http://lnk.nu/wired.com/6z3.html

-

Secret ID Law to Get Hearing

02:00 AM Dec. 07, 2005 PT

-

Although John Gilmore lives just five blocks from San Francisco's Department of Motor Vehicles, his driver's license is expired. On purpose.

The outspoken, techno-hippie, wealthy civil libertarian doesn't want to give his Social Security number to the DMV.

Neither will he show his driver's license at airports, or submit to routine security searches. This refusal to obey the rules led him to file suit against the Bush administration (Gilmore v. Gonzales) after being rebuffed at two different airports on July 4, 2002, when he tried to fly without showing identification. One airline offered to let Gilmore fly without showing ID, but only if he underwent more intensive security screening, which he declined.

On Thursday, Gilmore and his lawyers will get 20 minutes in front of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to make their argument against identification requirements and government secrecy, in a case that time and shifting public opinion has transformed from a quirky millionaire's indignant protest into a closely watched test of the limitations of executive branch power.

"The nexus of the case has always been the right to travel," Gilmore said. "Can the government prevent Americans from moving around in their own country by slapping any silly rules on them -- you have to show ID, you have to submit to searches, you have to wear a yarmulke?"

Gilmore has sunk thousands of dollars into fighting identification requirements, but he also personally committed to not traveling in the United States if he has to show identification.

So Gilmore has not taken a train, an intercity bus or a domestic flight since July 4, 2002. He still flies internationally.

Gilmore describes himself as being under "regional arrest," and said he would love to drive and fly again.

"I'm a millionaire," Gilmore said. "I can do whatever the fuck I want, right? Why should I run around without an ID? Because no one else was paying attention to that and letting our liberties slip down the drain. I figured it was worth some amount of money and some amount of personal sacrifice to keep a free society."

Gilmore has long been a prominent figure in the privacy and civil liberties communities -- he co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But many civil liberties advocates begged Gilmore not to file suit in 2002 because they were certain he would lose and set bad case law, according to Gilmore's lawyer, Jim Harrison.

Things might be different in late 2005.

"The same people that were telling John that you really should not do this while the country is inflamed are the same ones that filed friend-of-the-court briefs to the 9th Circuit," Harrison said.

Gilmore also thinks the mood of the country has changed. "It is now considered patriotic to criticize the president," Gilmore said.

While civil liberties groups now publicly back Gilmore's challenge to government secrecy, many privacy advocates still privately grumble that Gilmore's case is not the best vehicle for challenging identification requirements.

On Thursday, Gilmore will argue that the government's secret identification rules -- no federal law compels travelers to show ID -- and no-fly list infringe on his First Amendment rights, but don't make the country safer.

In addition, government lawyers long denied the existence of the rule -- which predates the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- even though there are signs in airports cautioning passengers that they are required to show identification.

The government recently switched tactics, acknowledging the rule exists but arguing that the identification requirement is a law-enforcement technique.

So far, the government has refused to show Gilmore the order compelling airlines to ask for identification, saying that the rule is "sensitive security information," a security designation that was greatly expanded by Congress in 2002, allowing the Transportation Security Administration wide latitude to withhold information from the public.

Gilmore argues that secrecy and the power of the "sensitive security information," or SSI, designation is to blame for the repeated privacy scandals at the TSA.

"TSA and DHS in general have set themselves up to be insulated from criticism, to have their inner workings be invisible, because they can pull this magic SSI shield over anything they do," Gilmore said. "And what you see are the natural consequences of that kind of secrecy, which is that incompetence is never detected and corrected."

http://lnk.nu/rawstory.com/6z8.html

-

ACLU Pushes for Release of Prison, Torture Documents

12/12/2005 @ 11:36 am

Filed by RAW STORY

-

The American Civil Liberties Union has appealed a federal court's decision to allow the CIA to withhold documents allegedly signed by President Bush, authorizing the establishment of secret CIA prisons overseas and detailing what the administration would consider appropriate treatment of prisoners. To date, the CIA itself has refused to confirm or deny the existence of any such documents.

A release issued by the ACLU follows.

-

NEW YORK -- In the wake of controversy over CIA "extraordinary rendition" policies and secret prisons, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court to reconsider its previous decision to uphold the CIA's refusal to admit even the existence of two key documents on interrogation techniques and detention facilities abroad.

"As the Bush administration seeks to exempt the CIA from a proposed ban on torture, the American public has a right to know what interrogation techniques the CIA considers lawful and appropriate," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "President Bush himself has said, 'we do not torture.' If that's the case, why does the government continue to fight tooth and nail to withhold documents that would shed light on CIA interrogation techniques?"

The two documents in question are a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees, and a Justice Department memorandum specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top Al-Qaeda members.

The ACLU argues that the CIA improperly invoked a legal argument known as the "Glomar" response, under which it can refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act. In legal papers previously filed before the court, the CIA claimed that to even admit that the agency has an interest in detainee interrogations would be damaging to national security. However, in a legal motion filed late Friday, the ACLU argued that the CIA's claims are not valid because its own director, Porter J. Goss, has publicly acknowledged that the CIA does in fact participate in the interrogation of detainees.

"By its own admission, the CIA has publicly acknowledged that it conducts detainee interrogations following the Justice Department's legal advice," said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. "Yet, in sworn declarations before a court of law, the agency argued that confirming even an interest in interrogation techniques would cause damage to national security. Not only is this argument meritless, it is also misleading."

Goss was quoted by several media outlets in November defending the CIA's participation in interrogations, saying that the agency uses interrogation techniques that are "unique" and "innovative." He has also acknowledged that the agency uses or has used methods that would be prohibited under Senator John McCain's proposal to ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of detainees.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein previously ruled that the CIA could invoke "Glomar" with respect to those two documents, but that the agency improperly invoked "Glomar" with respect to a separate Justice Department memorandum interpreting the Convention Against Torture, which had also been requested by the ACLU. Based on Goss' recent statements, the ACLU is asking Judge Hellerstein to reconsider his decision with respect to the two documents for which he upheld the CIA's "Glomar" response.

On November 22, the CIA informed Judge Hellerstein that it would not appeal the decision on the Convention Against Torture memorandum, unless the ACLU decides to appeal the rulings on the other two documents.

The ACLU's motion is online at:
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/warpowers/22585lgl20051212.html

To date, more than 77,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121205D.shtml

-

The Bogus Blurring of Terrorism and Insurgency in Iraq

    By Norman Solomon

    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Monday 12 December 2005

-

    With public support for the Iraq war at low ebb, the White House is more eager than ever to conflate Iraq's insurgency with terrorism. But last week, just after President Bush gave yet another speech repeatedly depicting the US war effort in Iraq as a battle against terrorists, Congressman John Murtha debunked the claim. His refutation deserved much more news coverage than it got.

    "You heard the president talk today about terrorism," Murtha told reporters at a December 7 news conference. "Every other word was 'terrorism.'" Speaking as a lawmaker in close touch with the Pentagon's top military leaders, he went on to confront the core of the administration's current argument for keeping American soldiers in Iraq.

    "Let's talk about terrorism versus insurgency in Iraq itself," Murtha said. "We think that foreign fighters are about 7 percent - might be a little bit more, a little bit less. Very small proportion of the people that are involved in the insurgency are terrorists or how I would interpret them as terrorists."

    Murtha threw cold water on the storyline that presents US troops as defenders of Iraqis. He cited a recent poll, commissioned by Britain's Ministry of Defense, indicating that four-fifths of Iraqis now want the American and British forces out of their country. "When I said we can't win a military victory, it's because the Iraqis have turned against us," Murtha said.

    Contrary to what countless pundits still contend, Murtha sees the US presence in Iraq as a boon, not an impediment, to terrorism. "I am convinced, and everything that I've read, the conclusion I've reached is there will be less terrorism, there will be less danger to the United States and it'll be less insurgency once we're out," he said. "I think the Iraqis themselves will turn against this very small group of Al Qaeda. They keep saying the terrorists are going to control Iraq. No way."

    The relatively small number of Al Qaeda forces in Iraq will become isolated when the deeply resented occupiers leave Iraq, he predicted, and actual terrorists will no longer find a haven among most Iraqis.

    During his presentation about the importance of distinguishing between terrorism and insurgency, Murtha was directly admonishing the White House. But what he said could also serve as a reality check for news media. All too often - without attribution to any source - reporters have asserted that the US military actions in Iraq are part of a "war on terror." And journalists have routinely failed to include any perspectives that challenge the view, avidly promoted by the Bush administration, that the fighters doing battle with American forces in Iraq are, by definition, terrorists.

    In a typical news report from Baghdad airing on "All Things Considered" early this month, NPR correspondent Anne Garrels presented the US government line as the only one worth mentioning. During the December 2 broadcast, she described recent American offensives and then told listeners: "The military says its actions have resulted in numerous terrorists killed or detained, as well as the discovery of a large number of weapons caches."

    The Bush administration is glad to define a "terrorist" as anyone who uses violence against occupation troops. And many US news outlets parrot the claim. But that is flagrant manipulation of language.

-

    Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: WarMadeEasy.com.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121205H.shtml

-

Where Is the Democracy?

    By Jean-Marcel Bouguereau

    Le Nouvel Observateur

    Friday 09 December 2005

-

    Has the United States outsourced torture with regard to certain of its prisoners suspected of terrorism? Can the greatest democracy in the world, the one that has appointed itself the messianic objective of bringing the benefits of democracy to the whole world, trample the principles of law and of habeas corpus which, specifically, were supposed to be the basis of its moral superiority over all dictatorships, both ideological and religious?

It's that moral superiority which, at the end of the nineteen-eighties, allowed it, through the contagion of its principles, to overcome Communist Totalitarianism. In the face of Islamic Totalitarianism, the United States appears to have forgotten this lesson. Condoleezza Rice's embarrassed statements on the occasion of her European trip about those accusations of torture and the maintenance of secret prisons that have been advanced against the United States for weeks were far from being convincing, even if several European Ministers declared themselves "satisfied" with her explanations concerning the use of European airports by CIA airplanes.

    Taking cover behind defense secrecy, she limited herself to explaining that the United States had respected "the procedures," a way of saying that these countries had been advised about the strange flights that served to transport presumed Islamists. Of course, the Secretary of State reiterated that her country does not practice "torture and does not allow its agents to practice it." But the problem is that the final destinations of these planes were countries, notably Arab countries, where the practice of torture is current, countries not too fastidious about interrogation methods. What has become of those detainees described as "ghost detainees," twenty-six of whose names have just been published by Human Rights Watch - detainees held in secret in hidden locations outside the United States? Detainees imprisoned for an indefinite duration and in isolation, without legal rights or the right of access to a lawyer. Where is the democracy in that? The example of Guantánamo is hardly encouraging: many testimonies have shown that acts of torture and mistreatment have been committed on this American base installed on the island of Cuba. All in the name of the fight against terrorism, of course.

-

    Jean-Marcel Bouguereau is Editor-in-Chief at the Nouvel Observateur and an editorialist for the République des Pyrénées, for which this article was written.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121205A.shtml

-

 President Bush Missed Critical Opportunity

    By Senator Feingold

    Truthout | Statement

    Monday 12 December 2005

-

    "With only three days remaining until the Iraqis return to the polls to elect their national parliament, President Bush missed a critical opportunity today to signal U.S. support for an autonomous, independent, and self-sustaining Iraqi government by making clear that the U.S. military mission in Iraq is not permanent. Unfortunately he also indicated that even after this week's election, he will continue down the same "stay the course" path. This is no strategy for success.

    As Iraqis elect their national parliament, the current massive U.S. military presence, without a clear strategy and flexible timetable to finish the military mission in Iraq, will continue to fuel a growing insurgency and will ultimately prevent the very political and economic progress Iraqis need to develop a true democracy. A flexible timetable for withdrawal will also allow the U.S. government to refocus its efforts on making our country safe and combating global terrorist networks - the true threat facing our country today."

    Feingold voted against the Iraq resolution in October 2002. In June, he introduced a resolution that called on the President to provide a flexible, public timetable for concluding our mission in Iraq - one that is tied to clear and achievable benchmarks. In August, Feingold suggested December 31, 2006 as a target date to complete the military mission there.