Focusing on multiracial activism and political advocacy. http://multiracial.com/site 2008-05-09T23:35:50+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/images/M_images/joomla_rss.png text/html 2008-03-19T11:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1605/2/ Government Scientists Seek Protection Under New Whistleblower Bill WASHINGTON, DC, March 19, 2008 (ENS) - Four dozen groups spanning the political spectrum sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Tuesday urging lawmakers to include scientists who work for the federal government in pending legislation designed to strengthen protection for whistleblowers. The coalition of academic, consumer, environmental, government reform and health groups, which includes the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Federation of American Scientists, was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS. Scientists are less inclined to speak out when they have no protection against retaliation, said Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. We must encourage federal scientists to report when research is censored or manipulated, she said. Bringing misconduct to light can help protect American families from unsafe consumer products, unsafe drugs, and a polluted environment. Sometime in the next few weeks the House and Senate are expected to reconcile differences between their versions of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. In general, both versions strengthen protections for federal workers who report waste, fraud and abuse. But the final bill may not extend those protections to federal scientists who speak out when federal research is distorted or suppressed. The House legislation includes specific protections for scientists, but the Senate version does not. 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, the coalition letter states. 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 scientists need whistleblower protection now more than ever, Grifo said. Over the last few years private groups such as UCS and news organizations have documented what appears to be a growing incidence of political interference in federal science. For example, more than a third of the nearly 3,400 federal scientists at nine agencies who responded to UCS questionnaires since 2005 reported they fear retaliation for openly expressing concerns about their agency's work. An example of the difficulties that government scientists can encounter is happening now at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service is placing its scientists in an ethical bind by issuing contradictory and confusing directives, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER, an organization of government workers in natural resources agencies, which signed the letter to the Senate. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Pete Pattavina holds a threatened Eastern indigo snake on the Ft. Stewart Military Base in Georgia (Photo courtesy FWS) On one hand, the Service is encouraging its scientists to be open and honest, but, on the other hand, they are under orders not to share any agency scientific documents, assessments and drafts with outsiders, PEER points out. On January 28, 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a Scientific Code of Professional Responsibility which tells agency scientists to: Place reliability and objectivity of scientific activities, reporting and application of scientific results ahead of…allegiance to individuals and organizations Distinguish between positions that are rooted in scientific information assessments and those rooted in organizational values, and make this distinction in written and oral presentations Disseminate scientific information to the scientific community and the public to promote understanding and appreciation for fish and wildlife and their habitats. These precepts contrast with the guidance issued by Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall on February 3, 2006 in which he warned scientists to avoid premature briefings. It is imperative that all documents, assessments and drafts remain inside the Service, except for discussions as appropriate with recognized federal and state peers, wrote Hall. Rather than being clear and unambiguous, the Fish and Wildlife Service has cloaked its ethics guidelines in mixed messages and contradictory side orders, said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. Ruch cited a PEER survey of Fish and Wildlife Service scientists showing what Ruch calls widespread confusion as to what they are allowed to say or write. Basic principles of scientific openness and honesty should be government-wide, said Ruch, not confined to the agency that is the source of political embarrassment this quarter. The letter's 48 signatories include: American Association of Law Libraries, American Association of University Professors, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Library Association, Association of American Publishers, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Californians Aware, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Inquiry, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Common Cause, Concerned Foreign Service Officers, Conservation Northwest, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Doctors for Open Government, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Essential Information, Ethics in Government Group, Federation of American Scientists, Georgians for Open Government, Government Accountability Project, Health Integrity Project, Justice Through Music, Liberty Coalition, Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Research Center for Women Families, National Women's Health Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, OMB Watch, OpenGovernment.org, PEN American Center, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, The Multiracial Activist, The New Grady Coalition, The Ornithological Council, The Rutherford Institute, The Student Health Integrity Project, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Western Nebraska Resources Council. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved. text/html 2008-03-18T11:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1604/49/ GROUPS ACROSS POLITICAL SPECTRUM URGE CONGRESS TO INCLUDE FEDERAL SCIENTISTS IN PENDING WHISTLEBLOWER BILLMarch 18, 2008United States SenateWashington, DC 20510Dear 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 BaishActing Washington Affairs RepresentativeAmerican Association of Law Libraries John W. Curtis, Ph.D.Director of Research and Public PolicyAmerican Association of University Professors Christopher FinanPresidentAmerican Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression Lynne E. BradleyDirector, Office of Government RelationsAmerican Library Association Patricia S. SchroederPresident CEOAssociation of American Publishers Wayne C. ShieldsPresident and CEOAssociation of Reproductive Health Professionals Terry FranckeGeneral CounselCalifornians Aware William SnapeSenior CounselCenter for Biological Diversity Paul KurtzChairmanCenter for Inquiry Kirsten StadeProgram Manager, Integrity of Science ProjectCenter for Science in the Public Interest Dave WerntzScience and Conservation DirectorConservation Northwest Sarah DufendachVice President for Legislative AffairsCommon Cause Rachel WeintraubDirector of Product Safety and Senior CounselConsumer Federation of America Ellen BloomAssistant Director of the Washington OfficeConsumers Union Jamie Rappaport ClarkExecutive Vice PresidentDefenders of Wildlife Dr. Jim MurtaghDoctors for Open Government Susan A. HolmesSenior Legislative RepresentativeEarthjustice Jon HunterPolicy DirectorEndangered Species Coalition John RichardDirectorEssential Information George AndersonEthics in Government Group Daniel HirschExecutive CommitteeConcerned Foreign Service Officers Steven AftergoodProject Director, Project on Government SecrecyFederation of American Scientists Gwen Marshallco-ChairmanGeorgians for Open Government Tom DevineLegal DirectorGovernment Accountability Project Helen Salisbury, M.D.Health Integrity Project Brett KimberlinDirectorJustice Through Music Mike KellyFish Biologist, Former Whistleblower Michael D. OstrolenkCo-Founder/National DirectorLiberty Coalition Mary TreacyExecutive DirectorMinnesota Coalition on Government Information Joan E. Bertin, Esq.Executive DirectorNational Coalition Against Censorship Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.PresidentNational Research Center for Women Families Amy AllinaProgram DirectorNational Women's Health Network Karen WaylandLegislative DirectorNatural Resources Defense Council Kim NelsonResearch Wildlife Biologist Rick EnglerDirectorNew Jersey Work Environment Council Sean MoultonDirector of Information PolicyOMB Watch Patrice McDermottDirectorOpenTheGovernment.org Siobhan ReynoldsPresidentPain Relief Network Larry SiemsDirector, Freedom to Write and International ProgramsPEN American Center Danielle BrianExecutive DirectorProject On Government Oversight David ArkushDirectorPublic Citizen's Congress Watch Jeff RuchExecutive DirectorPublic Employees for Environmental Responsibility Kirsten MoorePresident and CEOReproductive Health Technologies Project James A. Landrith, Jr.FounderThe Multiracial Activist Ron MarshallChairmanThe New Grady Coalition Ellen PaulExecutive DirectorThe Ornithological Council John W. WhiteheadPresidentThe Rutherford Institute Kevin KuritzkyThe Student Health Integrity Project Dane vonBreichenruchardtPresidentU.S. Bill of Rights Foundation Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D.Director, Scientific Integrity ProgramUnion of Concerned Scientists Bruce McIntoshStaff EcologistWestern Nebraska Resources Council John Judge9/11 Research Project John YoungRetired Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service text/html 2008-04-22T11:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1603/49/ April 22, 2008 Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman Hon. Arlen Specter, Ranking Minority Member Senate Committee on the Judiciary 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Re: National Security Letters Reform Act, S. 2088 Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter: The Judiciary Committee will soon consider issues relating to National Security Letters. We write to express our support for the National Security Letters Reform Act (S. 2088). The PATRIOT Act and Intelligence Authorization Act of FY 2004 drastically expanded the FBI's authority to obtain the business and personal records of Americans by issuing National Security Letters (NSLs). NSLs, which do not require prior judicial approval, can be used to obtain a wide range of documents based upon vague claims that the information is merely relevant to a terrorism investigation. Once the FBI acquires records with an NSL, it can keep them indefinitely, even when it concludes that the subject of those records is innocent of any crime and is not of intelligence interest. Undeniably, the FBI needs prompt access to some of the types of information currently acquired under NSLs, but the current method of self-policing simply does not work. Reports issued by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice in March 2007 and March 2008 documented the drastic expansion of the use of NSLs and their subsequent abuse. The IG’s reports also show that NSLs are increasingly used to obtain records about Americans, making reform all the more important. The NSL Reform Act appropriately addresses the problems uncovered by the Inspector General's reports by establishing statutory safeguards and judicial oversight while protecting privacy concerns and bolstering national security interests. The bi-partisan NSL Reform Act includes many beneficial reforms. First, it would limit the reach of NSLs by allowing only less sensitive personal information to be made available under this authority. Other existing authorities could still be used to obtain the more sensitive information that would no longer be available with an NSL. It would require the government to determine that records sought with an NSL relate to someone who is connected to terrorism or espionage. The bill would require the Attorney General to issue minimization procedures for information obtained through NSLs, and to create a system to track their use. It would also enhance oversight by requiring additional reporting to Congress. The act would also establish reasonable limits on the “gag” that attaches to an NSL, requiring it to be narrowly tailored and limiting it to 30-days, extendable by a court. The bill would also tighten the standards for court-issued orders under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (the “library records” provision) by requiring the government to show that the records sought relate to a suspected terrorist or spy, or to someone directly linked to such a person. We believe this bill takes significant steps toward achieving a balance between privacy and national security concerns. We ask that the Judiciary Committee consider this legislation and report it favorably as soon as is practical. For more information, please contact ACLU’s Michelle Richardson, mrichardson@dcaclu.org, 202/715-0825. Sincerely, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee American Civil Liberties Union American Library Association American Policy Center Association of Research Libraries Bill of Rights Defense Committee Center for American Progress Action Fund Center for Democracy Technology Constitution Project Concerned Foreign Service Officers Defending Dissent Foundation DownsizeDC.org, Inc. Electronic Frontier Foundation Equal Justice Alliance Federation of American Scientists Friends Committee on National Legislation Government Accountability Project Gun Owners of America Japanese American Citizens League League of Women Voters of the United States Liberty Coalition The Multiracial Activist National Security Archive National Lawyers Guild--National Office OMB Watch OpenTheGovernment.org Unitarian Universalist Service Committee United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation cc: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee text/html 2008-04-15T11:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1602/49/ April 15, 2008 Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman Hon. Lamar S. Smith, Ranking Minority Member House Committee on the Judiciary 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-6216 Re: National Security Letters Reform Act, H.R. 3189 Dear Chairman Conyers and Ranking Minority Member Smith: The Judiciary Committee will soon consider the bi-partisan National Security Letters Reform Act (H.R. 3189). We write to express our support for this legislation. The PATRIOT Act and Intelligence Authorization Act of FY 2004 drastically expanded the FBI's authority to obtain the business and personal records of Americans by issuing National Security Letters (NSLs). NSLs, which do not require prior judicial approval, can be used to obtain a wide range of documents based upon vague claims that the information is merely relevant to a terrorism investigation. Once the FBI acquires the records with an NSL, it can keep them indefinitely, even when it concludes that the subject of those records is innocent of any crime and is not of intelligence interest. Undeniably, the FBI needs prompt access to some of the types of information currently acquired with NSLs, but the current method of self-policing simply does not work. Reports issued by the office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice in March 2007 and March 2008 documented the drastic expansion in the use of NSLs and their subsequent abuse. The IG’s reports also show that NSLs are increasingly used to obtain records about Americans, making reform all the more important. The NSL Reform Act appropriately addresses the problems uncovered by the Inspector General's reports by establishing statutory safeguards and judicial oversight while protecting privacy concerns and bolstering national security interests. The NSL Reform Act includes many beneficial reforms, some of which we summarize below. First, it would protect Americans’ privacy by requiring that NSLs only be used to obtain records that pertain to suspected terrorists or spies. Thus, it would re-establish the pre-PATRIOT Act requirement that there be specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the records sought pertain to an agent of a foreign power. The bill would also establish reasonable limits on the “gag” that attaches to an NSL, requiring it to be narrowly tailored and limiting it to 30-days, extendable by a court. The bill also provides for a recipient's right to seek judicial review of an NSL issued to it. The bill would require the Attorney General to issue minimization procedures for information obtained with an NSL, and enhance oversight by requiring additional reporting to Congress. We believe this bill takes significant steps toward achieving a balance between privacy and national security concerns. We ask that the Judiciary Committee consider this legislation and report it favorably as soon as is practicable. For more information, please contact Gregory T. Nojeim at the Center for Democracy Technology, 202/637-9800 x113. Sincerely, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee American Civil Liberties Union American Library Association Association of Research Libraries Bill of Rights Defense Committee Center for American Progress Action Fund Center for Democracy Technology Constitution Project Concerned Foreign Service Officers Defending Dissent Foundation DownsizeDC.org, Inc. Electronic Frontier Foundation Federation of American Scientists Friends Committee on National Legislation Government Accountability Project Japanese American Citizens League League of Women Voters of the United States Liberty Coalition The Multiracial Activist National Security Archive OMB Watch Unitarian Universalist Service Committee U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation cc: Members of the House Judiciary Committee text/html 2008-03-18T11:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1601/2/ Groups across Political Spectrum Tell Congress to Include Federal Scientists in Pending Whistleblower BillCongress encouraged to include federal scientists in whistleblower bill Related Links Read the letter urging whistleblower protection for federal scientists (pdf) (javascript:openPDFWindow('jump.jsp?itemID=36970785')) WASHINGTON (March 18, 2008) – Four dozen groups spanning the political spectrum today sent a letter to the Senate urging lawmakers to include federal scientists in pending legislation designed to protect whistleblowers. The coalition of academic, consumer, environmental, government reform and health groups -- which includes the Consumer Federation of America, Common Cause, Federation of American Scientists, Liberty Coalition and Rutherford Institute -- was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Scientists are less inclined to speak out when they have no protection against retaliation, said Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. We must encourage federal scientists to report when research is censored or manipulated. Bringing misconduct to light can help protect American families from unsafe consumer products, unsafe drugs, and a polluted environment. Sometime in the next few weeks the House and Senate are expected to reconcile differences between their versions of the whistleblower bill. In general, both versions strengthen protections for federal workers who report waste, fraud and abuse. But the final bill may not extend those protections to federal scientists who speak out when federal research is distorted or suppressed. The House legislation includes specific protections for scientists, but the Senate version does not. 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, the coalition letter states. 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. (For the letter, go to: www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Groups-Urge-Whistleblower-Protections-for-Scientists.pdf.) Federal scientists need whistleblower protection now more than ever, Grifo said. Over the last few years private groups such as UCS and news organizations have documented what appears to be a growing incidence of political interference in federal science. For example, more than a third of the nearly 3,400 federal scientists at nine agencies who responded to UCS questionnaires since 2005 reported they fear retaliation for openly expressing concerns about their agency's work. The letter's 48 signatories include: American Association of Law Libraries, American Association of University Professors, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Library Association, Association of American Publishers, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Californians Aware, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Inquiry, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Common Cause, Concerned Foreign Service Officers, Conservation Northwest, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Doctors for Open Government, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Essential Information, Ethics in Government Group, Federation of American Scientists, Georgians for Open Government, Government Accountability Project, Health Integrity Project, Justice Through Music, Liberty Coalition, Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Research Center for Women Families, National Women's Health Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, OMB Watch, OpenGovernment.org, PEN American Center, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, The Multiracial Activist, The New Grady Coalition, The Ornithological Council, The Rutherford Institute, The Student Health Integrity Project, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Western Nebraska Resources Council. text/html 2008-05-01T11:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1600/49/ Electronic Border Searches: An Open Letter May 1, 2008 Chairman Bennie G. Thompson Ranking Member Peter T. King United States House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King: We are writing to urge the House Committee on Homeland Security to hold hearings on the Department of Homeland Security's practice of searching and seizing Americans' digital information and electronic devices at U.S. borders. We also urge you to consider legislation to prevent abusive search practices by border agents and protect all Americans against suspicionless digital border inspections. In a free country, the government cannot have unlimited power to read, seize, store and use all information on any electronic device carried by any traveler entering or leaving the nation. This issue is particularly critical in light of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in United States v. Arnold, which permits customs officials to search laptop computers at the border without any suspicion or cause.1 Despite reassurances that border patrol agents are well trained and supervised,2 the public has been unable to learn through open government laws which policies and procedures Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has in place to protect travelers against arbitrary or abusive searches. Therefore, Congress must exercise oversight to ensure that border searches are not overly invasive or discriminatory, and establish appropriate safeguards to protect any information collected and maintained by the government. This concern is real. The press has reported disturbing stories of travelers whose electronic devices were seized by the government as they crossed U.S. borders. Ellen Nakashima, Clarity Sought on Electronic Searches, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2008, at A1. In each case, the traveler, a member of an ethnic minority, was detained, and his or her digital device taken by a government agent. In two cases, the digital devices were password-protected corporate laptops. The government's profiles are arbitrary. CBP has said that suspicious travelers include men traveling from Asia between the ages of 20 and 59, a category so broad as to be meaningless. See Editorial, Looking into Laptops, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 11, 2006. The government will not tell the public what it is actually doing. Numerous Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed to learn more about the government's policies and procedures for conducting electronic border searches. Unfortunately, agencies have been slow to respond and have refused to turn over a great deal of important information. This is particularly troubling when CBP is solely responsible for protecting travelers' civil liberties at the border. Everyone's privacy and security are at stake. Your information may be compromised even if you don't travel yourself. The Association of Corporate Travel Executives has warned its members to consider the implications of traveling with confidential corporate information such as personnel records. American law firms that represent companies with offices in other countries are also concerned about their clients' confidences. Any individual's laptop can hold vast amounts of personal information such as financial records, confidential information related to business dealings and client relationships, and communications with friends, family and business associates. Allowing the government unchecked access to such information not only violates privacy and security, but also chills free expression. The Fourth Amendment protects us all against unreasonable government intrusions. But this guarantee means nothing if CBP can arbitrarily search and seize our digital information at the border and indefinitely store and reuse it. We urge the Committee to hold swift hearings on the Department of Homeland Security's border search practices and consider legislative action to ensure that Americans' electronic devices are not subject to abusive, arbitrary or suspicionless searches at the borders. For additional information, please feel free to contact Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien at (415) 436-9333 x. 102. Sincerely, 9/11 Research Project American Association of University Professors American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression American Civil Liberties Union American Immigration Lawyers Association Asian Law Caucus Association of Corporate Travel Executives Professor Matt Blaze, University of Pennsylvania Business Travel Coalition Center for Democracy and Technology Center for Digital Democracy Susan Landau (Sun Microsystems, for informational purposes only) Liberty Coalition Minnesota Coalition on Government Information The Multiracial Activist Muslim Advocates National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Center for Transgender Equality National Coalition Against Censorship Citizen Outreach Project Defending Dissent Foundation Whitfield Diffie (Sun Microsystems, for informational purposes only) Electronic Frontier Foundation Electronic Privacy Information Center EnviroJustice Equal Justice Alliance Fairfax County Privacy Council Feminists for Free Expression Lauren Gelman, Executive Director, Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society Identity Project PEN American Center National Workrights Institute OpenTheGovernment.org People For the American Way Republican Liberty Caucus Professor Ronald L. Rivest, MIT Professor Aviel D. Rubin, Johns Hopkins University Rutherford Institute Professor Fred B. Schneider, Cornell University Bruce Schneier U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation The Woodhull Freedom Foundation 1 United States v. Arnold, No. 06-50581, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8590 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2008). 2 Customs keeps track of the border searches its agents conduct, including the reasons for the searches. This administrative process should help minimize concerns that gas tank searches might be undertaken in an abusive manner. United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 156 (2004) (Breyer, J., concurring). text/html 2008-01-22T11:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1596/49/ January 22, 2008The Honorable Senator Harry ReidSenate Majority LeaderWashington, DC 20515Re: Consumer rights and government accountability organizations unite tocondemn immunity for the telecommunications industryDear 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 UnionCommon CauseCitizens Outreach ProjectCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in WashingtonDoctors for Open GovernmentGovernment Accountability ProjectPublic Interest Research GroupsAmerican Civil Liberties UnionThe Multiracial Activist text/html 2008-01-22T11:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1595/49/ 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) text/html 2008-01-23T12:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1582/49/ January 23, 2008The 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 20510Dear 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, MPHLos 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 DameBest Practices Policy ProjectJoy Zarembka, Director This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Melanie Orhant, Managing Attorney This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Break the Chain CampaignWashington, DC Professor Denise BrennanDepartment of Sociology and AnthropologyGeorgetown 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 JordanDirector, Initiative Against Trafficking in Persons, Global Rights 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, JDLecturer in ResidenceUC 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 MedicineDirector 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) Footnotes1 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) text/html 2007-11-30T05:37:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1576/29/ 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 +1-202-514-1888Web Site: http://www.usdoj.gov/ (http://www.usdoj.gov/) text/html 2007-10-18T12:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1575/49/ Coalition for Patient Privacy October 18, 2007 The Honorable Neil Abercrombie Member of Congress 1502 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-1101 Dear Rep. Abercrombie: Three fourths of the American public want Congress to ensure that our right to health privacy is protected in electronic systems and that electronic health databases and systems are truly secure . Americans have no Federal statutory right to health privacy today. Despite the good intentions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and its “Privacy Rule”, the current regulations leave all Americans’ personal health information completely vulnerable and exposed. State laws, common laws and the Constitution are there for protection. Yet the HIPAA “Privacy Rule” is really a “Disclosure Rule” that authorizes more than 4 million entities to use and disclose an individual’s health information. This disclosure is without the individual’s consent and over their objections. We, the undersigned organizations, urge Congress to establish basic privacy protections this year. Setting national privacy standards is a job for Congress, not unelected agency appointees, who for the most part represent industry. An overwhelming majority of American consumers (86%) are somewhat or very concerned about the health industry’s ability to protect the privacy of personal health information in deploying Electronic Health Records (EHRs). It is imperative to the millions of members of our organizations that NO health IT legislation pass without enforceable basic health privacy rights for all consumers. Alternatively, Congress should pass a comprehensive health privacy bill that ensures consumers the right to control disclosure of their personal health information before passing any Health IT bills. Senator Leahy’s Health Information Privacy and Security Act (HIPSA), S. 1814, is a good example of what is needed to protect our privacy. The private sector, communities, states and federal agencies are racing to build EHR systems without adequate privacy protections. Congress has fallen far behind in protecting Americans’ right to health privacy. We hear about violations and abuses of privacy and of records almost weekly. Current laws do not adequately protect electronic health records, leaving the marketplace for “personal health records” and other products the “gold rush” of Health IT. Companies can now do virtually whatever they want with this sensitive information once consumers provide their information, including selling it in secondary markets. No American should be forced to have his or her information entered into this system. Meanwhile, the President and federal agencies continue to push EHRs via Executive Orders and regulations that ignore what consumers want and Congress intended when it authorized HIPAA. The reality is that Americans’ personal health information currently is accessed and used without first obtaining informed consent. “Informed consent” means that the person whose health is affected must know and understand the risks involved in disclosing the information. “Secondary” uses of our health records, which have nothing to do with improving our health, have become the primary uses of our health records. Researchers are using our most intimate information without informed consent and without requiring state-of-the-art security measures. These trends are unwelcome and dangerous. It is denying Americans opportunities; these practices must be stopped. “Garbage In, Garbage Out.” Without Congressional input or oversight, a national electronic health system will be built that will destroy privacy, and more importantly Americans’ trust in their health care system. While many argue that electronic health records can help improve efficiency, lead to research breakthroughs, and lower the costs of health care, these outcomes are only remotely possible if and when informed consent is required for all uses. When patients do not trust doctors or the health care system to protect their privacy, they withhold information, they delay or avoid care, and they become sicker. One in 8 Americans admit to putting their health at risk by engaging in privacy-protective behavior such as: Avoiding their regular doctorAsking a doctor to alter a diagnosisPaying privately for a testAvoiding tests altogether Without control and trust, patients will not see physicians or use the health care system in an effective manner. Wary health care consumers will drive up costs and increase the danger to others. Further, the data collected and stored will be incomplete and filled with inaccuracies and omissions. Corrupted, incomplete and false data will not enhance or improve medical outcomes or research – it will make them exponentially worse. The proper balance to ensure timely access to medical records for treatment, and preserve patient control of health records, is to allow access in emergencies if consent cannot be obtained. But require patient permission before records are disclosed in all other situations. We urge you to build a foundation for heath IT that is based on the following privacy principles and protections: Recognize that patients have the right to health privacy Recognize that user interfaces must be accessible so that health consumers with disabilities can individually manage their health records to ensure their medical privacy.The right to health privacy applies to all health information regardless of the source, the form it is in, or who handles itGive patients the right to opt-in and opt-out of electronic systems; i.e. the right for patients to give or withhold their consent for the use and disclosure of their health information.Give patients the right to segment sensitive informationGive patients control over who can access their electronic health recordsHealth information disclosed for one purpose may not be used for another purpose before informed consent has been obtainedRequire audit trails of every disclosure of patient informationRequire that patients be notified promptly of suspected or actual privacy breachesEnsure that consumers cannot be compelled to share health information to obtain employment, insurance, credit, or admission to schools, unless required by statuteDeny employers access to employees’ health records before informed consent has been obtainedPreserve stronger privacy protections in state lawsNo secret health databases. Consumers need a clean slate. Require all existing holders of health information to disclose if they hold a patient’s health informationProvide meaningful penalties and enforcement mechanisms for privacy violations detected by patients, advocates, and government regulators In summary, most Americans are “highly concerned” about the privacy of their health information. Without ironclad health privacy protections, a nationwide interoperable health system will fail. Americans simply will NOT trust doctors or the health care system if they do not control access to their most intimate personal information. We urge you to take pro-active steps to safeguard our health privacy and ensure our loved ones are not wrongfully denied opportunities because of an illness or genetic risk of disease. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this urgent problem. Respectfully, The Coalition for Patient Privacy AIDS Action www.aidsaction.org American Association of People with Disabilities www.aapd.org American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists American Chiropractic Association www.acatoday.org American Civil Liberties Union www.aclu.org American Conservative Union www.conservative.org American Psychoanalytic Association www.apsa.org Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law www.bazelon.org Bob Barr (former Congressman R-GA) Citizens for Health www.citizens.org Citizen Outreach Project Clinical Social Work Association www.cswf.org Consumer Action www.consumer-action.org Consumers for Health Care Choices www.chcchoices.org Cyber Privacy Project Doctors for Open Government Ethics in Government Group Fairfax County Privacy Council www.fairfaxcountyprivacycouncil.org Family Research Council www.frc.org Free Congress Foundation www.freecongress.org Georgians for Open Government Gun Owners of America www.gunowners.org Health Administration Responsibility Project, Inc. www.harp.org Just Health (California Consumer Health Care Council) www.justhealthnow.org The Liberty Coalition www.libertycoalition.net The Multiracial Activist www.multiracial.com Microsoft Corporation, Inc. www.microsoft.com The National Center for Transgender Equality www.nctequality.org The National Coalition for Mental Health Professionals and Consumers National Whistleblower Center www.whistleblowers.org The Natural Solutions Foundation www.healthfreedomusa.org The New Grady Coalition Pain Relief Network www.painreliefnetwork.org Patient Privacy Rights Foundation www.patientprivacyrights.org Privacy Activism www.privacyactivism.org Privacy Rights Now Coalition www.privacyrightsnow.org Private Citizen, Inc. www.privatecitizen.org Republican Liberty Caucus www.rlc.org The Student Health Integrity Project (SHIP) TexPIRG www.texpirg.org Thoughtful House Center for Autism www.thoughtfulhouse.org Tolven, Inc. www.tolven.org Tradition, Family, Property, Inc. Universata, Inc. www.universata.com U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation You Take Control, Inc. www.y-t-c.com “Anyone today who thinks the privacy issue has peaked is greatly mistaken…we are in the early stages of a sweeping change in attitudes that will fuel political battles and put once-routine business practices under the microscope.” Forrester Research cc: Every Member of the U.S. House of Representatives Every Member of the U.S. Senate For additional information please contact: Deborah Peel, MD Founder Chair Patient Privacy Rights (O) 512-732-0033 (C) 512-970-9007 dpeelmd@patientprivacyrights.org www.patientprivacyrights.org text/html 2007-07-30T00:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1574/49/ 7/30/07 The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 428 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable John D. Dingell Committee on Energy and Commerce 2125 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Messrs. Chairman, The purpose of this letter is to alert Congress to the opportunity it has to protect the health of the American people by protecting a certain section in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Revitalization Act (S. 1082 and HR 2900), and overriding recent FDA Guidance threatening consumer access to natural therapies. While the sponsors of the FDA Revitalization Act spoke on the Senate floor that the bill holds harmless natural supplements, Senator Durbin’s Food Title (VI) does include an explicit Section (608), “Rules of Construction,” authored by Senators Hatch and Harkin, protecting nutrients and natural supplements already regulated by the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). If Title VI is retained in the Conference Report for the underlying FDA bill, we respectfully request that Section 608 remain in the final bill. This is necessary as the FDA consistently interprets enactments contrary to clear Congressional intent that supplements are to be regulated like foods, not drugs. This, however, is not the only problem facing consumers of Dietary Supplements. Recently FDA issued two draft Guidance’s: the so-called “CAM Products” (Docket No. 2006D-0480) and “Health Claims” (Docket No. 2007D-0125) that also impact DSHEA products. The first tries to create a new regulatory category - without Congressional approval while the second places a heavy burden on proof of health claims. The FDA Guidance’s could have dire and deadly health and freedom consequences since high potency nutrients are a well-demonstrated health protection strategy, which lowers morbidity, mortality and health costs. The undersigned organizations, representing in the aggregate millions of voters, are deeply concerned about the important health freedom assaults facing the people. We urge Congress to take immediate action to reverse these dangerous and potentially lethal regulations. One immediate step would be to adopt the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, mandating FDA approval of Health Claims that have scientific substantiation. Signed, Natural Solutions Foundation Association of American Physicians and Surgeons American Policy Center Multiracial Activist Republican Liberty Caucus DownsizeDC.org, Inc. U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation Body Mind College, Inc. Wahzee.com, Inc. Body Mind Massage Clinic, Inc. Medi-Key Transcription Service, Inc The Prostate90 Foundation Tanager Foundation, Chemical Sensitivity Disorders Assocation Asheville Homeless Network Lotus Health Wellness Fellowship of Christian Love, Inc. Pacific Green Party (Oregon) Riverside Wellness Center Gunderson Food Co-op Global Consciousness Press, Inc. The Schumacher Group Blackstone Massage Therapy Center Healing Traditions Inc. Prosper Natural Sales Allied Wellness Events Michael Eidson Acupuncture and Wellness Center Florida Breast Cancer Resource Network AllSeasons Wellness The Inner Center NOW IF Tree Sound Studios/TreeV Productions Eyes Wide Open International Kery Colvin Cleaning Services Next Step Life coaching Austin Kinesiology and Chriopractic Center Bross, Inc. Washington Rotary Club Orange County Wellness Center New England Holistic Chamber of Commerce East Hawaii Island Volunteers Active in Disaster Beyond Wheat Artisan Bakery Good Energy Nautral Foods,llc Center For Integrative Medicine Natural Food Associates, Connecticut Chapter Marian Center Compromise Committee to SAVE our access to natural supplements Natural Health Concepts Foundation for the Advancement of Cancer Research The Good Medicine Society Celebrate Life Healthy Heart Nutrition Store Living Naturally Unity of Louisville Church Radiant Heart Healing Ministry C C HEATING COOLING Akasha Organics Incredible New Technologies Home Oriented Un-Schooling Experience in Montana Helena Area Learning co-Opportunities Unschooling-Spirituality Spirituality, Unschooling Beyond Montanaunschoolers · Alternative Montana Unschoolers Guaranteed Outcome Marketing, firm Heart of Nature Apothecary Yoga Source Healing Leaves Ministry Environmentally Friendly Options New Beginnings ReeSearch KE and Associates Golden Flocks, INC Aspen Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation Informed Consent Town of Esopus Creative Word Communications A1 Health Depot LLC Center for Homeopathy of Southern Vermont American Standard Company Riverhouse Holdings LLC Candida Support Group GRH, Inc EARTHSONG New Awakenings Community Hermitage of St John the Baptiser Motivational-Ink! Pranic Healers of Portland, Oregon Healing Touch Holistic Health Cynthea's yoga mom's The Learning Clinic Health Marvels Havetotalhealth Blissentials The Institute for Applied Sciences Pathway to Wellness Natural Food Associates (NFA) Madhu Health Services, Inc The Living Way WOW Speaks Out The Guerra Family Esparza Enterprises New Life Treatment Center Heavenly Comforts Communitas: A Center for Health and Transformation, LLC Point of View Productions Heritage Family Chiropractic UNC Charlotte Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC) Bright Beginnings Family Services, Inc. Maranatha Human Services, Inc. PMG LLC Arimathea Foundation Alternative Medical Arts/docevaonline.com Shepherd Valley Waldorf School Occupational Therapy Associates Walt's Photocopy Company Mastery Consulting, LLC The School of Complete Yoga Trinity Wellness Institute Marketing Visions Inc. Senior Tax Advisors Sacred Moments Ministry Divine Feminine Institute Talking Hearts Grand Medicine Hypnotherapy and Naturopathy Associates Inc. Trinity Wellness Institute Komyozan Dojo Life in Balance St. Louis Mannaplanners Nutritional Pathways OpenHouse Direct Inc BellWether Group of 4Life Research Aham Prema The Whole Life Network, Inc Healthy Solutions LLC TLC Holistic Wellness PC Nevada Holistic Chamber of Commerce Program in Psychiatry and the Law, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School text/html 2007-10-23T21:18:27+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1570/61/ I wanted to comment on this as it will be mentioned over and over again by the Democratic National Committee (as it was 4 years ago and in elections prior). In 1998, I contacted Bob Jones University regarding their anti-miscegenationist dating/marriage policy. I received a letter from BJU, which I promptly posted online here: http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1023/49/ (http://multiracial.com/content/view/1023/49/) Then, being the agitator I am, I decided to test their policy and applied for admission - with no intention of attending. Their online application actually asked for both the race of a student AND spouse. I dutifully filled in such data, as the experiment would not work if I didn't. I received the following response: http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1024/49/ (http://multiracial.com/content/view/1024/49/) After posting this online, it was picked up by NPR, LA Times, several wire services and was mentioned in a dozen or so books - and even in testimony by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/te011601sjl.htm (http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/te011601sjl.htm)). As has been the case in the past, the rotten affair is renewed with each election cycle: http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/10/romney_doesnt_g.php (http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/10/romney_doesnt_g.php) http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/10/is_romney_reall.php (http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/10/is_romney_reall.php) http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/bob_jones_university_dean_warm.html (%20%20%20%20*%20http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/bob_jones_university_dean_warm.html) While I don't endorse the sabre-rattling, can't make a decent retraction of her prior support for big-ass wars Senator from New York, I won't be losing sleep if the Freshmen Senator from Illinois wins the nomination. I granted Vice President Gore's campaign permission to use the letters and my name in their PR during his campaign against Gov. Bush, and eventually the DNC started to do so as well - which is fine. But, my permission to use said materials does not constitute an endorsement of certain people either. It is merely factual - and this issue has no legs if idiots like Romney stop kissing the ring at BJU. Further, as an agnostic heathen and long-time nonconformist, and in the interest of full disclosure - I had zero intention of attending BJU. I did, however, intend to cause mischief and create awareness. Mischief managed. P.S. - I spelled it out in greater detail in 2004. See: http://jameslandrith.com/content/view/2257/79/ (http://jameslandrith.com/content/view/2257/79/) text/html 2007-10-19T00:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1569/2/ DNC: Romney Doesn't Get It: Bob Jones Endorsements About Principle, Not Politics WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is being issued by the Democratic National Committee: Mitt Romney tried to smooth talk reporters yesterday about why he decided to turn a blind eye to the racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, and homophobic statements and policies of Bob Jones III and Bob Jones University when he accepted their endorsements. According to Romney, he's happy to have Bob Jones III's support because we have the same things we want to fight for on issue after issue and because We love this country. We love families. (Boston Herald, 10/19/07; AP, 10/18/07) Romney failed to say whether the issues he agrees with Jones on include Jones' divisive rhetoric and the university's shameful history of denying admission to African-American students, banning interracial dating until 2000, refusing to honor Martin Luther King, publishing textbooks that called Catholicism a false religion, and banning gay alumni from campus. Despite the school's history, and despite the fact that Bob Jones III himself calls Catholicism and Mormonism cults which call themselves Christian, Romney decided that his political ambitions are more important than sending a clear message that those policies and statements are wrong. Loving our country and families means respecting every American and our differences, not discriminating against them and not putting politics ahead of our country by embracing organizations or individuals who support divisive policies, said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. It is time for Mitt Romney to give a clear answer about precisely which racist, discriminatory and anti-gay policies and statements he is so happy to be associated with. Mitt Romney Proud of Bob Jones Endorsements... Romney Happy To Have Jones Endorsement. Romney on endorsement from Bob Jones III: We love this country. We love families. We want marriage before babies...We have the same things we want to fight for on issue after issue, so I'm happy to have his support. (AP, 10/18/07) Romney: Bob Jones Endorsements A Positive Step. Romney, making his first public appearance of the campaign in Columbus, told reporters that Jones' backing was a positive step in his effort to reach out to evangelicals who disagree with Mormon doctrine, although he conceded that he didn't know whether it's 100 percent resolved yet that evangelical voters would support a Mormon for president. (Columbus Dispatch, 10/18/07) Romney South Carolina Campaign Manager Proud of Jones' Support. Terry Sullivan, Romney's South Carolina campaign manager, said he doesn't think Jones' endorsement will turn off voters who may be wary of Jones' religious views. We're proud to have the support of Dr. Jones and look forward to his help in delivering Gov. Romney's conservative message to the voters, he said. (Greenville News, 10/16/07) What Exactly is He Proud Of? BOB JONES III'S ANTI-CATHOLIC, ANTI-MORMON RHETORIC Bob Jones III Protested Catholicism, Other Religions. In 1994, Jones III protested an agreement between evangelicals and Catholics in the south, saying that The Christian Church has as much reason to separate from Catholicism as it does from Islam, Mormonism, or any other of the world's religious deceptions. The university's website referred to Catholicism as a cult which calls itself Christian. Former university president and founder Bob Jones Jr. called the Pope the antichrist and referred the University's collection of Catholic art as false, saying that There is not a lot of good Protestant Christian painting. I had to buy Catholic pictures, despite the falsehoods in them. (Associated Press, 4/8/94, 9/11/87; Christian Century, 5/5/93; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 6/30/91; Arizona Star, 3/7/00) Jones III Reposts Anti-Catholic, Anti-Mormon Column on School Website. After it was reported that the message referring to Catholicism and Mormonism as cults in the President's Corner of the Bob Jones University website was removed, school President Bob Jones III reposted the attacked. Jones III reposted the comments to show that nothing had changed about his views, he said. Reports about the removal were totally misleading Jones III said, because they implied the removal was for suspect reasons or because of embarrassment or cowardice. In order to leave no doubt in anyone's mind of the university's integrity and absolute commitment to its biblical principles, the article in question has been reposted, Jones III said. (Associated Press, 3/16/00) -- Website Statement: The statement which Jones III removed and then reposted stated the following: The diminution of evangelistic enterprise to cults which call themselves Christian, including Catholicism and Mormonism, is frightening. (Associated Press, 3/16/00) Bob Jones Textbooks Condemn Catholicism. Bob Jones University's textbooks speak out against Catholicism. One book states that Luther and other Protestant reformers exposed the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism that had clouded God's truth for centuries. A fifth-grade social studies book produced by the school said that Roman Catholics practice a false religion (San Francisco Chronicle, 12/17/96; Virginian Pilot and Ledger Star, 3/19/93) BOB JONES UNIVERSITY'S RACIST HISTORY Bob Jones University Lost Tax-Exempt Status Because of Racial Discrimination. Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in 1970 for refusing to admit African-Americans. The school then changed its policy but still prohibited any interracial dating or marriage. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court supported an IRS decision to remove tax-exempt status from the school for its dating policy, which included rules such as students who date outside their own race will be expelled. (The Tax Lawyer, Winter 1984; World News Digest, 5/27/83) University Still Banned Interracial Dating in 1998. In 1998, James Landrith, who is white, tried to apply to the school even though he is married to an African American woman. According to NPR, Landrith received this response to his application: I noticed on your application that you are interracially married. Bob Jones University does not endorse this. It would be no problem for you to be a student here as long as your wife was not or vice versa. (NPR, 4/15/99) Bob Jones University Dropped Ban on Interracial Dating in 2000. On Larry King Live in March 2000, Bob Jones III said that the university had dropped the ban on interracial dating as of March 3, 2000. Jones said the national scrutiny the school has received since Bush's appearance led to the decision to drop the policy. Jones III also said that the foundation for the ban was still true -- that God made the races separate for his own purpose, and it is wrong to break down the barriers God erected, that it could lead to dangerous 'one-worldism,' just like globalism ... according to the Globe and Mail, but that students and alumni were coming under too much criticism for the policy. The ban was put in place in the 1950s, when an Asian family threatened to sue the school after their son, a student there, almost married a white student. (Larry King Live, 3/3/00; Associated Press, 3/5/00; Globe and Mail, 3/9/00) -- Interracial Dating Still Requires Parental Permission. Three days after announcing that the ban on interracial dating was dropped from school policy, BJU President Bob Jones III announced that students must tell their parents if they become involved in an interracial relationship. We will carry out the will of your parents, Jones III said at the school's chapel service. They will need to have a say in this. The new policy says that parents must send a letter to the dean of men or women approving the relationship before the school will allow it. Jones also said that most people disapprove of interracial dating and marriage. I think that's evidenced by the fact that so few people are interracially married, Jones said to students. When you date interracially or marry interracially, it cuts you off from people. (Associated Press, 3/7/00) Bob Jones University Refused to Honor Martin Luther King, Jr. According to a former student of Bob Jones University, the school refused to fly the campus flag at half-mast after Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, and the president referred to King as an apostate, one who abandons the Christian faith. (Chicago Tribune, 6/4/92) BOB JONES UNIVERSITY IS ANTI-GAY Bob Jones University Threatened to Arrest Gay Alumni. In October 1998, Wayne Mouritzen, a retired minister and Bob Jones University graduate, received a letter from university officials telling him to not return to the school because he is gay. The letter from the school's dean said that as long as you are living as a homosexual, you, of course, would not be welcome on the campus and would be arrested for trespassing if you did visit. Bob Jones spokesman Jonathan Pait said the policy applies only to graduates, and also covers cult members, unrepentant criminals, or other alumni who are believed to have strayed from the school's teachings. We can't tell our alumni what they can and can't believe, Pait said. But we can say, 'You've made your decisions; please do not return.' The school did allow those banned alumni to visit its religious art gallery so the gallery does not lose its tax-exempt status. (Boston Globe, 10/24/98; Christianity Today, 12/7/98) FLASHBACK: Romney Opposed Discrimination Against Gays. Romney said, 'I'm not in favor of discrimination. I do not oppose and I very much support equal opportunity in education, equal opportunity in employment, in housing and so forth for gay people.' He added that as Governor one of his cabinet members was gay. Romney's statement of support for 'equal opportunity in employment' might serve to remind his Democratic critics that he once was a supporter of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act during an earlier, more moderate, period of his career but has more recently become an opponent of the federal legislation which would protect gays and lesbians from employment-based discrimination. (ABCNews.com, 10/10/07) Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, http://www.democrats.org (http://www.democrats.org/). This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. SOURCE Democratic National Committee text/html 2007-10-18T12:00:00+01:00 http://multiracial.com/site http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1568/2/ DNC: Is Romney REALLY Bragging About Bob Jones Endorsements? WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was issued today by the Democratic National Committee: Apparently, smooth-talking Mitt Romney is so desperate to win over the extreme right wing of the Republican Party that he is willing to turn a blind eye to the racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, and anti-gay policies of Bob Jones University and its leadership. Romney was in Columbus, Ohio yesterday bragging about this week's endorsements from Bob Jones University Dean Robert Taylor and chancellor Bob Jones III, calling their support a positive step. [Columbus Dispatch, 10/18/07] Earlier this week, Romney's campaign manager in South Carolina said the campaign was proud to have the support of Dr. Jones. [Greenville News, 10/16/07] Embracing Bob Jones University and Bob Jones III is hardly something to be proud of. Not only did Bob Jones University lose its tax-exempt status because of its discriminatory policies, but Bob Jones III himself has a history of disturbing statements. In a President's Corner column posted on the school's website, Jones III called Catholicism and Mormonism cults which call themselves Christian. After the school removed the post, Jones III reportedly ordered it reposted in order to avoid giving anyone the impression that he had changed his views. [Associated Press, 3/16/00] Bob Jones University refused to admit African-American students, banned interracial dating until 2000, refused to honor Martin Luther King, published fifth grade textbooks that called Catholicism a false religion, and banned gay alumni from campus--particularly noteworthy considering Romney's statement just last week that he opposed discrimination against gay people. In Columbus, Romney sidestepped questions about whether he agrees with those policies and rhetoric, saying the questions were not really relevant today. [Columbus Dispatch, 10/18/07] If smooth-talking Mitt Romney is so proud to be endorsed by Bob Jones and the school's leadership, he should be able to tell the American people whether he supports their despicable rhetoric and policies and whether he would allow the school to receive federal funds, said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. He may be desperate to win over extremists in the right wing of his Party, but his failure to be straightforward about which racist, discriminatory and anti-gay policies and statements he is proud to be associated with speaks volumes about his campaign. Mitt Romney Proud of Bob Jones Endorsements... Romney: Bob Jones Endorsements A Positive Step. Romney, making his first public appearance of the campaign in Columbus, told reporters that Jones' backing was a positive step in his effort to reach out to evangelicals who disagree with Mormon doctrine, although he conceded that he didn't know whether it's 100 percent resolved yet that evangelical voters would support a Mormon for president. [Columbus Dispatch, 10/18/07] Romney South Carolina Campaign Manager Proud of Jones' Support. Terry Sullivan, Romney's South Carolina campaign manager, said he doesn't think Jones' endorsement will turn off voters who may be wary of Jones' religious views. We're proud to have the support of Dr. Jones and look forward to his help in delivering Gov. Romney's conservative message to the voters, he said. [Greenville News, 10/16/07] What Exactly is He Proud Of? BOB JONES III'S ANTI-CATHOLIC, ANTI-MORMON RHETORIC Bob Jones III Protested Catholicism, Other Religions. In 1994, Jones III protested an agreement between evangelicals and Catholics in the south, saying that The Christian Church has as much reason to separate from Catholicism as it does from Islam, Mormonism, or any other of the world's religious deceptions. The university's website referred to Catholicism as a cult which calls itself Christian. Former university president and founder Bob Jones Jr. called the Pope the antichrist and referred the University's collection of Catholic art as false, saying that There is not a lot of good Protestant Christian painting. I had to buy Catholic pictures, despite the falsehoods in them. [Associated Press, 4/8/94, 9/11/87; Christian Century, 5/5/93; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 6/30/91; Arizona Star, 3/7/00] Jones III Reposts Anti-Catholic, Anti-Mormon Column on School Website. After it was reported that the message referring to Catholicism and Mormonism as cults in the President's Corner of the Bob Jones University website was removed, school President Bob Jones III reposted the attacked. Jones III reposted the comments to show that nothing had changed about his views, he said. Reports about the removal were totally misleading Jones III said, because they implied the removal was for suspect reasons or because of embarrassment or cowardice. In order to leave no doubt in anyone's mind of the university's integrity and absolute commitment to its biblical principles, the article in question has been reposted, Jones III said. [Associated Press, 3/16/00] -- Website Statement: The statement which Jones III removed and then reposted stated the following: The diminution of evangelistic enterprise to cults which call themselves Christian, including Catholicism and Mormonism, is frightening. [Associated Press, 3/16/00] Bob Jones Textbooks Condemn Catholicism. Bob Jones University's textbooks speak out against Catholicism. One book states that Luther and other Protestant reformers exposed the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism that had clouded God's truth for centuries. A fifth-grade social studies book produced by the school said that Roman Catholics practice a false religion [San Francisco Chronicle, 12/17/96; Virginian Pilot and Ledger Star, 3/19/93] BOB JONES UNIVERSITY'S RACIST HISTORY Bob Jones University Lost Tax-Exempt Status Because of Racial Discrimination. Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in 1970 for refusing to admit African-Americans. The school then changed its policy but still prohibited any interracial dating or marriage. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court supported an IRS decision to remove tax-exempt status from the school for its dating policy, which included rules such as students who date outside their own race will be expelled. [The Tax Lawyer, Winter 1984; World News Digest, 5/27/83] University Still Banned Interracial Dating in 1998. In 1998, James Landrith, who is white, tried to apply to the school even though he is married to an African American woman. According to NPR, Landrith received this response to his application: I noticed on your application that you are interracially married. Bob Jones University does not endorse this. It would be no problem for you to be a student here as long as your wife was not or vice versa. [NPR, 4/15/99] Bob Jones University Dropped Ban on Interracial Dating in 2000. On Larry King Live in March 2000, Bob Jones III said that the university had dropped the ban on interracial dating as of March 3, 2000. Jones said the national scrutiny the school has received since Bush's appearance led to the decision to drop the policy. Jones III also said that the foundation for the ban was still true -- that God made the races separate for his own purpose, and it is wrong to break down the barriers God erected, that it could lead to dangerous 'one-worldism,' just like globalism ... according to the Globe and Mail, but that students and alumni were coming under too much criticism for the policy. The ban was put in place in the 1950s, when an Asian family threatened to sue the school after their son, a student there, almost married a white student. [Larry King Live, 3/3/00; Associated Press, 3/5/00; Globe and Mail, 3/9/00] -- Interracial Dating Still Requires Parental Permission. Three days after announcing that the ban on interracial dating was dropped from school policy, BJU President Bob Jones III announced that students must tell their parents if they become involved in an interracial relationship. We will carry out the will of your parents, Jones III said at the school's chapel service. They will need to have a say in this. The new policy says that parents must send a letter to the dean of men or women approving the relationship before the school will allow it. Jones also said that most people disapprove of interracial dating and marriage. I think that's evidenced by the fact that so few people are interracially married, Jones said to students. When you date interracially or marry interracially, it cuts you off from people. [Associated Press, 3/7/00] Bob Jones University Refused to Honor Martin Luther King, Jr. According to a former student of Bob Jones University, the school refused to fly the campus flag at half-mast after Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, and the president referred to King as an apostate, one who abandons the Christian faith. [Chicago Tribune, 6/4/92] BOB JONES UNIVERSITY IS ANTI-GAY Bob Jones University Threatened to Arrest Gay Alumni. In October 1998, Wayne Mouritzen, a retired minister and Bob Jones University graduate, received a letter from university officials telling him to not return to the school because he is gay. The letter from the school's dean said that as long as you are living as a homosexual, you, of course, would not be welcome on the campus and would be arrested for trespassing if you did visit. Bob Jones spokesman Jonathan Pait said the policy applies only to graduates, and also covers cult members, unrepentant criminals, or other alumni who are believed to have strayed from the school's teachings. We can't tell our alumni what they can and can't believe, Pait said. But we can say, 'You've made your decisions; please do not return.' The school did allow those banned alumni to visit its religious art gallery so the gallery does not lose its tax-exempt status. [Boston Globe, 10/24/98; Christianity Today, 12/7/98] FLASHBACK: Romney Opposed Discrimination Against Gays. Romney said, 'I'm not in favor of discrimination. I do not oppose and I very much support equal opportunity in education, equal opportunity in employment, in housing and so forth for gay people.' He added that as Governor one of his cabinet members was gay. Romney's statement of support for 'equal opportunity in employment' might serve to remind his Democratic critics that he once was a supporter of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act during an earlier, more moderate, period of his career but has more recently become an opponent of the federal legislation which would protect gays and lesbians from employment-based discrimination. [ABCNews.com, 10/10/07] Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, http://www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. SOURCE Democratic National Committee