Zur Navigation | Zum Inhalt
     
 
Coalition Letter regarding Federal Scientists and Whistleblowing
User Rating: / 0
Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Tuesday, 18 March 2008

GROUPS ACROSS POLITICAL SPECTRUM URGE CONGRESS TO INCLUDE FEDERAL SCIENTISTS IN PENDING WHISTLEBLOWER BILL

March 18, 2008

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator:

In the next few weeks, House and Senate negotiators are working to reconcile bills to enhance whistleblower protections for federal employees. Your leadership on this issue will help to ensure that the final version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act contains specific protections for federal scientists who blow the whistle on the suppression or distortion of federal research or technical information. Such protections, which were incorporated into the House passed whistleblower bill, H.R. 985, are crucial for the health and safety of all Americans.

Federal government scientists play a crucial role in providing data and scientific analyses to policy makers so they can make the best, most informed decisions about our environment, health, and national security. Whether it is toy safety, drug efficacy, or air quality, we count on federal agencies to use independent and unbiased science to protect us from harm.

Federal law has defined a whistleblower as someone who reports waste, fraud and "abuse of authority." This definition, however, fails to address the problems facing too many federal scientists.

Surveys, investigations, and media reports increasingly show that federal science is being manipulated, suppressed, and distorted. Indeed, of the nearly 3,400 federal scientists across nine agencies who have responded to questionnaires by the Union of Concerned Scientists, more than 1,100 scientists report that they fear retaliation for openly expressing concerns about their agency’s mission-driven work.

Scientists who expose the suppression and distortion of their work should be protected for alerting the public to potential dangers. For this reason, any comprehensive whistleblower law that Congress approves this year must define "abuse of authority" to include the suppression and/or distortion of federal research and technical information.

Specific whistleblower protections would not give federal scientists the right to usurp legitimate supervisory oversight or policy making that appropriately is delegated to political appointees and senior managers, nor would it allow them to violate federal law shielding national security and proprietary information. Rather, they would afford a federal scientist whose work has been suppressed or distorted protection from reprisal if the scientist publicly reported these attempts.

At a time when Congress has serious concerns about an aging federal workforce and the United States is facing unique scientific and technical challenges, it is crucial that federal agencies do all they can to retain their most experienced and skilled scientists and technicians. Whistleblower protections for scientists and researchers would improve morale at federal agencies and help to retain and recruit dedicated civil servants.

We urge you to advocate for a final bill that would provide protection from retaliation for exposing attempts to censor, distort, or suppress any scientific or technical research. Congress must recognize that scientists must be able to work to protect the health and safety of Americans, without interference, and should be able to speak out about distorted or suppressed scientific findings without retribution.

Sincerely,

 

Mary Alice Baish

Acting Washington Affairs Representative

American Association of Law Libraries

 

John W. Curtis, Ph.D.

Director of Research and Public Policy

American Association of University Professors

 

Christopher Finan

President

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression

 

Lynne E. Bradley

Director, Office of Government Relations

American Library Association

 

Patricia S. Schroeder

President & CEO

Association of American Publishers

 

Wayne C. Shields

President and CEO

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals

 

Terry Francke

General Counsel

Californians Aware

 

William Snape

Senior Counsel

Center for Biological Diversity

 

Paul Kurtz

Chairman

Center for Inquiry

 

Kirsten Stade

Program Manager, Integrity of Science Project

Center for Science in the Public Interest

 

Dave Werntz

Science and Conservation Director

Conservation Northwest

 

Sarah Dufendach

Vice President for Legislative Affairs

Common Cause

 

Rachel Weintraub

Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel

Consumer Federation of America

 

Ellen Bloom

Assistant Director of the Washington Office

Consumers Union

 

Jamie Rappaport Clark

Executive Vice President

Defenders of Wildlife

 

Dr. Jim Murtagh

Doctors for Open Government

 

Susan A. Holmes

Senior Legislative Representative

Earthjustice

 

Jon Hunter

Policy Director

Endangered Species Coalition

 

John Richard

Director

Essential Information

 

George Anderson

Ethics in Government Group

 

Daniel Hirsch

Executive Committee

Concerned Foreign Service Officers

 

Steven Aftergood

Project Director, Project on Government Secrecy

Federation of American Scientists

 

Gwen Marshall

co-Chairman

Georgians for Open Government

 

Tom Devine

Legal Director

Government Accountability Project

 

Helen Salisbury, M.D.

Health Integrity Project

 

Brett Kimberlin

Director

Justice Through Music

 

Mike Kelly

Fish Biologist, Former Whistleblower

 

Michael D. Ostrolenk

Co-Founder/National Director

Liberty Coalition

 

Mary Treacy

Executive Director

Minnesota Coalition on Government Information

 

Joan E. Bertin, Esq.

Executive Director

National Coalition Against Censorship

 

Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.

President

National Research Center for Women & Families

 

Amy Allina

Program Director

National Women's Health Network

 

Karen Wayland

Legislative Director

Natural Resources Defense Council

 

Kim Nelson

Research Wildlife Biologist

 

Rick Engler

Director

New Jersey Work Environment Council

 

Sean Moulton

Director of Information Policy

OMB Watch

 

Patrice McDermott

Director

OpenTheGovernment.org

 

Siobhan Reynolds

President

Pain Relief Network

 

Larry Siems

Director, Freedom to Write and International Programs

PEN American Center

 

Danielle Brian

Executive Director

Project On Government Oversight

 

David Arkush

Director

Public Citizen's Congress Watch

 

Jeff Ruch

Executive Director

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

 

Kirsten Moore

President and CEO

Reproductive Health Technologies Project

 

James A. Landrith, Jr.

Founder

The Multiracial Activist

 

Ron Marshall

Chairman

The New Grady Coalition

 

Ellen Paul

Executive Director

The Ornithological Council

 

John W. Whitehead

President

The Rutherford Institute

 

Kevin Kuritzky

The Student Health Integrity Project

 

Dane vonBreichenruchardt

President

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

 

Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D.

Director, Scientific Integrity Program

Union of Concerned Scientists

 

Bruce McIntosh

Staff Ecologist

Western Nebraska Resources Council

 

John Judge

9/11 Research Project

 

John Young

Retired Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (3) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 30

 
Letter to Senate Regarding Sexual Trafficking and Federalization of Prostitution
User Rating: / 3
Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Wednesday, 23 January 2008

January 23, 2008

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Joseph Biden
Chairman
Foreign Relations Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Arlen Specter
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Richard Lugar
Ranking Member
Foreign Relations Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Sam Brownback
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Leahy, Chairman Biden, Ranking Member Specter, Ranking Member Lugar and Ranking Member Brownback,

The undersigned anti-trafficking service providers, advocates, scholars, civil and human rights lawyers and other individuals are writing in support of your leadership in the development of a strong bill reauthorizing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA). We are pleased with the majority of the House bill, H.R. 3887, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2007. However, we are extremely concerned that several provisions will lead to harmful unintended consequences. We urge you to consider these concerns as you craft the Senate reauthorization bill.  

The collective expertise and experience of the signatories to this letter is notable. Many of us have assisted trafficked persons with their legal, social, psychological and family issues; worked on issues of violence against women, participated in the development of the TVPA as well as the UN Trafficking Protocol; written extensively about trafficking and related issues; and opposed slavery and forced labor in all forms within the United States and abroad. As such, we share a profound concern about the desperate situation of immigrants and citizens who are trafficked into and within the U.S. We know that you also have the same concerns and so we would like to share the following thoughts about certain provisions in H.R. 3887.

1. Section 221(f)(1) federalizes all prostitution-related crimes as ‘sex trafficking’

Proposed Section 221(f)(1) of H.R. 3887 would amend the Mann Act, which presently criminalizes the transportation of persons across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. The proposed section, 18 U.S.C. § 2430, would create a new crime of “sex trafficking”,1 which would authorize the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute any individual whose action within a territory or possession, affecting interstate or foreign commerce, induces another to engage in prostitution. In other words, if a person arranges an act of prostitution over the phone, as hundreds of meetings are arranged everyday, DOJ would be pressured by supporters of this new crime to prosecute each of these thousands of cases annually. This proposal is part of an attempt by certain organizations and individuals to make prostitution a federal crime and redefine all prostitution as trafficking, even in the absence of force, fraud, or physical or psychological coercion, the cornerstone of trafficking in persons. Calling all non-trafficking prostitution-related crimes ‘sex trafficking’ would not only lead to confusion but also to the other problems we discuss below. 2

We strongly oppose this unnecessary, confusing and resource draining provision and share the concerns raised by DOJ in a letter to the Honorable John Conyers and the Fraternal Order of Police in a letter to Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter.3

The proposed “sex trafficking” provision would drain Department of Justice resources. The attempt to expand federal jurisdiction over all local and in-state prostitution cases would drain the limited financial and staffing resources of the Civil Rights Section of DOJ and take federal prosecutors, as well as investigators from other federal agencies, away from their core mission of investigating violations of crimes stemming from the Thirteenth Amendment and crimes involving children.

According to DOJ, local law enforcement is responsible for 100,000 arrests per year that are related to prostitution.4 The DOJ itself contends that “due to the high volume of prostitution-related crimes, the federal government lacks the necessary resources and capacity to prosecute these offenses.”5 Furthermore, “it is unnecessary and a diversion from Federal law enforcement’s core anti-trafficking mission.”6

States are better situated to address local prostitution issues. All 50 states already have laws addressing solicitation, pandering and pimping and they address concerns around prostitution that are most appropriate to each locality. The Fraternal Order of Police, representing local law enforcement officers across the country opposes DOJ involvement, stating “it is not clear, or even advisable, that the Federal government become active on these local issues in the absence of evidence that the offenses were committed as part of or in furtherance of a human trafficking operation. To do so is a waste of resources at all levels of government.”7

The proposed “sex trafficking” statute will instantaneously and dramatically increase the estimated and actual number of “trafficking” victims in the U.S. Presently the U.S. government estimates that between 14,500-17,500 foreign-born trafficking victims are brought into the U.S. every year.8 However, if the prosecutions under the proposed new prostitution crime called “sex trafficking” are added to the data on real trafficking cases, the statistics for trafficking would be artificially inflated. The estimated number of prostitution-related arrests is around 100,000 a year and the proposed new law would allow DOJ to prosecute most of those cases when, in fact, it may be that no more than 10% of the cases would involve true trafficking crimes, including internal trafficking cases. However, if DOJ were to prosecute all of the potential prostitution-related cases under the proposed new prostitution crime, then the above statistics indicate that those engaged in prostitution would outnumber true trafficking victims nearly six to one and compete for access to funding, resources programs and every other aspect of assistance to the real trafficked individuals as well as fewer true victims being identified. While we welcome better data collection on trafficking of persons within (as well as into) the United States, we do not support artificial inflation of the data. The inflated data would also impact the U.S. ranking in respect to other countries; it would overnight look as though the United States has the highest number of trafficking victims in the developed world.

2. Section 221(a) removes the real crime of sex trafficking from the list of 13th Amendment Crimes

The real crime of sex trafficking is presently found in 18 U.S.C. §1591, which is in the part of the U.S. Code (Chapter 77 on Peonage, Slavery and Trafficking in Persons) reserved for 13th Amendment crimes. It addresses trafficking into commercial sex acts via force, fraud or coercion, or of a person under 18. Inexplicably, section 221(a) of H.R. 3887 relocates this trafficking offense to the Mann Act (Chapter 117), which, as we discussed above, covers only ordinary prostitution offenses and not any real trafficking crimes. Since the proposed section 221(f)(1) would add a new non-trafficking prostitution offense called “sex trafficking” to the Mann Act, the authors of H.R. 3887 were forced to rename the real sex trafficking offense in an unsuccessful attempt to reduce confusion. Consequently, section 221(a) proposes renaming the real sex trafficking offense as “aggravated sex trafficking.” Not surprisingly, the use of similar terminology to demarcate completely different types of offenses (a 13th Amendment crime and an ordinary crime) within the Mann Act only adds unnecessary confusion. These stark changes to the statute are unnecessary and could undermine trafficking prosecutions.

Separating the real sex trafficking crime from other 13th Amendment crimes weakens 13th Amendment protections against modern-day slavery. Human trafficking, perhaps the most pernicious form of modern-day slavery, occurs when an individual extracts labor or sexual services from other individuals by depriving them of their free will. Accordingly, federal laws aimed at eradicating trafficking, forced labor, slavery, and involuntary servitude prohibit the use of force, fraud or coercion to compel an individual to perform a commercial sex act or any other form of labor or services.

In passing the TVPA, Congress intended to carry out the mandate of the 13th Amendment and address the evils it targets - slavery in all of its forms and practices.9 The 13th Amendment, as the United States Supreme Court has explained, aims to “abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another’s benefit”.10 Accordingly, Congress recognized that prostitution per se is not trafficking any more than farm labor or domestic work per se is trafficking. Thus, moving the real sex trafficking crimes from the TVPA into the Mann Act is an ill-disguised attempt to recast all prostitution as trafficking. Congress should support the integrity of the comprehensive TVPA and not remove the real sex trafficking offense from the TVPA, thereby ensuring that the fight against all 13th Amendment prohibitions on slavery, forced labor, involuntary servitude and human trafficking will be prosecuted equally and with due regard for the heinous nature of these crimes.

Removing sex trafficking from the trafficking section of the criminal code will undermine trafficking prosecutions. This proposed section separates labor and sex trafficking in the criminal code, which prevents victims, advocates and law enforcement from understanding the nuances of human trafficking as a whole. Victims of human trafficking also often experience both labor and sex trafficking and by separating these provisions into two different criminal section laws, law enforcement may not view the crimes in their totality. We are concerned that the following will occur: increased focus solely on cases involving prostitution with a decrease on labor exploitation cases; conferences, trainings, outreach conducted on cases involving prostitution to the detriment of labor exploitation cases; decreased ability of attorneys, social service agencies and good samaritans to identify labor exploitation cases; and fewer labor exploited individuals coming forward to seek assistance as a consequence of the focus on prostitution in prosecutions, training and outreach.

3. Section 234 undermines the ability of DOJ to focus on child exploitation cases

The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section was established to address the problem of child exploitation and its core mission should not be sacrificed. Section 234 renames the “Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section” in the Criminal Division of the DOJ as the “Sexual Exploitation and Obscenity Section” and authorizes this Section to prosecute new federal adult prostitution and adult sex trafficking cases. We are concerned that the proposed redesignation would increase the Section’s workload to include prosecution of adult prostitution and sex-related offenses under the Mann Act and the proposed § 2430. The Section is ill equipped to handle ordinary prostitution related cases, which now number over 100,000 a year.

Congress should respect the ability of state law enforcement officials to continue handling adult prostitution cases and allow the Civil Rights Division to continue prosecuting adult trafficking cases, including adult sex trafficking cases. Congress should support and protect the core mission of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section by leaving it unchanged so that it can continue to tackle the extremely difficult child abuse and exploitation (including child sex trafficking) cases.

4. Section 214(b) undermines state’s discretion in using Victims of Crime Act funds.

H.R. 3887 adds a new provision - §1404F “Victims of Commercial Sexual Exploitation and other Crimes” -- relating to state use of Victims of Crime Act funds. Under existing law, states have the right to determine how to spend their limited VOCA funds. The proposed language specifically states that people in prostitution are ‘victims’ covered by VOCA. It categorizes all prostitutes as per se victims of a crime, even those working legally in Nevada and individual sex workers who are not alleging victimization. This provision could be interpreted to establish an assumption that this one group has priority over others because people in prostitution would be the only category of persons enumerated as victims in the Act. This approach could harm other crime victims (e.g. domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and assault) by providing priority access to limited VOCA funds for all prostitutes even if they have not claimed victimization, is eligible while another group is not eligible. States should continue to have discretion to determine how to spend VOCA funds in a way that meets local priorities and conditions.

 

Conclusion

Trafficking in persons is a form of modern-day slavery where an individual compels another to provide labor or services through force, fraud or coercion. Consistent with our constitutional obligations as well as those under international law, Congress passed the TVPA to eradicate this practice which deprives individuals of their basic humanity and freedom. Legislation that conflates prostitution with trafficking, asserts federal jurisdiction over ordinary prostitution offenses now handled by local jurisdictions and removes the responsibility for prosecuting prostitution-related trafficking cases from the Civil Rights Division would undermine the fundamental purpose of our trafficking efforts within the United States and abroad. This purpose is reflected in statements made by the late Senator Paul Wellstone, “[trafficking] is one of the brutal aspects of this new global economy. It supplements drug trafficking, except quite often it is more profitable, believe it or not, because the women--girls--are recycled over and over again. We are talking about close to 1 million women and girls, the trafficking of these women and girls for purposes of forced prostitution or forced labor.”11

We urge you to ensure that this important legislation is not undermined.

 Sincerely,

Alexandria House
Los Angeles, CA

American Civil Liberties Union
Washington, DC

Asian American Legal Defense and
Education Fund
New York, NY

Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
San Francisco, CA

Ayuda, Inc
Washington, DC

Susie Baldwin, MD, MPH
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health *
Los Angeles Free Clinic *

Carol Leigh
BAYSWAN
San Francisco, CA

Doug Bandow,
Vice President for Policy,
Citizen Outreach Project.
Springfield, VA

Sr. Mary Kristin Battles SND,
Provincial Superior, California Province,
Sisters of Notre Dame

Best Practices Policy Project

Joy Zarembka, Director
\n This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Melanie Orhant, Managing Attorney
\n This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Break the Chain Campaign
Washington, DC

Professor Denise Brennan
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Georgetown University

Florrie Burke, Human Trafficking Consultant
Freedom Network Training Institute *
New York, NY

CASA de Maryland
Silver Spring, MD

Center for Health and Gender Equity
Takoma Park, MD

The Center for Women Policy Studies
Washington, DC

Wendy Chapkis
Professor of Sociology and Women &
Gender Studies University of Southern Maine *

Grace Chang
Associate Professor
Women's Studies
UC Santa Barbara *

Sealing Cheng
Wellesley College *

Coalition of Immokalee Workers
Immokalee, FL

Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking
Los Angeles, CA

Desiree Alliance
Henderson, NV

Ann Jordan
Director,
Initiative Against Trafficking in Persons, Global Rights
\n This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Human Rights Watch
New York, NY

International Organization for Adolescents (IOFA)
Chicago, IL and Washington, DC

International Rescue Committee
Washington, DC

Kathleen Kim
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School *

Legal Momentum
Washington, DC

Little Tokyo Service Center
Los Angeles, CA

The Lucha Project of
Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center
Miami, FL

Alice M. Miller, JD
Lecturer in Residence
UC Berkeley School of Law *

Mosaic Family Services
Dallas, TX

The Multiracial Activist
Alexandria, VA

Na Loio - Immigrant Rights & Public Interest Legal Center
Honolulu, HI

National Alliance To End Sexual Violence
Washington, DC

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
Washington, DC

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Washington, DC

National Council for Jewish Women
Washington, DC

National Employment Law Project
New York, NY

National Immigration Forum
Washington, DC

National Immigration Law Center
Washington, DC

Janet Pregler, M.D.
Professor of Clinical Medicine
Director
Iris Cantor-UCLA Women's Health Center

Rocky Mountain Survivors Center
Denver, CO

The Rutherford Institute
Charlottesville, VA

Safe Horizon
New York, NY

Svati Shah, Ph.D.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Wellesley College *

Sex Workers Outreach Project USA
San Francisco, CA

Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center
New York, NY

Tapestri
Atlanta, GA

Paula Tavrow, PhD
Director, Bixby Program in Population and Reproductive Health
UCLA School of Public Health *

Dan Werner
Workers' Rights Law Center of New York, Inc.
New York, NY

 

* For identification purposes only  

cc: The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

The Honorable Tom Lantos

Attachments (3)  

Footnotes

1 The proposed new § 2430 provides that “whoever knowingly, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or in any territory of the United States, or in any territory or possession of the United States, persuades, induces or entices any individual to engage in prostitution for which any person can be charged with an offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.”

2 We also object to the proposal in § 224 of the bill for the Attorney General to develop a state ‘model’ trafficking statute that would go beyond trafficking to include prostitution (the new ‘sex trafficking’ provision), thereby confusing slavery and prostitution for state legislators also.

3 See attached Dept. of Justice letter to The Hon. John Conyers at 8-9 (Nov. 9, 1007) (DOJ letter) and Fraternal Order of Police in a letter to Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter at 1 (Dec. 6, 2007) (Fraternal Order letter).

4 See attached DOJ document: “H.R. 3887: The William Wilberforce Trafficking in Persons Reauthorization Act of 2007: Comments Reflecting Managers’ Amendment” (DOJ Comments).

5 DOJ letter at 9.

6 DOJ letter at 9.

7 Fraternal Order letter at 1.

8 “America Will Not Tolerate Slave Traders, Bush Says,” http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Jul/19-988082.html 9 22 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(22).

10 Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 241 (1911) (emphasis added).

11 Congressional Record: July 27, 2000 (Senate), pp. S7788-7789, http://www.immigrationweek.com/immigdaily/News/2000,0731-Trafficking.shtm (emphasis added)

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (120) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1389

 
Letter to Senator Reid re: S. 2248
User Rating: / 0
Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Tuesday, 22 January 2008

January 22, 2008

Dear Senator Reid,

We, the undersigned organizations who care deeply about both individual rights and effective intelligence-gathering, strongly urge you to bring only the Judiciary Committee’s version of S. 2248, the FISA Amendments Act of 2007, to the floor if you choose to bring up wiretapping legislation. We vigorously oppose the Intelligence Committee version for both authorizing warrantless, mass collection of Americans’ international communications and granting complete retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry, among other severe flaws.

We ask that you use your position as Majority Leader – with sole responsibility for determining what legislation comes to the Senate floor – to bring only the clearly superior bill up for debate and support additional improvements that are greatly needed to protect Americans’ basic rights. The Judiciary Committee bill is superior to the Intelligence Committee bill for the following reasons:

Bulk Collection: Most importantly, the Judiciary version prevents the government from engaging in mass, untargeted collection of all communications coming into or going out of the United States. The Judiciary Committee fixed an important loophole in the Intelligence Committee approach that would allow bulk collection, which will inevitably sweep in vast numbers of purely innocent communications for government analysis and use.

 

Significant Purpose Test: Surveillance tactics in the U.S. that allow the government to obtain the contents of phone and email communications of people in this country without a court order are unconstitutional and un-American. Unlike the Intelligence bill, the Judiciary version makes clear that once a significant purpose of the government’s surveillance is to acquire the communications of a particular person here, it must go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a court order based on probable cause.

 

Meaningful Exclusivity: The Judiciary iteration of S. 2248 states in no uncertain terms that FISA is the exclusive means for foreign intelligence wiretapping on American soil, and clarifies that vague assertions of Article II presidential authority do not eviscerate the entire statute. The Intelligence Committee version also creates an unacceptable loophole to FISA’s protections against warrantless electronic surveillance by removing some wiretapping from the purview of the statute by changing FISA’s definition of "electronic surveillance."

 

Immunity: Unlike the Intelligence Committee bill, the Judiciary version does not grant blanket immunity to the telecommunication companies that facilitated the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. It defers that major policy decision that affects the individual statutory and constitutional rights of Americans. There is no need to immunize past misconduct to obtain future compliance.

 

Oversight: As provided in the Judiciary version of S. 2248, any new electronic surveillance permitted by the legislation should be temporary, subject to a two-year sunset, and include vigorous reporting requirements and an audit of warrantless surveillance going back to 2001.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union

People For the American Way

American Humanist Association

PEN American Center

American Library Association

Arab American Institute

Asian American Justice Center

Association of Research Libraries

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Bob Barr

Council on American-Islamic Relations

Common Cause

Defending Dissent Foundation

Democracy for America

Electronic Frontier Foundation

No2Torture

Equal Justice Society

Federation of American Scientists

Friends Committee on National Legislation

Global Rights

Hate Free Zone

Hip Hop Caucus

Japanese American Citizens League

Grassroots America

Liberty Coalition

Moveon.org

Muslim Public Affairs Council

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

OMB Watch

PrivacyActivism

Progressive Democrats of America

TeleSpan Publishing Corporation

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

United for Peace and Justice

World Peace Mission

Justice Through Music

Velvet Revolution

Doctors for Open Government (DFOG)

The Multiracial Activist

Backbone Campaign

September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows

Citizens Outreach Project

National Immigrant Solidarity Network

CODEPINK: Women for Peace

National Lawyers Guild--National Office

Bruce Schneier

Pain Relief Network

OpenTheGovernment.org

American Association of Law Libraries (AALL)

Concerned Foreign Service Officers

American Conservative Defense Alliance

Republican Liberty Caucus

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE)

Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)

Regional Organizations

Central Florida Jobs Committee (Saint Petersburg, Florida)

PeaceAction Montgomery (MD)

Progressive Democrats of America--Ohio

Rural Organizing Project

The Teaneck Peace and Justice Coalition (NJ)

The Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice

Topanga Peace Alliance (CA)

Tri-Valley CAREs (CA)

Whatcom Peace and Justice (Bellingham, WA)

The Greenwich Village Coalition for Peaceful Priorities (NY)

CODEPINK Tallahassee (FL)

Connie Hogarth Center for Social Action

AWARE, the Anti-War-Anti-Racism Effort of Urbana, Illinois

Somerville/Medford United for Justice with Peace

Peace Coalition of Southern Illinois/Fellowship of Reconciliation

Nashoba Valley Peace & Justice

Cambridge United for Justice with Peace

Iowa Peace Network

Susan Oehler for the Western NC Peace Coalition

Fairfax County Privacy Council (VA)

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (97) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 989

 
Letter to Senator Reid re: Telecom Immunity
User Rating: / 0
Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Tuesday, 22 January 2008

January 22, 2008

The Honorable Senator Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Consumer rights and government accountability organizations unite to
condemn immunity for the telecommunications industry

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

On behalf of consumer-rights groups and government accountability organizations, we urge you not to let telecommunications companies off the hook; the telecommunications companies were complicit in spying on innocent Americans in the years after September 11, and perhaps even earlier. We understand that you will be revisiting wiretapping legislation in January and respectfully request that the bill you bring to the floor not include a statutory grant of retroactive immunity for these acts that violate customers’ privacy.

We now know that communication service providers turned over our private calls, emails and records to the government in the absence of a court order or other lawful requirement to do so. This violates both criminal and civil laws. Currently, citizens and consumers are trying to advance their rights in court, some seeking damages, and some seeking a simple declaration that the activity was illegal and a court order stopping it from happening in the future.

Killing all the pending cases will have two effects. First, it deprives consumers the opportunity to assert their own privacy rights before a neutral arbiter, which had been statutorily guaranteed since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides a civil cause of actions so that Americans can enforce their rights when the communications companies and the government infringe on them. Robbing them of this opportunity through legislation not only frustrates the pending cases, but undercuts the accountability structure in the statute, which will only encourage law breaking in the future.

Second, it serves to bury government misconduct. Granting retroactive immunity shields not only the telecommunications industry, but the government actors that induced them to break the law in the first place. Despite numerous subpoenas, Congress has been completely frustrated in its attempts to discover what the Administration has done with our private information. These cases may be the last chance for citizens to actually determine who ordered the interception of their phone calls and how those intercepted communications have been used against them.

The only way to restore the trust of American customers – and American citizens – is to hold the telecommunication companies accountable when they collude with the government to spy on ordinary Americans. If we do not hold the phone companies and the government accountable now, there will never be an incentive for them to act within the law, and the concerns of customers and citizens will go unanswered.

Sincerely,

Consumers Union
Common Cause
Citizens Outreach Project
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Doctors for Open Government
Government Accountability Project
Public Interest Research Groups
American Civil Liberties Union
The Multiracial Activist

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (100) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 898

 
Muncie, Indiana Man Indicted for Burning a Cross
User Rating: / 0
Government - Press Releases Sent By Government Entities
Written by Department of Justice   
Friday, 30 November 2007

Muncie, Indiana Man Indicted for Burning a Cross

WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Rena J. Comisac and Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana Timothy Morrison announced today that Kyle Milbourn of Muncie, Ind., was indicted by a federal grand jury for a hate crime stemming from a cross-burning last year that was directed at a woman and her three biracial children.

Milbourn was charged with one count of interfering with the housing rights of another person; one count of conspiring to interfere with civil rights; one count of using fire during the commission of a felony; and one count of witness tampering. If convicted, Milbourn faces a maximum punishment of 40 years of imprisonment and a $1,000,000 fine.

According to the indictment, on or about March 6, 2006, Milbourn and another individual built an eight-foot wooden cross, erected it in front of the victims' home, doused it with gasoline, and set it on fire. Milbourn did this with the intent to interfere with the victims' rights under the Fair Housing Act.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Charlie Rownd investigated this case. The case will be prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christina McKee from the U.S. Attorney's Office and Trial Attorney Betsy Biffl from the Civil Rights Division.

The charges set forth in an indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

First Call Analyst:

FCMN Contact:

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

 

CONTACT: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs,

+1-202-514-2007, or TDD +1-202-514-1888


Web Site: http://www.usdoj.gov/

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (124) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1493

Last Updated ( Monday, 03 December 2007 )
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 6 - 10 of 619
 
     
Free Joomla! Templates provided by funky-visions.de
Template modding by Sven Brier