|
Tolerate Injustice or End It
Breaking News: Judge Orders ACLU Client Freed from Guantánamo Bay
ACLU in Court Challenging Unconstitutional Spying Law
A Victory for Free Speech
Protect the Privacy of Your Health Records
Finally Cracking the Disparity
Racial Profiling Pervasive Throughout the U.S.
Nevada Supreme Court Applauded for Allowing "HOE" License Plate
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.
Racial Profiling Pervasive Throughout the U.S.
Racial profiling has recently been in the news because Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a world-renowned Professor of African-American studies at Harvard University, was a victim. However, it is important to remember that this story is news because of the identity of the person profiled, not because of the rarity of the underlying police actions.
Racial profiling -- using a person’s race, color, ethnicity or national origin to determine whether to stop, search or investigate him or her for alleged criminal activity -- is rampant throughout the United States, and it acutely affects African American, Asian, Latino, South Asian, and Arab communities.
During an interview on NPR, the Director of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, Dennis Parker, posed the question that if Professor Gates is subject to such treatment, “what does that say for the rest of the people of color that haven’t achieved his level of success?” In fact, much of what happened to Professor Gates was an anomaly. Most victims of racial profiling by police are not released after four hours. Most victims of racial profiling do not have the charges against them dropped. Most victims of racial profiling do not receive media attention.
Last month, the ACLU and the Rights Working Group released a report to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that demonstrates just how pervasive racial profiling is in the United States. The report, The Persistence of Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the United States, explains, that despite overwhelming evidence of its existence, often supported by official data, racial profiling continues to be a prevalent and egregious form of discrimination in the United States. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have acknowledged that racial profiling is unconstitutional, socially corrupting and counter-productive, yet this unjustifiable practice remains a stain on American democracy and an affront to the promise of racial equality.
>> Learn more about the state of racial profiling in the United States and read the ACLU’s report.
Nevada Supreme Court Applauded for Allowing "HOE" License Plate
In 1999, William Junge got the personalized license plate “HOE” because he drove a Chevrolet Tahoe. His first choice, “TAHOE” was unavailable, so he settled for “HOE” and chose the Lake Tahoe license plate. It was approved and renewed without complaint for years, until 2006 when a single DMV employee decided arbitrarily that the word was offensive after consulting only the Urban Dictionary, an online source which defines words through user-generated content. Because someone on the Urban Dictionary site defined “hoe” as “whore,” Mr. Junge’s plate was revoked.
Mr. Junge appealed the decision, but the hearing officer upheld the revocation, citing Nevada statutes that allow the DMV to prohibit license plates with any combination of letters and numbers that may be offensive. A district court judge reversed the decision by the hearing officer, and the DMV, apparently intent on getting rid of a license plate that said “HOE,” appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The ACLU of Nevada submitted a friend of the court brief because the case involved an important First Amendment issue: can the state have such vague parameters for approving vanity license plates that give unfettered discretion to individual DMV officers to decide what speech is and is not offensive?
The Court agreed with the ACLU’s arguments that the DMV cannot make First Amendment decisions arbitrarily. Instead, the DMV must show substantial evidence proving that a requested plate is inappropriate. The Court acknowledged that the Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source for decisions about acceptable speech. And, in relying solely on the Urban Dictionary to deny Mr. Junge’s license plate, the DMV violated the First Amendment.
States across the country arbitrarily censor vanity license plates. The ACLU of Colorado launched a web game that lets visitors determine whether they are qualified to be license plate censors. See if you have what it takes. Test takers with too much attachment to reason or to the First Amendment are advised to look for another line of work.
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.
|
July 30 , 2009
Tolerate Injustice or End It
By Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, ACLU
Earlier today, a principled judge reminded us all why habeas corpus -- the right to challenge arbitrary government actions in a court of law -- is so vitally important.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle ordered the release of ACLU client Mohammed Jawad after seven years of illegal detention at Guantánamo Bay. (See details of this important victory below.)
Judge Huvelle didn’t temporize or equivocate. She saw an injustice, and she acted to end it. And that’s exactly what we need to do if we hope to restore an America we can be proud of again.
That means closing Guantánamo Bay and refusing all arguments to keep it open. Ending Bush-era military commissions, not trying to “fix” them. Stopping illegal detention, not setting up a new system of indefinite detention that holds people without charge or trial.
Tolerate injustice or end it. When it’s all said and done, those are the only two choices we have. This issue of ACLU Online updates you on critical ACLU efforts to end injustice. And we’ve got another high-profile ACLU moment coming in a matter of days.
Keep your eyes open this coming week. You’ll have a big opportunity to act against injustice.
Breaking News: Judge Orders ACLU Client Freed from Guantánamo Bay
Today -- in a Guantánamo detainee case the ACLU has pursued for several years -- a federal judge ordered one of the deepest injustices at that infamous detention facility brought to an end.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle gave the Justice Department until August 21 to release Mohammed Jawad from Guantánamo and transfer him to the custody of the Afghan government, which has indicated that it is prepared to receive Jawad immediately and unconditionally.
Judge Huvelle made clear that Mr. Jawad has been illegally detained, and the government has no credible evidence to continue holding him. We are pleased that the Justice Department has expressed a commitment to getting him home so that this nightmare of abuse and injustice can finally come to an end.
In its last term, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus. And now, by representing Mr. Jawad in his habeas case, the ACLU has helped end his lawless detention.
Following his 2002 arrest in Afghanistan for allegedly throwing a grenade at two U.S. soldiers and their interpreter, Jawad was subjected to repeated torture and other mistreatment and to a systematic program of harsh and highly coercive interrogations designed to break him physically and mentally. At one point, Jawad tried to commit suicide in his cell by slamming his head repeatedly against the wall.
Last fall, a military judge in Jawad's Guantánamo military commission proceeding threw out the bulk of the evidence against him finding that it was obtained through torture. And recently, the Afghan Attorney General sent a letter to the U.S. government demanding Jawad's return and suggesting he was as young as 12 when he was captured in Afghanistan and illegally rendered from that country nearly seven years ago.
Now finally, seven years of illegal detention are about to come to an end.
With your help, the ACLU will build on this important victory against illegal detention and lawless government actions until respect for human rights and the rule of law is fully restored.
>>Learn more about Jawad's case.
ACLU in Court Challenging Unconstitutional Spying Law
The ACLU was in court last Wednesday for oral arguments in its landmark challenge to the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which gives the government virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls.
The ACLU filed a lawsuit to stop the government from spying under the FAA less than an hour after the Act was signed into law by President Bush on July 10, 2008. And, recent news reports have indicated that the National Security Agency has exceeded the already overbroad limits granted to it under the FAA.
The case -- Amnesty v. McConnell -- was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations. These groups rely on confidential communications to do their work, and are therefore greatly compromised by the FAA.
>>Learn more about the ACLU’s challenge to the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act.
A Victory for Free Speech
In a victory for free speech and academic discourse, a federal appeals court recently found that the U.S. government had not adequately justified its denial of a visa to a Swiss professor and leading scholar of the Muslim world.
The decision, which reverses a ruling of a lower federal court, comes in a case in which the ACLU contended that the government's exclusion from the U.S. of Professor Tariq Ramadan violated the First Amendment rights of organizations inside the United States that had invited Ramadan to meet with and speak to their members.
Professor Ramadan was offered a tenured professorship at the University of Notre Dame in 2004 but could not take up the post because the government revoked his U.S. visa. The government initially justified its decision by claiming that Professor Ramadan had "endorsed or espoused" terrorism. After the ACLU filed suit, the government abandoned this claim but continued to defend his exclusion on the grounds that he had made small donations to a Swiss charity that the government alleged had given money to Hamas.
But as the court correctly pointed out in the decision, the charity in question wasn’t designated as a terrorist group until years after Professor Ramadan made the donations. When he made the donations, Professor Ramadan had no idea that the charity was providing funds to Hamas. The appeals court held that the government could not bar Professor Ramadan (or any other individual accused of providing "material support" for terrorism) without giving him the "opportunity to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and reasonably should not have known, that the recipient of his contributions was a terrorist organization."
The appeals court also made clear that barring invited scholars from the United States deprives U.S. citizens of their First Amendment rights to hear ideas and engage in face-to-face debate with foreign scholars. Furthermore, the exclusion of scholars on ideological grounds stymies the global exchange of ideas.
The appeals court ruling should serve as an opportunity for the Obama administration to disown the Bush administration’s misguided policy of excluding scholars because of their political views. The Administration should also end Professor Ramadan’s unjustified exclusion and reconsider the exclusion of other foreign scholars, writers and artists who were barred from the country by the Bush administration on ideological grounds. These currently excluded voices could contribute greatly to academic dialogue in the U.S.
>>Take Action: Sign the petition calling on Attorney General Holder and Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano to stop censoring ideas at America’s borders.
Protect the Privacy of Your Health Records
Earlier this year, the economic stimulus bill contained mandates for converting paper health records into electronic data systems and called for strong privacy protections of those records.
But now, as the Department of Health and Human Services writes the detailed regulations to guide this process, there’s a real risk that your privacy won’t be protected after all.
That’s because powerful special interests are lobbying heavily for regulations that give hospitals and insurance companies -- not patients -- control over how personal medical information is used. This could leave you with no process for blocking access to critical information such as the results of HIV/AIDS tests and eventually, no way to correct false information in your medical records or see who is reviewing those records.
Events are moving quickly. So now is the time to make your voice heard. Send a “protect my privacy” message to Dr. David Blumenthal, the HHS official in charge of this process.
>>Take Action: Tell HHS we need real patient control of personal health data in our electronic medical records!
Finally Cracking the Disparity
The House Judiciary Committee voted earlier this week to pass a bill that would eliminate the discriminatory and unjustifiable disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing under federal law. The vote clears the way for the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009 (H.R. 3245) to be voted on by the full House.
More than two decades ago, based on assumptions about crack which are now known to be false, heightened penalties for crack cocaine offenses were adopted. Sentences for crack are currently equivalent to the sentences for 100 times the amount of powder cocaine, and the impact falls disproportionately on African Americans.
“For over 20 years, the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing has been a blight on our justice system,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislation Office. “Years of medical and legal research have shown no appreciable difference between crack and powder cocaine, and no justification for allowing a vast sentencing gap between them. Congress is one step closer to ending the crack-powder disparity and unjust mandatory minimum sentences.”
The bill now goes to the full House for a vote.
>>Take action: Urge Congress to pass this important and long overdue legislation.
|
Send Email