From: wes676767@aol.com
Subject: SNET: Fwd: ACLU News 07-30-2000:  Religious Freedom Bill, FBI Power Grab, More!
Date: 30 Jul 2000 17:32:57 -0400
To: AGENDAS@maelstrom.stjohns.edu, snetnews@topica.com


--part1_6a.5372201.26b5fa20_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

->  SNETNEWS  Mailing List

 


-> To unsubscribe send email to snetnews-unsubscribe@topica.com
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
--part1_6a.5372201.26b5fa20_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: 
Received: from  rly-za02.mx.aol.com (rly-za02.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.98]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 16:10:57 -0400
Received: from  mx1.client-mail.com (mx1.client-mail.com [204.243.96.15]) by rly-za02.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 16:10:30 -0400
X-Mailer: Lyris Web Interface
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:18:42 -0400
Subject: ACLU News 07-30-2000:  Religious Freedom Bill, FBI Power Grab, More!
To: news@lists.aclu.org
From: owner-news@lists.aclu.org
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
X-List-Host: ACLU 
Reply-To: owner-news@lists.aclu.org
Message-Id: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

07-30-2000
ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU!
----------------------------------------------------------------
        IN THE ACLU NEWSROOM

       **The Latest News Can Always Be Found At:**
          http://www.aclu.org/news/pressind.html

* Final Passage of Breakthrough Religious Freedom Bill 
  Hailed By Religious and Civil Rights Groups 
  http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072800a.html

* Government Plotted to Disrupt Peaceful Protests,
  Rights Groups Charge
  http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072700b.html

* New Jersey Court Ruling on Abortion Ban Protects
  Women's Health and Lives, ACLU Says
  http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072700a.html

* ACLU Calls on Congress to Address Broad Issues
  Affecting Fairness of Death Penalty
  http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072500c.html

* ACLU Applauds House Committee Members 
  For Stopping Attack on Civil Liberties 
  http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072500a.html

* ACLU Enthusiastically Endorses Measure
  To Restore Fairness to Immigration Laws 
  http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072500b.html

* ACLU Tells House Panel That FBI
  Is Engaged In Unprecedented Power Grab
  http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072400a.html

* Other Recent ACLU News Releases

-----------------------------------------------------------------

     Final Passage of Breakthrough Religious Freedom Bill 
     Hailed By Religious and Civil Rights Groups 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Thursday, July 28, 2000 

WASHINGTON -- An unusual collection of religious and advocacy groups today
applauded the House and Senate for unanimously adopting landmark
bipartisan legislation to protect religious freedom from unfair government
restrictions.

"This legislation is a victory for all who cherish the basic American
values of fairness and religious freedom," said Christopher T. Anders, a
legislative counsel for the ACLU. "Soon religious communities will no
longer be subject to arbitrary or discriminatory government regulations
that unfairly restrict their ability to worship."

The bill's dramatic passage was marked by down to the wire negotiating
over its impact on historic preservation laws. With minutes left before
Congress left town for the August recess, the Senate agreed to a unanimous
consent request. The bill was then transferred to the House, where it
passed just moments before the chamber closed for recess. The bill's
primary sponsors were Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA),
Representatives Charles Canady (R-FL), Chet Edwards (D-TX) and Jerry
Nadler (D-NY).

Named the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act," the bill
is the result of months of negotiation not only across party lines, but
between groups that are traditionally pitted against one another in
battles over the relationship between the government and religion. It is
actively supported by a coalition of more than 60 groups, including the
ACLU, the Family Research Council, the Baptist Joint Committee, the
Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, and groups
representing Christian denominations from Catholics to Mormons to Seventh
Day Adventists.

The ACLU said the consensus legislation will provide important new
protections for religious freedom without the potential for harmful civil
rights problems raised by previous legislative efforts. The new bill
focuses on land use for religious groups and religious freedom for people
institutionalized in state facilities such as hospitals, group homes or
prisons, the two areas in which the majority of conflicts between
religious exercise and government arise. The ACLU led opposition last year
to a religious liberty measure adopted by the House because of concerns
that it would undermine state and local civil rights laws.

"Religion has been unfairly targeted by government regulation across the
country," said Terri Schroeder, an ACLU legislative representative. "The
balance between the needs of religion and the larger community's concerns
has been off kilter for far too long. This bill will restore the
equilibrium."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

     Government Plotted to Disrupt Peaceful Protests,
     Rights Groups Charge

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 27, 2000

WASHINGTON -- The United States and District of Columbia governments
deliberately plotted to disrupt and stifle peaceful protests against the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, according to a lawsuit
filed by civil rights and protest groups here today.

The class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District court by the American
Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, the National Police
Accountability Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the Partnership
for Civil Justice, on behalf of Fifty Years is Enough, the International
Action Center, the Mobilization for Global Justice, and other
organizations and individuals who participated in the April, 2000,
protests in Washington, D.C.

"In this country, the government is supposed to protect the constitutional
right to protest," said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the
National Capital Area. "But the evidence in this case will show that D.C.
and federal officials deliberately sabotaged those rights."

"We recognize that some demonstrators engaged in civil disobedience last
April," Spitzer added. "But we expect the police to obey the law, whether
or not others do."

The lawsuit claims that federal and D.C. government agencies and officers
unlawfully intimidated, harassed and disrupted the protests:

-- falsely portrayed the protesters as threatening violence

-- maliciously closed the protesters' headquarters for pretextual fire
code violations

-- confiscated protesters political literature, banners, and medical
supplies

-- wrongfully barred protesters from demonstrating near the World Bank-IMF
meetings

-- arrested hundreds of protesters without cause, and

-- used excessive force against non-violent demonstrators. 

All this, the groups charged, was done in order to prevent the protesters
from exercising their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and
assembly. The lawsuit seeks money damages for people whose rights were
violated, and court orders prohibiting the government from interfering
unlawfully with future protests. Today's case is being filed in the wake
of a similar lawsuit recently filed by the ACLU in Seattle, claiming that
Seattle police unconstitutionally banned protesters from demonstrating at
the International Monetary Fund meeting there last fall.

Within the past few weeks, the ACLU has also sued the cities of
Philadelphia and Los Angeles, where officials attempted to confine
protesters at the upcoming Republican and Democratic Party Conventions to
small areas far removed from the convention sites.

On July 20, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled that the protesters had a
right to bring their message within sight and sound of the convention, and
the Philadelphia case was settled when the city agreed to make closer
protest sites available.

"These efforts around the country to prevent protesters from bringing
their messages to their intended audiences are very troubling," said Mara
Verheyden-Hilliard, of the Partnership for Civil Justice. "These
dissenters, and the people on whose behalf they advocate, are not allowed
a seat at the table of the non-democratic bodies that they oppose, or
cannot afford the price that political representatives charge to hear
their views. The only way that they can be heard is when they take to the
streets and speak in unison."

Dan Schember, on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild's National Police
Accountability Project, added, "It's unreasonable to exclude lawful
demonstrators from a large area of sidewalks, streets and parks near the
World Bank just because other demonstrators may sit down in the street.
Police may move and arrest those who block the street, and that is all
that is justified."

No date has yet been set for a court hearing. 

Today's lawsuit was filed on behalf of: Fifty Years is Enough, an
organization that since 1994 has lawfully protested annually outside World
Bank-IMF meetings. The Mobilization for Global Justice, the umbrella
organization that coordinated the World Bank-IMF protests in April, 2000.
The International Action Center, based in New York, which sponsored the
"Prison Industrial Complex" demonstration on April 15, 2000, at which more
than 600 people were arrested without cause.

A legal brief in the case is available online at:
http://www.aclu.org/court/wto_brief.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

     New Jersey Court Ruling on Abortion Ban Protects
     Women's Health and Lives, ACLU Says

     Statement of Lenora M. Lapidus, Legal Director, ACLU of New Jersey

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 27, 2000

NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union is encouraged by a
decision of the court of appeals striking down a deceptively vague and
dangerous law that would have put women's health at risk and banned all of
the safest, most commonly used methods of abortion throughout pregnancy.

Yesterday's ruling, consistent with last month's United States Supreme
Court ruling on a similar ban, rejects the argument that so-called
"partial-birth abortion" bans target a single discrete procedure. The
appeals court affirmed the ruling of the federal district court, which
blocked enforcement of the ban.

Now doctors in New Jersey can continue to provide safe, quality medical
care based on consultation with their patients, without regard to the
meddling of politicians.

We hope this message will resonate with courts in the more than 30 states
where similar bans have been enacted, many of which lack adequate
exceptions for the life and health of the woman involved.

While we are encouraged by this decision, we remain concerned about other
efforts to restrict women's rights to safe, legal abortions. The Parental
Notification Act, currently pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court,
requires minors to notify a parent before having an abortion. If allowed
to go into effect, this statute will only harm teens, not help them. We
hope and trust that the state Supreme Court will uphold the rights of New
Jersey teens and protect their health and constitutional right to choose.

The case was filed by Lapidus of the ACLU of New Jersey, Talcott Camp from
the ACLU's National Reproductive Freedom Project and Dara Klassel of
Planned Parenthood Federation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

     ACLU Calls on Congress to Address Broad Issues
     Affecting Fairness of Death Penalty 

     Statement of Diann Rust-Tierney,
     Director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Tuesday, July 25, 2000 

WASHINGTON -- For the first time in the history of the modern death
penalty, Congress voted today to place limitations on the use of capital
punishment. Even though the effort was of questionable political
motivation, the unanimous vote by the House of Representatives to ban the
execution of pregnant women had the laudatory effect of showing that the
death penalty comes with deeply troubling baggage.

Although the situation that Congress addressed today is remote at best --
there has never been a case of a pregnant prisoner facing execution --
today's vote lays the groundwork for Congress to address the more
disturbing issues raised by capital punishment.

These troubling issues abound. Just today, for example, a study reported
that federal prosecutors favor whites over African Americans when agreeing
to settlements of criminal cases that avoid death sentences. And a June
report found that every two of three death sentences nationwide are
overturned because of serious errors.

Rather than focusing on non-existing situations, we call on Congress to
vote on bills that would address the inherent unfairness of the death
penalty. Such legislation is pending in both the House and Senate and
includes:

-- The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 (S2690/HR 4167), introduced by
Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Carl Levin (D-MI), and by Reps. William
Delahunt (D-MA) and Ray LaHood (R-IL). It would allow death row prisoners
better access to DNA tests and to an experienced lawyer and would ensure
that sentencing juries are aware of the option of life imprisonment
instead of execution.

-- The National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2000 (S. 2463), introduced
by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) would suspend executions while a national
commission reviews the administration of the death penalty.

-- The Accuracy in Judicial Administration Act of 2000 (HR 4162),
sponsored by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) would establish a 7-year
moratorium on state and federal executions, during which the government
would be directed to find standards to provide "overwhelming confidence
that innocent parties will not suffer the death penalty."

While the ACLU opposes capital punishment as incompatible with
constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, we
believe that short of abolition, Congress and the courts must ensure its
fair application insofar as humanly possible. Now that Congress has
demonstrated its willingness to place limitations on the scope and
application of the death penalty, we urge it to go further to address
broader problems in a broken system.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

     ACLU Applauds House Committee Members 
     For Stopping Attack on Civil Liberties 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Tuesday, July 25, 2000 

WASHINGTON -- In a victory for privacy and free speech rights, the House
Judiciary Committee today adopted a drug bill that was swept clean of its
most troubling civil liberties proposals, including both a secret "black
bag" searches provision and an Internet censorship measure.

"The Judiciary Committee today bravely withstood pressure to expand some
of the worst elements of the so-called war on drugs," said Marvin Johnson,
a Legislative Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington
National Office.

Over the last several months, proponents of the bill -- known as the
Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, (HR 2987) -- have steadily dropped
some of its most controversial pieces, including a provision that would
have made it illegal for news websites to link to webpages about topics
like medical marijuana and hemp production by threatening them with jail
time. Another provision that was removed would have forced Internet
Service Providers to remove users' web pages without due process on the
basis of mere allegations by the government.

In a display of extraordinary bipartisan cooperation, the committee passed
an amendment offered by Representatives Bob Barr (R-GA) and Tammy Baldwin
(D-WI) that stopped the government from criminalizing speech that might
contradicts its "war on drugs" propaganda.

The ACLU expressed disappointment that the bill still included a provision
that would create new federal drug offenses, ignoring calls to halt the
federalization of crime from across the political spectrum, including
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Representative Maxine
Waters.

"Despite recent groundbreaking reports showing that minorities are far
more likely to be targeted under harsh federal drug laws than whites
accused of the same crimes, some members of Congress appear to be saying
that no cost is too high when it comes to cultivating a tough on crime
image," said Rachel King, an ACLU Legislative Counsel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

     ACLU Enthusiastically Endorses Measure
     To Restore Fairness to Immigration Laws 

     Statement of Gregory T. Nojeim, ACLU Legislative Counsel 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Tuesday, July 25, 2000 

WASHINGTON -- The United States is a nation of laws, and our government is
charged with guaranteeing that these laws are administered with
impartiality and fairness.

To ensure that impartiality and fairness, we are also a nation that
provides for court review of government decisions. In our system of checks
and balances, judicial review is an essential tool for preserving
individual liberty. But anti-terrorism and immigration laws passed in 1996
eliminate that guarantee for many immigrants in the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union is therefore happy to join with the
AFL-CIO, B'nai B'rith, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National
Council of La Raza, National Immigration Forum, Organization of Chinese
Americans and Immigrant and Refugee Services of America in endorsing the
"Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Law Act of 2000" being introduced
today in the House by Rep. John Conyers, (D-MI), joined by Reps. Sheila
Jackson-Lee (D-TX), James Clyburn (D-SC), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Lucille
Roybal-Allard (D-CA), and Robert Underwood (D-GU).

The Conyers measure would enhance judicial review of immigration decisions
on such matters as deportation, asylum eligibility and detention. It would
restore the pre-1996 law granting immigration officials authority to
release immigrants who do not pose a danger to society and who are likely
to appear for future proceedings. The bill would also prevent indefinite
detention of non-citizens whom the Immigration and Naturalization Service
is unable to remove. Currently, the government claims the authority to
detain non-citizens indefinitely, after they have already served criminal
sentences. Finally, the bill would help correct a number of other
problems, including retroactive and discriminatory use of immigration
laws.

Immigration decisions are life-altering and must be undertaken with great
care. Deportation or detention can separate a person from her family and
from all that makes life worth living. Mandatory and indefinite detention
are perhaps the most flagrant, unfair deprivations of liberty possible.

When such a substantial liberty interest is at stake, the Constitution
demands that adequate protection -- or due process -- is provided to
ensure that such decisions are correct and fair. Judicial review of the
decisions of immigration officials provides this essential due process
protection. Congress should adopt the Conyers legislation to provide due
process and ensure fairness for all on American soil.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

     ACLU Tells House Panel That FBI
     Is Engaged In Unprecedented Power Grab

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, July 24, 2000 

WASHINGTON -- Testifying about the new "Carnivore" wiretapping system, the
American Civil Liberties Union today told a House committee that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation is engaged in an "unprecedented" power
grab that threatens the privacy of all Americans.

"Never before has the FBI insisted that it has the authority to capture
all of the communications passing through a network," said ACLU Associate
Director Barry Steinhardt. "Never before has a law enforcement agency
asked for this kind of power based on an unsupervised promise that it will
not stray beyond the confines of its authority."

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Steinhardt urged Congress to reject the FBI's reasoning and
adopt legislation that would uphold the Fourth Amendment's protection
against unwarranted searches. Steinhardt said that the FBI's recent
dog-and-pony shows with lawmakers and the media to demonstrate the
technology behind Carnivore have not addressed concerns that the system
includes no oversight of the information the FBI is capturing.

"If you accept the FBI's arguments in favor of Carnivore," he said, "you
reject the Fourth Amendment, which is built on the premise that law
enforcement cannot be trusted with carte blanche authority when it
conducts a search."

According to the FBI, the Carnivore system -- essentially a computer
running specialized software -- is attached to an Internet Service
Provider's network and searches through all of its customers' electronic
messages (including email, web addresses and instant messages) looking for
the messages of a person suspected of a crime.

The new system comes at a time of record wiretapping by federal law
enforcement. In the last reporting period, Steinhardt said, the Clinton
Administration conducted more wiretaps in one year than had ever been
conducted before.

"Congress must send a clear message to the FBI," Steinhardt said. "Under
no circumstances must it be allowed to engage in such a mass invasion of
the privacy of law-abiding Americans."

Steinhardt's testimony can be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/congress/l072400a.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Other Recent ACLU News Releases:

07-24-00 -- ACLU Challenges Invasive Home Searches of Welfare Recipients
in San Diego Area
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072400b.html

07-21-00 -- Minneapolis Police Department Changes Its Tune In Response To
MCLU's Concerns
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072100a.html

07-20-00 -- Federal Judge Requires Los Angeles to Follow First Amendment
During the Democratic National Convention
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072000c.html

07-20-00 -- ACLU Applauds Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Employees'
Privacy
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072000b.html

07-20-00 -- ACLU Urges Senate to Take Immediate Action To Protect Against
Genetic Discrimination
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n072000a.html

07-19-00 -- ACLU Claims Free Speech Victory in Texas; Displaying Political
Posters is Now Legal
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n071900a.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------
ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Freedom Network Web Page:  http://www.aclu.org  
America Online: keyword ACLU
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Newsfeed
American Civil Liberties Union National Office
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004

For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. To 
subscribe to the ACLU Newsfeed, write to lyris@lists.aclu.org, with 
"subscribe news" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message.

---
You are currently subscribed to news as: [wes676767@aol.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-news-257504K@lists.aclu.org

--part1_6a.5372201.26b5fa20_boundary--