Does a 'Bad Actors' List Go Too Far?
The financial tool is powerful, but some fear its widening use
The administration's use of these sanctions is finding an increasingly mixed reception on Capitol Hill. Some in Congress complain that the White House has not been aggressive enough in going after Iranians developing weapons of mass destruction or meddling in Iraq. (And word is that Bush is considering designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Council to punish it in part for allegedly funneling explosive devices to militants in Iraq.)
But the new executive orders also worry some lawmakers who feel their targets are defined too broadly. "There is concern that the original focus on al Qaeda and terrorist financing is being lost or diluted by increasing attention to other entities that have not attacked the United States," says a Senate aide. U.S. officials insist that they are merely filling in gaps not covered by previous orders. In the case of Iraq, that means more flexibility to go after supporters of Shiite militias or Sunni insurgents.
Still, humanitarian groups worry about limits on their operations. "If you're giving medicine to a charitable facility and they are treating wounded people, I don't think it's normal to interrogate them before giving them medicine," says Mike German, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "Yet the provision of that medicine could get your organization designated." Treasury officials dispute that scenario. "The targeted sanctions are focusing very narrowly on bad actors," says Szubin. "The responsibility is not on private U.S. persons to figure out who meets these criteria and avoid dealing with them. The government will put out lists of people."
One problem, as a former Treasury official concedes, is that the designation process is "pretty opaque," leaving many puzzled about the criteria. Treasury officials insist they are becoming more open and that designations are carefully reviewed. Yet most evidence is classified. Further, some alleged violators are kept off the list because of competing diplomatic interests. And it is difficult, though not impossible, to get off the list. This year, only 17 individuals or entities did.
Treasury has created an internal appeals process for people to try to clear their names, but lawyers complain that they never see the bulk of the evidence against their clients because the government refuses to declassify it. And in challenges, federal courts have upheld Treasury's decisions. "Courts have taken the position that by designating an entity as a terrorism supporter, you're not accusing them of a crime," says Wendell Belew, a lawyer who represents an association of Islamic charities. "So they don't have rights like presumption of innocence or due process."
The Senate Banking Committee is examining proposals to require an independent arbitrator to oversee appeals, U.S. News has learned. But lawmakers are understandably cautious. Says one staffer, "We want to make sure people aren't being unfairly caught up in some sort of dragnet, but nobody wants to be seen as protecting the rights of people affiliated with terrorist groups."
advertisement
