[North-NV-Greens] Fwd: ACLU Online: "Real ID" Bill, Patriot Act "Sneak and Peek" and more

Thu May 12 23:59:08 PDT 2005

>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 18:20:04 -0500
>From: ACLU Online <ACLUOnline at aclu.org>
>Reply-To: ACLU Online <ACLUOnline at aclu.org>
>Subject: ACLU Online: "Real ID" Bill, Patriot Act "Sneak and Peek" and more
>Organization: ACLU
>XData: 1010,49nKEMt at 4MQ4@4nnK at i-Wwjq-e
>X-ELNK-AV: 0
>
>  <http://www.aclu.org/> 
><http://action.aclu.org/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=1061&s_src=UNW050001CN0&s_subsrc=051205SUB>
><http://www.aclu.org/>  <http://www.aclu.org/>
>
>
><>"Real ID" Bill Could Become Law Without Congressional Review
>
><>Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Whistleblower
>
><http://action.aclu.org/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=1061&s_src=UNW050001CN0&s_subsrc=051205SUB>
><>Patriot Act "Sneak and Peek" Should Disappear into the Sunset
>
><>Defense Dept Says Releasing Torture Photos Would Violate Geneva Conventions
>
>In the States:
>
><>Lesbian Challenges Missouri Policy Barring Gay People from Foster Parenting
>
><>New D.C. Law Protects Protest Rights
>
>
>YOU CAN HELP PROTECT OUR BASIC FREEDOMS by joining with over 400,000 
>card-carrying members of the ACLU. Our rights as individuals -- the 
>very foundation of our great democracy -- depend on our willingness 
>to defend them, and as an ACLU member, you'll be doing your part.
>
><http://action.aclu.org/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=1061&s_src=UNW050001CN0&s_subsrc=051205SUB>Click 
>now to safeguard our Bill of Rights by becoming an ACLU member.
>
>
>Lesbian Challenges Missouri Policy Barring Gay People from Foster Parenting
>
>A lesbian who has spent her life helping children is challenging a 
>Missouri policy barring lesbian and gay people from serving as 
>foster parents. Represented by the ACLU, Lisa Johnston is 
>challenging the policy in state court after an administrative judge 
>denied her application solely because she is a lesbian.
>
>Johnston has a deep commitment to helping children -- in her current 
>job with Head Start, she consults with childcare homes on 
>developmentally appropriate curricula. In 2003, she applied to the 
>Department of Social Services (DSS) to become a foster parent to a 
>child that she and her partner hoped to raise together. After 
>completing seven of nine foster-parent training sessions, DSS 
>notified Johnston that because she is a lesbian, it would no longer 
>consider her for placement.
>
>Johnston appealed the decision, and although the administrative 
>judge found her "exceptionally" qualified to foster parent, he 
>denied her application in March 2005 solely because of her sexual 
>orientation. On April 8, the ACLU filed a petition in the Jackson 
>County Circuit Court asking the court to review the order from DSS. 
>The ACLU charges that DSS's decision banning Johnston from foster 
>parenting is illegal.
>
>Under Missouri law, every potential foster parent is already 
>required to undergo strict screening before being qualified to 
>foster parent. Categorical bans like the one enacted by DSS don't 
>protect children, but merely unnecessarily disqualify people who 
>could be good parents.
>
><http://www.aclu.org/caseprofiles>Get more information about this case.
>
>New Resource for LGBT parents: The ACLU recently launched a new 
>online toolkit designed to provide lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
>transgender parents with the information they need to protect their 
>relationships with their children. Click on the parenting section at 
><http://www.aclu.org/getequal>aclu.org/getequal.
>
>New D.C. Law Protects Protest Rights
>
>The D.C. City Council has approved a new law that strengthens the 
>First Amendment rights of peaceful protesters and limits police use 
>of "protest pens" and mass arrests.
>
>The "First Amendment Rights and Police Practices Act of 2004" 
>declares that people have a right to demonstrate "near the object of 
>their protest so they may be seen and heard," and makes clear that 
>people do not need police permission to exercise their 
>constitutional right to freedom of speech. The law also prohibits 
>police from arresting an entire assembly when only a few people are 
>breaking the law, requires police to display visible identification 
>when handling demonstrations, restricts the use of police lines to 
>entrap demonstrators who have not broken any law, and prohibits the 
>use of tear gas and pepper spray on peaceful protesters.
>
><http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=18164&c=86>Read 
>the complete press release.
>
>
>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 12, 2005
>
>
>
>
>
>The Real ID Act, which sets the stage for a national ID card system, 
>will probably be enacted without any hearings or debate because 
>Congress attached the controversial measure to the appropriations 
>bill that includes funding for military operations.
>
>The legislation also rolls back asylum laws and attacks immigrants. 
>"The Real ID Act was sold as an illegal-immigration fix bill, when 
>in fact it reduces every American's freedom," said Timothy 
>Sparapani, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "The provisions of this bill 
>could not have passed on their own. Sadly, their inclusion in a 
>'must pass' bill means that immigrants and citizens alike will face 
>an unnecessary loss of freedom and privacy."
>
>"The federalization of drivers' licenses, and the culling of all 
>information into massive databases, creates a system ripe for 
>identity theft," Sparapani said. "New standards could place our most 
>private information - including photographs, address and social 
>security numbers - into the hands of identity thieves."
>
>The House passed the underlying measure last week; the Senate is 
>expected to vote this week.
>
>By passing this bill -- the REAL ID Act -- Congress created a 
>national ID system and failed to protect your privacy.
>
>Please write your Members of Congress today to express your 
>disappointment in their failure to prevent passage of this 
>legislation. Urge them to oppose future legislation that would 
>infringe on your privacy and to block appropriations for 
>implementing the REAL ID Act.
>
>Take Action! 
><https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=195&s_src=ACLUOnline>Click 
>here to contact your Members of Congress and express your 
>disappointment.
>
><http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18112&c=206>Learn 
>more about the dangers of the Real ID Act.
>
>
>
>
>The U.S. Court of Appeals last week upheld the dismissal of FBI 
>whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' case, despite a Justice Department 
>report saying that Edmonds' whistleblower allegations were "the most 
>significant factor" in the FBI's decision to terminate her.
>
>Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the 
>FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 after repeatedly reporting 
>serious security breaches and misconduct. Edmonds challenged her 
>retaliatory dismissal by filing a federal lawsuit, but her case was 
>dismissed last July after Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the 
>so-called "state secrets privilege" and retroactively classified 
>briefings to Congress related to her case. The state secrets 
>privilege has historically been rarely invoked, and even more rarely 
>employed to dismiss an entire case at the outset. When properly 
>invoked, it permits the government to block disclosure of evidence 
>that would cause harm to national security. In the Edmonds case, 
>however, the government used the privilege to urge dismissal of the 
>entire lawsuit, insisting that every aspect of Edmonds' case 
>involves state secrets - including where she was born and what 
>languages she speaks.
>
>"This decision endangers us all. If government employees cannot 
>report security breaches without retaliation, then national 
>security, and all Americans, suffer," said Ann Beeson, Associate 
>Legal Director of the ACLU, who argued the case on behalf of 
>Edmonds. "We are determined to take this case all the way to the 
>Supreme Court."
>
><http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17361&c=206>Read 
>more about the Edmonds case.
>
>
>
>Lawmakers met last week to examine sections of the Patriot Act, 
>including section 213, which authorizes "sneak and peek" searches, 
>permitting unlimited delayed notification to the targets of search 
>warrants. These warrants are available in all criminal cases where 
>the federal government says notification would result in destruction 
>of evidence, danger, flight from prosecution, intimidation of a 
>witness, or serious jeopardy to a criminal investigation. The ACLU 
>has long argued that this catch-all "serious jeopardy" clause is too 
>broad and must be narrowly curtailed.
>
>When the Patriot Act was passed, Congress made sure some of the most 
>extreme powers would "sunset" this year unless Congress reauthorized 
>them. While "sneak and peek" is not one of them, the ACLU and its 
>allies have called for Congress to modify this power to ensure that 
>proper checks are put into place.
>
>In July 2003, the House adopted - by an extraordinary margin - an 
>amendment that would bar federal law enforcement from implementing 
>"sneak and peek" search warrants. Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-ID), 
>along with bipartisan allies in both chambers of Congress, has 
>introduced the "Security and Freedom Enhancement Act." The measure 
>would make corrections to the Patriot Act - including section 213 - 
>to bring it back in line with the Constitution.
>
><http://www.aclu.org/patriotact>Learn more about the ACLU's work to 
>bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution.
>
>
>
>In a stunning act of hypocrisy and chutzpah, the government has 
>claimed that turning over Iraq torture photos would violate the 
>Geneva Conventions. Until now, the Bush Administration has shown 
>only contempt for the Geneva Conventions, and it has built its 
>policies dismissing the application of international humanitarian 
>law.
>
>"The Geneva Conventions were intended to protect prisoners, not to 
>provide governments with a basis for withholding evidence that 
>prisoners have been maltreated," said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer. 
>"It's disgraceful that the Defense Department is attempting to 
>contort the Conventions in this way."
>
>Through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the ACLU and the NYCLU 
>have sought the release of photographs and videotapes, in addition 
>to documents, that would shed light on the systemic abuse of 
>detainees held by the United States overseas. The Defense Department 
>has refused, stating that it would violate the government's 
>obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
>
>To mark the one-year anniversary of the release of photos from Abu 
>Ghraib, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero appeared on CBS's "60 
>Minutes" and PBS's "NOW." Details and transcripts from both 
>appearances can be found here:
><http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/28/60minutes/main691602.shtml>"60 
>Minutes," 5/02/2005
><http://www.pbs.org/now/thisweek/index_042905.html>PBS "NOW," 4/29/2005
>
><http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia>Click here to learn more about the lawsuit.
>
>
>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, <http://www.aclu.org/privacystatement>click 
>here.
>
>
>
>
><http://action.aclu.org/site/CO?i=Y76bNdE3XKO4UkLRV8bsto8uFizeWeKm&cid=1162>Unsubscribe 
>from receiving email, or change your email preferences.


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/north-nv-greens/attachments/20050512/5b449e78/attachment.htm