Turks, it would support an independent Kurdistan - something it has never done. And if not, if the honorable cause Americans and Iraqis are dying for is to keep Iraq together, if the U.S. was really interested in holding Iraq together it would not have invaded. There were no terrorists in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was the president. There was no civil war when Saddam Hussein was their leader, although we could have encouraged one. But if we really wanted to avoid a civil war and we really wanted to encourage democracy we could have encouraged it by lifting the sanctions and aid, not bullets.
Before this wannabe cowboy in the White House attacked Iraq, he should have considered the consequences of getting rid of the only person who was apparently capable of keeping Iraq Iraq - (just as Tito kept Yugoslavia Yugoslavia). George HW Bush's father understood this. George W. Bush did not.
Continued here: http://pnews.org/ArT/WaR/WaR.shtml
----- / o o \ ===OO=====OO=========================== http://pnews.org/ - http://up-yours.us =======================================