Counterterrorism Blog

The United States Department of State issues an annual report concerning religious freedom in countries around the world. The report for 2004, issued in September of last year, designated eight countries as countries of �particular concern.� Saudi Arabia was one of those countries because, according to the official State Department report, there is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. In fact, the government of Saudi Arabia engages in particularly severe violations of religious freedom.

That information is notably disturbing. It is especially so in view of the recent Freedom House report identifying significant infiltration of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi religious hate literature in US mosques.

These issues, among many others, were discussed today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing entitled �Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror.� Terrorism expert and fellow CT Blog contributor Steve Emerson testified at that hearing. In Steve�s submitted written testimony, he noted in detail issues related to religious persecution within Saudi Arabia.

In December of last year, President Bush signed into law the Intelligence Reform Act. That law covered many issues. Sandwiched near the middle of the bill were a few short but very important provisions, Sections 5501 � 5506, that amended the Immigration and Nationality Act. Those amendments made it easier for the US Government to deny visas and entry to, and remove, aliens who engaged in human rights persecution, modern-day war crimes and certain aliens (foreign government officials) who engaged in �particularly severe violations of religious freedom.�

There are legal definitions of such violations, found at the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, Title 22 US Code, Section 6402; however, these are the criteria the State Department utilizes in preparing its annual religious freedom reports. The immigration enforcement provisions enhanced by the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act are administrative/civil in nature and may be applied retroactively, so acts committed before December of 2004 are potentially subject to their enforcement provisions.

These little known changes in our immigration law are potentially powerful tools in the US Government�s arsenal in the war on terror. Terrorists are arguably human rights violators. Religious persecution within the Muslim world is not uncommon, as clearly demonstrated by the State Department report. Iran happens to be another country so identified. Government officials in such countries who engage in such activities may well also be involved in supporting radical Islamic terrorists and their organizations. Saudi clerics, for instance, are on the government payroll and routinely issue sermons and �fatwas� supporting violent jihad against the West, against Jews and Israel and in support of terrorist attacks against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such religious persecution could contribute within those Muslim countries to the radical Islamic �anti-infidel� mindset that so often breeds violence beyond those countries.

The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement) now have the legal authority to take aggressive enforcement action against foreign government officials who have engaged in such religious persecution activities. In fact, even such former foreign government officials who perhaps have otherwise already found their way into the US could be targeted for removal enforcement action under these statutes. And that could even include arrest and detention pending those removal proceedings.

But so far there appears to be little indication that Federal authorities have taken aggressive enforcement action against such foreign religious persecutors, especially any from Saudi Arabia. In fact, after the 2004 State Department report, the Secretary of State issued a 180-day �reprieve� for Saudi Arabia to give the Kingdom an opportunity to try to improve its act. Right.

While that SecState order would apply to any State Department actions such as visa denials, it would not necessarily apply to any enforcement actions DHS could take such as exclusion from entry or removal enforcement. Given the close relationship Saudi Arabia seemingly enjoys with this Administration in certain counter-terrorism and other matters, taking strong enforcement action against Saudi government officials might be problematic for the gumshoe Feds.

That said, religious persecution, like human rights persecution, is something America should hardly tolerate. Congress has enacted specific and strong immigration laws dealing with foreign nationals who engage in religious persecution. Should those laws be ignored? Especially when the violators may also be linked to supporting terrorism?

As noted in a Blog post by Andy Cochran yesterday, a new State Department religious freedom report is supposed to be issued today and that report is supposed to again blast the Saudis for particularly severe violations of religious freedom. Seemingly, the �carrot� approach to the Kingdom is not working. Quite arguably people, especially government officials, who persecute anyone because of religious beliefs, should not be rewarded but should instead, perhaps, be punished in some meaningful manner. Maybe it is time to try the solid enforcement �stick� approach in this matter. At least the Senate Judiciary Committee seems to be paying attention.