You can catch the ACLU on several news programs tonight and tomorrow providing reaction to today’s Supreme Court rulings. Tonight at 6:30 p.m. Eastern on NBC Nightly News, Steve Shapiro weighs in on the Ten Commandments decision.

Tomorrow at 7:30 a.m. Women’s Rights Project Director Lenora Lapidus will be on ABC’s Good Morning America in-studio to discuss the Castle Rock v. Gonzalez domestic violence case with Diane Sawyer. She will be joined by remote by the plaintiff in the case, Jessica Gonzalez.

A release about the Castle Rock ruling is online at http://www.aclu.org/WomensRights/WomensRights.cfm?ID=18588&c=173

A release about the Ten Commandments ruling (with some fabulous quotes from Justice O’Connor’s opinion) is online at http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=18590&c=38

A release about the Brand X and Grokster rulings is online at http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=18589&c=252

Please join the ACLU of New Mexico in the shortest Pride Parade in the nation - marching from the Roundhouse to the Plaza in Santa Fe this Saturday June 25! Line up begins at 10:30 am in the parking lot west of the PERA building - we are entry number 11. The parade begins at noon. Wear your ACLU t-shirt or a blue or black shirt.

Visit us on the Plaza between noon and 4 pm - we will have a table at the northwestern corner by FNB and Lincoln Avenue.

Look forward to seeing you there! For more information on the ACLU’s nationwide work on LGBT Rights and HIV/AIDS go to www.aclu.org/getequal.

Street Patriots - NEXT ACTION is this Saturday June 25, 10:00 am at the Erna Ferguson Library - 3700 San Mateo Blvd (east side of the street).

Joyce will have all of the materials - bring water, a camera if you have one, and a sense of humor - wear sunscreen and a hat. Highlights from previous Street Patriot outings:

I took Viagra and walked Nob Hill during this morning’s rush hour traffic with a sign telling everyone.

I might as well because, if the Patriot Act is expanded, everyone will know anyway.

Naomi told everyone her library book, The Joy of Sex, is 2 weeks overdue.
Mickey even told rush hour traffic that he has a handgun! And Kathryn told everyone EXACTLY where he keeps it! (in his home office drawer)

All of Albuquerque now knows John bounced a check in March.

And Saint Judy ended the Burma Shave informational picketing with Your Privacy is At Risk. Contact the ACLU website for information.

Who would have thought 6 people could have such an impact on people rushing to work?
Although several people asked me about my Viagra sign (no, not all of their questions were about the Patriot Act), Mickey gets the award for the longest conversation on our issues.

JOIN US at the busiest library in the Bernalillo County system in holding signs, handing out Patriot Act information, and to plan future Street Patriot outings this summer. People across the country have made clear their opposition to the Patriot Act. Hundreds of communities – and seven states – have passed resolutions against the Patriot Act and held town hall meetings to discuss its impact on their residents and our Constitution. Congress has a duty to listen to its constituents.

There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow, all without probable cause. It also gives the government the power to obtain a special “sneak and peek” search warrant to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months or indefinitely. The Patriot Act needs to be reformed, not expanded.

The Patriot Act is an attack on fundamental American values. The Constitution and its Bill of Rights emphasize the need for checks and balances on government agents and limits to their power. The Patriot Act rolled back key judicial oversight and gave law enforcement significant new powers that go beyond the war on terrorism.

The House of Representatives passed the Flag “Desecration” Amendment on a vote of 286-130. While we are saddened that the amendment passed the House again this year, we are excited to see the margin decrease compared to the last vote. The vote in the House two years ago was 300-125 - so we are gaining ground. The amendment passed with just an eight vote margin – a closer vote in the House than we have seen in 15 years!!

You can see the ACLU press release on the amendment at: http://w ww.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=18564&c=50

In the end, five members of the House who had voted in favor of the amendment in past years switched their positions and opposed the measure today – Kucinich (OH), Gutierrez (IL), Meek (FL), Millender-McDonald (CA), and Napolitano (CA). A number of freshman House members also voted to oppose. Picking up these votes was a major step forward as we head toward a likely Senate vote on the amendment.

You can see the complete vote breakdown at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2 005/roll296.xml

The House action means we will soon face the flag amendment in the Senate. Information on timing is sketchy, but we could see a Senate committee hearing as soon as next month. The amendment is closer to passing the Senate than ever before. If one or two senators fail to show up for the vote, or if any amendment opponents cave under pressure and vote in favor, the measure will pass and head to the states for ratification.

Call our New Mexico Senators today and remind them that the flag belongs to the nation - not the government!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Friday, June 17, 2005

CONTACT:

ALBUQUERQUE –The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico joined in a national campaign to reform the Patriot Act. Around the country, elected officials, community leaders and grassroots activists are picking up the pace to make sure the Patriot Act is fixed, not expanded. On Monday June 20th at 6:00pm in Albuquerque the ACLU and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee are hosting a “Reform the Patriot Act” town hall at the Peace and Justice Center at 202 Harvard SE.

“Nearly 400 communities - including seven states - have passed resolutions calling on Congress to amend the Patriot Act to restore basic checks and balances,” said ACLU of New Mexico Communications Manager Kimberly Lavender. “Here in New Mexico, thirteen communities, the NM State House of Representatives, the NM Library Association, the NM Municipal League and others, passed resolutions within months of the Patriot Act’s passage.”

As part of the nationwide campaign, ACLU members have been reaching out in Farmington, Gallup, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Las Cruces to let their neighbors know how the Patriot Act affects them. Last week members in Gallup held a vigil on Flag Day and members in Albuquerque were at Nob Hill during rush hour wearing “sign” boards that displayed personal information, like “I took Viagra this morning” and “I keep a handgun hidden in my home office.” Their message: the Patriot Act puts Americans’ privacy at risk by allowing law enforcement agencies access to medical, financial, religious, and gun purchase records.

The ACLU has unveiled a new Web site, www.reformthepatriotact.org, to help Americans speak out and get more involved in the fight to protect the Constitution. Through this Web site, people can contact their lawmakers and urge them to oppose efforts to expand and make the Patriot Act permanent. They can also urge their lawmakers to support the common-sense reforms in the bipartisan SAFE Act.

Local elected officials from across the country, who represent communities that have passed resolutions calling for Patriot Act reform, visited Washington, D.C. to deliver copies of those resolutions and remind lawmakers that their constituents want the Patriot Act brought in line with the Constitution.

“In the coming weeks, Congress will debate whether some of the Patriot Act’s most sweeping provisions should be reauthorized and expanded,” said Lavender. “We encourage New Mexicans to urge our elected officials to fight to restore checks and balances, and bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution.”

For more information, go to:

http://www.reformthepatriotact.org

President Threatens to Veto Patriot Act Reform Legislation,
Dismisses Bipartisan Calls for Checks and Balances

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Will Potter
Thursday, June 16, 2005 (202) 675-2332

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has threatened to veto legislation passed Wednesday by the House of Representatives that would reform the controversial “library records provision” of the Patriot Act. The “Freedom to Read” proposal, offered by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), denies funding for FBI access to library and bookstore records under section 215 of the Patriot Act, and was approved by a bipartisan majority (238-187).

The following can be attributed to Lisa Graves, Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy:

“This threat is the latest indication that the administration is willing to go to extreme lengths to maintain its power grab. Nearly 400 communities, including seven states, have passed Patriot Act reform resolutions. Conservative groups have lined up in opposition to some of the worst provisions of the act. And now lawmakers have come together, across the aisle, for change. But the administration continues to turn a deaf ear to these concerns.

“The legislation passed by the House puts reasonable checks on government power, without compromising the ability of law enforcement agents to investigate criminal activity where there is sufficient evidence. It merely safeguards against fishing expeditions into the reading habits of ordinary Americans. Yet again, the people have spoken that they want the Patriot Act brought in line with the Constitution by restoring proper checks and balances. It’s time for the administration to listen.”

For more on the ACLU’s concerns with the Patriot Act, go to:
http://www.reformthepatriotact.org

DATE: June 16, 2005
RE: ACLU Debates Patriot Act on PBS Newshour Tonight!

Tune into the Lehrer Newshour on PBS tonight to see a debate on the Patriot Act between Greg Nojeim, Acting Director of the Washington Office and Michael Battle, director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys in the White House. See bio at http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/mbattle-bio.html

They’ll be talking about the bipartisan majority vote on the “Freedom to Read” amendment, which de-funds FBI searches of library and bookstore records, as well as other Patriot Act issues. (Check local listings for air times).

And for the latest on this issues, check out these news releases:

“Freedom to Read” victory: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18485&c=206

President’s threat to veto Freedom to Read:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18492&c=262

Finally, for more on this topic, don’t miss the latest on Anthony’s blog:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/author/anthonyromero

HOUSE REIGNS IN PATRIOT ACT

Udall “Freedom to Read Protection Act” Amendment Passes

WASHINGTON - U.S. Representative Tom Udall, D-N.M., Wednesday claimed victory as his amendment to prohibit the FBI from using a USA Patriot Act Section 215 order to access library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists was passed.

Udall offered his “Freedom to Read Protection Act” amendment to the FY 2006 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill. The amendment was passed on a vote of 238-187

“This common sense amendment restores the privacy and First Amendment rights of library and bookstore patrons which were in place before the USA Patriot Act,” Udall said. “Passage of this amendment shows the deep concern that members of both parties have about the Patriot Act. I will continue to see that this provision is maintained when Congress considers reauthorization of the Patriot Act later this year.”

Along with 15 other provisions of the PATRIOT Act, Section 215 expires at the end of this year. In its current form, 215 allows the FBI to conduct secret searches of business records-including those of libraries and bookstores-without proving probable cause. In order to obtain subpoenas, the agency has only to tell the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the records are necessary for an investigation related to terrorism.

The amendment was modeled on the Freedom to Read Protection Act (H.R. 1157), which has garnered 126 bi-partisan cosponsors and continues to receive support from a national citizen movement urging its passage. State and local governments, over 40 nationwide newspapers, and national organizations across America have spoken out against the overreaching provisions in the Patriot Act. To date, over 140 national and regional book, library, publishing industry, civil liberty and privacy rights organizations have endorsed the legislation. In addition, seven state legislatures and 379 towns and cities from across the political spectrum, representing more than 61 million people, have passed resolutions expressing their concerns with the anti-privacy and anti-liberty portions of the Patriot Act.

Udall supported a similar amendment last year, which initially won, with 219 members of the House voting in support of it. Republican House leaders, however, left the vote open for an extra 20 minutes and twisted the arms of several members into changing their votes, causing it to lose with a 210-210 tie.

Passage of the amendment comes close on the heels of a closed-door session of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on June 7, which approved legislation reauthorizing and expanding the PATRIOT Act. The expanded bill would make it even easier for the FBI to obtain subpoenas for records, and grants law enforcement officers “administrative subpoenas,” which essentially allows the bureau to write and approve its own orders.

A former federal prosecutor and New Mexico Attorney General, Udall was the only member of the New Mexico Congressional delegation to vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001.

The partisan attack on public broadcasting continues. First, they targeted PBS and NPR news programs for signs of “liberal bias.” Now they’re sharpening their knives for Big Bird.

A congressional subcommittee has voted to slash more than $200 million in funding for public broadcasting, including $23.4 million earmarked for “Ready to Learn” children’s educational programming – the money that keeps shows like “Sesame Street,” “Arthur,” and “Clifford the Big Red Dog” on the air.

Thousands of phone calls are needed today to save public broadcasting. Call your member of Congress now.

The subcommittee slashed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s budget by $100 million and voted to “zero out” all federal money for CPB within two years. Small television and radio stations that serve rural communities and minority audiences will be devastated by these cuts.

The CPB is already embroiled in controversy over Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson’s attempts to withhold funding from PBS programs that don’t follow his conservative political line. Apparently dissatisfied with this effort to make public broadcasting more “fair and balanced,” the Republican majority is now trying to bankrupt the entire system.

We must stop these cuts from passing in the House of Representatives. Here’s what you can do:

1. Call your U.S.representative and ask him or her to restore full funding for public broadcasting. Tell your representative: “Like millions and millions of other Americans, I rely on public broadcasting’s superb children’s programming and trustworthy news and information. Please protect public broadcasting and restore full federal funding for PBS, NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.”

2. Send a letter to Reps. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), the chairman and vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, letting them know that the American public opposes these cuts and doesn’t want partisan interference in public broadcasting.

Congress needs to hear from the tens of millions of Americans who tune in every day – whether it’s for Big Bird or Bill Moyers, “Reading Rainbow” or “Morning Edition.” Despite overwhelming popular support for public broadcasting, the Republican leadership and partisan board members at the CPB are attempting to gag and starve public media in America.

Don’t let them. Call your representatives right away – and forward this message to everyone you know.

Onward,

Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
www.freepress.net

P.S. To learn more about Free Press’ campaign to put the public back in public broadcasting, visit our new Web site at www.freepress.net/publicbroadcasting.

P.P.S. More than 85,000 concerned citizens have signed our petitions calling for CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson to resign. Free Press will deliver the petitions on June 20, when the CPB’s board of directors meets in Washington. Sign the petition now.

A bill just introduced in Congress would take away the right of cities and towns across the country to provide citizens with universal, low-cost Internet access.

Giant cable and telephone companies don’t want any competition – which might actually force them to offer lower prices, higher speeds and service to rural and urban areas.

U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) – a former telephone company executive – has introduced a bill (HR 2726) that would let cable and telecom companies shut down municipal and community efforts to offer broadband services.

No less than the future of all communications is at stake. In a few years, television, telephone, radio and the Web will be accessed through a high-speed internet connection. Low-cost alternatives to telephone (DSL) and cable monopolies are emerging across the country, as cities, towns, nonprofits and community groups build low-cost “Community Internet” and municipal broadband systems.

Companies like SBC, Verizon and Comcast have been introducing laws state by state that would prohibit municipal broadband, undercut local control and prevent competition. But we’ve been fighting back – and winning.

An alliance of public interest groups, local officials, high-tech innovators and organized citizens have defeated anti-municipal broadband measures in nine of the 13 states where they’ve been introduced this year.

What the industry couldn’t pass in the states, they’re trying to push through in Washington. Sessions’ bill – the “Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act” (an Orwellian title if there ever was one) – would prevent state and local governments from providing “any telecommunications service, information service or cable service” anywhere a corporation offers a similar service.

Congressman Sessions worked for telephone giant SBC for 16 years, and his wife currently serves as a director of Cingular Wireless, an SBC subsidiary. SBC and its employees have been Sessions’ second-biggest career patron, pouring more than $75,000 into his campaign coffers.

We can stop this legislation and send a clear message to Congress that local communities – not the giant telephone and cable companies – should determine their own communications needs. But you must act now.

Onward,

Josh Silver
Executive Director
Free Press
www.freepress.net

P.S. For all of the latest news on Community Internet and municipal broadband, visit the Free Press Web site at www.freepress.net/communityinternet.

P.P.S. Want to get more involved in bringing Community Internet to your hometown? Join the Free Press Action Squad at www.freepress.net/action/squad/signup.php.

ALBUQUERQUE - American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico sued the New Mexico Orthopaedic Surgery Center for requiring patient Harold Folley to abandon his living will prior to receiving medical care.

The company’s medical procedures consent form asks patients to acknowledge that the Center will “not honor a request for ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ status and/or Advance Directives or Living Wills.” The ACLU claims that such a requirement violates the New Mexico Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act.

“Whether to be kept alive or to be allowed to die is perhaps the most private of decisions that any person can face,” said ACLU Executive Director Peter Simonson. “Now a Texas-based company is claiming that power for itself. Patients should be in control of how they end their lives, not some insurance lawyer in Dallas.”

Lawyers for the Surgery Center allege that their refusal to honor advance directives is allowable under the New Mexico Act because it is based on a ‘reason of conscience.’ Simonson dismissed that argument as a “diversionary tactic.”

“They haven’t produced any policy or mission statement demonstrating that a commitment to religious ideals informs their refusal to honor living wills,” Simonson said. “If the Center really had a reason based in faith, why would they reject all advance directives, even those that would require doctors to try to prolong life?

“I don’t think they care a whit about religious faith,” said Simonson. “I think they are cynically using the ‘reason of conscience’ exemption to reduce their liability for medical malpractice.”

The plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, Harold Folley, receives periodic treatment from the Center for a spinal condition. “I have the highest regard for the doctors who treat me,” said Folley. “But I will literally fight to the death to protect my right to die.”

The lawsuit seeks an award of statutory damages and asks the court to enjoin the defendants to provide treatment in accordance with New Mexico law. Folley has committed to donate any recovery he receives from the lawsuit to charity. ACLU Staff Attorney George Bach and University of New Mexico Law School Professor Rob Schwartz are litigating the case on behalf of the ACLU.

Simonson said, “If Terri Schiavo taught us anything, it was to avoid ugly, painful controversies over the end of life by establishing your wishes in a living will. Mr. Folley did that; he took responsibility for himself and for his family. Now he has to fight off a big company to protect his most intimate wishes and we’re going help to him win that fight.”

Peter Simonson, Executive Director, and George Bach, Staff Attorney,
will present the work being done by the ACLU of New Mexico.

ATTEND THIS TAOS EVENT TO HEAR ABOUT RECENT LITIGATION, INCLUDING:

Santa Fe Veterans for Peace v. Veterans’ Administration: defending the free speech rights of war veterans who were prohibited from holding a memorial service on national cemetery grounds because their mission in support of peace allegedly makes any event that they organize “partisan” in nature.

Buck v. City of Albuquerque: sued the Albuquerque Police Department and city officials for their brutal handling of an anti-war protest on the day following the announcement of the invasion of Iraq.

Bessett v. Descheenie, et al.: defended a Navajo advocate for bilingual education against a frivolous defamation lawsuit brought by Central Consolidated School District Superintendent Linda Bessett for Descheenie’s factual article in the Farmington Daily criticizing the school district.

City of Albuquerque: prevented the City of Albuquerque from implementing a string of boldly unconstitutional ordinances, including laws that would have made panhandling illegal and that would have prohibited teenagers from leaving their homes at night. Currently, ACLU-NM is challenging ordinances that would empower the City to seize people’s automobiles without proving them guilty of a driving-related crime.

Whipple v. Lordsburg School District: ended the routine practice of locking 5th–12th-grade students in classrooms and forcing them to sit at their desks while dogs were led up and down the aisles, sniffing them for evidence of drugs.

Ayers v. Perry, et al.: challenged abusive conditions in New Mexico’s “Supermax” prisons, resulting in a settlement that brought sweeping reforms and is considered a model for the incarceration and treatment of people with mental illness.

Roybal v. Jones, et al.: restored the free speech rights of 4 Albuquerque Public School teachers who were suspended for putting up posters, artwork, and other materials in their classrooms that encouraged a full analysis of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS, INCLUDING:

In 2005: The ACLU-NM succeeded in convincing Governor Richardson to issue an executive order that requires state police to have suspicion of criminal activity before inquiring about an individual’s immigration status. As a key member of the NM Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty, ACLU-NM narrowly failed to repeal our state’s capital punishment law.

In recent years: The ACLU-NM was instrumental in helping to pass laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and on the basis of genetic background in employment, housing and other public accommodations; require hospitals to offer emergency contraceptive services; and prohibit government officials from filing frivolous lawsuits to ‘chill’ the free speech of community advocates. Almost every legislative session, the ACLU-NM works with coalition partners to stop laws that would force a pregnant teenager to obtain parental permission before seeking an abortion; empower local governments to establish “teen curfews,” criminalizing youth for being outside of their homes at night; and add new and excessive penalties to an already-bloated criminal code, overcrowding our jails and prisons with more and more non-violent offenders.

June 24, 2005, 4:00 – 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers at the Taos Civic Center
Light refreshments will be served.

Free and open to the General Public – Members and Non-Members

BECAUSE FREEDOM CAN’T PROTECT ITSELF

• www.abffe.org AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS FOUNDATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

• www.aclu-nm.org ACLU OF NEW MEXICO

• www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/ AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

• www.ala.org AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

• www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION

• www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/ ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER

• www.cdt.org CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY TECHNOLOGY

• www.bordc.org BILL OF RIGHTS DEFENSE COMMITTEE

• www.slate.msn.com MSN SLATE MAGAZINE posted a series of articles on the USAPA entitled “A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part1-4 by Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner. September 8-11, 2003.

• www.crs.org CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE(CRS) part of the Library of Congress, prepares its reports for the US Congress. Also, you can go to government documents in your library to find these reports.

• www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html CONGRESSIONAL REPORT Congressional report detailing the intelligence failures that prevented the DOJ from anticipating and possibly preventing the 9/11 attack.

• www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/03-06/press.html INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Link to report by the Inspector General of the DOJ detailing the abuse of immigrants detained after 9/11.

• www.lifeandliberty.gov DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE web page that attempts to dispel USAPA “myths”.

Resolutions Adopted by Communities and Associations Throughout New Mexico

• Santa Fe 10/30/02
• Socorro 3/17/03
• Rio Arriba County 4/10/03
• Taos 6/17/03
• Aztec 6/17/03
• Farmington 8/19/03
• Albuquerque 9/15/03
• Las Vegas 9/17/03
• Grant County 10/9/03
• Los Alamos County 10/14/03
• Bayard 10/20/03
• Silver City 10/ 28/03
• Valencia County 2/04/04
• New Mexico House of Representatives

Associations
• American Association of University Women
• New Mexico Library Association
• New Mexico Municipal League

Coalition for Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

Professional Associations
• American Association of University Women, ABQ Branch
• League of Women Voters of New Mexico
• New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
• New Mexico Library Association
• New Mexico Press Association

Businesses and Libraries
• Ark Bookstores, Inc. - Santa Fe
• Alphaville Video – ABQ
• Bird Song Used Books - ABQ
• Leslie Lakind DDS PC
• Moby Dickens Bookstore – Taos
• Millennial Light Library – Santa Fe
• Page One Bookstore – ABQ
• Sisters & Brothers Bookstore –ABQ

Religious Organizations
• New Mexico Conference of Churches
• Social Justice Office of Archdiocese-Santa Fe
Labor
• Central New Mexico Labor Council
• Four Corners Central Labor Council
• NM Building and Construction Trades Council
• South West New Mexico Central Labor Council

Educational & Advocacy Organizations
• American Civil Liberties Union- New Mexico
• Animal Protection Voters
• Bill of Rights Defense Committee
• Common Cause New Mexico
• Common Ground – Santa Fe
• Drug Policy Alliance
• Global Dialog Project
• Humanist Society of New Mexico
• NAACP- Santa Fe Branch
• New Mexico Foundation For Open Government
• New Mexico Voter Services Coalition
• Peace Action New Mexico
• Rio Grande Foundation
• Somos Un Pueblo Unido
• Veterans for Peace, Santa Fe Chapter

• Despite broad public concern, some in Congress and the administration are rushing to make the Patriot Act permanent and to expand the already broad authority it gave federal agents to seize private records—like those held by hotels, libraries and doctors—without proper court review or probable cause.

• Sound checks and balances on executive branch authority have been severely eroded over the past few years. It is crucial that Congress and the courts are able to keep the federal government from abusing its power.

• Seven full states—including the “red” states of Alaska, Idaho, Colorado and Montana—and more than 380 communities in 43 states, have passed resolutions calling for Patriot Act reform.

• In New Mexico alone - resolutions have been passed in 13 communities across the state, by the New Mexico Library Association and the New Mexico Municipal League, and the New Mexico House of Representatives.

• Prominent conservative activists, including Grover Norquist and David Keene are unqualified in their support for bringing the Patriot Act back in line with the Constitution.

• They are so supportive of changing the law that they formed Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, chaired by former Congressman Bob Barr, to do just that.

• On Capitol Hill, the various bills to fix the Patriot Act are strongly supported by an unusual alliance of progressive Democrats and conservative, often Western, Republicans like Senator Larry Craig and Congressman “Butch” Otter from Idaho.

• In New Mexico, Congressmen Udall and Bingaman are working within this alliance to fix the Patriot Act. At this crucial time, where do Congressman Pearce, Congressman Dominici, and Congresswoman Wilson stand? Are they standing with their conservative neighbors on this issue?

Highlighted Problems in the Patriot Act:

• Section 213 expands the government’s ability to conduct secret searches. Agents can break into your home using a “sneak and peek” court warrant, rifle through your things, download computer files, take DNA samples and even seize property— without telling you for an indefinite period.

• Section 215 gives the government the power to use top-secret spy-hunting tools against regular Americans without probable cause or specific facts connecting the records sought to a foreign agent. It allows the FBI to obtain orders from a secret court in Washington to seize records from doctors, libraries, hotels or any other institution that keeps records on our health, wealth and other transactions of daily life. The recipient of one of these orders is barred from telling anyone about it.

• This summer, Congress is set to start voting—first in committees and then on the floor of the House and Senate—on bills to extend the Patriot Act well before the December 31, 2005 deadline when some of the most troubling powers are scheduled to expire.

• Over the next four weeks, we expect that Members of the Senate and House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees will begin debating and voting on Patriot Act bills. Debate by the full House and Senate could start as early as this month but more likely after Independence Day.

• This week. Tuesday, June 7, 2005, the Senate Intelligence Committee will be voting behind closed doors on a bill to expand the Patriot Act’s secret search powers. No matter the outcome in that Committee, your outreach in the coming weeks will be absolutely essential. Together, we can stop expansion, add new sunsets, and reform the Patriot Act.

The debate around the Patriot Act is approaching a crucial moment of decision. Will we sit back while the Bush Administration sacrifices our liberty, or will we answer freedom’s call and help Congress bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution?

There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely.

Some of these flawed provisions are set to expire at the end of the year. But President Bush wants to make them permanent, and the House and Senate have been holding hearings in preparation for votes that are expected this June and July.

We must not permit this power grab to go unchecked. We have less than two months to stop the Bush Administration’s Patriot Act expansion plans.

You have an important role to play in the fight. Your Members of Congress are accountable to you, their constituent. Many of them know that the Patriot Act needs to be fixed, not expanded. And if they have the courage of their convictions, they won’t give in to this latest Bush Administration power grab. But they’ve got to hear from every American who knows that the Patriot Act erodes our fundamental privacy and due process rights.

Defend the Constitution and your own fundamental freedoms by urging Congress to reject an expansion of the Patriot Act.

In the coming weeks we’ll be asking for your help to stop these efforts to increase secret government surveillance and search powers. The Patriot Act imposes restrictions on your privacy that no democratic and free society should tolerate. We need you to use your power as a concerned citizen to stop the government from stripping away your rights.

The Patriot Act’s extreme powers do not have to be a fact of life. We can make sure many of its infamous provisions expire at the end of this year. We have an opportunity to stop Congress from expanding secret government surveillance and removing proper checks and balances.

What can you do?

Refuse to Surrender Your Freedom right now by clicking here to send an email to your Members of Congress. Tell them you oppose the Patriot Act’s expansion.

Next week we are going to be asking you to call to your Members of Congress on this issue. Together we are going to “light up the phones” in Congress and make our voices heard.

We know that there is widespread opposition to Patriot Act. When we speak out and communicate this opposition to our elected officials, they notice. Members of Congress from across the political spectrum have their own doubts about the Patriot Act and in light of the growing bipartisan opposition, these leaders will see that they cannot support this flawed legislation.

Public outcry has helped us stop legislation and other government actions in the past. It is up to us to use our power again. Just last month the Senate Intelligence Committee responded public pressure by holding an unplanned public hearing on the Patriot Act. We must keep pushing for Congress to make the right choices.

Through public pressure and aggressive lobbying, we are going to put such pressure on Congress that they will be forced to stop attempts to expand the Patriot Act. What the Patriot Act needs is the common sense and reasonable fixes the ACLU has endorsed, not expansion.

NEW YORK – Calling it another blow to government secrecy over post-9/11 policies and practices, the American Civil Liberties Union today hailed a unanimous federal appeals court ruling that requires the Justice Department to disclose a secret legal memorandum that outlines the government’s legal position advocating for unprecedented power by local police to enforce civil immigration laws.

“The court has issued a powerful rebuke to the Bush Administration’s attempt to shield its radical legal views from public scrutiny and debate,” said ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project attorney Omar Jadwat, who argued the case. “The Justice Department’s attempt to evade the Freedom of Information Act has been resoundingly rejected.”

The ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of eight civil rights and immigrants’ rights groups brought the lawsuit in April 2003 against the Justice Department after filing a Freedom of Information Act request seeking disclosure of an unpublished Office of Legal Council memorandum. The secret memorandum, which was prepared for the Justice Department in April 2002, was used by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to justify a major change in federal policy to try to cause state and local police to enforce civil, non-criminal federal immigration laws.

This policy was roundly criticized by the ACLU and many other groups, including chiefs of police and law enforcement officials. Yet, despite repeated requests, the government refused to disclose the supposed legal justification for its new policy and sought to shield the legal memorandum from public scrutiny.

In its ruling released late Tuesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated that, “we cannot allow the Department to make public use of the Memorandum when it serves the Department’s ends but claim [a] privilege when it does not.”

In the past, dozens of local police officials and law enforcement organizations have spoken out against state and local participation in immigration enforcement, saying that it would jeopardize their relationships with immigrant communities and divert local law enforcement resources from the more important job of trying to control crimes against people. As former Montgomery County (MD) Police Chief Charles Moose told a Washington radio station in May 2002: “This movement by the federal government to say that they want local officers to become INS agents is against the core values of community policing: partnerships, assisting people, and being there to solve problems.”

Other groups represented by the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and the NYCLU in this case are the National Council of La Raza, New York Immigration Coalition, American Immigration Lawyers Association, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Forum, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, National Employment Law Project and Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition.

The case is National Council of La Raza et al. v. Department of Justice. Attorneys for the groups are Lucas Guttentag, Lee Gelernt and Jadwat of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, Michael J. Wishnie, an ACLU cooperating attorney in New York, Christopher Dunn of the NYCLU and Linton Joaquin of the National Immigration Law Center.

TheSecond Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision is online at: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18391c=206.