| 
CIA Refuses to Disclose Documents Related to Interrogation Tape
No Liquids, No Shoes, No Privacy at the Airport
Take Action for Equal Pay
Student is Able to Read Report on Harvey Milk After Threat of ACLU Lawsuit Against School
The End of Federal Funding for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs?
Race, Reasonable Doubt and Reggie Clemons
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE ACLU!
Your involvement is the life-blood of our organization and makes possible all that we do to defend our most basic liberties.
The End of Federal Funding for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs?
More than a decade and a billion dollars later, there's a flicker of hope that our government will act in the best interests of young people and eliminate funding for the failed and ideologically-based abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs.
Abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs represent a purposeful campaign to mislead, distort, stifle and censor. They are based on the belief that providing teenagers with information will -- in all cases -- lead to bad and immoral decision-making rather than informed and thoughtful decision-making that can avert sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS and unintended pregnancies. Our nation's young people deserve better from their government.
President Obama has demonstrated leadership by requesting in his budget request to Congress that current abstinence-only programs not be funded. But, there is no certainty that Congress will do the right thing. In fact, abstinence-only supporters are gearing up and making the case to keep the programs alive. The budget process is now swinging into high gear and funding decisions for abstinence-only programs are expected any day.
>> Take Action: Tell Congress to end federal funding for failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Invest in teen pregnancy and disease prevention programs instead.
Race, Reasonable Doubt and Reggie Clemons
The ACLU has long fought against the unfairness and arbitrariness of capital punishment while working towards the ultimate goal of abolishing the death penalty. In yet another example of the injustice of the capital punishment system, a man's life hangs in the balance.
Reggie Clemons is scheduled for execution on June 17, 2009. Clemons, a black man, was convicted of the murder of two young white women in St. Louis in 1991. Clemons and two other black men were sentenced to death while a fourth person, a young white man was offered a plea deal and is out on parole. That is not the only race issue in the case. The original suspect, a white man and the cousin of the women, confessed to the crime after failing a lie detector test and changing his story several times. All three black defendants claimed that their confessions were coerced by police beatings and/or denial of constitutional rights. The arraignment judge sent Clemons to the hospital for obvious injuries he did not have before his 'interview' with police.
Further, there is no physical evidence linking Clemons to the offense. And jurors were improperly excluded and the prosecutor was guilty of serious misconduct. Though an appeals court overturned the death sentence, then Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon -- now the governor -- aggressively fought to have it reinstated.
Such involvement of the governor makes this case even more problematic. That's why we are asking Governor Nixon to appoint a Board of Inquiry to independently investigate the facts of this case. When a man's life is on the line, there can be no room for doubt.
>> Take Action: Write Governor Nixon and ask for an independent Board of Inquiry to investigate this case.
Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend.
| June 13, 2009
CIA Refuses to Disclose Documents Related to Interrogation Tape
In an attempt to avoid public and judicial scrutiny of the Bush administration torture program, CIA Director Leon Panetta argued that records related to the destruction and content of interrogation tapes should be withheld in their entirety because they contain information about the actual implementation of "enhanced interrogation techniques," as opposed to abstract information about the techniques -- such as that included in Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos released earlier this year. Director Panetta also argued that the release of this information could be used as "ready-made" propaganda by our enemies.
In April, a federal judge rejected the CIA's attempt to withhold records relating to the agency's destruction of 92 videotapes that depicted the harsh interrogation of CIA prisoners. The ACLU is seeking disclosure of these records as part of its pending motion to hold the CIA in contempt for destroying the tapes, which violated a court order requiring it to produce or identify records responsive to the ACLU's FOIA request for records relating to the treatment of prisoners held in U.S. custody overseas. The government continues to withhold the documents in their entirety and argues that not even one sentence of the documents can be made public.
"The CIA's withholding of documents because they might be used as propaganda would justify the greatest governmental suppression of the worst governmental misconduct," said Alex Abdo, a fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. "If we accept the CIA's rationale, the government could, for example, suppress any document discussing torture, Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo Bay."
>>Learn more about the ACLU's efforts to learn the truth about the Bush administration torture program.
No Liquids, No Shoes, No Privacy at the Airport
Americans have become accustomed to giving up a little privacy -- and a lot of convenience -- at the border in the name of national security. But when Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) releases a policy, as they did in July 2008, which permits officials to subject travelers to suspicionless searches of their laptops, Blackberries, and other electronic devices, the line between routine and unconstitutional clearly was crossed.
In order to learn more about this alarming policy, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request this week with CBP to uncover how these suspicionless searches are threatening the constitutional rights of international travelers.
"Based on current CBP policy, we have reason to believe innumerable international travelers — including U.S. citizens — have their most personal information searched by government officials and retained by the government indefinitely," said Larry Schwartztol, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The disclosure of these records is necessary to better understand the extent to which U.S. border and customs officials may be violating the Constitution."
Suspicionless searches of laptops and other storage devices raise grave constitutional concerns. The sheer quantity of data contained on a laptop or on personal electronic devices means that these searches invade travelers' most intimate personal documents — not to mention sensitive business information routinely transported by executives and lawyers. Furthermore, by exposing all this information to government review, the policy may deter some travelers from maintaining documents that reflect unpopular or dissenting views, thus chilling the exercise of core First Amendment activities. And allowing suspicionless searches gives border agents unfettered power, which may easily be wielded in a way that discriminates on the basis of national origin or religion.
>>Learn more and take action.
Take Action for Equal Pay
Wednesday, June 10, 2009, marked the 46th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. That historic act signified our nation's commitment to ensuring that women are not paid less than men for equal work. But, over time, loopholes and weak remedies have made this historic law less effective than Congress originally intended.
Today, women, on average, continue to earn only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men -- that's only 18 cents more on the dollar than when President Kennedy signed the bill in 1963. For women of color, the progress has been even slower.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would require employers to demonstrate that disparities in pay between men and women working the same job result from factors other than gender. It would also prohibit retaliation against employees who inquire about their employers' wage practices or disclose their own pay to their colleagues. Furthermore, the Act would deter discrimination by strengthening the penalties for equal pay violations.
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Paycheck Fairness Act with bipartisan support in January. But, the bill has not yet moved in the Senate. We cannot afford to wait any longer. Urge the Senate to move quickly on this very important bill. They need to hear how important fair pay is to you -- especially in these tough economic times.
>>Take Action: Please contact your Senators today and ask them to take up and pass S. 182, The Paycheck Fairness Act now.
Student is Able to Read Report on Harvey Milk After Threat of ACLU Lawsuit Against School
Two weeks ago, we reported on sixth grader, Natalie Jones, who was censored by her Califonia school for trying to give a report on Harvey Milk. Now, we are happy to report that on Thursday Natalie was able to give her report, though only after the ACLU threatened her school with a lawsuit for censoring it.
The assignment, part of an independent research project class, was originally to prepare a written report on any topic. Jones chose to write about Harvey Milk after watching Sean Penn win an Academy Award for portraying him. Students were then told to make presentations about their reports, which they would show to other students in the class. The day before Natalie was to give her 12-page presentation she was called into the principal's office and told she couldn't do so.
Then, the school sent letters to parents of students in the class, explaining that Natalie's presentation was being rescheduled for a lunch recess and that students could only attend if they had parental permission due to the allegedly "sensitive" nature of the topic. School officials tried to justify all of this by claiming Jones' presentation triggered the school's sex education policy.
After the ACLU threatened to sue them for violating the First Amendment as well as the California Education Code, school officials finally backed down. Natalie received a written apology, and school officials sent a letter about that apology to all the parents who got the original "warning" about the presentation. The school also agreed to bring its sex education policy into compliance with state law, and acknowledged that the mere mention of a person's sexual orientation isn't enough to invoke sex education policy. And perhaps most important of all, Natalie gave her presentation to the entire class Thursday morning.
Natalie's mom, Bonnie, tells us it went really well. She's terribly proud of her daughter, and we are too. But we suspect Harvey, if he were around today, might be proudest of all.
Join us on... |
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment