Posts By: ACLU

ACLU Comment on President’s National Security Speech

Posted by & filed under .

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

Below is a statement from Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, on President Obama’s national security speech today:

“President Obama is right to say that we cannot be on a war footing forever, but the time to take our country off the global warpath and fully restore the rule of law is now, not at some indeterminate future point. Four years into his presidency, President Obama has finally taken the first steps to jumpstart his administration’s effort to make good on early campaign promises to close Guantánamo and recognized the human cost of failing to act. These are encouraging and noteworthy actions.

“To the extent the speech signals an end to signature strikes, recognizes the need for congressional oversight, and restricts the use of drones to threats against the American people, the developments on targeted killings are promising. Yet the president still claims broad authority to carry out targeted killings far from any battlefield, and there is still insufficient transparency. We continue to disagree fundamentally with the idea that due process requirements can be satisfied without any form of judicial oversight by regular federal courts.

“We are particularly gratified that President Obama embraced our recommendations to use his authority to allow prompt transfer and release of Guantánamo detainees who pose no national security threat and that have been cleared by the military and intelligence agencies. We also applaud his appointment of a high level official to supervise the process for closing Guantánamo once and for all.

“But there are other problems that must still be addressed. The unconstitutional military commissions must be shuttered, not brought to the United States. While the president expressed appropriate concern about indefinite detention, he offered no clear plan for ending this unconstitutional policy for those who have not been tried or cleared for release.

“President Obama’s efforts to repair his legacy in the eyes of future historians will require that he continue to double down if he is to fully restore this nation’s standing at home and abroad. The ACLU realizes that Congress has thrown significant barriers in closing Guantánamo. But in some areas Congress has been more progressive, having recently demanded legal memoranda that claim to authorize the illegal killing program. The ACLU stands ready to work with, and if necessary do battle with, those elements of government that impede our nation’s obligations to honor the rule of law and to protect our values while safeguarding our security.”

This statement is available at: aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-presidents-national-security-speech

More information on national security is at: aclu.org/NatlSecuritySpeech

ACLU Comment on President’s National Security Speech

Posted by & filed under .

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

Below is a statement from Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, on President Obama’s national security speech today:

“President Obama is right to say that we cannot be on a war footing forever, but the time to take our country off the global warpath and fully restore the rule of law is now, not at some indeterminate future point. Four years into his presidency, President Obama has finally taken the first steps to jumpstart his administration’s effort to make good on early campaign promises to close Guantánamo and recognized the human cost of failing to act. These are encouraging and noteworthy actions.

“To the extent the speech signals an end to signature strikes, recognizes the need for congressional oversight, and restricts the use of drones to threats against the American people, the developments on targeted killings are promising. Yet the president still claims broad authority to carry out targeted killings far from any battlefield, and there is still insufficient transparency. We continue to disagree fundamentally with the idea that due process requirements can be satisfied without any form of judicial oversight by regular federal courts.

“We are particularly gratified that President Obama embraced our recommendations to use his authority to allow prompt transfer and release of Guantánamo detainees who pose no national security threat and that have been cleared by the military and intelligence agencies. We also applaud his appointment of a high level official to supervise the process for closing Guantánamo once and for all.

“But there are other problems that must still be addressed. The unconstitutional military commissions must be shuttered, not brought to the United States. While the president expressed appropriate concern about indefinite detention, he offered no clear plan for ending this unconstitutional policy for those who have not been tried or cleared for release.

“President Obama’s efforts to repair his legacy in the eyes of future historians will require that he continue to double down if he is to fully restore this nation’s standing at home and abroad. The ACLU realizes that Congress has thrown significant barriers in closing Guantánamo. But in some areas Congress has been more progressive, having recently demanded legal memoranda that claim to authorize the illegal killing program. The ACLU stands ready to work with, and if necessary do battle with, those elements of government that impede our nation’s obligations to honor the rule of law and to protect our values while safeguarding our security.”

This statement is available at: aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-presidents-national-security-speech

More information on national security is at: aclu.org/NatlSecuritySpeech

Another Abortion Ban? You’ve Got to be Kidding Me

Posted by & filed under .

Earlier this week, in a case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit struck down an extreme Arizona law that bans abortion care starting at 20 weeks. The court called it “per se unconstitutional.” That’s judicial-speak for “are you kidding me with this?”

And yet today, the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on a bill from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) that would do the very same thing—except this one wouldn’t be limited to Franks’ home state of Arizona. Initially, Franks targeted the women of D.C., but has since announced his intention to expand his scope nationwide.

Franks’ bill takes a private, medical decision away from a woman and her family, and gives it to politicians. We may not all agree on abortion all the time, but we should be able to agree that these decisions have to rest with families, not with Congress.

Every pregnancy is different. For many women and families, it’s a joyous time. But none of us can presume to know what complications may arise during a pregnancy, or all the circumstances surrounding a personal, medical decision to continue or to end it. Only a woman and her family know, and that’s why only a woman and her family should make these important decisions.

Last year the Subcommittee heard from Christy Zink, who bravely testified again today. She learned mid-way through her pregnancy that, if she carried to term, she would tragically give birth to a baby missing half his brain. “The answers were far from easy to hear,” she recalled, “but they were clear. There would be no miracle cure.” Christy and her husband considered their situation and made the best decision for their family: to end the pregnancy.

Christy’s not alone. Other women find themselves in her situation, or facing illnesses that will leave them to suffer blindness, kidney failure, or permanent infertility if they’re denied the abortion care they need.

Franks’ bill would send physicians to jail for providing their patients with needed care at a difficult time. It’s an attempt to turn politicians into doctors, and expert, compassionate doctors into criminals.

“I am horrified to think,” Christy told Congress, “that the doctors who compassionately but objectively explained to us the prognosis and our options for medical treatment, and the doctor who helped us terminate the pregnancy, would be prosecuted as criminals under this law for providing basic medical care and expertise.”

This is just one in the latest round of attacks in the war on women. Throughout the country, politicians are pushing forward extreme laws that would rob women of the services they need to make personal decisions about pregnancy free from political interference. Just look at Arkansas, North Dakota, and Kansas.

Enough is enough. It’s time to stop extremist politicians’ interference in our most personal and private decisions. Franks’ abortion ban isn’t just “per se unconstitutional” – it’s per se unconscionable.

Learn more about abortion legislation and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Another Abortion Ban? You’ve Got to be Kidding Me

Posted by & filed under .

Earlier this week, in a case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit struck down an extreme Arizona law that bans abortion care starting at 20 weeks. The court called it “per se unconstitutional.” That’s judicial-speak for “are you kidding me with this?”

And yet today, the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on a bill from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) that would do the very same thing—except this one wouldn’t be limited to Franks’ home state of Arizona. Initially, Franks targeted the women of D.C., but has since announced his intention to expand his scope nationwide.

Franks’ bill takes a private, medical decision away from a woman and her family, and gives it to politicians. We may not all agree on abortion all the time, but we should be able to agree that these decisions have to rest with families, not with Congress.

Every pregnancy is different. For many women and families, it’s a joyous time. But none of us can presume to know what complications may arise during a pregnancy, or all the circumstances surrounding a personal, medical decision to continue or to end it. Only a woman and her family know, and that’s why only a woman and her family should make these important decisions.

Last year the Subcommittee heard from Christy Zink, who bravely testified again today. She learned mid-way through her pregnancy that, if she carried to term, she would tragically give birth to a baby missing half his brain. “The answers were far from easy to hear,” she recalled, “but they were clear. There would be no miracle cure.” Christy and her husband considered their situation and made the best decision for their family: to end the pregnancy.

Christy’s not alone. Other women find themselves in her situation, or facing illnesses that will leave them to suffer blindness, kidney failure, or permanent infertility if they’re denied the abortion care they need.

Franks’ bill would send physicians to jail for providing their patients with needed care at a difficult time. It’s an attempt to turn politicians into doctors, and expert, compassionate doctors into criminals.

“I am horrified to think,” Christy told Congress, “that the doctors who compassionately but objectively explained to us the prognosis and our options for medical treatment, and the doctor who helped us terminate the pregnancy, would be prosecuted as criminals under this law for providing basic medical care and expertise.”

This is just one in the latest round of attacks in the war on women. Throughout the country, politicians are pushing forward extreme laws that would rob women of the services they need to make personal decisions about pregnancy free from political interference. Just look at Arkansas, North Dakota, and Kansas.

Enough is enough. It’s time to stop extremist politicians’ interference in our most personal and private decisions. Franks’ abortion ban isn’t just “per se unconstitutional” – it’s per se unconscionable.

Learn more about abortion legislation and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Reflections of Another Affirmative Action Baby

Posted by & filed under .

As the Supreme Court takes up affirmative action once again, the word “diversity” has found its way into many legal briefs. For me, it is not an abstract concept. If today I am a supportive colleague, a successful civil rights lawyer, a good citizen in the broadest and best sense, it is thanks to affirmative action.

I arrived at the University of California at Berkeley in the fall of 1988. I didn’t have far to travel. I crammed my belongings into my used Honda and drove to the other end of the county. In 40 minutes, I crossed over into a new world.

I came from a large public high school that was 92% white and 6% Asian-American. While I was growing up, Asian-American kids often suffered racist jeers and sometimes physical attacks. I felt hurt and rage about this, but didn’t know what to do about it. I lacked the intellectual and social tools. I don’t recall race being a subject of public conversation, even in our social studies and English classes. It was a good school and we had fun in our suburban way, but I was waiting for better days.

When I got to Berkeley, I experienced – there is no other way to describe it – liberation. In my dorm, in my classes, in student groups, my little world cracked wide open and in came a flood of new people and new ideas. I was thrown in with African-American kids from South Central L.A. and small Central Valley towns, Asian-American kids from majority-Asian schools in Hawaii and southern California, Chicano kids from border towns, my white roommate from a tiny town in the Sierra Foothills, and another roommate who was a rare bird from the Upper East Side of Manhattan. My friends and neighbors were rich, poor, middle-class, gay, straight, disabled, able-bodied, Republican, Democrat, Maoist (I’m not kidding). Sometimes we got along, and sometimes we didn’t.

Keeping Cal’s tradition of student protest alive, there were sit-ins for faculty diversity. We were living in the 60s. We were living in the 80s. We fought against tuition increases. We fought for an ethnic studies requirement for all undergraduates. Other Cal students fought just as hard against us. We went to football games. We went to work for McKinsey and Bain. We worked for the Center for Third World Organizing. We went to law school, med school, grad school, public policy school. Among my undergrad friends and acquaintances, I can now count a director of an arts institute at Stanford University, the Speaker of the California Assembly, a Los Angeles city councilman, an education policy director for former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, doctors, engineers, lawyers of all sorts, internet entrepreneurs, academics in various fields (including at least one person still working on his Ph.D.), a CPA, a former Paralympian and current YMCA trainer, a middle school teacher, and a couple of hedge fund managers.

We were a mystery to one another. But we became less so as we talked late into the night and listened in the classroom and read books. I remember sitting in a student senate meeting one night when someone burst into the room and shouted, “L.A. is on fire!” after the Rodney King trial verdict. We learned to get along. We came through the fire together and it made us stronger.

Some smart and forward-thinking people designed the undergraduate admissions policy at Berkeley to make the future of California brighter. And because we are still working at it together, it is and will be.

Learn more about school diversity and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Reflections of Another Affirmative Action Baby

Posted by & filed under .

As the Supreme Court takes up affirmative action once again, the word “diversity” has found its way into many legal briefs. For me, it is not an abstract concept. If today I am a supportive colleague, a successful civil rights lawyer, a good citizen in the broadest and best sense, it is thanks to affirmative action.

I arrived at the University of California at Berkeley in the fall of 1988. I didn’t have far to travel. I crammed my belongings into my used Honda and drove to the other end of the county. In 40 minutes, I crossed over into a new world.

I came from a large public high school that was 92% white and 6% Asian-American. While I was growing up, Asian-American kids often suffered racist jeers and sometimes physical attacks. I felt hurt and rage about this, but didn’t know what to do about it. I lacked the intellectual and social tools. I don’t recall race being a subject of public conversation, even in our social studies and English classes. It was a good school and we had fun in our suburban way, but I was waiting for better days.

When I got to Berkeley, I experienced – there is no other way to describe it – liberation. In my dorm, in my classes, in student groups, my little world cracked wide open and in came a flood of new people and new ideas. I was thrown in with African-American kids from South Central L.A. and small Central Valley towns, Asian-American kids from majority-Asian schools in Hawaii and southern California, Chicano kids from border towns, my white roommate from a tiny town in the Sierra Foothills, and another roommate who was a rare bird from the Upper East Side of Manhattan. My friends and neighbors were rich, poor, middle-class, gay, straight, disabled, able-bodied, Republican, Democrat, Maoist (I’m not kidding). Sometimes we got along, and sometimes we didn’t.

Keeping Cal’s tradition of student protest alive, there were sit-ins for faculty diversity. We were living in the 60s. We were living in the 80s. We fought against tuition increases. We fought for an ethnic studies requirement for all undergraduates. Other Cal students fought just as hard against us. We went to football games. We went to work for McKinsey and Bain. We worked for the Center for Third World Organizing. We went to law school, med school, grad school, public policy school. Among my undergrad friends and acquaintances, I can now count a director of an arts institute at Stanford University, the Speaker of the California Assembly, a Los Angeles city councilman, an education policy director for former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, doctors, engineers, lawyers of all sorts, internet entrepreneurs, academics in various fields (including at least one person still working on his Ph.D.), a CPA, a former Paralympian and current YMCA trainer, a middle school teacher, and a couple of hedge fund managers.

We were a mystery to one another. But we became less so as we talked late into the night and listened in the classroom and read books. I remember sitting in a student senate meeting one night when someone burst into the room and shouted, “L.A. is on fire!” after the Rodney King trial verdict. We learned to get along. We came through the fire together and it made us stronger.

Some smart and forward-thinking people designed the undergraduate admissions policy at Berkeley to make the future of California brighter. And because we are still working at it together, it is and will be.

Learn more about school diversity and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

ACLU Comment on U.S. Admission to Killing Americans in Targeted Killing Program

Posted by & filed under .

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Congress confirming that the government has killed four Americans since 2010 in strikes overseas, and claiming that the government’s actions were justified.

“This letter is evidence that Congress has a crucial oversight role, and that the executive branch is accountable to Congress and the American people. We applaud Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy for his insistence that the veil of secrecy be lifted on the government’s killing program,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office.

“This is a small step towards transparency, and we welcome the government’s recognition that it must publicly explain its actions when it decides to kill an American citizen. Much more openness is still needed. The government must disclose its still-secret targeted killing memos so the public can determine if they contain criteria as vague and elastic as its definitions of ‘imminence’ and ‘feasibility of capture,’” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The letter also underscores how little the public still knows about this unlawful program and its consequences, including the previously unknown killing of a fourth American citizen more than a year ago. It does nothing to shed light on the government’s legal criteria and factual basis for the killings of thousands of non-citizens – including reportedly hundreds of civilians – in a program that is unlawful, dangerous, and unwise.”

Shamsi added, “When the U.S. government kills its own citizens far from any battlefield, it is not enough to describe its decision and partial reasoning in a letter – the lawfulness of such killings must be evaluated in court. We assume this new step towards transparency means the government will change its litigation stance in our lawsuits seeking information about the targeted killing program, and hope the government will respond on the merits in our lawsuit seeking due process for the killings of three Americans in Yemen.”

The ACLU, together with the Center for Constitutional Rights, has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the killing of U.S. citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan in September 2011 and al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son Abdulrahman the following month. The government has argued that the courts have no role to play in assessing whether the killings were lawful and the case should be dismissed. Oral argument in the case is scheduled for July 19 in Washington.

The ACLU is also currently litigating two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking information about the targeted killing program. In March 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the CIA could no longer deny its intelligence interest in the targeted killing program given the numerous public statements made by CIA and administration officials. The FOIA request in that case seeks information on the use of drones in the killing program, including its legal basis, scope, and the number of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes. The appeals court sent the case back to the district court in Washington, where the CIA will have to release documents that respond to the ACLU’s request or legally justify withholding them.

Last month in New York, the ACLU appealed its other FOIA case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after the district court ruled that the CIA and the Departments of Justice and Defense could refuse to provide documents. The ACLU’s FOIA request in that case seeks disclosure of legal memos written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that provided justifications for the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as records describing the legal and factual basis for the killings of the three Americans.

More information on the ACLU’s work on targeted killing is at:
aclu.org/national-security/targeted-killings

ACLU Comment on U.S. Admission to Killing Americans in Targeted Killing Program

Posted by & filed under .

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Congress confirming that the government has killed four Americans since 2010 in strikes overseas, and claiming that the government’s actions were justified.

“This letter is evidence that Congress has a crucial oversight role, and that the executive branch is accountable to Congress and the American people. We applaud Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy for his insistence that the veil of secrecy be lifted on the government’s killing program,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office.

“This is a small step towards transparency, and we welcome the government’s recognition that it must publicly explain its actions when it decides to kill an American citizen. Much more openness is still needed. The government must disclose its still-secret targeted killing memos so the public can determine if they contain criteria as vague and elastic as its definitions of ‘imminence’ and ‘feasibility of capture,’” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The letter also underscores how little the public still knows about this unlawful program and its consequences, including the previously unknown killing of a fourth American citizen more than a year ago. It does nothing to shed light on the government’s legal criteria and factual basis for the killings of thousands of non-citizens – including reportedly hundreds of civilians – in a program that is unlawful, dangerous, and unwise.”

Shamsi added, “When the U.S. government kills its own citizens far from any battlefield, it is not enough to describe its decision and partial reasoning in a letter – the lawfulness of such killings must be evaluated in court. We assume this new step towards transparency means the government will change its litigation stance in our lawsuits seeking information about the targeted killing program, and hope the government will respond on the merits in our lawsuit seeking due process for the killings of three Americans in Yemen.”

The ACLU, together with the Center for Constitutional Rights, has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the killing of U.S. citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan in September 2011 and al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son Abdulrahman the following month. The government has argued that the courts have no role to play in assessing whether the killings were lawful and the case should be dismissed. Oral argument in the case is scheduled for July 19 in Washington.

The ACLU is also currently litigating two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking information about the targeted killing program. In March 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the CIA could no longer deny its intelligence interest in the targeted killing program given the numerous public statements made by CIA and administration officials. The FOIA request in that case seeks information on the use of drones in the killing program, including its legal basis, scope, and the number of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes. The appeals court sent the case back to the district court in Washington, where the CIA will have to release documents that respond to the ACLU’s request or legally justify withholding them.

Last month in New York, the ACLU appealed its other FOIA case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after the district court ruled that the CIA and the Departments of Justice and Defense could refuse to provide documents. The ACLU’s FOIA request in that case seeks disclosure of legal memos written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that provided justifications for the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as records describing the legal and factual basis for the killings of the three Americans.

More information on the ACLU’s work on targeted killing is at:
aclu.org/national-security/targeted-killings

“It was being immersed in a diverse college setting that gave me the understanding and tools to fight for social justice.”

Posted by & filed under .

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision soon in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin to determine if the University of Texas can consider race as one factor, among many, in attempting to create a diverse educational experience for its students. Yet, what critics of affirmative action often gloss over is that our nation’s K-12 schools are more segregated by race and class than when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, for many students of all races and classes, college is the first time many students are enriched by a diverse environment.

Many at the ACLU have experienced firsthand how being in a diverse educational environment shaped their professional and personal lives. Here is Jana’s story.

Growing up white in North Dakota, diversity often meant Norwegians, Swedes and Germans together in one place. It was not until I went to college at Hamline University in Minneapolis/St. Paul that I truly understood the scope and breadth of diversity. Hamline University provided me with the opportunities to explore what diversity means and how racism and white privilege are thoroughly imbedded into our society’s structure. Hearing firsthand accounts of racism that my new friends of color had experienced in their lives forever changed who I am. While growing up, I had always believed in justice and felt strongly that racism and prejudice were bad. But, it was being immersed in a diverse college setting that gave me the understanding and tools to fight for social justice.

The second major impact that a diverse college setting had on me was that I had the opportunity to meet my husband. He is African-American and from New York. He and I met while working at the library on campus and there was an immediate connection. We have now been married for seven years and have two beautiful children. We live in St. Paul and have chosen to stay in the city where our children can go to schools and live in a community that is diverse and values that diversity. I feel so lucky that I am in a community where my two mixed race children can grow up and go to school in a place where there are not only other kids who look like them but also from many different backgrounds.

When I look around at my friend group (whom I mostly met while at college) I feel lucky to have friends from all walks of life. We can go from one friend’s house where they speak Sinhalese to another friend’s house where Spanish is the predominant language and my kids will still feel comfortable. I feel lucky to have met so many of the wonderful people in our lives at university and I feel thankful to have them in my life.

Growing up mixed race will not always be easy for my children. I know that one day my husband and I will probably have “the talk” with our son about what it means to be a black man in the United States. My hope is that by the time we have to have to talk (in 12 – 15 years) it will be easier than it is now. If more people had their lives enriched by diversity like I had, then maybe my children will grow up in a very different world then I did. Maybe they won’t have to experience hate crimes like so many of my friends have and maybe they will never have to have “the talk” with their children.

Learn more about school diversity and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

“It was being immersed in a diverse college setting that gave me the understanding and tools to fight for social justice.”

Posted by & filed under .

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision soon in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin to determine if the University of Texas can consider race as one factor, among many, in attempting to create a diverse educational experience for its students. Yet, what critics of affirmative action often gloss over is that our nation’s K-12 schools are more segregated by race and class than when Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, for many students of all races and classes, college is the first time many students are enriched by a diverse environment.

Many at the ACLU have experienced firsthand how being in a diverse educational environment shaped their professional and personal lives. Here is Jana’s story.

Growing up white in North Dakota, diversity often meant Norwegians, Swedes and Germans together in one place. It was not until I went to college at Hamline University in Minneapolis/St. Paul that I truly understood the scope and breadth of diversity. Hamline University provided me with the opportunities to explore what diversity means and how racism and white privilege are thoroughly imbedded into our society’s structure. Hearing firsthand accounts of racism that my new friends of color had experienced in their lives forever changed who I am. While growing up, I had always believed in justice and felt strongly that racism and prejudice were bad. But, it was being immersed in a diverse college setting that gave me the understanding and tools to fight for social justice.

The second major impact that a diverse college setting had on me was that I had the opportunity to meet my husband. He is African-American and from New York. He and I met while working at the library on campus and there was an immediate connection. We have now been married for seven years and have two beautiful children. We live in St. Paul and have chosen to stay in the city where our children can go to schools and live in a community that is diverse and values that diversity. I feel so lucky that I am in a community where my two mixed race children can grow up and go to school in a place where there are not only other kids who look like them but also from many different backgrounds.

When I look around at my friend group (whom I mostly met while at college) I feel lucky to have friends from all walks of life. We can go from one friend’s house where they speak Sinhalese to another friend’s house where Spanish is the predominant language and my kids will still feel comfortable. I feel lucky to have met so many of the wonderful people in our lives at university and I feel thankful to have them in my life.

Growing up mixed race will not always be easy for my children. I know that one day my husband and I will probably have “the talk” with our son about what it means to be a black man in the United States. My hope is that by the time we have to have to talk (in 12 – 15 years) it will be easier than it is now. If more people had their lives enriched by diversity like I had, then maybe my children will grow up in a very different world then I did. Maybe they won’t have to experience hate crimes like so many of my friends have and maybe they will never have to have “the talk” with their children.

Learn more about school diversity and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Following Texas’s Lead on Location Tracking

Posted by & filed under .

Yesterday, the Texas House of Representatives passed the first bill in the nation that would require law enforcement to obtain a probable cause warrant before tracking individuals’ location by collecting their cell phone location data. As Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director for the ACLU of Texas put it, “By approving this amendment, our legislators would take a significant step to preserve the Fourth Amendment rights of Texas citizens, protecting them from potential unreasonable searches and seizures that could take place entirely outside judicial review.” They would also set a precedent that the rest of the country should be quick to follow.

We’ve been talking about location tracking for a long time now, because where you go says a lot about who you are—are you going to gay bars, a mosque, a fundamentalist church, a gun store, an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting, a political protest, etc.? In August 2011, 35 ACLU affiliates filed over 380 public records requests with state and local law enforcement agencies to ask about their policies, procedures and practices for tracking cell phones, and in April 2012, an additional affiliate filed 27 requests. What we learned is alarming: the laws and policies guiding cell phone location tracking across the country are in a state of chaos, with agencies in different towns following different rules — or in some cases, having no rules at all.

We believe that law enforcement agents should be obtaining location information in investigations only with safeguards—the probable cause standard and review by a judge—to ensure that while legitimate investigations can proceed, innocent Americans will be protected from unjustified invasions of their privacy. We’ve known that this standard is workable, because law enforcement agencies in every region of the country—from Denver, Colo. to Hawaii County to Wichita, Kan. to Lexington, Ky.—already obtain a probable cause warrant to track location and still do effective law enforcement. And, in the Jones Supreme Court case, a majority of the justices (in two concurrences) recognized that long term monitoring of an individual’s travels, no matter what technology is used, impinges on that individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Nonetheless, Texas could soon be the first state to actually legislate on this issue.

It’s been a long slog to get to this point. Despite having over 100 co-sponsors in Texas’s 150-member House, the original cell phone location tracking bill, HB 1608, was not brought up for a vote before Texas’ deadline for moving legislation through its first chamber. But, not to be deterred, the amazing bill sponsors, ACLU of Texas, and the rock star Texas Electronic Privacy Coalition got the legislation added as a House amendment to a Senate bill, SB 1052, that requires a warrant for access to electronic communications content. (Congress, are you taking notes? Texas is about to show you how to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the outdated federal law that governs access to communications content and is, as of yet, silent on location tracking.) The Texas bill still has to go back to the Senate to approve the House amendments before making it to the governor’s desk.

If you’re from Texas, you can help your state make history by reaching out to your senator and ask him/her to support the House amendments to SB 1052. (You can find your senator’s contact info here.)

If you’re not in Texas, you can ask Congress to update ECPA, and if you happen to be from Maine, your legislature is poised to vote on this issue also, so please tell them to follow the Texas’ House’s lead and pass warrant protections for location tracking.

Texas is known as an outsized state with an ego that rivals its land mass. And, if the state that brought us two George Bushes and Six Flags can also bring us privacy safeguards for location tracking, Texans will really have something to brag about. Perhaps Matt Simpson, policy strategist at ACLU of Texas, put it best: “Clearly, policy has not kept pace with technology. Approval of this proposal by state legislators would place Texas at the nation’s forefront of demanding privacy for its citizens when it comes to personal cell phone use.”

Following Texas’s Lead on Location Tracking

Posted by & filed under .

Yesterday, the Texas House of Representatives passed the first bill in the nation that would require law enforcement to obtain a probable cause warrant before tracking individuals’ location by collecting their cell phone location data. As Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director for the ACLU of Texas put it, “By approving this amendment, our legislators would take a significant step to preserve the Fourth Amendment rights of Texas citizens, protecting them from potential unreasonable searches and seizures that could take place entirely outside judicial review.” They would also set a precedent that the rest of the country should be quick to follow.

We’ve been talking about location tracking for a long time now, because where you go says a lot about who you are—are you going to gay bars, a mosque, a fundamentalist church, a gun store, an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting, a political protest, etc.? In August 2011, 35 ACLU affiliates filed over 380 public records requests with state and local law enforcement agencies to ask about their policies, procedures and practices for tracking cell phones, and in April 2012, an additional affiliate filed 27 requests. What we learned is alarming: the laws and policies guiding cell phone location tracking across the country are in a state of chaos, with agencies in different towns following different rules — or in some cases, having no rules at all.

We believe that law enforcement agents should be obtaining location information in investigations only with safeguards—the probable cause standard and review by a judge—to ensure that while legitimate investigations can proceed, innocent Americans will be protected from unjustified invasions of their privacy. We’ve known that this standard is workable, because law enforcement agencies in every region of the country—from Denver, Colo. to Hawaii County to Wichita, Kan. to Lexington, Ky.—already obtain a probable cause warrant to track location and still do effective law enforcement. And, in the Jones Supreme Court case, a majority of the justices (in two concurrences) recognized that long term monitoring of an individual’s travels, no matter what technology is used, impinges on that individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Nonetheless, Texas could soon be the first state to actually legislate on this issue.

It’s been a long slog to get to this point. Despite having over 100 co-sponsors in Texas’s 150-member House, the original cell phone location tracking bill, HB 1608, was not brought up for a vote before Texas’ deadline for moving legislation through its first chamber. But, not to be deterred, the amazing bill sponsors, ACLU of Texas, and the rock star Texas Electronic Privacy Coalition got the legislation added as a House amendment to a Senate bill, SB 1052, that requires a warrant for access to electronic communications content. (Congress, are you taking notes? Texas is about to show you how to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the outdated federal law that governs access to communications content and is, as of yet, silent on location tracking.) The Texas bill still has to go back to the Senate to approve the House amendments before making it to the governor’s desk.

If you’re from Texas, you can help your state make history by reaching out to your senator and ask him/her to support the House amendments to SB 1052. (You can find your senator’s contact info here.)

If you’re not in Texas, you can ask Congress to update ECPA, and if you happen to be from Maine, your legislature is poised to vote on this issue also, so please tell them to follow the Texas’ House’s lead and pass warrant protections for location tracking.

Texas is known as an outsized state with an ego that rivals its land mass. And, if the state that brought us two George Bushes and Six Flags can also bring us privacy safeguards for location tracking, Texans will really have something to brag about. Perhaps Matt Simpson, policy strategist at ACLU of Texas, put it best: “Clearly, policy has not kept pace with technology. Approval of this proposal by state legislators would place Texas at the nation’s forefront of demanding privacy for its citizens when it comes to personal cell phone use.”

What Does $10,000 Buy in Alabama? Less-than-Truthful Testimony Used to Sentence Someone to Death

Posted by & filed under .

A trial is supposed to be a search for the truth. That can never be more important than in a death penalty case, when someone’s life is at stake.

It seems that this simple sentiment has been forgotten by the state of Alabama, which has been trying to send Montez Spradley to death row for the last several years for a crime he did not commit. The problem? Securing a capital conviction seems to be much more important to the prosecution than the search for the truth. And it is just this sort of problem that can lead to the ultimate horror: an innocent man on death row.

Let’s start with Alabama’s first attempt to sentence Spradley to death. His first trial was so riddled with misconduct and error that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction and death sentence on four separate grounds and ordered a new trial, finding that his trial had resulted in a “miscarriage of justice.”

The revelations of misconduct continued last week during a pre-trial hearing in Birmingham as part of that new trial. The State’s case against Spradley has always been flimsy – resting heavily on incriminating statements from its star witness, Spradley’s ex-girlfriend. When she took the stand last week, she revealed that her original testimony was not the truth. She testified that she had tried to recant to law enforcement before the trial but that officials threatened to prosecute her and take her children away if she didn’t stick with her story. They offered – and ultimately paid – her $10,000 in reward money. None of this information was revealed to defense counsel at Spradley’s original trial. It only came to light once the ACLU began investigating the case.

What’s deeply troubling is that despite all of these errors, the State is still trying to send Spradley to death row. The prosecution maintains that it had no knowledge that a reward was paid to her or any witness in the case, even after Spradley’s death sentence and conviction were reversed and a new trial ordered. And now that there is indisputable proof that she was paid, the prosecution wants to call her a liar only when it suits them.

Unfortunately, Spradley’s case is just the latest evidence that the death penalty system in Alabama, as throughout the country, is broken. This retrial is his second chance at justice. We will work hard in the hopes that he gets it.

Learn more about corruption and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

What Does $10,000 Buy in Alabama? Less-than-Truthful Testimony Used to Sentence Someone to Death

Posted by & filed under .

A trial is supposed to be a search for the truth. That can never be more important than in a death penalty case, when someone’s life is at stake.

It seems that this simple sentiment has been forgotten by the state of Alabama, which has been trying to send Montez Spradley to death row for the last several years for a crime he did not commit. The problem? Securing a capital conviction seems to be much more important to the prosecution than the search for the truth. And it is just this sort of problem that can lead to the ultimate horror: an innocent man on death row.

Let’s start with Alabama’s first attempt to sentence Spradley to death. His first trial was so riddled with misconduct and error that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction and death sentence on four separate grounds and ordered a new trial, finding that his trial had resulted in a “miscarriage of justice.”

The revelations of misconduct continued last week during a pre-trial hearing in Birmingham as part of that new trial. The State’s case against Spradley has always been flimsy – resting heavily on incriminating statements from its star witness, Spradley’s ex-girlfriend. When she took the stand last week, she revealed that her original testimony was not the truth. She testified that she had tried to recant to law enforcement before the trial but that officials threatened to prosecute her and take her children away if she didn’t stick with her story. They offered – and ultimately paid – her $10,000 in reward money. None of this information was revealed to defense counsel at Spradley’s original trial. It only came to light once the ACLU began investigating the case.

What’s deeply troubling is that despite all of these errors, the State is still trying to send Spradley to death row. The prosecution maintains that it had no knowledge that a reward was paid to her or any witness in the case, even after Spradley’s death sentence and conviction were reversed and a new trial ordered. And now that there is indisputable proof that she was paid, the prosecution wants to call her a liar only when it suits them.

Unfortunately, Spradley’s case is just the latest evidence that the death penalty system in Alabama, as throughout the country, is broken. This retrial is his second chance at justice. We will work hard in the hopes that he gets it.

Learn more about corruption and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Justice Department’s Overreaching on Leaks Threatens Freedom of the Press

Posted by & filed under .

A week after the Department of Justice notified the Associated Press that it had secretly seized records for more than 20 phone lines in a leak investigation, The Washington Post uncovered an overlooked search warrant in another leak case that raises similar – and perhaps more serious – constitutional concerns.

The Post reported that in 2010, an FBI counterespionage agent obtained a sealed search warrant for access to the Gmail account of James Rosen, Fox News’s chief Washington correspondent. The agent also pulled records from the State Department showing Rosen’s comings and goings, as well as telephone records showing phone numbers, times, and durations of calls. The various records and emails were sought as part of a leak investigation into a June 2009 story Rosen wrote reporting that North Korea would conduct a nuclear test in response to a critical United Nations resolution.

Stephen Kim, an analyst with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is now under indictment for that leak. He has pled not guilty, and his case is one of the six ongoing leak investigations under the Obama administration (twice as many cases as have ever been prosecuted under all previous administrations combined).

The warrant application was unsealed back in November 2011, but it’s only with the controversy swirling around the administration’s uniquely aggressive stance on national security leaks to the media that the Post discovered and reported on the Fox investigation.

There are a couple of angles here that make the Rosen warrant unique and uniquely troubling.

In recognition of the special status of news gathering under the First Amendment, a federal law—the Privacy Protection Act—bars federal investigators from demanding materials from reporters unless there is probable cause to believe that the reporter himself has committed a crime. That’s exactly what the FBI claimed here—that “Reporter has committed or is committing a violation of [the Espionage Act], as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator.” (The Espionage Act is the primary statute used to target “leaks,” and bars the unauthorized disclosure of classified information if the person doing the disclosing has reason to know disclosure could harm the United States).

What’s astonishing here is that never before has the government argued that simple newsgathering—that is, asking a source to comment on a news story—is itself illegal. That would, quite literally, make virtually any question by a reporter implicating classified information a potential felony. The logic behind the FBI’s warrant application would extend even to a reporter asking a question at a public press briefing at the CIA, Pentagon, or State Department. If the question is designed to elicit the disclosure of classified information, and prompts that disclosure, I don’t see how the reporter couldn’t be held responsible under the FBI’s rationale.

Additionally, the FBI was able to keep the existence of the warrant secret from Rosen because it argued he’d committed a crime. That’s similar to what happened with the AP, where the Department of Justice presumably invoked the exception to the notice requirement under DOJ guidelines, which allow for delay when notice could imperil the investigation. However, the delay provision is extremely strong medicine, because delaying notice means that the news outlet is unable to go to a court to challenge the request before the records are turned over. Consequently, the delay provision opens the door to significant abuse, as government agents have an incentive to delay notice because it allows them to avoid going in front of a judge to justify their request.

Walter Pincus, the defense and intelligence correspondent at The Washington Post, had a column this morning somewhat critical of First Amendment advocates expressing concern with the AP leaks investigation. He concludes, “[t]he reality is that this is not a whistleblowing case. There are no heroes here, and the press in this instance was not protecting individuals trying to expose government malfeasance.”

But that’s missing the point. Classified information is “leaked” every day, sometimes for partisan benefit and sometimes as part of the grand game of bureaucracies in Washington. But, just as we abide “bad” speech to give “good” speech “breathing room” under free speech law, we grant the press special protections from government scrutiny to provide ample space for the press to act “badly” to ensure information in the public interest, even if classified, has the best chance of being disclosed.

In other words, the particulars of the AP and Rosen cases are almost immaterial. The fundamental issue is that the government has lost a sense of proportion in enforcing our national security laws, and that should be of enormous concern to us all.

Learn more about freedom of the press and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.