LD6 Dems

Glenn Greenwald on Arar v. Ashcroft: "A court decision that reflects what type of country the U.S. is"

Nancy W recommends:  Glenn Greenwald's op ed published today in Salon, A court decision that reflects what type of country the U.S. is, which discusses Arar v. Ashcroft. 

Excerpt:

It's not often that an appellate court decision reflects so vividly what a country has become, but such is the case with yesterday's ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Arar v. Ashcroft (.pdf).  Maher Arar is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen of Syrian descent.  A telecommunications engineer and graduate of Montreal's McGill University, he has lived in Canada since he's 17 years old.  In 2002, he was returning home to Canada from vacation when, on a stopover at JFK Airport, he was (a) detained by U.S. officials, (b) accused of being a Terrorist, (c) held for two weeks incommunicado and without access to counsel while he was abusively interrogated, and then (d) was "rendered" -- despite his pleas that he would be tortured -- to Syria, to be interrogated and tortured.  He remained in Syria for the next 10 months under the most brutal and inhumane conditions imaginable, where he was repeatedly tortured.  Everyone acknowledges that Arar was never involved with Terrorism and was guilty of nothing.  ...

***

Yesterday, the Second Circuit -- by a vote of 7-4 -- ...held that even if the government violated Arar's Constitutional rights as well as statutes banning participation in torture, he still has no right to sue for what was done to him.  Why?  Because "providing a damages remedy against senior officials who implement an extraordinary rendition policy would enmesh the courts ineluctably in an assessment of the validity of the rationale of that policy and its implementation in this particular case, matters that directly affect significant diplomatic and national security concerns" (p. 39).  In other words, government officials are free to do anything they want in the national security context -- even violate the law and purposely cause someone to be tortured -- and courts should honor and defer to their actions by refusing to scrutinize them. 

Read the entire article here.

Judiciary Committee Members seek Arpaio invesigation

Press Release:

"WASHINGTON – House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) called on Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to investigate allegations of misconduct by Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Sheriff Arpaio has repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the rights of Hispanics in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Under the guise of immigration enforcement, his staff has conducted raids in residential neighborhoods in a manner condemned by the community as racial profiling. On February 4, 2009, Arpaio invited the media to view the transfer of immigrant detainees to a segregated area of his "tent city" jail, subjecting the detainees to public display and "ritual humiliation." Persistent actions such as these have resulted in numerous lawsuits; while Arpaio spends time and energy on publicity and his reality television show, "Smile… You’re Under Arrest!", Maricopa County has paid millions of dollars in settlements involving dead or injured inmates."

"Racial profiling and segregation are simply not acceptable." said Conyers. "Media stunts and braggadocio are no substitute for fair and effective law enforcement."

"The basic premise of our justice system is that people are innocent until proven otherwise," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren. "I’m concerned that in Maricopa County that basic premise appears to have been turned upside down and that Latino members of community are considered "undocumented" until proven otherwise. That’s not how our Constitution works and it’s time for the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to take a closer look."

"We cannot tolerate vigilantes using the police power to violate the fundamental rights of anyone they can get their hands on," said Nadler. "Sheriff Arpaio has consistently abused his office in violation of federal law. It is time for the federal government to step in and uphold the rule of law in this country, even in Maricopa County." "Law enforcement is not a game or a reality show, it is a public trust," said Scott. "There is no excuse for callous indifference to the rights of the residents of Arizona, whether in their neighborhoods or as pretrial detainees."

Read the letter sent to Holder and Napolitano here (PDF).

AZ Ballot Measure Alert: Un-Constitutional Constitutional Amendment proposed to deny basic human rights to many Arizona residents and visitors

On February 2, 2009, an application was filed to submit the following AZ ballot measure in the 2010 General Election.  The proposed amendment would eliminate universally recognized basic human rights and must not be allowed to pass. That being said, even if it did pass, it would be declared unconstitutional under the US Constitution.

Title of Ballot Measure	Centennial Committee
Submitted Measure "Summary"	"A Constitutional Amendment to Article II, section 4 of the Arizona Constitution relating to the right of due process for all citizens of this state, by adding the equal protection of the laws clause of section 1 of the Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution to eliminate state discrimination." (Source)
What the Measure Actually Says	The original title and text of the Article II, Section 4 of the Arizona Constitution, read as. § 4. Due process law. Section 4. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The proposed amendment to Article II, section 4 of the Arizona Constitution: § 4. Due process of law; EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. Section 4. No person BORN OR NATURALIZED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY CITIZEN WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE, THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. (Source)
What the Measure Really Means	This proposed amendment is - in a word - outrageous. The "summary" is grossly misleading, implying that the amendment would add to individual rights in Arizona. In truth, the proposed amendment would take away universally recognized basic human rights from any non-citizen, including legal immigrants and foreign citizens traveling to Arizona for vacation! The US Constitution's 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause states: "Section 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In other words, the US Constitution prohibits any state from passing any law (or constitutional amendment) that would deprive any person - whether or not a citizen - of the basic right to life, liberty, or property without due process. It also prohibits any state from passing any law that would deny any citizen equal protection of the law. Additionally, the Arizona Constitution, Article II, Section 13 already prohibits any law that would deny equal protection of the laws to any Arizona citizen or corporation: "No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations." So - given that, what is the purpose of this proposed amendment?  The purpose is best understood in conjunction with Mr. Sander's other proposed ballot measure, "Mandatory Enforcement by the People," which essentially seeks to have Arizona secede from/declare sovereignty from the U.S. In short, this proposed amendment, which would be in direct violation of the US Constitution and universally recognized basic human rights, seeks to permit the state of Arizona to deprive any noncitizen - including any person who is in Arizona legally - of life, liberty, or property - without any legal due process protections.
Who is Sponsoring the Measure?	Fletcher T. Sanders, Sr., Applicant Centennial Committee Phoenix, AZ 85074

AZ Ballot Measure Alert: Un-Constitutional Constitutional Amendment to reject US Constitution proposed

On February 2, 2009, an application was filed to submit the following AZ ballot measure in the 2010 General Election. The proposed amendment essentially seeks to declare sovereignty from the U.S., must not be allowed to pass. That being said, even if it did pass, it would be declared unconstitutional under both the Arizona Constitution and the US Constitution.

Title of Ballot Measure	Mandatory Enforcement by the People
Submitted Measure "Summary"	"A Constitutional Amendment to Article II, section 32 of the Arizona Constitution relating to Constitutional provisions are mandatory, by adding a new subsection 32.1 to section 32 to provide mandatory enforcement by the people." (Source)
What the Measure Actually Says	The original title and text of Article II, Section 32 of the Arizona Constitution, read as: § 32. Constitutional provisions mandatory Section 32. The provisions of this constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared otherwise. The proposed amendment to Article II, section 32 of the Arizona Constitution: § 32. Constitutional provisions mandatory; SUPREME LAW; POWER OF ENFORCEMENT SECTION 32.1 NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THIS CONSTITUTION TO THE CONTRARY, THIS MANDATORY PROVISION OF THIS CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THIS STATE, AND THE PEOPLE, BY THE INITIATIVE POWER, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENACT ALL LAWS NECESSARY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION. (Source)
What the Measure Really Means	Essentially, this proposed amendment seeks to effect a "back door revocation" of the Arizona Constitution Article II, Section 3, which reads: "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." This initiative can best be understood in conjunction with Mr. Sander's second application, "Centennial Committee," which seeks to eliminate fundamental human rights for any noncitizen, including legal immigrants and other foreign citizens visiting Arizona. As with that proposed amendment, this one would directly violate the U.S. Constitution and, as such, would not be enforceable even if it did pass.
Who is Sponsoring the Measure?	Fletcher T. Sanders, Sr., Applicant Mandatory Enforcement by the People Phoenix, AZ 85074

AZ Ballot Measure Alert: Constitutional Amendment to establish civil partnerships proposed

On January 26, 2009, an application was filed to submit the following AZ ballot measure in the 2010 General Election.  This proposed measure is consistent with the principles of the Democratic Party and we should support it.

Title of Ballot Measure	Yes for Arizona Civil Partnerships
Submitted Measure "Summary"	"A Civil Partnership is a legal contract between two people of the same sex ("civil partners") which guarantees the same benefits and Consequences of an Opposite-sex Marriage that is recognized under the Arizona State Constitution unless otherwise prescribed by the Civil Partnership Proposition." (Source)
What the Measure Actually Says	The proposed new Arizona Constitution Article XXXI is too long to include the entire text in this post, but you can read it yourself here.
What the Measure Really Means	Essentially, the proposed amendment will establish a civil partnership registry in Arizona, similar to those adopted by multiple other states.  Registered civil partners would be entitled to the same fundamental rights – and responsibilities – applicable to married spouses.  This is the type of measure that President Obama supports.  As stated on his White House Civil Rights Agenda: "President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights."
Who is Sponsoring the Measure?	Mr. Gennaro Meriano, Chairman Yes For Arizona Civil Partnerships Peoria, AZ 85345