Four police officers have been arrested and the East Haven police chief has resigned as the FBI continues to investigate the reports of the police racially profiling Latinos in East Haven, Connecticut.

“This is not just East Haven,” said Luis Cotto of the Hartford City Council (and a member of that city’s local civil rights restoration campaign), “racial profiling takes place throughout the state.”

The East Haven officers are accused of performing unreasonable searches and seizures, using excessive force and conspiring and falsifying reports in order to detain Latinos. The indictment against the officers also states that patrol cars were routinely stationed outside of Latino-owned businesses, where officers would wait for Latinos to come so they could tow their cars and detain and arrest them.

East Haven has been under investigation for over a year now—Police Chief Gallo has a federal indictment against him for covering-up civil rights abuses—and at the same time, statewide racial profiling laws have also been the a source of conversation with complaints that the Alvin Penn Racial Profiling Act is rarely enforced.

The Penn Act defines and prohibits racial profiling and additionally requires law enforcement to record demographics data of any person they stop, search, detain or arrest at a traffic stop. In effect, this data could be used to reveal troubling trends among police departments and help protect residents’ civil rights.

Unfortunately, though the law passed ten years ago, it has never been enforced or properly funded.

At a press conference held by the Connecticut Civil Rights Coalition, Mongi Dhaouadi of CAIR-CT said the Penn Act needs to be enforced “so we can see problems coming before we get to this point, before we have communities harassed and profiled constantly.”

The Coalition brought forth reforms they believe need to happen in order to protect residents from further civil rights abuses.

Coalition member and ACLU Sandy Staub recalled how their work last year for reform was thwarted by the state government.

“The push-back last year in legislative efforts was lack of funds, but we know that’s not true anymore. We know there’s Department of Transportation funding that the Office of Policy and Management can use to fund analysis.”

Staub was referring to Connecticut Governor Malloy’s statement that there has been a grant available to the state for the last five years that would have funded the Penn Act’s enforcement. In light of recent events, the governor has now vowed to fund and enforce the Penn Act.

The Coalition is pushing for other changes, including adding religion as a reported category and transferring the responsibility to enforce the Penn Act to the Office of Management and Policy.

• 2/3, Maura Grunlund, Staten Island (NY) Advance, Muslims and their allies seethe over NYPD secret report, demand Kelly’s resignation
• 2/2, Josh Gerstein, Politico, Holder: CIA interrogation probe nearing end
• 2/2, Joe Wolverton II, New American, Government Cites NDAA as Authority to Detain Gitmo Prisoner
• 2/1, Cullen Murphy, The Atlantic, Torturer’s Apprentice

Protesters upset about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its unconstitutional detention provisions will gather at congressional offices across the country today.

The NDAA, which President Obama signed on the last day of 2011, allows the government to imprison anyone, including Americans, in military detention indefinitely and without trial. It has sparked outrage across the country, and there are already three bills in Congress that would repeal or alter the law’s detention provisions.

Raise your voice today by visiting the office of your senators or representative between noon and 7 p.m. local time. Bring signs—like the one at right—that let your members of Congress know you won’t stand for the government taking away due process and the right to trial. Downsize DC has more information.

And even if you can’t make it out to a protest today, you can still get involved in your community.

• 2/2, Associated Press, US ‘no-fly’ list of suspected terrorists doubles in 12 months
• 2/2, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, ACLU sues Obama administration over assassination secrecy
• 2/2, Associated Press, NYPD document exposes more domestic surveillance
• 2/2, Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, The Obama Administration’s Abject Failure on Transparency
• 2/1, Eric W. Dolan, Raw Story, Washington lawmakers introduce bill condemning NDAA

Civil rights coalitions and human rights organizations are not the only ones worrying about the continual erosion of civil rights and the Constitution by the federal government. The military is just as concerned with Congress and the president’s blatant disregard for the nation’s founding principles.

In the past two months—amid the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the 10th anniversary of Guantanamo Bay—military leaders have spoken out against the choices of both Congress and the president on matters of national security and civil liberties.

In a recent letter to President Obama, 15 retired military admirals and generals pushed for Obama to use new powers invested in the executive office through the NDAA to provide due process to Guantanamo Bay detainees.

In the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress authorized new guidelines for transferring detainees out of Guantanamo. Under these guidelines, your administration can transfer detainees cleared for release to their home or to third countries if the Secretary of Defense issues a waiver in the interest of our national security demonstrating that measures will be taken to substantially mitigate the risk of transfer. We ask that you direct your administration to exercise this authority immediately and fully to demonstrate your good faith commitment to closing Guantanamo. Doing so is the first step among many needed to finally close this dark chapter in our history.

Two retired four-star marine generals, Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, also wrote an op-ed expressing their reasons to not support the detention provisions in the NDAA.

One provision [of the NDAA] would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.

The opposition expressed by military servicemen and leaders should be a wake-up for the situation facing America today. It signifies the severe time we now live in, when those deeply worried about the nation’s future include not only scores of advocates and grassroots Americans from all walks of life, but also the people who have volunteered to sacrifice their lives for the protection of our country and the preservation of liberty for future generations.

• 2/1, Josh Levy, Save the Internet, A Push for Privacy in the Wake of the Carrier IQ Controversy
• 2/1, Rose Aguilar, TruthOut, What Does the Activism Surrounding SOPA Reveal About the Future of Online Organizing?
• 2/1, Jacob Witte, Iowa State Daily, Obama no better than Bush concerning civil liberties
• 2/1, Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, ACLU sues to force release of drone attack records
• 2/1, Nat Hentoff, Southern Standard, Too much government surveillance
• 1/30, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, Leon Panetta’s explicitly authoritarian decree
• 1/24, Cindy Boren, Washington Post, Tim Thomas says he skipped White House trip because ‘government has grown out of control’

Last week, Boston Bruins goalkeeper Tim Thomas decided not to attend a ceremony at the White House that honored his team’s Stanley Cup championship. Why?

I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is not the first time an athlete has declined a presidential invitation, but it is perhaps the first time that one has done so for overtly political reasons.

• 1/31, Faiza Patel and Elizabeth Goitein, New York Times, It’s Time to Police the N.Y.P.D.
• 1/31, James Bridgman, The Hampshire Gazette , A look back
• 1/31, Christopher Calabrese, ACLU, Will Congress Take Privacy Out of Your Netflix Queue?
• 1/31, Andy Worthington, Eurasia Review, Obama Considers Repatriating Foreign Prisoners From Bagram – OpEd
• 1/30, Rep. John Garamendi (D – Calif.) and Rep. Martin Heinrich (D – N.M.), The Hill, Due process, detention and defense
• 1/27, In These Times, Supreme Court’s GPS Decision Not Enough to Avert Orwellian Government

José Padilla, convicted terrorist and United States citizen, alleged in a lawsuit that he was detained unconstitutionally and without due process.  The Fourth Circuit Court dismissed the suit, which named former and current Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Leon Panetta as defendants, thus protecting executive decisions from judicial scrutiny. Padilla claims that he was unlawfully detained and tortured in a South Carolina military jail for over three years. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement criticizing the ruling:

“Today is a sad day for the rule of law and for those who believe that the courts should protect American citizens from torture by their own government,” said ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner, who argued the appeal in court. “By dismissing this lawsuit, the appeals court handed the government a blank check to commit any abuse in the name of national security, even the brutal torture of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. This impunity is not only anathema to a democracy governed by laws, but contrary to history’s lesson that in times of fear our values are a strength, not a hindrance.”

This case is about establishing the limits on the indefinite detention of US citizens under military custody—an especially critical question in light of the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  Section 1301(d) of the NDAA suggests that executive powers are not to be expanded beyond their current reach, but the Fourth Circuit’s ruling suggests, or at least does not deny, that those powers include authorizing the detention of American citizens without due process.  See Shahid Buttar’s analysis of this and other concerns related to the passage of the NDAA:

But presidents have already asserted the authority to detain US civilians in military custody. Just ask Jose Padilla. Another red herring emerges in section 1032(b)(1): “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” That’s a welcome change from earlier versions of the NDAA, but it doesn’t constrain the discretionary authority to detain US citizens created separately (by section 1031).

A new report prepared by UC Irvine School of Law highlights the human costs and counterproductive consequences of the misleadingly named Secure Communities (S-COMM) program in Los Angeles County.

Launched in 2008 and operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), S-COMM requires police agencies to submit to the FBI the fingerprints of all suspects they detain, including those who ultimately are not convicted. The fingerprints are then run through various federal databases to check the suspect’s immigration status.

S-COMM ostensibly is designed to “identify, detain and remove aliens convicted of a serious criminal offense,” thus “improving community safety.” In reality, however, the vast majority of individuals deported through S-COMM have been non-violent criminals, or individuals who committed no crime at all. The report found that:

Secure Communities continues to lead to the deportation of people who have no criminal convictions or who are themselves crime victims; people convicted of minor, non-violent crimes such as traffic offenses; and people with old convictions for crimes, but who are rehabilitated and pose no danger to their communities.

In one poignant example, a woman called 911 in Los Angeles while she was being assaulted by her boyfriend. When the LAPD arrived, police officers arrested her and took her fingerprints which were then run through federal immigration databases. ICE initiated deportation proceedings and but for a media uproar, the woman could have been deported.

Thus, S-COMM is having the unintended consequence of decreasing public safety because it diverts police time to immigration enforcement, undermines police-community relationships, and discourages crime-reporting.

In an additional impact on local communities, deportation sometimes means the removal of parents of children who are US citizens. As a result, the children have to be placed in foster care. Today, 5,100 children live in foster care nationwide due to the deportation of their parents. This number is expected to triple in the next five years.

And S-COMM doesn’t just endanger immigrants: it threatens the privacy of every American, because the FBI is using the program as a pilot for what would become a national biometric identification database, called the Next Generation Identification initiative.

Compliance with S-COMM requires the City of Los Angeles to expend considerable sums at a time when the city is facing budget shortfalls. The city must contend with increased booking costs, detention costs, and costs associated with compensating victims of civil rights violations. It is estimated that Los Angeles County spent more than $60 million to detain people at ICE’s request between October 1, 2008, and June 21, 2010.

The report concludes that “Secure Communities appears to represent a choice to punish with deportation almost anyone who has had contact with law enforcement, without regard to the severe social and economic consequences of such a policy.”

Los Angeles County, the report recommends, should follow the lead of other jurisdictions such as Arlington County, Virginia, Cook County, Illinois, and Santa Clara County, California, by adopting an ordinance limiting its participation in S-COMM.