ACLU Washington Legislative Office Director Caroline Fredricksen said that the ACLU was able to use data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate that there are 197.4 million people who live within a hundred miles of maritime or coastal borders, which would mean that two-thirds of the U.S. population are exposed to the possibility of being searched without probable cause according to the ACLU (0:30)
United States Code 135 states that border patrol agents have the authority to perform warrantless searches within a reasonable distance of U.S. maritime and land borders. According to the ACLU, “reasonable” has been interpreted as within 100 miles, a decision that does not sit well with the civil liberties group.
“Courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security, we are seeing wide swaths of the country designated as constitution free zones, where even American citizens are denied their basic constitutional rights,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office during a press conference at the National Press Club.
Fredricksen said that the ACLU was able to use data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate that there are 197.4 million people who live within a hundred miles of maritime or coastal borders, which would mean that two-thirds of the U.S. population are exposed to the possibility of being searched without probable cause according to the ACLU.
“This is a classic case of law enforcement powers expanding far beyond their proper boundaries and in this case, we mean that literally,” said Fredrickson.
To show the effects of the Border Patrol’s interpretation, a video was shown of Vince Peppard, a San Diego man who was stopped by Border Patrol agents 15 miles within the U.S. when returning from buying tile in Mexico.
“When I came back from Mexico, they didn’t open my trunk then. But then a half hour later in the United States they were opening my trunk and ransacking my car. I didn’t feel like I was in the United States,” said Peppard.
Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union says the state secrets privilege has mutated from a rule protecting genuine security interests to an alternative form of immunity in which violators of the Constitution receive dismissed cases, preventing prosecution against acts of torture and unlawful surveillance. (0:58)
The House Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee met to discuss the State Secrets Protection Act of 2008. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who introduced the legislation, said members of the Executive Branch are misusing the state secrets privilege to avoid Congressional oversight and thus, shielding itself from questions concerning spying against Americans and acts of torture committed at Guantanamo Bay. He said the act protects justice and, noting checks and balances, the Constitution. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) referenced a Los Angeles Times article from 2006 that suggests over half of government information is over-classified.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said disclosing classified information threatens the national security of the United States and that though a denial of access to judicial review may be disadvantageous for some, it is necessary for the safety of all Americans. Franks said that the post-September 11 era has shown the significant role of the state secrets privilege in the Department of Justice. He also said the Supreme Court has defended the privilege, adding that he finds it “shocking” that Democrats want courts to deviate from precedent as 200 detainees at Guantanamo Bay qualify for trial in American courts.
Meredith Fuchs of the National Security Archives supported the State Secrets Protection Act, saying that federal agencies often do not feel the need to disclose information without independent pressure. She said courts should have the right to consider evidence in claims of state secrets privilege, adding that courts should not refuse evidence provided by non-governmental experts. Steven Shapiro of the American Civil Liberties Union said Nadler’s legislation restores the state secrets privilege to its proper role and bring legal clarity. Shapiro said the ACLU supports the passing of the State Secrets Protection Act. Michael Vatis, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson, LLP expressed concern with a section of the act he said could be interpreted to mean that courts would analyze governmental and independent evidence equally. He said courts should exercise judgement but give substantial weight to the, potentially better-informed, government.
“Fusion centers” set up to share information and intelligence, offer common dangers for information sharing centers with no controls, no oversight and no structure, which then offers no protection on people’s first amendment rights said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) during a teleconference today on the growing role of local law enforcement in federal surveillance.
The ACLU, which released a report on state and local “fusion centers, ” where intelligence and surveillance is shared with other jurisdictions and the federal government last year, released an update showing that the U.S. is constructing a de facto domestic intelligence system, even though Congress has never voted for the change in security agencies.
Jay Stanley, public education director with the ACLU, said that “fusion centers” are part of a much larger trent towards justification of keeping tabs on the everyday lives of everyday Americans. The ACLU is recommending an end to the “cloak of secrecy” surrounding “fusion centers” and for Congressional action.
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, called on Congress to have more oversight over “fusion centers.” She said that Congress needs to step up and enact regulations and controls over centers in order to fix problems and protect citizens rights.
Mike German, former FBI agent and ACLU national security policy counsel, says that “fusion centers” use excessive secrecy, have a troubling private and military participation in gathering information, and have an apparent bent towards suspicious information collection. (1:16)
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office, says that the inherent dangers of “fusion centers” is the sharing of information with no controls, no oversight and no structure to protect people’s first amendment rights. (0:49)
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, says that the terrorist watch list is ineffective at best, likely useless and perhaps even harmful by creating it’s own security weaknesses and needs to be changed immediately. (1:00)
Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU Technology and Liberty Program, says that the terrorist watch list is unfair, out of control, incompetently administered, and treats the rights of innocents as an afterthought, and is a very real impediment in the war on terror. (0:29)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) held a press conference today for the terrorist watch list hitting one million names. The list ACLU is calling for Congress to take action on this list but adding due process, a right to access and challenge data upon which listing is based, tight criteria for adding names to the lists, and rigorous procedures for updating and cleansing names from the list.
“America’s new million record watch list is a perfect symbol for what’s wrong with this administration’s approach to security: it’s unfair, out-of-control, a waste of resources, treats the rights of the innocent as an afterthought, and is a very real impediment in the lives of million of travelers in this country,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU Technology and Liberty Program.
The Inspector General of the Justice Department reported in Sept. 2007 that the Terrorist Screening Center had over 700,000 names as of April and said that the list was growing by an average of 20,000 names per month. Working off that average the ACLU has predicted that today the list would reach one million names.
The watch list has become long and “bloated” naming several individuals who are probably not terrorists, Steinhardt said. Nelson Mandela, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize was on the watch list and only recently removed after and act by Congress, and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) was also on the list causing him trouble and delays when flying, he said.
The ACLU is also calling for the Bush Administration or the next one to issue and executive order requiring the lists to be reviewed and limited to only those for whom there is credible evidence of terrorist ties or activities.
