Dissent Is Patriotic
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee's e-mail newsletter
February 2005, Vol. 4, No. 2
In this issue:
John Ashcroft's Legacy
Grassroots news, ideas and resources
Votes in Congress:
- Senate confirms Gonzales, Chertoff
- REAL ID Act passes House, no bill in Senate yet
- Attorney Lynne Stewart found guilty
- Federal judge's ruling on Guantánamo
- CS Fund awards grant to BORDC
- BORDC seeks summer 2005 intern
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in
insidious encroachment by men of zeal -
well-meaning but without understanding." (Justice Louis
D. Brandeis)
When President Bush chose former Senator John Ashcroft to be attorney general in 2001, a common refrain among Missourians was that had they known, they would not have elected a dead man (Governor Mel Carnahan) as their senator over the incumbent, John Ashcroft.
Several of Mr. Ashcroft's former colleagues in the Senate shared Missourians' doubts about him when they confirmed him on February 1, 2001, as attorney general with only 58 votes, the fewest in the history of the office. (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales received the second-fewest votes - 60.) At Ashcroft's Judiciary Committee hearing prior to the vote, Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, said: "We know that while serving in high office, he has time and again aggressively used litigation and legislation in creative and inappropriate ways to advance his political and ideological goals. How can we have any confidence at all that he won't do the same thing with the vast new powers he will have at his disposal as attorney general of the United States?"
Before September 11, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft failed to make counterterrorism a priority or to grant the FBI the counterterrorism funding it claimed to need. (See his May 10, 2001, memo at http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/ASHCROFTMEMO.PDF.) After September 11th, under the guise of fighting terrorism, Attorney General Ashcroft and his Justice Department drafted laws and enacted policies that granted sweeping new powers to the executive branch while reducing the powers of the judiciary and Congress and curtailing the rights of the people. To avoid meaningful debate, he capitalized on fears of terrorism and characterized himself and supporters of the new laws and executive branch policies as the true patriots who were doing everything possible to protect their country. In contrast, he accused those who cast doubt on the constitutionality of the new laws and policies of aiding the terrorists.
The naming of the USA PATRIOT Act was Mr. Ashcroft's "doublespeak" at its best. It was a resounding success in Congress, where it helped speed the Act's passage without committee mark-up or debate. But after its passage, as people gradually began to see the act's name as a disguise concealing its un-American contents, "USA PATRIOT Act" became synonymous with all the unjust laws, orders, practices, and policies the administration used after 9/11 to deny people their constitutional rights. Ashcroft and the DOJ staff have used the misleading phrase "terrorism related investigations" to give the American people the false impression that the thousands of men whom it detained had some connection to terrorism. In an article in The Nation, Georgetown University Law Center Professor David Cole notes that Mr. Ashcroft's record in so-called "terrorism" cases is "0 for 5,000" (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=cole).
Recognizing that knowledge is power, Mr. Ashcroft alternately concealed and revealed information to bolster his image. In November, he claimed his department was holding al-Qaeda members and would soon release their names. When none of the detainees apparently turned out to be members of al-Qaeda, he simply classified the list of names, claiming that he didn't want to reveal to al-Qaeda which of their members were in U.S. custody (http://www.cnss.org/agrelease.htm). On the other hand, he declassified a DOJ memo from the Clinton era written by 9/11 Commission member Jaime Gorelick to support his claim that the Clinton Administration had erected "the wall" between intelligence and law enforcement, and therefore, deserved blame for failing to prevent the September 11th attacks.
At his frequent news conferences, Mr. Ashcroft was a master of hyperbole, trumpeting his department's successes in unraveling imaginary terrorist threats and sleeper cells, such as Jose Padilla's foiled "dirty bomb" plot that was never actually planned, and probably didn't involve a dirty bomb. But when things did not go his way, such as when the Detroit convictions he had touted were overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct, he was silent. When silence wasn't an option, he simply lied. He assured the American people that the post-9/11 detainees were allowed access to attorneys, a claim later refuted by a DOJ Inspector General's report. And just days before a copy of the DOJ-drafted Domestic Security Enhancement Act (AKA "Patriot II") landed in the hands of the Center for Public Integrity, Mr. Ashcroft denied to a member of Senator Leahy's staff that his department was drafting such a bill.
Mr. Ashcroft believes his greatest failure was not fully explaining to the American people how the USA PATRIOT Act has helped in the "war on terrorism." Many more would say he failed his country by placing his loyalty to the president and personal ambition above his duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. system of justice. His loyalty even caused him to argue forcefully for policies he personally opposed, such as the indefinite detentions at Guantánamo without legal recourse, and military tribunals. Toward the end of his term, he prevented the Senate from seeing documents that might have shed light on Alberto Gonzales's and Michael Chertoff's actions, positions, and statements on the use of torture in interrogations.
But through his many failures, Mr. Ashcroft has reminded millions of us that, as Thomas Jefferson warned, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Across the country, nearly four hundred communities and four state legislatures have passed resolutions or ordinances affirming the constitutional rights of their 56 million residents. Hundreds more resolutions are in progress. Grassroots groups across the country will participate in a national debate this year over reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act's portions that sunset and other civil liberties abuses.
They are the legacy of John Ashcroft.
Grassroots News, Ideas, and Resources
Activists in Pittsburgh Targeted by FBI
An FBI agent recently visited the home of two employees of Pittsburgh's Thomas Merton Center, a community non-profit group that is the fiscal sponsor of several local organizations, including the Pittsburgh Bill of Rights Defense Committee. The TMC staff members, who were not at home, received a hand-written note asking them to call the agent. They refused to meet or talk with the agent and informed him that their lawyer would contact him. No questioning has since occurred.
What you can do: If the FBI has been targeting organizations in your area, email us at info@bordc.org to let us know. Visit our FBI web page (http://www.bordc.org/fbi.php) for information on FBI activities and your rights.
Opportunities for Civil Liberties in the Upcoming Patriot Act Debate
Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies and a BORDC Advisory Board member, has written a short blueprint for ensuring that the 2005 debate over reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act will not be limited to the few sections of the Act that expire at the end of this year. Rather, the debate should include the entire range of civil liberties abuses that have taken place since September 11, 2001. Martin's memo outlines opposition to the abuses in the form of local and statewide resolutions, court victories and challenges, and widespread rejection of John Ashcroft’s policies. It lays a foundation for what we can do in 2005 to energize grassroots support for restoring civil liberties. One tool can be documenting abuses in our own communities.
What you can do: As Martin writes, “The stage is set for a major public debate on civil liberties post-9/11.” Our challenge is to mobilize the resources to capitalize on growing discomfort with this administration’s disregard for civil liberties. http://www.bordc.org/kmartin-opportunities.
Observe Sunshine Week
March 13, 2005, will kick off Sunshine Week, a national effort led by journalists, media organizations, academics, and others to encourage dialogue about the public’s right to access government information. Across the country, participating magazines, newspapers, web sites, and radio and television broadcasters will feature editorials, news, and feature stories about the importance of open government.
What you can do: Visit the Sunshine Week web site: http://www.sunshineweek.org for more information and a list of regional coordinators.
American High Schools Students are Unconcerned About the First Amendment
The notion that youth are outspoken and ready to challenge
authority may be a thing of the past, a new national study suggests.
Commissioned and funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,
a recent survey of over 100,000 high school students, 500 school
administrators, and nearly 8,000 teachers investigated the current
status of the First Amendment in America's high schools. It found
that appreciation for, and understanding of, the First Amendment
is reaching new lows, with nearly three of every four students saying
they either do not think about the First Amendment or take its rights
for granted. Additionally, only 51 percent of the students surveyed
thought newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government
approval, and 75 percent incorrectly thought flag burning is illegal.
The study was specifically aimed at analyzing the relationship between
students' attitudes and what they are being taught in the classroom.
It concluded that, while more students appreciate and support the
First Amendment when they learn about it in school, America's high
schools are failing to adequately teach it. Administrators claimed
that teaching students about the First Amendment is a priority, but
not a high priority. More than administrator and teacher attitudes,
however, inadequate funding appeared to be the largest roadblock.
See http://firstamendment.jideas.org/ for
more information.
What you can do: We can all ensure that future generations understand the Bill of Rights, especially First Amendment rights, in order to protect civil liberties. BORDC has put together a web page of information about resources for teaching about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and threats to civil liberties: http://bordc.org/k-12resources. Please pass this information along to educators and encourage them to include these issues in their classrooms.
Senate confirms Gonzales, Chertoff
There was a silver lining to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as our new Attorney General. On February 3, 36 Senators, including many who had initially planned to vote in favor of the nominee, voted against his confirmation after he stonewalled members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate who sought information on his role in condoning torture. As the Friends Committee on National Legislation (fcnl.org) put it, this vote shows us that “we have 36 senators who form a core of energy and action for legislation to outlaw torture by U.S. personnel anywhere in the world.” Please encourage those voices of conscience in our Senate. Follow this link for a list of the 36 who stood up against torture by voting against the confirmation of Gonzales, and please deliver your thanks to each of your senators who voted No. http://capwiz.com/fconl/issues/alert/?alertid=6912856
Michael Chertoff was confirmed on February 15 as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security by a 98-0 vote. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) delayed Chertoff’s confirmation vote for a week and requested an unedited internal FBI memo http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/03/159203 about torture, which might have revealed Chertoff’s involvement in giving advice on the use of torture in interrogations at Guantánamo Bay. The FBI refused to provide the memo, claiming it would violate the Privacy Act. As David Lindorff reported in The Nation this month, http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0203-32.htm, the connection between Chertoff and torture is a close one, including his involvement in covering up John Walker Lindh’s mistreatment or torture by U.S. captors while Chertoff headed the Justice Department’s criminal division.
REAL ID Act passes House, no bill in Senate yet
On February 10, 2005, the House passed Rep. James
Sensenbrenner's REAL ID Act (H.R. 418) by a 261-161 vote. For more
information about the bill, visit our legislation web page (http://www.bordc.org/legislation.htm#realid).
BORDC thanks all of you who contacted your representatives about
this legislation. Your advocacy did sway several House members' votes.
Please take a moment now to call, fax, or email your representatives
who voted against this bill to thank them for standing up for immigrant
and refugee rights (look up contact information at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/).
Find out how your representatives voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll031.xml.
Before the REAL ID Act can become law, the Senate must also approve
it. A similar bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate, but
we will continue to monitor the situation and alert you of any future
developments.
Attorney Lynne Stewart found guilty
To strengthen their case against Attorney Lynne Stewart, government prosecutors chose a courtroom just a few blocks from Ground Zero and showed the jury footage of Osama bin Laden and the September 11th attacks during the trial. On February 10th, a jury found attorney Lynne Stewart guilty of "conspiring to provide material aid to terrorists" and other charges. Her translator and a paralegal were also found guilty. Stewart plans to appeal the verdict, which carries a maximum possible sentence of 45 years.
Stewart admitted that in June 2000 she had conveyed to Reuters the message that her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, no longer supported the Islamic Group's cease fire in Egypt. The Islamic Group continued its cease fire, and no terrorist act resulted from the Sheik's statement.
Stewart may have erred by disregarding the prohibition against allowing her client's statement to be heard, knowing that delivering his message would do no harm. But Mr. Gonzales's statement following the verdict, which implied that Stewart was assisting a terrorist in his "murderous goals," was over the top, Ashcroft style. It remains to be seen whether the guilty verdict will benefit the Bush administration by discouraging other attorneys from defending unpopular clients.
Guantánamo update
On January 31, U.S. federal court judge Joyce Hens Green refused a government request to throw out the lawsuits of 54 Guantánamo detainees. Her ruling stated that the combatant status review tribunals being used at Guantánamo Bay are unconstitutional because they deny the accused minimum rights to due process of law.
Judge Green's ruling conflicted with the January 19 ruling of federal judge Richard Leon, who ruled in favor of the Bush administration, throwing out the suits of seven Guantánamo detainees. His ruling stated that the detainees could not challenge their detentions in federal court because there was no precedent.
On February 3, Judge Green agreed that the government could seek an appeal in light of the conflicting opinions, but that pending their appeals, the 54 detainees should be given access to relevant information, such as why they have been detained.
On February 10, the Center for Constitutional Rights (http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp) spearheaded a lawsuit on behalf of more than 500 unnamed detainees the U.S. military is holding at Guantánamo Bay, charging that they are being held improperly. The suit is captioned “John Does Nos. 1-570 v. Bush” because the Bush administration has refused to divulge the detainees' identities (http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0211-04.htm). Suits on behalf of 70 other Guantánamo detainees were previously filed by the detainees' families.
CS Fund Awards Grant to BORDC
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) has received a $25,000 grant from the CS Fund, a private foundation that is dedicated to defending democracy, preserving biodiversity, preventing the commodification of life, and protecting human and environmental health.
"The Bill of Rights Defense Committee plays a critical role by giving voice to concerned citizens outraged over the ongoing attack on our most fundamental civil liberties," said CS Fund Program Officer Catherine Powell.
The CS Fund grant comes at a critical time, when Congress will consider renewing parts of the USA PATRIOT Act. BORDC will use this grant to work with grassroots organizations in uncovering and documenting civil liberties abuses in their communities and bring what they find to the attention of the media and Congress.
BORDC Seeks Summer 2005 Intern
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee is currently seeking applicants for our 2005 Summer Internship. The intern selected will work in our Northampton, Massachusetts office to assist and advance the Bill of Rights defense movement. For a job description, preferred qualifications, and instructions for applying, go to http://www.bordc.org/intern.htm.
Make a Gift in Defense of Civil Liberties
If you value our work, please help support it with a tax-deductible contribution to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee online or via check or money order.
Your purchase of bumper stickers, buttons, booklets, and Bill of Rights get well cards also help us to cover our expenses. Click here for our catalog.
Editor: Nancy Talanian, Director
Managing Editor: Jessie Baugher, East Region Organizer
Contributing Writers:
Hope Marston, West Region Organizer
Rebecca Gavagan
Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Inc.
8 Bridge St., Suite A
Northampton, MA 01060
Web: http://www.bordc.org/
Email: info@bordc.org
Telephone: 413-582-0110
Fax: 413-582-0116
We apologize if you have received this newsletter in
error.
To unsubscribe, send a reply to this message and type "UNSUBSCRIBE" in
the Subject line.
To subscribe, go to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee's web site and
click on the Subscribe button on the left.