ACLU on the job

Doing the work Congress is unwilling to do, the ACLU once again has our backs on domestic surveillance.

They asked the Foreign Surveillance Court to require that the White House release "orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans." The White House has until August 31st to comply.

Thank you to the ACLU and to the FISC for safeguarding our civil liberties! Congress... take notice. You don't have to be lapdogs. In fact, I can't imagine why any of us would vote for lapdogs.

In Unprecedented Order, FISA Court Requires Bush Administration to Respond to ACLU's Request That Secret Court Orders Be Released to the Public (8/17/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON - In an unprecedented order, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has required the U.S. government to respond to a request it received last week by the American Civil Liberties Union for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. According to the FISC's order, the ACLU's request "warrants further briefing," and the government must respond to it by August 31. The court has said that any reply by the ACLU must be filed by September 14.

"Disclosure of these court orders and legal papers is essential to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "We desperately need greater transparency and public scrutiny.We're extremely encouraged by today's development because it means that, at long last, the government will be required to defend its contention that the orders should not be released."

The ACLU filed the request with the FISC following Congress' recent passage of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. In their aggressive push to justify passing this ill-advised legislation, the administration and members of Congress made repeated and veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year. The legislation is set to expire in six months unless it is renewed.

"These court orders relate to the circumstances in which the government should be permitted to use its profoundly intrusive surveillance powers to intercept the communications of U.S. citizens and residents," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The debate about this issue should not take place in a vacuum.It's imperative that the public have access to basic information about what the administration has proposed and what the intelligence court has authorized."

FISC orders have played a critical role in the evolution of the government's surveillance activities over the past six years. After September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to inaugurate a program of warrantless wiretapping inside the United States. In January 2007, however, just days before an appeals court was to hear the government's appeal from a judicial ruling that had found the NSA program to be illegal in a case brought by the ACLU, Attorney General Gonzales announced that the NSA program would be discontinued. Gonzales explained that the change was made possible by FISC orders issued on January 10, 2007, which he characterized as "complex" and "innovative." Those orders are among the documents requested by the ACLU.

Since January 2007, government officials have spoken publicly about the January 10 orders in congressional testimony, to the media and in legal papers - the orders remaining secret all the while. They have also indicated that the FISC issued other orders in the spring that restricted the administration's surveillance activities. House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the FISC had issued a ruling prohibiting intelligence agents from intercepting foreign-to-foreign calls passing through the United States. To a large extent, it was the perception that the FISC had issued an order limiting the administration's surveillance authority that led Congress to pass the new legislation expanding the government's surveillance powers. Yet the order itself, like the January 2007 order, has remained secret.

The ACLU's request to the FISC acknowledges that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority, and points out that the FISC has released such orders and opinions before. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified.

A copy of the FISA court order, the ACLU's motion to the FISC, as well as information about the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA and other related materials are available online at: www.aclu.org/spying

In addition to Jaffer, lawyers on the case are Steven R. Shapiro, Melissa Goodman, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU and Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

ACLU: US Constitution in grave danger

Not that this is news to me, but when the ACLU comes out and makes a statement like this... we've gone down a very dark road indeed.

I fail to see how Congress has any choice, given their oaths of office, but to defend it. Those who fail to defend it now should be accountable in the next election... and indeed when they come home for their 'August vacation' and leave their posts in Washington. This abuse of our democracy cannot stand. The people have spoken... unfortunately we are having trouble being heard over the din of the lobbyists.

From United Press International:

The ACLU in a statement urged the U.S. Congress to "vote to hold White House officials in contempt for refusing to cooperate with legitimate congressional subpoenas."

The ACLU statement said the issue had become "a constitutional crisis that threatens to destroy the separation of powers."

"Presidents have tried in the past to overreach in claiming executive privilege," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "However, Congress has long served as a check to such abuses of power, slapping the president's hand when needed and pursuing contempt or enforcement actions that eventually resulted in the release of crucial information. Today's Congress must do the same if it wishes to remain a meaningful and independent branch of government."

The ACLU said it "rejected claims that Congress' responsibility to conduct oversight or investigate executive misconduct was somehow less important than its legislative function and therefore not worthy of compulsory enforcement."

"It's do-or-die time for the separation of powers," Fredrickson said. "Congress is facing a historic moment when it can fight for its rightful place in our Constitution or accept the president's continued and sweeping claims of supremacy."

The ACLU noted that U.S. courts "have long supported Congress' authority not only to pass laws, but also to investigate their application. The courts have asserted that claims of executive privilege are a potentially dangerous proposition that should only be applied, and can only be upheld, under narrow circumstances."

White House Policy Illegally Silences Americans Critical of Bush

I'm shocked - SHOCKED - to see that the Bush administration would sink to this level of partisan posturing!

It would seem that the ACLU has gotten ahold of an Advance Manual written by someone in the Bush Administration, detailing how to spot potential Bush critics - and then illegally block them from entering the venue.

According to a recent ACLU release:

"The White House has gone too far in its attempt to make dissent invisible," said Chris Hansen, a senior ACLU attorney who is lead counsel in this case. "When taxpayers foot the bill for a public event, the president does not have the right to use a partisan litmus test to stack the audience with his political supporters."

Turns out this manual led to the arrest and removal of attendees at taxpayer-funded events. (Oops - that's illegal!)

"When the president attends a public event, the First Amendment does not allow him to speak or listen only to those who agree with him," said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area and co-counsel in the lawsuit. "Public places cannot be 'cleansed' of all dissent just to make the president look popular on television."

No wonder everyone is always waving flags and cheering! And here I thought he was paying them... silly me, threatening them with police is a lot cheaper.

It would seem that Bush's goon squad arrested two people at a Fourth of July presidential appearance simply for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts; and two Denver residents were actually thrown out of a town hall meeting because they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car!

The Ranks had tickets to attend the July 4, 2004 event, but drew attention when they removed their outer garments to display t-shirts bearing the international "no" symbol (a circle with a diagonal line across it) superimposed over the word "Bush." Although other people in the audience were allowed to wear pro-Bush paraphernalia, White House event staff demanded that the Ranks remove or cover their t-shirts. When the Ranks refused, the White House staffers instructed local police to arrest the couple, causing them to be removed from the Capitol grounds in handcuffs, jailed and charged with trespassing. Ms. Rank was also temporarily suspended from her work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. City officials later apologized for their part in the arrest when they realized they'd been used as political operatives by the White House.

Similarly, Weise and Young had tickets to attend the March 21, 2005 Denver town hall on Social Security, but they were singled out after a staffer was informed that Weise had a bumper sticker on her car that read, "No More Blood for Oil." Weise was stopped upon entering the event and warned that she had been "ID'd," but was allowed to enter. However, shortly after reaching their seats, Weise and Young were forcibly removed from the event by a staffer who later admitted that he was acting under orders from White House officials.

There are actually a few other examples in the press release.

The ACLU is suing former 'Director of the White House Office of Presidential Advance' Gregory Jenkins for writing the manual... but I'm betting George just told him "keep them damn librals outta my sight, K?"

I can't say I'm surprised to read about this, but it's always fun when they get caught red-handed, isn't it? Although maybe not quite as fun for the people who were tossed from the building - or arrested on illegal pretenses.