September, 24 2008, 10:58am EDT
Congress Must Set Restrictions on Information Gathering
As
a key House subcommittee met for a hearing entitled "A Report Card on
Homeland Security Information Sharing," the American Civil Liberties
Union today urged subcommittee members to ask the witnesses tough
questions to ensure information sharing benefits our security without
endangering the rights of innocent Americans. The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment heard
testimony from national and local security experts about efforts to
increase information sharing among law enforcement, including the use
o
WASHINGTON
As
a key House subcommittee met for a hearing entitled "A Report Card on
Homeland Security Information Sharing," the American Civil Liberties
Union today urged subcommittee members to ask the witnesses tough
questions to ensure information sharing benefits our security without
endangering the rights of innocent Americans. The House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment heard
testimony from national and local security experts about efforts to
increase information sharing among law enforcement, including the use
of fusion centers.
The ACLU is
concerned that the push to expand domestic police intelligence
authorities without strict and clear guidelines will result in abuse. Indeed,
the ACLU recently published an updated report on intelligence fusion
centers which documents several instances in which state and local
police officials improperly collected and accessed intelligence
information in ways that risk rather than protect our security,
including improper police spying on peace advocates in Maryland and law
enforcement involvement in intelligence data thefts in California.
"Just as fusion
centers expanded law enforcement's opportunities to collect, analyze
and share personal information, Congress has the obligation to make
certain that information is properly protected," said Caroline
Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Law
enforcement needs to share truly relevant information, but gathering
innocuous information about Americans' ordinary activities is merely
throwing more hay onto an already massive stack. That won't make us safer. There
needs to be strict oversight and there needs to be structured, uniform
and comprehensive guidelines that protect our sensitive information."
Adding to growing
concerns over information gathering is a troubling new Bush
Administration proposal to change federal regulations governing
criminal intelligence databases. The proposed changes would ease
restrictions regarding when state and local law enforcement can collect
personal information, and all but remove limitations on when and with
whom they can share this intelligence. One proposed amendment would double the amount of time police agencies can keep information without reviewing it for accuracy. Those
changes, combined with the increased usage of the vaguely defined
suspicious activity reports (which allow law enforcement to monitor and
record banal activity such as "using binoculars"), could mean that
fusion center employees all over the country will have both highly
sensitive and highly ambiguous information at their fingertips.
"The movement to
give law enforcement limitless information sharing power, while
simultaneously relaxing restrictions on information gathering, is a
recipe for disaster," said Michael German, ACLU National Security
Policy Counsel. "Information sharing cannot work if those
doing the gathering and sharing are not forced to abide by bright line
restrictions that forbid the gathering and sharing of sensitive
information about people not suspected of being involved in illegal
activity. Congress has the opportunity now to begin
setting boundaries on increasingly unobstructed information gathering
and sharing practices. Failing to set proper safeguards now could place every American's privacy in jeopardy. Congress has an obligation to prevent information sharing from becoming a privacy-destroying monster."
To read the ACLU's comments on the rule change to 28 CFR Part 23, go to:
https://www.aclu.org/safefree/36595leg20080829.html
To read the ACLU's updated report on fusion centers, go to:
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
In Blow to Koch and Exxon, Federal Judges Say Minnesota Climate Suit Belongs in State Court
"This ruling is a major victory for Minnesota's efforts to hold oil giants accountable for their climate lies, and a major defeat for fossil fuel companies' attempt to escape justice," said one advocate.
Mar 24, 2023
Minnesota on Thursday scored a significant procedural win in a lawsuit seeking to hold Big Oil accountable for lying to consumers about the dangers of burning fossil fuels and thus worsening the deadly climate crisis.
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with a lower court that the state's climate fraud lawsuit against the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, and Koch Industries can proceed in state court, where it was filed.
"This ruling is a major victory for Minnesota's efforts to hold oil giants accountable for their climate lies, and a major defeat for fossil fuel companies' attempt to escape justice," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement.
"Big Oil companies have fought relentlessly to avoid facing the evidence of their climate fraud in state court, but once again judges have unanimously rejected their arguments," said Wiles. "After years of Big Oil's delay tactics, it's time for the people of Minnesota to have their day in court."
Fossil fuel corporations have known for decades that burning coal, oil, and gas generates planet-heating pollution that damages the environment and public health. But to prolong extraction and maximize profits, the industry launched a disinformation campaign to downplay the life-threatening consequences of fossil fuel combustion.
"Big Oil companies have fought relentlessly to avoid facing the evidence of their climate fraud in state court, but once again judges have unanimously rejected their arguments."
Dozens of state and local governments have filed lawsuits arguing that Big Oil's longstanding effort to sow doubt about the reality of anthropogenic climate change—and to minimize the fossil fuel industry's leading role in causing it—has delayed decarbonization of the economy, resulting in widespread harm.
Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, along with 35 municipalities in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Washington, and Puerto Rico, have sued fossil fuel giants in an attempt to hold them financially liable for misleading the public about the destructive effects of greenhouse gas emissions from their products.
"Minnesota is not the first state or local government to file this type of climate change litigation," the Eighth Circuit declared Thursday. "Nor is this the first time" that fossil fuel producers have sought to shift jurisdiction over such suits from state courts to federal court, where they believe they will be more likely to avoid punishment.
"But our sister circuits rejected them in each case," the federal appeals court continued. "Today, we join them."
According to the Center for Climate Integrity, "Six federal appeals courts and 13 federal district courts have now unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry's arguments to avoid climate accountability trials in state courts."
Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice moved for the first time to support communities suing Big Oil by urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Exxon and Suncor Energy's request to review lower court rulings allowing a lawsuit from three Colorado communities to go forward in state court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'He's Threatening Prosecutors With Violence': Trump Warns of 'Death and Destruction' If Indicted
"Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said one ethics watchdog. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."
Mar 24, 2023
Government watchdogs on Friday said former President Donald Trump has potentially placed himself in even more legal jeopardyafter he threatened violence if he's charged in a criminal case in New York.
Shortly after midnight on Friday, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, that potentially "catastrophic" violence would result if he is indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.
"What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a crime, when it is known by all that NO crime has been committed, and also known that potential death and destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our country?" Trump said.
He also called Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg "a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA."
Bragg's office has presented a grand jury with evidence related to alleged hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign, years after the former president allegedly had a sexual relationship with Daniels.
Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said in 2018 that he made a $130,000 payment to Daniels. He was reimbursed in 2017 by the Trump Organization.
The former president has made several public statements about the case against him in recent days, saying last weekend that he expected to be indicted on Tuesday and calling for a "protest" in New York, and posting an image in social media on Thursday showing Trump holding a baseball bat next to Bragg's head.
His call for "death and destruction" is his most explicit statement about potential violence, said critics including government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
"He's not being subtle, he's threatening prosecutors with violence... Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said CREW, referring to Trump's encouragement of his supporters to attend the rally at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 that turned into a violent insurrection aimed at overturning his election loss. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."
The group added that Trump's threats of violence "are admissible in court."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) called on Republicans to clearly "condemn and oppose" Trump's calls for violence, to avoid another violent uprising in his defense.
"Donald Trump's incitement of violence is more direct, explicit, dangerous now than it was before January 6th," said Beyer. "Republican leaders cannot ignore this or wish it away."
According toThe Washington Post, the grand jury is next scheduled to meet on Monday at the earliest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Minnesota Nuclear Plant Shuts Down After New Leak Near Mississippi River
Federal regulators said they are monitoring groundwater for a radioactive compound following the leak.
Mar 24, 2023
The operator of a Minnesota nuclear power plant said the facility would be taken offline Friday to repair a new leak near the Mississippi River, an announcement that came a week after the company and state officials belatedly acknowledged a separate leak that occurred in November.
Xcel Energy insisted in a statement Thursday that the leak at its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant poses "no risk to the public or the environment," but a team of federal regulators is monitoring the groundwater in the area amid concerns that radioactive materials—specifically tritium—could wind up in drinking water.
Valerie Myers, a senior health physicist with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told a local CBS affiliate that "there are wells between the ones that are showing elevated tritium and the Mississippi that are not showing any elevated levels."
"We are watching that because the ground flow is toward the Mississippi," added Myers.
The Associated Pressreported Friday, that "after the first leak was found in November, Xcel Energy made a short-term fix to capture water from a leaking pipe and reroute it back into the plant for re-use."
"However, monitoring equipment indicated Wednesday that a small amount of new water from the original leak had reached the groundwater," the outlet noted. "Operators discovered that, over the past two days, the temporary solution was no longer capturing all of the leaking water, Xcel Energy said."
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health said in a statement that they "have no evidence at this point to indicate a current or imminent risk to the public and will continue to monitor groundwater samples."
"Should an imminent risk arise, we will inform the public promptly," the agencies said. "We encourage the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has regulatory oversight of the plant's operations, to share ongoing public communications on the leak and on mitigation efforts to help residents best understand the situation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.