This Week in Civil Liberties fron the ACLU 15JUL11

THIS WEEK IN CIVIL LIBERTIES includes an execution, judges, juries, hacking and DADT. Thank GOD for the ACLU!!!!!

This week, blog posts revealed that we are ignoring the rights of foreign nationals, ignoring juries, and ignoring the will of the people. Britain probably will continue being our BFF regardless, because they are ignoring privacy. Luckily, Washington, D.C. is ignoring the current fashion for corrections systems making big criminals out of little criminals...

Execution in Texas, Despite So Much

Texas executed a Mexican national who was tried, convicted and sentenced to die in the state of Texas without ever talking to the Mexican consulate. His sentence would almost certainly have been different if he had. It is certain that his lawyer would have been different – Mexico pays for experienced lawyers to defend against death penalty cases for its citizens.

From Filthy Boys Prison to New Beginnings: Hill Staffers Walk a Mile in Youthful Offenders' Shoes

Key congressional staffers and staff in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention made a site visit  to the now-closed Oak Hill Youth Center -- in order to highlight D.C.'s previous approach to juvenile justice that relied on punitive measures and secure confinement as a response to juvenile crime -- and to the New Beginnings Youth Development Center -- to see D.C.'s new juvenile facility modeled on Missouri's, housing residents in dormitory-like settings and creating a culture focused on rehabilitation as well as accountability.

Why Have a Jury?

In Alabama, elected judges have the authority to override the jury’s sentencing decision in death penalty cases – in other words, a judge can sentence a person to die even if a jury of his or her peers decides death is not the appropriate punishment. 98 defendants in Alabama have been sentenced to death after their juries recommended a life sentence, often unanimously...

Lessons from the UK "Phone Hacking" Scandal

Britain's gigantic scandal around privacy invasions by the press and police began with revelations about reporters for Rupert Murdoch's British tabloid newspaper News of the World hacking into the voicemail of a murdered young girl, and has expanded as other privacy invasions have come to light.

Seeking to Delay and Derail DADT Repeal

Pretending to fiscal responsibility, congressional opponents of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) repeal succeeded in attaching two anti-gay, political, "red meat" amendments to the legislation, ideological efforts to advance a narrow social agenda that is out of step with what the American public wants.
Learn more about civil rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

This Week in National Insecurity: Big Gay Edition 8JUL11

$120, 000, 000.00 FOR MILITARY MARCHING BANDS??? This was put BACK in the budget????? This and more on our National Insecurity from MOJO......

A. Blight/Flickr

Need a recharge, America? Take a break from Nancy Grace and Casey Anthony to consider the week that was in military madness. In this installment: Obama makes a big pro-gay military appointment, a soldier makes bad decisions with an inflatable girl, Al Qaeda is in stitches—literally—and Republicans want more money for Sousaphones.
The sitrep:

• The government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow "at a heightened level of vigilance."

• Don't Ask Don't Tell is dead. In court. For real. Again! (Politico)

• President Obama has appointed an openly gay West Point alumna to the military academy's board of visitors. Brenda Sue Fulton graduated with the first class to admit women and served honorably as an Army signal officer. She also cofounded Knights Out, an LGBT alumni group, and she's lent her support to gay and lesbian cadets. "West Point could implement repeal just fine without me," she told the New York Times. "But if my appointment helps West Point send the message to young men and women that—whether you are male or female, straight or gay—if you are qualified to serve, you are welcome; if it does that, then I'll be happy." (Army Times/NYT)

• An Army officer named Justin Dale Little Jim is facing burglary and destruction of property charges after he was found in the closet of a Manassas, Virginia, adult video store at 2:45 a.m., "attempting to have sexual relations with" a blowup doll. Authorities say they sent a police dog into the store, who led his handlers to Little Jim. Good…dog? (Army Times)

Advertise on MotherJones.com

• The Pentagon is asking Congress if it would mind shifting $5 billion in the defense budget so the military can buy more bombs. To replace all the bombs it's used. In Libya. (Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments)

• Unhappy about airport frisks? Maybe it'll get worse: Al Qaeda reportedly wants to sew bombs inside suicide attackers and stick them on planes. Interestingly, they've already tried this with animals, sometimes live ones, in Iraq and Afghanistan. On a related note, an analyst for the intelligence blog GroupIntel wrote this white paper a few montsh back titled "The Projected Al Qaeda Use of Body Cavity Suicide Bombs Against High Value Targets." (PDF)

• If true, the terrorists' plans for human bombs probably trump a new $48.2 million Pentagon contract with the maker of the "SET CounterBomber® system," which "integrates radar and video to yield the first-ever system capable of automatically detecting suicide bombers at safe distances." It does not, however, X-ray the target. (Battleland)

• Remember when House Republicans said it was time to really cut government waste, and a Democrat actually cut waste by reducing the military's half-billion-dollar budget for marching bands? Now, in an about-face, the House has restored funding. Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) says that military bands are a key factor in the patriotism "that keeps our soldiers' hearts beating fast." Geez, can't they get the same effect with blowup dolls? (Military Times)

House votes to restore cash for military bands

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2011/07/ap-military-bands-house-votes-to-restore-funds-070611/

The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Jul 6, 2011 18:00:27 EDT

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled House is singing a different tune about spending cuts for military bands.
By voice vote Wednesday, the House restored $120 million for the armed services’ 100-plus military bands — money that budget-conscious members of the Appropriations Committee had cut last month amid the nation’s financial woes.
Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, argued that the cut wouldn’t save taxpayers any money and the bands are a critical part of the patriotism “that keeps our soldiers’ hearts beating fast.”
Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., countered that while the nation takes pride in the bands, spending on them had gotten out of control.
The vote came on the $649 billion defense spending bill. The House is expected to pass the legislation by week’s end.
Front page image: M.V. Jantzen/Flickr

Adam Weinstein is Mother Jones' national security reporter. For more of his stories, click here or follow him on Twitter. Get Adam Weinstein's RSS feed.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• This Week in National Insecurity: July 4th Edition

  $5 trillion wars, Afghan pot, black budgets, and hazing...in the Coast Guard?! A roundup of the latest military news.

• This Week in National Insecurity: Comeback Edition

  Budget bloopers, pork bullets, and ex-spy babes on the job market: a roundup of the latest, most interesting defense stories.

• One Step Forward, One Step Back for DADT Repeal

  The military is teaching members to be OK with gay smooches...while still turning away the best and brightest LGBT aspirants.

• 8 Weird Defense Budget Add-Ons

  Sunken treasure, 200-year-old corpses, and a battle over military bands: A rundown of the odd stuff members of Congress snuck into the 2012 defense bill.

Can the Military Tolerate Dissent? from MOJO 6JAN11

A very interesting read from MOJO, goes right along with my earlier post DOES AMERICA REALLY HAVE THE FINEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD 6JAN11? And for a bit of levity after you finish this check out some of the videos from rep Gomer louie gohmert r TX on the US Military, elections and "terror babies"...

— By Adam Weinstein

— Howard N2GOT/Flickr Commons

Over at The Atlantic, Tim Kane wrote a fascinating story about brain drain from the military ranks. It's a far-ranging piece, but he touches on a critical issue facing our nation, security-wise and culture-wise:

Why are so many of the most talented officers now abandoning military life for the private sector? An exclusive survey of West Point graduates shows that it's not just money. Increasingly, the military is creating a command structure that rewards conformism and ignores merit. As a result, it's losing its vaunted ability to cultivate entrepreneurs in uniform.

Why is this important? Because it totally pisses off conservative rah-rah types by attacking their carefully assembled myths about America and its armed forces. One of the leading right-wing milblogs, Blackfive, neatly captures those myths:

I was unaware that cultivating entrepreneurs in uniform was an ability we would even want to vaunt...The military is a top-down hierarchy that will stifle creativity and free thinking by design...You cannot have a cohesive military command structure if everyone is following their own idea of what a standard operating procedure should be. Will this chafe the cones of some highly talented people who if left to their own devices would do some awesome things? Of course it does, tough shite. At some point the highly talented maverick becomes a drag on the over all effectiveness

This is a patently circular argument: Military discipline is fundamentally conservative, because that's what military discipline is. But conservatives have effectively sold most of the country on this idea. (Witness, for example, the hilariously incoherent Rep. Louie Gohmert [R-Texas] trying to defend Don't Ask, Don't Tell.) When we argue about most contemporary security issues—rules of engagement, strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, PTSD, veterans' care at Walter Reed, DADT, ROTC, women on submarines, et cetera—the right-wing viewpoint of the military as an unthinking, unfeeling, lockstep bloc always holds: You can't rock the boat, because conformity is what the military's all about. Silly me, I thought the military was all about guaranteeing security, and some brainpower might be required in getting that done.
Of course, political conservatives have a vested interest in keeping this myth going. If the military is perceived as no place for dissent, for entrepreneurship, for innovative thought, then the majority of people who are likely to volunteer for military service will be politically conservative, agreeable, uninnovative thinkers. And since they're all heroes© for signing up, we nasty civilians will customarily defer to them in all matters, and our society will remain fundamentally conservative. No wonder military equality for gays and women, and expanded GI Bill benefits, are so worrisome to right-wing politicians: If the ranks start looking more like American society at large, we might have a more circumspect military and we might end up forced to respect some liberal war heroes and freethinkers. Yipe!
What's interesting is that so many progressives grant the right-wing myth of the monolithic, unthinking military. Certainly, there aren't many liberals who uncritically swallow the notion of all soldiers as "heroes." But perhaps you also think of most soldiers as unreflective rightist aggressors (the "knuckledragging babykillers" meme) or put-upon pawns in a rightist aggrssive political scheme (the "victims" meme). Either way, you're basically agreeing with the toxic right-wing point of view: that soldiers do not (and ought not) exercise free thought or free will, that they are automatic subjects rather than fully choosing human agents.
Not only is the conservative military myth pure bunk, it's also dangerous to national security. In the history of the United States, virtually every positive military innovation has been the product of free thought, improvisation, entrepreneurship, even dissent and insubordination. The entire history of the Marine Corps confirms this (see Chapter 3 of this PDF), as does my own military training. In my days as a Naval Academy midshipman, we were issued a tiny book of advice to memorize and a larger tome on leadership to reflect upon, and both texts included the retirement speech of Vice Admiral William Mack, which is known nowadays as "The Tradition of the Dissenter":

The one concept which dominates my mind is that of the necessity of listening to and protecting the existence of the "Dissenter"—the person who does not necessarily agree with his commander, or with popularly held opinion, or with you. Unfortunately, history is full of examples: then-Commander Mahan, whose novel ideas of seapower fell on barren ground; then-Commander Sims, whose revolutionary (but correct) ideas on naval gunnery ran counter to those of his seniors; then-Commander Rickover, who fought a lonely battle for nuclear power. All eventually succeeded, but not without the help of patient, understanding officers. Regretfully, each needed help from outside the uniformed Navy. We cannot afford this way of life in the government or in the Navy in the future, for the intervals given us for discussion and decision will be increasingly shorter.

Just this week, the very thoughtful Andew Exum, a retired Army officer who now works at the Center for a New American Security, drew my attention to this speech, given to West Point cadets last October by a Yale English professor, that explicates how true leadership requires the independent exercise of thought, not the mindless, middling bureaucratic attitude that's far more common in the military and corporate worlds. Damn right.
There's a flip-side here, too: Virtually every national catastrophe—every poorly chosen war, every strategic setback, every escalation of needless brutality—in America's military history was the result of conservative, conventional, mediocre thinking. Look at the damage that the yes-man mindset has done just in the past few years, in a single locale:

• It got us into Iraq. In 1999, Gen. Anthony Zinni, a well-known military freethinker, was the top dog at US Central Central command. He wisely perceived that the Clinton administration had an interest in what a post-Saddam Iraq might look like, so he gathered a bevy of military strategists and civilian analysts to run a simulation, known as "Desert Crossing." Its conclusions: Removing Saddam without massive UN or coalition support would be messy, costly, counterproductive, and a boon to Iran's regioinal standing. In 2003, Zinni was retired, but the battle drums began to sound, and he sought to contact his CENTCOM successor, the Bush-supporting yes-man Gen. Tommy Franks: "When it looked like we were going in [to Iraq], I called back down to CENTCOM and said, 'You need to dust off Desert Crossing,'" Zinni later said. "They said, 'What's that? Never heard of it.' So in a matter of just a few years it was gone. The corporate memory."

• Once it got us into Iraq, it fouled the whole thing up. The Franks-run war was a pooch-screw, and incremental improvements in strategy didn't come until Gen. David Petraeus (a Princeton Ph.D.) and his team of mandarins were allowed to retool the effort. Many of Petraeus' advisers were ex-soldiers, like John Nagl and David Kilcullen, who found civilian think-tanks more receptive to their unorthodox ideas than the rank-and-file armies of the world. (Nagl is also the focus of the current Atlantic piece on military brain drain.) But until Iraq became an undeniable bloodbath, the Petrauses and Nagls of the Army were expected to put up, shut up, and make do, even when they saw that the conventional wisdom wasn't so wise. (And no, Petraeus and the surge weren't the bloodless saviors that common political wisdom now suggests they were. But they did contribute to stabilization, as well as lay bare the stultifying nature of our previous strategy.)

Again, just one example. Maybe I should get started on a new book that busts the conservative lockstep-military myth. It would relate our rich history of armed-forces maverickism to progress—not only on strategic or foreign policy matters, but on economic and social justice issues, as well. I'd call it A People's History of the United States Military.

Adam Weinstein is Mother Jones' copy editor. For more of his stories, click here or follow him on Twitter. Get Adam Weinstein's RSS feed.

GOPer: Military "Inconsistent With American Values" (VIDEO) 

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/gohmert-military-american-values-video-dadt 

— By Adam Weinstein

| Wed Dec. 15, 2010 4:58 PM PST

The House voted today to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but not before Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) gave us the holiday gift of these three minutes—think of this as a sort of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Explains Why He Loves an Illiberal Military That Hates Homos."

Somewhere in there, after calling out the gays of Congress and casting aspersions on the ambitions of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gohmert beseeches his colleagues to uphold DADT because:

The military isn't consistent with American values! It does not have freedom of speech! It does not have freedom of assembly! It does not have the freedom to express its love to those in the military the way you can out here! Because it's an impediment to the military mission! You can't do that! Can you imagine military members being able to tell their commander what they think of him, using freedom of speech, or assembling where they wish? It doesn't work!

Wow, I didn't realize the military sucked that bad. And I'm a vet! Thanks, Rep. Gohmert, for selling a new generation of young Americans on the joy of national service.
Of course, to anyone who's familiar with Terror Babies-gate, Anderson Cooper-gate, and Moo Goo Dog Pan-gate (as well as his fear that direct participatory democracy is un-American), this is just Louie being Louie. Game on, Gohmert Pyle!
(h/t Spencer Ackerman, "The Vilest Thing You Will See Today")

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Rep. Louie "Terror Babies" Gohmert: Tea Party Pick for House Leadership

  Remember that congressman who had an epic meltdown on AC360? Tea partiers are pushing for him to head a key committee.

• GOP Rep Wants to Ban Elections

  A congressman says health care reform usurped the power of the people—and the only way to get it back is to repeal the people's right to elect US senators.

• Rep. Louie Gohmert's "Terror Baby" Meltdown

  The conspiracy-touting Texas Republican comes unhinged on AC360.

USS Enterprise Video Scandal: Navy Commander Revealed As Mastermind Behind Raunchy Videos 2JAN11

WEEEEELLLL, ISN'T THIS SPECIAL!!!! No worries about the repeal of DADT on this big boat, that's for sure! How can anyone be expected to respect any of the officers supposedly running this boat? But the Navy and the Pentagon will do their best to cover this up, and nobody will be held responsible....
HERE IS A UPDATE FROM NPR ON 4JAN11, THE ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS.....

Update: USS Enterprise Captain Relieved Of Command

Update at 2:22 p.m. ET: From the Pentagon, NPR's Tom Bowman reports that Adm. John Harvey, commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, just made the formal announcement that Capt. Owen Honors has been permanently relieved of command of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. Harvey cited what he said was Honors' "profound lack of good judgment" in making the raunchy videos that came to light this week.
And, "I have lost faith in his ability to command the Enterprise," Harvey added.

Enlarge Newseum.org

Newseum.org

Update at 10:18 a.m. ET: NPR's Tom Bowman has also now confirmed the news that USS Enterprise Capt. Owen Honors will be relieved of his command
Update at 10:05 a.m. ET: We've changed the headline on this post to reflect the breaking news from CNN and the AP that "senior defense officials" say USS Enterprise Capt. Owen Honors will be relieved of his command because of raunchy videos he produced and broadcast to the crew aboard the aircraft carrier.
Our original post — Enterprise Captain's Career 'Likely Sunk' By Videos:
The headline at The Virginian-Pilot this morning asks whether Capt. Owen Honors of the USS Enterprise is "Sunk?"
On its website, the newspaper is a bit more definitive: "Enterprise Skipper's Career Is Likely Sunk, Experts Say."
The top of its story:
"While the Navy issued no formal word Monday as to whether Capt. Owen Honors will retain his position as commander of the aircraft carrier Enterprise, military experts said his Navy career is almost certainly over."
That certainly seems to be in line with what JJ reported yesterday, that "Getting Fired By The Navy Isn't Hard To Do."
In case you're just catching up on this story, we reported yesterday on the videos Honors made — and showed to the 6,000 or so sailors and Marines aboard the Enterprise — several years ago when he was the aircraft carrier's second-in-command. Meant to be entertaining, they included anti-gay slurs, simulated masturbation, the simulated eating of human excrement, a discussion of profanity and sexually-themed shower scenes.
There is an online effort underway to show support for  Honors. A Facebook page called "Support Captain Owen Honors - USS Enterprise" has more than 6,600 "friends" at this hour. On the ship's official Facebook page, there's a spirited discussion underway that includes messages of support for Honors and messages that condemn his actions.
Navy Times is asking its online readers for their opinions on what should happen to Honors and his superior officers.
Update at 10 a.m. ET. The Associated Press just moved this "alert":
"Defense officials: Navy will relieve aircraft carrier commander over sexually explicit videos."

USS Enterprise Video Scandal: Navy Commander Revealed As Mastermind Behind Raunchy Videos 2JAN11

UPDATED: This story has been updated to include the full statement released by the U.S. Navy on matters addressed in the story below.
Owen Honors, Captain of the Norfolk-based USS Enterprise, was revealed as the producer of a series of "raunchy" videos made aboard the Navy carrier several years ago in a report released by the Virginian-Pilot on Saturday.
Filmed in 2006 and 2007 when Honors was the Enterprises's executive officer, the clips were reportedly shown to 6,000 sailors and U.S. Marines on the ship as part of what was called "XO Movie Night."
The Pilot reports:

In one scene, two female Navy sailors stand in a shower stall aboard the aircraft carrier, pretending to wash each other. They joke about how they should get six minutes under the water instead of the mandated three. In other skits, sailors parade in drag, use anti-gay slurs, and simulate masturbation and a rectal exam. Another scene implies that an officer is having sex in his stateroom with a donkey.

According to the Virginia-based outlet, the videos were made with government equipment. Some were reportedly produced at times when the ship was actively deployed to help the country's war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sailors, who declined to be identified by name, indicated to the Pilot that the footage in question was broadcast on a weekly basis aboard the ship.
Honors, who is expected to deploy in upcoming weeks, suggests in the videos that his intent in generating the content was for entertainment purposes. The Pilot reports that the clips drew complaints from female sailors aboard the carrier who found the material offensive.

Story continues below

The Navy issued a statement (full text below) on the matter appearing to downplay any hint of controversy.
"The videos were intended to be humorous skits focusing the crew's attention on specific issues such as port visits, traffic safety, water conservation, ship cleanliness, etc," said a written statement, according to the Pilot.
Honors himself acknowledges in one clip the controversial nature of the videos. "Over the years I've gotten several complaints about inappropriate materials in these videos," he says. "Never to me personally but, gutlessly, through other channels."
Here's full text of the statement released by the Navy in response to the initial story published by the Virginian-Pilot:

The videos created onboard USS Enterprise in 2006-2007 and written about in The Virginian-Pilot article on Saturday, January 1, 2011, are clearly inappropriate. Production of videos, like the ones produced four to five years ago on USS Enterprise and now being written about in The Virginian-Pilot, were not acceptable then and are not acceptable in today's Navy. The Navy does not endorse or condone these kinds of actions. Those in command, Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, and Command Master Chiefs (the command triad) are charged to lead by example and are held accountable for setting the proper tone and upholding the standards of honor, courage and commitment that we expect Sailors to exemplify. U.S. Fleet Forces Command has initiated an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the production of these videos.

http://hamptonroads.tv/hrtv.php?id=46530391
WATCH:

The 2010 Worth Remembering 1JAN11

VICTORIES from 2010 to celebrate, motivation to keep on keeping on in 2011.....
Some victories of the past year.
Cross-posted from the “Arguing the World” blog at Dissent magazine.
It is a tragic fact: progressives are notoriously bad at celebrating their victories. Tragic, because when it comes to motivating people to take action, keeping evidence that collective organizing efforts can produce real changes–some small, some groundbreaking–is far more important than producing lists of new outrages and fresh causes for alarm.
Even in times of setbacks and difficulties, there are signs of progress worth remembering. And this year was no exception. The Obama administration would like us to enshrine 2010 as the year it passed a landmark law overhauling health care in the United States. However, there were enough compromises in the health care deal and enough issues left unresolved that, as one friend of mine nicely put it, it’s probably better to consider that as not so much a victory as a work in progress.
Yet the year offered some more outright progressive wins. Two came quickly to mind for me. The first was an obvious choice since it was in the news in late December: the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This affirmation of basic civil rights for gays and lesbians in the military was, of course, long overdue. But that in no way diminishes the victory.
The DADT repeal was one within a package of bills passed in quick succession during the lame duck session of Congress. Other fine components included a new START treaty controlling nuclear weapons and a 9/11 first responders bill, itself long overdue.
Also making the DADT win a little bit sweeter was this video. In it, a reporter for a conservative news network tries to pin Representative Barney Frank with a gotcha question based on the homophobic conservative talking point that, with DADT gone, “straight troops will now have to shower with gays.” (The horror!) Quick-witted and articulate as always, Frank succeeds in making an absolute fool of the guy. It is a pleasure to watch.
The second bit of progress that I thought of right away was the release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. Before being freed in November, the Nobel Peace Prize winner had spent the last seven years–and fifteen of the last twenty-one years–under house arrest, imposed by her country’s military junta. If there are any who deserve the label of democratic hero in the world today, Suu Kyi is among them. This year, for the first time in a decade, she was able to travel out of the country to reunite with her youngest son.
Such reunions were the subject of Amnesty International’s genuinely touching holiday e-card, which featured a video celebrating the return of several prominent human rights defenders to their families. It starts with Suu Kyi but includes others released in recent years after international advocacy campaigns, such as Sakit Zahidov, an opposition journalist, poet, and satirist in Azerbaijan. The stories and images pretty quickly punctured my cynicism.
Also good for keeping cynicism in check was the feedback I received when I asked friends and readers to send their picks for top progressive victories of 2010. The responses I got back were many and varied–and that ended up being quite heartwarming.
Highlights included the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights, a precedent-setting measure passed in New York State that extends vital labor rights to more than 200,000 nannies and housekeepers.
In a similar vein, Danny Postel over at Interfaith Worker Justice mentioned victories in the fight against wage theft (the disturbingly common failure of business owners to pay money owed to day laborers and other low-wage workers) in New York State and in South Florida. Bolstered by these advances, the campaign to enact protections against wage theft at a national level continues.
Other scrappy and perseverant campaigners who had a good year were the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and the Prometheus Radio Project. Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel writes:

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) enjoyed a remarkable 2010, successfully obtaining penny per pound pay raises and code of conduct agreements for farmworkers from the three largest food service companies and the growers who had blocked checks buyers cut directly to the workers so that millions of dollars languished in escrow. These agreements stand to increase workers’ annual earnings from about $10,000 to as much as $17,000. The State Department also recognized Laura Germino, CIW’s antislavery campaign coordinator, as an “anti-Trafficking Hero” for her work helping the US Department of Justice prosecute seven slavery operations in Florida over the last fifteen years, resulting in the liberation of over 1,000 farmworkers.

As for the Prometheus Radio Project (based in my newly adopted home of West Philadelphia), the advocates for grassroots, democratically controlled, low-power radio won a national victory with the passage of the Local Community Radio Act. As the organization noted over the popping of champagne corks,

In response to overwhelming grassroots pressure, Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) a mandate to license thousands, of new community stations nationwide. This bill marks the first major legislative success for the growing movement for a more democratic media system in the United States….The bill repeals earlier legislation which had been backed by big broadcasters, including the National Association of Broadcasters.

Not all went wrong on the electoral front, either. California bucked national trends in a big way, with voters rejecting right-wing candidates and thwarting a business-backed ballot proposition to block regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is far more aggressive than anything on offer at the national level. Time’s Ecocentric blog commented, “With a $1.7 trillion gross state product, California alone is the world’s eighth-largest economy, so even if it is acting alone while the rest of the country drags its feet on climate change, the state has a real chance to make a difference.”
And, speaking of large economies, the left-leaning Dilma Rousseff of the Brazilian Workers’ Party beat Jose Serra in elections this fall, a reflection of the region’s continued dissatisfaction with the legacy of neoliberal economic policy.
Reviewing this list put me in a pretty good mood. No doubt, there are things I would change about 2010 if I could. But these I’d keep.

Mark Engler is a freelance journalist, senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus, and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy. An archive of his work is available at www.DemocracyUprising.com.

Could Gays Spoil the Special Forces? 28DEZ10

OH PLEASE! All of you worried about gays in the military need to get over yourselves...because if you think you are going to be an object of lust now that DADT has been repealed you might want to take a better look and stop flattering yourself.....and if you still think you are going to incite wanton lust in gay service members then maybe you need to re-examine your own sexual orientation! From MOJO....

— Navy SEAL training can be very intimate and dirty. DOD photo/Wikimedia Commons

The Washington Times, for decades a Moonie-owned, money-hemorrhaging adventure in right-leaning reporting, has a most fascinating story today: "Special-operations troops think the elite force is facing difficulties by accepting open gays into one of the military's more politically conservative communities." The story's premise is that gays could wreak havoc on the Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Air Force pararescuers, and Marine recons. "Of particular interest," the Times' Rowan Scarborough writes, "is how Navy SEALs, the macho sea, air and land commandos who put great emphasis on physical prowess, will accept gays." Um, dude? You just answered your own question.

The story's evidence is three pages of weird Family Research Council-style rants by anonymous military sources. Well, not entirely. As TPM's Josh Marshall points out, one of the story's few named sources is George Worthington, who retired from the SEALs in 1992, four years before I was even old enough to join the service. A cursory web search reveals that Worthington was the commander of the Virginia-based SEAL Team One...in Vietnam...in 1972-74. Almost 40 years ago. And what a piece of work the old man is:

"If an open gay does his job, I think he'll be accepted...I don't think there is going to be that many of them that want to sign up for SEALs anyway because of the closeness and the tightness of the training. My opinion is that they're probably more clerical oriented. Medical profession. Corpsmen. Stuff like that..."Put the word out. If you hit on somebody, you're going to get in a fistfight...It just depends on how they comport themselves. If they start breaking out the bows and the earrings in the barracks, that might cause a little trouble."

Unnngh, eeyah. Right. While we're on the subject of nonsequiturs, there's this, from (according to the article) "another Green Beret officer": "Take the issue of showers. Is a soldier wrong for not wanting to shower with a gay soldier?"

Well, yes. At the point where you signed up not only for the privations of military life but of the special operations community—that is, at the point where you volunteered to do this, this, this, this, and this in order to become a proficient snatcher-and-grabber, a demolitions expert, a sniper, and a steely-eyed combat killer, then yeah: If you can't deal with showering with a shipmate because it feels ooky, it's your damned problem, and you're probably not specops material. Achieving that level of comfort with your teammates is a basic prerequisite of being a special warrior, albeit a prerequisite that's rarely highlighted in the recruiting literature. Like being able to poop in the forest, subsist on crappy MRE rations, and deal with NOT showering or sleeping for days. Can't do it? Don't sign up.

What's really strange about this story is that the Times acknowledges—in the final three paragraphs—that it's a nonstory. It achieves this by quoting the military's own conclusions from its 2010 Don't Ask, Don't Tell survey of the troops, a survey that predicts the specwar community will come around like everyone else:

"These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not 'fit' the image of a good warfighter—a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters.
"Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special-operations force warfighter told us, 'We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.' "

On a related personal note, I've known and served in the military with many special operators, particularly Navy SEALs. And everything about these guys is homoerotic, from their too-much-is-showing "UDT shorts" to their love of sugar cookies to every single freaking photographed minute of their basic training. My sense is that as long as gay sailors can run 12 miles, do twelve pyramid sets of pullups, withstand two hours of combat side-stroking in some foreign shore's dark freezing surf, kidnap a terror suspect in a busy village without arousing any suspicions, and take a joke, the majority of operators won't care who their shipmates are inclined to bed, date, or marry. A guy's gotta have his priorities.

Adam Weinstein is Mother Jones' copy editor. For more of his stories, click here or follow him on Twitter. Get Adam Weinstein's RSS feed.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Can Virginia Ban Gays in Its Military?

  On the heels of DADT's repeal, one lawmaker is asserting his state's rights over soldiers...and everything else.

• Army Kicks Out More Gays Than Fat Soldiers

  As DoD okays a repeal of DADT, one service stays tough on gays... and soft on fitness.

• Sub Captain Proves Gays Aren't the Problem

  The skipper of a nuclear vessel gets distracted from his job by an "inappropriate and weird" extramarital relationship...with a woman.

• Are Navy SEALs Dirty Liars?

  If commandos would fib about accidentally killing aid worker Linda Norgrove in Afghanistan, what else might they conceal?

• Navy Lets Women on Subs: Gays Next?

  The silent service ends its 110-year tradition of male-only crews.

From an Airman: Why 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Doesn't Work for Me 18DEZ10

NOT from any military wannabe, not from any politician seeking to score political points, but from and active duty member of the U.S.A.F. and a member of the ACLU

(Kristoffer Berrien has served in the U.S. Air Force nearly 17 years as an Avionics Specialist on multiple aircraft. Currently a reservist stationed at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, Calif., Kristoffer lives in the Sacramento area with his wife, who is also in the Air Force, and three children. He has been deployed in support of numerous operations, including Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Joint Forge. His comments are his alone, made as civilian not a member of the military, and do not reflect the views of the Air Force or Department of Defense in any way. He's also a member of the board of directors of the ACLU of Sacramento.)
When I put on my uniform and go to work, I’m simply doing what small part I can to protect this country I love so dearly. I work alongside men and women I trust with my life. It has never once crossed my mind that if the airman next to me is gay I should put any less faith in his ability to do the job.
Because I am in the military, I am a person who "don't ask, don't tell" directly affects, not some pundit who posts comments on the internet and easily passes judgment. I have served nearly 20 years of my life in support of this country and sacrificed much for my service, yet I'm conflicted. Though proud to say I am a member of the greatest military force in the world, I'm ashamed of the way we treat a small minority of our service members who feel exactly the same way I do about this country and about serving it.
I am not required by law to lie or hide who I am from my fellow airmen because I am not gay. I have no worries about discussing who I'm interested in, dating, or married to. We in the military are just like everybody else in this country. We have friends, we talk about our dreams, and we seek companionship. Imagine taking that freedom away from someone; forcing them to conceal who they really are because it might make some of us feel uncomfortable.
The military is a diverse force and its members share varying viewpoints; in this way it’s not unlike the civilian population. Of course, there are stereotypes and prejudices about gays at every level, but the more people become informed and aware gay people are our friends and coworkers, the more attitudes change.
As a supervisor in the Air Force frequently tasked to evaluate job performance, I understand the importance of focusing on a person’s character and work history, and would not give a thought to their sexual orientation.
During temporary duty assignments, you form a bond and become close with the personnel you are working with. Often there is only one individual assigned per specialty and you count on that person to do his or her job and likewise they count on you. We rely on each other, not just for specific military expertise, but also as travel companions and as friends.
In my experience, after developing the friendship and trust of a fellow airman over many years and deployments, it’s often they can finally open up and discuss their true identity. This conversation is never taken lightly and often confirms something I may have suspected already.
I read and hear news reports about gay people currently serving in today’s military, and people talk as though it were an abstract idea. Gay men and lesbians may be serving among us, but the military can’t know for sure. The fact is, gay people are everywhere in the military, including the Air Force. They are flying multimillion dollar aircraft, standing guard at the gate entrances, processing pay documents, and attending to wounded airmen.
One experience I had solidified the fact that sexual orientation has no effect on trust, intelligence and professionalism. In one squadron, the head crew chief of an aircraft was a lesbian as well as an incredible airwoman. She was known for her aircraft being immaculately tended to as well as having a stellar mission capable rate. This is the bottom line of aircraft maintenance in the Air Force: getting your plane off the ground and the mission accomplished. When we sign off the aircraft’s forms stating the aircraft is safe to fly, pilots can take off in confidence, not caring about the sexual orientation of its maintenance crew.
The Air Force has afforded me many opportunities in life. I’m a walking advertisement for recruitment because of my long and rewarding career. Some may question the wisdom of a service member with so much time invested and a promising career ahead openly discussing "don't ask, don't tell". But, as a father and example to three young boys, as a career airman, and most importantly an American citizen, I truly believe that we cannot be afraid to stand up and be vocal for what we believe in.
In my personal opinion, the Air Force and Department of Defense are doing the best they can to not tolerate discrimination and to not go on witch hunts. They are merely following a policy that as the recently released Pentagon report shows, a majority of its members do not support.
I watch the news and feel powerless, wondering if this is finally the time “don’t ask, don’t tell” will end. This policy has haunted my conscience throughout my entire career.
I just hope by the time I honorably retire, I will be retiring from a military that treats all of its valuable men and women equally. This basic freedom is at the heart of why I joined the military in the first place and what makes this country worth fighting for.
Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is now a stand-alone bill that has passed the House and could be voted on in the Senate as early as Saturday. Please join with Kristoffer and the ACLU in telling Congress to get the job done this year. Repeal DADT NOW!

Senate Votes To Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' 18DDEZ10

In a landmark vote for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted 65-31 to overturn the military ban on openly gay troops known as "don't ask, don't tell." The measure now goes to President Obama for his signature.
The vote came after a test vote passed 63-33 earlier in the day. The House passed an identical version of the bill, 250-174, earlier this week.
Obama was expected to sign the bill next week, although the change wouldn't take immediate effect. The president and his top military advisers must first certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60-day waiting period for the military.
Repeal means that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.
More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.
Rounding up a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a historic victory for President Barack Obama, who made repeal of the 17-year-old policy a campaign promise in 2008. It also was a political triumph for congressional Democrats who struggled in the final hours of the postelection session to overcome GOP objections on several legislative priorities before Republicans regain control of the House in January.
"As Barry Goldwater said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight,"' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), referring to the late GOP senator from Arizona.
Some have predicted the process could take as long as a year before the Bill Clinton-era policy is repealed.
Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP rival in 2008, led the opposition. Speaking on the Senate floor minutes before the test vote, the Arizona Republican acknowledged he didn't have the votes to stop the bill. He blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.
"They will do what is asked of them," McCain said of service members. "But don't think there won't be a great cost."
In the end, enough GOP senators broke with their party and swung behind repeal after a recent Pentagon study concluded the ban could be lifted without hurting the ability of troops to fight.
Advocacy groups who lobbied hard for repeal hailed the vote as a significant step forward in gay rights. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network called the issue the "defining civil rights initiative of this decade."
Supporters of repeal filled the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor, ready to protest had the bill failed.
"This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
The Pentagon study found that two-thirds of service members didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect. But of those who did predict negative consequences, a majority were assigned to combat arms units. Nearly 60 percent of the Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units' ability to fight.
The Pentagon's uniformed chiefs are divided on whether this resistance might pose serious problems.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos has said he thinks lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives.
"I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction," he told reporters this week. "I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda [Naval Medical Center] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."
Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, have said the fear of disruption is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units' morale or effectiveness. Among Marines in combat roles who said they have served alongside a gay person, 84 percent said there was no impact.
Senate votes to overturn military gay ban

By ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press
Saturday, December 18, 2010; 3:32 PM


WASHINGTON -- In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
Obama was expected to sign it next week, although the change wouldn't take immediate effect. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60-day waiting period for the military.
"It is time to close this chapter in our history," Obama said in a statement after a test vote cleared the way for final action. "It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed."
The Senate vote was 65-31. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-175, on Wednesday.
Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.
More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.
Rounding up a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a historic victory for Obama, who made repeal a campaign promise in 2008. It also was a political triumph for congressional Democrats who struggled in the final hours of the postelection session to overcome GOP objections on several legislative priorities before Republicans regain control of the House in January.
"As Barry Goldwater said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight,'" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., referring to the late GOP senator from Arizona.
Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP rival in 2008, led the opposition. The Arizona Republican acknowledged he didn't have the votes to stop the bill and he blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.
"They will do what is asked of them," McCain said of service members. "But don't think there won't be a great cost."
In the end, six GOP senators broke with their party on the procedural vote to let the bill move ahead and swung behind repeal after a recent Pentagon study concluded the ban could be lifted without hurting the ability of troops to fight.
Advocacy groups who lobbied hard for repeal hailed the vote as a significant step forward in gay rights. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network called the issue the "defining civil rights initiative of this decade."
Supporters of repeal filled the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor, ready to protest had the bill failed.
"This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
The Pentagon study found that two-thirds of service members didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect. But of those who did predict negative consequences, a majority were assigned to combat arms units. Nearly 60 percent of the Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units' ability to fight.
The Pentagon's uniformed chiefs are divided on whether this resistance might pose serious problems.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos has said he thinks lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives.
"I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction," he told reporters this week. "I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda (Naval Medical Center) with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."
Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, have said the fear of disruption is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units' morale or effectiveness. Among Marines in combat roles who said they have served alongside a gay person, 84 percent said there was no impact.
---
Online:
Pentagon study:http://tinyurl.com/23lxc49
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network:http://www.sldn.org/
Information on the bill, H.R. 2965, can be found athttp://thomas.loc.gov

Right-Wing Vets Torn on DADT from MOJO 3DEZ10

I haven't had much to say on DADT...I have not served in the military, but I do feel DADT should be repealed just as a civil rights issue. I do think there is a lot of hypocrisy on the issue, and that some of those opposed to the repeal are doing so for political reasons, and others are just squealing little pin heads who need to stop flattering themselves by thinking gays and / or lesbians are interested in them sexually....sorry to dismiss your ego, but for the vast, great majority of you that just aint the case.....But on to this post from Mother Jones offering some conservatives views on the issue.....and check out the video from JCCS Mike Mullen.....

— Photo illustration/Wikimedia Commons and Flickr

OK, the next sentence will probably make you laugh. Just promise me you'll keep reading beyond that.
I want to contrast the reactions of two conservative military commentators on yesterday's Don't Ask Don't Tell hearings: Bruce "McQ" McQuain at the prominent milblog Blackfive, and Oliver North.
No, seriously. Both put out some really interesting commentary yesterday. One represents a sober but crisp arch-conservativism that you may rarely agree with, but can quickly appreciate. The other represents the inchoate ramblings of an addled, sycophantic manipulator who has no business intoning on anyone's morality. Taken together, they show why repealing DADT should be a priority for Democrats—not only because it's morally just and strategically sound, but because it has the political potential to implode the right wing of the right wing.

Here's what McQ wrote today:

I think it should be obvious—even to Sen. McCain—that DADT is going to be repealed at some point whether anyone likes it or not. That repeal can be a purposeful one, implemented in a way in which the military can decide on a timeline and methodology by which to do so, or it can be by a court order that will end it immediately and not allow the military any control of the transition.
The Pentagon's DADT study was recently published and it essentially concluded that most troops really don't care about gays serving openly. That sentiment mirrors what most of the country feels as well. The Pentagon report concluded that the threat to the force of repeal is "low".
As I've said for years, when the dominant culture concludes sexual orientation isn't relevant to job performance, that would eventually filter into the military. If the Pentagon's study is to be believed, that's happened.

This is classic conservatism at its best: Adopt a set of principles and be willing to follow them consistently, wherever they may lead. In this case, though McQ sounds a bit skeptical of gays and putting civil rights before military preparedness, he's ready to accept the dictates of the Pentagon leadership—and the public at large. Like all the writers at Blackfive, he's outspoken and ready for a clash when it comes to politics. Sometimes they've cooperated with me on stories; at other times they've called me "MOTHER. SOCIALIST RAG. JONES." Sure, they're "Love it or leave it" red-meat types, while I'm a progressive who lives by the reformist words of that early famous conservative, Edmund Burke: "For us to love our country, our country must be lovely." But the Blackfive guys understand that gay equality in the military isn't the downfall of civilization; it's the groundwork for a newer, broader sense of civic virtue in America.
And then there's Ollie North. Here's what he wrote yesterday:

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo tried and failed. Mao Zedong, Nikita Khrushchev and Ho Chi Minh couldn't do it. But commander in chief Barack Obama may well succeed where others could not. If he has his way, he will demolish the finest force for good in the history of mankind—the U.S. armed forces. And he wants to make it all happen before the end of the year...
Notably, military chaplains—from all denominations—overwhelmingly oppose changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy...
In his testimony Dec. 2, while urging the Senate Armed Services Committee to act immediately on changing the law, [Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike] Mullen told the solons that service in the military is a "meritocracy" based on "what you do, not who you are." That, of course, is the very argument many of us have been making against allowing active homosexuals into the ranks.

Ah, yes! The obvious Nazi-commie-baiting. The "Obama wants to destroy morality, the military, and America!" trope. The zeroing in on what military chaplains think—chaplains who are conservative evangelical Protestants out of all proportion to the US military and civilian populations. The insistence that it's not gays that conservatives are after, but their bad behavior—you know, that gay lifestyle.
And here's a guy who knows about bad behavior, right? Oliver North's career as a Marine officer started with a suicide attempt with his service pistol in a Quantico parking lot, and it ended with his flouting of congressional and constitutional authority, his illegal sales of arms in Latin America and Iran, his alleged drug dealing, his shredding of White House records, and his questionable money practices with a self-run nonprofit. Oliver North, whom even his Iran-Contra co-conspirator and fellow Marine Robert MacFarlane called "deceitful, mendacious, and traitorous" and "devious, self-serving, self-aggrandizing and true first and foremost to himself." He now deigns to preach to us on morality, government propriety, and civil-military relations.*
One of these conservatives offers a considered opinion and a fundamental belief in the American political process. The other parrots conservatism as we most often see it today, in fire-eating congressmen, in grassroots right-wing movements, in Fox News bites: radical, rejectionist, morally hypocritical.
Which, on the whole, should be encouraging: The Obama administration should push DADT repeal loudly, clearly, and unapologetically. To do so will force individual conservatives to choose either the path of reason...or the Ollie North way. If they opt for the former, they'll rejoin the majority of Americans and make conservatism relevant again; if they choose the latter, they'll only marginalize themselves further out of the process.
Of course, scoring political points isn't a compelling reason to repeal DADT. We should do it to advance the very American cause of equality of opportunity before the law. And we should do it so that the military can avail itself of a new, untapped recruiting pool. If one conservative military blogger can understand that, why can't we all?
* For a devastating true account of Ollie North's crimes, proven and alleged, read The Nightingale's Song by his fellow Naval Academy graduate and Marine, Robert Timberg.

Adam Weinstein is Mother Jones' copy editor. For more of his stories, click here or follow him on Twitter. Get Adam Weinstein's RSS feed.

Mullen on DADT: Shut Your Trap, McCain (VIDEO)

— By Adam Weinstein

| Thu Dec. 2, 2010 1:24 PM PST

[For a recap of today's Capitol Hill DADT drama, also read editorial intern Siddhartha Mahanta's take here.]
Honor. Courage. Commitment. These are the Navy core values. And today, discussing his support for a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Joint Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen exhibited them all, while dressing down one subordinate, Capt. John S. McCain (USN-Retired). Defense Secretary Bob Gates locked sights on the Arizona senator, too. The video:

In 2006, McCain—whose political career is based on his mythos as a war hero—said this:

I understand the opposition to it, and I've had these debates and discussions. But the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, "Senator, we ought to change the policy," then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it, because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.

Yet today, he refused to acknowledge Mullens' and Gates' leadership. And the military men were having none of it. As Armchair Generalist blogger Jason Sigger put it:

SHORTER ADM Mullen: "Listen, old man, don't ever fucking tell me about how to command troops. I've been there, done that, and you never made flag rank in your Navy career."

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Ollie North: Off Climate Deep End

• Mullen on DADT: Shut Your Trap, McCain (VIDEO)

  The Joint Chiefs chairman pulls rank, big-time, on the politicking GOP senator.

• Army Kicks Out More Gays Than Fat Soldiers

  As DoD okays a repeal of DADT, one service stays tough on gays... and soft on fitness.

• The VFW's Tea Party Revolt

  Why is the top lobby group for combat vets snubbing every "patriot" congressional candidate...including one of its own members?

• Sub Captain Proves Gays Aren't the Problem

  The skipper of a nuclear vessel gets distracted from his job by an "inappropriate and weird" extramarital relationship...with a woman.

Another Wiretap Expansion Proposal, Facebook Privacy Breach and More from the ACLU 23OKT10

UPDATES on DADT, FBI surveillance, voting rights, illegal deportation, the Pledge of Allegiance, former A.G. john ashcroft and illegal detentionand the Supreme Court case, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. 

What's Next for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" Planning to Vote on November 2? Know Your Rights! Supreme Court Will Hear ACLU Case Against Former Attorney General Ashcroft Expanded Wiretapping Capabilities = Potential For Abuse The Best Person for the Job...Fired for Being Gay. Jailtime for Refusing the Pledge: A "Civil Liberties Minute" Podcast Mentally Disabled American Citizen Deported to Mexico Facebook Application Privacy Breach Exposed Jailtime for Refusing the Pledge: A "Civil Liberties Minute" Podcast A lawyer in Mississippi has been thrown in jail for refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance. >> Listen to the podcast. Mentally Disabled American Citizen Deported to Mexico The ACLU filed lawsuits in federal courts in Georgia and North Carolina last week on behalf of Mark Lyttle, a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent with mental disabilities. He was wrongfully deported to Mexico and forced to endure over four months of living in the streets, shelters and prisons of Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala. Lyttle's brush with immigration officials began when he was about to be released from a North Carolina jail where he was serving a short sentence for touching a worker's backside in a halfway house that serves individuals with mental disabilities. Even though they had plenty of evidence that he was a U.S. citizen—including his Social Security number and the names of his parents—corrections officials turned him over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an undocumented immigrant. Although ICE knew of Lyttle's long and documented history of mental illness and noted he did not comprehend the investigation of his status, he was not offered legal assistance and was deported to Mexico. "What happened to Mark Lyttle is unconscionable," said Judy Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "Our Constitution and our laws demand fair treatment for people with mental disabilities in any court, including immigration courts. Pushing Mr. Lyttle through proceedings that he clearly couldn't understand and then deporting him was not only inhumane but a gross violation of his due process rights." So, how could this have happened? The answer, as reported by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch in a report issued this July, is that both ICE and the Department of Justice have failed to implement meaningful safeguards for people with mental disabilities facing possible deportation from the United States. >> Learn more about this case. back to top Facebook Application Privacy Breach Exposed This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the most popular Facebook apps consistently share information about you and your friends with advertisers and other third parties, no matter what your privacy settings are. This isn't the first time a significant and ongoing privacy invasion and violation of Facebook's own rules has been uncovered. Facebook needs to stop addressing this problem with secret "policy enforcement" and start putting choices and control back where it belongs: in your hands. To its credit, Facebook has taken some steps to address this but has yet to offer a complete solution. That is why we have continued to push Facebook to improve its privacy controls and address the "app gap." Unfortunately, Facebook's response to the ACLU's Open Letter was to claim that it "heard these concerns" but had already done what needed to be done. As the recent breach clearly shows, there is definitely still more to be done. In order to make sure that personal information about you is only accessed by people and developers you trust, Facebook must give you complete and meaningful control over which apps can access your information and what information these apps access. >> Take action: Sign the petition to Facebook demanding better control over your personal information. back to top 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.

October 23, 2010 What's Next for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" >> Tell President Obama to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" once and for all. The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy is in the news a lot these days. And it seems as if this discriminatory and unconstitutional policy is teetering—ready to fall. As you know, the courts keep striking serious blows against DADT. Recently, the ACLU won a major victory when a judge ordered the reinstatement of an Air Force Major wrongfully discharged under DADT. And a federal court in California, in a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, ordered an end to enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But, our elected leaders—starting with the President—have to stop avoiding efforts to end DADT and, instead, start seizing them. It is time for President Obama to lead by putting a decisive end to DADT >> Take action: Tell President Obama to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." back to top Planning to Vote on November 2? Know Your Rights! >> Learn more about your right to vote. With Election Day right around the corner, we have some important tools to help people exercise their fundamental right to vote. You never know what might happen at the polls—that's why voters must be as informed as possible. We're working hard to ensure that all voters' rights are protected and that every vote is counted on November 2. Here are some things to keep in mind: Check your voter registration status. Locate your polling place and note the hours of operation. Plan ahead, particularly if you require some form of assistance. Vote early or absentee if possible. If you plan to vote at the polls, go early in the day to avoid the last-minute rush. Bring a valid form of identification, even if it's not required. Wear comfortable and adequate clothing in case of long lines or inclement weather. Do not wear candidate-specific clothing. Take your time and read all instructions carefully. Ask for help if you need it. Be wary of rumors and false information that may be designed to discourage you from voting. Report any voting problems or irregularities to state officials and/or call the ACLU's voter protection hotline at 877-523-2792. Don't forget to vote! Remind your friends and family, too. >> ACLU affiliates are also distributing voter education materials around the country that inform voters of their rights on Election Day and how to avoid problems when casting a ballot. Learn more. back to top Supreme Court Will Hear ACLU Case Against Former Attorney General Ashcroft The Supreme Court has agreed to hear al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, the ACLU's case against former Attorney General John Ashcroft on behalf of Abdullah al-Kidd. >> Learn more about al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. >> Learn more about other Supreme Court cases the ACLU is involved with this term. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, the ACLU's case against former Attorney General John Ashcroft on behalf of Abdullah al-Kidd, a Kansas-born U.S. citizen who was wrongly arrested and detained as a material witness in 2003. The federal material witness statute allows law enforcement to detain a witness whose testimony prosecutors believe is material at a criminal trial if it believes that witness won't testify voluntarily. Al-Kidd was arrested and detained ostensibly so he'd testify as a material witness in the trial of Sami Omar al-Hussayen, who attended the same university as al-Kidd and was charged with visa fraud. During his 16-day detention, al-Kidd was moved to three separate federal detention facilities in three different states—and was sometimes held naked and shackled hand-and-foot. After he was released, al-Kidd's travel was restricted to only four states, and he had to surrender his passport and report to probation officers. But al-Kidd was never asked to testify against al-Hussayen. And al-Kidd himself was never charged with a crime. So, why was he being treated like a criminal? Prior to 9/11, the material witness law was used sparingly to ensure witnesses would be available to testify in criminal cases. After 9/11, Attorney General Ashcroft retooled the law into an investigative detention statute, allowing the government to arrest and detain individuals for whom they lacked probable cause to charge with a crime. Our lawsuit charges that this Ashcroft policy violates fundamental constitutional principles and that al-Kidd was a victim of that policy. The district and appellate courts agreed. >> Learn more about al-Kidd v. Ashcroft. >> Learn more about other Supreme Court cases the ACLU is involved with this term. back to top Expanded Wiretapping Capabilities = Potential For Abuse >> Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power. According to a report in The New York Times this week, the Obama administration will be submitting proposals to Congress next year seeking to expand its wiretapping capacity by overhauling the law requiring telecommunications companies to ensure their networks can be wiretapped. The administration claims that Congress must rework the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)—which compels telecommunications and broadband companies to ensure their services are wiretap-ready—in order to keep up with technological changes in the companies' services. The administration is also asking that the government's power to enforce compliance by companies with the law be strengthened. However, the government's authority under CALEA to lawfully collect information from telecommunications and broadband companies is currently sufficient, as is its ability to enforce penalties for noncompliance. Does this sound familiar? In 2007 and 2008, in an analogous situation, the Bush administration pushed to "modernize" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by claiming technological changes had made it more difficult for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor foreign communications. The former administration successfully used the opportunity, under the guise of a technical fix, to radically expand the government's power to monitor Americans' international communications through passage of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in July 2008. The ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the FAA in federal court. >> Take action: Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power. back to top The Best Person for the Job...Fired for Being Gay. The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Andre Cooley, a corrections officer for the Forrest County Sherriff’s Department who was fired when his supervisors discovered that he was gay. >> Watch the video to learn more. Andre Cooley, a corrections officer with an exemplary record for the Forrest County Sherriff's Department in Mississippi, was fired when his supervisors discovered that he was gay. The ACLU filed a lawsuit this week on his behalf. This past June, while at home and off-duty, Cooley called 911 after his boyfriend became physically violent. When police officers arrived at the house in response to the emergency call, Andre's boyfriend "outed" him to one of his superiors. The next day, the Staff Sergeant of Jail Operations informed Andre that he was being permanently terminated. Andre asked the staff sergeant if he was being fired because he was gay, and the staff sergeant responded, "Yes." "Andre's sexual orientation has no bearing on his ability to perform the job of a corrections officer," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "It is well established that a public employer cannot fire an employee based on irrational fears and prejudices against gay people. But Andre's case is also a reminder that people in Mississippi who work for private companies are left almost entirely unprotected from anti-gay discrimination. There is currently no state or federal law protecting against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would make it illegal to discriminate against an employee for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. President Obama has said he will sign ENDA if it passes Congress, but even though ENDA was first introduced over 16 years ago and has broad support in both the Senate and the House, it still has not passed Congress. >> Take action: Urge Congress to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. back to top Join us on...

American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, New York 10004-2400 Lisa Sock and Joe McLaughlin, Editors

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. Click here to forward this message.