Democrats Abroad New Zealand
5.25.2007
Revolt Against New U.S. ID Card Grows (Reuters.com)
Thu May 24, 2007 4:12PM EDT
By Jason Szep
BOSTON (Reuters) - New Hampshire on Thursday joined a growing list of states to reject a controversial U.S. identification card that opponents say will cost billions of dollars to administer and present a risk to privacy.
The Democratic-controlled state Senate approved legislation to prohibit the Real ID program in a 24-0 vote, and Gov. John Lynch said he would sign the bill, which passed the state House of Representatives on April 6.
New Hampshire becomes the 13th state to oppose the identification card. Another 22 states are considering similar legislation or resolutions to reject it, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
"I applaud the Senate for overwhelmingly rejecting Real ID and for sending a strong message to the federal government," Lynch, a Democrat, said in a statement. "I look forward to signing this legislation, which will ensure the interests of the people of New Hampshire are protected."
The U.S. Congress in 2004 passed a law calling for the national digital identification system. It is intended as a post-September 11 security measure to make more secure the state-issued driver's license that are an ubiquitous form of identification in the United States.
Under the program, states would be required to verify documents presented with license applications and to link their license databases into a national electronic network. The federal law that created the program did not provide states with funds to carry it out.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S.)
By Jason Szep
BOSTON (Reuters) - New Hampshire on Thursday joined a growing list of states to reject a controversial U.S. identification card that opponents say will cost billions of dollars to administer and present a risk to privacy.
The Democratic-controlled state Senate approved legislation to prohibit the Real ID program in a 24-0 vote, and Gov. John Lynch said he would sign the bill, which passed the state House of Representatives on April 6.
New Hampshire becomes the 13th state to oppose the identification card. Another 22 states are considering similar legislation or resolutions to reject it, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
"I applaud the Senate for overwhelmingly rejecting Real ID and for sending a strong message to the federal government," Lynch, a Democrat, said in a statement. "I look forward to signing this legislation, which will ensure the interests of the people of New Hampshire are protected."
The U.S. Congress in 2004 passed a law calling for the national digital identification system. It is intended as a post-September 11 security measure to make more secure the state-issued driver's license that are an ubiquitous form of identification in the United States.
Under the program, states would be required to verify documents presented with license applications and to link their license databases into a national electronic network. The federal law that created the program did not provide states with funds to carry it out.
(More ... Reuters > News > U.S.)
Labels: Civil Liberties, Reuters
¶ 20:54 0 comments
5.09.2007
The Democrats' Pledge (NYTimes.com)
EDITORIAL
Published: May 9, 2007
Last year, Congressional Democrats allowed the Bush administration to ram through one of the worst laws in the nation’s history — the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This year, the Democrats pledged to use their new majority to begin repairing the profound damage the law has done to the nation’s justice system and global image.
But there are disturbing signs their pledge may fall victim to the same tactical political calculations and Bush administration propagandizing that allowed this scandalous law to pass in the first place.
Rewriting the act should start with one simple step: restoring to prisoners of the war on terror the fundamental right to challenge their detention in a real court. So far, promised measures to restore habeas corpus have yet to see the light of day, and they may remain buried unless Democratic leaders make them a priority and members of both parties vote on principle, not out of fear of attack ads.
President Bush turned habeas corpus into a partisan issue by declaring that the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, even innocent ones, do not deserve a hearing. Lawmakers who objected were painted as friends of terrorists.
But let’s be clear. There is nothing “conservative” or “tough on terrorism” in selectively stripping people of their rights. Suspending habeas corpus is an extreme notion on the radical fringes of democratic philosophy. As four retired military chief prosecutors — from the Navy, the Marines and the Army — pointed out to Congress, holding prisoners without access to courts merely feeds Al Qaeda’s propaganda machine, increases the risk to the American military and sets a precedent by which other governments could justify detaining American civilians without charges or appeal.
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Editorial)
Published: May 9, 2007
Last year, Congressional Democrats allowed the Bush administration to ram through one of the worst laws in the nation’s history — the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This year, the Democrats pledged to use their new majority to begin repairing the profound damage the law has done to the nation’s justice system and global image.
But there are disturbing signs their pledge may fall victim to the same tactical political calculations and Bush administration propagandizing that allowed this scandalous law to pass in the first place.
Rewriting the act should start with one simple step: restoring to prisoners of the war on terror the fundamental right to challenge their detention in a real court. So far, promised measures to restore habeas corpus have yet to see the light of day, and they may remain buried unless Democratic leaders make them a priority and members of both parties vote on principle, not out of fear of attack ads.
President Bush turned habeas corpus into a partisan issue by declaring that the prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, even innocent ones, do not deserve a hearing. Lawmakers who objected were painted as friends of terrorists.
But let’s be clear. There is nothing “conservative” or “tough on terrorism” in selectively stripping people of their rights. Suspending habeas corpus is an extreme notion on the radical fringes of democratic philosophy. As four retired military chief prosecutors — from the Navy, the Marines and the Army — pointed out to Congress, holding prisoners without access to courts merely feeds Al Qaeda’s propaganda machine, increases the risk to the American military and sets a precedent by which other governments could justify detaining American civilians without charges or appeal.
(More ... New York Times > OpEd > Editorial)
Labels: Civil Liberties, Editorials, Guantanamo, New York Times
¶ 21:49 0 comments
1.14.2007
Military Is Expanding Its Intelligence Role in U.S. (NYTimes.com)
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: January 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.
The C.I.A. has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.
Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.
The F.B.I., the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of national security letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provoking criticism and court challenges from civil liberties advocates who see them as unjustified intrusions into Americans’ private lives.
But it was not previously known, even to some senior counterterrorism officials, that the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been using their own “noncompulsory” versions of the letters. Congress has rejected several attempts by the two agencies since 2001 for authority to issue mandatory letters, in part because of concerns about the dangers of expanding their role in domestic spying.
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Published: January 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.
The C.I.A. has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.
Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.
The F.B.I., the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of national security letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provoking criticism and court challenges from civil liberties advocates who see them as unjustified intrusions into Americans’ private lives.
But it was not previously known, even to some senior counterterrorism officials, that the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been using their own “noncompulsory” versions of the letters. Congress has rejected several attempts by the two agencies since 2001 for authority to issue mandatory letters, in part because of concerns about the dangers of expanding their role in domestic spying.
(More ... New York Times > Washington)
Labels: CIA, Civil Liberties, Domestic Espionage, New York Times
¶ 20:28 0 comments
1.11.2007
Civil Liberties Group Accuses CIA of Prison Abuse Cover-up (ABC.net.au)
Last Update: Thursday, January 11, 2007. 4:05pm (AEDT)
A CIA refusal to release two secret documents on its prisons and their interrogation methods points to a cover-up of unlawful abuse, a leading US civil rights group has said.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which with four other organisations has an ongoing lawsuit against the CIA, says the CIA had filed a declaration arguing they should not be forced to release two US Justice Department memos because of national security.
The ACLU says two memos discuss a presidential order concerning the CIA's authorisation to set up detention facilities outside the US and permissible interrogation methods.
"The CIA's declaration uses national security as a pretext for withholding evidence that high-level government officials in all likelihood authorised abusive techniques that amount to torture," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.
"This declaration is especially disturbing because it suggests that unlawful interrogation techniques cleared by the Justice Department for use by the CIA still remain in effect.
"The American public has a right to know how the Government is treating its prisoners."
(More ... ABC News)
A CIA refusal to release two secret documents on its prisons and their interrogation methods points to a cover-up of unlawful abuse, a leading US civil rights group has said.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which with four other organisations has an ongoing lawsuit against the CIA, says the CIA had filed a declaration arguing they should not be forced to release two US Justice Department memos because of national security.
The ACLU says two memos discuss a presidential order concerning the CIA's authorisation to set up detention facilities outside the US and permissible interrogation methods.
"The CIA's declaration uses national security as a pretext for withholding evidence that high-level government officials in all likelihood authorised abusive techniques that amount to torture," ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.
"This declaration is especially disturbing because it suggests that unlawful interrogation techniques cleared by the Justice Department for use by the CIA still remain in effect.
"The American public has a right to know how the Government is treating its prisoners."
(More ... ABC News)
Labels: ABC (Aus), CIA, Civil Liberties, Extraordinary Rendition
¶ 21:56 0 comments
1.09.2007
On FBI's Wanted List - All of Your Fingerprints (NZHerald.co.nz)
Monday January 08, 2007
By David Eames
The tens of thousands of New Zealanders who visit the United States each year will soon have their fingerprints recorded and stored on FBI databases as they arrive.
Under plans to combat terrorism, the US Government will demand that visitors have all 10 fingers scanned when they enter the country. The information will be shared with intelligence agencies, including the FBI, with no restrictions on their international use.
At present, US airport scanners take only two fingerprints from travellers. The move to 10 allows the information to be compatible with the FBI database.
The Department of Homeland Security is expected to roll out the measures from the middle of the year, with 10 airports - including New York, Washington, and Miami - leading the way.
Countries subject to the new scheme include New Zealand, Australia, Japan and European Union nations.
Travel statistics website Asmal shows that as many as 139,000 New Zealanders visited the US in the 12 months to September, 3 per cent more than the previous year.
The 10-print plan has infuriated civil liberties groups in New Zealand and overseas.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > National News)
By David Eames
The tens of thousands of New Zealanders who visit the United States each year will soon have their fingerprints recorded and stored on FBI databases as they arrive.
Under plans to combat terrorism, the US Government will demand that visitors have all 10 fingers scanned when they enter the country. The information will be shared with intelligence agencies, including the FBI, with no restrictions on their international use.
At present, US airport scanners take only two fingerprints from travellers. The move to 10 allows the information to be compatible with the FBI database.
The Department of Homeland Security is expected to roll out the measures from the middle of the year, with 10 airports - including New York, Washington, and Miami - leading the way.
Countries subject to the new scheme include New Zealand, Australia, Japan and European Union nations.
Travel statistics website Asmal shows that as many as 139,000 New Zealanders visited the US in the 12 months to September, 3 per cent more than the previous year.
The 10-print plan has infuriated civil liberties groups in New Zealand and overseas.
(More ... New Zealand Herald > National News)
Labels: Civil Liberties, GWOT, New Zealand Herald
¶ 08:31 0 comments
1.06.2007
Bush Warned About Mail-Opening Authority (WashingtonPost.com)
Recent 'Signing Statement' Seen as Stretching Law
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 5, 2007; Page A03
President Bush signed a little-noticed statement last month asserting the authority to open U.S. mail without judicial warrants in emergencies or foreign intelligence cases, prompting warnings yesterday from Democrats and privacy advocates that the administration is attempting to circumvent legal restrictions on its powers.
A "signing statement" attached to a postal reform bill on Dec. 20 says the Bush administration "shall construe" a section of that law to allow the opening of sealed mail to protect life, guard against hazardous materials or conduct "physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."
White House and U.S. Postal Service officials said the statement was not intended to expand the powers of the executive branch but merely to clarify existing ones for extreme cases.
"This is not a change in law, this is not new, it is not . . . a sweeping new power by the president," spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. "It is, in fact, merely a statement of present law and present authorities granted to the president of the United States."
But some civil liberties and national-security law experts said the statement's language is unduly vague and appears to go beyond long-recognized limits on the ability of the government to open letters and other U.S. mail without approval from a judge.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 5, 2007; Page A03
President Bush signed a little-noticed statement last month asserting the authority to open U.S. mail without judicial warrants in emergencies or foreign intelligence cases, prompting warnings yesterday from Democrats and privacy advocates that the administration is attempting to circumvent legal restrictions on its powers.
A "signing statement" attached to a postal reform bill on Dec. 20 says the Bush administration "shall construe" a section of that law to allow the opening of sealed mail to protect life, guard against hazardous materials or conduct "physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."
White House and U.S. Postal Service officials said the statement was not intended to expand the powers of the executive branch but merely to clarify existing ones for extreme cases.
"This is not a change in law, this is not new, it is not . . . a sweeping new power by the president," spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. "It is, in fact, merely a statement of present law and present authorities granted to the president of the United States."
But some civil liberties and national-security law experts said the statement's language is unduly vague and appears to go beyond long-recognized limits on the ability of the government to open letters and other U.S. mail without approval from a judge.
(More ... Washington Post > Politics)
Labels: Bush, Civil Liberties, Washington Post
¶ 16:37 0 comments
