| The ACLU has just announced the results of a new poll that reveals American voters' attitudes on presidential powers and spying. See how your answers compare to those in the national poll. Take our survey. Stop the abuse of power. Sign our Demand for the Truth petition here. Get updates from Capitol Hill and links to related news on our Patriot Act Blog. |
The ACLU applauds the efforts of those Senators who sought to include much-needed reforms in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill and stood firm in their commitment to protect our freedoms.
All this takes places as Americans across the political spectrum express increasing concern about the reckless policies of President Bush and his Administration. A new poll of over 1000 Americans shows that a majority reject the President's illegal program of warrantless domestic surveillance, and doubt that he acted within the bounds of the law.
The American people reject the White House's assertion that the President has the authority to act outside of the law whenever and however he deems necessary. We've posted results and selected questions from the survey online so you can give your own opinions and see how they compare to our nationwide poll of voters across the political spectrum.
Thanks to your efforts, the Patriot Act reauthorization process has been a debate over fundamental freedoms, not the quick rubber-stamp the White House hoped for last spring, and real momentum for reform is still alive in Congress.
The fight to reform the Patriot Act is far from over, as Congress is planning hearings to investigate the massive increase in National Security Letter (NSL) record requests, an issue the ACLU continues to fight, and win on, in the federal courts. But the fact is, until the Bush Administration chooses the rule of law over its pattern of abuses of power, any new reforms may simply go ignored under this President's extreme views of unlimited executive authority.
Your active involvement will help us continue to make a difference in the fight.
Civil Liberties and Two Oscar Nominated Films
An Uncanny Resemblance to Brokeback Mountain
Though they were in a committed and loving relationship, Sam Beaumont and Earl Meadows were not the types to march in a gay pride rally. “We had a real nice, quiet life together,” Sam said of their life in Bristow, Oklahoma.
That ended when Earl died two years ago. Now Sam is not only facing life without his other half, but also the very real possibility of losing the home they built and lived in together for 23 years. Unfortunately, the notarized will Earl drafted to leave everything to Sam had only one witness -- Oklahoma requires two. To make matters worse, almost all the couple's assets were in Earl's name.
If Sam and Earl could have married, the property would have passed to Sam automatically. But since Oklahoma law doesn't recognize same-sex relationships, the home Sam and Earl shared went to Earl's disapproving cousins who rarely spoke to Earl when he was alive and had never even set foot on the property. Meanwhile, Sam is struggling to hold on to what little he has left.
Brokeback Mountain is a powerful drama that tells the story of a romantic relationship between two male ranchers. The film has been nominated for eight Academy Awards and draws attention to the struggles of same-sex relationships when there are little or no legal protections.
To read more about Sam and Earl, go here.
Good Night and Good Luck Tells Story of Free PressGood Night and Good Luck tells the story of five journalists who exercise their basic freedoms to expose Sen. Joe McCarthy, who they felt would destroy those freedoms in an effort to defend them. Sen. McCarthy was famous for "naming" people as Communists and bullying. Edward R. Murrow led the group of journalists that confronted McCarthy. Murrow and his team eventually brought McCarthy down, but it was not without a fight. Congressional hearings that were supposed to expose Communists ended up exposing McCarthy and his effort to suppress free speech.
The film is a true representation of the complexities the journalists face when trying to tell the truth.
To read more about McCarthyism and the ACLU, go here.
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Federal Abortion Ban Ruling
Three decades of legal precedent to protect women's health should be the guide as the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case of Carhart v. Gonzales. Brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the case is one of three challenges to the Federal Abortion Ban signed into law by President Bush in 2003.
"The Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical state ban only six years ago in part because it failed to include protections for women's health. Congress deliberately defied that ruling when it passed the federal ban," said Talcott Camp, Deputy Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.
Late last month, two federal appeals courts also held the ban unconstitutional. In a challenge brought by the National Abortion Federation and seven individual physicians, the Second Circuit affirmed that the ban requires a health exception and asked for further legal briefings to determine how to remedy the violation. On the same day, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision striking down the ban in a challenge brought by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales).
Congress passed the federal ban despite the numerous court decisions, including a decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down similar state bans. Courts have consistently struck down the bans for two reasons: their broad language prohibits abortions as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy, and they lack exceptions to protect women's health.
For more information, go here.
New Documents Provide Further Evidence That Senior Officials Approved Abuse of Prisoners at Guantánamo
Newly acquired documents obtained by the ACLU show that senior Defense Department officials approved aggressive interrogation techniques that FBI agents deemed abusive, ineffective and unlawful.
"We now possess overwhelming evidence that political and military leaders endorsed interrogation methods that violate both domestic and international law," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU attorney. "It is entirely unacceptable that no senior official has been held accountable."
Included in the release is a memorandum prepared by FBI personnel on May 30, 2003, which supplies a detailed discussion of tensions between FBI and Defense Department personnel stationed at Guantánamo in late 2002. According to the memo, Defense Department interrogators were encouraged by their superiors to "use aggressive interrogation tactics" that FBI agents believed were "of questionable effectiveness and subject to uncertain interpretation based on law and regulation."
While some of the documents indicate that FBI personnel objected to Defense Department interrogation policies at Guantánamo, others raise serious questions about the FBI's own policies -- and particularly about the agency's response to the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. In one e-mail, dated January 24, 2004, the FBI's on-scene commander in Baghdad discusses whether the FBI should investigate the abuse or whether it should leave the task to military investigators. The e-mail, which was sent to senior FBI officials at FBI headquarters, advises that the FBI should decline to investigate. "We need to maintain good will and relations with those operating the prison," the e-mail states. "Our involvement in the investigation of the alleged abuse might harm our liaison."
To date, more than 90,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia
New Coalition Website Fights Government-Funded Religious Discrimination
The religious liberty of Americans is under attack.
Under the guise of the so-called "faith-based initiative," some members of Congress and the Bush Administration are campaigning to allow taxpayer funds to be used for religious discrimination.
Their proposals seek to grant religious social service providers -- who have long provided admirable and essential services to America's communities -- the right to discriminate, proselytize and play by different rules than other charities while spending tax dollars. If these efforts are successful, social workers, psychologists, counselors, teachers and others seeking to work in tax-funded social service programs could be denied jobs solely because of their faith.
This would be a radical shift away from the American tradition of religious freedom.
The ACLU is a member of the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, a group of religious, civil rights, labor, education, health and advocacy organizations who believe in defending the First Amendment and the religious liberty of all Americans. With these groups, we are fighting to protect the Constitution.
Lawmakers need to hear from members of the clergy and religious leaders, and from social service providers or professionals who believe that government funding of religion and religious discrimination is wrong. If you are a religious leader or service provider, now is the time to make your voice heard.
Visit the new coalition website at www.StopReligiousDiscrimination.org to sign an open letter to the president and Congress.
Privacy Statement
This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment