Category Archives: Civil Liberties

Via Dan, a link to UA Young Democrat banned from forum:

A UA student was banned from attending President Bush's Social Security forum at the Tucson Convention Center yesterday.

UA Young Democrat Steven Gerner, a political science and pre-pharmacy sophomore, said he and three other Young Democrats had been waiting in line with their tickets for about 40 minutes when a staff member approached him and asked to read his T-shirt.

Gerner was the only one of the four wearing a UAYD T-shirt, which read, “Don't be a smart (image of a donkey, the Democratic Party symbol). UA Young Democrats.”

Gerner said the staffer, who refused to provide his name, asked for Gerner's ticket and crumpled it up.

Taxpayers paid for this event — it's not a campaign rally. And I don't care if the White House says it's over-zealous local people doing this — first of all there's a pattern and practice of this behavior at Bush events. Second, if it is unsanctioned then taking the ticket and ripping it up is a criminal act. Let's see a prosecution, please.

Three blog postings you should read if you care about freedom or justice:

• Obsidian Wings on HR 952, a bill that would ban 'extraordinary rendition'
• Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUS Blog describing the government's application to keep Padilla in the brig pending further proceedings in the wake of Padilla's recent victory; this is a warm-up to:
• Marty Lederman's through and accurate deconstruction of the absurdity and evil that permeates the government's arguments in support of its request to continue to hold Padilla in durance vile

Padilla wins—bigtime in the District Court in South Carolina (warning: court site may be overloaded…here is an alternate site).

The government is ordered to release him (or charge him)… but only in 45 days…. I would imagine there will be an appeal…

[updated:] Here's what the court has to say to the government's Yoo-ish argument that the President can order any citizen jailed for whatever reason he wants, even in the face of a Congressional enactment, 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a), that says, “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.”

Accordingly, and limited to the facts of this case, the Court is of the firm opinion that it must reject the position posited by Respondent. To do otherwise would not only offend the rule of law and violate this country’s constitutional tradition, but it would also be a betrayal of this Nation’s commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties.

For the Court to find for Respondent would also be to engage in judicial activism. This Court sits to interpret the law as it is and not as the Court might wish it to be. Pursuant to its interpretation, the Court finds that the President has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold Petitioner as an enemy combatant.

I could do without the suggestion that the Court “might wish” to see the President enjoy the arbitrary power of detention against any citizen, but however you slice it this is a stinging rebuke of the Administration's awful arguments.

Here's the sole fly in the ointment: “Of course, if appropriate, the Government can bring criminal charges against Petitioner or it can hold him as a material witness.” The material witness statute is itself routinely being abused.

From Talking Points Memo (quoting the North Dakota Fargo Forum):

Fargo City Commissioner Linda Coates is among more than 40 area residents included on a list of people barred from attending President Bush's speech today in Fargo.

Among the 42 area people on the do-not-admit list: two high school students, a librarian, a Democratic campaign manager and several university professors.

White House spokesman Jim Morrell and Don Larson, a spokesman for the North Dakota governor's office, say they don't know anything about such a list.

“This is the first I'm hearing of it,” Morrell said when contacted Wednesday.

But two sources close to Tuesday's ticket distribution confirmed the list exists and includes a handful of names of people who were not to receive tickets to today's event at North Dakota State University's Bison Sports Arena.

The list was supplied to workers at the two Fargo distribution sites, along with tickets and other forms citizens were asked to fill out upon receiving them. People who handed out tickets had copies of the list at their tables to determine if anyone should be denied access, both sources said.

The list contains a wide range of people. Several wrote opinion page letters to The Forum criticizing Bush or the war in Iraq. Others wrote letters in support of gay rights or of Democratic policies.

Legally, if the space is rented for a private event they can block who they like, but it's still ugly when a public official behaves like that. If they are not paying rent, it is a sufficiently public forum that this is a legal wrong as well as a moral travesty.

Cory Doctorow's open letter to American Airlines about his recent experience with airport security at Heathrow is worth reading. Here's an excerpt:

The security officer then handed me a blank piece of paper and said, “Please write down the names and addresses of everyone you're staying with in the USA.” I actually began to write this out when I was brought up short. “Wait a second — since when does AA compile a written dossier on the names and addresses of my friends? Why are you asking me this? Do you have a privacy policy and a data-retention policy I can inspect prior to this?” The security officer told me that this was a Transport Security Agency (TSA) regulation. I asked for the name or number of the regulation, its text, and the details of the data-retention and privacy practices in place at AA UK. The security officer wasn't able to answer my questions, and she went to get her supervisor. After several minutes, her supervisor appeared and said, after introducing himself, “Sir, this is for your own protection.”

It's of course possible it's not really a TSA rule at all; although I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's something special rolled out for the inauguration coronation.

Thing is, though, if they are doing this in the UK, they face a populace with actual rights:

Under the UK Data Protection Act, AA is required to be accountable for the personal information it collects from the public. On presentation of a nominal fee of ten pounds, AA is expected to provide a reasonable accounting of what information it has gathered from me and how it uses that information. I believe gathering these dossiers means that you incur this liability not only to me, but to all of my friends, too — in other words, if you require me to give you my friends' name and address, my friends also have the right to find out how you use that information. This explodes your data-retention liability, potentially by an order of magnitude.

Crooked Timber: Editing Embargo Ends reports that the US has lifted its very likely unconstitutional rule prohibiting domestic editing of works by foreigners from embargoed nations. I wonder if it was the lawsuit or if this incident had anything to do with the sudden liberalization?