NEW YORK – The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is subjecting innocent Americans to unreasonable searches and detentions that violate the Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed the complaint on behalf of a traveler who was illegally detained and harassed by TSA agents at the airport for carrying approximately $4,700 in cash.

“Airport searches are the most common encounters between Americans and law enforcement agents. That’s why it is so important for TSA agents to do the job they were trained to do and not engage in fishing expeditions that do nothing to promote flight safety,” said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “It is, of course, very important to ensure the safety of flights and keep illegal weapons and explosives off planes. But allowing TSA screeners to conduct general purpose law enforcement searches violates the Constitution while diverting limited resources from TSA’s core mission of protecting safety. For the sake of public safety and constitutional values, these unlawful searches should stop.”

A TSA checkpoint

On March 29, 2009, Steven Bierfeldt was detained in a small room at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and interrogated by TSA officials for nearly half an hour after he passed a metal box containing cash through a security checkpoint X-ray machine. Bierfeldt was carrying the cash in connection with his duties as the Director of Development for the Campaign for Liberty, a political organization that grew out of Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.

Bierfeldt was detained and questioned as he returned home from a Campaign for Liberty event transporting proceeds from the sale of tickets, t-shirts, stickers and campaign material. Bierfeldt repeatedly asked the agents to explain the scope of their authority to detain and interrogate him and received no explanation. Instead, the agents escalated the threatening tone of their questions and ultimately told Bierfeldt that he was being placed under arrest. Bierfeldt recorded the audio of the entire incident with his iPhone.

Listen to the audio recording of Bierfeldt’s detention here:

“I do not believe I should give up my constitutional rights each time I choose to travel by plane. I was doing nothing illegal or suspicious, yet I was treated like a potential criminal and harassed for no reason,” said Bierfeldt. “Most Americans would be surprised to learn that TSA considers simply carrying cash to be a basis for detention and questioning. I hope the court makes clear that my detention by TSA agents was unconstitutional and stops TSA from engaging in these unlawful searches and arrests. I do not want another innocent American to have to endure what I went through.”

“Mr. Bierfeldt’s experience represents a troubling pattern of TSA attempting to transform its valid but limited search authority into a license to invade people’s privacy in a manner that would never be accepted outside the airport context,” said Larry Schwartztol, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “Just as the Constitution prevents the police on the street from conducting freewheeling searches in the hopes of uncovering wrongdoing, it protects travelers from the kind of treatment Mr. Bierfeldt suffered.”

TSA officials have the authority to conduct safety-related searches for weapons and explosives. According to the ACLU’s lawsuit, TSA agents are using heightened security measures after 9/11 as an excuse to exceed their search authority and engage in unlawful searches that violate the privacy rights of passengers. The lawsuit also charges that unconstitutional searches and detention by TSA agents have become the norm.

The ACLU’s lawsuit was filed against Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which has authority over TSA. It was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Attorneys on the case are Wizner, Scott Michelman and Allen Hopper of the ACLU, Art Spitzer of the ACLU National Capital Area and cooperating attorney Alan Gura of Gura and Possessky, P.L.L.C.

More information about the case, including the ACLU’s complaint is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39922res20090618.html

Denominational: a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.

“When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship?Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs.” ~~ Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

In downtown Clarksville on Thursday, September 11, congregants and legislators from varied Christian churches across the county gathered. The implied purpose of the gathering, part of a nationwide movement called Cry Out America, was to acknowledge the tragedy of September 11, 2001, an event that cost America the lives of 3,000 of its citizens on home territory, precipitated the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cost this country thousands of live lost or irrevocably maimed, and dug a deep hole of nearly insurmountable debt that our children will have to pay.

Thus people gathered “in the name of (their) God” to ostensibly honor the victims of 9-11, or so the advertising suggested; in fact it was a blatant effort at integrating the Christian faith into local, state and federal government, complete with out-of-context quotes by our founding fathers relating Christianity to the Constitution and the founding of the United States of America.

Cry Out America, sponsored by the national group, Awakening America Alliance, was billed as an interdenominational event, and it was; it was a gathering Christians of varying shades of Christianity. Baptists, Methodist. Presbyterians. Missionary sects. Evangelicals. Fundamentalists. All with deep and obvious roots in Christianity. It was also exclusionary of “non-Christians” who mourn 9-11 just as deeply as the Christians do. The term “interdenominational” refers to “between churches.”

Interdenominational: Interdenominational (also called transdenominational) Churches built for the purpose of bringing together Christians of different denominations are often referred to as united and uniting churches. This sometimes leads to doctrinal and stylist compromises, leading to the idea that there are “primary” and “secondary” issues in faith. Primary issues describe those about which there can be no disagreement, whereas secondary issue can be compromised upon. This is the ethos behind the Christian Union movement for instance (UCCF). Christian faith-based organizations which act independent of church oversight are called interdenominational or parachurch organizations (para, is Greek for beside, or alongside). They are typically Protestant or evangelical.

Given that 9-11 affected all Americans, religious or not, a non-denominational ceremony on this seventh anniversary of September 11 would have been more appropriate.

Cry Out America was a Christian “Praise the Lord” interdenominational prayer revival, not a true memorial service. I found that 9-11 ‘hook’ into something else to be offensive. Had this been a true non-denominational event, welcoming people of all faiths and beliefs, and those with no faith who also mourn on this day, I would have felt far more comfortable. Not because I have a problems with Christians. I don’t. Had this been held at, say, Madison Street United Methodist Church in their huge parking lot or hall, I would have found the entire thing absolutely appropriate.

I do have a problem with using the stepping stone of tragedy to launch a rally that was clearly aimed at putting God into government. (I can hear the angry letters pouring in already). I do have a problem with using the stepping stone of tragedy to launch a rally that was clearly aimed at putting God into government and promoting one category of faith over another on government property. Of course, organizers said it was held on “public property,” and yes, as taxpayers, we supposedly own it. I believe in this little thing with constitutional clout called “separation of church and state.” I feel the same way about the Ten Commandment signs on a public right of way, nativity scenes in city or state or federal holiday displays, and the many ceremonies that start or end with blatantly Christian-oriented rather than non-denominational prayer, an action that favors one category of religious beliefs over all others.

Had Cry Out America been a nondenominational, more ecumenical gathering with a solemn focus on the tragedy of 9-11 and the subsequent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, I would have been an agreeable and willing participant on public turf. Had there been the moments of silence and silent prayer, the ringing of a church bell, the reading of names, the reading of non-denominational or universal texts, I would have been much happier.

I was raised Catholic. I am now a Unitarian. I  have a strong tendency toward and interest in Bhuddism. I can, by virtue of how I live my life, be called a Christian. I treat my neighbors as I wish to be treated. I feed the hungry, help the sick, provide shelter at times, and often give without expectation of a return — all of which is rather Christ-like, or, yes, Christian). I am also involved in the ancient Goddess culture which predates Christianity, and with Wicca. And I have spent time immersed in Native American rituals and medicine too.

Montgomery County has established a precedent by not only allowing this religious celebration to happen on county land, but supporting it by lending materials (chairs, electric power) for the comfort of participants. When I have a point to make (and my ’causes’ are universal and non-denominational) you will now find me on the courthouse steps, exercising my right to use this “public/government property” (I am one of the public, just as Christians are) to make my non-denominational case for peace, against war, or for a true commemoration service for those who have been killed or maimed on September 11 and its aftermath, and for all the soldiers of our country’s many wars. I hope they will graciously supply chairs for our attendees, who are no less American than those of Cry out America.

Cry Out America was, according to Beverly Blackard, Montgomery County coordinator for Cry Out America,  organized without the requirement of a permit or insurance fees; it was deemed by its organizers as an event for which “God opened all the doors.” Montgomery County has set a clear as crystal precedent and to deny any future group the right to assemble, no permit required, to state their case will guarantee a legal challenge.  Should any citizen use of that public space now be denied, the denial would be legally challenged.  Should a government body supporting one specific religion group via the use of public space and equipment  not provide equal access to other groups would be tacit support of a religion and a violation of church and state. Of course, I also believe that  any religious group that posts political signs, or preaches its collective politics to the pulpit by publicly endorsing specific candidates and issues, should lose their non-profit status and be taxed as a lobbying organizing.

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion. Some of the strongest language came from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurrence with the 5-4 majority, in which she said:

“Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

“When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies non-adherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship? Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs.”

Justice O’Connor’s words echo her opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, in which she observed that state endorsement of religion “sends a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.”

~~ American Civil Liberties Union

~~ Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005

~~ Courtesy of Theocracy Watch

Early in his first presidential term, Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson

Allowing this clearly Christian religious assembly to happen on the County Courthouse steps has set the stage for allowing assemblies of other faiths, of political or civil liberties, of peace or anti-war actions to take place on the same site with the same amenities provided by the county government. To ban or suppress other faiths or organizations from equal access under the same terms of access as Cry Out America will become an issue of discrimination.

]]> http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/16/montgomery-county-sets-precedent-for-equal-time-equal-access/feed/ 0 http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/14/aclu-in-defense-of-constitutional-rights/ http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/09/14/aclu-in-defense-of-constitutional-rights/#comments Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:44:43 +0000 Rev. Charles Moreland http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/?p=9037 The ACLU is well-known throughout the nation but is frequently denounced by people who do not understand their mission. This organization is dedicated to the Constitution of the United States. For the ACLU, the Constitution is sacred, hallowed, and consecrated.

The ACLU focus is protecting the rights of individuals, whether they be in the minority or the majority. The ACLU shields citizens from abuse directed to minority groups. The are dedicated to defending, speaking up, and representing groups and individuals in court when said groups or individuals are threatened with loss of their constitutional rights.

An example of this singular purpose can be found in the neighboring state of Kentucky, as reported by the Associated Press. One recent headline, “ACLU to defend Amish on buggy light charges,” demonstrates ACLU involvement. In that article, distributed by Associated Press, the ACLU “will defend a group of Amish men in Kentucky charged with not displaying slow moving emblems on their horse-drawn buggies.”

Louisville Attorney William Sharp defend the seven men charged with not displaying state-mandated  flashing lights and an orange triangular symbol. The defendants said that “using the emblems and lights would violate their religious beliefs that prohibit possessions that are too worldly.” Sharp said the ACLU was interested in the case in the context of the Kentucky Constitutional right to the “free exercise of religion.”

The religious right of the Amish, a dedicated minority faith group, is being represented through the ACLU. The ACLU reminds us that we should all have the goal of respecting the religious rights of others and applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights to all citizens regardless of their religious affiliation.

I am grateful for the ACLU and their dedication in protecting the American public.

Today, the fragile and flawed system of military commissions produced a new episode in its Kafkaesque system of “justice” series. As in the famous Franz Kafka piece “Before the Law,” Al-Qosi has waited “to gain entry into the law” only to discover that this unjust system was created for him (and the others declared “unlawful alien enemy combatants” by the Bush administration). In the Kafka story, the man who waits at the door until he is about to die asks the doorkeeper why, even though everyone seeks the law, no one else has come in all the years. To this question the doorkeeper replies: “No one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.”

Al-Qosi is one of the few Guantánamo detainees who were charged under the first system of military commissions, which was held unconstitutional and in violation of international law by the Supreme Court in June 2006. At those hearings, Al-Qosi agreed to be represented by a military lawyer, Air Force Lt. Col. Sharon Shaffer. Unfortunately, many events including a new charge of “providing material support to terrorism,” have significantly undermined al-Qosi’s trust in the system. In fact, in November 2004, through his civilian lawyer, Paul Reichler, al-Qosi, who is married and has two daughters, filed a habeas corpus petition in the D.C. District Court in which he claimed he was beaten, humiliated, and repeatedly abused in while in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and at Guantánamo.

His newly appointed lawyer, Navy Reserve Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, protested about her lack of access to al-Qosi and said that the first time she was able to meet with him was at the military commission hearing itself. Her experience is common among Guantánamo defense lawyers, both military and civilian, who constantly face tremendous difficulty when attempting to freely communicate with their clients, a basic requirement for effective legal advice and representation. The defense counsel asked the judge to help her gain permission to meet with al-Qosi face-to-face, rather than through messages delivered via Guantánamo guards. This basic, constitutionally-protected request was denied. Cmdr. Lachelier was also forced to represent al-Qosi despite his clear statement that he does not wish to be represented by military, civilian, or even volunteer counsel. The military judge was more concerned with moving the process forward and warning al-Qosi of his right to appointed counsel than working to fulfill this right.

In a prepared handwritten statement, al-Qosi said that his only war crime was that he was from a third world country, Sudan.Al-Qosi stressed that the Guantánamo detainees who had European citizenship had been released as a result of a political and diplomatic pressure by their own governments. In fact, just last month the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that this system of military commissions was discriminatory, in that it denied non-citizens equal standing and access to U.S. courts and violated the rule that counterterrorism measures should not discriminate (PDF) in purpose or effect on grounds of race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

No one knows if al-Qosi will ever appear again before this military commission, but what we witnessed today is becoming a trend in which detainees are challenging the legitimacy of the forum and refusing to take part in the proceedings. Cmdr. Lachelier did not hide her discomfort and concern about the situation she has been forced into. She said she was very close to making a decision similar to that made by her client, but for now she will try her best to reconcile her ethical duties as a lawyer representing Al-Qosi with her respect for the distorted rules of “justice” created under the Military Commissions Act.

About Jamil Dakwar

Jamil Dakwar is the Director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. Jamil is in Guantánamo Bay this week to observe the Military Commissions hearings of three detainees. This piece was originally published at the Daily Kos.

According to the ACLU’s lawsuit, requiring some individuals to bear anundue financial burden before voting is tantamount to a poll tax in violation of the constitutional right to vote and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. “The legal financial obligations provision creates an undue burden on the voting rights of the economically disadvantaged,” said ACLU-TN Cooperating Attorney Charles Grant, of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. “Although not intended, these provisions harken back to a time when Blacks, the poor and other marginalized groups were required to pay poll taxes for the privilege to vote. We are hopeful the courtwill protect the rights of all Tennessee voters, not just the ones who can afford to buy back their franchise.”

Today’s legal action, filed against state and county officials, challenges a 2006 law that changed the process by which individuals with criminal convictions may seek the restoration of their voting rights. According to the law, “a person shall not be eligible to apply for a voter registration card and have the right of suffrage restored unless such person has paid all restitution to the victim orvictims of the offense ordered by the court as part of the sentence…[and] unless such person is current in all child support obligations.”

The ACLU brought its lawsuit on behalf of three individuals – Terence Johnson, Jim Harris and Alexander Friedman – who have completed their terms of imprisonment, parole, and probation for their offenses. Johnson and Harris are ineligible to vote because they owe child support for children they currently have custody of.

Friedman applied for restoration of his voting rights in 2006, but Tennessee denied his application, claiming that he owes over 1,000 dollars in restitution. “My dream is to have the opportunity to become a fully productive citizen again, regardless of my economic status. And I have the right to participate in the electoral process to bring about change to the issues that concern me most in my community,” said Terence Johnson, a plaintiff in this case. “I’ve served my time, I am a tax paying citizen and I have custody of my daughter. It is wrong for the state to punish me and other people while we get our lives back on track.”

Until recently, Tennessee’s voting rights restoration law – a patchwork of rules, restrictions, and procedures – was the most confusing and complicated in the country. Although a former felon no longer needs to go before a judge to have his or her right to vote restored, the law still requires several procedural steps before restoration is complete.

“The ability to vote should not be based on one’s financial status,”said Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “Penalizing low-income parents by charging them a fee to exercise their constitutional right to vote is shameful. This law has no place in a functioning democracy.” Weinberg continued, “ACLU is committed to securing additional reforms to make Tennessee’s voting laws more user-friendly and to ensure that all people who have been incarcerated can regain their full voting rights.”

In addition to the equal protection claim, the ACLU’s lawsuit charges the Tennessee law violates the 24th Amendment’s voting rights provision and the due process protections in the federal and state constitutions. Attorneys on the case are ACLU-TN Cooperating Attorney Charles Grant of the law firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC., Tricia Herzfeld, ACLU-TN Staff Attorney, and Nancy Abudu, Laughlin McDonald and Neil Bradley of the national ACLU Voting Rights Project .

A copy of today’s legal complaint is available at: http://www.aclu-tn.org/pdfs/Complaint_FelonVote.pdf

More information on the work of the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: http://www.votingrights.org/

Last August, President Bush attended an exclusive, high-priced fundraiser for New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici.  Local activists opposed to the president’s policies were, of course, not invited.  To let the president know that not everyone agreed with him, they planned to stand along his motorcade route holding up signs expressing their views, especially their opposition to the war in Iraq.

The peaceful demonstrators’ attempt at free speech was quickly squashed when police officers forced them to stay at least 150 yards away from the motorcade route, walling them off by placing numerous police cars and officers on horseback between the protesters and the president.  Meanwhile, a group of Bush supporters was allowed to stand right along the motorcade route, where their “God Bless George Bush!  We pray for you!” sign was in plain view of both Bush and the journalists accompanying him.

This isn’t the first time law enforcement officers have tried to squelch dissenters in President Bush’s presence. In 2004, Jeffrey and Nicole Rank were arrested for peacefully attending one of the president’s speeches while wearing t-shirts bearing the international “no” symbol superimposed over the word “Bush.”  The Ranks sued and ultimately received an $80,000 settlement from the White House—a win for free speech after a fight that should never have been necessary in a free society.

And in 2005, Leslie Weise and Alex Young were ejected from another of the president’s speeches because of a bumper sticker on their car that read “No More Blood for Oil.”  Their lawsuit is still pending.  

Now, the ACLU has filed a complaint in federal court on behalf of six of the peaceful protesters in New Mexico who were banned from the view of the president.  It is our hope that the lawsuit will prove once and for all that incidents such as these are unconstitutional.

These incidents of censorship appear to be dictated by White House policy.  The official Presidential Advance Manual recommends that someone working on the ground where the president is to make an appearance “ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.”  It advocates the formation of “rally squads” of sign-wielding supporters that can “use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform.”  It also suggests that the rally squads “lead supportive chants to drown out the protesters (USA!  USA!  USA!).”  

Lest it be thought that only Republican administrations engage in this type of behavior, it is worth pointing out that the Clinton administration’s Advance Manual also suggested that supporters could “be encouraged to wave supporting placards in front of opposing ones.”  In fact, the ACLU supported a lawsuit against a government policy that prohibited people from demonstrating along the route of Clinton’s presidential inauguration parade.

It’s easy to see why presidents would want to be pictured surrounded by adoring supporters. After all, the true audience for a presidential appearance is usually not those who attend in person, but the potential millions who will catch a glimpse on the evening news.  Few may hear the words the president speaks, but many will see the images filmed that day.

But the desire to look good does not justify treating members of the public like extras in a campaign commercial rather than citizens with a protected constitutional right to engage in speech of their own.  Shielding the president from all criticism is an unsound and undemocratic policy that violates the Constitution.  The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech.”  This guarantee is grounded in the idea that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained almost 90 years ago, “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”  

The right to free speech is meaningless when the government is permitted to do an end run around the First Amendment by relegating those who want to exercise it to remote locations where no one will hear them.  Communication requires both a speaker and a listener.  Just as it is censorship to prohibit speech entirely, it is censorship to place individuals where they can speak all they want with no chance of being heard.

Take Action

You should consider joining the ACLU, or at least donating to help them with the good works they are doing to protect all of our civil liberties.

About the author

Catherine Crump works at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to safeguard the right to engage in political dissent. Catherine’s project seeks to protect the First Amendment rights of government whistle blowers and political protesters. She counsels and supports government employees who wish to come forward with information about shortcomings in the government’s national security strategy. She also works with political protesters who are critical of government and have been forced to protest in relatively remote locations because of their viewpoint.
 

Editor’s Note: This article was originally posted at The Huffington Post, and The Daily Kos. Her bio is from Equal Justice Works

At least one part of the revised USA Patriot Act of 2001 has fallen under a federal judge’s gavel in a ruling that requires a court approval before investigators can order internet providers to turn over customer records. The ruling is another blow to already beleaguered Bush administration and its anti-terrorist policies.

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (revised in 2005) is a perpetually controversial package of anti-terrorist legislation that has been sharply criticized for its apparent violations of basic constitutional rights and civil liberties.

In a 120-page ruling, US District Judge Victor Marrero supported the American Civil Liberties Union contention that the government’s ability to demand records and use administrative subpoenas known as security letters without warrants or judicial review was a violation of free speech and individual rights. The letters under protest include a gag order that also prohibited businesses from disclosing that such demands were even made. Marrero said the law “substantially deters any judicial challenge.”

“The law reflects an attempt by Congress and the executive to infringe upon the Judiciary’s designed role under the Constitution.

– US District Judge Victor Marrero

The verdict stems from an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that challenged the legality of allowing federal investigative agencies to demand records with prior court approval. Marrero, of the Southern District of New York, said the Patriot Act “offends the fundamental Constitutional principles” that form the checks and balances and separation of powers. Marrero said government orders must be subject to “meaningful” judicial review.

“Under the mantle of secrecy, the self preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction … secrecy’s protective shield may serve not as much to secure a safe country as to simply save face…”

– US District Judge Victor Marrero

Marrero said the revised Patriotic Act amounted to “unreasonable search and seizure” and violated free speech. Marrero ruled against the first version of the Patriot Act in 2004, and was asked by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to review the constitutionality of the revised 2005 Patriot Act.

In essence, and upon review of an earlier ruling, Marrero said that tools such as NSL’s (national security letters) require a judicial order or grand jury subpoena. NSL’s are commonly used by the FBI and federal security agencies to force the release of otherwise private customer information from internet providers, telephone companies and even public libraries. This ruling, however, applies only to internet and e-mail providers.

“The law reflects an attempt by Congress and the executive to infringe upon the Judiciary’s designed role under the Constitution.

– US District Judge Victor Marrero

Arguing the winning ACLU position, Attorney Jameel Jaffer charged that the revised Patriot Act “wrongly” gave the FBI the authority to decide on its own, in the absence of court review, whether internet companies, designated as Electronic Communications Service Providers, could inform their clients of an investigation. The ACLU held that in approving the revised Patriotic Act, Congress failed to provide enough protections to the people when it prohibited service providers from informing clients when records are turned over to authorities.

The ACLU cites this ruling as a strong warning to the government about the tactics it is using in the fight against terror, and said the decision is a “refutation” of the government’s use of “excessive secrecy and unbridled power under the Patriot Act.”

Documents in this case showed that the government had censored some portions of the filings in the case, including a statement from a 1972 Supreme Court ruling that said government has a “tendency” to abuse its power in the name of domestic security.

This latest ruling will now move to appellate court. Earlier rulings issued this year in other U.S. courts supported the rights of “enemy combatants” to legally challenge their imprisonment and two other rulings in June refuted portions of the law regarding the criminality of providing material support to potential terrorists.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee

Conference highlights include:

• Marc Mauer addressing The US Record on Punishment (The Sentencing Project, Washington, DC);
• Jeff Manza discussing key findings published in his book Locked Out, Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy (Northwestern University, Evanston, IL);
• Rachel Bloom contrasting international disenfranchisement practices with the US record (National ACLU, Washington, DC); and
• Nancy Abudu highlighting pending challenges to the child support and restitution provisions of the current Tennessee law (ACLU Southern Voting Rights Project, Atlanta, GA).

Workshops are designed to:

• Answer attorney and paralegal questions about the new law and share methods for addressing voter restoration issues (CLE credits available);
•  Offer agencies, organizations and churches strategies to help former felons register to vote (CEU credits available);
• Help former felons and their family members to improve their public speaking skills to better persuade the public to support voter re-enfranchisement.

For further information or to register contact the ACLU-TN Right to Vote Campaign at 615-320-7143 or rtv@aclu-tn.org, or visit the website at www.aclu-tn.org.

Pentagon Tracked at Least 186 Anti-Military Protests

“It cannot be an accident or coincidence that nearly 200 anti-war protests ended up in a Pentagon threat database,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. “This unchecked surveillance is part of a broad pattern of the Bush administration using ‘national security’ as an excuse to run roughshod over the privacy and free speech rights of Americans.”

The ACLU report reviews hundreds of pages of Defense Department documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed last year. The documents revealed that the surveillance of peace groups and anti-war activists was more widespread than previously known.

The latest document obtained by the ACLU, and released today, is an undated 2006 memo reviewing the Defense Department’s Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database, which was found to list several peaceful protesters as potential threats to the military. According to the memo, as of February 10, 2006, the Defense Department had deleted 186 TALON reports that involved “anti-military protests or demonstrations in the U.S.” In addition, the Defense Department identified 2,821 TALON reports remaining in the database that contain what the Department describes as “U.S. person information,” but it is unclear whether those reports pertain to protest activities.

The memo also states that “personnel from 28 organizations were authorized to use TALON” and 3,589 users have been authorized to submit TALON reports or access the database. Because of such wide access to the database, even deleted reports may still appear in the files of other government agencies, the ACLU said.

The ACLU said the Pentagon’s misuse of the TALON database is just one example of increased government surveillance of innocent Americans. With the help of phone companies, the National Security Agency has been conducting warrantless wiretapping of U.S. phones and reading the e-mails of countless Americans, all without a warrant. The FBI has gathered information about peace activists and recruited confidential informants inside lawful advocacy organizations like Greenpeace and PETA. Less than a month ago, President Bush signed a statement declaring that he is authorized to open the domestic mail of American citizens without a warrant. This weekend, The New York Times revealed that the Pentagon has been using “National Security Letters” to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans.

“Congress should not let this president off the hook for inappropriate surveillance by the Pentagon,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Americans must once again be confident we can exercise our constitutionally protected right to protest without becoming the subject of a secret government file.”

In response to the ACLU’s FOIA requests filed on February 1, 2006, the Defense Department has released dozens of TALON reports that were compiled on Americans. Many of the reports focus on anti-military recruitment events and protests, including activities organized by the Quaker organization American Friends Service Committee, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace, and Catholic Worker. The TALON reports tracked events in 13 states and the District of Columbia: Alabama, California, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas.

The ACLU said that, even though the Defense Department has conceded that much of this information should not have been retained in its TALON database, there are still many unanswered questions.

“We do not know whether the Department of Defense maintains other threat databases that include similar information, nor whether Department of Defense personnel are engaged in other information-gathering about United States citizens,” said the ACLU in its report. “We do not know the extent to which other federal agencies might have been involved in collecting this information. We do not know whether the information improperly included in the TALON database was distributed to other government agencies.”

The report added, “we have only the Pentagon’s word that the errors and misjudgments that led to widespread surveillance of U.S. citizens have been corrected.”

The ACLU report, No Real Threat: The Pentagon’s Secret Database on Peaceful Protest, is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/27988pub20070117.html

The Pentagon document released today as a result of the ACLU lawsuit is online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/28021lgl20070117.html

More information on government surveillance is online at: http://www.aclu.org/spyfiles

Join the Tennessee Chapter of the ACLU today to help protect your freedoms!

* This report is a press release from the American Civil Liberities Union.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. – THE FEDERALIST NO. 47, at 301 (James Madison)

Here’s the meat of the issue.

George W. Bush, Jr personally stated that he had over 30 times authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans suspected of terrorist connections without a warrant.

The secret eavesdropping program, which President Bush authorized shortly after the September 11 attacks, allows the NSA to intercept domestic communications without a warrant, as long as one party is outside the United States…Bush, who first authorized the program in early 2002, said he has renewed the program over 30 times since its inception and reviews it every 45 days.� – Inquiry into leak of NSA spying program launched, CNN

But that contrary to what the law says on the matter.

Federal law says that “exclusive means” to conduct electronic surveillance is FISA and Title III (which governs the use of wiretaps by law enforcement)…Federal law says that any surveillance that is not conducted under those two statues is illegal. [18 U.S.C. 2551(2)(f); 50 U.S.C. 1809(a)] – The Department of Justice Memo Debunked, Think progress

The Department of Justice issued a memo in defense of the President’s program, and his authorization of it making two basic arguments.

The Department of Justice has released a memo defending President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying argument. There are two main arguments:

• Any limitations FISA places on the President’s authority to issue warrantless domestic searches are unconstitutional, and
• Congress gave the President authority to issue warrantless domestic searches

Two days ago a Judge issued a ruling on this� program which invalidated those two defenses:

Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine.

****

This court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP violates the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"); the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law.

She also said:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.

One of the duties of the President of the United States enumerated in article� II section 3 of our Constitution:

…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…

He also swears in his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Our founders felt this oath was so important they enshrined it in our Constitution also in Article II section 1.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By authorizing this illegal program George W. Bush, Jr is also guilty of a Felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally:

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except� as authorized by statute;

President Bush, violated his oath of office, the constitution, and the law� by authorizing this program. We impeached Bill Clinton for lying under oath about an affair in a civil law suit. How can we not respond the same for this much more serious breach by President Bush.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

If our elected representatives do not take prompt action to punish the President for violating his oath, and abrogating one of the primary duties as president, they will be violating their oaths of office as well.

Read on for the full text of the Judges ruling….