tagged w/ ACLU
-
Thirty-six hours might not seem like much time. But we are hoping it will be just enough time for all Americans to convince our members of Congress that no president should have the authority to order the military to detain civilians without charge or trial in the United States, or put anyone in our country on trial in front of military commissions.
Using indefinite military detention of civilians here at home in the United States is unconstitutional and illegal and we do not believe it is permitted by last year's National Defense Authorization Act — but incredibly, some top members of Congress seem to think it is perfectly ok and allowed by the NDAA. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has kept himself busy in the Senate arguing that there is a war going on in your backyard and using the military to lock people up without charge or trial is a good idea. He has been more recently joined by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), who believes in indefinite military detention without charge or trial here at home.
But now is your chance to fight back. No one should be picked up far from a battlefield and locked away without charge or trial by the military, and certainly not here in the United States itself.
Some key members of the House of Representatives are putting party differences aside and are trying to make clear that last year's law doesn't permit indefinite military detention within the United States. They can't fix the problem for the whole world right now, but they are committed to making clear that the United States is off-limits to indefinite military detention. They also want to make clear that military commissions cannot be used for civilians in the United States.
On Thursday afternoon or Friday, a bipartisan group of congressmen will offer the Smith-Amash amendment to this year's NDAA. They range from Tea Party-endorsed Republicans to senior Democrats, including Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Paul Garamendi (D-Calif.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), and many others from both parties. And a broad range of groups, from the ACLU to the Gun Owners of America to the United Methodist Church have endorsed it.
By working across party lines, the Smith-Amash amendment could pass the House of Representatives this week. But supporters of indefinite military detention are playing lots of tricks to try to defeat it. They even stuck a so-called habeas protection amendment into the NDAA, even though the habeas provision does absolutely nothing. They are so hell-bent on putting people into indefinite military detention without charge or trial that they will try to deceive even their own constituents.
But don't be fooled. You can use the next 36 hours to push the Smith-Amash amendment across the finish line to a winning vote.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress realized that the only way to fight back against indefinite military detention would be to work together on the Smith-Amash amendment. But the only way this amendment will actually pass this week is if everyone, regardless of party, emails or calls their member of Congress, and says it is time to start fixing the NDAA. It is time to pass the Smith-Amash amendment and make clear that civilians in the United States can only be imprisoned after charge and trial in our civilian courts, and not for anyone who the government decides should be locked away by the military without even being charged. Let's make the most of these 36 hours.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/36-hours-left-tell-congress-pass-smith-amash-amendment-ndaaThirty-six hours might not seem like much time. But we are hoping it will be just... more
-
-
A federal court ruled this Wednesday that David House will after all, have his day in court, despite the government's attempts to get the case dismissed. US customs agents had detained House, confiscated his laptop, thumb drive, and digital camera, and held on to the equipment for 49 days. He was also detained and questioned for over 90 minutes about his relationship with Bradley Manning, his work on the support network, and any association with Wikileaks. He argues that his first and fourth amendment rights were violated, as this was politically motivated. House joins the show to discuss
http://youtu.be/MMSN_qc3BqYA federal court ruled this Wednesday that David House will after all, have his day in... more
-
-
As it is--- the public education system across the South and possibly the nation is at best an “apartheid” public education system that seemingly draws its inspiration from “Slavery by Another Name” and is better at feeding the prison-industrial complex than graduating students, especially minority students. The condition may be best explained by academic publications such as “The Rope, the Chair, and the Needle: Capital Punishment in Texas, 1923-1990.”As it is--- the public education system across the South and possibly the nation is at... more
-
-
Enter a very unlikely source to teach us about our rights: actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the Gregory Brothers. Perhaps, Levitt isn't such an unlikely source to give a civics lesson after all. He's becoming increasingly visible with social and political issues and recently released a hilarious video poking fun at conservatives.
http://veracitystew.com/2012/02/09/note-to-police-my-camera-my-phone-my-rights-video/Enter a very unlikely source to teach us about our rights: actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt... more
-
-
Did America INTENTIONALLY set out to MURDER this American Teen? The Obama Administration refuses to say yes he was the target or no he was not the target. Have we stooped so low as a nation that we ALLOW the Government to murder our children without DEMANDING answers?
http://youtu.be/8CqsZoSB4IsDid America INTENTIONALLY set out to MURDER this American Teen? The Obama... more
-
-
The ACLU yesterday filed a lawsuit against various agencies of the Obama administration — the Justice and Defense Departments and the CIA — over their refusal to disclose any information about the assassination of American citizens. In October, the ACLU filed a FOIA request demanding disclosure of the most basic information about the CIA’s killing of 3 American citizens in Yemen: Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan, killed by missiles fired by a U.S. drone in September, and Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, killed by another drone attack two weeks later.
The ACLU’s FOIA request sought merely to learn the legal and factual basis for these killings — meaning: tell us what legal theories you’ve adopted to secretly target U.S. citizens for execution, and what factual basis did you have to launch these specific strikes? The DOJ and CIA responded not only by refusing to provide any of this information, but refused even to confirm if any of the requested documents exist; in other words, as the ACLU put it yesterday , “these agencies are saying the targeted killing program is so secret that they can’t even acknowledge that it exists.” That refusal is what prompted yesterday’s lawsuit (in December, the New York Times also sued the Obama administration after it failed to produce DOJ legal memoranda “justifying” the assassination program in response to a FOIA request from reporters Charlie Savage and Scott Shane, but the ACLU’s lawsuit seeks disclosure of both the legal and factual bases for these executions).
Full Story: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/aclu_sues_obama_administration_over_assassination_secrecy/singleton/The ACLU yesterday filed a lawsuit against various agencies of the Obama... more
-
-
Today we filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act to demand that the government release basic — and accurate — information about the government’s targeted killing program.
Our government’s deliberate and premeditated killing of American terrorism suspects raises profound questions that ought to be the subject of public debate. Unfortunately the Obama administration has released very little information about the practice — its official position is that the targeted killing program is a state secret — and some of the information it has released has been misleading.
Our suit overlaps with the one recently filed by The New York Times insofar as it seeks the legal memos on which the targeted killing program is based. But our suit is broader. We’re seeking, in addition to the legal memos, the government’s evidentiary basis for strikes that killed three Americans in Yemen in the fall of 2011. We’re also seeking information about the process by which the administration adds Americans to secret government “kill lists.” We think it’s crucial that the administration release the legal memos, but we don’t think the memos alone will allow the public to evaluate the lawfulness and wisdom of the program.
We know something about the fall 2011 strikes from media reports. On September 30, the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) jointly carried out the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen born in New Mexico, using missiles fired from unmanned drones in Yemen. A second U.S. citizen, Samir Khan, was killed in the same attack. Two weeks later, Anwar al-Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman, a 16-year-old U.S. citizen born in Colorado, was killed in another U.S. drone strike elsewhere in Yemen. The administration has not adequately explained the legal basis for these strikes, and it has not explained the factual basis, either.
Soon after the fall 2011 strikes, we submitted a FOIA request to the CIA, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice (DOJ). Three months later, we have yet to receive a single document in response. Outrageously, the CIA and the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel responded by refusing to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to our request. Essentially, these agencies are saying the targeted killing program is so secret that they can’t even acknowledge that it exists.
This response is incredible, in the original sense of that word—it simply lacks credibility. The press has reported since early 2010 that Anwar al-Awlaki had been placed on “kill lists” maintained by the CIA and JSOC, and articles have discussed in detail the secret process by which he was placed there. After the killings of the three U.S. citizens last fall, newspapers reported extensive details about the strikes, including how the CIA and JSOC coordinated and the number of drones involved. The Times described a “secret” OLC memo that lays out the Administration’s legal justifications for placing al-Awlaki on the kill lists and killing him. Much of the reporting was based on statements by government officials, albeit officials who were unwilling to be quoted for attribution.
Some officials, including President Obama, have spoken on the record about the program. They have publicly claimed responsibility for killing al-Awlaki, and they have more generally defended the government’s right to kill citizens after a secret non-judicial process. Just last week, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta acknowledged on 60 Minutes that the U.S. can and does carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens subject to the recommendations of the CIA Director and the Secretary of Defense and pursuant to the President’s authorization. And this week, President Obama publicly defended the CIA targeted killing program in a live internet interview [starts at minute 26:30].
The government’s self-serving attitude toward transparency and disclosure is unacceptable. Officials cannot be allowed to release bits of information about the targeted killing program when they think it will bolster their position, but refuse even to confirm the existence of a targeted killing program when organizations like the ACLU or journalists file FOIA requests in the service of real transparency and accountability. One news report indicates that the Obama administration may be planning to release more information about the targeted killing program. Let’s hope that’s true. The public has a right to know the evidence and legal basis for the deliberate targeted killing of U.S. citizens. So chilling a power must be opened to public scrutiny and debate.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/aclu-sues-us-information-targeted-killing-programToday we filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act to demand that the... more
-
-
Huff Post...
.
Jessica Ahlquist, Teenage Atheist, Wins Case To Remove Prayer Banner From Cranston High School
First Posted: 1/14/12 08:47 AM ET Updated: 1/14/12 04:55 PM ET
By Kimberly Winston
Religion News Service
.
(RNS) A federal judge ruled Wednesday (Jan. 11) in favor of a teenage atheist who sought the removal of a prayer banner from her Rhode Island high school.
Attorneys for Jessica Ahlquist, 16, argued that a banner on display in Cranston High School West's auditorium titled "School Prayer" and addressing "Our Heavenly Father" is a violation of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's 1962 decision banning state-mandated prayer in school.
Lawyers for the school district argued that the banner had hung in the school since the 1960s and was more secular than sacred.
U.S. District Judge Ronald Lagueux disagreed and ruled that the banner should be removed immediately. He also upbraided school officials for holding community meetings about the mural that "at times resembled a religious revival." At one meeting, several school officials read from the Bible or declared their faith. Ahlquist needed a police escort to leave one meeting.
"I am hopeful that this case can be looked back on in the future and encourage others to stand up for their rights as well," Ahlquist said from the Providence office of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented her.
Ahlquist had to leave Cranston High School West due to threats, but said she is considering a return.
Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State hailed the ruling as "a 40-page slam dunk."
Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, praised Ahlquist. "She fought for the rights of nonbelievers and religious minorities and is an example for everyone."
.Huff Post...
.
Jessica Ahlquist, Teenage Atheist, Wins Case To Remove Prayer... more
-
-
The new year has just begun and we've already got our first big challenge. On New Year's Eve, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. It contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. And it has no time or geographic limits. It can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.
Despite initial assurances that he would veto this outrageous bill, President Obama will now be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.
He signed it. Now, we have to fight it wherever we can and for as long as it takes.
Make it clear you won't rest until this outrage is reversed. Sign the ACLU's pledge to fight worldwide indefinite detention for as long as it takes.
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.
With your help, we will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally. If you believe that no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this President or any future president misusing this new detention authority, now is the time to act.
Commit to fighting indefinite detention for as long as it takes. Sign the ACLU pledge right now.
Now more than ever, the defense of freedom is up to us. Let's prove that we're up to the task.
For freedom,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director, ACLU
...Because freedom can't protect itself.
i hope you all can find time to sign thank you
G.M.FiggThe new year has just begun and we've already got our first big challenge. On New... more
-
-
The American Civil Liberties Union has issued "Liberty Watch 2012," its report card for presidential candidates on issues like surveillance, torture, gay rights and immigration. No one gets an A, including President Obama.
Obama, the only Democrat among the 10 candidates rated, got a perfect score - four "torches" - on only one issue, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, for his backing of the December 2010 law that repealed "don't ask, don't tell."
But he received lower marks on immigration, abortion rights and "closing Guantanamo Bay and indefinite detention," where his one-torch rating was attributed to backtracking on a promise to shut the prison for suspected terrorists and his support for holding their trials in military commissions.
'Surveillance state'
The ACLU gave Obama a zero rating in the category of "ending a surveillance state," citing his support for renewing the search and surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act.
The ACLU has praised Obama for banning torture and closing secret CIA prisons, but says he has refused to hold government wrongdoers accountable. The organization has gone to court on behalf of alleged victims of illegal wiretapping and CIA abductions during the Bush administration, lawsuits that Obama's Justice Department says threaten state secrets.
The nonprofit civil liberties group is officially nonpartisan and does not endorse political candidates. Its report focuses on issues of government power and minority rights that attract little attention in most presidential elections.
GOP candidates
The survey gave low ratings to most of the Republican hopefuls, marks they might want to trumpet in Tuesday's Iowa caucuses to appeal to conservatives who consider the ACLU a fighting word. Three candidates - Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann - received zero torches in all seven categories.
Romney, the ACLU noted, has endorsed Arizona's "show us your papers" immigration law, called for doubling the size of Guantanamo, backed waterboarding of terrorism suspects and supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Santorum wants criminal prosecution of doctors who perform abortions, the survey said, and Bachmann has proposed amending the Constitution to eliminate citizenship rights for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Fellow Republicans Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were given zeros on all issues but immigration, where both men's statements opposing wholesale deportations have angered hard-liners and have been seen as liabilities in the primary campaign.
Gingrich, the ACLU said, supports allowing youngsters brought to the United States by their parents to earn the right to citizenship by serving in the armed forces. The ACLU noted that Perry opposed a U.S.-Mexico border fence, said Arizona's immigration law "would not be the right direction for Texas," and signed a bill as governor in 2001 granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants attending college.
Both candidates were given two torches on the issue, same as Obama. The president supports a path to citizenship for undocumented youths who enter the military or college, and he has challenged the Arizona law in court. But his administration increased deportations to record levels and expanded Secure Communities, which requires local authorities to forward arrestees' fingerprints to the federal government for immigration checks.
Highest ranking
The highest overall rating went to former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a Republican-turned-Libertarian, who opposes the Patriot Act and - unlike Obama - supports the right of gays and lesbians to marry. Among the leading Republican candidates, libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul also got a higher score than Obama despite low ratings in several categories.
The ACLU gave the Texas congressman high marks for opposing the Patriot Act and indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, condemning waterboarding and voting to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." But it criticized Paul's call for an end to "birthright citizenship" for children of illegal immigrants, his support of the law that denies federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples and his opposition to abortion.
Obama, endorsed by abortion-rights groups in 2008, was given three torches on "reproductive choice" by the ACLU, which cited his support for federal funding of Planned Parenthood and family-planning programs but also his bowing to Republican demands to ban funding for poor women's abortions in Washington, D.C., as part of legislation to prevent a government shutdown.
Obama also accepted restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion in the national health care law that passed in 2010.
Report card link
The survey can be viewed at www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/01/MNND1MJ7UO.DTL#ixzz1iQEHXZUT
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/01/MNND1MJ7UO.DTLThe American Civil Liberties Union has issued "Liberty Watch 2012," its... more
-
-
-
By Stephen C. Webster
Saturday, December 31, 2011
President Barack Obama signed on New Year’s Eve a bill that gives the military authority to detain American citizens indefinitely and without criminal charge, breaking with the stroke of a pen one of his many campaign promises, even as he pledged that the new powers the bill grants will not be applied to U.S. citizens.
The provision was just one part of a massive $662 billion defense spending authorization that funds the military, penalizes Iran’s central bank and freezes military aid to Pakistan, among other things.
The president’s opponents in Congress, including some Democrats, attached the indefinite detention provision to force the administration to either accept a much heavier load of terrorism suspects, many who would be heading to the Guantanamo Bay military prison, or veto the bill and stand accused of opposing funds for the troops.
President Obama issued a veto threat after a provision was added that required all terrorism suspects be automatically rendered into military custody — a fundamental change to the criminal justice system that members of the administration warned could stymie other agencies or put investigations at risk.
Obama agreed to sign it after language was left in the bill that allows the administration to dedicate terror prisoners to civilian courts instead of military custody. In its final form, the bill stipulates that all terrorism suspects are to be handled by the military unless the administration decides otherwise and explains its reasoning to Congress.
“My administration will not authorize the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens,” President Obama said in a signing statement, a tactic presidents occasionally use to clarify how they interpret laws. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”
Obama went on to explain that as he understands the indefinite detention provision, his administration is being given “broad authority to determine how best to implement it,” which he said would be used to ensure American citizens are exempt.
“I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat,” Obama wrote.
“As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention.”
The signing statement, while likely a relief to some of the president’s more liberal allies, will not assuage all criticism. As one writer for the progressive blog FireDogLake pointed out, future administrations may interpret the law differently, applying a wholly new standard of who should or should not be held in military custody.
“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, explained in a media advisory. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”
“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” he added. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/31/obama-pledges-to-exempt-americans-from-indefinite-detention-law/
"You folks think this Guy deserves another 4 Years???"By Stephen C. Webster
Saturday, December 31, 2011
President Barack Obama signed on... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
5 months ago
- |
-
As alleged ‘Wikileak-er’ Pfc. Bradley Manning faces his highly anticipated hearing this week, the government will face its own hearing today in a suit brought by the ACLU’s Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology and the ACLU of Massachusetts on behalf of a co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network, David HouseAs alleged ‘Wikileak-er’ Pfc. Bradley Manning faces his highly anticipated... more
-
-
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at ACLU, said Wednesday night that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 was still highly problematic despite changes to the bill.
“It was an awful bill before and it is an awful bill now,” he told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.
Provisions within the legislation would authorize the U.S. to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists anywhere in the world without charge or trial, and require them to be held in military custody. Civil liberties advocates and others were furious at lawmakers for the broad scope of the provision, which could have allowed U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to be indefinitely detained without trial.
Obama threatened to veto the entire bill because of the provisions, which he said were “inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”
The latest version of the bill, drafted by the House-Senate conference committee, kept the provisions. But it exempted U.S. citizens from the requirement for terror suspects to be held in military custody and included language stating that the bill did not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens.
Due to the changes, the White House announced Wednesday it would not veto the bill.
“It is a bill that would make permanent as an American law this fixture of worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial, it is a bill that would further militarize counter-terrorism policy, it is a bill that would make it harder to close Guantanamo,” Jaffer added.
“It has all the problems that we identified earlier and it is really quite astonishing and disappointing that President Obama is withdrawing his veto threat.”
“This theory that we have indefinite detention authority, the power to detain people picked up anywhere in the world without charge or trial until the end of hostilities — whatever that means — that is a power that many other countries are uncomfortable with and that many people in the United States are uncomfortable with,” he added.
“Even the Obama administration we thought was uncomfortable with it, until today, but apparently President Obama was willing to go to bat for presidential power.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/14/aclu-deputy-legal-director-ndaa-still-awful-despite-changes/
Watch video, courtesy of MSNBC...
"BO has some nerve thinking he will be elected for another 4 years, or is he now a Dictator, you decide!!!"By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
6 months ago
- |
-
FLORENCE, S.C. (CN) - A family says a public school district is unconstitutionally promoting Christianity, brazenly requiring students to attend "an evangelical revival assembly to 'save' students" by coming to Jesus, and telling a father who complained about it that he "needed to get right with God."FLORENCE, S.C. (CN) - A family says a public school district is unconstitutionally... more
-
-
On Sunday, court officials at the Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center warned me, Denver Post reporter Wes Gentry and the occupation's internal legal team that we would not be allowed to bring in notebooks, bags or cell phones; we were asked to put those items in our cars or in a cubby inside the lobby. In place of this, court reps told us we could each bring in a pen and a sheet of paper. Upon using them, however, we were individually asked to stop any note-taking or be required to leave the courtroom. Occupy Denver's protester-packed legal force resorted to scratching newly raised bond rates into paper with their fingernails
The decision was unexpected, and though it is unlikely to be repeated, the group's lawyers say, the ACLU of Colorado chose to address it definitively in a letter sent yesterday to the presiding judge of the Denver County Court. In addition to requesting records relating to police force, investigating the removal of protester property and stopping by the occasional Occupy Denver event, Colorado ACLU representatives have stepped into the occupation's First Amendment ring once more. (Read more about the legal precedents involved in the letter below.)
"We request that you take all necessary steps to ensure that Judge Hoffman, and any other Denver County Court judge who has adopted a similar prohibition, immediately cease such unconstitutional restrictions on public access to the courtroom," ACLU attorney Sara Rich writes. "In addition, we respectfully request that you respond to our concerns on or before December 2, 2011, and describe what actions you have taken to ensure compliance with the First Amendment protected right of access to criminal trials in Denver County courtrooms."
In all, the restriction on recording materials in court is just the latest in a string of events that has escalated gradually since the group's first collective visit to courtroom 2300. For the past two weeks, part-time magistrate John Hoffman has refused to hear any arguments on bail set at $750. Thus we must immediately accepting the city's bond recommendation, most recently $200 higher than it was only two weeks before.
The result quickly depletes the funds of the group's legal team, fronted and financially supported by the Denver Anarchist Black Cross. After court on Sunday, the group was short more than $400 needed to bail out all of its twenty arrestees, and protester Corey Donahue's most recent stint in jail lasted from Sunday to Wednesday before funds were raised to bail him out. At present, three protesters remain in jail: Jonathan Shepard, Victor Jaime and Robert Huffman.
.http://tinyurl.com/834xhxwOn Sunday, court officials at the Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center warned me, Denver... more
-
-
LOrion
-
added this
-
6 months ago
- |
-
The ACLU uncovers an FBI program that pairs Census data with "crude stereotypes" to map ethnic communities... New documents obtained by the ACLU show that the FBI has for years been using Census data to “map” ethnic and religious groups suspected of being likely to commit certain types of crimes.
Much is still not known about the apparent large-scale effort in racial profiling, partly because the documents the ACLU obtained through public records requests are heavily redacted.
The FBI maintains that the mapping program is designed to “better understand the communities that are potential victims of the threats,” but the ACLU says it is plainly unconstitutional.
To learn more about the FBI program, its implications for civil liberties and the questions that remain unanswered, I spoke to Michael German, policy counsel at the ACLU’s Washington office and a former FBI agent.
What is the new information that has come to light here?
In 2008, the FBI’s guidelines were changed to create a new category of investigations called assessments, which required no factual predicate. The FBI’s policy in implementing those changes were released around 2010 and showed the FBI was engaged in a program called “domain management,” which included mapping and gathering intelligence on racial and ethnic communities. We were concerned about the program, so we filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests across the country and we now have documents that indicate what the FBI has been doing with this new authority. Clearly they have been engaging in crass racial stereotyping of minority groups are linked to certain types of crime, and then using Census information to map entire communities based on their race or ethnicity.
When you say “map,” what does that actually look like in practice?
It’s hard for us to know because all the maps were heavily redacted. It’s clear they are maps. They are using Census data in order to identify anybody who identifies with a certain race or ethnicity. In the Detroit memo, it’s based on adherence to Muslim faith or Middle Eastern origin. The purpose of the program is to identify these communities where the FBI can then conduct intelligence or law enforcement investigations.
So what sort of crimes have they linked to various racial groups?
There was a San Francisco memo that suggested because there was Chinese organized crime, there should be a domain management collection program to identify the entire Chinese community in the San Francisco area. That memo also included an effort to target the Russian-American community. There was an Atlanta FBI memo that purported to analyze the black separatist threat. It documented the population growth of blacks in Georgia as part of the assessment. It also identified a couple of actual organizations, but in the information, what is reported is their First Amendment activities: their appearances at different protests and at a congressional campaign event.
Is the ACLU arguing here that this program is unconstitutional?
Yes, we feel it is unconstitutional — and in many cases actually violates the Department of Justice guidance regarding the use of race in federal law enforcement. That guidance purports to ban racial profiling in ordinary law enforcement investigations. The problem is, it has a huge loophole for national security and border integrity investigations. What’s clear from these new documents is that the loophole has swallowed the rule because they are using this program to target communities based on their race in the context of normal criminal activity.
What part of the Constitution does this violate in the ACLU’s view?
It violates the First, Fourth and 14th amendments. This program is entirely targeting communities of people for investigation based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion, denying them equal protection under the law — and also targeting people because of their First Amendment-protected activities. They are then conducting broad suspicionless investigations called assessments, and collecting information in which there are Fourth Amendment concerns that it is unreasonable to conduct such invasive investigations.
One of the documents we released this week is an FBI memo to the field where they discuss what type of information they want collected during assessments. That document shows this isn’t a minimally invasive investigation. It collects a tremendous amount of material so the FBI can build dossiers against people with no reason to believe that they as individuals were involved in any kind of wrongdoing. It also authorizes what it calls a “disruption strategy,” in which, after all the information is collected and the threat is otherwise resolved, the FBI can continue doing other things like performing interviews, arrests and source-directed operations. Back in the Hoover era, the FBI’s COINTELPRO included a disruption strategy that was later found to be aimed at obstructing First Amendment-protected activity. So we have serious concerns about what this new disruption strategy might be doing and who is overseeing it.
When it comes to that Detroit memo about Muslims and terrorism, how do you respond to people who look at this and think, “This is what the FBI should be doing”?
This is racial and religious profiling on an industrial scale. Rather than just stopping an individual based on race, the FBI is identifying an entire community based on race and subjecting them to more intense scrutiny. There are many problems that exist with racial profiling: first that it’s unlawful, but also that it’s ineffective as a methodology because every dollar and every hour of an agent’s time that is spent investigating innocent people is completely wasted. It is also really a dangerous practice because all law enforcement depends on public support to be successful. If they’re alienating entire communities based on race or religion, that is going to be an entirely counter-productive methodology.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/racial_profiling_on_an_industrial_scale/singleton/The ACLU uncovers an FBI program that pairs Census data with "crude... more
-
-
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/justice/georgia-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
CNN...
Troy Davis put to death in Georgia
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 11:56 PM EST, Wed September 21, 2011
Davis case to become global 'scandal'
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Inmate tells victim's family he was not guilty
Troy Davis put to death late Wednesday
U.S. Supreme Court denied stay of execution
The original prosecutor says the facts support Troy Davis' sentence
.
PART ONE...
.
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
.
Jackson, Georgia (CNN) -- Troy Davis, whose case drew international attention, was put to death by lethal injection for the 1989 killing of an off-duty police officer in Savannah, Georgia, prison officials announced Wednesday night.
Davis was defiant to the very end. After he was strapped to the death gurney, he lifted his head to address the family of the slain officer.
He told the family of Mark MacPhail that he was not responsible for the officer's death and did not have a gun at the time, according to execution witnesses.
Davis said the case merited further investigation, talking fast as officials prepared to give him the lethal cocktail.
The execution followed the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of a stay, allowing the state to proceed. Davis was declared dead at 11:08 p.m. ET.
Throughout the day, Davis' lawyers and high-profile supporters had asked the state and various courts to intervene, arguing he did not murder MacPhail in 1989.
Davis initially had been scheduled to die by lethal injection at 7 p.m. ET. But the proceeding was delayed more than three hours as the justices pondered a plea filed by his attorney.
Several hundred people, most of them opposing the proceeding, gathered outside the state prison in Jackson where Davis, 42, awaited his fate. Others held a vigil in a nearby church.
The inmate's sister, Martina Davis-Correia, was among those who held a vigil outside the prison. Before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, she said officials needed to take more time to examine the case. "When you are looking at someone's life, you can't press rewind."
More than 100 officers, many in riot gear, stood guard over the largely-quiet gathering, which featured candles, occasional prayers and songs. At least three people who crossed the street had been taken away in handcuffs.
"Tonight the state of Georgia legally lynched an innocent man," Davis' lawyer Thomas Ruffin Jr. said. "Tonight I witnessed something tragic."
Davis' supporters, who also rallied outside the U.S. Supreme Court building, argued that his conviction was based on the testimony of numerous witnesses who had recanted, including a jailhouse informer who claimed Davis had confessed.
"There's a genuine feeling among people here and across the nation that we're about to do the unthinkable," said Isaac Newton Farris Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
But prosecutors have stood by the conviction, and every appeal -- including the last-minute petitions filed Wednesday -- has failed.
Davis's supporters cheered and hugged each other when news of the earlier delay reached them. But it did not sit well with McPhail's mother, who remained at home.
CONTINUED...
.http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/justice/georgia-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
CNN...... more
-
-
Source: ACLU (via Twitter)
BREAKING: Court allows ACLU challenge to FISA Amendments Act warrantless wiretapping law to proceed http://bit.ly/pBJTbK More soon!
Read more: http://twitter.com/#!/ACLU/status/116540982769623040
"Interesting!!!"Source: ACLU (via Twitter)
BREAKING: Court allows ACLU challenge to FISA Amendments... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
8 months ago
- |
-
Remember when Obama undoing what Bush did and getting back to the Consitution was cool and popular? Turns out Obama has still been as bad as Bush and even worse in some cases.
***
Last week, the top lawyer and 34-year-veteran of the CIA, John Rizzo, explained to PBS' Frontline that Obama has "changed virtually nothing" from Bush policies in these areas, and this week, the ACLU explains that "most [Bush] policies remain core elements of our national security strategy today."
At some point very soon, this basic truth will be impossible to deny with a straight face even for the most hardened loyalists of both parties, each of whom have been eager, for their own reasons, to deny it (and even the two differences cited there, though positive, are wildly exaggerated by Obama defenders: the torture techniques authorized by Bush were no longer in use and the CIA black sites were empty by the time Obama was inaugurated; by contrast, there is ample evidence that the Obama administration continues to use torture by proxy and rendition/CIA-black-sites by proxy as well).
The report is broken down into sections/chapters, and here are a few highlights:
The ACLU then devotes an entire chapter to the way in which immunity for America's torturers -- bestowed jointly by President Obama and a judicial branch meekly deferential to his and Bush's claims of state secrecy -- has contaminated and degraded the entire justice system and made the future reintroduction of torture a virtual inevitability:
This Surveillance State, like most other Bush/Obama Terrorism policies, is justified by a never-ending orgy of fear-mongering. But other than the enrichment of the private Security State industry (see here and here).
A separate chapter is devoted to what the ACLU calls "A Massive and Unchecked Surveillance Society." It explains: "Using Patriot Act authority, the Bush Administration started -- and the Obama Administration has continued -- to conduct wholesale 'preventive' surveillance of innocent Americans without judicial review." And "the result is a national surveillance society in which Americans’ right to privacy is under unprecedented siege." But little is known about exactly what is being done by this purely unaccountable hidden government -- what The Washington Post calls "Top Secret America" -- because of this:
Pointing to that core theory of both presidencies, the ACLU dispatches one of the most misleading claims of Obama defenders: that the President's failure to close Guantanamo is due exclusively to Congressional obstructionism; in fact, long before Congress acted at all with regard to that camp, the President announced his intention to continue its core injustice -- indefinite detention -- albeit in a different locale:
During the Bush era, the actions and condemnations of the ACLU received ample positive attention from progressives. That, of course, is no longer true, and this damning report will likely be ignored in most of those circles, just as this truly remarkable comment from the ACLU's Executive Director has been. And, as usual, anyone urging that attention be paid to these facts will be met with demands that eyes be diverted instead to how scary Sarah Palin Christine O'Donnell Michele Bachmann Rick Perry is, and then this will all blissfully fade away in a cloud of partisan electioneering even with the election more than a year away.
Either way, this creeping unchecked authoritarianism marches forward unabated, and is now -- rather than the province of the right-wing GOP -- fully bipartisan consensus. I really don't understand how progressives think they'll be taken seriously the next time there is a GOP President and they try to resurrect their feigned concern for these matters; they'll be every bit as credible as conservatives who pretend to be deficit-warriors and defenders of restrained government only when the other party is in power.Remember when Obama undoing what Bush did and getting back to the Consitution was cool... more
-
