| |
A blog of all section with no images
|
Press Releases Sent By TMA and Coalition Partners
|
|
Written by Coalition
|
|
Tuesday, 17 August 2010 |
WASHINGTON - August 17 - The American Civil Liberties Union and a broad coalition of religious, political, human rights and civil rights groups today called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to immediately adopt a set of proposed standards aimed at eradicating sexual assault in the nation's prisons.
The standards, issued over a year ago by the blue-ribbon, bipartisan National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC), would, if adopted by Holder, provide an important guide for corrections professionals to eliminate sexual abuse in their facilities and measure the effectiveness of their efforts. The coalition previously called on Holder to adopt the standards in a letter sent last week.
"The commission's proposed standards merely put into words what the Constitution already requires," said Amy Fettig, staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project. "Prison officials have a constitutional obligation to provide prisoners with protection against violence and sexual abuse, and Attorney General Holder should implement the standards without delay."
The proposed standards would also help hold corrections officials accountable by helping reform-minded officials indentify their facilities' strengths and weaknesses while ensuring that those who continue to deny the high incidence of sexual abuse of prisoners are no longer able to minimize the extent of the problem.
The proposed standards also include important provisions which would make it easier for prison rape victims seeking their day in court to file lawsuits challenging their inhumane treatment. Since the 1996 passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), victims are forced to exhaust the internal complaint processes of their correctional institution before filing a lawsuit – processes that are often comprised of arbitrary rules that are impossible for prisoners to navigate.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than 60,000 prisoners – one of every 20 – were sexually assaulted last year. The problem is even worse in juvenile institutions, where one in eight juvenile detainees were victims of sexual assault last year.
"There is a deeply ingrained culture of acceptance when it comes to prison rape in too many prisons and jails across the country," said Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the ACLU National Prison Project, who testified before NPREC and served on a committee of experts that helped develop the standards. "The proposed standards are a milestone in the long battle to end a shameful era of rampant violence and abuse within our nation's prisons and there is no excuse for the Attorney General's delay in adopting them."
The proposed standards were issued by NPREC after a comprehensive study of the issues surrounding prison rape, including site visits, public hearings and consultations with corrections experts, academics, survivors of sexual abuse in detention, health care providers and others.
According to the coalition's letter, while many corrections leaders strongly support the proposed standards, some officials have exaggerated the cost of implementing the basic measures outlined in the proposed standards. Cash-strapped states like California and Oregon have already begun to implement the standards without substantial additional costs. And the cost of failing to address the problem of prison rape is huge – one state prison system, for example, recently paid $100 million after more than 10 years of expensive and protracted litigation, to settle lawsuits filed by women who were sexually abused by staff at a women's facility.
The ACLU today is also calling on Congress to pass the Prison Abuse Remedies Act, which would eliminate barriers created by PLRA for all prisoners seeking protection of their rights in federal court.
"The Prison Abuse Remedies Act is currently sitting idle before Congress. Passage of this bill could protect millions of our nation's prisoners from unnecessary suffering," said Jennifer Bellamy, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "This country currently incarcerates over 2 million Americans in increasingly abusive conditions. We cannot continue to leave them without recourse. Congress should pass the Prison Abuse Remedies Act before this legislative session is up."
Along with the ACLU, the letter sent to Holder urging adoption of the NPREC standards was signed by a wide array of organizations from across the political spectrum, including Prison Fellowship, the American Conservative Union, Focus on the Family, the Southern Baptist Convention, The Sentencing Project, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Immigrant Justice Center.
A copy of the letter is available online at: www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/coalition-letter-attorney-general-holder-prison-rape-elimination-act-prea-standards ### The ACLU conserves America's original civic values working in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the United States by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Be first to comment this article |  Add as favourites (28) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 158
|
|
|
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
|
|
Written by Coalition
|
|
Monday, 02 August 2010 |
|
August 2, 2010 The Honorable Eric Holder Attorney General, United States of America U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Dear Attorney General Holder, We represent a broad array of religious, political, human rights, and civil rights groups united in our dedication to stopping rape in our prisons. Many of us were part of the extraordinarily diverse coalition of organizations and citizens that helped develop the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), and worked to secure its unanimous passage in 2003. At this moment, standards to eradicate sexual assault in prisons await your approval. We urge you to make a priority of completing your review and adopt the standards as swiftly as possible. The magnitude of sexual abuse in our prisons is appalling. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that more than 60,000 prisoners, one of every twenty inmates, were sexually assaulted during the previous year. The scandal is even worse at juvenile institutions, where one in eight juvenile detainees were victims of sexual assault during a 12-month period. It is an abomination that the government does not protect individuals in its custody from sexual violence. Being raped in prison is devastating physically and emotionally for victims, and the negative consequences continue long after they finish their sentences and return to the community. For each day that the standards are delayed, more men and women - and, yes, boys and girls - will be raped. PREA established a Commission to assess the problem and find solutions. The Commission was tasked with developing standards to guide corrections leaders in effective ways to prevent prison rapes, and to hold those officials accountable for achieving results. Last year the Commission released its proposed standards after conducting a comprehensive study of the issues surrounding prison rape. It reviewed existing research, held site visits and public hearings across the country, formed expert committees, and consulted with corrections practitioners, academics, survivors of sexual abuse in detention and their advocates, legal experts, and health care providers. The Commission consulted with the nation’s leading corrections experts at every step of this thorough and responsible review. The Commission distilled what it learned from this exhaustive process into the proposed standards. Those standards will provide an important guide for corrections professionals to eliminate sexual abuse in their facilities and to measure the effectiveness of their efforts. The standards will also help hold corrections officials accountable. Such accountability is vitally important; it will help reform-minded officials identify their facilities’ strengths and weaknesses, while ensuring that those who still deny the high incidence of sexual abuse of inmates no longer are able to minimize the problem. While many corrections leaders strongly support the standards, some officials have exaggerated the cost of implementing these basic measures. These officials ignore the fact that California andOregon, both cash-strapped states with budget crises, have begun to implement the standards without substantial additional costs. More important, they ignore the huge costs of failing to address prisoner rape. For example, one state prison system recently paid $100 million, after more than ten years of expensive litigation, to settle law suits by women who were abused by staff at a women’s facility. Implementation of the Commission’s recommendations will be cost-effective and will help corrections agencies meet their legal duty to protect inmates who have been placed in their care. We recognize that sexual abuse in detention is an issue of tremendous concern to you and the Department of Justice. We strongly endorse the proposed standards, and respectfully ask you to make them binding at the earliest date possible. Sincerely,
Pat Nolan Vice President Prison Fellowship David A. Keene Chairman, Board of Directors American Conservative Union Tom McClusky Senior Vice President Family Research Council Action Tom Minnery Senior Vice President Government and Public Policy Focus on the Family Dr. Richard Land President The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission Southern Baptist Convention Galen Carey Director of Government Affairs National Association of Evangelicals Greg Mitchell The Mitchell Firm Penny Nance CEO Concerned Women for America Grover Norquist Gary L. Bauer President American Values United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society Roland C. Warren President The National Fatherhood Initiative The Sentencing Project
Zena D. Crenshaw Executive Director and Board Member POPULAR, Inc. – Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored John W. Whitehead President The Rutherford Institute Dr. Andrew D. Jackson Deputy Director National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. Alliance For Patient Safety.org The Aleph Institute
National Association of Social Workers
Justice and Witness Ministries/United Church of Christ
American Legislative Exchange Council
James Landrith Founder The Multiracial Activist Don Racheter, PhD
Just Detention International
Open Society Policy Center National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.
AdvoCare, Inc.
Prison Ministry Task Force, Episcopal Diocese of Maryland
Rev. Jim Wallis President and CEO Sojourners Hilary O. Shelton Director, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy American Civil Liberties Union
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN)
The Rebecca Project
National Immigrant Justice Center Human Rights Watch Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (24) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 39 |
|
|
Current Issue
|
|
Written by Alvaro Vargas Llosa
|
|
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 |
|
Immigration, The Right Against the Right
May 26, 2010
Alvaro Vargas Llosa
WASHINGTON—The immigration debate that will have lasting consequences is not the one between the left and the right but the one taking place within the ranks of conservatives in the United States and around the world. A few days ago, during a visit to a school in Silver Spring, Md., Michelle Obama was confronted by a 7-year-old girl who asked her why the president “is taking everybody away that doesn’t have papers.” With Mexican First Lady Margarita Zavala next to her, Obama responded, “That’s something we have to work on, right?” The girl produced a devastating rejoinder: “But my mom doesn’t have any papers.” The anti-immigration right, led by radio personality Rush Limbaugh, accused the White House of staging the exchange, claiming the girl had botched the delivery because she was supposed to say “Arizona” rather than “Obama.” Limbaugh was implying that it was a stunt to obtain sympathy against that state’s recent anti-immigration law. The pro-immigration camp in the Republican Party, meanwhile, sidestepped questions about the incident, avoiding confrontation with the nativists but maintaining enough distance to signal a more moderate position. This anecdote illustrates the tension within the right at large. Sen. John McCain, who proposed giving millions of undocumented foreigners a path to legalization during the George W. Bush administration, is scared of losing a primary against an anti-immigration candidate in Arizona, where the recent law is popular among conservatives. McCain’s lukewarm support for a law he intimately dislikes is very telling about the relative strength of the anti-immigration forces within the party. The chasm within the right goes back a century. The restrictive laws of the 1920s, a watershed in immigration history, saw a split between nativist Republicans and Southern Democrats, on the one hand, and the business community, which wanted immigrant labor, on the other. The intellectual right, including Walter Lippmann, was largely pro-immigration. When Ronald Reagan, a pro-immigration conservative, gave amnesty to 3 million immigrants in 1986, he had to include in the law sanctions against employers. This reflected the pressure from the anti-immigration right. In the 1990s, Proposition 187, a California ballot initiative that would have denied public services to undocumented immigrants, became a flashpoint of the conservative-against-conservative fight. Its most prominent backer was Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, but several GOP heavyweights opposed it. Jack Kemp and William Bennett put out a statement saying, “The vast majority of immigrants hold principles which the Republican Party warmly embraces: an entrepreneurial spirit and self-reliance, hostility to government intervention, strong family values and deeply-rooted religious faith.” In recent years, the debate pitted Bush, McCain and other pro-immigrant Republicans against the likes of Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Today, the debate rages on among conservatives. The Wall Street Journal is a staunch supporter of immigration, while Sean Hannity, a Fox News talk show host, is a ferocious critic. This is not just an American debate. In Spain, conservatives are equally divided. The regional government of Madrid headed by Popular Party notable Esperanza Aguirre, with help from her immigration secretary, Javier Fernandez-Lasquetty, and adviser Mauricio Rojas, a former Swedish parliamentarian of Chilean origin, has tried to push the party toward embracing immigration. There is strong resistance from those who vilify the decision by the Spanish government to legalize 700,000 immigrants in 2005. In Britain’s Conservative Party, a gulf separates pro-immigration figures such as former Chancellor of the Exchequer Kenneth Clarke and Oxford University Chancellor and former Hong Kong Gov. Chris Patten, from anti-immigrant spokesmen such as former diplomat Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatchUK. I am not implying there is no debate among the left. The division among liberals in the United States is old too. The unions opposed immigration for decades. They were instrumental in ending the Bracero Program in the 1960s, as was liberal TV journalist Edward Murrow, who devoted a sensational report, “Harvest of Shame,” to denigrating the work-permit program. Many on the left, furthermore, support immigration for reasons related to collectivist “multiculturalism” rather than to the free movement of people. But today, if the division were less profound on the right, immigration reform would pass. It is the type of issue that requires a broad consensus. Yet the paramount factor today is that a faction of the right has forcefully held its ground against anything that smacks of legalizing the people who live in the shadows and creating an avenue for significant future inflows. Until the debate among conservatives is settled, no meaningful reform is possible.
Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Send email
Alvaro Vargas Llosa is Senior Fellow of The Center on Global Prosperity at The Independent Institute. He is a native of Peru and received his B.S.C. in international history from the London School of Economics. His weekly column is syndicated worldwide by the Washington Post Writers Group, and his Independent Institute books include Lessons From the Poor: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit, The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty, and Liberty for Latin America.
Full Biography and Recent Publications
New from Alvaro Vargas Llosa!
LESSONS FROM THE POOR: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit
Half the people in the world live on two dollars or less per day and roughly 600 million live on no more than one dollar per day. With thousands of international relief organizations, strategic government programs, and billions of dollars in foreign aid, why do so many underdeveloped countries remain unable to grow their economies beyond mere survival? Learn More »» |
Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (36) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 228 |
|
|
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
|
|
Written by Coalition
|
|
Wednesday, 12 May 2010 |
|
May 12, 2010
Howard A. Schmidt
Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Schmidt,
We the undersigned organizations write to request a meeting with you to discuss our interests in the nation’s plans for cybersecurity. We share President Obama’s concerns regarding the security of the Internet and our electrical and technology infrastructure, yet we believe that the right approach to enhanced cybersecurity must incorporate protections of our basic freedoms and constitutional rights.
First, cybersecurity initiatives should be designed in a manner that does not discourage lawful, constitutionally protected activity. Overreaching cybersecurity measures may deter individuals and organizations that rely on the Internet from engaging in First Amendment protected activity such as research, accessing information, collaboration, political participation, fundraising, coalition building, campaigns, advocacy, organized dissent, political speech, watchdog actions against government and businesses, freedom of expression, dissemination of information or outreach to constituencies, and more.
Protecting freedom of expression and association should be a paramount concern as our nation develops a cybersecurity policy, and care should be taken to ensure that new policies do not have a chilling effect on the expression of a wide diversity of ideas and points of view or association with others via the Internet. The Internet is a vital source of information for a large and growing number of citizens and is one of the primary platforms for the democratic discussion and debate necessary for a free society. We believe, moreover, that First Amendment rights such as these are integrally connected to privacy, due process, equal protection, and indeed the rights and values protected by the entire Bill of Rights. We would like to discuss these concerns with you, and in particular how they relate to the activities of libraries, independent media, membership organizations, and advocacy groups with an online presence.
For example, we are aware of EINSTEIN 3, an effort led by the Department of Homeland Security and with the assistance of the National Security Agency to secure civilian--‐federal government computer networks from cyber--‐attacks. All Internet traffic to government agency websites could be subject to EINSTEIN 3. The Privacy Impact Assessment for EINSTEIN 3 states the following surveillance:
The goal of EINSTEIN 3 is to identify and characterize malicious network traffic to enhance cybersecurity analysis, situational awareness and security response. It will have the ability to automatically detect and respond appropriately to cyber threats before harm is done, providing an intrusion prevention system supporting dynamic defense.
How will ‘cybersecurity’ and ‘malicious threats’ be defined? What is the legal basis for the government to undertake this program? Who will determine what information will be acquired by the government and under what standard? Will the government be prevented from accessing expressive and associational information unless it is evidence of a crime? Will additional protections be granted for sensitive personal information? Will the program respect the right to anonymous speech? Who will have access to the information once it is collected, and how will it be used and disseminated? Also, how will the information be stored, by whom, and for how long? How will due process rights be established? And how might the evolution of the Internet impact cybersecurity and privacy? The answers to these questions will determine whether the government’s cybersecurity initiatives chill protected First Amendment activities, offend due process, or otherwise infringe on rights.
Second, cybersecurity programs must apply strong Fair Information Practices so that users of digital communications receive robust and effective protections under laws such as the Privacy Act. Information about these initiatives should also be available to the public and subject to the Freedom of Information Act. These and other relevant federal laws should extend to government contractors involved in federal government cybersecurity.
Finally, cybersecurity activity undertaken by the federal government must be carefully monitored. Any policies should be subject to the independent oversight of an empowered and effective Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. This body must be funded sufficiently. And it is critically important that it be staffed with a diverse group of technical, policy, and legal experts to take on the challenges of monitoring federal government activity related to cybersecurity by both civilian and military authority. Cybersecurity efforts should also be subject to rigorous public and congressional reporting.
We believe that President Obama’s commitment to privacy and freedom in his statements regarding cybersecurity reflects the values we express in this letter.1 We are committed to the benefits that a safe, secure, and free Internet have provided to us in meeting the needs of our constituents. A successful cybersecurity effort will be enhanced by practical implementation of these values and collaboration with our organizations to educate online users about strategies to make surfing, shopping, texting, organizing, and engaging in digital communications more secure. Therefore, we are ready and willing to participate in a dialogue with you on these issues at your earliest convenience.
In discussing these issues with you, we seek three things:
(1) greater transparency in cybersecurity decision--‐making,
(2) a role in the decision--‐making process for advocacy organizations that rely on the Internet, and
(3) legal constraints on when, where, and how information may be acquired or viewed in cybersecurity--‐related activities.
To indicate your availability for a meeting with the groups listed below, please contact Lillie Coney, who coordinates the Privacy Coalition, an Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) project in cooperation with organizations including the undersigned. She can be reached at 202-483-1140 x111 or by email at \n
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to a meeting with you on the matters outlined in this letter.
Sincerely,
1. American Civil Liberties Union
2. American Library Association
3. Association of Research Libraries
4. Bill of Rights Defense Committee
5. Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights
6. Center for Media and Democracy
7. Center for Media Justice
8. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
9. Consumer Action
10. Council on American--‐Islamic Relations
11. Cyber Privacy Project
12. DeepTech
13. Defending Dissent Foundation
14. Electronic Privacy Information Center
15. Government Accountability Project
16. Internet Collaboration Coalition
17. JustHealth
18. Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
19. Liberty Coalition
20. Main Street Project
21. Media Alliance
22. Mountain Area Information Network
23. NAACP
24. National Coalition Against Censorship
25. National Lawyers Guild, National Office
26. New America Foundation Open Technology Initiative
27. OpenTheGovernment.org
28. Peace Action
29. Privacy International
30. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
31. Progressive Librarians Guild
32. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
33. Rutherford Institute
34. Special Libraries Association
35. The Multiracial Activist
36. The Special Libraries Association
37. U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
38. UNITED SIKHS
39. World Organization for Human Rights USA
EPIC Board/Advisory Board Members/Others
Bruce Schneier, EPIC Board Member
Pablo Molina, EPIC Board Member
Stefan Brands, EPIC Advisory Board Member
Christine Borgman, EPIC Board Member
Alessandro Acquisti, EPIC Advisory Board Member
David Chaum, EPIC Advisory Board Member
Chip Pitts, EPIC Advisory Board Member
Pamela J. Harbour, EPIC Advisory Board Member
Grayson Barber, EPIC Advisory Board Member
Mary Minow, EPIC Board Member
Former Congressman Bob Barr
Footnotes
1 http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/29/HP/R/19192/Pres+Obama+announces+cyber+security+policy.aspx
Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (9) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 16 |
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 4 of 1603 |
|
|
