As expected, President Bush played the fear card in his State of the Union address last night. Once again, he’s trying to scare the public into thinking that come February 1, the phone lines will be burning up with terrorist-to-terrorist phone calls that our intelligence agencies won’t be able to listen to, because Senate Democrats want to debate FISA legislation instead of blindly accepting the White House’s demands:
To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they’re planning. Last year, Congress passed legislation to help us do that. Unfortunately, Congress set the legislation to expire on February the 1st. That means if you don’t act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.
The ACLU certainly agrees that U.S. intelligence agencies need the ability to listen to terrorists’ phone calls. And the secret FISA Court that authorizes wiretap warrants seems to agree: From 1979 through 2006, out of the 20,000-plus warrant requests that were submitted to the FISA Court, only five requests for warrants were rejected. It’s clear that the FISA laws weren’t impeding our ability to “track terrorist threats.” And, in case of an emergency request that can’t wait for a warrant, our intelligence agencies can start a wiretap and get it authorized later.
Bush insisted the “flow of vital intelligence” would be disrupted without an extension of the Protect America Act. But as we point out earlier, and it bears repeating, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Senator John Rockefeller have noted that all current surveillance orders, including the ones authorized under the Protect America Act, can be extended into 2009 even if the PAA expires at midnight on February 1. Does that sound like disruption to you?
Bush’s so-called “Liability protection” is perhaps the worst, most cynical part of the administration’s proposed FISA “fix.” These “protections” would shield the very companies who broke the law from lawsuits that attempt to hold them accountable. By allowing immunity, Congress would close the courthouse doors to the Americans who Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. Congress is even floating the idea that would force the government to assume legal responsibility for the dozens of lawsuits against the telecoms.
This is all, of course, beyond the pale when compared to the knowledge that the Bush administration sought expanded wiretapping powers before 9/11. The President would have you believe that his administration has gone above and beyond to protect America after the attacks of 9/11, when, in fact, his administration was in the midst of an executive power grab months before the attacks.
Today marked the first time in recent history that the Democrats — and one Republican — stood up to the Bush administration and said “no.” “No” to more warrantless wiretapping of Americans, “no” to more giveaways to the companies that fill politicians’ coffers — that means you, Verizon and AT&T — and “no” to turning a blind eye to the unlawful acts of the Bush administration.
Tomorrow the Senate will resume debate on the Senate Intel bill, which currently offers immunity for the telecoms. Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) promises to filibuster any bill with immunity, and he’s stood firm by this promise since the beginning. Meanwhile, the next step is for House Democrats to pass a 30-day extension of the PAA Tuesday morning, and then send it to the Senate for a vote tomorrow or later this week.
But tonight, of course, is President Bush’s State of the Union address. Amidst assertions that we’re winning the war in the Iraq and reassurances that this recession business is just crazytalk, expect President Bush to trot out his tried-and-true lines about Democrats being soft on terror and endangering American lives by rejecting the cloture vote today.
This is fear-mongering of the worst kind: President Bush resorts to such tactics when he sees things aren’t going his way. Dems need only listen to House Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Senate Intel Chairman John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who have noted that all current surveillance orders can be extended into 2009 even if the PAA expires at midnight on February 1.
By allowing the expiration of the PAA, the intelligence community won’t be forced to end its current warrantless wiretapping, and Congress will have the time to do, well, its job and deliberate over what is truly in the interests of the American people, not the phone companies. If no legislation is enacted before the PAA expires, the law simply reverts to the surveillance statutes in place as of last July — the same FISA law that never needed fixing in the first place.
The ACLU Blog has been tracking the steady parade of informant-related scandals across the country for the past few months, as has Grits for Breakfast and The Agitator - two other excellent sources of information on abuses within the informant system. It is our hope that by raising public awareness of the ways in which our currently unchecked, unregulated and out-of-control informant system is threatening - not protecting - the public’s safety, policymakers will take concrete steps to put in place some desperately needed reforms.
As the New York Times article mentions, New York State is currently considering legislation proposed by Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol that would require prosecuting attorneys who plan to use informant testimony to collect and report of key data about informants to the judge, the defense counsel and to the Department of State. The legislation would also require that a judge convene a reliability hearing to determine whether the informant is trustworthy enough to present testimony against the defendant.
The State of New York should take seriously the problem of abuse and corruption within its informant system and do more than put police officers at fault on desk duty. Passing Lentol’s proposal would be a big step towards solving a big problem, because this isn’t an instance of a few bad apples. It’s a rotten orchard.
To learn more about the concrete ways in which policymakers across the country at both the state and federal level can address the failings of our nation’s informant system, visit www.aclu.org/unnecessaryevil. In the meantime, we will continue to track instances of informant-related scandals - but we need your help. If you have a personal story to tell about how you have been affected by our unchecked and unregulated informant system, please fill out this form.
As the governor once testified, avoiding the high cost of the machinery of death would mean nearly $22 million for 500 additional police officers, protective equipment that saves officers’ lives, or drug treatment for 10,000 of our addicted neighbors. Unlike the death penalty, these are investments that can actually spare more potential victims of violent crime.
“Over in Europe, it’s like a done deal,” the soft-spoken, quietly authoritative lawyer says. “”Almost everyone here accepts that it’s a barbaric practice and should be consigned to history. In my country, we still have a long way to go - but we’re winning the argument.”
When I’m asked “why do you work in reproductive rights,” it is hard not to imagine that most of the emphasis is on the word you. As a man, my own right to choose an abortion or to carry a pregnancy to term is not constantly threatened by unwarranted government restrictions. But that isn’t to say the relentless stripping of those freedoms doesn’t directly impact who I am and my ability to live freely in the world I want. It only takes a couple clicks on a computer to see how quickly the rights enshrined in Roe thirty-five years ago (and since then slowly eroded) quickly expand into all aspects of individual autonomy. The decriminalization of gay sex, efforts to protect the right to die with dignity, and all sorts of individual freedoms are indebted to the values borne out of Roe. Roe stands for a woman’s autonomy and equality, and in every definition of myself, those are values I care about deeply. I work for reproductive equality because those rights are everyone’s rights, and attacks on reproductive freedom are exactly that: attacks on freedom that we cannot afford to tolerate.
I began working in reproductive rights as a college student at a local Planned Parenthood clinic. It was a firsthand education that a woman’s safe and equitable access to the full spectrum of reproductive options is an integral part of her dignity and autonomy. A woman’s right to make an informed decision for herself about when and whether to become a parent defines her ability to be a free and equal person in our society. Freedom isn’t gendered; it loses its meaning when we deny its protection to some based on immutable characteristics.
Working in this field can sometimes be depressing, when I look out and see all the scars on the reproductive landscape. When I find myself asking myself, why am I here, I’m reminded of Audrey Lorde’s realization that “there can be no hierarchy of oppressions.” Lorde addressed the commonality among her oppressed identities:
I cannot afford the luxury of fighting one form of oppression only…. I cannot afford to choose between the fronts upon which I must battle these forces of discrimination, wherever they appear to destroy me. And when they appear to destroy me, it will not be long before they appear to destroy you
.I choose to work in reproductive freedom because it is to me at the core of everyone’s ability to be a productive and equal member of our society. I care about reproductive freedom because I care about freedom, and it is impossible to separate the two apart.
Trevor Lippman is a State Strategies Fellow with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.
Last night when Geoff Gilmore, the director of the festival, introduced “The Visitor,” he started by saying that he never has any favorites, but that “The Visitor” was one of his favorites. And in the five or six Sundance festivals I’ve been to, I have to say it’s one of my favorites too. (Despite wiping out on a patch of ice en route to the screening, I hold no grudge toward this film.)
Tom McCarthy (”The Station Agent”) beautifully explores how unjust immigration policies can break family bonds. The story is at once comic and tragic, and quietly and gracefully delivers a pronounced commentary on America’s war on terror.
The film got a very long standing ovation, and McCarthy and the entire cast, including the remarkable Richard Jenkins, took to the stage to answer questions and take a bow.
McCarthy said he started with two characters and then developed the story after reading about immigration detention centers . His research was aided by the Sojourners organization, and with their help he was able to visit immigration detention facilities and talk to detainees. He also spoke to people at the forefront of the immigration debate.
One audience member asked, “Who is the visitor?” and McCarthy admits while the cast and crew have had many conversations about that question, he prefers to leave it unanswered and let audiences engage in that same conversation.
Participant Productions is one of the companies releasing the film, and they are very good at facilitating and promoting this type of social conversation.
The movie will be released on April 11 in New York; wider release will follow.
Al Massad’s documentary “Recycle” seeks to answer the question: “What makes a terrorist?” While the film unveils many contributing factors - like poverty, lack of opportunity, humiliation, and religious doctrine - I’m not sure I left the screening room with a clear answer to this question, and I don’t think I was alone. Perhaps it’s is largely because, unlike the daily bombardment of media spin we see in the west about the war on terror and good vs. evil, “Recycle” suggests the potential for evil can emerge quietly, in the midst of everyday circumstances. That it isn’t necessarily a black-and-white defining moment or personal characteristic that turns someone into a terrorist.
One very powerful moment in the film comes when some of the men talk about freedom of speech. Their view: when those who cannot express their ideas freely, they express their ideas through violence. Another interesting question posed by some of the men in the film: When Osama Bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center, did he consider the damage he was doing to all Muslims?
During the post-screening Q&A, audience members were tentative with their questions. Al Massad said he learned from filming “Recycle” that there is no black and white - it’s much more complex than that.He also said the film is not clearly intended for either a western audience or a Middle Eastern audience; people from both parts of the world are likely to be upset by parts of it.
I do think he was brave in making the film and brave in showing it. It made me think how grateful we should be that we live in a society that, for the most part, stands proudly by the principals that are questioned in this film - freedom of speech, religion, and dissent.
The debate surrounding net neutrality raises several free speech questions. Is net neutrality really the “First Amendment of the Internet,” as some of its supporters maintain? Are internet service providers (ISPs) right when they argue that any regulation promotes unconstitutional government censorship? Who are the online “speakers” whose speech is protected by the First Amendment? Is it online subscribers? ISPs? Both? Neither? The answers are really much more straightforward than they might appear.
Net neutrality is analogous to the “First Amendment of the Internet,” but it’s not a pure First Amendment issue. I know, you’re probably thinking that this is just the usual lawyer double-talk. Well, you’re right. And you’re wrong. Net neutrality is similar to the First Amendment because of its shared purpose of preventing ISPs from screening or otherwise limiting or censoring what we can say, view and read online. We don’t want these companies to regulate our speech, press, associational or religious rights any more than we want the government to do it.
At the same time, the First Amendment is not directly implicated because unlike the government, your ISP is not a traditional “state actor” - a requirement for triggering First Amendment cases. (Local service monopolies come mighty close though: When was the last time you had a meaningful opportunity to pick your broadband ISP? If your choice is between Comcast and, say, Comcast, or Comcast, it’s not much of a choice. I’m sure you also found that you didn’t have much bargaining power in negotiating your terms of service with your ISP. Kind of sounds like a monopoly, doesn’t it?)
The big ISPs and their supporters (including many of the best-paid lobbyists in D.C.) have done everything they can to paint themselves as champions of the First Amendment. For example, they try to turn the tables by saying that net neutrality is unconstitutional government regulation of the Internet. C’mon! Get real! Net neutrality means what it says: the Internet must be kept neutral, with no one acting as a gatekeeper. The only regulation that occurs under net neutrality is government oversight of the ISPs to ensure that they’re playing fair and not censoring content. The ISPs don’t like it because they want to be able to control what you can access online, and even - as the censorship of NARAL ProChoice America by Verizon Wireless showed us - who is allowed to access it. The actions of the telecoms speak louder than their words.
Perhaps the most bizarre argument making its way (to quote Senator Ted Stevens) “through the tubes” in recent months is that the ISPs are protected speakers under the First Amendment. Again, that’s true… and false. There’s no doubt that ISPs can be speakers who have editorial choice over their landing page and other content they create. But if you’re like me, the last thing you want to see when you access the Internet is more commercials, which is really all their web pages are. Can you hear me now? No! And I don’t want to! That’s why I change the landing page to something I want to see (and I’m sure you do too), such as the ACLU Blog!
A recent article by Randolph May argues that telecoms should be treated as online newspaper editors whose right to control content accessed through their ISPs is protected under the First Amendment. That’s a false analogy.
Aside from Internet content they create, the telecoms clearly are not speakers. They are merely providing the wires through which each of us accesses the Internet, just like many of them do for our phone lines. That’s why the FCC was allowed to regulate the telecom ISPs as common carriers until 2005, and the Supreme Court has said they can still be regulated as “information services” today.
If telecoms aren’t allowed to choose who can use their phone services, or censor and disconnect your phone calls when you say something they don’t like, they certainly can’t do all of those things on the Internet. ISPs exist to provide customer access to the Internet and the range of online expressive and associational activities free of censorship: not the other way around. Otherwise, it would be a case of the tail wagging the dog.
That is because according to Islamic law, which rules in Iran, homosexuality is punishable by death.
Yesterday morning I saw Tanaz Eshaghian’s documentary “Be Like Others,” which reveals, quite ironically, that while homosexuality is outlawed, sex change operations are both legal and embraced by a society that accepts male and female, but nothing in between.
This powerful film explores the intersection of religion, law, culture and the struggle for freedom with respect to gender and sexuality. In fact one of the principal “characters” says in the film that he is getting the operation so he can get full rights. Another says: “after surgery my identity will be defined.” Many get the surgery to stop being harassed by the public and arrested by the police.
Unfortunately, there are not many happy endings. Some turn to prostitution, many admitted that if they weren’t in Iran they would not have had the surgery, and a vast majority is shunned by their families.
The film looks primarily at male to female sex changes, but the filmmaker said that women to men have much easier transitions. It is not as offensive to Islamic culture.
International TV rights to “Be Like Others” have been sold; Eshaghian is still shopping the film around for domestic and theatrical distribution. The film will also show next week at the Berlin Film Festival.
