June, 17 2010, 02:47pm EDT
House To Hear Testimony On Racial Profiling Today
The
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties will hear testimony today from civil rights groups,
legal scholars and law enforcement officials at a hearing on racial
profiling that will examine law enforcement's use of race, ethnicity,
national origin and religion to determine guilt. The hearing, titled
"Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications in Law
Enforcement Policy," will also set the stage for the upcoming
reintroduction of the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA) by both the House
and the Senate.
WASHINGTON
The
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties will hear testimony today from civil rights groups,
legal scholars and law enforcement officials at a hearing on racial
profiling that will examine law enforcement's use of race, ethnicity,
national origin and religion to determine guilt. The hearing, titled
"Racial Profiling and the Use of Suspect Classifications in Law
Enforcement Policy," will also set the stage for the upcoming
reintroduction of the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA) by both the House
and the Senate.
"Racial
profiling is not only an unfair and un-American policing tactic, it
also erodes community trust and is an ineffective waste of law
enforcement resources," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the American
Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office. "Using race,
ethnicity, national origin or religion to single out people for police
scrutiny does nothing to make us safer, but does a great deal to deepen
racial divides in America. Racial profiling is wrong, unconstitutional
and sends the unacceptable message that some citizens do not deserve
equal protection under the law."
profiling is not only an unfair and un-American policing tactic, it
also erodes community trust and is an ineffective waste of law
enforcement resources," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the American
Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office. "Using race,
ethnicity, national origin or religion to single out people for police
scrutiny does nothing to make us safer, but does a great deal to deepen
racial divides in America. Racial profiling is wrong, unconstitutional
and sends the unacceptable message that some citizens do not deserve
equal protection under the law."
One
of the hearing's witnesses, Salt Lake City Chief of Police Chris
Burbank, is expected to testify on the law recently passed in the
neighboring state of Arizona requiring police to demand "papers" from
people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S.
Law enforcement groups, including Arizona's state police chief's
association, oppose the discriminatory law because it undermines public
safety by diverting scarce security resources toward false threats and
eroding trust between law enforcement and Latinos.
of the hearing's witnesses, Salt Lake City Chief of Police Chris
Burbank, is expected to testify on the law recently passed in the
neighboring state of Arizona requiring police to demand "papers" from
people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S.
Law enforcement groups, including Arizona's state police chief's
association, oppose the discriminatory law because it undermines public
safety by diverting scarce security resources toward false threats and
eroding trust between law enforcement and Latinos.
Last
month, the ACLU and other leading civil rights groups filed a lawsuit
challenging the Arizona law in a federal court in Phoenix. The
extreme law, the groups charge, invites racial profiling because law
enforcement will inevitably rely on their own bias to determine who
they suspect is in the U.S. unlawfully and force anyone who looks or
sounds "foreign" to confirm their identity and citizenship.
month, the ACLU and other leading civil rights groups filed a lawsuit
challenging the Arizona law in a federal court in Phoenix. The
extreme law, the groups charge, invites racial profiling because law
enforcement will inevitably rely on their own bias to determine who
they suspect is in the U.S. unlawfully and force anyone who looks or
sounds "foreign" to confirm their identity and citizenship.
ERPA
was introduced in the House and Senate in 2001, 2004 and 2005, failing
each year to receive a vote. If enacted, ERPA would prohibit any local,
state or federal law enforcement agency or officer from engaging in
racial profiling. It would make
engaging in efforts to eliminate racial profiling a condition for law
enforcement agencies to receive federal money. ERPA would institute a
meaningful enforcement mechanism to ensure that anti-profiling policies
are being followed.
was introduced in the House and Senate in 2001, 2004 and 2005, failing
each year to receive a vote. If enacted, ERPA would prohibit any local,
state or federal law enforcement agency or officer from engaging in
racial profiling. It would make
engaging in efforts to eliminate racial profiling a condition for law
enforcement agencies to receive federal money. ERPA would institute a
meaningful enforcement mechanism to ensure that anti-profiling policies
are being followed.
"Despite
condemnation of racial profiling by leaders from across the political
spectrum, including the president and attorney general, attempts to
pass a comprehensive federal ban have not moved forward," said Jennifer
Bellamy, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Racial
profiling has undermined the respect and trust between law enforcement
and communities of color, which is essential to successful police work.
Race, ethnicity and religion are not and should not be grounds for
criminal suspicion. Congress should move quickly to reintroduce and
pass the End Racial Profiling Act."
condemnation of racial profiling by leaders from across the political
spectrum, including the president and attorney general, attempts to
pass a comprehensive federal ban have not moved forward," said Jennifer
Bellamy, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Racial
profiling has undermined the respect and trust between law enforcement
and communities of color, which is essential to successful police work.
Race, ethnicity and religion are not and should not be grounds for
criminal suspicion. Congress should move quickly to reintroduce and
pass the End Racial Profiling Act."
More information about the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the Arizona law can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/aclu-and-civil-rights-groups-file-legal-challenge-arizona-racial-pr
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Privacy Defenders Decry 'Spy Draft' in Section 702 Renewal Advanced by Senate
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," explained one critic.
Apr 18, 2024
Civil liberties defenders on Thursday decried the U.S. Senate's advancement of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which critics say lawmakers are trying to ram through without protection against warrantless surveillance and with a provision that would effectively make every American a spy whether they like it or not.
Senators voted 67-32 in favor of a cloture motion to begin voting on RISAA, a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expires on Friday. FISA—a highly controversial law that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times—allows warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. citizens but also often sweeps up Americans' communication data in the process.
In a 273-147 vote last week, House lawmakers passed RISAA, including an amendment critics say dramatically expands the government's unchecked surveillance authority by compelling a wide range of individuals and organizations—including businesses and the media—to cooperate in government spying operations.
This so-called "Make Everyone a Spy" clause would allow the attorney general or director of national intelligence to force electronic communication service providers to "immediately provide... all information, facilities, or assistance" the government deems necessary.
"This bill would basically allow the government to institute a spy draft," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, warned Thursday. "It will lead to significant distrust between journalists and sources, not to mention everyone else."
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," he added. "Regardless of whether the end target of the surveillance is a foreigner, it's indisputable that the people the government can enlist to conduct the surveillance are Americans. And what's more, these civilians ordered to spy would be gagged and sworn to secrecy under the law."
In addition to the "Make Everyone a Spy" provision, civil libertarians have sounded the alarm over the House lawmakers' rejection of an amendment that would have added a warrant requirement to the legislation.
Critics accuse Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and colleagues including Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) of trying to rush a vote on RISAA while disingenuously claiming Section 702's powers will expire with the law on Friday. That's a misleading claim, as a national security court earlier this month approved the government's request to continue a disputed surveillance program even if Section 702 lapses.
"There is simply no defense of Majority Leader Schumer and Sen. Warner's duplicity," Sean Vitka, policy director at the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress, said in a statement. "House Intelligence Committee leaders poisoned this bill with one of the most repugnant surveillance expansions in history, and apparently the administration was too busy attacking commonsense privacy protections to notice. They know it, we know it, and now the American people know it."
"There can be no mistake: Sens. Schumer and Warner just helped hand the next president an unspeakably dangerous weapon that will be used against their own constituents," Vitka added. "And there is only one vote left to stop it."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—who
said earlier this week that the bill would dragoon the American people into becoming "an agent for Big Brother"—on Thursday argued that "this issue demands a debate about meaningful reforms, not a rushed vote to rubber-stamp more warrantless government surveillance powers."
In an attempt to tackle the warrantless surveillance issue, Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) on Thursday proposed a RISAA amendment that would require the government to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before accessing Americans' private communications.
However, the amendment contains exceptions to the warrant requirement in the event of unspecified emergencies and cyberattacks.
"If the government wants to spy on the private communications of Americans, they should be required to get approval from a judge—just as our Founders intended," Durbin said in a statement. "Congress has a responsibility to the American people to get this right."
The Biden administration and U.S. intelligence agencies vehemently oppose the Durbin-Cramer amendment. The White House called the measure "a reckless policy choice contrary to the key lessons of 9/11 and not grounded in any constitutional requirement or statute."
"The amendment outright bars the government from gaining access to lawfully collected information using terms associated with U.S. persons," the administration added. "Exceptions to that prohibition are narrow and unworkable. They are insufficient to protect our national security."
On Wednesday, the House also passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, which would prohibit the government from buying Americans' information from data brokers if it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain the data, which includes location and internet records. The Senate will now take up FANFSA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Opposite of Leadership': US Vetoes Palestine's UN Membership
Palestine's permanent observer at the United Nations said the resolution's failure "will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination."
Apr 18, 2024
U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Thursday used the country's veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block Palestine's bid to become a full member of the U.N.
While 12 nations voted in favor of Palestinian membership and two abstained, the United States is one of five countries—along with China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—who have veto authority at the Security Council.
Since Israel launched what the International Court of Justice has said is a "plausibly" genocidal assault of the Gaza Strip in response to a Hamas-led October attack, the Biden administration has blocked three cease-fire resolutions at the Security Council. Under mounting global pressure, the U.S. finally abstained last month, allowing a cease-fire measure to pass.
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, the Biden administration was pressuring other countries to oppose the Palestinian Authority's renewed membership effort so it could possibly avoid a veto, according to leaked cables obtained by The Intercept.
"Take a moment to ponder how isolated Biden has made the U.S.," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, after the veto. "Biden lobbied Japan, South Korea, and Ecuador HARD to oppose the Palestine resolution so that the U.S. wouldn't have to veto. They refused. So Biden cast his fourth veto in seven months (!!) This is the opposite of leadership."
In addition to the nations Parsi highlighted, Algeria, China, France, Guyana, Malta, Mozambique, Russia, Sierra Leone, and Slovenia voted for giving Palestine full U.N. membership while Switzerland and the United Kingdom abstained.
After the vote, U.N. Newsreported on remarks from Riyad Mansour, a U.N. permanent observer for the state of Palestine:
"We came to the Security Council today as an important historic moment, regionally and internationally, so that we could salvage what can be saved. We place you before a historic responsibility to establish the foundations of a just and comprehensive peace in our region."
Council members were given the opportunity "to revive the hope that has been lost among our people" and to translate their commitment towards a two-state solution into firm action "that cannot be maneuvered or retracted," and the majority of council members "have risen to the level of this historic moment, and they have stood on the side of justice and freedom and hope, in line with the ethical and humanitarian and legal principles that must govern our world and in line with simple logic."
"The fact that this resolution did not pass will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination," Mansour added. "We will not stop in our effort. The state of Palestine is inevitable. It is real. Perhaps they see it as far away, but we see it as near, and we are the faithful."
Parsi said that "a Western-friendly senior Global South diplomat" told him of Biden's veto: "Whatever agonizing claim the U.S. had to lead a self-appointed free world has died a very loud public death on the Security Council horseshoe tonight. YOU CAN'T LEAD IF YOU CAN'T LISTEN."
Biden, a Democrat seeking reelection in November, has faced fierce criticism in the United States and around the world for U.S. complicity in Israel's war on Gaza—which Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority, has controlled for nearly two decades. In under seven months, Israeli forces have killed 33,970 Palestinians, injured another 76,770, displaced most of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million population, devastated civilian infrastructure, and severely limited the flow of lifesaving humanitarian assistance.
Israel—which already got $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid before October 7—continues to receive weapons support from the Biden administration, even as a growing chorus of critics, including some Democrats in Congress, argues that the arms transfers violate U.S. and international law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': Columbia Greenlights Police Crackdown on Anti-War Encampment
Even after dozens of students were arrested, hundreds "rushed to take the place of their classmates" and continued the protest.
Apr 18, 2024
The arrests of dozens of Columbia University and Barnard College students on Thursday "galvanized" other supporters of Palestinian rights on the campuses, as hundreds of students occupied the school's western lawn after New York City police filled at least two buses with protesters who had been detained for setting up an encampment.
"Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest," chanted hundreds of students as they marched around the area where organizers had set up a tent encampment early Wednesday morning.
Columbia President Minouche Shafik informed the campus community on Thursday that she had authorized the police to clear the encampment.
As it has been in the past, the school has become a center of anti-war protests—and crackdowns by school officials and the police—since Israel began its bombardment of Gaza in October.
Pro-Palestinian students and alumni have demanded that Columbia divest from companies that profit from Israel's apartheid policies in the occupied Palestinian territories and cancel its dual degree program with Tel Aviv University.
In response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Columbia in November suspended the campus chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine—an action that pushed the New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine Legal to file a lawsuit on behalf of the students last month.
On Thursday, police and Columbia employees took down about 50 tents that had been up for more than a day and disposed of them in trash cans and alleyways—but The New York Times reported later that "demonstrators repitched a couple of tents, and ... recovered the main signage from the encampment as well," while hundreds of students were "still gathered and chanting on the south side of the grass."
The arrests came a day after Shafik testified before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on campus.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose daughter, Isra Hirsi, was among the Barnard students who were suspended on Thursday for participating in the encampment protest, questioned Shafik about whether antisemitic protests have actually taken place at Columbia, prompting the president to say there have not.
"There has been a rise in targeting and harassment against anti-war protesters, because it's been pro-war and anti-war protesters is what it seems, like, correct?" asked Omar.
"Correct," replied Shafik.
On Thursday, Omar posted on social media two images of protesters at Columbia: one from the encampment this week, and one from 1968, when students protested the U.S. war in Vietnam.
New York City Council member Tiffany Cabán was among those who condemned the university's crackdown on the protests on Thursday.
"Suspending and arresting Columbia/Barnard student activists and disbanding student organizations—including Jewish students and organizations—doesn't combat antisemitism or increase safety," said Cabán. "All it does is punish and intimidate those who believe in human rights for Palestinians. Shameful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular