Building a Movement. Restoring Rights. Reclaiming Our Constitution.
Over a century ago an aging Mark Twain bitterly cursed the early signs of an emerging American imperialism, evidenced by the bloody, dirty little wars in the Philippines, Hawaii and Cuba the country embarked upon in the 1890s. Though not as entertaining as he’d been earlier in his career, the old literary lion proved prophetic. In our time we’re lucky enough to still have with us two firebrand literary octogenarians, Nat Hentoff and Gore Vidal, to teach us what we are on the verge of losing, as they denounce the slow unpleasant demise of the Bill of Rights we face unless we act more effectively.
Throughout American history government agencies have been bureaucratically adept at, to paraphrase Rahm Emmanuel, “never letting a security threat go to waste.”
From the growth of J. Edgar Hoover’s Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI) in the early 20th century (boosted by the first “Red Scare” of the 1910s) to the rise of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on the heels of the Cold War, the pattern has held: legitimate, if overstated, national security threats pave the way for wide, new, constitutionally dubious, and often secretive powers.
In addressing the looming threat of cyber-crime and hacking, Lillie Corey of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) explained on Democracy Now! last week, the Obama administration may well be feeding another meta-constitutional monster, in the form of an expanded and super-charged National Security Agency (NSA).
Late last year, a group of Muslim men stopped in Henderson, NV, while on a road trip. While stopped for gas, they performed one of their daily prayers in a parking lot. Three police officers who observed the men praying detained them for 40 minutes, searched their car, and did background checks.
This is just one example of the problematic nature of suspicious activity reporting (SAR) protocols. The government directs law enforcement officers and civilians alike to report “suspicious activity” as part of counter-terror efforts, but what exactly qualifies as suspicious? People have been reported for “suspicious activity” for taking photos of or sketching buildings and bridges, and now for simply praying in public.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who just filed suit on behalf of the men stopped in Nevada, have prepared a guide for law enforcement on the Muslim community. Efforts like this aim to stop law enforcement from profiling Muslims and other vulnerable populations and making unnecessary SARs that harm not only the individuals targeted, but also the relations between law enforcement and the larger Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities.
As Andrea Flores reported yesterday, Keep America Safe, Liz Cheney’s PAC group recently released an ad accusing the Department of Justice of being terrorist sympathizers. The ad led CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to question whether the DOJ is loyal to the Constitution or is it actually the “Department of Jihad.” Blitzer later apologized for this, saying it was offensive.
This episode isn’t the first time media has played a destructive role in what amounts to policy debate, but Cheney’s group and CNN are beginning to taking a hit. As Politico’s Ben Smith reported, a letter written by Conservative Lawyers denounces the ad for undermining the DOJ and our history:
The past several days have seen a shameful series of attacks on attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in previous legal practice, either represented Guantanamo detainees or advocated for changes to detention policy. As attorneys, former officials, and policy specialists who have worked on detention issues, we consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications.
The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’ representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre. People come to serve in the Justice Department with a diverse array of prior private clients; that is one of the department’s strengths.
Peaceful Tomorrow, an organization founded by family members of the victims of the September 11 attacks, released a letter they wrote to Barack Obama last week in which they call on him to keep his promise to Americans and prosecute Khalid Mohammed and the four other Guantánamo detainees in civilian courts.
In their letter to the President, the families criticize the Bush administration’s disregard for American moral and ethical principles and powerfully claim, “You promised change. We have seen no change.”
In a statement by spokesperson Donna O’Connor, she stresses not only the competence and reliability of civilian courts and but also the significance of having the trials under in federal court holds to our our political and judicial system:
The rule of law is the lynch-pin of our way of life, a way of life tens of thousands have died to protect. Civilian trials in federal courts have resulted in hundreds of successful terrorism prosecutions whereas military commissions are an illegitimate system that undermine the rule of law. We call upon the President to restore the rule of law to our democracy.
Early last week Liz Cheney’s group, Keep America Safe, released an ad on “The Al Qaeda 7″ attacking the integrity and loyalty of the seven lawyers in the Justice Department who at some point in their career contributed to the legal defend of Guantánamo detainees. The ad has had a lot of press and scrutiny in the media since its released on March 2.
A New York Times article yesterday compared her blunt persecution of these lawyers to the McCarthy era and firmly upheld their dedication to the “cause of democratic justice.” The article unveils the intentional misleading nature of the ad, explaining,
In order to attack the government lawyers, Ms. Cheney and other critics have to twist the role of lawyers in the justice system. In representing Guantánamo detainees, they were in no way advocating for terrorism. They were ensuring that deeply disliked individuals were able to make their case in court, even ones charged with heinous acts—and that the Constitution was defended.
Keep American Safe has now demonstrated a pattern of preying on people’s fear and prejudices. This dangerous behavior must be seen for what it really is: an attempt to distract people from the real constitutional issues surrounding Guantánamo Bay and detention.
If lawyers who take on controversial causes are demonized with impunity, it will be difficult for unpopular people to get legal representation—and constitutional rights that protect all Americans will be weakened. That is a high price to pay for scoring cheap political points.
The Department of Homeland Security announced Friday that eleven airports in the United States will be receiving full-body scanners by summer. The scanners are first being installed at Boston’s Logan Airport. Chicago’s O’Hare International will be the next in line. The other airports are,
Port Columbus International in Ohio, Kansas City International in Missouri, and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International.
Another four are slated for California airports, including Los Angeles International, San Diego International, Oakland International and Mineta San José International.
Two scanners are slated for Southern airports: Charlotte Douglas International in North Carolina and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International in Florida.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) immediately sent out a release taking exception to the installations. Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office said in a statement,
The Bill of Rights extends beyond curbside check-in and if the government insists on using these invasive search techniques, it is imperative that there be vigorous oversight and regulation to protect our privacy. There is no one measure or magic solution to keeping us safe, and while our government should strive for the best security possible, it must adhere to respect Americans’ civil liberties.
Before these body scanners become the status quo at America’s airports, we need to ensure new security technologies are genuinely effective, rather than merely creating a false sense of security. It is far from clear whether this technology would have been able to foil the attempted Christmas Day attack and every resource we put into using these machines is a resource not spent on intelligence analysis or other law enforcement activity.
Interestingly, there are no New York area airports scheduled in the first round of installations.
Matthew Duss, research associate at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, speculates that a cave-in by President Obama and his administration to those who are strongly advocating a military trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) would be a victory for the Cheneys and Al Qaeda. This capitulation would be a complete reversal of Attorney General Eric Holder’s original intent to try KSM in a New York federal court. It is also in direct opposition to President Obama’s initial thoughts on the matter,
I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism and have brought multiple convictions before are telling us that they will convict this person with the evidence they’ve got going through our system. Now one of the things I think we have to break is this fearful notion that somehow our Justice system can’t handle these guys…
Mr. Duss’ post is in response to an article indicating that the Obama administration is,
…nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal…
He calls attention to Marine Colonel Jeffrey Cowell’s comment that this would mark “a sad day for the rule of law,” and sums up it by writing,
It will also represent a significant propaganda victory for Al Qaeda, who crave the status and recognition that treating them as “soldiers” in a “war” bestows, and would love to be able to show the world that Obama, just like Bush and Cheney, will cast American principles aside when faced with a threat.
To reiterate what I’ve written before, this continual effort to keep treating this tragic situation as a “war” declared on terrorism (and Al Qaeda specifically) simply elevates their standing within themselves and to those who oppose the policies of the United States and its allies.
Share this page:
Subscribe via RSS