|
Take
Action: House Must Stop Unconstitutional Senate FISA Bill
Observing
Injustice of Military Commission Hearings at Guantánamo
"State
Secret" is Blatant Attempt to avoid Scrutiny in
Rendition Case
Rectifying
20 Years of Disparate Justice
Appeals
Court Says NY Must Recognize Canadian Marriage of Lesbian
Couple
Maine
Utility Commission Orders Investigation of Verizon’s
Alleged Abuse of Customer Privacy to Continue
THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE ACLU!
Your
involvement is the life-blood of our organization, and
makes possible all that we do to defend our most basic
liberties.
If you'd like to make an additional gift
to support the ACLU, please click
here.
Appeals
Court Says NY Must Recognize Canadian Marriage of Lesbian
Couple
In
a unanimous decision, a New York appellate court has ruled
that marriages of same-sex couples entered into outside of
the state must be recognized. The case is the first
appellate court decision in the state and the first known
decision in the country to hold that a valid same-sex
marriage must be recognized.
"This is a
victory for families, it's a victory for fairness and it’s
a victory for human rights," said Donna Lieberman,
Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.
"Now we need to work toward a New York where you don't
have to cross state or country lines to get married."
The case, Martinez
v. County of Monroe,
was filed in 2005 in State Supreme Court on behalf of
Patricia Martinez, an employee of Monroe Community College
in Rochester, seeking health care benefits for her female
partner whom she married in Canada in 2004.
The
case raised the issue of whether the time-honored "marriage
recognition rule," which requires New York State to
recognize marriages that were solemnized outside the state,
applies to same-sex marriages. The court answered with a
resounding "yes," holding that the couple's valid
Canadian marriage at issue in the case is entitled to
recognition.
>>
Read
more about the case.
Maine
Utility Commission Orders Investigation of Verizon’s
Alleged Abuse of Customer Privacy to Continue
The
rule of law and the right to privacy won a victory last
week as the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
released an order that will allow its investigation into
Verizon’s alleged abuses of customer privacy to
continue. The order requires that, as a condition of the
sale of Verizon assets to FairPoint Communications, the PUC
retain jurisdiction over the telecomm giant even after the
transaction with FairPoint has been completed.
Verizon
had previously asserted that the sale to FairPoint would
put an end to all legal proceedings concerning Verizon
privacy violations pending in Maine. The victory means that
Verizon cannot sell its way out of scrutiny from the PUC
and the citizens of Maine it represents.
“Sale
of its assets should not mean Verizon is off the hook for
violating the privacy rights of its customers,” said
Shenna Bellows, Executive Director of the Maine Civil
Liberties Union. “Mainers need to know that their
private telephone conversations will be free from
surveillance by the government or the phone company.”
The order also benefits the privacy rights of
Mainers by requiring FairPoint to adopt stronger privacy
policies before it can acquire assets from Verizon. In
addition to creating a formal privacy policy prior to the
sale, the PUC requires FairPoint to agree to an annual
review of its privacy practices.
In May 2006, Maine
privacy activists initiated a customer complaint urging the
PUC to investigate whether Verizon handed over customer
records to the National Security Agency (NSA) or gave the
NSA access to their phone equipment.
>>Read
more
about this case.
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.
|
February
14 , 2008
Breaking
News: House Republicans walk out of FISA debate. Keep
pressure on.
Take
Action: House Must Stop Unconstitutional Senate FISA Bill
The
Senate has capitulated to President Bush by passing a
dangerous and unconstitutional FISA bill that allows
warrantless government eavesdropping on Americans and
grants immunity to giant phone companies that handed
consumer data over to the government without a warrant.
"Though many questions still remain unanswered
about years of domestic spying, the Senate has effectively
sealed the vault by handing over immunity to the phone
companies,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of
the Washington Legislative Office. “The over forty
legitimate lawsuits currently pending against them may end
before they’ve begun. It’s a fact that
Americans had their rights violated and now, by closing the
courtroom door, they may be left with no recourse.”
Stopping the awful Senate bill -- which the House
can do -- is vital to protecting your constitutional right
to make a phone call, send an email or search the Internet
without the government monitoring your activity.
Your
representatives in the House need to hear from you. Whether
you have called already or this is your first time, a quick
phone call today will send a clear message that Americans
don’t want the House to send an unconstitutional bill
with telecom immunity to the President.
>>
Take action:
Call your representative: No warrantless spying, no telecom
immunity.
Observing
Injustice of Military Commission Hearings at Guantánamo
The
United States government has announced its intention to
prosecute and seek the death penalty for six detainees held
at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, despite a flawed military
commissions system there that has yet to try a single case.
This legally and ethically flawed system was tested
last week during hearings in the cases of Canadian national
Omar Ahmed Khadr and Yemeni national Salim Ahmed Hamden.
ACLU attorney Hina Shamsi was on hand to monitor the
proceedings and reported on some disturbing themes.
If
prosecutors have their way, Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was 15
when he was captured, will be the first juvenile offender
to be charged with war crimes in recent history.
Recognition of the special needs of child offenders in the
context of armed conflict is part of federal law. In 2002,
the United States ratified a United Nations' convention
that recognizes children caught up as participants in armed
conflict should be rehabilitated and provided assistance
for their physical and psychological recovery and social
reintegration.
Khadr's detention and treatment has
been to the contrary. In U.S. custody, he was denied access
to a lawyer for more than two years and, his lawyers say,
he was severely abused while at Guantánamo. His
lawyers allege that he was shackled in painful positions,
threatened with rape, and used as a "human mop"
to clean up his own urine during one interrogation session.
Unlike every other legal system, including federal, state
and military courts, the military commissions do not
require the judge to take into account the needs of alleged
child offenders.
In the Hamdan case, the government
argued that defense lawyers could not have access to former
CIA prisoners held in a secret part of the prison camp,
even though these witnesses could have evidence that
exonerates Hamdan. The witnesses were part of a CIA program
that included "enhanced interrogation techniques"
such as waterboarding, and the government takes the
position that access to them must be limited as a matter of
highest national security.
Throughout, issues of
secrecy and coercion permeated the hearings. Given the
military commissions proceedings to date in Guantánamo,
it is unlikely that any detainee will receive a full and
fair trial.
>>
Read
Hina’s observations at Guantánamo.
>>
Learn
more about the ACLU’s involvement surrounding the
detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay:
www.aclu.org/closeguantanamo
"State
Secret" is Blatant Attempt to Avoid Scrutiny in
Rendition Case
The
ACLU was in federal court last week arguing for the
continuation of its case against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen
Dataplan, Inc. for the company’s role in the CIA’s
"extraordinary rendition" program. The ACLU is
opposing the government’s attempt to throw out the
case by misusing the "state secrets" privilege in
an effort to avoid legal scrutiny of this unlawful and
shameful program.
"'Extraordinary rendition'
is no secret. By the government's reasoning, the CIA's
torture and detention program can be discussed anywhere in
the world, except in an American courtroom," said Ben
Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU, who argued the
case.
The hearing is part of a lawsuit brought by
the ACLU on behalf of five victims of the rendition program
who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run
prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where
they were subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and
torture. The lawsuit charges that Jeppesen knowingly aided
the program by providing flight planning and logistical
support services for aircraft and crews used by the CIA to
transport the victims.
After the lawsuit was filed,
the U.S. government intervened to seek its dismissal,
asserting the “state secrets” privilege and
contending that further litigation of the case would be
harmful to national security. However, information needed
to pursue the lawsuit, including details about the
"extraordinary rendition" program itself, is
already in the public domain.
Jeppesen’s
involvement in the "extraordinary rendition"
program has been publicly confirmed by extensive evidence
and testimony. In a December 2007 sworn declaration filed
with the court in the ACLU’s case, a former Jeppesen
employee reported that a senior Jeppesen official told new
employees at a company meeting that Jeppesen did “all
the 'extraordinary rendition' flights,” referring to
them as “torture flights” and talking about how
profitable the rendition flights were.
>>
Read
more about this case and “extraordinary rendition”
at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/rendition.html
Rectifying
20 Years of Disparate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
These
men were sent to prison as a result of a federal
sentencing law that currently punishes crack cocaine
offenders up to one hundred times more severely than
powder cocaine offenders. You can help bring justice to
this disparity.
Take
action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identical
twins Lawrence and Lamont Garrison were inseparable. In
elementary school, one would rush to the other's classroom
and wait until the other was dismissed. They attended
Howard University together. Good students and aspiring
lawyers, the twins graduated together in May 1998.
A
month before their graduation, however, the police came to
the door and arrested Lawrence and Lamont. They were
charged with conspiracy as part of a powder and crack
cocaine operation.
Throughout the trial, both
maintained their innocence. They would not accept a plea
bargain. No drugs, paraphernalia or drug money were found
in their house or on their person. Nevertheless, they were
separately convicted of conspiracy to distribute powder and
crack cocaine.
Neither brother had a prior
conviction, but because of harsh drug laws, Lamont was sent
to Manchester, Kentucky for 19 years. And Lawrence was sent
to Elkton, Ohio for 15 years. The Garrison twins' cases
raise questions of innocence, although they were in fact
convicted of a drug conspiracy. But, even if they were
guilty, did the punishment fit the crime?
The
Garrisons received such a harsh sentence because federal
sentencing law currently punishes crack cocaine offenders
up to one hundred times more severely than powder cocaine
offenders. Possession or distribution of just 5 grams of
crack, little more than a packet of sugar, carries a
minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, whereas for powder
cocaine, you have to distribute one hundred times that
amount 500 grams to be subject to the same minimum
sentence.
A number of efforts are under way to end
the sentencing disparity and the 20 years of damage it has
done, particularly to the African American community. The
ACLU, in coordination with a host of other organizations,
is undertaking a campaign urging Congress to end the
disparity. And numerous judges, medical professionals and
civil rights advocates have all called on Congress to
address this growing problem. As a result, legislation has
been introduced in both the House and Senate.
Further,
last December, the Supreme Court recognized the glaring
inequity in sentencing for powder cocaine versus crack
cocaine and allowed federal judges to sentence below the
federal guidelines in Kimbrough
v. United States.
Yet, this victory is only an incremental step in rectifying
the two decades of disparate justice that has
disproportionately affected African-Americans.
You
can help bring an end to this injustice. Take
action today.
|
