NAVIGATION MAIN MENU

COMPENDIUM LIBRARY/TWITTER MONITOR
VIDEO GALLERY
Economic News
Newsbrief Archives
Democrat Leadership Twitter and Realtime Feeds
Cabinet twitter and realtime feeds
North America weblog
International weblog
Democrats twitter directory
Latest Government Jobs and Public Tenders
Jobs Matrix
Global Travel Information
Pop Entertainment Forum
Start Portal


Please make a donation to support upkeep of the daily news journal, back archives, twitter feeds and the compendium library.










'War on Terrorism' is Stripping Us of Our Freedoms« Thread S

Daily newsbrief journal for March 2006, also see http://www.usdemocrats.com/brief for a global 100-page perpetual brief and follow twitter @usdemocrats


'War on Terrorism' is Stripping Us of Our Freedoms« Thread S

Postby admin » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am

'War on Terrorism' is Stripping Us of Our Freedoms« Thread Started on Mar 20, 2006, 8:42pm » --------------------------------------------------------------------------------'War on Terrorism' is Stripping Us of Our FreedomsEl Reportero, Anthony Romero, Mar 08, 2002read source: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/vi ... id=131When, a week before Sept. 11, I accepted the position as executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, I didn't imagine that a personal challenge would so quickly become intertwined with so serious a challenge to our nation's liberty and security.I applauded the words of President Bush when he said, in his first post-Sept. 11 public address, that this nation was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom in the world.My ACLU colleagues and I took those words to heart and launched a campaign that we called "Safe and Free in Times of Crisis." It embodied our support for the federal government as it struggled to protect us from terrorism.We also made clear that we must defend the essential freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When the war against terrorism is won, we all want to be able to recognize our country as the land of the safe and the free.Right now the government is blurring the line between waging war and doing justice.Over the past several months, at times with the concurrence of Congress, the executive branch has sought an expansive array of new police powers and employed dangerous tactics. These range from establishing military tribunals that diminish due process, to expanding wiretap authority, to monitoring attorney-client conversations, rifling through confidential business and student records rounding up and detaining immigrants in secret, and questioning certain lawful U.S. residents merely based on their national origin.In his recent testimony before Congress, Attorney General John Ashcroft took another dangerous step when he equated legitimate political dissent with actions unpatriotic and un-American. He warned that criticism of the government would "give pause to our allies, ...ammunition to our enemies, ...and diminish our national resolve."ASHCROFT'S STATEMENT IS ASTONISHINGThat is an astonishing statement from a government official who had taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.Some say that limitations imposed on civil liberties during wartime are almost always temporary and that we can expect a return to normal conditions once hostilities are ended. But the war on terrorism, unlike conventional wars such as the two World Wars, is not likely to come to a public, decisive end.Restrictions on civil liberties may be with us for a long time. They may change the very notion of freedom in this country and the character of our democratic system. We need to ask: "Does the proposal represent a fundamental change in the law that has nothing to do with protecting us?"There are two primary issues here-the erosion of checks and balances, and the imposition of a veil of secrecy.Since Sept. 11, the administration has assumed vast powers. The USA-Patriot Act, for example, seizes from the judiciary some of its ability to review the actions of the executive. The legal standards for granting law enforcement search-and-seizure warrants are, in some cases, effectively reduced. Wiretapping and surveillance powers are greatly expanded and judicial scrutiny minimized. The administration has virtually stripped immigration judges, the impartial arbiters of immigration cases, of their authority.The administration's rule allowing the government to listen in on conversations between some detainees and their attorneys is particularly disturbing. The right to counsel is one of the most important checks and balances in our constitutional scheme.MILITARY TRIBUNALS REPLACE JURIESFurther, the president's military order establishing tribunals to try suspected non-citizens on terrorism charges bypasses the civilian criminal justice system altogether. The president's order allows tribunals to take from defendants the right to a jury trial, a civilian judge, and access to the attorney of their choice.Most importantly, the administration refuses to release crucial information about the fate of the approximately 725-plus detainees currently in custody. And by many accounts, only a dozen of the more than 1,200 people who have been arrested or detained in connection with the investigation of the attacks have any ties with Al Qaeda. The rest, the majority of whom are Muslim or Arab men, were held, or continue to be detained, on technical immigration violations or other wholly unrelated charges. Many are charged with minor violations such as overstaying a tourist visa or working on a student visa.SECRET ORDER DEFIES CONSTITUTIONThe ACLU has filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two Detroit newspapers and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan saying that a categorical block on public access to immigration hearings is unconstitutional. Our lawsuit challenges an unprecedented order issued by the Justice Department-secretly, as we later learned-requiring immigration judges hearing these cases to close their courtrooms, regardless of whether classified information was being presented. The records of the proceedings were sealed and immigration court officials directed to say nothing about the cases.Freedom is meaningless unless it is supported by civic responsibility. That requires us to examine the actions taken by our government in the name of national security and to guard against any short-term tradeoffs made in the heat of the moment that needlessly erode fundamental freedoms. We do not challenge the need to be safe. Instead, we insist on the need to be both safe and free. Hispanic Link.(Anthony Romero Esq., a New Yorker of Puerto Rican heritage, became the sixth ACLU executive director in its 81-year history last September. Romero, 35, served five years as civil rights and racial justice program officer with the Ford Foundation before being named as its director of human rights and international cooperation in 1999. This column summarizes his presentation made to a National Press Club audience in Washington, D.C. Feb. 6. To view Romero's full speech, visit aclu.org. Romero may be contacted by E-mail at aromero@aclu.org)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 82092
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:00 am

Return to March 2006

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests