A thousand words....

By now, the government has learned that the old saying is true: "A picture speaks a thousand words." Even though reporters had been writing about torture in Iraq months before the Abu Ghraib photos leaked, it was the images that captured the public's attention. And even though we know that the CIA has used "enhanced interrogation techniques" our lawyers are still fighting in court over tapes the CIA may or may not have destroyed.

That's why, when acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Julie Myers was asked at her confirmation hearings about pictures she had taken at an ICE Halloween party with a man in dark makeup, a dreadlocked wig and prison stripes, which she awarded the "most original" costume of the night, she responded that all pictures had been destroyed. Sound familiar? She said that when she realized her error in judgment, she ordered that all pictures of the ICE employee be deleted.

Then along comes CNN with a Freedom of Information Act request and, guess what? The pictures were found!

When the Halloween episode happened, ACLUM's Board President wrote a letter to the editor in the Boston Globe. Now that the photos are available, maybe Congress will step up and ask the questions that naturally follow. Did Julie Myers know about the existence of the photos when Congress asked her for them? Did others in her office? And, is it appropriate for a person with such insensitivity toward issues of race and justice to head the law enforcement agency that plans to detain and deport 200,000 immigrants this year?

Don't let a tragedy chill civil liberties

A tragic sexual assault on a child is a tough case in which to question public safety measures. But a case reported last week raises issues that should be examined, from a proposal to bar the public from entering a library, to reporting that casts blame on judges and assumes that prisoners should not be released after serving their full sentences. According to an article in the Boston Globe (2/1/08), a sex offender released in 2006 was charged with raping a child in a library in New Bedford. While the facts alleged are disturbing, the public would be better served by a more in depth explanation of civil commitment proceedings and the specific "sexual dangerousness" standard that was not met at the offender’s 2006 hearing after he served his sentence. Instead, the judge will now be vilified.

The following day's article (“Despite objections, many sex offenders freed” Boston Globe 2/2/08) further alarmed the public. However, it failed to question the practice by some prosecutors of seeking last-minute civil commitments based on decades-old information to keep offenders locked up. Are we now so used to the idea of indefinite detention that we expect it to be the norm after a prison sentence is served?

This week the rape charge led the mayor of New Bedford to call for blocking the public from the public library, unless we submit to carrying special, barcoded IDs (Boston Globe 2/6/07). Are we again willing to give up privacy and public access for the promise of security?