While Congress continues to debate the National Security Agency’s program of warrantless wiretapping, another form of government scrutiny has largely escaped public notice. A growing number of private companies are now screening potential customers against a government watch-list of suspected terrorists. Financial institutions, credit bureaus, charities, landlords and even employers are checking names against the list — a trend on a collision course with civil rights. This watch-list, maintained by the Treasury
April 20, 2006
By Shirin Sinnar
Mercury News
Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), now numbers more than 5,000 names. Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, federal agencies began blocking the assets of hundreds of people and groups believed to be associated with terrorism, and adding them to the OFAC list. Most people on the list have never set foot in the United States. But because many names on the list are common Muslim or Latino names, people in this country with similar names are increasingly getting snagged.
A Roseville couple recently found that out the hard way at a local fitness store. When they attempted to buy a treadmill on a financing plan, a Wells Fargo representative told the salesperson that the couple would have to wait 72 hours while they were investigated. The reason? The husband’s first name was Hussein. He is a U.S. citizen who has lived here more than 30 years, but because others named Hussein — like Saddam — are on the list, he had to be “cleared.”
Similarly, a Chicago resident discovered the watch-list when he went to an auto dealership to purchase a used car. At the top of his credit report, a salesman noticed a reference to an “OFAC search” — followed by the names of terrorists, including Osama bin Laden. Apparently, the customer’s last name, Muhammad — one of the most common names in the world — had triggered false matches to the watch-list, because the individuals named on the credit report had Muhammad as their middle name.
One wonders what would have happened had this man applied for a job or sought to rent an apartment using the same credit report. How many nervous employers or landlords would have simply turned him down, scared off by the alarming reference to terrorists? The prospect of lost opportunities for jobs or homes is very real, as more employers and landlords begin checking not just credit reports but also the OFAC list itself — most with very little understanding of what the list means.
Why are companies screening people against the list? While some, like financial institutions, are required to do so by the government, most businesses face no such requirement. But because the law prohibits anyone in the United States from doing business with people on the list, theoretically any company or individual could be fined for a transaction with a blacklisted person. No one is suggesting, just yet, that the corner grocery sift through 5,000 names before selling a gallon of milk. But the government’s failure to limit name-checking to high-risk industries leaves risk-averse businesses to adopt their own measures to ward off potential penalties.
This lack of guidance from the government has its costs, and not just for individuals. Businesses encounter steep costs from adopting screening programs. Worse, charities are encumbered in their ability to help those in need. U.S. charities are now advised by the Treasury Department to check the OFAC list before giving aid. Imagine the Red Cross telling a tsunami-ravaged villager in Indonesia that before she can get a blanket, she must provide her name, date of birth and place of birth, and then wait three days to be cleared of being a terrorist.
The problem is compounded by the mistakes in the list itself. According to a report by the Sept. 11 Commission staff, OFAC listed several individuals whom it later removed because investigators could not show that they were connected to terrorism. Two Somali-Americans endured 10 months of economic deprivation and public stigma before being removed from the OFAC list.
What should be done? First, the government should immediately set up a means to investigate and resolve complaints from Americans who are mistakenly flagged by OFAC screening. Second, OFAC should clearly limit watch-list-screening to those industries, and sectors within industries, where there is a serious risk of funding terrorism. And third, OFAC should address the civil liberties problems raised in placing people on the list in the first place.
Until then, every Hussein, Muhammad or Carlos in America will remain a target simply for having the “wrong” name.
SHIRIN SINNAR is an attorney and Equal Justice Works Fellow at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, where she leads the Project on Post-9/11 Discrimination.
Source: Mercury, April 20, 2006
