ACLU

Our Neighbors' Keeper: Local Cop Chiefs Want to Create a Nation of Snoops

dlindorff — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:54:04 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and other big city cops
are calling for a new system of “citizen watch” programs, allegedly to
help them spot hidden terrorists. I view this new call for a nation of
private spies with a deep suspicion born of experience with the LAPD
and its historic penchant for spying on law-abiding residents of that
city.

Back in the late 1970s, together with a band of other doughty
journalists, including Tommy Thompson, Ron Ridenour, Ben Pleasants, I
co-founded and ran a spunky little news weekly called the LA Vanguard.
In the course of just one year, we broke stories about secret “security
offices” run by local phone companies (Pacific Telephone and GTE) which
provided unlisted numbers and credit information to police and other
government agencies without requiring a warrant, about the killing of
unarmed citizens by police, about the LAPD’s “shoot to kill” gun use
policy, about judges in landlord-tenant cases who were slumlords
themselves, and many other stories that were being ignored by the LA
Times and the rest of the local establishment media.

For our efforts, we found out years later, we were targeted by the
LAPD’s “red squad,” known at the time as the Public Disorder
Intelligence Division (PDID), for an intensive program of spying that
including planting a young cop, Connie Milazzo, as a member of our
editorial collective. We only learned of Milazzo’s real identity years
later when she admitted disclosed it herself to a judge in a public
hearing (she wanted to avoid being sent to the county lockup along with
a group of activists she had “joined” undercover who had all been
arrested during a protest and who were refusing to provide their
identities to the court).

A subsequent lawsuit filed with the help of the ACLU of Southern
California, eventually settled for a payment of $1.8 million by the
City of Los Angeles, disclosed that the PDID had for years been using
as many as 20 undercover cops to infiltrate and spy on over 200 legal
political and activist organizations in the Los Angeles area, gathering
rooms full of files on everyone from members of the National
Organization for Women to the staffs of certain members of the city
council. We also learned that the LAPD was providing those files to a
shadowy private outfit in San Francisco called Western Goals, which had
links to the ultra-right John Birch Society. Western Goals was
apparently seeking to serve as a private repository of dossiers on
leftists and political activists collected by local police all around
the country in a kind of end run around the restrictions on domestic
spying by the FBI that had been imposed after the post-Watergate
revelations about the abuses of the COINTELPRO era.

This is why Bratton’s idea stinks. Local police, because they are
local, are even more prone to rogue activities that will never be
exposed or monitored than are federal police.

As accommodating of police-state tactics as Congress has been,
especially since 9-11, at least some members of that body have raised
concerns and demanded investigations of some of those abuses by
organizations like the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency. But
city councils have been notoriously uninterested in monitoring the
unconstitutional activities of their local police around the country,
who have extremely powerful political connections and the support of
local media establishments.

Any attempt to organize a citizen’s watch program to look for
suspicious activity is bound to devolve into a police program of spying
on those who are outside of the “norm”: minorities, leftists,
activists, loners, people with alternative life-styles, artists, etc.

Let’s be honest. America faces no existential threat from
terrorism. It does face such threats from rampaging climate change,
political corruption, corporate power, economic collapse, and many
other things, but it is hardly threatened by terrorism, which has
killed far fewer people even in 2001 than have auto defects,
contaminated food, and insurance company denials of care.

Back in 2001, the Bush/Cheney administration stoked an irrational
fear of terrorism in order to win passage of the Patriot Act and
acceptance of other actions, such as creation of a program by the
National Security Agency to use supercomputers to monitor millions of
Americans’ electronic communications. Many of those threats to freedom
remain in place today. Now Chief Bratton and his compatriots in police
departments around the country are trying to stoke that same irrational
fear of terrorism to move the country even further towards a
police-state mentality.

The last thing we need in this era of corporate-media-induced
conformity and citizen passivity is a bunch of self-appointed citizen
snoops calling in to the cops with reports on every neighbor who looks
or acts a little bit different.
______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is
“The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2009). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Criminalizing Dissent: Obama Pot Calls Iranian Kettle Black

dlindorff — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:41:14 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

President Barack Obama, referring to the violent attacks on
protesters against the controversial election results in Iran’s
just-completed presidential election, this week lectured Iran’s
government, saying, “Peaceful dissent should never be subject to
violence.”

Referring to the tens and hundreds of thousands of frustrated and
angry Iranians who have taken to the streets accusing Iranian
authorities of rigging the election in favor of incumbent President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama said that “the Iranian people and their
voices should be heard and respected."

But there is a certain hypocrisy going on here.

Just days ago, the ACLU of Northern California issued a press release
announcing that it had filed a complaint over a Pentagon anti-terrorism
training manual. That training manual, aimed at Pentagon personnel,
describes domestic protests as “low-level terrorist activity.”

As Staff Attorney Ann Brick and ACLU Washington National Security
Policy Council member Michael German write in their complaint letter to
the Department of Defense, “For the DoD to instruct its employees that
lawful protest activities should be treated as ‘low-level terrorism’ is
deeply disturbing in and of itself. It is an even more egregious insult
to constitutional values, however, when viewed in the context of a
long-term pattern of domestic security initiatives that have attempted
to equate lawful dissent with terrorism.”

The ACLU has documented that the government has been and continues a
policy of spying on legitimate peaceful protest
organizations—particularly those that have been opposing America’s wars
and its military policies, and the new president has said nothing and
done nothing about terminating this egregious assault on First
Amendment freedom of speech and assembly. Given that President Obama
has also done nothing since taking office to undo the USA PATRIOT Act,
which codifies much activity that traditionally would have been called
dissent as a crime, or to publicly reverse the policy of the last eight
years during which non-violent protest organizations have been spied on
and infiltrated by agents of the military and by the FBI, and during
which actual protesters have been harassed, penned into fenced-off
“free speech zones,” assaulted by armed police and arrested, his
pontificating to Iran about the sanctity of dissent rings particularly
hollow.

Imagine, if you will, what this government’s response would be to
having hundreds of thousands of American protesters gather in the
center of Washington, DC without a permit, to protest the policies of
the national government. There would be riot police in the thousands,
some mounted on horseback. There would be federal troops. There would
be police charges against demonstrators. There would be tear gas and
arrests.

How do we know this? It happens every time there are major protests in Washington—even when protests are granted permits.

This writer spent three days in the Federal Detention Center at
Occoquan, VA, back in 1967 for participating in a peaceful anti-war
protest at the Pentagon that year. I was one of hundreds at that event
who found himself, as a peaceful demonstrator, confronting armed
federal troops with fixed bayonets at that event. Not much has changed
since ‘67, as others have met the same fate over the years in
Washington and around the country. Certainly there is every reason to
assume that, if the public finally loses patience over the current
administration’s continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its
failure to really tackle the health care crisis, and its limp response
to the economic crisis, and if people descend on Washington or perhaps
New York City en masse to protest, those people will be met with the
same kind of draconian, police-state style response that protesters
have met in the past--or that protesters are being met with in Iran
today.

If the Pentagon is teaching its people to equate protest with
“low-level terrorism,” how different, really, is Washington from Tehran?
______________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest
book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now
available in signed collector’s edition through his website).
Lindorff’s work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Attorney Accountability

Jowey Styxx — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:31:40 -0500

Attorney Oversight

My girlfriend was an abused housewife, years prior to her separation she had sought marriage and mental health counseling. I have been assaulted by the police twice, one time they were trespassing on a dark night, we thought that they were the abusive husband seeking to assault my girlfriend again. The second time we were in a CVS pharmacy that had camera's throughout the store, we were returning from the Emergency Room because my girlfriend had a reaction to medication that was being used to treat severe anxiety and depression.

We were also persecuted by an attorney because the stress caused by the stalking, assaults, threats and courts caused my girlfriend to hemmorage and have an abortion. We became murderers.

With all the material available counselors, cameras, documents, police reports the attorneys retained did not use this material, in several cases they actively avoided it and we also have a case of attorney desertion.

The Virginia State Bar claims that they do not address "strategy" complaints, this we discovered when our attorney deserted in 2000. The Bar had changed its policies so that they could avoid accountability for its members. We became the "evil" people with "sour grapes", the demand for proof of our crimes falls on deaf ears.

This avoidance to address, the damaged position that we the client was put in made it untenable to attempt a civil suit/writ that the Bar claims would regulate its members. It also claims a diligent membership, this is without foundation.

Imagine if a client had actual leverage over the "professional" they retained, that their compliants would be documented and merit of the complaint rated so that others could make informed decisions. I am sure that a woman that is abused would want an attorney that would provide Social Services, marriage, mental health counselors and supporting documents to the courts. I am sure a victim of a police assault would want an attorney that would at least review the video evidence and question why the police did not obtain this material to support their position.

An Impeachment Raspberry to USA Today

dlindorff — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:24:52 -0500

The Gannett national paper USA Today in its photo spread on the gowns of the stars at the Oscars called attention to the orange ribbon worn by the stunning-as-always actress Julie Christie, but failed to accurately describe the message.

Saying she wore a read gown adorned by a small orange ribbon, the paper claimed that the decoration pinned to her dress was to symbolize the ACLU. In fact, as we all know, and as anyone knows who pays any attention at all to what's going on out in grassroots America, that ribbon symbolizes the demand for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Brava to Ms. Christie for her important statement.

And a big Thb-b-b-b-bth! to USA Today for not having a clue!

_______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and author of the book "THe Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

What Do They Think We Are, Idiots?

dlindorff — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:10:56 -0500

In at least one area, President Bush is on the run.

Congress should run him to ground.

The issue, which should be of concern to Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, is illegal spying on Americans by the National Security Agency.

Back in 2005, the New York Times (after unconscionably holding the story for a full year) exposed the fact that Bush, in late 2001, had authorized the NSA to illegally begin a wide-ranging program of monitoring the phone calls and internet communications of Americans in direct and blatant violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That act had been passed by Congress in 1978 precisely because of a similar spying program authorized by President Richard Nixon. It had turned out Nixon was using the NSA illegally to spy on political opponents both outside and inside his own administration.

Last year, a federal judge determined, in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, that Bush's actions had been illegal, violating both FISA (a felony), and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Civil Libertarians both among the public at large and in Congress, have been up in arms ever since disclosure of the Bush spying, both because of its clear affront to the rule of law, and because no explanations for it put forward by the administration made any sense. Bush and his legal advisers at the White House and in the Justice Department have been claiming for nearly two years that they "had to" violate FISA because of a supposed need to monitor suspected terrorists, but critics rightly point out that the FISA law was designed to make such monitoring easy. Under FISA, there is a special secret court of 12 senior federal judges whose only responsibility is to hear government requests for secret wiretaps. Its top-security-clearance rated members stand ready to act even in the middle of the night, and in fact have only rejected such requests for warrants four times since 1978.

Furthermore, critics note, the FISA law gives law enforcement and NSA wiretappers three days to seek a warrant after they start wiretapping! In other words, there is no issue of timeliness. Under FISA, the administration can start spying, and seek permission retroactively.

This has many people suspecting that what the administration has been doing was not spying on terrorists at all--but rather spying on people it should not have been spying on--people that even the most accommodating FISA judges would not have granted warrants for. Who might these people be? Well, given the administration's many comments about how critics of the president are "aiding the terrorists," they could well be legitimate critics of administration policies like torture or the Iraq War. Given the administration's paranoid obsession about leaks, they could also be people within the Bush administration. Both such groups were targets of Nixon's illegal NSA spying, and it seems likely they have also been targets of Bush's mysterious spying campaign.

In any case, while past efforts to get answers from the administration foundered in a Republican Congress, with the Democrats in control of both houses, it was becoming clear that Bush would be facing hard questioning, possibly including subpoenas of documents and people, by the new Congress.

That prospect has led the administration to chaznge course and announce that it is ceasing the warrantless spying, and will now be adhering to FISA and seeking warrants when it wants to monitor someone’s communications.

Clearly Bush is hoping that the problem will now go away; that the Congress will drop plans to seriously investigate the five-year illegal NSA spying campaign he illegally ordered up. Indeed, the Justice Department has reportedly already gone to the Court of Appeals to request that the federal case finding the spying to be illegal, currently on appeal by the government, be "mooted," or ruled no longer at issue because of their new decision to operate within the law. No doubt similar arguments will be made to the House and Senate intelligence and justice committees.

Such efforts should be slapped down.

The fact remains that for more than five years, this president willfully violated a federal law. Both the courts and the Congress, as well as the American people, have a right and a duty to know, in clear detail, both what he did and why he did it.

Only a few months ago, the president and his attorney general were insisting that Bush's illegal spying campaign was absolutely essential in the so-called "War on Terror," and that the procedures of the FISA law were "too slow and too cumbersome" to do the job. Now, faced with the likelihood of real congressional inquiry, the president and his attorney general are claiming that they can do just fine staying within the law, and getting warrants from the FISA judges.
What do they take us for, idiots?

If, as seems almost certain, the president abused his power and sicced the NSA on American citizens who were not violating the law or involved in terrorism, he should be impeached for the most grave of Constitutional violations.
--------------------------

DAVE LINDORFF is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net and at www.counterpunch.org.

Oregon ACLU Requesting Help on Ballot Measure 43

tseving — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:59:44 -0400

Fellow Oregonians,

If passed, Ballot Measure 43 would force physicians to send a certified letter by mail notifying parents before an older teen, 15, 16 or 17 years old could have an abortion. There is no exception for victims of rape or incest, and it pushes the most vulnerable teens AWAY from the care of trained professionals like nurses and counselors.

We need you help. Join the ACLU of Oregon and the No on Ballot Measure 43 campaign for a massive get-out-the-vote telephone effort to defeat Ballot Measure 43 -- the government-mandated “parental notification” ballot measure sponsored by Oregon Right to Life. Your help is needed to reach and sway undecided voters to defeat this dangerous measure.

Phone banks are being set up in regions across the state. Whether you can donate an hour, three hours or 20 or more hours between now and Election Day, your help is vital.

You can get involved in three ways:
>> Contact the campaign by email at carmen.schwisow@ppcw.org
>> Visit http://www.noon43.com to learn more
>> Call the No on 43 campaign at (503) 234-9300.

We hope you'll join us!

Sincerely,

Andrea Meyer
Legislative Director
ACLU of Oregon
http://www.aclu-or.org/

'Fat' Tony's Ready to Repeal Roe v. Wade

CactusPat — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:32:10 -0400

"Fat" Tony Scalia makes no bones about it. He'd repeal Roe v. Wade if given the chance. And says as much in a televised debate with the ACLU's president, Nadine Strossen. The debate in and of itself is a milestone for Scalia who's had a penchant for banning the media from his public appearances. Is this a public rolling out of the radical right-wing judicial agenda?

Scalia debates head of ACLU on TV
Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday defended some of his Supreme Court opinions, arguing that nothing in the Constitution supports abortion rights and the use of race in school admissions. Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the high court, sparred in a one-hour televised debate with American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen. He said unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions when the Constitution is silent on those issues. Arguing that liberal judges in the past improperly established new political rights such as abortion, Scalia warned, "Someday, you're going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach."...
"On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through representatives or a constitutional amendment," the Reagan appointee said.

"Whether it's good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution," he said.

Strossen countered that such a legal approach would have barred the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous decision outlawing racial segregation in public schools.

"There are some rights that are so fundamental that no majority can take them away from any minority, no matter how small or unpopular that minority might be," she said. "And who is better positioned to represent and defend and be the ultimate backstop for rights of individuals and minorities than those who are not directly accountable in the electoral process — namely federal judges?"

The ACLU debate comes as the Supreme Court this term will hear closely divided issues involving partial-birth abortion and school integration. They are expected to test the conservative impact of the court's two newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Scalia, 70, has consistently voted to limit the use of race in school admissions and has called for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to abortion to be overruled. But his influence was often limited by moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, who cast deciding votes on those issues against him.

With O'Connor now retired and Alito succeeding her, Scalia — whom President Bush passed up for chief justice — will have new opportunities to sway his new colleagues and centrist Anthony Kennedy closer to his viewpoints.

During Sunday's debate, Scalia outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted. He reiterated that race has no place in school admissions, a viewpoint that put him on the losing side in 2003.

"The Constitution very clearly forbids discrimination on the basis of race," Scalia said in response to a question by moderator Pete Williams of NBC. "It doesn't seem to me to allow Michigan to say we think it's good to discriminate on the basis of race when you want to make sure everyone is exposed to different backgrounds. We cannot use race as the test of diversity."

Scalia, who marked his 20th anniversary on the court last month, generally finds himself taking the opposite position to the ACLU. Most notably, he wrote a majority 5-4 opinion last term giving police more leeway to enter private homes.

He also unsuccessfully sided with the government in cases where the court struck down Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses and declared that the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected al-Qaida members were unconstitutional.

But during Sunday's debate, Scalia noted there were cases in which he and the ACLU agreed. They included rulings upholding flag burning and a 2004 opinion arguing that a U.S. citizen seized in Afghanistan in wartime could challenge his detention as an enemy combatant in U.S. courts.

Strossen, who enjoys a friendly relationship with Scalia despite their differences, applauded those opinions but added, "I don't want you to think you're too popular with this group."

"I'm very distressed about your failure to find protections in the Constitution for the right of consenting individuals in their homes to decide what they see and read, and what type of sexual relations they have," she said as hundreds of ACLU audience members cheered.

Scalia, who has at times had a prickly relationship with the media, agreed to have C-SPAN televise Sunday's event live — a more recent accommodation as the court begins to show greater signs of openness under Roberts.

You can stream the video from C-SPAN - rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e101506_civilrights.rm?mode=compact (copy and paste url into RealPlayer via file/open). Also check out all the streams available at the ACLU website....