This letter was sent to police chiefs in major Texas cites and in smaller cities identified as having been asked to participate in General Ashcroft's race-based round-up of 5,000 middle eastern men.

December 2, 2001

Dear Chief

Earlier this month, the U.S. Justice Department announced plans to interview over 5,000 men who have entered the country legally on non-immigrant visas in the last two years. Because of the huge number of “suspects” involved, the FBI is seeking the help of local police officials with this questioning. We are writing to inquire whether the Justice Department has requested assistance from you in conducting these interrogations, and to urge you not to cooperate with this effort.

We recognize the vital importance of investigating terrorism, and the right and responsibility of the FBI to gather relevant information toward that end. We certainly have no desire to obstruct those efforts. But it is vital that we as Americans not lose sight of the values that we are seeking to defend, and we believe that the Justice Department’s interview plan is a violation of our core constitutional principles.

The questions to be asked in these interviews (as outlined in the Justice Department’s guidelines for interviewers) go far beyond any legitimate quest for factual information. Questioners are instructed to interrogate the subjects about their political beliefs, and to report on the political beliefs of their family and friends. They are asked to “obtain all telephone numbers used by the individual and his family or close associates.” Many of the queries contained in the DOJ guidelines are not the type that would be asked of witnesses or potential witnesses, but are instead the kinds of questions that would be asked of potential suspects. Moreover, the government fails to require that people be informed of their basic rights, such as the right to decline to answer questions and the right to have a lawyer present.

All this is especially troublesome considering the government has not shown that it has any specific information or reasonable belief that the people it wants to interview have any information relevant at all to the September attacks.

Interviewers are also required to report to the INS any immigration violations they uncover. Given that hundreds of people from the Middle East remain jailed in U.S. prisons on often minor immigration charges, these interviews will be experienced as inherently coercive, despite claims that they are “voluntary.” Indeed, it is quite possible that an immigrant’s cooperation with the police, rather than being rewarded, will lead to detention. The Justice Department has now acknowledged that anyone found in violation of immigration laws may be jailed without bond.

Such heavy-handed, antagonistic tactics will only discourage cooperation in this investigation. In the past, the presence of diverse and patriotic immigrant populations has been one of our nation’s biggest assets when confronting foreign threats. But the government’s approach is driving many in the Muslim and Arab communities to view federal law enforcement with distrust. Your police department should not jeopardize good relations with our immigrant community in order to help the FBI conduct a fishing expedition.

In addition, police officials should not be conducting coercive interrogations based on racial and ethnic profiling; law enforcement should question only those persons – of any race or ethnicity – for whom there is a credible reason to believe that they have been involved in or have knowledge of a crime. Terrorism expert and former FBI executive assistant director Oliver Revell pointed out in the Nov. 28 Washington Post that "One, it is not effective. And two, it really guts the values of our society, which you cannot allow the terrorists to do."

Former FBI assistant director Kenneth P. Walton agreed. "It's the Perry Mason School of Law Enforcement, where you get them in there and they confess," Walton told the Post. "Well, it just doesn't work that way. It is ridiculous. You say, 'Tell me everything you know,' and they give you the recipe to Mom's chicken soup."

While it may be difficult for a local police department to turn down a request for assistance from its federal counterpart, police departments in such cities as San Francisco; San Jose; Detroit; Portland , Eugene, and Corvallis, Oregon; and Richardson and Austin, Texas have all declined to participate in the mass interrogations designed by the Federal government. They have recognized that what distinguishes the practice of law enforcement in a democratic nation is the professional recognition by law enforcement of constitutional limits on the exercise of police power. We believe that history will applaud these departments and their leaders for their principles, professionalism, and independence. And we hope that you will join them.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Will Harrell

Executive Director

ACLU of Texas