From RawStory.com:
Disclosure of government secrets often has little to do with the public's right to know and has everything to do an official's need to tell, according to ACLU deputy director Jameel Jaffer.
And that's especially true when it comes to assassinations, which have not traditionally been an openly admitted component of U.S. foreign policy -- but the American Civil Liberities Union is cautioning that the Obama administration is changing all of that.
In an exclusive interview with Raw Story, Jaffer, a key attorney with the rights group, even warned that the Democrat in office has taken a position on unilateral murder so extreme as to be "profoundly troubling" in its legal reach and potential for future use.
"U.S. officials hurt our democracy by withholding information from the courts but then disclosing it to the public whenever it suits their needs," Jaffer wrote in a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed.
For example, the CIA's "targeted killing" program has been shrouded in secrecy for years, but a recent Newsweek interview with former CIA lawyer John Rizzo shed light on the policy.
The "kill list," which Rizzo said he signed off on during his time at the agency, contains about 30 civilians or "unlawful combatants" to be targeted and killed.
In 2010, the ACLU sued the Obama administration after it was leaked that Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, was on the government's "kill list."
"The Predator [drone] is the weapon of choice, but it could also be someone putting a bullet in your head," Rizzo told the magazine.
"It's a radical departure that the administration has taken from historical practice," Jaffer told Raw Story. "The administration has taken the position that it has the authority -- not just in traditional war zones like Afghanistan, but far away from traditional war zones in places like Somalia or Yemen -- to use lethal force against anyone whom the administration concludes is an enemy of the United States."
"To us, that's a profoundly troubling assertion. The reality is that many Americans trust the Obama administration with this power. Even if it's justifiable to trust this administration with that power -- and I'm not sure that it is -- but even if it is justifiable, you have to consider what the next administration will do with this power. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to come up with a scenario where a power like this could be abused," he said...
Exclusive: Obama has taken a ‘profoundly troubling’ position on assassinations, ACLU tells Raw
David Edwards
Thursday, April 7th, 2011
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/exclusive-obama-has-taken-a-profoundly-troubling-position-on-assassinations-aclu-tells-raw/
Showing posts with label American Civil Liberties Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Civil Liberties Union. Show all posts
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Group probes TSA’s ‘manipulation’ of opt-out protests
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/bob-barr-probe-manipulation-tsa-opt-protest/
Group probes TSA’s ‘manipulation’ of opt-out protests
Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010
The public interest group Liberty Guard filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Transportation Security Administration Monday to determine why many airport imaging scanners were reportedly shut down and roped off on November 24th, the day of a planned "opt out protest."
"We'd like to think that the TSA has been listening to citizens concerned about being given a choice between naked imaging or pat down searches of people’s private parts," former Congressman Bob Barr, the Chairman of Liberty Guard, said. "If this is the indeed the case, we’d like to commend the TSA for applying a bit of common sense to the controversial situation. However, it's far more likely the reason was political and we think the public should be made aware of the motivations of our country's security chiefs."
In a nationwide protest dubbed the "National Opt-Out Day," those upset with invasive new security procedures asked others to join their plan to opt-out of full body scans and undergo a physical pat-down in public view, in hopes of creating delays and endless complications for security agents. The protest was scheduled for November 24th, one of the busiest travel days of the year.
Numerous news reports declared the protest against the new screening procedures a bust, noting short wait times at airport security checkpoints.
"What some protesters threatened as an opt out day has turned into a TSA appreciation day," the agency boasted on its blog.
But reports from travelers and local news sources suggest that at some of the busiest airports in the US the TSA backed down and resorted to using the old screening procedures, such as metal detectors and less-intrusive pat-downs.
"We'd like to know if we can expect a policy shift from the TSA or if they were merely attempting to shut down the public outcry regarding their search procedures," Joe Seehussen, President of Liberty Guard said.
The Freedom of Information Act request also seeks any government documents that contain the following terms: national opt-out day, Bob Barr, Opt Out Alliance, Liberty Guard, John Tyner, domestic extremists, drudgereport.com, Matt Drudge, prisonplanet.com, Alex Jones, and "any other term or proper name germane to the aforementioned terms and matter."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says it has received over 900 complaints from travelers over the last month who've been subjected to the new screening procedures.
"The TSA agent used her hands to feel under and between my breasts," one woman said. "She then rammed her hand up into my crotch until it jammed into my pubic bone."
About 70 airports have put into use over 400 backscatter x-ray machines that can see beneath passengers' clothing. If the ticket-holder refuses the scan due to health or privacy concerns, they're subjected to an invasive physical pat-down. The new body scanners and pat down procedure have both received intense scrutiny amid reports of travelers feeling humiliated and traumatized.
Liberty Guard says the new security procedures are a violation of the 4th Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizure.
Group probes TSA’s ‘manipulation’ of opt-out protests
Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, December 1st, 2010
The public interest group Liberty Guard filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Transportation Security Administration Monday to determine why many airport imaging scanners were reportedly shut down and roped off on November 24th, the day of a planned "opt out protest."
"We'd like to think that the TSA has been listening to citizens concerned about being given a choice between naked imaging or pat down searches of people’s private parts," former Congressman Bob Barr, the Chairman of Liberty Guard, said. "If this is the indeed the case, we’d like to commend the TSA for applying a bit of common sense to the controversial situation. However, it's far more likely the reason was political and we think the public should be made aware of the motivations of our country's security chiefs."
In a nationwide protest dubbed the "National Opt-Out Day," those upset with invasive new security procedures asked others to join their plan to opt-out of full body scans and undergo a physical pat-down in public view, in hopes of creating delays and endless complications for security agents. The protest was scheduled for November 24th, one of the busiest travel days of the year.
Numerous news reports declared the protest against the new screening procedures a bust, noting short wait times at airport security checkpoints.
"What some protesters threatened as an opt out day has turned into a TSA appreciation day," the agency boasted on its blog.
But reports from travelers and local news sources suggest that at some of the busiest airports in the US the TSA backed down and resorted to using the old screening procedures, such as metal detectors and less-intrusive pat-downs.
"We'd like to know if we can expect a policy shift from the TSA or if they were merely attempting to shut down the public outcry regarding their search procedures," Joe Seehussen, President of Liberty Guard said.
The Freedom of Information Act request also seeks any government documents that contain the following terms: national opt-out day, Bob Barr, Opt Out Alliance, Liberty Guard, John Tyner, domestic extremists, drudgereport.com, Matt Drudge, prisonplanet.com, Alex Jones, and "any other term or proper name germane to the aforementioned terms and matter."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says it has received over 900 complaints from travelers over the last month who've been subjected to the new screening procedures.
"The TSA agent used her hands to feel under and between my breasts," one woman said. "She then rammed her hand up into my crotch until it jammed into my pubic bone."
About 70 airports have put into use over 400 backscatter x-ray machines that can see beneath passengers' clothing. If the ticket-holder refuses the scan due to health or privacy concerns, they're subjected to an invasive physical pat-down. The new body scanners and pat down procedure have both received intense scrutiny amid reports of travelers feeling humiliated and traumatized.
Liberty Guard says the new security procedures are a violation of the 4th Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizure.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
by Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse
Sun Jul 04, 2010
Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.
And this is why:
(Reasons below the fold)
::
No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."
First Amendment:
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Ninth Amendment:
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Tenth Amendment:
...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.
We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.
But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.
We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.
And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.
If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?
But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?
Wrong.
The United States Militia Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.
Everyone else. Individuals. The People.
The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.
And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.
No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.
But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.
Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?
Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.
And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.
Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.
No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.
When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.
Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?
Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.
Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.
And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.
Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.
They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.
But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.
No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.
Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.
Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.
The Second Amendment is obsolete?
What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?
It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."
And you'd be right.
What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?
Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.
And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.
And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.
No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.
To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.
The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.
We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.
And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.
So.
What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.
No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."
This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.
This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)
This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.
This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.
Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.
Because we are revolutionaries.
Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
by Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse
Sun Jul 04, 2010
Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.
And this is why:
(Reasons below the fold)
::
No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."
First Amendment:
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Ninth Amendment:
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Tenth Amendment:
...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.
We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.
But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.
We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.
And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.
If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?
But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?
Wrong.
The United States Militia Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.
Everyone else. Individuals. The People.
The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.
And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.
No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.
But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.
Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?
Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.
And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.
Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.
No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.
When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.
Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?
Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.
Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.
And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.
Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.
They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.
But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.
No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.
Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.
Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.
The Second Amendment is obsolete?
What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?
It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."
And you'd be right.
What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?
Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.
And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.
And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.
No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.
To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.
The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.
We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.
And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.
So.
What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.
No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."
This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.
This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)
This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.
This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.
Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.
Because we are revolutionaries.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Obama praises torture ruling
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ACLU_Hope_flickering_on_torture_after_0204.html
After Obama praises torture ruling, civil liberties group appalled
John Byrne
Wednesday February 4, 2009
'Hope is flickering,' ACLU declares
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has generally been harshly critical of President George W. Bush and praiseworthy of President Barack Obama, has fired a torpedo across the Obama bow.
After the British High Court ruled that evidence of a British resident's rendition and harsh interrogation at the Pentagon's Guantanamo Bay prison must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama Administration offered a terse statement seemingly expressing support to the BBC.
"The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens," a spokesman said.
In response, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, shot off a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the Obama Administration to clarify their position. Romero also issued a sharply-worded three sentence statement to the press, saying Obama has now offered "more of the same."
"Hope is flickering," Romero said in a statement. "The Obama administration's position is not change.. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."
The ACLU called on Clinton to "reject the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs."
Romero's letter to Clinton follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 4, 2009
The Honorable Hillary Clinton
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520
Re: Clarification Requested on Position of the United States on Blocking Disclosure by a British Court of Its Report on Allegations of Torture
Dear Secretary Clinton:
The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to clarify the position of the United States on the publication of the full judgment in a lawsuit brought by a Guantanamo detainee, Binyam Mohamed, in a British court. Earlier today, the High Court in Great Britain published a judgment denying publication of its report detailing allegations of torture. The High Court stated that the United States had threatened that full publication of the court's judgment would jeopardize intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Remarkably, the court reported that the British government claimed the U.S. position had not changed, despite the inauguration of President Barack Obama. We urgently request that you clarify the position of the United States in this matter.
Two of the British justices severely criticized the position of the United States in working to block publication of the judgment in the torture case. Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones stated today that: Indeed, we did not consider that a democracy [the United States] governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be. We had no reason ... to anticipate there would be made a threat of the gravity of the kind made by the United States Government that it would reconsider its intelligence-sharing relationship, when all the considerations in relation to open justice pointed to us providing a limited but important summary of the reports.
The court's opinion specifically stated that attorneys for British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the court that the United States' threat on the effect of publication on intelligence cooperation was continued by the United States, despite the inauguration of President Obama.
Specifically, the justices stated that, "it was submitted to us by Mr. David Rose that the situation had changed significantly following the election of President Obama who was avowedly determined to eschew torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to close Guantanamo Bay. We have, however, been informed by counsel for the Foreign Secretary that the position has not changed."
The claims made by the British justices that the United States continues to oppose publication of the judgment in the Binyam Mohamed case--to the point of threatening the future of U.S.-British intelligence cooperation--seems completely at odds with both the anti-torture and transparency executive orders signed by the President. We strongly urge you to clarify the position of the United States and remove any threat related to the publication of the court's full judgment.
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
cc: Joan Donoghue, Acting Legal Adviser
After Obama praises torture ruling, civil liberties group appalled
John Byrne
Wednesday February 4, 2009
'Hope is flickering,' ACLU declares
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has generally been harshly critical of President George W. Bush and praiseworthy of President Barack Obama, has fired a torpedo across the Obama bow.
After the British High Court ruled that evidence of a British resident's rendition and harsh interrogation at the Pentagon's Guantanamo Bay prison must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama Administration offered a terse statement seemingly expressing support to the BBC.
"The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens," a spokesman said.
In response, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, shot off a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the Obama Administration to clarify their position. Romero also issued a sharply-worded three sentence statement to the press, saying Obama has now offered "more of the same."
"Hope is flickering," Romero said in a statement. "The Obama administration's position is not change.. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."
The ACLU called on Clinton to "reject the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs."
Romero's letter to Clinton follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 4, 2009
The Honorable Hillary Clinton
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520
Re: Clarification Requested on Position of the United States on Blocking Disclosure by a British Court of Its Report on Allegations of Torture
Dear Secretary Clinton:
The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to clarify the position of the United States on the publication of the full judgment in a lawsuit brought by a Guantanamo detainee, Binyam Mohamed, in a British court. Earlier today, the High Court in Great Britain published a judgment denying publication of its report detailing allegations of torture. The High Court stated that the United States had threatened that full publication of the court's judgment would jeopardize intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Remarkably, the court reported that the British government claimed the U.S. position had not changed, despite the inauguration of President Barack Obama. We urgently request that you clarify the position of the United States in this matter.
Two of the British justices severely criticized the position of the United States in working to block publication of the judgment in the torture case. Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones stated today that: Indeed, we did not consider that a democracy [the United States] governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be. We had no reason ... to anticipate there would be made a threat of the gravity of the kind made by the United States Government that it would reconsider its intelligence-sharing relationship, when all the considerations in relation to open justice pointed to us providing a limited but important summary of the reports.
The court's opinion specifically stated that attorneys for British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the court that the United States' threat on the effect of publication on intelligence cooperation was continued by the United States, despite the inauguration of President Obama.
Specifically, the justices stated that, "it was submitted to us by Mr. David Rose that the situation had changed significantly following the election of President Obama who was avowedly determined to eschew torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to close Guantanamo Bay. We have, however, been informed by counsel for the Foreign Secretary that the position has not changed."
The claims made by the British justices that the United States continues to oppose publication of the judgment in the Binyam Mohamed case--to the point of threatening the future of U.S.-British intelligence cooperation--seems completely at odds with both the anti-torture and transparency executive orders signed by the President. We strongly urge you to clarify the position of the United States and remove any threat related to the publication of the court's full judgment.
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
cc: Joan Donoghue, Acting Legal Adviser
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Judge: Wikileaks gets its domain name back
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9883240-38.html
February 29, 2008
Judge: Wikileaks gets its domain name back
Posted by Declan McCullagh
Public Citizen attorney Paul Levy, who had asked to intervene in the case on behalf of Wikileaks, speaks to reporters outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco after the judge hands down his ruling.
SAN FRANCISCO--Wikileaks is getting its domain name back.
After spending more than three hours hearing arguments from a raft of attorneys--two representing the Swiss bank that fought to get the site's plug pulled and about 10 who have been trying to get the site back online--a federal judge here has ruled in favor of Wikileaks.
Wikileaks, which uses Wikileaks.org as its primary domain, is a whistle-blowing site that focuses on posting leaked documents.
"The court denies the motion for preliminary injunction, and the court hereby dissolves the injunction against (domain name registrar) Dynadot, and the litigation may now proceed," said U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, who had called a brief recess around 11:40 a.m. PST, indicating that he was inclined to revisit his order from earlier this month that effectively pulled the plug on the Wikileaks.org domain name.
White said he will issue a written order very soon and added that he is skeptical that an injunction would survive free-speech scrutiny: "There are serious questions about prior restraint, possible violations of the First Amendment, which the court can make no definitive findings about at this point."
"The court has the obligation to get it right," White had told attorneys for Bank Julius Baer, or BJB, earlier Friday. "I took an obligation to uphold the Constitution. The court has its own obligation to raise these issues. Contrary to what you say, my obligation is to look down the road and see where this thing is going."
From the bank's perspective, it sued Wikileaks in federal court in California because the registrar, Dynadot, is located here. (Wikileaks alleges that the documents in question show that the bank supports the "ultrarich's offshore tax avoidance, tax evasion, asset hiding, and money laundering.")
But a host of free-speech groups, including Public Citizen, the California First Amendment Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Project on Government Oversight, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, requested to intervene in the case on behalf of Wikileaks.
They threw down a series of legal land mines against BJB, including that Wikileaks can't be sued in a U.S. court by a foreign company because it consists of foreigners; that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prevents any action against Dynadot; that the First Amendment prohibits an overly broad attack against a Web site just to delete a subset of pages; that Dynadot cannot refuse to transfer the domain name to another registrar; and so on.
Some of the filings amounted to an implicit criticism of White, who granted the allegedly First Amendment-problematic order in the first place. So the first thing White did on Friday was defend himself--more to the half dozen reporters in the back of the room than to the attorneys.
"The parties need to understand, and those in this courtroom need to understand, the status of this case," White said. "This is a case in which we had a (dispute) with named parties, and the parties were duly served. One of which properly responded and came to this court with a proposed settlement in this lawsuit...Nobody filed any timely responses to the court's order."
While giving his ruling, White explained that the case is properly in his jurisdiction, in part because the domain name holder, an Australian citizen living in Kenya, sent an attorney to court Friday.
One attorney for BJB said there were no First Amendment problems, invoking a U.S. Supreme Court precedent dealing with an intercepted conversation played by a radio station because, "We allege, your honor, that Wikileaks has actively solicited the theft of private information...they are participants in the illegality."
BJB also said, "We're talking about private banking information, account numbers, personal numbers like Social Security numbers...all this is private information that's not newsworthy... None of the publishers here today would want their own banking information posted on the Internet."
The judge's preruling reply: "Let me play devil's advocate here. Is it newsworthy if some prominent citizen is... evading taxes, laundering funds? Wouldn't that be something in the public interest?"
Topics: Censorship, Corruption
Tags: Wikileaks, privacy
February 29, 2008
Judge: Wikileaks gets its domain name back
Posted by Declan McCullagh
Public Citizen attorney Paul Levy, who had asked to intervene in the case on behalf of Wikileaks, speaks to reporters outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco after the judge hands down his ruling.
SAN FRANCISCO--Wikileaks is getting its domain name back.
After spending more than three hours hearing arguments from a raft of attorneys--two representing the Swiss bank that fought to get the site's plug pulled and about 10 who have been trying to get the site back online--a federal judge here has ruled in favor of Wikileaks.
Wikileaks, which uses Wikileaks.org as its primary domain, is a whistle-blowing site that focuses on posting leaked documents.
"The court denies the motion for preliminary injunction, and the court hereby dissolves the injunction against (domain name registrar) Dynadot, and the litigation may now proceed," said U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, who had called a brief recess around 11:40 a.m. PST, indicating that he was inclined to revisit his order from earlier this month that effectively pulled the plug on the Wikileaks.org domain name.
White said he will issue a written order very soon and added that he is skeptical that an injunction would survive free-speech scrutiny: "There are serious questions about prior restraint, possible violations of the First Amendment, which the court can make no definitive findings about at this point."
"The court has the obligation to get it right," White had told attorneys for Bank Julius Baer, or BJB, earlier Friday. "I took an obligation to uphold the Constitution. The court has its own obligation to raise these issues. Contrary to what you say, my obligation is to look down the road and see where this thing is going."
From the bank's perspective, it sued Wikileaks in federal court in California because the registrar, Dynadot, is located here. (Wikileaks alleges that the documents in question show that the bank supports the "ultrarich's offshore tax avoidance, tax evasion, asset hiding, and money laundering.")
But a host of free-speech groups, including Public Citizen, the California First Amendment Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Project on Government Oversight, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, requested to intervene in the case on behalf of Wikileaks.
They threw down a series of legal land mines against BJB, including that Wikileaks can't be sued in a U.S. court by a foreign company because it consists of foreigners; that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prevents any action against Dynadot; that the First Amendment prohibits an overly broad attack against a Web site just to delete a subset of pages; that Dynadot cannot refuse to transfer the domain name to another registrar; and so on.
Some of the filings amounted to an implicit criticism of White, who granted the allegedly First Amendment-problematic order in the first place. So the first thing White did on Friday was defend himself--more to the half dozen reporters in the back of the room than to the attorneys.
"The parties need to understand, and those in this courtroom need to understand, the status of this case," White said. "This is a case in which we had a (dispute) with named parties, and the parties were duly served. One of which properly responded and came to this court with a proposed settlement in this lawsuit...Nobody filed any timely responses to the court's order."
While giving his ruling, White explained that the case is properly in his jurisdiction, in part because the domain name holder, an Australian citizen living in Kenya, sent an attorney to court Friday.
One attorney for BJB said there were no First Amendment problems, invoking a U.S. Supreme Court precedent dealing with an intercepted conversation played by a radio station because, "We allege, your honor, that Wikileaks has actively solicited the theft of private information...they are participants in the illegality."
BJB also said, "We're talking about private banking information, account numbers, personal numbers like Social Security numbers...all this is private information that's not newsworthy... None of the publishers here today would want their own banking information posted on the Internet."
The judge's preruling reply: "Let me play devil's advocate here. Is it newsworthy if some prominent citizen is... evading taxes, laundering funds? Wouldn't that be something in the public interest?"
Topics: Censorship, Corruption
Tags: Wikileaks, privacy
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Is the lame duck daffy?
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2917.shtml
Is the lame duck daffy?
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Feb 5, 2008
Of all the Looney Tunes we’ve lived through in two terms of Bush, the lame duck’s daffiness has reached a new level of strange. Now we have Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring. According to the lame duck directive, in addition to spying on other countries, the NSA (National Security, read Spy, Agency) will now focus on US government agencies. As cartoonist Signe Wilkinson wrote and drew, now we are One Nation, Under Surveillance.
The run-amok duck carried off this spy hunt, quacking at an increase in cyber attacks directed against the US, possibly from foreign countries. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI, if not Odious) will lead the hunt to get at the source of these attacks. Our trusty Department of Homeland Insecurity and Pentagon will be looking at retaliation. Would that sort of be like Cheney mistakenly shotgunning his friend at a duck hunt?
The above Washington Post story broke the news of the Bush-led joint directive, which is, of course, classified. And, of course, it will cost billions of dollars. As if our cup isn’t empty enough, Daffy is now slurping at the 2009 budget when he will be gone but certainly not forgotten.
As it is, US citizens are presently under a historically potent spying machine. It raised its sights not just on suspected criminals, but allowed for wiretapping the phone calls of Mr., Mrs., Miss, and Junior’s America, and warrant-free. The government is also pouring more money into specialized computers from the likes of Cray, The Supercomputer Company. They can search through enormous databases at lightening speed. Welcome to the future!
Of course, our not-so-lame, daffy duck-in-chief cites cyber attacks against the various departments of State, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security as the rationale to expand NSA’S spyware even more. The Post reports that “US officials and cyber-security experts have said Chinese Web sites were involved in several of the biggest attacks back in 2005, including some of the country’s nuclear-energy labs and large defense contractors.” Naturally, our protectors at the Pentagon and Home Security will be operating with the power to counter-strike attackers.
But whether the actual culprits are rogue attackers or real nations would be very difficult to prove. And the possibility for a disastrous mistake is reasonably high. Also, the rest of the world hasn’t formed any agreed upon rules of cyber war, though that hasn’t stopped Ducks Are Us from throwing away the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo or the Constitution for the USAPATRIOT Act. But that’s not all, folks!
Daffy asked Congress to help Verizon and AT&T better spy on us
In his last (thank god) State of the Union Address (a sure cure for insomnia), Daffy asked for broader protection for telecom carriers to dig into our phone calls and emails, expanding warrantless surveillance programs to communications beyond our borders with the help of AT&T and Verizon. This is part of the Protect America Act and bears the same relation to protecting us as the Clean Air Act did to keeping our air clean or the No Child Left Behind Act did in leaving most kids behind for lack of adequate funding.
The name of a Bush act always has an opposite purpose. In this case, the Protect America Act gives the NSA more clout to violate our privacy for the purported cause of nailing suspected “terrorists” without getting a court warrant first. And who knows who could be suspected and/or for what reason. Hey, it’s secret stuff and secret is secret.
But rest assured. Our lame duck said, “To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning.” And “last year, Congress passed legislation [Protect America Act] to help us do that. Unfortunately, Congress set the legislation to expire on Feb 1. This means that if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorists’ threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted.” Well, those “terrists” sure seem to have us by the short hairs.
In fact, Congress had three ways to go after its first try that failed to reach a 60-vote majority to stop debate and force a vote on two wiretapping-related proposals, one Republican-favored the other Democrat-desired, the last the right way to go.
Congress’ three ways to go
One: Renew last August’s law, the Protect America Act, for 30 days. This would seemingly have given both sides more wiggle room, though sooner or later they’d have to live with some version of it. Dems favored this, but Daffy threatened a veto on a temporary extension. Yet, on Jan. 31, he signed a 15-day extension passed by Congress.
Two: Renew a reworked version of the PAA for good and protect telecom companies from legal consequences of any illegal acts they committed. Daffy loved this, and he had a minority of Dems ready to bow to him. If Decider Duck had his wish, the retroactive protection would have a bunch of pending lawsuits against telecom companies, i.e. Verizon and AT&T, especially the latter’s case before the 9th circuit court of appeals, thrown out.
Three: Let the PAA, known too as the pro-privacy option (backed by the ACLU and others), expire. This group reasons: “The Patriot Act dramatically expanded police eavesdropping powers in 2001, and there’s no pressing need to go further. The Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) has worked for decades, and has long included emergency no-court-order-required wiretaps as long as proper procedures are followed.” Three cheers for that!
Senate Majority Leader Henry Reid and most Dems favored option one, figures. The Repugs wanted two, and put the heat on to get it through, especially Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. He wanted the Intelligence Committee version that went beyond immunizing telecom companies. It would have also retroactively protected (if you can believe it) email providers, search engines, Internet service providers and instant-messaging service.
Meanwhile, the house changed the bill to make it a 15-day extension instead of 30-day one, and the bill passed by voice vote. It moved quickly and was flipped to the Senate.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) took to the floor last Tuesday and urged others to vote against any extension to the Protect America Act. His reasoning: 1) the administration’s bill was bad law in the first place and brought home the lesson to never pass legislation under ‘duress brought on by propaganda, misinformation, and fear mongering,’ 2) surveillance authorized under the PAA would continue even if the law lapsed, and 3) it wouldn’t improve the Dems’ negotiating position.” Now there’s a smart guy for you!
Nevertheless, the Protect America act may not be a dead duck yet. Of course, Bush insists that he won’t sign new FISA legislation unless it grants the telecom companies immunity for aiding and abetting his illegal spying ops and turning over millions of people’s individual records to the government.
Yet the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has relentlessly battled Bush and his various duck spying blinds, advises “fix the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) not make it worse. We must preserve the protections and the checks and balances in the Constitution against government abuses of power that violate our rights and values.”
The ACLU 2008 Yearly Plan also includes stopping USAPATRIOT Act abuses, protecting the freedom of expression and the right to protest, resisting the use of torture and rendition, restoring the right of habeas corpus, preserving religious liberty, reproductive freedom and LGBT rights, maintaining free elections, and fighting for racial justice and opposing discrimination. If you can, after you write a check to Online Journal, send one to the ACLU via http://www.aclu.org/. Both groups are in your corner every day. “That’s All Folks” for now.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.
Is the lame duck daffy?
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Feb 5, 2008
Of all the Looney Tunes we’ve lived through in two terms of Bush, the lame duck’s daffiness has reached a new level of strange. Now we have Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring. According to the lame duck directive, in addition to spying on other countries, the NSA (National Security, read Spy, Agency) will now focus on US government agencies. As cartoonist Signe Wilkinson wrote and drew, now we are One Nation, Under Surveillance.
The run-amok duck carried off this spy hunt, quacking at an increase in cyber attacks directed against the US, possibly from foreign countries. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI, if not Odious) will lead the hunt to get at the source of these attacks. Our trusty Department of Homeland Insecurity and Pentagon will be looking at retaliation. Would that sort of be like Cheney mistakenly shotgunning his friend at a duck hunt?
The above Washington Post story broke the news of the Bush-led joint directive, which is, of course, classified. And, of course, it will cost billions of dollars. As if our cup isn’t empty enough, Daffy is now slurping at the 2009 budget when he will be gone but certainly not forgotten.
As it is, US citizens are presently under a historically potent spying machine. It raised its sights not just on suspected criminals, but allowed for wiretapping the phone calls of Mr., Mrs., Miss, and Junior’s America, and warrant-free. The government is also pouring more money into specialized computers from the likes of Cray, The Supercomputer Company. They can search through enormous databases at lightening speed. Welcome to the future!
Of course, our not-so-lame, daffy duck-in-chief cites cyber attacks against the various departments of State, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security as the rationale to expand NSA’S spyware even more. The Post reports that “US officials and cyber-security experts have said Chinese Web sites were involved in several of the biggest attacks back in 2005, including some of the country’s nuclear-energy labs and large defense contractors.” Naturally, our protectors at the Pentagon and Home Security will be operating with the power to counter-strike attackers.
But whether the actual culprits are rogue attackers or real nations would be very difficult to prove. And the possibility for a disastrous mistake is reasonably high. Also, the rest of the world hasn’t formed any agreed upon rules of cyber war, though that hasn’t stopped Ducks Are Us from throwing away the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo or the Constitution for the USAPATRIOT Act. But that’s not all, folks!
Daffy asked Congress to help Verizon and AT&T better spy on us
In his last (thank god) State of the Union Address (a sure cure for insomnia), Daffy asked for broader protection for telecom carriers to dig into our phone calls and emails, expanding warrantless surveillance programs to communications beyond our borders with the help of AT&T and Verizon. This is part of the Protect America Act and bears the same relation to protecting us as the Clean Air Act did to keeping our air clean or the No Child Left Behind Act did in leaving most kids behind for lack of adequate funding.
The name of a Bush act always has an opposite purpose. In this case, the Protect America Act gives the NSA more clout to violate our privacy for the purported cause of nailing suspected “terrorists” without getting a court warrant first. And who knows who could be suspected and/or for what reason. Hey, it’s secret stuff and secret is secret.
But rest assured. Our lame duck said, “To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning.” And “last year, Congress passed legislation [Protect America Act] to help us do that. Unfortunately, Congress set the legislation to expire on Feb 1. This means that if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorists’ threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted.” Well, those “terrists” sure seem to have us by the short hairs.
In fact, Congress had three ways to go after its first try that failed to reach a 60-vote majority to stop debate and force a vote on two wiretapping-related proposals, one Republican-favored the other Democrat-desired, the last the right way to go.
Congress’ three ways to go
One: Renew last August’s law, the Protect America Act, for 30 days. This would seemingly have given both sides more wiggle room, though sooner or later they’d have to live with some version of it. Dems favored this, but Daffy threatened a veto on a temporary extension. Yet, on Jan. 31, he signed a 15-day extension passed by Congress.
Two: Renew a reworked version of the PAA for good and protect telecom companies from legal consequences of any illegal acts they committed. Daffy loved this, and he had a minority of Dems ready to bow to him. If Decider Duck had his wish, the retroactive protection would have a bunch of pending lawsuits against telecom companies, i.e. Verizon and AT&T, especially the latter’s case before the 9th circuit court of appeals, thrown out.
Three: Let the PAA, known too as the pro-privacy option (backed by the ACLU and others), expire. This group reasons: “The Patriot Act dramatically expanded police eavesdropping powers in 2001, and there’s no pressing need to go further. The Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) has worked for decades, and has long included emergency no-court-order-required wiretaps as long as proper procedures are followed.” Three cheers for that!
Senate Majority Leader Henry Reid and most Dems favored option one, figures. The Repugs wanted two, and put the heat on to get it through, especially Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. He wanted the Intelligence Committee version that went beyond immunizing telecom companies. It would have also retroactively protected (if you can believe it) email providers, search engines, Internet service providers and instant-messaging service.
Meanwhile, the house changed the bill to make it a 15-day extension instead of 30-day one, and the bill passed by voice vote. It moved quickly and was flipped to the Senate.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) took to the floor last Tuesday and urged others to vote against any extension to the Protect America Act. His reasoning: 1) the administration’s bill was bad law in the first place and brought home the lesson to never pass legislation under ‘duress brought on by propaganda, misinformation, and fear mongering,’ 2) surveillance authorized under the PAA would continue even if the law lapsed, and 3) it wouldn’t improve the Dems’ negotiating position.” Now there’s a smart guy for you!
Nevertheless, the Protect America act may not be a dead duck yet. Of course, Bush insists that he won’t sign new FISA legislation unless it grants the telecom companies immunity for aiding and abetting his illegal spying ops and turning over millions of people’s individual records to the government.
Yet the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has relentlessly battled Bush and his various duck spying blinds, advises “fix the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) not make it worse. We must preserve the protections and the checks and balances in the Constitution against government abuses of power that violate our rights and values.”
The ACLU 2008 Yearly Plan also includes stopping USAPATRIOT Act abuses, protecting the freedom of expression and the right to protest, resisting the use of torture and rendition, restoring the right of habeas corpus, preserving religious liberty, reproductive freedom and LGBT rights, maintaining free elections, and fighting for racial justice and opposing discrimination. If you can, after you write a check to Online Journal, send one to the ACLU via http://www.aclu.org/. Both groups are in your corner every day. “That’s All Folks” for now.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
RV Users Kicked Off Voting Rolls
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/rv-users-kicked-off-voting-rolls/20071106153109990001
RV Users Kicked Off Voting Rolls
By BILL POOVEY,AP
CLEVELAND, Tenn. (Nov. 6) - When your home is the open road, where do you register to vote?
A total of 286 people who live full-time in their recreational vehicles were dropped from the voter rolls in one Tennessee county over the past two years because they did not have a genuine home address, only a mailbox. That has left them unable to vote in national or local elections.
What happened in Tennessee may be an extreme case, but an Associated Press review of laws and policies across the nation found that election officials sometimes make it difficult for the nation's thousands of devoted RVers to cast a ballot.
Tennessee and Montana, for example, do not allow voters to list a commercial address, such as a mailbox service, unless they live there. Florida requires a permanent, stationary home address, but gives election officials some leeway. In Texas, thousands of RVers had their right to vote challenged in federal court, though they ultimately won.
"Americans should not be disqualified from voting because of their lifestyle choice to travel," said Hedy Weinberg, director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Tennessee, which went to federal court Tuesday to challenge the purge of RVers in Tennessee's rural Bradley County. "For our state and election commission to purge them from the list is unfair and is unconstitutional and flies in the face of our democracy as we know it."
But some elections officials say that voters should have a real connection to the place where they are casting ballots, and that RVers are registering in certain states simply to avoid taxes. Some of them rarely, if ever, set foot in those states.
Many RV full-timers are registered in one of nine states that have no general personal income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. (The RVers are still subject to federal taxes.)
The 286 RV full-timers dropped from the rolls in Bradley County listed their home address as that of a mail-forwarding service in Cleveland, Tenn., called Mail Call U.S.A., which charges $120 a year to receive, maintain and forward mail. The purge began after Tennessee tightened the residency law in 2005.
David Ellis, the former Bradley County Election Commission director who started removing full-time RVers, said they have no connection to the area and are simply "dodging their responsibility to pay their fair share" of taxes.
Mail Call U.S.A. owner Alan Pinney said he has lost many customers. "They call up and say, 'We are not going to renew our service. We are going to South Dakota or somewhere else,'" Pinney said.
Full-time RVers roam the country, often spending a few weeks at a time at RV campgrounds, state parks or friends' homes, where they can arrange to pick up their mail. Often, they pull over for the night in shopping center parking lots.
The Census says more than 105,000 Americans live full-time in RVs, boats or vans, though one RV group says the number is more like half a million. Because of their nomadic ways, pinning down their number with any certainty is difficult.
Similarly, it is hard to say exactly how many full-time RVers are unable to vote, since those who are turned down in one state can presumably go to another more willing to register them.
Some of the Bradley County RVers hold Tennessee driver's licenses and register their vehicles in Tennessee. But they otherwise have no permanent presence in the state.
Mike Bruner, 61, and his wife, Christine, have been living in an RV full-time since selling their home in Missouri in 1999. He was recently dropped from Tennessee's voter rolls after buying a mailbox in Bradley County in 2002 and using that address to vote in the 2004 presidential election.
Bruner acknowledged Tennessee's lack of an income tax was part of the attraction. But "I am a veteran and I fought for the freedom to vote," he said.
Bruner said he and his wife visit Tennessee probably twice a year and have come here to renew their driver's licenses.
Tennessee "in essence really gains from our choosing the state to be our home state," he said. "They gain the taxes we pay, sales taxes and revenues from new licenses plates and insurance also comes in there. We actually don't do any negative drag on the infrastructure of the state."
Another voter kicked off the rolls in Tennessee, retired Washington, D.C., policeman John T. Layton, sold his Maryland home in 2004 and signed up with Mail Call U.S.A.
Layton, 69, said his son and grandchildren live in Chattanooga. He said he wanted an income tax-free state, but never imagined he would lose his chance to cast a ballot. "I did research to make sure I have a constitutional right to vote," he said.
There is no national standard for voter residency. Many places require a genuine physical address or some intent to become a permanent resident. But the rules differ from state to state, in some cases from county to county.
The actual decision is often left up to a county election official.
"We're independent election officials. That gives us that final word," said Pat Hollarn, who as supervisor of elections for Okaloosa County, Fla., allows some RVers to register if they are not on the rolls elsewhere.
A federal judge in Texas sided with more than 9,000 RV full-timers in 2000 when county officials challenged their eligibility to vote. The RVers used a mail-forwarding service.
Their attorney, Larry York, said the judge appeared to be convinced that the RVers had nowhere else to vote. "If not here, where?" York said.
In South Dakota, Minnehaha County Auditor Sue Roust said many full-time RVers are registered in her state, and often list campgrounds as their home address, with as many as 1,100 of them at one site in Sioux Falls.
"A big concentration of RVers can throw an election," she said.
In Polk County, Texas, Tax Assessor Marion "Bid" Smith said a large number of RVers are registered in the rural community about 75 miles from Houston — enough to "swing an election, really" — even though some don't even visit once a year.
"I don't have a problem with it," he said. "Those people deserve to vote somewhere."
Doug Lewis, director of the National Association of Election Officials, predicted the RVers in Tennessee would win in court, noting that homeless people have been allowed to say they live under a bridge.
"If the voter says they are not registered anywhere else and not trying to vote anywhere else, historically they win those cases," Lewis said.
Sue Bray, a spokeswoman for the Ventura, Calif.-based Good Sam Club, which calls itself the world's largest RV owners organization, said there needs to be some kind of a national registration policy on RVers.
"They definitely are picking on the wrong crowd," she said. "You can't find a more patriotic, involved kind of group."
Associated Press writers April Castro in Austin, Texas; Matt Gouras in Helena, Mont.; and David Royse in Tallahassee, Fla., contributed to this report.
RV Users Kicked Off Voting Rolls
By BILL POOVEY,AP
CLEVELAND, Tenn. (Nov. 6) - When your home is the open road, where do you register to vote?
A total of 286 people who live full-time in their recreational vehicles were dropped from the voter rolls in one Tennessee county over the past two years because they did not have a genuine home address, only a mailbox. That has left them unable to vote in national or local elections.
What happened in Tennessee may be an extreme case, but an Associated Press review of laws and policies across the nation found that election officials sometimes make it difficult for the nation's thousands of devoted RVers to cast a ballot.
Tennessee and Montana, for example, do not allow voters to list a commercial address, such as a mailbox service, unless they live there. Florida requires a permanent, stationary home address, but gives election officials some leeway. In Texas, thousands of RVers had their right to vote challenged in federal court, though they ultimately won.
"Americans should not be disqualified from voting because of their lifestyle choice to travel," said Hedy Weinberg, director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Tennessee, which went to federal court Tuesday to challenge the purge of RVers in Tennessee's rural Bradley County. "For our state and election commission to purge them from the list is unfair and is unconstitutional and flies in the face of our democracy as we know it."
But some elections officials say that voters should have a real connection to the place where they are casting ballots, and that RVers are registering in certain states simply to avoid taxes. Some of them rarely, if ever, set foot in those states.
Many RV full-timers are registered in one of nine states that have no general personal income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. (The RVers are still subject to federal taxes.)
The 286 RV full-timers dropped from the rolls in Bradley County listed their home address as that of a mail-forwarding service in Cleveland, Tenn., called Mail Call U.S.A., which charges $120 a year to receive, maintain and forward mail. The purge began after Tennessee tightened the residency law in 2005.
David Ellis, the former Bradley County Election Commission director who started removing full-time RVers, said they have no connection to the area and are simply "dodging their responsibility to pay their fair share" of taxes.
Mail Call U.S.A. owner Alan Pinney said he has lost many customers. "They call up and say, 'We are not going to renew our service. We are going to South Dakota or somewhere else,'" Pinney said.
Full-time RVers roam the country, often spending a few weeks at a time at RV campgrounds, state parks or friends' homes, where they can arrange to pick up their mail. Often, they pull over for the night in shopping center parking lots.
The Census says more than 105,000 Americans live full-time in RVs, boats or vans, though one RV group says the number is more like half a million. Because of their nomadic ways, pinning down their number with any certainty is difficult.
Similarly, it is hard to say exactly how many full-time RVers are unable to vote, since those who are turned down in one state can presumably go to another more willing to register them.
Some of the Bradley County RVers hold Tennessee driver's licenses and register their vehicles in Tennessee. But they otherwise have no permanent presence in the state.
Mike Bruner, 61, and his wife, Christine, have been living in an RV full-time since selling their home in Missouri in 1999. He was recently dropped from Tennessee's voter rolls after buying a mailbox in Bradley County in 2002 and using that address to vote in the 2004 presidential election.
Bruner acknowledged Tennessee's lack of an income tax was part of the attraction. But "I am a veteran and I fought for the freedom to vote," he said.
Bruner said he and his wife visit Tennessee probably twice a year and have come here to renew their driver's licenses.
Tennessee "in essence really gains from our choosing the state to be our home state," he said. "They gain the taxes we pay, sales taxes and revenues from new licenses plates and insurance also comes in there. We actually don't do any negative drag on the infrastructure of the state."
Another voter kicked off the rolls in Tennessee, retired Washington, D.C., policeman John T. Layton, sold his Maryland home in 2004 and signed up with Mail Call U.S.A.
Layton, 69, said his son and grandchildren live in Chattanooga. He said he wanted an income tax-free state, but never imagined he would lose his chance to cast a ballot. "I did research to make sure I have a constitutional right to vote," he said.
There is no national standard for voter residency. Many places require a genuine physical address or some intent to become a permanent resident. But the rules differ from state to state, in some cases from county to county.
The actual decision is often left up to a county election official.
"We're independent election officials. That gives us that final word," said Pat Hollarn, who as supervisor of elections for Okaloosa County, Fla., allows some RVers to register if they are not on the rolls elsewhere.
A federal judge in Texas sided with more than 9,000 RV full-timers in 2000 when county officials challenged their eligibility to vote. The RVers used a mail-forwarding service.
Their attorney, Larry York, said the judge appeared to be convinced that the RVers had nowhere else to vote. "If not here, where?" York said.
In South Dakota, Minnehaha County Auditor Sue Roust said many full-time RVers are registered in her state, and often list campgrounds as their home address, with as many as 1,100 of them at one site in Sioux Falls.
"A big concentration of RVers can throw an election," she said.
In Polk County, Texas, Tax Assessor Marion "Bid" Smith said a large number of RVers are registered in the rural community about 75 miles from Houston — enough to "swing an election, really" — even though some don't even visit once a year.
"I don't have a problem with it," he said. "Those people deserve to vote somewhere."
Doug Lewis, director of the National Association of Election Officials, predicted the RVers in Tennessee would win in court, noting that homeless people have been allowed to say they live under a bridge.
"If the voter says they are not registered anywhere else and not trying to vote anywhere else, historically they win those cases," Lewis said.
Sue Bray, a spokeswoman for the Ventura, Calif.-based Good Sam Club, which calls itself the world's largest RV owners organization, said there needs to be some kind of a national registration policy on RVers.
"They definitely are picking on the wrong crowd," she said. "You can't find a more patriotic, involved kind of group."
Associated Press writers April Castro in Austin, Texas; Matt Gouras in Helena, Mont.; and David Royse in Tallahassee, Fla., contributed to this report.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Torture Appeal
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09cnd-scotus.html
October 9, 2007
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Torture Appeal
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A German citizen who said he was kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency and tortured in a prison in Afghanistan lost his last chance to seek redress in court today when the Supreme Court declined to consider his case.
The justices’ refusal to take the case of Khaled el-Masri let stand a March 2 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a 2006 decision by a federal district judge, who dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets.
The Supreme Court’s refusal, without comment, to take the case was not surprising, given that a three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit was unanimous. Nevertheless, today’s announcement prompted immediate expressions of dismay, and it could exacerbate tensions between the United States and Germany.
The Fourth Circuit acknowledged the seriousness of the issues when it dismissed Mr. Masri’s suit. “We recognize the gravity of our conclusions that el-Masri must be denied a judicial forum for his complaint,” Judge Robert B. King wrote in March. “The inquiry is a difficult one, for it pits the judiciary’s search for truth against the executive’s duty to maintain the nation’s security.”
The ordeal of Mr. Masri, who is of Lebanese descent and was apparently the victim of mistaken identity, was the most extensively documented case of the C.I.A.’s controversial practice of “extraordinary rendition,” in which terrorism suspects are abducted and sent for interrogation to other countries, including some in which torture is practiced.
The episode has already caused hard feelings between the United States and Germany, whose diplomatic ties were already frayed because of differences over the war in Iraq. Mr. Masri’s lawyer in Germany, Manfred Gnjidic, said the high court’s refusal to consider the case sends a message that the United States expects other nations to act responsibly but refuses to take responsibility for its own actions.
“We are very disappointed,” Mr. Gnjidic said in an interview today with The Associated Press. “It will shatter all trust in the American justice system.”
Mr. Masri contended in his suit that he was seized by local law enforcement officials while vacationing in Macedonia on New Year’s Eve 2003. At the time, he was 41 years old and an unemployed car salesman.
“They asked a lot of questions — if I have relations with Al Qaeda, Al Haramain, the Islamic Brotherhood,” Mr. Masri said in a 2005 interview with The New York Times. “I kept saying no, but they did not believe me.”
After 23 days, he said, he was turned over to C.I.A. operatives, who flew him to a secret C.I.A. prison in Kabul. There, Mr. Masri said, he was kept in a small, filthy cell and was shackled, drugged and beaten while being interrogated about his supposed ties to terrorist organizations. At the end of May 2004, Mr. Masri said, he was released in a remote part of Albania without ever having been charged with a crime.
The C.I.A. has never acknowledged any role in Mr. Masri’s detention. But investigations in Europe, as well as news reports in the United States, have bolstered his version of events. German prosecutors issued arrest warrants in January for 13 suspected C.I.A. agents believed to have taken part in the operation that swept up Mr. Masri.
As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that President Bush would ever agree to turn the 13 agents over to German authorities. But the warrants against them could hinder their ability to travel in Europe.
When the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mr. Masri’s suit, Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the action “truly unbelievable” and “reminiscent of third-world countries.”
The Constitution Project, a nonpartisan organization that seeks to focus attention on constitutional issues, called the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case “profoundly disappointing.”
“The government’s treatment of Mr. El-Masri has been appalling, and the executive branch should not be permitted to hide its mistakes behind the so-called state secrets privilege,” said the organization’s senior counsel, Sharon Bradford Franklin. “Now that the court has declined to consider this issue, Congress should immediately take up legislation to reform the state secrets privilege and clarify that it does not authorize unchecked power to disregard individual rights.”
Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has introduced legislation to ban extraordinary rendition, said today that “the Bush administration reflexively responds with the ‘state secrets’ defense whenever it is caught bending or simply ignoring the law.”
The chief White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said later that, on the contrary, the administration is “judicious” in citing state secrets to avoid lawsuits. “And the fact that the Supreme Court agreed with us is, in our opinion, a good thing,” Ms. Perino said.
For his part, Mr. Masri was arrested by the German police in May on suspicion of setting a fire that caused $675,000 in damage to a market in a Bavarian town. His lawyer said Mr. Masri had had a dispute with the store, and that his action was the result of not receiving psychological counseling that he had sought. A German judge ordered him held in a psychiatric ward.
October 9, 2007
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Torture Appeal
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A German citizen who said he was kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency and tortured in a prison in Afghanistan lost his last chance to seek redress in court today when the Supreme Court declined to consider his case.
The justices’ refusal to take the case of Khaled el-Masri let stand a March 2 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a 2006 decision by a federal district judge, who dismissed Mr. Masri’s lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case could expose state secrets.
The Supreme Court’s refusal, without comment, to take the case was not surprising, given that a three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit was unanimous. Nevertheless, today’s announcement prompted immediate expressions of dismay, and it could exacerbate tensions between the United States and Germany.
The Fourth Circuit acknowledged the seriousness of the issues when it dismissed Mr. Masri’s suit. “We recognize the gravity of our conclusions that el-Masri must be denied a judicial forum for his complaint,” Judge Robert B. King wrote in March. “The inquiry is a difficult one, for it pits the judiciary’s search for truth against the executive’s duty to maintain the nation’s security.”
The ordeal of Mr. Masri, who is of Lebanese descent and was apparently the victim of mistaken identity, was the most extensively documented case of the C.I.A.’s controversial practice of “extraordinary rendition,” in which terrorism suspects are abducted and sent for interrogation to other countries, including some in which torture is practiced.
The episode has already caused hard feelings between the United States and Germany, whose diplomatic ties were already frayed because of differences over the war in Iraq. Mr. Masri’s lawyer in Germany, Manfred Gnjidic, said the high court’s refusal to consider the case sends a message that the United States expects other nations to act responsibly but refuses to take responsibility for its own actions.
“We are very disappointed,” Mr. Gnjidic said in an interview today with The Associated Press. “It will shatter all trust in the American justice system.”
Mr. Masri contended in his suit that he was seized by local law enforcement officials while vacationing in Macedonia on New Year’s Eve 2003. At the time, he was 41 years old and an unemployed car salesman.
“They asked a lot of questions — if I have relations with Al Qaeda, Al Haramain, the Islamic Brotherhood,” Mr. Masri said in a 2005 interview with The New York Times. “I kept saying no, but they did not believe me.”
After 23 days, he said, he was turned over to C.I.A. operatives, who flew him to a secret C.I.A. prison in Kabul. There, Mr. Masri said, he was kept in a small, filthy cell and was shackled, drugged and beaten while being interrogated about his supposed ties to terrorist organizations. At the end of May 2004, Mr. Masri said, he was released in a remote part of Albania without ever having been charged with a crime.
The C.I.A. has never acknowledged any role in Mr. Masri’s detention. But investigations in Europe, as well as news reports in the United States, have bolstered his version of events. German prosecutors issued arrest warrants in January for 13 suspected C.I.A. agents believed to have taken part in the operation that swept up Mr. Masri.
As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that President Bush would ever agree to turn the 13 agents over to German authorities. But the warrants against them could hinder their ability to travel in Europe.
When the Fourth Circuit dismissed Mr. Masri’s suit, Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the action “truly unbelievable” and “reminiscent of third-world countries.”
The Constitution Project, a nonpartisan organization that seeks to focus attention on constitutional issues, called the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case “profoundly disappointing.”
“The government’s treatment of Mr. El-Masri has been appalling, and the executive branch should not be permitted to hide its mistakes behind the so-called state secrets privilege,” said the organization’s senior counsel, Sharon Bradford Franklin. “Now that the court has declined to consider this issue, Congress should immediately take up legislation to reform the state secrets privilege and clarify that it does not authorize unchecked power to disregard individual rights.”
Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has introduced legislation to ban extraordinary rendition, said today that “the Bush administration reflexively responds with the ‘state secrets’ defense whenever it is caught bending or simply ignoring the law.”
The chief White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said later that, on the contrary, the administration is “judicious” in citing state secrets to avoid lawsuits. “And the fact that the Supreme Court agreed with us is, in our opinion, a good thing,” Ms. Perino said.
For his part, Mr. Masri was arrested by the German police in May on suspicion of setting a fire that caused $675,000 in damage to a market in a Bavarian town. His lawyer said Mr. Masri had had a dispute with the store, and that his action was the result of not receiving psychological counseling that he had sought. A German judge ordered him held in a psychiatric ward.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
2 Patriot Act provisions ruled unlawful
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/26/2_patriot_act_provisions_ruled_unlawful/
2 Patriot Act provisions ruled unlawful
By William McCall, Associated Press Writer
September 26, 2007
PORTLAND, Ore. --Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.
The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.
Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.
"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.
By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."
Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, issued a statement on his behalf praising the judge, saying she "has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence, and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one's own home."
Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the agency was reviewing the decision, and he declined to comment further.
The ruling probably won't have any immediate affect on enforcement under the Patriot Act, according to legal experts who predicted the government would quickly appeal.
"But it's an important first step," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project.
Jaffer noted that the Patriot Act carries dozens of provisions and that several have been challenged -- but that this is one of the first major rulings on Fourth Amendment rights.
"This is as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as you'll ever find," Jaffer said.
Garrett Epps, a constitutional law expert at the University of Oregon, said the ruling adds to the poor record that the Bush administration has piled up in defending the Patriot Act.
"It's embarrassing," Epps said. "It represents another judicial repudiation of this administration's terrorist surveillance policies."
A federal judge in New York this month handed the ACLU a victory in a challenge to the Patriot Act on behalf of an Internet service provider that was issued a "national security letter" demanding customer phone and computer records. The judge in that case ruled the FBI must justify to a court the need for secrecy for more than a brief and reasonable period of time.
Mayfield, a Muslim convert, was taken into custody on May 6, 2004, because of a fingerprint found on a detonator at the scene of the Madrid bombing. The FBI said the print matched Mayfield's. He was released about two weeks later, and the FBI admitted it had erred in saying the fingerprints were his and later apologized to him.
Before his arrest, the FBI put Mayfield under 24-hour surveillance, listened to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office.
The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.
Congress passed the Patriot Act with little debate shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to help counter terrorist activities. It gave federal law enforcers the authority to search telephone and e-mail communications and expanded the Treasury Department's regulation of financial transactions involving foreign nationals. The law was renewed in 2005.
In early August, the Bush administration persuaded lawmakers to expand the government's power to listen in on any foreign communication it deemed of interest without a court order, even if an American was a party. The expanded surveillance authority expires early next year. As Congress takes a closer look at the law, many Democrats want to rein in language that many consider overly broad.
2 Patriot Act provisions ruled unlawful
By William McCall, Associated Press Writer
September 26, 2007
PORTLAND, Ore. --Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.
The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.
Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.
"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.
By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."
Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, issued a statement on his behalf praising the judge, saying she "has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence, and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one's own home."
Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the agency was reviewing the decision, and he declined to comment further.
The ruling probably won't have any immediate affect on enforcement under the Patriot Act, according to legal experts who predicted the government would quickly appeal.
"But it's an important first step," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project.
Jaffer noted that the Patriot Act carries dozens of provisions and that several have been challenged -- but that this is one of the first major rulings on Fourth Amendment rights.
"This is as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as you'll ever find," Jaffer said.
Garrett Epps, a constitutional law expert at the University of Oregon, said the ruling adds to the poor record that the Bush administration has piled up in defending the Patriot Act.
"It's embarrassing," Epps said. "It represents another judicial repudiation of this administration's terrorist surveillance policies."
A federal judge in New York this month handed the ACLU a victory in a challenge to the Patriot Act on behalf of an Internet service provider that was issued a "national security letter" demanding customer phone and computer records. The judge in that case ruled the FBI must justify to a court the need for secrecy for more than a brief and reasonable period of time.
Mayfield, a Muslim convert, was taken into custody on May 6, 2004, because of a fingerprint found on a detonator at the scene of the Madrid bombing. The FBI said the print matched Mayfield's. He was released about two weeks later, and the FBI admitted it had erred in saying the fingerprints were his and later apologized to him.
Before his arrest, the FBI put Mayfield under 24-hour surveillance, listened to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office.
The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.
Congress passed the Patriot Act with little debate shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to help counter terrorist activities. It gave federal law enforcers the authority to search telephone and e-mail communications and expanded the Treasury Department's regulation of financial transactions involving foreign nationals. The law was renewed in 2005.
In early August, the Bush administration persuaded lawmakers to expand the government's power to listen in on any foreign communication it deemed of interest without a court order, even if an American was a party. The expanded surveillance authority expires early next year. As Congress takes a closer look at the law, many Democrats want to rein in language that many consider overly broad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
