press, as well as privacy. Librarians have stated publicly that they are torn between abiding by the law and violating their patron's right to privacy. The Patriot Act also allows for "sneak and peek" search warrants to conduct physical searches of property and computer records without providing notification, wiretapping and monitoring of e-mail, access to financial and educational records, among other areas. The right to be free from arbitrary interference with individual privacy is protected in both the US Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a party.

Amnesty International urges the U.S. Congress to enforce the sunset provisions currently in the USA Patriot Act, or modify them significantly to protect individual rights, and eliminate, modify, or place sunsets on other provisions that infringe on individual rights of all Americans and non-citizens.

We urge the U.S. Congress to exercise its important oversight role to examine implementation of the USA Patriot Act. In particular, Amnesty International is concerned by abuses against Muslim and Arab communities in the United States, and the generally hostile climate against immigrants. Amnesty International last year released a report on racial profiling in the United States and found that racial profiling practices by law enforcement have expanded in the government's “war on terror" and threaten to affect an estimated 87 million individuals in the United States. The report, "Threat and Humiliation: Racial Profiling, Domestic Security, and Human Rights in the United States" finds that law enforcement's use of race, religion, country of origin, or ethnic and religious appearances as a proxy for criminal suspicion undermines national security. Racial profiling blinds law enforcement to real criminal threats and creates a hole in the national security net.

Congress should evaluate the Department of Justice compliance with Section 1001 of the law with regard to complaints alleging abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by employees and officials of the Department of Justice. Congress must ensure that department policies prevent racial profiling and abuse. This is a matter of upholding civil and human rights, applying the rule of law, and enhancing national security by protecting the human rights and freedoms of all.

Amnesty International also urges the U.S. Congress to exercise its important oversight role in examining the performance of the U.S. Government in implementing Section 804 of the Patriot Act. Section 804 amended the definition of "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" to include "offenses committed by or against a national of the United States" on diplomatic, consular or military premises. The U.S. government has failed to date to support a truly independent and comprehensive investigation into abuses against detainees in U.S. custody.

That is why Amnesty International continues to call on the U.S. Congress to establish a truly independent commission, which has not happened yet, and to urge the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate reports of torture and ill-treatment of detainees held in U.S. custody in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and detention centers-including secret detention centers-around the world. For over three years, over 500 individuals have been held in indefinite detention in Guantanamo in conditions that spurred the International Committee of the Red Cross to break its tradition of silence and protest publicly U.S. mistreatment of detainees. General Richard Myers has indicated that at least 68,000 individuals have been detained around the world in the so-called "war on terror". We have all seen the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib, but we may not know that there have been over 100 deaths in custody, of which at least 27 have been ruled "homicides". Amnesty International recently released its 2005 Annual Report which summarized human rights conditions in 149 countries and territories. Upon releasing the report, Amnesty International noted that the images of detainees tortured in Abu Ghraib shocked the world. As evidence of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in US custody in other countries continues to emerge, the United States is sending an unequivocal and severely damaging message to the world that human rights may be sacrificed ostensibly in the name of security. Congress must act to reverse this message, ensure an independent investigation into abuses, and uphold the rule of law and international standards of human rights for all. We are not safer when we abuse others. But we are safer when we promote conditions that allow every person to exercise their human rights and freedoms.

Thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair will recognize Members under the 5-minute rule. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Con

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first begin by praising the four witnesses who, on such short notice were able to pull these excellent statements together. I want to put out these questions because, as you know, 5 minutes is a very short amount of time. And you may respond to them as you feel inclined. What changes do you think need to be made in the PATRIOT Act to prevent legal and innocent people from being unjustly punished or persecuted? That is the first question. The second, the Inspector General found that the detention of aliens after 9/11 "indiscriminate and haphazard." Do you believe that the Department of Justice's approach in this matter has become any better? Do you believe the Administration has adequately investigated allegations of torture, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo?

And, is there anyone here that does not support an independent commission or select committee to investigate? And is any one of you experts here aware of a single terrorist arrest or conviction that came from the registration of or interview of over 10,000 men of Middle Eastern descent? Please, those of you who are witnesses may.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Who wants to be first?

Mr. CONYERS. You can begin.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Ladies first.

MS. TAPIA RUANO. Thank you, Mr. Pitts, and I would like to address some of these questions, not all of them, since I understand it is as we feel willing and with regards to the detention of illegals as it relates to non-citizens that, at this time, Department of Homeland Security is, you know, is a newly-created department and has been very distracted with reorganizing itself and that has definitely contributed to its ability to detain less people. I do think less people at this time are being detained as a result of post 9/ 11 investigations. But I also think it is important to note that the Department has recognized the failures of its prior policies and of its prior initiatives.

And, as any good agency, is attempting not to repeat its failures. I would also say that, of course, I would support an independent commission to investigate this. And no, as an immigration attorney which considers herself pretty well informed as to what happens in the country with regards to immigration detentions, I am not aware, and that is all that I can address to-I am not aware of a single occasion where any of the individuals that were brought in, noncitizens, as a result of these post 9/11 investigations were, in fact, charged with any 9/11 terrorist activity.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much.

Mr. Pitts.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Congressman. In answer to your first questions about changes needed to prevent unjust persecution in the PATRIOT Act, we think again that there are three broad categories, adding checks and balances, adding independent judicial review, and adding requirements of individualized fact-based suspicion. We think that those are essential to make sure you are not stereotyping innocent Muslims or Arabs. And it is interesting how much ignorance there is on this issue. People assume that Muslims are Arabs and vice versa when Arabs are a small minority of Mus

infinite variety as the world itself. One out of every 5 people in the world. So the anti-foreigner provision in section 412 of the PATRIOT Act, for example, which allows rolling and potentially indefinite detention, and is discriminatory based on the subjective say-so of one man is a good example of the discriminatory disrespect for the objective rule of law that we need to have effective action against terrorism, not stereotyping but identifying the real threats.

Similarly, our racial profiling report last year pointed out that racial profiling just doesn't work. Think for a second about the most famous alleged members of al-Qaeda, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, British national of West Indian descent; or the white guy from California, John Walker Lind, for example, or Jose Padilla, Hispanic gang member. You cannot possibly say that we are going to profile against people who look Middle Eastern and expect to be successful against Al Qaeda. What we need to do is not just have formal rhetoric against racial profiling, but recognize that the huge, gaping national security exception is illegitimate. It allows discrimination and a resurgence of religious, national origin and racebased discrimination that doesn't work.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The chairperson will recognize the witnesses and the time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.

Mr. KING. I thank the Chairman and I appreciate the witnesses being here today and those Members of the Committee that are here today, and I had the privilege of adjusting my travel plans to be someone who could benefit from this testimony today. Some of the things that come to mind, I think, I will direct initially to Mr. Pitts.

Could I ask you, if you could define for this Committee, the distinction between the standards in a criminal investigation with regard to subpoenas, that have been long accepted in the United States as something that protects and preserves the human rights of all citizens in this country. The distinction between that standard and the standard that is implemented by the PATRIOT Act with regard to that same type of search warrant.

Mr. PITTS. Absolutely, Congressman King. Thank you for the opportunity to clear up the rampant confusion on this point. In fact, just a couple of days ago with Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony before this Committee, he said that the standard in the PATRIOT Act is the same thing, probable cause. And he reiterated that there is probable cause to be an agent of a foreign power. That is a bit misleading, because when you read the actual language of the statute, at several points, for example, in section 215, the actual standard in the law is that an investigation is launched by the subjective interest of the law enforcement powers, and the information is sought for the purposes of that investigation. That is not a probable cause standard. Neither is the standard in section 505, which isn't even a relevant standard, the national security letter.

So there is a dramatic difference between the regular criminal

this up. The FISA VETES I ze sem se mu w

a secret couts that are TGKEL De the application of the fad a ST the normal criminal process vieler Ist that succe which, as I sand can be thalenge ir vieter CAIRE rant, which actually is preme: I ir DE only a probable cause to think that the person I JEZ crime or terrorism

Mr. KING. And you are ast FVER DE DATE IS A TEDES

to come before Congress of the LTE LIT LUCRes of the PA Act, and I would ask if you could name a spear case where there has been someone in a library & bESIA Der has had their human rights violated based upon the language the PATRIOT Act.

Mr. PITTS. Absolutely. Representative King. This is another inportant point that I welcome the opportunity to dany. The notion that there hasn't been an abuse is the of the most egregious myths about this act. First of all the mere existence of these laws as I said is an abuse. It is a chilling effect on Amencans' rights to get library records. Secondly, in the climate of secrecy under the PATRIOT Act, there is no way that we can know what abuses have occurred. But thirdly we all have, at the ACLU. at Amnesty, the American Library Association, the Bill of Rights, defend committees, the other witnesses here, have all independently received word of abuses.

I got an e-mail last week from a librarian, sir. in Seattle, Washington, who had been approached by the FBI to give a list of all people who had checked out a biography of Osama Bin Laden since Wil Now she had the courage to refuse that. But how are we going to understand our enemy and understand Al Qaeda and the Truth the threat the violent extremism poses if we can't expose Government vulnerability?

MI KING 1 understand your list of allegations, but I wonder if you can give us a specific list of people, individuals with names,

The Cuses that could be looked into by this Committee to see if there actually have been specific cases of violation of the PA1001 A and violations of people's human rights rather than the all prations under your vigorous research standard?

M. Por Su There are a number of people who have been affected Agon, it is difficult to know exactly how many because li

these things. But a number of librarians courageously came to me in Dallas, Texas and I heard from people that they have been approached.

Mr. KING. Could I ask you, Mr. Pitts, to present that list to this Committee? Would you provide that information about specific cases?

Mr. PITTS. I did mention a couple before the Dallas City Council when we had a bill of rights defense committee resolution on this subject. Toby Baldwin is the name of one librarian, for example, who experienced a request.

Mr. KING. Has that been looked into, do you know? Is that factual or is it an allegation at this point?

Mr. PITTS. No. We know that lots of librarians have been approached for records. Often the PATRIOT Act is not formallyChairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pitts, let me follow through on the probable cause thing, because they shout probable cause in a criminal investigation, you have to have probable cause that a crime has been committed. Is that not right.

Mr. PITTS. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SCOTT. And under the FISA warrant, you only have to have probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign government and you are trying to get foreign intelligence which may be criminal or not, is that right?

Mr. PITTS. That is correct. And a key point is that the PATRIOT Act, reduces that standard even further in ways that have not yet, I think, been realized by the public at large.

Mr. SCOTT. You mean, like the probable cause is the agent of foreign government and a substantial reason for the wiretap is foreign intelligence, but it may not be the main reason, so you could be talking about something that is not even a crime, that is not even the primary reason you are getting the wiretap.

Mr. PITTS. That is right. That is the problem with one of theMr. SCOTT. So when they shout probable cause, you have to listen very carefully because it is not probable cause that any crime is even being alleged as part of the reason for the wiretap?

Mr. PITTS. Exactly.

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned 100 deaths, 27 homicides. What is the status of those? How many have been arrested in those homicides? Mr. PITTS. I am going to let Ms. Pearlstein address that.

Ms. PEARLSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. And thank you, Mr. Pitts. The status of many of those cases remains unclear because of the level of secrecy surrounding the investigations, the individual investigations. But to the extent they are known, there have been some prosecutions within the context of the military justice system and those are welcome.

The record, however, is completely inadequate, that is to say, there are deaths, gruesome deaths, to be frank, that have occurred in U.S. custody, people who have been tortured to death. Their stories to some extent have appeared on the front pages of the paper. And to date, no one, no individual has been held criminally or otherwise liable for those deaths. So, not only is this a challenge for