Crimes in pastels

Slate's handy guide to Bush administration lawbreaking -- including warrantless wiretapping and war crimes -- is the best use of a Venn diagram I've ever seen. Check out how the overlapping ovals show who was involved in which scandals -- and how former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was at the center of it all.

The work behind this pastel take on lawbreaking at the highest levels of U.S. government is based in part on the ACLU's release of memos about the Department of Justice's authorization of "enhanced" interrogation techniques, i.e. torture.

The Fourth Amendment is not dead

I remember when the story first broke in 2005 that the Bush Administration had been secretly and illegally spying on ordinary Americans' phone calls and emails. The details started to unfold in mid-December, and by the time my family celebrated Christmas Eve, we were still talking about it. Even in a red county in a purple state, no one could quite believe it.

Fast forward two and a half years, and it's outrageous that Congress has done exactly the wrong thing: legalizing warrantless spying on an even greater scale, and retroactively legalizing previous lawbreaking.

I'm proud to say, however, that the ACLU is suing to stop it -- and also that, with the exception of Sen. Kennedy, who wasn't present, the entire Massachusetts Congressional delegation voted to oppose this cave-in.

For the record, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's hard to see how this law isn't unconstitutional -- but stay tuned.

Anti-Immigrant Group and Police Attend ACLU Know Your Rights Talk

I must admit that since starting work at the ACLU, I have gotten surprisingly used to being protested. So when we arrived at the Civic League in Framingham, Massachusetts last Thursday evening to give a presentation to community members, I wasn’t totally surprised. Word had gotten out that the ACLU was in town.

“Welcome to Framingham: Document Fraud Capital of Metrowest!” That’s what the six foot banner, carried by two men outside of the Civic League on Thursday night, loudly proclaimed for all to see. The men had positioned themselves on the sidewalk directly in front of the building entrance so passing drivers and pedestrians could get a clear view. One man wore an army green Border Patrol t-shirt and matching baseball cap, while another person carried a camcorder, presumably to intimidate anyone who wanted to enter. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, these men have gained notoriety over the years through their public bashing of Brazilian immigrants.

We were in town that evening because a local community group had invited the ACLU, along with a lawyer from MLRI, to speak with community members about various police issues, including a segment to educate people about their constitutional rights. Over the last several months, we have been meeting with local activists, lawyers and social service providers in Framingham to discuss the police department’s policies and practices relating to immigration enforcement. Based on my conversations with community members, I learned that the police’s policy on immigration enforcement is one of the most the most pressing issues the community faces.

This is in part due to the fact that cracking down on illegal immigration has been a top priority of local officials. In fact, Framingham is the first and only town in Massachusetts to enter into a 287(g) agreement with the Department of Homeland Security. If you don’t know what a 287(g) is, it’s the agreement that gives local police the power to be immigration agents. It’s a highly contentious issue for immigrants rights advocates who feel that only the federal government should be in the business of enforcing immigration laws. We learned through a meeting with Chief Carl that he entered into the agreement and created a policy on immigration enforcement primarily to address gang and violent crimes; however, we continue to receive reports that many people, regardless of their immigration status (or alleged gang affiliation!), are scared of the police and unsure about how the agreement impacts their community.

This is all taking place in a town that, according to some estimates, has one of the largest Brazilian communities of any town in the United States. Knowing that fact, however, made for this disappointing surprise – less than a handful of community members attended our presentation on Thursday night.

Maybe that’s because a couple of surprise guests were in the audience that night. In the back row sat one man who has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an infamous leader of a local “nativist extremist group.” And in the front row sat a lieutenant from the Framingham Police Department. The lieutenant intermittently “clarified” points during our presentation, until I asked him politely not to interrupt. At the end of the presentation, the lieutenant stood up to remind audience members that the police’s primary mission is not always to conduct arrests and that often they need the cooperation of witnesses to report crimes. But, he said, many immigrants don’t do so in Framingham.

That's exactly the point, I responded. With police agreements like the 287(g) on one hand, and hate groups on the other, it’s not hard to see why immigrants are living in fear. It’s especially not hard to see why people who most need to know what their rights are – the subject of our talk – might be too afraid to show up to a place where the could learn more about them.