KNOW YOUR RIGHTS from the ACLU 23JUL10

Español >>

WHAT TO DO IF YOU'RE STOPPED BY POLICE, IMMIGRATION AGENTS OR THE FBI
We rely on the police to keep us safe and treat us all fairly, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. This card provides tips for interacting with police and understanding your rights.

Note: Some state laws may vary. Separate rules apply at checkpoints and when entering the U.S. (including at airports).

YOUR RIGHTS
- You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, say so out loud.
- You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car or your home.
- If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.
- You have the right to a lawyer if you are arrested. Ask for one immediately.
- Regardless of your immigration or citizenship status, you have constitutional rights.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
- Do stay calm and be polite.
- Do not interfere with or obstruct the police.
- Do not lie or give false documents.
- Do prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested.
- Do remember the details of the encounter.
- Do file a written complaint or call your local ACLU if you feel your rights have been violated.

If You Are

...Stopped For Questioning

...Stopped In Your Car

...Questioned About Your Immigration Status

...Approached By Police Or Immigration Agents at Home

...Contacted By The FBI

...Arrested

...Taken Into Immigration (Or "ICE") Custody

If You Feel Your Rights Have Been Violated

IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
Stay calm. Don't run. Don't argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.

IF YOU ARE STOPPED IN YOUR CAR
Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.
Upon request, show police your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.
If an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.
Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.

IF YOU ARE QUESTIONED ABOUT YOUR IMMIGRATION STATUS
You have the right to remain silent and do not have to discuss your immigration or citizenship status with police, immigration agents or any other officials. You do not have to answer questions about where you were born, whether you are a U.S. citizen, or how you entered the country. (Separate rules apply at international borders and airports, and for individuals on certain nonimmigrant visas, including tourists and business travelers.)
If you are not a U.S. citizen and an immigration agent requests your immigration papers, you must show them if you have them with you. If you are over 18, carry your immigration documents with you at all times. If you do not have immigration papers, say you want to remain silent.
Do not lie about your citizenship status or provide fake documents.

IF THE POLICE OR IMMIGRATION AGENTS COME TO YOUR HOME
If the police or immigration agents come to your home, you do not have to let them in unless they have certain kinds of warrants.
Ask the officer to slip the warrant under the door or hold it up to the window so you can inspect it. A search warrant allows police to enter the address listed on the warrant, but officers can only search the areas and for the items listed. An arrest warrant allows police to enter the home of the person listed on the warrant if they believe the person is inside. A warrant of removal/deportation (ICE warrant) does not allow officers to enter a home without consent.
Even if officers have a warrant, you have the right to remain silent. If you choose to speak to the officers, step outside and close the door.

IF YOU ARE CONTACTED BY THE FBI
If an FBI agent comes to your home or workplace, you do not have to answer any questions. Tell the agent you want to speak to a lawyer first.
If you are asked to meet with FBI agents for an interview, you have the right to say you do not want to be interviewed. If you agree to an interview, have a lawyer present. You do not have to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable answering, and can say that you will only answer questions on a specific topic.

IF YOU ARE ARRESTED
Do not resist arrest, even if you believe the arrest is unfair.
Say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don't give any explanations or excuses. If you can't pay for a lawyer, you have the right to a free one. Don't say anything, sign anything or make any decisions without a lawyer.
You have the right to make a local phone call. The police cannot listen if you call a lawyer.
Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.
Special considerations for non-citizens:
- Ask your lawyer about the effect of a criminal conviction or plea on your immigration status.
- Don't discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
- While you are in jail, an immigration agent may visit you. Do not answer questions or sign anything before talking to a lawyer.
- Read all papers fully. If you do not understand or cannot read the papers, tell the officer you need an interpreter.

IF YOU ARE TAKEN INTO IMMIGRATION (OR "ICE") CUSTODY
You have the right to a lawyer, but the government does not have to provide one for you. If you do not have a lawyer, ask for a list of free or low-cost legal services.
You have the right to contact your consulate or have an officer inform the consulate of your arrest.
Tell the ICE agent you wish to remain silent. Do not discuss your immigration status with anyone but your lawyer.
Do not sign anything, such as a voluntary departure or stipulated removal, without talking to a lawyer. If you sign, you may be giving up your opportunity to try to stay in the U.S.
Remember your immigration number ("A" number) and give it to your family. It will help family members locate you.
Keep a copy of your immigration documents with someone you trust.

IF YOU FEEL YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED
Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don't physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.
Write down everything you remember, including officers' badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).
File a written complaint with the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.
Call your local ACLU or visit www.aclu.org/profiling.

This information is not intended as legal advice.
This brochure is available in English and Spanish / Esta tarjeta tambián se puede obtener en inglés y español.
Produced by the American Civil Liberties Union 6/2010

Failed Times Square Bomber's Guilty Plea Is a Win for US Justice System 21JUN10

After an initial delay, Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square car bomber, stood up today in a federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan and entered a plea of "guilty."
Though his expected court appearance had been widely publicized, there were no gunshots heard or bomb threats issued. Notwithstanding Liz Cheney's warnings that bringing suspected terrorists to a U.S. federal courthouse can only cause chaos, the proceeding was orderly, calm and peaceful. The dozens of reporters from around the world who packed the courtroom quietly hurried out to file their stories across the globe.
And the story that they now have to tell is a simple one: the U.S. criminal justice is working.
Since it happened in May, critics of the Obama administration have heralded the failed Times Square bombing attempt as proof that Americans are under constant threat from a powerful foreign enemy and must, in our vigilance, treat all suspected terrorists as enemy warriors -- throwing them in an offshore military prison and either detaining them indefinitely or allowing them only a trial by military commission.
But the careful handling of Faisal Shahzad by New York City police and federal law enforcement is proof of just the opposite. Whether the attempted mass murderer sees himself as aligned with a group of foreign jihadists battling American imperialism is beside the point. What matters is that good old-fashioned law enforcement -- police officers quickly responding to the observations of an alert pedestrian, and skilled FBI agents using time-honored interrogation techniques -- successfully averted disaster and, thereafter, gained critical intelligence to help thwart future attacks.
Shahzad, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen, was indicted last week on 10 terrorism and weapons charges that accused him of using money and training from the Pakistani Taliban to plot his failed car bombing. His plea of guilty to all 10 counts (five more than originally specified) could land the 30-year-old father of two in prison for life.
Shahzad's plot fizzled, of course, when the gasoline-and-propane bomb he tried to construct failed to ignite in the SUV he'd parked near a Broadway theater. That's typical, say many experts, of bombing attempts in the United States. Among the challenges of detonating a bomb on U.S. soil are the difficulty of obtaining high-powered explosives and of fashioning an effective explosive from the sort of products that are easily available.
That Shahzad wasn't successful doesn't mean he's not a terrorist, however. And what's critical about this case is that skilled law enforcement officials knew that even though his attempt failed, Shahzad was a potential treasure trove of information about the Pakistani Taliban and their operations. And they've exploited that well: after his arrest, Shaizad reportedly cooperated with law enforcement and answered their questions for two weeks before even requesting a lawyer. His arraignment was postponed several times even after a lawyer was appointed to represent him, indicating that even with a lawyer he continued to cooperate, with the process culminating in today's guilty plea.
Shahzad's cooperation has so far lead to the arrest of a Pakistani army major in Islamabad who was allegedly in contact with Shahzad by cell phone. Three men have also been arrested in the United States on immigration charges for allegedly helping Shahzad import money from Pakistan.
Administration critics such as John McCain insisted after Shahzad's arrest that he should never have been read his Miranda rights or treated as a common criminal. Indeed, a bill McCain introduced in March, the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act, would have prevented that. The bill would require all terror suspects such as Shahzad to be turned over to the military for interrogation and possibly indefinite dentition without trial. There would be no Miranda rights, no right to a lawyer and no right to remain silent.
Although it's theoretically possible that military interrogators handling a suspect that way could get useful information, it's not clear exactly how or why that would work. For one thing, military interrogators are trained to gather information on a battlefield, not for future prosecution. That means the evidence can easily be compromised, making it impossible to prosecute the suspect later. That also means the interrogator loses the leverage a future prosecution can offer.
The administration, of course, has said that it can hold indefinitely any suspects it deems "alien enemy belligerents." But that also works against encouraging cooperation. After all, if a suspect knows that acknowledging his participation in the plot could land him in indefinite detention without charge or trial, what incentive does he have to cooperate?
One reason the FBI has been so successful is terrorism cases is that by following the federal court rules, it reserves its ability to criminally prosecute any terrorism suspect. It doesn't have to worry that the evidence won't be admissible later. The suspect, meanwhile, knows he's headed to court, and that the person interrogating him can influence what the charges and the sentence will be. That provides a strong incentive to cooperate and provide as much information as possible, in the hopes of getting some sort of a break -- a few decades in prison, say, instead of life.
Still, critics such as Liz Cheney and Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman continue to argue that treating suspected terrorists as criminals isn't being tough enough, and demand military detention.
But just because something's run by the military doesn't make it any tougher. On the contrary, the military commissions created to try suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have managed to convict only three terrorists in eight years -- and two are already out free. The criminal justice system, on the other hand, has convicted some 400 terrorists since September 11, 2001.
Faisal Shahzad's guilty plea today is a perfect example of how the system works, producing valuable intelligence while still landing convicted terrorists behind bars.
The U.S. faces a very real threat of terrorism, whether at home or abroad. But the solution to the threat isn't to do away with the most effective means we have of combating it.

HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST RIGHTS WIRE E MAIL NEWSLETTER 20MAI10

HRF'S E-NEWSLETTER

May 20, 2010

EMAIL TO A FRIEND»

DONATE»

From our President and CEO» What Gitmo Looks Like» Advocacy Update: Carmelo Agamez» Fighting Antisemitism» On the Ground in the Middle East» HRF In the News From Our President and CEO Bringing Terrorism Suspects to Justice The attempted bombing in Times Square intensified the debate about how to treat terrorism suspects and where they should be prosecuted. Now Obama administration officials are saying they may ask Congress to weaken the Miranda rule, a central principle of our justice system designed to ensure that evidence presented at trial is reliable. Miranda plays an important role in our criminal justice system--a system that has proven more effective than military commissions at prosecuting terrorism suspects. Human Rights First is working with professional interrogators and law enforcement experts who know that we can get the intelligence we need to combat terrorism by working within the law and through our institutions. Let President Obama know that you stand with experienced law enforcement professionals in supporting our Constitution and our criminal justice system. Send him a letter today! Want to see what Gitmo looks like? Watch our Video Diary Military commissions have begun again, and Human Rights First is back at Guantanamo monitoring the hearings. If you want to see what it looks like on the island, check out our own Daphne Eviatar's video diary. Thanks to those who participated in our web chat last week. If you missed it, you can download the audio recording or the transcript, on our blog. Advocacy Update: Carmelo Agamez Thank you for supporting Carmelo Agamez and other Colombian activists unjustly detained or prosecuted for their human rights work. We sent over 5,600 emails to the State Department and 2,400 to the Colombian Prosecutor General calling for due process in this and other cases. We shared the messages with Agamez himself, who is grateful for the support he has from all of you! We'll keep you posted with updates on his appeal. Just this week we submitted testimony at a congressional hearing concerning Colombia and the rule of law. We'll continue to push for reform wherever we can. Fighting Antisemitism HRF President and CEO Elisa Massimino testified last month before Congress about how to combat the rise in antisemitic violence. She pointed to our Ten Point Plan that shows governments how to stem violence driven by biases including religious intolerance, homophobia, racism, and other forms of discrimination. This month, we're focusing our attention on the newly elected Hungarian government in an effort to address the alarming rise in antisemitic and anti-Roma violence there. On the Ground in the Middle East HRF staff worked in the Middle East last month, tackling issues from the protection of refugees to support for human rights defenders' use of the Internet for activism. Members of our Refugee Protection team interviewed Iraqi refugees in Jordan as part of our work to make sure these refugees--victims of war and violence in their home country--are resettled. Stay tuned for our report and recommendations but, for a sneak preview, check out Jesse Bernstein's Huffington Post article. International Policy Advisor Neil Hicks traveled to Egypt to meet with human rights defenders and other stakeholders about the changing face of activism there--including the growth of Internet advocacy. As Egypt begins to plan for elections, HRF will be focusing on U.S. policy toward this strategic partner.  HRF In the News The Guatemalan government made a big step toward accountability in a genocide case last month when it opened a critical military archive documenting the responsibility of top military commanders for mass atrocities in the 1980s. HRF's Andrew Hudson commented to Reuters, which got picked up in major newspaper outlets, and he followed up in a later Christian Science Monitor article. Google promoted transparency when it disclosed countries that censor--including the United States and Australia. Read Elisa Massimino's commentary in the Huffington Post. GOOGLE CENSORSHIP DISCLOSURE HELPS QUANTIFY A TROUBLING TREND AND UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR ACTION 22APR10 What do Australia, Brazil, India, the United States and Britain have in common? This week, Google named each of these nations among the list of countries that most often contact it with requests for content removal and user data. Google's disclosure is a bold step towards quantifying this trend. Whether it leads to greater protection of user privacy and free expression on the Internet will depend on the policies that guide the companies' responses to these government requests. But for now this move should prompt other companies to consider how to be more transparent about the censorship restrictions they face. Google's decision to release this information reveals with greater granularity what internet service providers have been saying for years - that governments are increasingly demanding censorship of Internet content and information about users. As its new interactive map illustrates, this trend is global and affects users from nations with diverse political and socio-economic landscapes. Google's new tool also reveals that for some governments - notably China - mere disclosure of the requests is also subject to censorship. Most importantly, this information illustrates the need for collaborative approaches to the growing problem of Internet censorship. It is a problem that affects us all. As Secretary of State Clinton observed in her landmark speech on Internet freedom, this is about the kind of world we live in and whether all its citizens will have equal, unfettered access to information. Google's censorship disclosure tool is far from perfect, as the company makes clear. The data is one dimensional and incomplete. There is no context provided and requests are aggregated rather than sourced to the relevant authority. That makes it difficult to compare countries or to draw useful conclusions, including about why Google has complied with such requests in the majority of instances. In addition, the data for some governments is either unavailable or subject to national legal restrictions on disclosure. Even so, Google deserves praise for its willingness to release the data that it has and to help all of us understand the kinds of challenges the company is facing every day. The burning question - the one most everyone wants to know - is which governments make the most intrusive demands on Internet freedom and what that means for its citizens. We also want to know how companies assess these requests and respond and what those responses mean for users. It is this challenge that has led Human Rights First to join with Google and other companies to work toward greater transparency and shared solutions to Internet censorship and surveillance. The Global Network Initiative (GNI), a multistakeholder effort to address threats to Internet freedom, exists to help companies move from information gathering to assessment and action. Though the GNI is at the beginning stages of implementation, it's headed in the right direction. We urge other companies in this sector to join this crucial effort to help defend Internet freedom. This is a fight we intend to win and it's one that requires each of us to take a stand now.

ACLU ONLINE NEWSLETTER 21MAI10

Tell Attorney General Holder to Keep His Hands Off the Miranda Rule Arizona: We're Going to Court Request For Amazon User Records Unconstitutional Texas School Board Puts on a Show Potty-Mouths: Steer Clear of Pennsylvania Defending Twitter Users' Privacy Potty-Mouths: Steer Clear of Pennsylvania If you have a potty-mouth, stay away from the Keystone State. A recent ACLU of Pennsylvania Right to Know Law request revealed that in a one-year period, the Pennsylvania State Police issued over 770 disorderly conduct citations for profanity or profane gestures. That's two citations a day—citations which are illegal—as the courts have made it very clear that profanity, unlike obscenity, is constitutionally-protected speech. On Wednesday, the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed two lawsuits against the Pennsylvania State Police and the Mahanoy City Police of Schuylkill County for issuing disorderly conduct citations to two Pennsylvania residents for using profanity. Our lawsuits argue that profanity and profane gestures are constitutionally-protected speech. While many people find this case understandably humorous, the consequences of these citations are not so funny. In one case, our client called a passing motorcyclist she knew an "asshole" after he deliberately swerved as if to hit her and shouted an insult at her. That same day, she reported the incident to the state police, who proceeded to mail her a disorderly conduct citation for swearing. The citation noted that she could face as much as a 90-day jail sentence and a fine up to $300. She was eventually found not guilty—after hiring a lawyer to defend her. In the months leading up to her hearing, our client, a mother of three young children, constantly worried that she might be separated from her family because of the citation. Unfortunately, the zeal for citing people for profanity isn't limited to the state police. In the past few years, the ACLU of Pennsylvania has successfully defended about a dozen individuals against similar charges—most recently including a Scranton woman, Dawn Herb, who swore at her clogged toilet in her home and a Pittsburgh man, David Hackbart, who flipped off a police officer in a dispute over a parking space. Is it poor manners to swear like a sailor? Definitely. Is it a crime? Definitely not. back to top Defending Twitter Users' Privacy The ACLU of Pennsylvania announced that it will represent two people who anonymously criticized State Attorney General Tom Corbett on Twitter. (As of Tuesday's primary, Corbett is also the GOP candidate for governor.) Corbett's office has asked a grand jury to issue a subpoena to Twitter demanding the company reveal the identities of Twitter users @bfbarbie and @CasaBlancaPA. Twitter told the ACLU of Pennsylvania that it has not disclosed either user's identity. Timothy Yip, Twitter's legal counsel, told TechCrunch: "We protect and do not disclose user information except in limited circumstances. We notify a user, if we believe we are allowed to by law, when we receive any request for their information that we may be required to comply with. This policy is designed for maximum transparency and gives users an opportunity to object." The ACLU has entered discussions with Corbett's office, asking them to withdraw the subpoenas. If the attorney general's office refuses, the ACLU expects to file a motion to quash the subpoenas. Using a grand jury to reveal the identities of political critics is "unconstitutional retaliation that violates the First Amendment," said Witold "Vic" Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. 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.

May 21, 2010 Tell Attorney General Holder to Keep His Hands Off the Miranda Rule In the wake of the attempted bombing in Times Square in May 2010—as after other terrorism attempts—there have been misguided calls to weaken our constitutional rights, including a call to loosen the Miranda rule. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee that the administration wants to "modernize" and "clarify" Miranda warnings for terrorism suspects. Miranda warnings—ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a constitutional right—are used to inform suspects of their rights during interrogation. There is no evidence that the Miranda requirement has obstructed the government from obtaining valuable information and intelligence from suspected terrorists. Both Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was caught on a Detroit-bound plane with explosives in his underwear, and Faisal Shahzad, arrested for trying to bomb Times Square with a car full of explosives, were caught, questioned, and Mirandized. Crucially, both cooperated with law enforcement authorities both before and after they were read their Miranda rights. The ACLU thinks changes to Miranda are both threatening to our criminal justice system and entirely unnecessary. This week, we sent a letter to Holder asking him to leave Miranda alone. And we're not the only ones who think this is a bad idea; three former FBI agents also sent a letter to Holder, writing: "As professional interrogators who have spent decades questioning accused criminals—including spies and terrorists—we are writing to make clear that interrogators can do their job using the existing Miranda rules. No changes are necessary. In fact, changes might do more harm than good." >> Take action: Send a message to Attorney General Holder. Tell him to keep his hands off the Miranda rule! back to top Arizona: We're Going to Court Stop the racial profiling law today -- join the fight and get a free bumper sticker. A lot of people are outraged about Arizona's new racial profiling, "show me your papers" law. This week, the ACLU went to federal court to block this discriminatory law from taking effect. Racial profiling is a deeply-offensive affront to the American values of justice and fairness. And using race to demand that people produce "papers" to prove who they are is a police-state tactic that is completely unacceptable in America. If we don't stop this law now, similar ones could spread across the nation. Already, state lawmakers in at least 10 other states have promised to bring similar bills to their legislatures. That's why we're taking Arizona to court, along with our partners the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Immigration Law Center, and a number of other civil rights groups. Can we count you in to fight with us as we take on this dangerous law? Under the new law, Arizona police will be required to ask people they stop for their citizenship papers based on "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country unlawfully. And by leaving "reasonable suspicion" undefined, the law leaves police officers little choice but to act on appearance and language, inviting a new wave of rampant racial profiling. This week, our lawyers took the first legal step to stop this law. And we'll be organizing on the ground in Arizona, training volunteer lawyers to help people defend themselves against racial profiling. We won't stand by while this law transforms Arizona into a place where anyone can be forced to "show papers" when they are stopped by police just because of how they look or talk or dress. >> Stop the racial profiling law today -- join the fight and get a free bumper sticker. back to top Request For Amazon User Records Unconstitutional Last month, Amazon.com brought a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina's Department of Revenue (DOR) for demanding the private records of its customers. The Revenue Department has demanded that Amazon hand over individually-identifiable information that could be linked to specific purchases made on the site. Amazon has already provided the DOR with product codes that reveal the exact items purchased—including books on the subjects of mental health, alcoholism and LGBT issues. Amazon has withheld individually-identifiable user information—including names and addresses that could be linked back to the individual purchases—but asserts that the NCDOR continues to insist that such information be disclosed. This week, we sent a letter to North Carolina Secretary of Revenue Kenneth Lay expressing our concern about these unreasonable demands. If the Revenue Department doesn't back away from its demand for the personal information of Amazon customers living in North Carolina, we will join Amazon's lawsuit to stop the DOR from collecting individually-identifiable information that could link specific purchases made on Amazon. The ACLU's problem with this demand for personal information is that it's a violation of North Carolinians' First Amendment right to purchase and read lawful materials of their choice. You should be able to make purchases freely without the government looking over your shoulder. >> Take action: Tell Congress to pass legislation that requires law enforcement to get a warrant before it demands sensitive electronic information, including book records. back to top Texas School Board Puts on a Show By Terri Burke, Executive Director, ACLU of Texas There was a time when many of us thought the cheapest, best live theater in Texas was in the Pink Granite building at the end of Congress Avenue in Austin. No more. It's the State Board of Education. If you're not attending—or at least watching— its hearings on the proposed new social studies curriculum standards, you must already be vacationing in the mountains of Colorado with no internet. The highlight—or should I say lowlight—of Wednesday's 13+ hours of public testimony (I got to speak in hour 12.) was the speaker who told us that Texas history curriculum should teach "that slavery was created by fallen angels." Chairwoman Gail Lowe didn't reprimand the speaker as she had earlier complained about T-shirts worn by a group of students. The fronts of the T-shirts were innocuous enough—"Save our History"—but the wording on the backs offended the Chairwoman: "Students for a smarter state board of education now." Out of the 206 registered speakers, my rough count showed a good 60 percent spoke against the proposed standards or asked the Board to delay the vote to revise them. And that doesn't count the legislators and players from the national stage who showed up. Bush-era Education Secretary and former Houston school superintendent Rod Paige told the board early Wednesday morning: "What students are taught should not be the handmaiden of political ideology." They heard, too, from Benjamin Todd Jealous, the national president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), who said that children need to learn the "whole truth, not half truths." He said the standards threaten students' ability to compete on advanced placement tests and SATs. The room had thinned-out dramatically at 9:45 p.m. when finally I was called to speak, and by then, they had changed the rules to strictly limit questioning of speakers. So, I was up and out in the allotted three minutes. I delivered a letter and a copy of our report, "Texas State Board of Education: A Case of Abuse of Power." Part of the timing problem stemmed from the latitude the board granted speakers early in the day. There was an emotional plea for more attention to Davy Crockett, who to my knowledge, is in no danger of being diminished in Texas history texts. Considering this was a discussion of social studies, few of us understood the relevance of a rambling account of a distraught school child who didn't get to sing her favorite song—"Jesus Loves Me"—in her first-grade classroom. Obviously, her teacher had not been educated by the ACLU of Texas about the Constitution's freedom of religious expression clause. We are available to help. The last speaker to really get questioned had come to warn us of the impending Islamic takeover of America—again, not particularly relevant to the issue at hand. When a critic noted the state has few standards for service on the State Board of Education, including no educational requirements for the Commissioner of Education, Board Member David Bradley of Beaumont asked: "So, should the head of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission be a drunk?" My response would have been: "No, but the top educator in our state should be educated." These people have our children's future in their hands. Their final vote is today. back to top Join us on...

American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, New York 10004-2400 Geraldine Engel and Lisa Sock, 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.

Keep Constitution Intact When Interrogating Terrorists 21MAI10

All the cowards who feel we should loose some of our civil and human rights are basically telling the families of  those who have lost their lives defending our country 'Hey thank you, we really appreciate your sacrifice, but we are going to give in to the fear created by terrorism, the fear kept alive by political grandstanding, and do away with the civil and human rights and liberties you died defending' . These cowards are the ones who turn the greatest sacrifice that can be made for one's country into a waste, and they should be ashamed.


(Originally posted on Roll Call.)
Over the past two weeks, most Americans have applauded the FBI, the New York Police Department and the other law enforcement agencies that leapt into action after the failed bombing in Times Square to track and apprehended the suspect, Faisal Shahzad. Anyone who has spent time in a crowded tourist spot can appreciate the fear this near tragedy caused, as well as appreciate the efforts that went into catching Shahzad. Now that he has been apprehended, we certainly hope that authorities are able to uncover any valuable information Shahzad may have about any other planned terror attacks.
But not everyone is sharing in this national moment of relief.
Some Members of Congress criticized the legal requirement that Shahzad be advised of his Miranda rights to remain silent and to have legal counsel present during interrogation. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called it a “serious mistake.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said, “If someone acts like a terrorist and cooperates with people intent on war against the United States, they should be treated as terrorists and not as a common criminal. And no, they should not be read their Miranda rights.” Despite the fact that the Obama administration came into office promising to restore the rule of law, Attorney General Eric Holder went on the Sunday talk shows to suggest that Congress should modify these constitutional requirements.
With all due respect, a quick review of the facts shows that Mirandizing terror suspects doesn’t do harm, and in fact appears to do a great amount of good — both in gaining criminal convictions and in gathering actionable intelligence.
Take Najibullah Zazi, who recently pleaded guilty in the foiled September 2009 plot in New York, and who was read his rights before unleashing a torrent of valuable information to interrogators. Likewise, the alleged Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab waived his Miranda rights and cooperated with investigators, reportedly after they brought in his mother, who persuaded him. Both men also reportedly provided information on other possible attacks.
The unsealed criminal complaint against Shahzad says that he admitted driving the sport utility vehicle to Times Square and attempted to detonate it. This was reportedly after he was advised of his rights. And because of that, everything he said can be used to convict him. Without Miranda, his words are essentially worthless in court. If convicting terrorists is a national security goal that we all support, then shouldn’t we all be in favor of procedures that make that possible?
Criticizing the application of American law that upholds our constitutional principles is quite simply off base. While tough-talk posturing may serve to help some politicians rouse their base, it does nothing to keep us safe. In fact, as retired Gen. Paul Eaton chastised critics McCain and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), “a failure to follow the Miranda requirement could cost us the case, which would be a national security issue, potentially putting Americans at risk.”
Treating terrorism suspects as if they’re archvillains for whom rights are too dangerous a thing to contemplate plays directly into their hands. What is terrorism if it’s not the efforts of a small group of people to hold a much larger group hostage to fear? When we act as if these terrorism suspects are such a threat that the normal rules cannot be applied to them without putting our entire system of justice in jeopardy, we’ve essentially done their work for them.
Isn’t it better, then, to simply treat them as common criminals, subject to the same treatment as others who break the law? When we remove their mystique, we diminish their power. When we apply the same rules and tactics to them as every other criminal conspiracy, we tell them they are nothing special — just another gang of thugs.
And in that, we can enlist the support of the rest of the world — an outcome that is absolutely critical to our national security. The current administration’s denunciation of extra-legal tactics has reflected something much greater than a desire to be liked; it shows awareness that we cannot go it alone in the global fight against violent extremists, that we need the trust and cooperation of allies around the world. Global cooperation does more to protect us than any amount of partisan saber-rattling. The administration should not now alter its stand for the rule law and the restoration of America’s legal standing, as both are essential to protecting America.
There are lessons to be learned from this event. But those lessons can be learned without denigrating the laws and police procedures that have proved effective in capturing and convicting those who would do us harm, and in providing information to prevent future attacks. Standing up to terrorists doesn’t require surrendering the Constitution.

— Michael German and Richard A. Rossman. German is a policy counsel for the ACLU and a former special agent for the FBI. Rossman served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan from 1980 to 1981 and as chief of staff of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1998 to 1999.

Obama and Civil Liberties 16 MAI10 from MOJO

This is a great article from MOJO, and very disturbing because I expected better from Pres. Obama. I expected him to be a champion of our civil rights and protector of our liberties as granted by the constitution of our Republic. I did not envision him and his administration as being a threat to our freedom. What to do? Keep on keeping on and keep on fighting him while he attempts to deny and degrade our civil rights and pray we are successful, that is all we can do.

— White House photo/Pete Souza (Government Work)

I should have linked to this a couple of days ago, but better late than never. Here is Glenn Greenwald noting that recent anti-terrorist measures — some directly from President Obama and others not, but mostly with bipartisan support in Congress in either case — go well beyond what the Bush/Cheney administration ever proposed. Instead of merely targeting foreign nationals, these new proposal are aimed directly at American citizens:

A bipartisan group from Congress sponsors legislation to strip Americans of their citizenship based on Terrorism accusations. Barack Obama claims the right to assassinate Americans far from any battlefield and with no due process of any kind. The Obama administration begins covertly abandoning long-standing Miranda protections for American suspects by vastly expanding what had long been a very narrow "public safety" exception, and now Eric Holder explicitly advocates legislation to codify that erosion. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduce legislation to bar all Terrorism suspects, including Americans arrested on U.S. soil, from being tried in civilian courts.
....There is, of course, no moral difference between subjecting citizens and non-citizens to abusive or tyrannical treatment. But as a practical matter, the dangers intensify when the denial of rights is aimed at a government's own population. The ultimate check on any government is its own citizenry; vesting political leaders with oppressive domestic authority uniquely empowers them to avoid accountability and deter dissent.

Aside from war and occupation, governments have far more coercive power against their own citizens than they do against residents of other countries. There are natural limits to what the U.S. government can do, say, to Chinese or French nationals in their own countries. But within the United States itself, the only restrictions on state power are largely legal, and without those legal limitations the federal government has an almost unlimited ability to exercise its coercive authority over anyone it chooses to. This is why the distinction between citizens and non-citizens is so important.
I am, fundamentally, an admirer of Barack Obama. I like his temperament, I like his worldview, and I like his management style. As I've said before, he has a habit of disappointing me just a little bit on an almost routine basis, but most of the time that doesn't interfere with my basic admiration. The one exception has been his attitude toward civil liberties and terrorism. His early ban on torture was profoundly welcome, but aside from that he's mostly continued Bush-era policies with only minor changes and then added to them things that Bush and Cheney could only have dreamed of. In this one area, I feel betrayed.
For a couple of reasons it's funny that I feel this way. First, this is really nothing new. Democrats have been only marginally better than Republicans on these issues for years. The Clinton era was hardly a golden age of civil liberties, after all, and after 9/11 most of Bush's infingements on civil liberties were supported — sometimes publicly, sometimes merely implicitly — by plenty of Democrats. Obama was one of those Democrats while he was a senator, and he's still one of them now.
Second, unlike Glenn, I'm not a hardcore defender of civil liberties in every conceivable circumstance. Global terrorism really does blur the lines between traditional battlefields and domestic policing in ways that are tricky to resolve. Guantanamo and the broader issue of enemy combatants is, as I said several times while Bush was still in office, an excruciatingly difficult one. Even the operation of broad surveillance networks poses some genuinely complicated problems thanks to the technical architecture of modern communications systems.
But as difficult as a lot of these problems are generally, once the U.S. government starts targeting U.S. citizens without warrants or due process, we've crossed a bright line that's dangerously corrosive. That includes the warrantless wiretapping and non-appealable no-fly lists of the Bush administration, and it includes assassinating Americans and removing Miranda protections under the Obama administration. They're outrageous and dangerous transgressions no matter who's doing them, and Obama needs to take a long, deep breath and reconsider how he's handling these issues. In most things, Obama is famous for taking the long view and not letting day-to-day political considerations force his hand. He needs to start doing the same thing here.

Republicans and Teabaggers Finally Embrace Big Government 5MAI10

For more than a year now, we've been hearing from Republicans, tea party people and Glenn Beck's chalkboard about how big government is destroying American liberty and freedom. Much of the shrieking is literally accompanied by the yellow Revolutionary War "Don't Tread on Me" flag.

Every tea party lawn concert and misspelled sign regatta features people dressed in colonial drag with tea bags dangling from their tri-corner hats, waving banners in support of tax cuts, liberty and freedom and against the allegedly tyrannical Obama government. They're really scared and they want their country back from the (somehow) black liberal Nazi.

We've heard about how the "czars" are unconstitutional, even though the name "czars" was invented by the press as clever pseudonym for "advisers."

We've heard about how the Recovery Act, which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs and cut taxes for 95 percent of working families, is unconstitutional and an attack on states' rights and individual liberty. We've heard about how it's "generational theft" for the government to spend money to solve an economic crisis. We've heard about how the tax cuts in the Recovery Act are just a scam and should be returned to the government in protest.

We've heard about the crazy conspiracy theories involving the IRS invading our neighborhoods with armed goon squads -- rounding up anyone who purchased one of Glenn Beck's dozens of McBooks. Of course this meme turned out to be entirely untrue as there is no enforcement mechanism in the health care reform law should you simply choose not to pay the tax penalty for not buying insurance.

Republican attorneys general across the nation are challenging the health care law in court because, they say, it's unconstitutional. House minority leader John Boehner once called the bill "Armageddon" because of the tax penalty for Americans who choose not to buy insurance. Armageddon!

Throughout all of the misinformed and contradictory right-wing antics of the past year, I've been wondering how post-Bush Republicans and conservatives can possibly square all of their newly found affinity for freedom, liberty and the Constitution considering their eight year support for Bush era policies. Policies like illegal wiretaps of American citizens, the USA Patriot Act, suspension of habeas corpus (it's in the Constitution) and all the rest of it.

Have they at long last abandoned their support for these obvious trespasses against liberty and the Constitution? In fact, Glenn Beck said recently that he failed to speak out back then but, "It doesn't matter. I'm here now." Convenient timing. History appears to have skipped the first decade of the 21st century.

Put another way, are the Republicans suddenly joining up with civil libertarians to denounce policies that infringe upon basic constitutional rights? Maybe Rush Limbaugh teaming up with the ACLU during his drug case was a sign of things to come. A civil liberties-oriented conservative movement, eh?

Not a chance in hell.

This week, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said about the failed Times Square car bomb suspect, "Did they Mirandize him? I know he's an American citizen but still."

I know he's an American citizen but still. This easily catapults to the top of the list of awful, creepy, dangerous things Republicans have said in the context of terrorism since 9/11 -- the same list that includes: "None of your civil liberties matter much if you're dead," and, "I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a commander in chief while we are at war."

Republicans from King to John McCain to John Cornyn and Jon Kyl are engaged in some sort of weird penis-measuring contest over the Faisal Shahzad case, each attempting to prove how quickly they can subvert the basic rights of American citizenship in order to appear "tough" on terrorism.

Marco Rubio, who is the tea party favorite for the U.S. Senate from Florida, said, "If this individual has information that could help us prevent future attacks and loss of life, nothing should stand in the way of that, including Miranda."

So nothing except, again, the basic rights of American citizenship.

Pseudo-Republican Joe Lieberman wants to change the law in order to strip would-be terrorists of their American citizenship. Hey, why not expand that to encompass all violent crime. Before long, we're not going to need Amendments Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Fourteen.

Liberty! Freedom! Constitution! Except when we're scared.

At the same time, a new poll from the New York Times and CBS shows that a narrow majority of Americans support the Arizona anti-immigration law even though a wide majority also believes that it will involve racial profiling. Concurrent to this poll, a Gallup survey shows that 75 percent of Republicans support the Arizona law with only 17 percent opposed.

Knowing full well that American citizens who happen to be brown will be swept up in the law enforcement dragnet, regardless of whether or not they've actually broken the law and regardless of whether or not they've lived in Arizona longer than many of the white people there, the Republicans and tea party people appear to be perfectly comfortable with the idea of government overreaching and engaging in a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, among other things.

Liberty! Freedom! Constitution! Except if you're brown.

And finally, as the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico rapidly buries any previous records for oil spills, dumping perhaps as much as 25,000 barrels of oil per day into the sea -- dooming jobs, wildlife and natural resources for decades to come, suddenly big government spending and "redistribution of wealth" isn't so bad after all.

Republican lawmakers are quickly stashing their "Don't Tread on Me" banners and tea bag hats in the nearest closet and demanding that the federal government come to the rescue of the Gulf States.

As documented by Dana Milbank this week, Republican David Vitter worried that BP couldn't do the job alone and that "federal and state" government agencies pitch in.

Talk radio and Fox News, meanwhile, lied about the administration's allegedly slow response, implying that the government should be doing more -- even though we've been told by everyone of Ayn Rand to Sarah Palin that the free market ought to be able to handle these things on its own. (For the record, the administration has been on the ground and at sea since day one of the BP crisis.)

The governors of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, all run by small-government Republicans demanded more support from the National Guard. Small government senators Shelby and Sessions promised the full support of the federal government.

Bobby Jindal, who famously joked about federal spending for volcano monitoring and tried to stop any Recovery Act money from entering Louisiana, isn't so concerned about federal spending now. He issued a statement demanding "critical" federal government resources.

I think you get the idea.

But maybe we should just slow things down. Before we spend any government money, before we spread the wealth around and engage in generational theft, maybe we should start over. I know there's a crisis here, sort of like the one in which the economy was rapidly sinking into another Great Depression or the one in which American families are filing for medical bankruptcies every 30 seconds or the one in which there are 9/11-level deaths every month due to a lack of health insurance, but let's just slow down and start over.

In his University of Michigan commencement address in front of 92,000 people last weekend, President Obama made a rational, reasonable case for government. It was a far cry from Reaganomics and President Clinton's declaration about the end of big government. He said, "There are some things we can only do together, as one nation... So what we should be asking is not whether we need a 'big government' or a 'small government,' but how we can create a smarter, better government."

Perhaps, despite the inchoate rage of the tea parties and the posturing of the Republicans, they really do understand that we live in an era of unprecedented national crises and that with many of these problems only the federal government is adequately suited to repair the damage. If we could all meet up on these terms, on the terms of "smarter government," I think we'd be able to accomplish anything and mitigate any crisis.

After all, how bad can it be. The grandfather of the tea party movement, libertarian Ron Paul, receives government Medicare benefits.

Horseshoes, Hand Grenades, and Habeas 6MAI10

Imagine you or someone you loved were accused of a crime and tried in state court. Our federal constitutional rights give us certain protections in these state trials, but imagine your trial was an unfair one. Imagine the state court did not uphold your constitutional rights, for whatever reason: maybe your trial judge faced a tough election and wanted to look tough on crime; maybe the judge was lazy; maybe he or she simply did not understand the law. And imagine you were then convicted in this unconstitutional trial and sent to prison, or worse, sentenced to death.

Traditionally, if the state court failed to correct the federal constitutional error, you could go to a federal court seeking "habeas corpus" review. If a federal judge agreed that the state court violated your constitutional rights, the federal judge could order the state to release you or provide a new trial. In a decision released Monday in Renico v. Lett concerning the constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy (that is, being prosecuted twice for the same offense) — the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed previous rulings that a federal court may not order habeas relief merely because the state court violated your constitutional rights. Buried in footnote three of its decision, the court said it would not decide if the petitioner's constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy had been violated, only that the question was a "close" one.

The court then stated that if a state court ruling is "close" enough on the Constitution — the state court had made a credible effort, even if they got it wrong — a federal judge's hands are tied. If it's close enough, the federal judge is powerless to correct the injustice.

In deciding Renico, the court was interpreting a 1996 statute known as the Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Ridiculous as it sounds, AEDPA effectively requires that federal judges ignore constitutional violations in "close" cases. This mandate on "close" cases conflicts with the famous holding in Marbury v. Madison that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the [judicial branch] to say what the law is."

Because AEDPA effectively strips judges of the power to decide whether a person's rights were violated, many federal judges have suggested that AEDPA violates the constitutional requirement known as "separation of powers," and is therefore unconstitutional. The Renico decision, however, did not address AEDPA's constitutionality.

When I was growing up in Michigan, where horseshoes was a favorite game, if I failed to meet one of my responsibilities but came close, my parents or teachers might say, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades." With yesterday's decision, we can add "habeas corpus" to the list. Until the Supreme Court resolves the constitutionality of AEDPA or Congress repeals it, state courts may often get away with "close enough" when it comes to our constitutional rights.