Ashcroft Continues to Seek New Powers:

The latest proposed legislation -- "Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004" (S. 2679) -- would increase the government’s powers to secretly obtain personal records without judicial review and limit judicial discretion over the use of secret evidence in criminal cases.

http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=16491&c=24
http://tinyurl.com/5g7fy


From Information Clearing House

Secret Laws and YOU: Flight ID Rules Fuel Fresh Furor

Source:
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,64866,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

Flight ID Rules Fuel Fresh Furor

By Ryan Singel zzz|

02:00 AM Sep. 08, 2004 PT

Lawyers for privacy advocate John Gilmore, who is pursuing a lawsuit challenging the government's alleged requirement that airlines ask passengers for identification, are filing a motion late Tuesday seeking to keep the case open to public scrutiny.

The motion opposes the federal government's request to present its rebuttal of Gilmore's case to the court alone and in secret. Justice Department lawyers made the request (.pdf) to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Friday, saying that if the requirement to demand ID exists, it would be in a security directive that is classified as "sensitive security information" that it could not
reveal in open court. The government did say, however, it would also file a redacted version of its arguments publicly.

Gilmore first challenged the constitutionality of requiring airlines to ask passengers to show identification in U.S. District Court in San Francisco in July 2002, but the government refused to tell that court whether the rule existed.

However, the government acknowledged that if the requirement did exist, it would be in a secret security directive that would have to be challenged in an appeals court.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston heeded that argument when she finally dismissed the original lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds in March, 14 months after hearing arguments in the case. Illston ruled that "federal law vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals over an order issued by the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) or FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)."

Gilmore appealed the dismissal in mid-August.

Jim Harrison, one of Gilmore's attorneys, lambasted the government's latest request and called it "radical" in Tuesday's filing.

"Secret court proceedings about secret laws make for a dangerous environment," Harrison said in a phone interview. "Just take a look at history."

Lucy Dalgish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, described the government's request for a secret hearing, in which Gilmore's attorneys would not be present, as "absolutely ridiculous."

But she said she was not surprised, given the growing number of secret hearings post-9/11.

"This is a government and administration that places an incredibly high value on secrecy," Dalgish said. "All brilliant legal arguments aside, what do they think they are doing? This has gotten to the point of being nutty."

A Justice Department representative did not return a call for comment.

A spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration -- which is responsible for classifying security directives related to transportation -- was unable to provide comment by press time.

Harrison also argues in his filing that the government should not be allowed to introduce new evidence in the appeals court, which traditionally reviews the merits of a lower court's decision without allowing new evidence.

Government lawyers asked the appeals court to rule on its motion for the secret hearing by Sept. 15, which is the deadline for the government's response to Gilmore's appeal.

The case is known as Gilmore v. Ashcroft.


"FREEDOM THROUGH COMPLIANCE"
-US Department of Homeland Security
http://welcome.to/HomelandSecurity1


Informant: Jeff Greenspan

by Dave Lindorff

CounterPunch

09/15/04

Americans need to become aware how deeply antagonistic towards, and dangerous for American civil liberties like the right of free speech and assembly this current administration is. Our corporate media, whose highly paid and well-groomed reporters prefer to travel with the presidential motorcade and to broadcast promotional soundbites from the president, don't even see, much less bother to track down and interview the many people who have the courage and principle to come and try to protest. As a result, the average American doesn't even know that there is a vast sea of opposition to this president and his policies. Protests, as we saw in the coverage of the Republican National Convention, basically get reported on in the mass media only when there is violence or arrests...

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09152004.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

by Marcus Everett

Frontiers of Freedom

09/14/04

Over two centuries ago our Founding Fathers hammered out a Constitution that established a Republican form of government for the Federal Government and for the individual states. Interestingly, it specified many constraints against the governments it created, but proscribed only treason and rebellion against the individual citizen. Even murder was left up to the states to outlaw, with the Constitution specifying only the court systems and procedures to prosecute such crimes. Obviously, the Founding Fathers were NOT interested in creating a 'kindergarten society' where the individual's every act is regulated...

http://tinyurl.com/5nezo


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

by Noah Leavitt

CounterPunch

09/13/04

Review of Elaine Cassel's new book The War on Civil Liberties:

Members of the Bush Administration -- especially Attorney General John Ashcroft -- have claimed that this is proof of the success of their anti-terror laws, and proof that extending and expanding these laws will make us even safer. Indeed, at the Republican convention, high-level politicians said that Congress must not only reauthorize, but strengthen such legislation. But even if the laws are effective -- and a very strong case can be made that they are not -- can we afford the civil liberties cost? ... Elaine Cassel reminds us how much the legal landscape has changed in this short period."

http://www.counterpunch.org/leavitt09132004.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Gutachten: Anti-Terror-Datei verfassungswidrig

14.09.04

Die von den Innenministern geplante Anti-Terror-Datei stößt auf verfassungsrechtliche Bedenken. Ein Gutachten des Wissenschaftlichen Dienstes des Bundestags komme zu dem Schluss, ein Datenpool im Online-Verbund sei "mit dem Trennungsgebot nicht vereinbar", berichtet die "Berliner Zeitung". Es sei verfassungswidrig, wenn Erkenntnisse der Polizei pauschal dem Verfassungsschutz zugänglich gemacht würden und umgekehrt. "Ein Informationsverbund wäre also dann unzulässig, wenn er dazu führt, dass die Polizei Verfassungsschutz- oder Verfassungsschutz polizeiliche Kompetenzen erlangt", heiße es in der Expertise, die der Parlamentarische Geschäftsführer der Grünen, Volker Beck, in Auftrag gegeben hatte.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php4?Nr=9292

Ramifications of the Patriot Act still being argued

The worst terrorist strike on American soil in the nation's history also triggered wide-ranging changes to citizens' civil liberties in ways that, three years later, remain the subject of keen debate. In a report issued this week, on the eve of the third anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the national organization Human Rights First said some steps taken by the government were "sensible and appropriate" while others represent a "disturbing erosion" of civil liberties. "Perhaps the most disturbing change (during the past three years) has been the suggestion by some senior government officials that it is unpatriotic to challenge the administration's approach to national security," the report said. Cathryn Hazouri, executive director of the Colorado American Civil Liberties Union, said, "I do think that since 9/11, Americans have lost a lot of privacy. And they have lost a lot of the liberties that make us different from all the other countries in the world."

But U.S. Attorney John Suthers, whose first day in office was one week before the Sept. 11 attacks, believes the government has been measured in its response and that steps that have been taken - most notably the Patriot Act - haven't compromised civil liberties.

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3174225,00.html


From:
Aftermath News
Top Stories - September 14th, 2004