A classified document dated May 15, 2006, was released last week revealing that the NYPD has been conducting targeted surveillance of New York-area mosques. This document, which is just the latest revelation of the ongoing civil rights violations enacted by the NYPD, details the increased police surveillance of Shiite Muslims and their mosques based solely on their religion.

The newly leaked document, “US-Iran Conflict: The Threat to New York City,” was sent to Police Commissioner Ray Kelley in 2006 and recommends that the NYPD “Expand and focus intelligence collections at Shi’a mosques,” as well as “Identify leads of subjects of Iranian descent” and even further:  “The Palestinian community, although not Shi’a, should also be assessed due to presence of Hamas members and sympathizers and the group’s relationship with the Iranian government.”

Over 40 anti-discrimination organizations have joined the coalition calling for immediate action in a joint statement:

Through excessive stop and frisk practices, overzealous surveillance measures, and a complete lack of transparency, the NYPD has blatantly violated civil rights and destroyed the trust necessary for effective policing. Such acts of surveillance undermine trust between the Muslim community and the NYPD. These measures are merely the latest in the well-documented history of NYPD’s targeting of communities of color through discriminatory policing practices. The NYPD’s use of widespread ethnic, racial, and religious profiling is a threat to all Americans’ constitutional rights and freedoms. This behavior creates distrust and suspicion among all vulnerable communities and sends the message that law enforcement is not accountable for upholding the right of all Americans to be free from unwarranted police scrutiny. The NYPD should be focused on tracking down actual threats, not targeting innocent Americans for invasive investigations and surveillance.

The statement goes on to call for the NYPD to, “acknowledge this wrongdoing, immediately cease all such activities, and create more transparency,” as well as the for police commissioner Ray Kelly to resign.

The document also lists 12 Shiite mosques outside of New York City that the NYPD said should be assessed.

“The actions by the NYPD are disgusting, but not surprising,” said Imam Talib Abdur-Rashid in an interview with Democracy Now! “We’re not surprised at all. Those of us who are familiar with the history of the NYPD, we know that there has been a longstanding tension not just between the Muslim community, but between communities of peoples of color here in New York City.”

On the heels of other recent revelations of the NYPD’s targeting of Muslims and Arabs, this appearance of this document re-enforces the importance of  holding the NYPD accountable for their repeated offenses against civil liberties and targeted attacks on the Arab and Muslim American community.

• 2/10, Ben Fox, Associated Press, Suit challenges new Guantanamo prison mail rule
• 2/10, Carl Mirra, Foreign Policy In Focus, The NDAA and the Militarization of America
• 2/9, Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Ten years later, CIA ‘rendition’ program still divides N.C. town
• 2/9, Jeremy Herb, The Hill, Gitmo recidivism report splits lawmakers
• 2/9, Peter Van Buren, TomDispatch, Silent State: Washington’s Campaign Against Whistle-Blowers
• 2/9, Josh Smith, National Journal, Groups warn of privacy concerns in cybersecurity bills
• 2/9, Jeremy B. White, International Business Times, Senator Slams Obama for Withholding Information on Awlaki Killing

In yet another incident of the government cracking down on First Amendment rights, Sergio Ballesteros, a young activist who works with disadvantaged children and builds homes through Habitat for Humanity, was arrested on January 12 after Occupy LA members in downtown Los Angeles joined an “art walk.”  Video footage confirms the unsettling scene described by msnbc.com:

Ballesteros said he was across the street when he saw the arrest — which he said looked excessively rough — and it was “startling.” Under legal advice, Ballesteros is not providing additional detail, but apparently he objected — in some fashion — to the arrest. A video of the crowded scene posted on YouTube shows Ballesteros on the ground, being handcuffed.

The police report says officers called for backup when Ballesteros pulled Alders out into the crowd, which was “hostile.”

To make the arrest even more noteworthy, it was accompanied by an interesting felony charge: lynching.

California Penal Code Section 405(a) states that “[t]he taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any police officer is a lynching.”  A 2009 article from the Merced Sun-Star sheds more light on the traditional use of this statute:

San Francisco State University history Professor Chris Waldrep, who’s written several books on lynching, said the definition of lynching varies from state to state and the crime doesn’t always involve racial violence. But most lynching laws have two common elements: There’s an unruly crowd, and the act committed is an affront or insult to law enforcement, said Waldrep. Like modern street gangs, racially motivated vigilantes in years past used lynching to spread fear, he said.

The California law against lynching was written in 1933, and its basic wording hasn’t changed, Waldrep said. The law is rarely used, he said.

While political officials in Chicago are creating new legislation to allow police to quiet dissent, in Los Angeles the same goal is accomplished by exploiting a statute developed nearly a century ago to deal with white supremacists.  This could be the start of a disturbing trend; as Kari Huus explains:

Whether the police allegation in this case will be pursued by by California’s courts is uncertain. But the felony charge — which carries a potential four-year prison sentence — is the kind of accusation that can change the landscape for would-be demonstrators.

“Felonies really heighten the stakes for the protesters,” said Baher Azmy, legal director at Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. “I think in situations where there are mass demonstrations and a confrontation between protesters and police, one always has to be on the lookout for exaggerated interpretations of legal rules that attempt to punish or squelch the protesters.”

On January 23, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in US v. Jones that police must seek judicial authorization before placing a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car. This was a promising first step in the battle against infringements of privacy in today’s increasingly technological era.

This week, there is more good news regarding the protection of Fourth Amendment rights with regard to GPS tracking devices. Kevin Johnson of USA Today reports that the FBI has begun cutting back on on the use of GPS surveillance following the Jones decision:

The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter, said the Global Positioning System directive was issued until further legal guidance is provided on the use of the technology. Meanwhile, the official said, additional FBI agents have been dispatched to cover costly, labor-intensive surveillance operations that had previously relied on GPS technology.

The FBI’s actions represent the first evidence of a tactical change by federal law enforcement prompted by the court’s ruling, which has raised new questions throughout the criminal justice and intelligence communities.

However, the Justice Department is still working on evaluating what exactly the Supreme Court ruling will mean for the FBI. Certainly, without the overabundant use of  GPS devices, FBI surveillance will be more labor-intensive.

Furthermore, the prohibitions on GPS devices may just increase the prevalence of “GPS-like” devices—called in the Attorney General’s guide to domestic FBI operations,”direction finders and other monitoring devices”—which do not require court warrants.  So, while there has been progress in decreasing the use of GPS and protecting Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights, there are still significant hurdles to overcome to ensure that the FBI permanently limits its use of GPS tracking to cases in which it obtains a warrant. Until the protection is expanded to cover these “GPS-like” devices, the danger of privacy violations still exists.

• 2/9, Peter Van Buren, TomDispatch,Tomgram: Peter Van Buren, In Washington, Fear the Silence, Not the Noise
• 2/9, Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times, Senate Democrat challenges Obama on killing American terror suspects
• 2/7, Ahilan Arulanantham, Huffington Post, Four Years Frozen in ICE

Religious and ethnic profiling has been a popular theme in the New York City Police Department for the past ten years, recent investigative reports by the Associated Press have shown.

In September, the NYPD was exposed to have been placing heavy surveillance to area Moroccan restaurants, neighborhoods places of prayer and shopping, and other places frequented by the Moroccan community under a program named the “Moroccan Initiative.”

This past week, it was revealed that the department has aired an anti-Muslim film to over 1,500 police trainees called “The Third Jihad.” NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelley also appeared in this film which encourages fear mongering and religious stereotypes.

Then this week, the Associated Press revealed that the NYPD has created and used numerous programs to target Shiite Muslims in New York and the Northeast region of the US.

Targeting communities of color was also an interesting part of the leaked memo. As one of the threats that needed surveillance, the NYPD specifically pointed out African-American Muslims.

New York City Councilman Brad Lander has spoken in support of creating an Inspector General office for the NYPD as a way to curb future abuse.

The recommendation was also made in a New York Times op-ed by two lawyers from the Brennan Center for Justice, who advocated that, in light of the recent revelations, the NYPD needs more oversight:

History shows that any attempt to oversee the police will be met with great resistance by the department and its political allies. But no agency is immune from mistakes. When the stakes are as high as they are in fighting terrorism, there must be a mechanism to identify excesses and wrongdoing.

We need an independent inspector general for the Police Department. Such an official would have seen the film scandal for what it is: not the error of one sergeant, but an indication that procedures for authorizing training materials are lacking. Oversight makes government stronger, not weaker.

In November, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg described the Police Department as “the seventh biggest army in the world.” Effective oversight of such a potent force is a necessity — not a luxury — for the country’s largest city.

Real reform however, cannot be made if the perpetrators of the abuses remain in power and unpunished. In a statement on the NYPD scandal, a coalition of human rights, civil rights, Muslim and Interfaith organizations called for the resignation of Ray Kelley because he “has demonstrated a complete lack of accountability, total disregard of jurisdictional limitations, and an inability to protect and serve members of his constituency.”

Likewise, there have been numerous rallies demanding Kelley’s immediate dismissal or resignation.

Other calls for reform include creating an independent oversight mechanism and an external investigation the NYPD’s policies. All said, this isn’t the first time the NYPD has been shown to disregard civil rights, and if  no reforms are made it certainly won’t be the last.

Crackdowns on Occupy sites in Oakland, New York City, and most recently Washington DC, have vividly illustrated the erosion of the First Amendment, which guarantees rights to assembly and to petition our government for redress of grievances.  The problem, however, extends beyond those particular sites where crackdowns have made headlines.

The Occupy site in Tacoma is also facing new challenges after representatives of the Washington State Department of Transportation notified the protestors of complaints from local business owners and began taking preliminary steps to build a fence blocking off the campsite from the rest of the city. As one protestor noted, “It’s pretty clear they want us to leave, which is really unfair…We’re not causing trouble. We’re keeping the conversation alive.” Steve Pierce, communications director for the Transportation Department, has now issued statements that “It’s gotten to the point where some of the issues need to be addressed.” However, Pierce stressed that if it comes to that point, the removal will be done in a “thoughtful and sensitive way.”

The situation in Tacoma is hardly new to followers of the Occupy movement. It may not be as shockingly violent or as widely publicized as the Oakland Police Department’s actions in removing Occupy protestors in October and January, but at various sites around the country the Occupy protestors are facing increasing pressure from local authorities. While local officials and activists bicker over technicalities, the simple fact remains that Americans have protected rights to civil political protest that cannot be ignored or removed.

The Occupy movement in Tacoma has a relatively simple mission statement aimed specifically at rebuilding a thriving economic community while “bringing attention to the disastrous impacts of unregulated corporate activity on political, economic, and environmental systems through free speech and peaceable assembly.” It would be one thing if the protestors were acting outside of the law or advocating for an unachievable or questionable change in policy, but these concerns raised by Occupy protestors are things that many if not most Americans recognize as being in the public’s best interest.

So under what authority can public authorities justify efforts to end these demonstrations? And perhaps more importantly, why are more people not concerned and outraged at these attempts to neutralize the fundamental right to free speech and peaceable demonstration on which the entirety of civil liberties rest? The response to questions such as these is of vital importance and carries a huge potential impact for every American.

• 2/8, Latin American Herald Tribune, Arizona Sheriff Seeks to Placate Feds on Civil Rights Abuses
• 2/8, Dina Temple-Raston, NPR, Case In Britain Echoes Dilemma At Guantanamo
• 2/8, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, The Grave Threat of “Homegrown Terrorism”
• 2/7, Elise Foley, Huffington Post, Immigrant Advocates Skeptical On New DHS Public Advocate Position
• 2/7, Alexander Abdo, ACLU, 10 Years Later: Our First Step Toward Torture

In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Executive Branch responded by enacting a number of new laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act and Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) aimed at identifying and preventing terrorist activities. These laws, which most lawmakers did not even read before voting on them, are now raising substantial questions regarding government detention, surveillance, and interrogation techniques (among other concerns) and the extent to which the government has endangered peoples’ civil liberties protected by the Constitution.

On October 22, 2011, Chip Pitts, a former Bill of Rights Defense Committee board member, and John Yoo, former Bush Administration official and author of the highly contested torture memos, debated whether US counter-terrorism policy since 9/11 has been consistent with the Constitution.

Read the rest of this entry »

The status of Twitter and social media publication as constitutionally protected speech may not be entirely clear at this early stage of digital media history.

Recent law and customs enforcement actions, however, make it clear that, for them at least, pretty much any cause is probable cause for using Twitter content to take action.

Two weeks ago two British tourists were met at Los Angeles International Airport and promptly deported for tweeting jokes taken from TV sitcom “Family Guy” about digging up Marilyn Monroe’s body. Last week Malcolm Harris, an Occupy Wall Street activist, was informed by fax that Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance had subpoenaed his Twitter account looking for “any and all user information, including email address, as well as any and all tweets posted for the period of September 15 through December 31,2011.

What makes Harris so dangerous? He was arrested back in the fall for “disorderly conduct” at a protest—technically a violation, not even a misdemeanor, much less a criminal act. He pleaded not guilty.

Harris had been arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge along with hundreds of other Occupy Wall Street protesters in October of 2011. He was charged with disorderly conduct, which he says “is not even a misdemeanor; it’s a violation.” Instead of accepting a deal from prosecutors, as some protesters have, he pleaded not guilty. Being arrested for protesting is nothing new. Having your Twitter account subpoenaed so that the DA can make a case, on the other hand, heads into waters that are only just being charted.

Vollero did say that the subpoena does not mean a representative from Twitter has to show up in court or testify on February 8, the date on the subpoena. “They could,” she said, “but they don’t have to.” (Can they Skype in, we wonder?)

Harris said he and his lawyer, Martin Stolar of the National Lawyers Guild, believe the subpoena is “an overreach of police power” and are preparing to file a motion to quash it. “There’ve been no conspiracy charges filed against me or anyone,” he said. “They’re using the subpoena for improper purposes.” He said Twitter has agreed to hold off on sending any of his account information pending the resolution of the motion. Reuters noted in its report that “Harris is not sure what tweets could be fodder for prosecutors; Twitter’s interface does not allow him to review all of his old tweets.”

This is not the first subpoena of a Twitter account by the Manhattan DA, Vollero confirms, though Harris’s seems to be the first related to the Brooklyn Bridge arrests to be made public. (The proliferation of such subpoenas related to Occupy Wall Street is being documented on Scribd under the title “OpSubpoena This.”)

The Manhattan DA’s office refused comment on their protocol for serving subpoenas. It’s unclear whether Twitter agreed to receive the subpoena that way, but, on the bright side, at least their fax machine is getting some exercise!

Harris is due back in court on February 29. In the meantime, he’s still tweeting.