Find out who represents you in Congress here.
Stop Murder by Fiat!
The Obama Administration has taken the unconstitutional and morally
reprehensible position that it has the authority to murder American
citizens. Of course, this would only be Americans that the Administration
says are terrorists, and only when they are not on American soil.
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced legislation (HR
6010) barring extrajudicial killings. It only has six co-sponsors
so far, so please click
here to send an email to your Representative and ask him/her to become
a co-sponsor right away. Or, call your Representative's office
-- the number for the Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121.
The following members are already co-sponsors, so when you can click on the link, you will be able to send them a thank you email:
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5]
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Stop McCain/Lieberman!
The
Enemy Belligerant Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of
2010 would give the President the power to decide whether you
are entitled to a fair trial, or if he should just toss you in jail
and throw away the key. If the President accuses you of being a terrorist,
or of providing material support to terrorists, you will not be read
your Miranda rights, you will not be entitled to a trial, you may
not even be charged, you will be interrogated by special teams… and
you can be locked up without trial until the war on terror ends. Even
if you are a U.S. citizen. The accusation can be based on 'secret
evidence' that you will never see. It could be based on lies, or misunderstanding.
You could be innocent of all charges, and never be allowed to prove
it.
The bill is a nightmare!
The bill, S. 3081, was introduced last month by Senators McCain and Lieberman, andl has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. While it probably will not get voted on in Committee, the bill, or provisions of the bill, could be added to another piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate - so we have to fight the provisions in this bill NOW.
Don't get SLAPPed!
SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are a popular
tool among corporations to fight activists and unions who organize
to protests against company policies, products or actions. We've seen
companies sue civil rights protestors, environmental activists, union
members and others for actions as simple as testifying at hearings,
organizing petition drives, or staging protests. These meritless lawsuits
are a true threat to free speech and organizing -- and we have few
protections against this tactic.
Ask Congress to act to protect individuals and groups who exercise
the First Amendment rights of petition and free speech!
Send an email today to your Representative, ask them to co-sponsor The Citizen Participation Act, protects against SLAPPs by allowing the defendant of a meritless lawsuit arising from speech to have it quickly dismissed, and to recover the fees, costs and damages incurred in defending against it. Click here to take action.
You can read more about SLAPPs
Yes,
Men get SLAPPed (DDF newsletter, February 2010)
Federal Anti-SLAPP Project website
Fight the PATRIOT Act!
(Updated Feb. 4 2010)
Several provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire at the end
of February. We are urging members of Congress to vote against re-authorization,
unless serious reforms are included. One significant improvement that
we're asking for is to limit the use of National Security Letters.
In spite of recent
revelations of widespread abuse of NSLs by the FBI, we can expect
Congress to resist taking action. I
hope you'll add your voice to ours, and send your Senators and Representatives
an email.
PATRIOT Act -- updated January, 2010
Before leaving Washington last year, Congress passed a 60-day extension
of the PATRIOT Act provisions that were to sunset at the end of 2009.
Congress will act on the retiring provisions before the end of February.
It is important that your members of Congress hear from you -- come
to the grassroots lobby day, or call them! Tell them to reject any
amendments that would weaken civil liberties and privacy protections,
and to reject re-authorization unless serious civil liberties protections
are included.
Background
In November, 2009, the House Judiciary Committee passed the USA PATRIOT
Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3845). Although the bill features significant
improvements over current law and the Senate version (passed by the
Judiciary committee in October), it is still unacceptable to us. Given
the current political climate, we are not optimistic that the improvements
will remain intact as the bill wends its way through Congress.
The House bill, H.R. 3845 includes the following improvements: the bill allows the ‘lone wolf’ provision to sunset at the end of this year; requires specific and articulable facts before a National Security Letter (NSL) can be issued; includes a sunset for NSL authority; and establishes new reporting requirements to allow for more meaningful Congressional oversight. The House bill also reigns in roving wiretaps and requires higher standards of evidence to obtain library and bookstore records (reforming provisions that are not due to sunset until 2013).
Take Action: Call your Senators and Representatives, tell
them NOT to re-authorize the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act
unless serious civil liberties protections are included. Tell your
Representative that even the improvements passed by the House Judiciary
Committee (H.R. 3845) are not sufficient, and they should not be weakened.
The Capitol Hill Switchboard is 202-224-3121
Allow Americans to Travel Freely to Cuba!
It is an outrage that Americans are prohibited from travelling to Cuba by their own government. Ask your Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 874, The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act. See if your Representative is already a co-sponsor here.
Ask your Senators to co-sponsor the Senate version of the bill, S. 428. A list of co-sponsors is here.
If your Representative and/or Senators are already co-sponsors, you can call and thank them.
End Racial Profiling in Immigration Enforcement!
On August 25, DDF and 520 other organizations from around the country
- civil rights, criminal justice, community and immigrant rights organizations
- joined together to send a letter to President Barack Obama urging
him to terminate the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) widely
criticized 287(g) program, which relinquishes the authority to enforce
civil federal immigration law to local law enforcement and corrections
officials. Advocates, expecting a major overhaul - or termination
- of this controversial program, were shocked to learn that DHS was
expanding it to 11 new jurisdictions. While DHS claims to have standardized
the agreements, close scrutiny has shown that these changes do nothing
to prevent civil and human rights abuses, and in fact only further
exacerbate the program's problems.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, AZ has been the most public example of the egregious human rights abuses that have resulted from the program. However, despite an ongoing civil rights investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office by the Department of Justice, DHS has not terminated its 287(g) agreement. Similarly, other law enforcement agencies around the country have aggressively targeted immigrants by using pretextual traffic stops or other racial profiling tactics.
We
are asking for you to add your voice to this demand!
Send President Obama, the Department of Homeland Security, and members
of Congress an email in support of the demand to terminate the 287(g)
program and to restore fundamental fairness for all in our immigration
enforcement policy. Click
Here!
State Secret Protection Act Passes House Committee
Early in November 2009, the House Judiciary Committee approved the State Secrets Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 984). The sponsor of the bill, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has been a strong critic of the way the Bush and now the Obama administration have used the state secret privilege, said "The state secrets doctrine, as it has been reinvented in the last few years, is the greatest threat to liberty in this country. It must be limited and controlled."
The bill requires an independent review of evidence the executive branch claims is subject to state secrets privilege. If the court determines that the evidence is privileged, the court can require the creation of a non-privileged substitute, if possible (such as a redacted version of a document). If the government refuses to submit evidence for review, the bill requires a finding against the government. The bill would apply retroactively back to January 1, 2002. Our concern with the legislation is a provision giving a judge broad discretion in dealing with privileged evidence for which it is impossible to create a substitute. In such circumstances a judge would be allowed to rule against a defendant based on privileged (secret) evidence that the defendant is not allowed to see.
Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced a similar bill, also named the State
Secrets Protection Act (S. 417) in the Senate in February, but
no action has been taken yet. The Senate bill would not allow secret
evidence, but does not apply retroactively.
Action Alert:National Call In Days December 16 & 17 - Drop Terrorist Charges Against RNC Activists!
Updates:
FBI adopts new guidelines
Before Attorney General Mukasey even made the new FBI guidelines public, DDF engaged in a grassroots campaign and behind the scenes advocacy to forestall the worst provisions. Our main concerns were that the new guidelines would allow agents to investigate people based on their First Amendment activities and open the door to racial profiling. Unfortunately the new guidelines, which take affect on December 1, allow FBI agents to investigate individuals and groups for whom they have no factual basis to suspect of wrongdoing. The guidelines explicitly allow agents to infiltrate peaceful groups in advance of demonstrations, and do not prohibit agents from investigating people based on their race, religion or ethnicity.
The guidelines cannot be allowed to stand, and it will be a top priority of DDF in the coming year to ensure that they are changed. We are exploring different strategies with our coalition partners, including working with the Obama administration on quick fixes to the guidelines, a thorough review of the guidelines and current FBI practices, and possibly a legislative charter for the FBI (remember that Attorney General Levy wrote the original guidelines in 1976 to preclude congressional action).
Read the new guidelines here
Read recommendations to the new Administration and Congress here
Congress Hands Bush more Spy Powers and Lets Telecoms Off
the Hook
On Wednesday, July 9 the Senate passed H.R.. 6304, to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill grants sweeping new warrantless
surveillance powers to the Bush Administration. The bill also grants
retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies who aided the
Bush Administration's warrantless wiretaps of Americans in the past.
Find out how your Senator voted here.
Take a minute now to call your Senators: Thank those who voted NO
on this unconstitutional bill, and reprimand those who voted AYE.
You can reach your Senator through the Capitol Hill Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Hands off My Spit!
Update
In May, DDF alerted the activist community to problematic proposals
to collect DNA from all people arrested by federal agents. We encouraged
people to submit comments highlighting concerns collecting DNA from
innocent people. The comment period has closed but over 1,200 comments
have been submitted to the Department of Justice protesting the proposed
rules. Thank you to everyone who submitted a comment, or signed
the memo below. As the DOJ responds to criticism of the rule,
we will update this site. Senater Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a strong proponant
of the proposed rules wrote a rebuttal to our comments, you can read
it here.
Memo against DOJ proposal to collect DNA from innocents
Defending Dissent Foundation filed this comment on May 19, 2008:
To: David J. Karp
Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy
Room 4509, Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20530
From:
Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice
Gael Murphy, CodePink
Kevin Martin, Peace Action
Dave Robinson, Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement
Sue Udry, Defending Dissent Foundation
Granny Peace Brigade
Iraq Veterans Against the War - D.C. Chapter
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
Freedom Socialist Party
Julie Enslow, Wisconsin Peace Action
Judy Lear, Convener, Gray Panthers- NYC Network
Peace Action Bay Ridge
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
David Dixon, Action Center for Justice (Charlotte, NC)
Pax Christi Michigan
Joan McCoy, The Home for Peace and Justice
Tri-City Action for Peace
Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action
Judy and Leo Lynch, Tri-City Action for Peace
Pam Murphey Ewers, member of Pax Christie
Elaine and Francis McGuillicuddy, Portland, ME
Re: OAG Docket No. 119
Date: May 19, 2008
The Justice Department proposal for implementation of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 raises serious concerns for our organizations. Members of our organizations at times are called by their conscience to protest government policies using non-violent civil disobedience. These peaceful protests can lead to the arrest of activists by federal authorities. Our members have been willing to submit to hand-cuffing, detention, rough handling, court costs and more in the name of causes they believe in. We believe the proposed guideline, requiring the harvesting of DNA samples from every arrestee, is a radical and unwarranted departure from current policies.
We strongly oppose the new rules:
The rules make a strong presumption that everyone arrested (or in the case of non-citizens, simply detained) is likely to be guilty of some crime at some time in the past or future. This turns the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on its head and is unacceptable.
This rule, as written, will swell the government’s DNA database with the sensitive genetic information of innocent people – including those who have engaged in peaceful protest. Innocent people do not belong in a criminal database.
Adding arrestees and immigrant detainees to the DNA database will vastly increase the number of innocent minorities in the database. Minorities are more likely to be wrongly arrested or detained than whites.
DNA is not a mere fingerprint. It contains sensitive medical information that should not be recklessly collected and stored by the government.
The DNA database currently contains six million profiles. Each added profile increases the likelihood of a mismatch. The larger the database is, the greater the odds that an innocent person will be implicated for a crime they did not commit. It is estimated that one million new profiles will be added to the database each year.
We are alarmed that the guidelines would allow the collection of DNA samples by private contractors. We are greatly concerned that this will drastically increase the incidence of errors and outright abuse of private genetic information.
(the proposed regulation is available here)
Find more information here:
DNA matches arena' always a lock (L.A.Times)
Frogs for genetic privacy (Daily Kos)
Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest (AP)
Must the Fight against "Homegrown Terrorism" erode our civil liberties?
Under the leadership of Senator Lieberman (I-CT), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security is looking at ways to counter the 'threat of homegrown terrorism' that undermine our constitutional rights. A coalition of civil liberties and other groups is fighting back. We've sent the memo below to all members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security -- we encourage you or your organization to send a similar memo to the committee.
Worried that we are not doing enough to fight the threat of homegrown terrorism, Senator Lieberman has taken it upon himself to lead the charge.... by attempting to censor the worldwide web. On May 19, the Senator asked YouTube to take down videos produced by 'Islamist terrorist organizations'. Thus far, the company has responded admirably and refused to take down videos that do not violate their restrictions against gratuitous violence and hate speech. We cannot expect this battle to end there.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee will issue a series of reports on the homegrown terrorism threat over the coming months. Senator Lieberman has already used the first report to support his attack on free speech on the internet.
The first report is available here: "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat".
This memo has been sent to the members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.
Find a text (word) version of this memo here
Additional Resources: American Muslim and Arab American Organizations respond to committee report; "ACLU skeptical of Senate Report"; "Muslim-Bashing Report"; "Lieberman Gift to McCain"; "Civil Liberties Groups Question Thesis of Report"
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
From:
AfterDowningStreet.org
American Civil Liberties Union
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Center for Constitutional Rights
Center for Democracy and Technology
Congress Against Racism and Corruption in Law Enforcement
Defending Dissent Foundation
Democrats.com
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Equal Justice Alliance
Friends Committee on National Legislation
International Association of Whistleblowers
International Center for Civil Law
Liberty Coalition
National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc
OMB Watch
Pain Relief Network
Progressive Democrats of America
Republican Liberty Coalition
Rutherford Institute
The Multiracial Activist
United for Peace and Justice
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
State and Local Organizations and Individuals:
Blair Hyatt, Director, Pennsylvania Head Start Association
Media Mobilizing Project, Pennsylvania
Peace and Justice Coalition, Prince Georges County
West Hartford Citizens for Peace and Justice
Re: Homegrown Terrorism
Date: May 30, 2008
Governmental efforts to deal with the problem of “homegrown terrorism” raise serious civil liberties concerns. House and Senate committees charged with overseeing these efforts, the House Homeland Security Committee and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, have conducted a series of hearings on the matter and received some troubling recommendations. Legislation to address the problem, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 1955) passed the House and companion legislation, S. 1959, is stalled in the Senate. We understand that the Senate Committee plans to issue a report based on the hearings. We encourage the committee to take the following concerns and issues into consideration in writing that report.
We must be clear; the need to prevent criminal acts of violence is unquestionable. Studying and understanding the origin of terrorism and what provokes violence is an important element of prevention. But one of the greatest challenges to countering such movements is drawing the line between advocacy of ideas, including violence, and taking concrete steps toward carrying out a violent act. It is also important to distinguish between violence that injures or kills people and minor acts of vandalism that are part of an act of civil disobedience. Properly viewed, dissent can be an antidote to terrorism, not a precursor to it.
Defining the Problem
The first challenge policy makers face is to define the problem that
is to be addressed. It is critically important that the articulation
of the problem does not cause people merely exercising their First
Amendment rights to fear being swept into the net of suspicion. For
example, any definition of the problem must recognize that it is perfectly
permissible for Americans to hold and promote a system of beliefs
that others might find “extreme,” and for those who hold those beliefs
to seek, without violence, political, religious and social change
based on those beliefs. The reference in pending homegrown terrorism
legislation to “the process for adopting an extremist belief system”
raises concern that advocacy of particular beliefs would become the
subject of study, instead of studying the causes of violence that
a person engages in, citing such beliefs.
A second challenge is to determine whether there even is an identifiable process that leads to terrorism. A statistically and methodologically flawed study by the New York Police Department purports to identify a four-step “radicalization process” that terrorists go through, but even the authors of the study admit limitations to the application of their model, namely:
• that not all individuals who begin the process pass through all
the stages;
• that many “stop or abandon this process at different points;” and
finally,
• that “individuals do not always follow a perfectly linear progression”
through the four steps.
What is dangerous is that the four steps each involve religious conduct,
and the authors fail to note that millions of people may progress
through these “stages” and never commit an act of violence.
The Government should not be in the business of trying to thwart the
adoption of belief systems to which some in government object. And,
when assessing whether particular advocacy can be stifled – including
objectionable advocacy of violence – it is useful to recall that the
Supreme Court set a high bar to governmental prior restraint. Under
the Brandenburg v. Ohio incitement test, speech cannot be curtailed
unless it is intended to and has the effect of causing imminent lawless
conduct. Mere abstract advocacy of violence, however objectionable,
may not be barred.
The Danger of Focusing on the Internet
Much of the discourse on homegrown terrorism has singled out Internet
communications in a troubling way. For example, the pending homegrown
terrorism legislation notes, "The Internet has aided in facilitating
violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown
terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad
and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States
citizens." The truth of this statement lies in its universality:
the simple fact is the Internet has become an essential communications
and research tool for everyone.
Our concern is that this focus on the Internet could be a precursor
to proposals to censor and regulate speech on the Internet. Indeed,
some policy makers have advocated shutting down objectionable websites.
The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee heard
testimony from a Dutch counterterrorism official whose government
monitors mosques and works to take “the most radical” websites offline:
“Our message is clear: we do not allow them to preach intolerance.”
This is not consistent with American values of free speech or the
First Amendment.
Moreover, testimony at the hearings indicates that such an approach not only fails muster under free speech principles, but is unlikely to be effective. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee also heard testimony indicating that the content of many of the websites that are objectionable is “mirrored” on other websites, and that as a result, shutting down one or two will not make the information disappear. Lt. Col. Joseph Felter, Ph D., Director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, testified to the Senate Committee that “Attempts to shut down websites have proven as fruitless as a game of whack-a-mole.” It can even be counter-productive. Attempts to shut down websites often draw attention to the very content that may be objectionable.
If the Internet is a focus of efforts to stop “homegrown terrorism” it should be because it can be a tremendous tool for dissemination of vast amounts of material that could counter the messages of the terrorists. The Internet, and the free speech it facilitates, can be an antidote to terrorism.
The Counterproductive Focus on Islam
Much of the discourse about homegrown terrorism in these hearings
has focused on Muslims and Islam, even though perpetrators of terrorism
in the United States have had many religious and ethnic backgrounds.
Suggestions have been made that Muslims need to be watched because
any particular Muslim might at any time become a homegrown terrorist.
The Los Angeles Police Department, for example, launched a program
to “map” mosques in the Los Angeles area as part of its efforts to
counter homegrown terrorism.
Focusing the discussion of homegrown terrorism on Muslims may actually increase the potential for violent radicalization in the United States. Many witnesses before the Committee spoke of the growth of Islamophobia and the polarization of the Muslim community as risk factors that raise the potential for extremist violence. Unfairly focusing suspicion on a community tends to create the very alienation these witnesses said could lead to homegrown terrorism.
Moreover, there is not one monolithic Muslim community in the United States, according to Committee witness Farooq Kathwari, who co-chaired the Task Force for Muslim American Civic and Political Engagements. Muslim Americans emigrated from many different countries across the globe, with many different religious, ethnic and social traditions, while a significant number, particularly African American Muslims, are not immigrants at all. A focus on Muslims can create an impression that all adherents of Islam are suspect and lead to racial (or religious) profiling.
Dr. Marc Sageman, who conducted research on terrorists in Europe
and the United States, suggested religion may be less of a driving
factor than local police actions: “It is important to realize that
the terrorists are not – and I emphasize not – Islamic scholars.”
Discriminatory profiling is a counterproductive anti-terrorism strategy.
It shifts the locus inquiry away from indicia of violence to characteristics
such as race and religion which are not predictors of terrorism. Moreover,
it can contribute to feelings of alienation that can be preyed upon
by those who intend to do harm.
Learning from History
A look back at U.S. history shows that many major social change movements
advocated ideas that were considered radical at the time and used
tactics that could fall into an overbroad definition of homegrown
terrorism. Any plan of action to address the problem that suggests
that “extremist beliefs” will become a subject of suspicion will discourage
people from advocating their beliefs and ideas in an open and democratic
process. That result would harm our society, not protect it. Indeed
the civil liberties of U.S. citizens can be respected while protecting
national security.
Unfortunately, recent U.S. history is full of discouraging examples of nonviolent groups being subjected to unwarranted surveillance, even incarceration and deportation based not on any crime, but on political beliefs or ethnic identity: the Palmer raids, the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II, and the FBI’s counterintelligence program (Cointelpro) of the 1960’s and 1970’s. The legislative branch has a history of using innuendo and guilt by association to ruin reputations and silence dissent, from the New York legislature’s Lusk Committee (which published a report in 1920 entitled Revolutionary Radicalism) to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings of the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s. Most Americans agree that these violations of civil liberties were more harmful than the threat from ‘radical’ groups.
Conclusion
Broad definitions of terrorism and radicalization, coupled with the public's knowledge of surveillance of nonviolent groups by the Justice Department, give cause to concern that Americans' ability to speak freely will be threatened by efforts to address homegrown terrorism. We believe that efforts to prevent people in the United States from turning to terrorism can only succeed if we protect the free speech, religious and associational rights of those against whom these efforts are directed. We strongly urge policy makers to tread lightly and carefully in this area, and to make every effort to preserve free speech and association rights.
