Ashcroft

Memorandum on the FOIA
In making these decisions, you should consult with the Department of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy when significant FOIA issues arise, as well as with our Civil Division on FOIA litigation matters. When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records.

ADD: organizations: www.pfaw.org">People for the American Way

The passage of USA PATRIOT was quickly eclipsed, as the country was treated to an illuminating lesson in civil "democracy": massive witch-hunts, secret detentions, "voluntary" round-ups of thousands of (mainly Arab and Arab American) immigrants and citizens; military tribunals; denial of attorney-client privilege; widely disseminated proposals for legalized torture, retinal identification cards, and internal passports; encouragement of Americans to spy on neighbors and "watch what they say"; promises of expedited citizenship for immigrants who act as stool pigeons; harassment and discipline of students, professors, and media reporters who speak out against the war; whipping up of racism, which has led to many attacks and, in some cases, deaths; delays in visa processing for tens of thousands of innocent immigrants who come from "suspect" countries; the imposition of secrecy on ordinary immigration hearings, to the extent that they may not even be listed on the docket; the jailing of immigrants even after immigration judges have ordered their release; the limiting of immigration appeals; the withdrawal of presidential papers and historical records from the public domain; and greater limitations on what citizens can learn about government functioning under the Freedom of Information Act. Note that this litany does not include the numerous repressive measures of the USA PATRIOT Act itself, which are even more sweeping in their own right: secret searches of citizens and noncitizens alike, without probable cause, without notification, and without any relationship to "terrorist" investigations; expanded detention, without hearing, of immigrants, potentially for life, on vague assertions by the attorney general; expansive e-mail and Internet snooping; expanded, secret government access to personal and professional records, including medical records, bank records, credit histories, drug tests, hair and DNA samples, etc.; tremendous expansion and legalization of government powers to spy on and prosecute political protesters, dissenters, and organizations; criminal definitions of "terrorism" having little to do with a common understanding of the term--so broad as to include us all; guilt by association; expanded government access to student records; and broader wiretapping powers. The USA PATRIOT legislation inspired similar efforts elsewhere. Canada, Britain, Mexico, China, India, Turkey, Tibet, Nepal, and others have used the cover of the U.S. war on terrorism to crack down on democracy. Several individual states within the U.S. have also passed their own versions of "antiterrorist" legislation; Illinois legislation provides a mandatory minimum penalty of 20 years, and a possible maximum of death. In a bizarre Kafka-esque landscape, it has become possible in the new millennium in the United States to be jailed without charge; to be held secretly--and, potentially, indefinitely; to never be informed of the evidence against you; to have your name withheld; to be presumed guilty until proven innocent; and to be denied a lawyer to mount a defense. The land of "freedom" and "democracy" has established guilt by association, guilt by suspicion, and guilt by belief.[8] The scope of the attack on civil rights has been so broad as to constitute apparent overkill; in fact, it is commensurate with the military scale of unlimited war that the elite of this country intends to wage. Hijacking the Bill of Rights The illegal we can do right now; the unconstitutional will take a little longer. --Henry Kissinger from http://www.isreview.org/issues/22/civil_liberties.shtml

Secrecy Is Our Enemy By BOB HERBERT
Last Monday's opinion declared that it was unlawful for the Bush administration to conduct deportation hearings in secret whenever the government asserted that the people involved might be linked to terrorism. The Justice Department has conducted hundreds of such hearings, out of sight of the press and the public. In some instances the fact that the hearings were being held was kept secret. The administration argued that opening up the hearings would compromise its fight against terrorism. Judge Keith, and the two concurring judges in the unanimous ruling, took the position that excessive secrecy compromised the very principles of free and open government that the fight against terror is meant to protect.

FREE SPEECH THREATS:

http://www.literalpolitics.com/america_must_not_bend.htm">America Must not Bend
" "Free" Speech The right to free speech has taken a hit under the Bush administration. Obsessed with its image and loathe to acknowledge any dissent among the American people, the Bush White House has a policy of forcing any protestors into "first amendment zones", designated pens often far from the event Bush himself is attending. People are forbidden from carrying anti-Bush signs or banners. The legal justification for such limitations stems from the a law passed under Clinton that prohibits anti-choice protestors from blocking medical clinic entrances, but places them in zones away from the entranceways. However, these zones are much closer than anti-Bush protestors are allowed, and the reason for them was the violent intimidation and harassment routinely practiced by abortion foes. This hardly seems like a comparable situation to American citizens making their opinion known to their president, however unelected he may be, as guaranteed by the Constitution, wherein the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Over time, the courts have upheld limited and reasonable restrictions on assembly and speech, particularly when the threat of harm is likely, as in the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). Bush's zones are not only unreasonable, they are illegal. The FACE Act expressly prohibits using the act to limit peaceable freedom of speech. Federal law further stipulates that if speech and assembly are limited for security or other public concerns, then the limitations must be equally applied to all groups. However, the only groups that are herded into the Bush Zones are protestors, while supporters are allowed to assemble wherever they please, and to keep their signs, while protestors are prohibited signage. Bill and Joyce Neel were arrested for attempting to exercise their freedom of speech during Bush's visit to Pittsburgh in August. Led away in handcuffs by the police, their only "crime" was stepping outside the fenced-in area designated as the official protest zone, which was four blocks from the venue where the Bush event was located. Neel and his sister were charged with disorderly conduct. Not for threatening violence, not for even arguing with the police. For simply standing somewhere they were told not to. At this same event, pro-Bush supporters, even those with signs, were allowed to stand along the sidewalks leading up to a private picnic ground., and the only explanation the police could give those herded into the zone, was "Orders". Police even ordered a journalist there to cover the event into the Zone when he tried to take pictures of the protestors from across the street. Michael Rechtenwald, carrying only a small sign with the name of his organization, Citizens for Legitimate Government, was threatened with arrest by the Secret Service for a federal offense if he did not return to the Zone. "

Last fall's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act sought to legitimize and expand government detentions. Under that legislation, immigrants and other noncitizens may now be detained for a week without charges if Ashcroft "certifies" that the individual is a "terrorist" or a threat to "national security." If it later turns out that the detainee is not deportable for terrorism, but is deportable for a technical violation (such as overstaying a visa), consequences for the individual may be dire, especially if the person is not accepted by his or her native country. In that case, the individual can be jailed under USA PATRIOT indefinitely and without a hearing. The act effectively imposes life sentences on immigrants in these circumstances based on the attorney general's vague and unsubstantiated allegations. - http://www.isreview.org/issues/22/civil_liberties.shtml

Anthony Lewis, "Right and wrong," New York Times, November 24, 2001, and "Wake up America," New York Times, November 30, 2001. 24 Laurence H. Tribe, "Why Congress must curb Bush's military courts: Trial by fury," The New Republic online, December 10, 2001. "[I]n reality, if this can be done to noncitizens, it can be done to citizens, as well," said David Cole, constitutional law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, quoted in David A. Love, "Military tribunals are a threat to the Constitution," November 28, 2001, available on the Progressive Media Project Web site at www.progressive.org/mediaproj.htm. Note also that "a unanimous [Supreme Court] ruled that both citizens and noncitizens lose the protections of the American legal system when they become enemy agents in wartime" (Robin Toner, "Civil liberty vs. security: Finding a wartime balance," New York Times, November 18, 2001).

Judges Want Independence From Department of Justice For the first time in its 23 year history, the judges union has taken a policy stance. Federal judges are concerned that America's "core legal values' are being compromised by the Ashcroft Justice Department, which has issued a number of executive orders limiting the powers of judges in immigration cases. In the meantime, numerous immigrants have been held without charge and without recourse, not being allowed to speak with family or friends, their names kept secret. The judges are asking Congress to separate them from the Justice Department and create an independent court, due to deep concern that the court's credibility and impartiality has been compromised by Ashcroft's edicts. The judges cite an inherent conflict of interest between immigrants rights and the interests of the INS, whom Ashcroft has given the power to override the decisions of immigration judges. For the first time in its 23 year history, the judges union has taken a policy stance. Federal judges are concerned that America's "core legal values' are being compromised by the Ashcroft Justice Department, which has issued a number of executive orders limiting the powers of judges in immigration cases. In the meantime, numerous immigrants have been held without charge and without recourse, not being allowed to speak with family or friends, their names kept secret. The judges are asking Congress to separate them from the Justice Department and create an independent court, due to deep concern that the court's credibility and impartiality has been compromised by Ashcroft's edicts. The judges cite an inherent conflict of interest between immigrants rights and the interests of the INS, whom Ashcroft has given the power to override the decisions of immigration judges.

">Bush To Ignore Rule On Notices

Mr. Bush thinks he is above the law, and has proclaimed "he'll use presidential authority to sidestep a rule requiring his administration to provide Congress with written notice of U.S. intelligence activities." This provision was in the 2002 intelligence authorization act that Bush just signed into law. But he doesn't like that pesky notification requirement, so he simply won't obey it. Look for more screaming matches between Dan Burton and White House lawyers, and more congressional investigations in the coming year.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=308068"> US cartoonists under pressure to follow the patriotic line By Andrew Buncombe, in Washington 23 June 2002

< HREF="http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020626-4917655.htm"> FBI targets protest groups By J. Bradley Jansen FBI targets protest groups By J. Bradley Jansen

USEFUL : www.literalpolitics.com