|
Ashcroft Can Be Held Accountable For Post-9/11 Wrongful Detention
ACLU Asks Court to End Government Funding of Religion in Mississippi Abstinence-Only Program
Administration Seeks to Deny Bagram Prisoners Access to U.S. Courts
Government Withholds Key Torture Documents in ACLU Lawsuit
Legislation Introduced To Repeal Discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act
What Do Facebook Quizzes Know About You?
ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Expulsion of Middle School Student after Illegal Cell Phone Search
|
A QUESTION OF RIGHTS
Should school officials have the right to search the private contents of a student's cell phone?
Click here to take the poll.
We will report back the results in the next issue of ACLU Online. |
What Do Facebook Quizzes Know about You?
Are you on Facebook? Are any of your friends or family part of one of the largest online communities in the world?
If so, you may have seen or heard about the quizzes that are so popular on the site. But do you know just how much of your information these quizzes can access?
Even if your Facebook profile is “private,” when you take a quiz, an unknown quiz developer could be getting access to almost everything in your profile: your religious views, sexual orientation, political affiliation, pictures, and groups. Facebook quizzes also have access to most of the information on your friends’ profiles. This means that if your friend takes a quiz, they could be giving away your personal information, too.
Don’t just take our word for it: take our quiz and see for yourself!
(You’ll need to have a Facebook account to take this quiz at Facebook. If you don’t have one, be sure to review Facebook's privacy policy before signing up.)
Learn how to change your own privacy settings and then take the next step and tell Facebook that you want stronger privacy protections.
And, yes, we know it’s a little weird to warn you about Facebook quizzes by asking you to take a Facebook quiz but at least you know who we are and that we are committed to living up to our privacy policy, unlike many quiz authors who haven’t posted a privacy policy at all!
ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Expulsion of Middle School Student After Illegal Cell Phone Search
The ACLU filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a middle school student wrongfully expelled from school after authorities illegally searched his cell phone and found what they claimed were photos depicting "gang-related activity" -- when in reality the photos mainly depicted the student dancing in the bathroom of his own home.
Richard Wade was a 12-year-old honor student at Southaven Middle School when he had his phone confiscated and searched last fall by several of his football coaches, his class principal and a Southaven Police Department sergeant after he read a text message during football class in violation of school rules.
After receiving a text message in August 2008 from his father in South Carolina which he thought might indicate an emergency, Richard flipped open his phone to read the message. But rather than simply confiscating the phone and turning it in to the school office as required by Southaven Middle School policy, several school officials searched through the private and personal pictures Richard had stored on the phone, despite not having any reason to believe that Richard had done anything wrong other than possessing the cell phone. The phone was subsequently turned over to the police sergeant who claimed that the pictures constituted "gang-related activity" and "indecent pictures." Richard was suspended for three days and ordered to attend a disciplinary hearing the next week.
Among other things, the lawsuit seeks to have the charges related to this incident expunged from Richard's law enforcement, academic and disciplinary records.
>>Learn more about 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.
|
September 17, 2009
Ashcroft Can Be Held Accountable For Post-9/11 Wrongful Detention
In an unprecedented ruling that places responsibility squarely on government officials who, after 9/11, championed policies clearly outside the boundaries of the law, a federal appellate court ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be held personally responsible for the wrongful detention of an innocent American, Abdullah al-Kidd. The court also ruled that the federal material witness law cannot be used to "preventively" detain or investigate suspects. The ACLU represents al-Kidd in the case, al-Kidd v. Ashcroft.
Prior to 9/11, the federal material witness law was used sparingly -- especially with U.S. citizens -- to ensure that witnesses would be available to testify in criminal cases. Under the statute, arrests took place in rare cases to secure testimony where there was hard evidence that an individual had material information, but would not testify voluntarily. After 9/11, Ashcroft distorted the law into a so-called "preventive" detention statute, allowing the government to arrest and detain individuals for whom the government lacked probable cause to charge with criminal violations.
Al-Kidd, a U.S.-born American citizen, was on his way to Saudi Arabia to study when he was unlawfully detained and arrested in Washington's Dulles Airport on March 16, 2003 as a material witness in the trial of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. For 16 days, al-Kidd was held in heightened-security units of various jails and shackled whenever moved. He was eventually released under onerous conditions that included confining his travel to four states, surrendering his passport and reporting to probation officers. Al-Kidd was held for more than 13 months under these conditions without ever being charged with any crime or asked to testify.
"The court made it very clear that former Attorney General Ashcroft's use of the federal material witness law circumvented the Constitution," said ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project Deputy Director Lee Gelernt, who argued the appeal. "Regardless of your rank or title, you can't escape liability if you personally created and oversaw a policy that deliberately violates the law."
>>Learn more about the case.
ACLU Asks Court to End Government Funding of Religion in Mississippi Abstinence-Only Program
The ACLU asked a federal court in Mississippi to end government funding of religion in the state's abstinence-only-until-marriage program. The case was filed on behalf of a teen and two community members who attended a state-sponsored abstinence summit in May of this year.
As part of National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month, the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) holds an annual teen abstinence summit each May. After last year's summit, which included overt religious messages, the ACLU sent a letter to MDHS asking for assurances that future events would remain secular. MDHS did not respond to the ACLU's letter and failed to address the legal concerns in this year's event.
The 2009 summit featured religious themes and overtly Christian messages, including a lengthy presentation about the Ten Commandments by Judge John N. Hudson of the Adams County Court in Natchez, Mississippi, Judge Hudson told the audience, "Abstain, God says, from promiscuous sex -- thou shall not commit adultery. But why? Is not God being a killjoy? Did He not create this great gift which is so good and wonderful? Why would He tell us not to do it? He's not. He's telling us that He created this great and wonderful gift for a special and unique committed relationship that is to last forever." The program also included several prayers and a performance to gospel songs by the Pilgrim Rest Mime Ministry.
"By using the summit to promote a religious message rather than offer health-related information, the state missed an important opportunity to help teens make healthy and smart decisions when it comes to sexuality," said Kristy L. Bennett, Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Mississippi. "Study after study shows that abstinence-only-until-marriage approaches are ineffective at preventing teen pregnancy or the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Given the high rates of teen pregnancy and HIV infection in Mississippi, the failings of this year's summit are inexcusable."
>>Watch video excerpts from the 2009 Teen Summit. (This link will take you to Huffingtonpost.com.)
>>Read Brigitte Amiri's blog post, Mississippi Officials Need a Civics Lesson on Constitution Day.
Administration Seeks to Deny Bagram Prisoners Access to U.S. Courts
This week, the Obama administration filed a brief with a federal appeals court in Washington arguing that the approximately 600 detainees in U.S. custody at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan are not entitled to have their cases heard in U.S. courts. Some of the detainees at Bagram have been held for up to six years with no meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention, and there are some prisoners there who are unconnected to the war in Afghanistan but who have been sent there from locations around the world.
In June 2008, in the landmark case of Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court found that detainees at Guantánamo were entitled to habeas corpus rights. In opposing the principles established in that ruling, the Obama administration is now arguing that these rights do not apply at Bagram.
The government's appeal comes on the heels of the administration's announcement that it would release guidelines for allowing detainees at the prison greater opportunity to challenge their detention, by assigning military representatives -- not lawyers -- to detainees to assist them in challenging their detention before a military-appointed review board. The new guidelines were attached to the government's appellate brief.
“It would be tragic to leave the stigma of Guantánamo behind only to have Bagram become the next legal black hole for detainees," said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "Since the Supreme Court declared that prisoners in Guantánamo Bay have the right to habeas corpus, it would appear that the government is attempting to use Bagram instead as the new off-shore warehouse for indefinite detention. Guantánamo has been a stain on this nation's reputation at home and abroad, and the last thing we should be doing is creating another version of it elsewhere."
In April, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking the Obama administration to make public records pertaining to the detention and treatment of prisoners held at Bagram. The government has not yet turned over the records.
>> Learn more about the ACLU’s FOIA request.
Become a Guardian of Liberty
"Protecting everyone's rights is important in this country, and that's what the ACLU is all about."
- Grace W., Guardian of Liberty since 1989 We could not have said it better. Guardians of Liberty are a select group of ACLU members who understand that every day, all across the nation, the ACLU is called upon to defend the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And the dependable support of Guardians of Liberty makes it possible for the ACLU to take on these challenges whenever they occur. For as little as $20, $15 or even $10 a month, you can make a difference in the ongoing fight for our civil liberties. Become a Guardian today.
Government Withholds Key Torture Documents in ACLU Lawsuit
The government has said it will continue to withhold dozens of documents related to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody overseas. In response to two Freedom of Information Act Lawsuits filed by the ACLU, the Justice Department was facing an August 31 deadline to release the documents, including a presidential directive authorizing CIA "black sites" as well as CIA inspector general (IG) records and documents from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques."
U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York ordered the government to turn over the documents by August 31 or else provide justification for continuing to withhold them. In a filing late Monday, the CIA said it will not release the documents, claiming that disclosing details about the enhanced interrogation program would harm national security. In its filing, the CIA also argued that the information available to the public about the enhanced interrogation program should be limited to its historical context and legal underpinnings. However, the government has already released several documents that provide more than merely abstract detail about the interrogations. The Justice Department last month made public dozens of related documents as part of the ACLU's FOIA litigation, including a CIA IG report on the CIA's interrogation tactics, a December 2004 CIA background paper giving a detailed official description of the CIA's detention and interrogation program and a 2007 OLC memo describing "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be used against prisoners then in CIA custody.
>>Learn more information about the ACLU's FOIA litigation.
Legislation Introduced to Repeal Discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act
A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this week that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and respect state marriages by providing federal protections for married same-sex couples. DOMA, passed in 1996, authorized discrimination against lawfully married same-sex couples. The new bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, was introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and several others.
Before DOMA was enacted, federal law deferred to states’ decisions about who was married and who was not. As a result of a discriminatory federal definition of marriage in DOMA, same-sex couples that are married by their home states are nevertheless denied all of the federal benefits and protections available to all other married couples.
“DOMA singles out lawfully married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under the law, denying families the more than 1,100 federal protections and responsibilities that apply to married opposite-sex couples,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The Respect for Marriage Act will do more than repeal DOMA; it will promote protections for same-sex couples who are already married. Congress should move quickly to pass this long overdue bill.”
The Respect for Marriage Act also ensures that once the federal government recognizes the marriage of a same-sex couple, it will continue to recognize that marriage even if the couple moves to another state that would not have allowed the couple to marry in the first place. The act does not force any state to marry same-sex couples.
>>Learn more.
Join us on...
|
Send Email