In the United States, we have a principle that states — and let me know if you have heard of this before — innocent until proven guilty. It’s an odd concept to be sure, and one that our government has conveniently forgotten. On Sept. 24, the Associated Press reported that a program has been initiated to photograph and fingerprint foreign men visiting from a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa.
Since more than half of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, it is only natural for people to become suspicious of those who have Arab characteristics. The federal government has taken that “natural” suspicion and elevated it to the next level; they are now guilty until proven innocent.
Starting Oct. 1, immigration officers will keep track of Arab men, although none have yet to cause harm, and require that those staying over 30 days be interviewed. Details about their stay are also required and examined.
To many, these requirements may seem necessary after Sept. 11, 2001. After all, it is only foreigners who are being documented, not citizens. However, during a time of war, and even a time of peace, the small issue of citizenship has not stopped the federal government from infringing on citizens’ rights in the past, and it will not stop it now.
In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order for the interment of all Western Japanese Americans. In all, 120,000 Americans were detained. Does this treatment ring a bell? During the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, hundreds of Arab Americans were detained without being charged and without counsel. And for the record, no Japanese American was ever convicted of treason.
More recently, Southern Californian Asian Americans wearing certain “gang attire” were detained and photographed by police officers. Their crime: wearing “gang” clothing.
It was alleged that the photographs were kept in what was called a “mug book”; these Asian Americans had no prior record, but because of their race and choice of clothing the police department felt it was their duty to track them. The city attorney at the time justified such behavior as “vigorous law enforcement.”
Is this how our country wishes to treat its citizens? Are we becoming a “Big Brother” society, where the government tracks our movements? Furthermore, while Sept. 11 was certainly the most ferocious attack on American soil, have we forgotten about previous acts of terrorism? What about the Oklahoma City bombing? Are we going to fingerprint and photograph every white Caucasian male? Or how about attacks on abortion clinics by religious nuts? Are we going to haul in all Christian fundamentalists and track their movements?
The answer to all of the above, should you have missed it, is no. If we are so proud of our supposed “freedoms” in the United States, then why are we so willing to take them away when we feel threatened?
Instead of worrying about what Arab men are doing here, we should be investigating the real reason we were attacked. And, by the way, on Sept. 11, they were not attacking our way of life. They were enraged by our foreign policy.
I am not implying that we should not actively pursue those responsible for Sept. 11, but do we wish to lose our constitutional freedoms along the way? It is unacceptable and embarrassing to treat all Arabs as security threats. To assume that such policy will not eventually spill over to American citizens is naive.
If we are so proud of our country, then we should prove it by calling for fair treatment for all.