« Civil Liberties
March 6, 2008
Gingrich Games Surveillance Survey
The imaginary Newt Gingrich presidential campaign is an idea that just won’t die. Now that John McCain has earned enough delegates to secure the GOP nomination for 2008, Robert Novak is taking Gingrich 2012 seriously:
Newt Gingrich's efforts to restore his standing among Republican conservatives for a possible future presidential bid have suffered a self-inflicted setback because of the former House speaker's support for liberal Rep. Wayne Gilchrest's unsuccessful attempt to save his seat in Congress representing Maryland's Eastern Shore. …
But even if the prospect of Gingrich running for president is illusory, his bid to be the GOP’s futuristic guru—with a steady stream of book deals and media appearances—seems to be progressing just fine. Gingrich’s “527” advocacy group recently announced it will be opening an office in Menlo Park, California to focus on “[o]nline political technology.”
If Gingrich is hoping to make inroads in Silicon Valley, he would be well advised to cool his over-the-top rhetoric on domestic spying and telecom immunity. Gingrich has focused on the issue in his online commentaries over the last few weeks, accusing Democrats of tendering a “declaration of unilateral disarmament in the War on Terror” and of perpetrating “the most amazing anti-national security action by Congress in decades.”
In addition, Gingrich’s group, which has specialized in presenting polling data on platitudes as new political facts, released a survey showing agreement with things that are presented in the survey as being absolutely necessary to stop us from all being killed by terrorists:
Current U.S. law allows the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of certain telephone calls originating overseas to or from a person suspected of having links to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda without obtaining a warrant as typically required by law. The success of this program relies on the cooperation of the U.S. phone companies.
Do you agree or disagree that if a company assists the United States government in tracking down terrorists it should be protected from lawsuits related to that assistance since otherwise no company could afford to help our own government stop terrorists?
So far, most people have been kind enough to ignore Gingrich’s comical polls. (Seventy-five percent agree “We must defeat America’s enemies”! “[I]nnovation and new technology,” whatever that means, is better than “more litigation and more government regulation,” etc.) But over at the Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Julian Sanchez takes a closer look, concluding that “even by the standards of this incredibly dishonest debate [over FISA reform], a new survey being touted by Newt Gingrich's American Solutions group is simply jaw-dropping.”
The survey purports to show that Americans overwhelmingly approve of both the surveillance powers and the grant of immunity sought by the president and his allies. Yet the two central questions posed to survey respondents were premised on clear falsehoods. It is almost impressive how many different lies and misrepresentations the survey takers managed to squeeze into each sentence. …
After detailing exactly how misleading Gingrich’s poll questions are, Sanchez writes:
If you're curious about what Americans say about warrantless wiretaps when the survey takers don't repeatedly lie to them in the course of their inquiries, you might consult this poll commissioned by the ACLU. The civil liberties group found that 63% of Americans believe the government should "get a warrant from a court before wiretapping the conversations U.S. citizens have with people in other countries". A solid majority also believed that courts should determine whether phone companies can be held liable for releasing customer records to the government without a court order, and that the lawsuits against them should be heard. So really, we shouldn't blame Mr Gingrich for approving a survey jammed to the gills with lies. When you describe the wiretapping controvery to people honestly, after, all, they stubbornly refuse to give you the "right" answer. What's an apologist for the surveillance state to do?
Posted by Ezra at 11:57 AM | Permalink
July 31, 2007
Maybe the ACLJ Should Ask Ashcroft
Sameh Khouzam, an Egyptian national who has been accused, and convicted in absentia, of murder in his native country has been fighting efforts by the U.S. government to deport him, claiming that he will be tortured if he returns because he is a Coptic Christian who refuses to convert to Islam.
Rallying to Khouzam’s side is Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, as well as its European affiliate, The European Centre for Law and Justice:
As a Coptic Christian, Khouzam effectively has no rights in his native Egypt and quite frankly because of his religious beliefs is certain to be denied the most basic of human rights and protections. The U.S. government repeatedly has stated its opposition to torture and should do what's right -- keep Khouzam out of the hands of a government that is likely to do just that."
…
In its amicus brief, the ACLJ and ECLJ contend that Egypt's assurances that it won't torture Khouzam are simply not credible.
…
The brief also contends that the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) should apply in this case. CAT states that "no State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."
The brief asserts that "where the receiving country has a poor human rights track record, like Egypt does, diplomatic assurances should carry almost no weight."
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the ACLJ/ECLJ’s effort to prevent Khouzam from being tortured – in fact, it is quite laudable. What makes the ACLJ/ECLJ involvement in this case interesting is the fact that both organizations have close ties to Former Attorney General John Ashcroft – the very same man responsible for the “extraordinary rendition” of Canadian citizen Maher Arar to Syria, where he was reportedly tortured:
60 Minutes II has learned that the decision to deport Arar was made at the highest levels of the U.S. justice department, with a special removal order signed by John Ashcroft’s former deputy, Larry Thompson.
Ashcroft made his only public statement about the case in November. He said the U.S. deported Arar to protect Americans –- and had every right to do so.
“I consider that really an utter fabrication and a lie,” says Michael Rather, Arar’s attorney and head of the Center For Constitutional Rights. He plans to file a lawsuit against Ashcroft and several other American officials.
“They knew, when they were sending him to Syria, that Syria would use certain kinds of information-gathering techniques, including torture, on him. They knew it,” says Ratner. “That's why he was sent there. That's why he wasn't sent to Canada.”
Before deporting Arar to Syria, American officials involved in the case told 60 Minutes II they had obtained assurances from the Syrian government that Arar would not be tortured –- that he would “be treated humanely”
“The fact that you went looking for assurances, which is reflected here, tells you that even in the minds of people who made this decision,” says Pardy. “I mean, there were some second thoughts.“
Maybe the next time the ACLJ and Ashcroft get together to “teach students from around the world [about] international religious freedom and human dignity,” they can put on the agenda the issue of whether the US should sending people off to foreign countries where they will be tortured. It might make for an interesting discussion.
Posted by Kyle at 3:52 PM | Permalink
May 18, 2007
Texas School District Official: 'Take That You Dang Heathens'
L.V. “Butch” Foreman, a member of the Ector County school board in Odessa, Texas, has three words for parents who say the district’s Bible course crosses the line from teaching about the Bible to promoting sectarian beliefs: “kiss my butt.” Said Foreman:
“If they don’t have children in the class, they can kiss my butt,” Foreman said. “They’re just looking to impose their beliefs and their views on everybody, and we don’t put up with that crap out here.”
If the plaintiffs did have children enrolled in the classes, then Foreman said he would tell the students to drop the class and take another course since it’s an elective.
On Wednesday , the parents – represented by attorneys with People For the American Way Foundation , the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, and the law firm of Jenner & Block – filed a lawsuit against the school district, charging that this particular Bible course violates their religious liberty. Odessa schools are using a controversial course based on the program promoted by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBSPS) – a private group backed by religious-right activists including Jesse Helms, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, the Eagle Forum, and even Chuck Norris. The NCBCPS curriculum fails to present the Bible in an objective manner, a requirement for any public school course about the Bible. Instead, it presents the Bible as history, and also from a particular sectarian perspective.
After the board voted to adopt the NCBCPS curriculum – and create a course that the Texas ACLU’s Lisa Graybill called “basically a Sunday School class within the walls of a public school” – the district’s curriculum director exclaimed in an e-mail,
YES, WE ARE USING NCBCPS :) :) :)! HA! Take that you dang heathens!
Posted by Ezra at 2:57 PM | Permalink
April 25, 2007
Bush-Friendly GOP Senator on Gonzales: 'Lance the Boil'
According to American Spectator.
Posted by Ezra at 7:17 PM | Permalink
April 24, 2007
Two GOP Candidates Suggest Gonzales Should Resign
While Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been under attack from politicians from both sides of the aisle over the firing of the U.S. attorneys, and while groups ranging from People For the American Way to the conservative American Freedom Agenda have called for his resignation over the abuse of civil liberties and other issues, the Republicans running for president have, for the most part, stayed mum. Now, two long-shot candidates are speaking out against Gonzales – albeit for different reasons.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee suggested Gonzales should resign so as to “not force the president” to make the decision, since the attorney general “is clearly creating a major distraction for the president and for the administration and for the Republican Party.”
And anti-immigrant firebrand Rep. Tom Tancredo said Gonzales should go because he “didn't fire enough” prosecutors – in particular, the U.S. attorney in Texas who “went after” border-patrol agents involved in the shooting of a fleeing Mexican.
Posted by Ezra at 5:23 PM | Permalink
February 23, 2007
Panel Discusses Domestic Spying at Right-Wing Heritage Foundation
Posted by Ezra at 6:20 PM | Permalink
February 12, 2007
Meese Channels Reagan: Yes to Domestic Eavesdropping
Need to spy first to get evidence for surveillance warrant, reasons former AG.
Posted by Ezra at 6:06 PM | Permalink
January 31, 2007
GOPUSA Distributes Pavone E-Mail Endorsement of Brownback
Priests for Life head calls Brownback “hero for the unborn.” Meanwhile: Brownback introduces bill to stymie First Amendment lawsuits.
Posted by Ezra at 6:06 PM | Permalink
January 9, 2007
ACLJ Eyes Military Chaplain Rules
Pushing, still, to expand sectarian preaching before non-church audiences – while warning of “banning the name of Jesus.” More on this issue.
Posted by Ezra at 11:59 PM | Permalink
January 5, 2007
AFA Lawyer Defends Right-Wing-Backed Bible Course in Michigan
Against constitutional challenge. More on NCBSPS.
Posted by Ezra at 6:20 PM | Permalink
Older Civil Liberties posts: