ACLU Challenges Government’s Ban On Renowned South African Scholar In Federal Court Today

In Oral Arguments, Group Says U.S. Unfairly Blocking Exchange Of Ideas In This Country

BOSTON -- Today in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Massachusetts challenged the government’s refusal to grant a visa to respected South African scholar Adam Habib. Last fall, the State Department refused Habib a visa after months of inaction, claiming that he is barred because he has “engaged in terrorist activities” -- but the government failed to explain the basis for its inflammatory accusation, let alone provide a single piece of evidence to prove it.

“By barring Professor Habib from speaking in the U.S. without any substantiation whatsoever, the government is stifling debate with a prominent critic of U.S. policy. But the government doesn’t get to decide what we are allowed to hear and what we are not,” said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “The government has not only deeply harmed the reputation of a respected professor, but its own reputation as a democracy that embraces a diversity of ideas.”

In oral arguments before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the ACLU argued that the Departments of State and Homeland Security must grant Habib a visa because the government has no legitimate basis for preventing him from speaking to U.S. audiences.

Last September, the ACLU filed a lawsuit charging that the government's exclusion of Professor Habib amounts to censorship at the border because it prevents U.S. citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU brought this case on behalf of organizations that have invited Professor Habib to speak in the U.S., including the American Sociological Association, the American Association of University Professors, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights.

Habib is a renowned scholar, sought-after political analyst, and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research, Innovation and Advancement at the University of Johannesburg. He is also a Muslim who has been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq and some U.S. terrorism-related policies. Habib has repeatedly condemned terrorism but urged governments to respond to the terror threat with policies that are consistent with human rights norms and the rule of law. Until the government suddenly revoked his visa without explanation, he never experienced any trouble entering the U.S.; in fact, Habib lived in New York with his family for years while earning a Ph.D. in political science from the City University of New York.

The October 2006 revocation of Professor Habib’s visa prevented him from attending a series of meetings with representatives from the National Institutes for Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Bank, Columbia University and the Gates Foundation. When he landed in New York, Habib was detained for seven hours and interrogated about his associations and political views. Armed guards eventually escorted him to a plane and deported him back to South Africa. The State Department later revoked the visas of Professor Habib’s wife and two small children again without explanation.

“It is ironic that someone who studies democracies around the world can be refused entry into the U.S. because of political views that differ from the government’s. Although I have analyzed -- and sometimes criticized -- American foreign policy as a public affairs commentator, it is utterly ridiculous that anyone could possibly associate me with terrorism,” said Habib. “While the U.S. government’s inflammatory, unsubstantiated label has caused harm to both my family and my reputation, this case is not about me -- it is about restoring the marketplace of ideas that has always made America unique.”

Last May, Habib applied for a new visa that would allow him to travel to the U.S. to attend speaking engagements. The ACLU’s lawsuit was prompted by the government’s failure to process Professor Habib’s visa in time for him to attend the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in August 2007 and the fact that the application continued to languish after Habib received numerous new U.S. invitations.

“The government is using the immigration laws to silence a foreign policy critic and to censor political debate inside the United States,” said Sarah Wunsch of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The American people have a constitutional right to engage prominent scholars face-to-face.”

Professor Habib’s exclusion is part of a larger pattern. Over the past few years, numerous foreign scholars, human rights activists and writers -- all vocal critics of U.S. policy -- have been barred from the U.S. without explanation or on vague national security grounds. In 2006, the ACLU filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of U.S. academic groups and Professor Tariq Ramadan, a widely respected Swiss scholar of the Muslim world. When the government revoked his visa in 2004, Professor Ramadan was prevented from assuming a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame. He remains excluded from the U.S. to this day.

Attorneys in the case are Goodman, Jameel Jaffer, Nasrina Bargzie and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU, and Wunsch and John Reinstein of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

More information about ideological exclusion -- including a podcast with Adam Habib, plaintiff statements in support of Habib, and the legal complaint in today’s case -- is available at: www.aclu.org/exclusion

To learn more about how ideological exclusion affects scholars, listen to a podcast of Greek economics professor John Milios discussing his detainment and interrogation at New York's JFK airport in 2006. The podcast can be found at: www.aclu.org/multimedia/john_milios_final.mp3

ACLU of Massachusetts Files Suit to Stop "Shadow" DNA Databases

BOSTON -- Cape Cod men who voluntarily agreed to provide DNA samples in the investigation of the murder of Christa Worthington have brought suit seeking to prevent the State Police Crime Lab from keeping their DNA in a secret "shadow" DNA data bank.

The class action suit was filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLUM) in Suffolk Superior Court on behalf of Keith Amato, a Provincetown resident who gave the State Police a DNA sample but has been unable to obtain its return.

Amato was one of approximately one hundred Cape residents who voluntarily provided what is called a "rule out" DNA sample, in order to exclude them as suspects in the investigation. Each of the men was promised that his sample would be destroyed if it did not match the DNA found at the crime scene. To date, however, both the District Attorney and the Crime Lab have refused either to return or to destroy the samples, despite repeated requests that they do so.

"We are not saying that the government may not collect rule-out samples, but only that there is no valid reason to retain those samples once it is clear that the sample is not linked to the crime in question," said John Reinstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "We are asking for the return of samples taken in this case, but also asking that the Executive Office of Public Safety fulfill its obligation to adopt regulations that ensure the privacy of these individuals and of those who cooperate with police investigations in the future will be safeguarded."

Most of the samples were obtained in what was described as a "sweep" of a large number of men who were wholly unconnected with the case. Given the breadth of the sweep, its only apparent purpose was to see who refused to cooperate. The sweep was widely criticized at the time as an intrusive investigatory technique that did nothing to further the investigation.

After the investigation ended in the arrest of Christopher McCowen, Amato asked District Attorney Michael O’Keefe for the return of his DNA. The ACLU of Massachusetts lawsuit alleges that O’Keefe promised that the sample would be destroyed, but refused to confirm that this had been done. Later, in response to an inquiry made on Amato’s behalf by the ACLU of Massachusetts, the director of the Crime Lab disclosed that it still had Amato’s DNA sample and that it would not destroy it without a specific request from District Attorney O’Keefe.

"The Crime Lab retains these rule-out samples indefinitely, effectively creating a shadow DNA database," said Proskauer Rose attorney Mark Batten, who is representing Amato on behalf of the ACLU. "Massachusetts has no procedure for the disposition of these samples, so there are no guarantees that they could not be used for other purposes. Because of the sensitivity of DNA information, we believe that strict rules protecting privacy and guarding against abuse are necessary."

"People who cooperate with police investigations need to know that their DNA will not wind up in a shadow government database, where there are no guarantees of how the DNA may be used -- not only against them, but against members of their family," said Batten.

Massachusetts is one of the few states in the country that allows so-called "partial match" testing of DNA to determine whether a close relative of a subject is a potential suspect in a crime.

"While Massachusetts law provides for keeping a data bank of the DNA of convicted felons and including that data in the national DNA identification system, it does not authorize the Crime Lab to maintain records of the DNA of innocent persons who have cooperated with the police in voluntarily giving them a DNA sample," said Reinstein. "This disregard for the privacy of innocent people is also bad public policy, because it creates a real disincentive for people to cooperate in future investigations."

For a copy of the complaint, see:

http://www.aclum.org/legal/amato_v_okeefe/complaint.pdf

News: DNA Deceit

Rose Connors wrote this great story in the Cape Cod Voice, about the collection of DNA samples in an attempt to catch a murderer. Those who consented to the DNA collections were told their samples would be destroyed, but they haven't been.

The ACLU of Massachusetts opposed this flawed method from the start, and the article quotes John Reinstein, our Legal Director.

News: City mulls new rules, fees for news boxes

John C. Drake of the Boston Globe cites past ACLU work on behalf of freedom of speech -- in the form of fighting unreasonable restrictions on the distribution of news boxes around the city -- in this story.

Op-Ed: Civil rights sacrificed by Safe Homes

The Boston Herald has run this op-ed run by Ronald Hampton, executive director of the National Black Police Association, who is speaking to the Boston City Council and a community meeting later today about his opposition to the "Safe Homes" program of warrantless police searches.

News Release: Head of National Black Police Association to challenge "Safe Homes" program of warrantless searches

On June 3, Ronald Hampton, the Executive Director of the National Black Police Association, will join advocates and community leaders to call for changes in the Boston Police Department's "Safe Homes" program of warrantless searches of homes. Hampton, who worked for over 24 years as a community police officer in Washington D.C., has been leading the opposition to a similar D.C. police initiative.

"From my own experience as a police officer, I know that Safe Homes is the opposite of a sound community-policing strategy," Hampton states. "It's not acting in partnership with the community when police officers respond to tips by asking people to give up their constitutional rights and permit their homes to be searched without a warrant."

Hampton will be testify at a 3:30 PM Boston City Council hearing on a "Safe Homes" resolution (Docket # 0565) sponsored by Councilor Chuck Turner. He will then participate in a Community Speak-Out at Freedom House at 14 Crawford Street in Dorchester (6-8 PM): "Come Get Your Rights On! What You Need to Know About Police Searches."

City Council Hearing on "Safe Homes" resolution
Docket # 0565, sponsored by Councilor Chuck Turner
Tuesday, June 3, 3:30pm
Boston City Hall

Come Get Your Rights On! What You Need to Know About Police Searches
Tuesday, June 3, 6:00-8:00pm
Freedom House
14 Crawford Street (near Grove Hall), Dorchester

In addition to discussing the "Safe Homes" initiative, the forum will focus on police searches on the street, and what can be done to enhance community safety.

Other participants include:

- King Downing, National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling;
- Senator Dianne Wilkerson;
- Angela Williams-Mitchell, president of the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law-Enforcement Officers;
- Horace Small, executive director of the Union of Minority Neighborhoods;
- Sarah Wunsch, ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney;
- Scott Rankin, a staff attorney with the Youth Advocacy Project.

The Freedom House Community Speak-Out is being organized by the ACLU of Massachusetts and 13 advocacy and community groups.

News: ACLU's Norma Shapiro gets her 'Academy Awards moment'

Ethan Jacobs of Bay Windows wrote this story about the Roger Baldwin award received by Norma Shapiro, our Legislative Director. Shapiro received the award in recognition of decades of work on behalf of civil rights and civil liberties, including her work for equal marriage rights.

Past recipients of the award include Rosa Parks, Kurt Vonnegut, and Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Editorial: Justice by the numbers

The Boston Globe has run this lead editorial, highlighting the ACLU's recent report Locking Up Our Children, about pre-trial juvenile lockup, and urging the state to begin collecting the information needed to address this problem.

Op-Ed: Why I'm planning to speak out against the Safe Homes initiative

Ronald E. Hampton is executive director of the National Black Police Association. He will be in Boston on June 3 to speak about the Safe Homes Initiative at a Boston City Council hearing beginning at 3:30 p.m. that day, and at a “community speak-out” at Freedom House entitled Come Get Your Rights On!: What You Need to Know about Police Searches, from 6-8 p.m.

In advance of those two events, Hampton wrote this op-ed for the Bay State Banner.

News: ACLU hits Comcast on Barry Nolan axing

Boston Herald media columnist Jessica Heslam cites ACLU criticism of Comcast's decision to fire CN8 reporter Barry Nolan in this column. Comcast fired Nolan after he criticized the decision to award an Emmy to Fox showman Bill O'Reilly.

ACLU Cuba suit hits the headlines

Reporter Terri Hallenbeck of Vermont's Burlington Free Press covered yesterday's hearing on an ACLU challenge to Bush administration restrictions on travel to Cuba in this story. Plaintiffs are challenging rules which prevent them from visiting sick or dying relatives.

The Associated Press is running similar coverage today, and Maria Sacchetti of the Boston Globe wrote another great story looking at the issue yesterday.

News: In more public places, cameras are on watch

Globe correspondent Connie Paige quotes our Staff Attorney, Sarah Wunsch, in this story on the growing use of surveillance cameras.

"We used to think of the United States as a place where the government was not spying on citizens," she says, as part of our overall concerns.

News: Bill bars gangs from 'safety zones'

Maria Cramer and Shelley Murphy from the Boston Globe quote our Legal Director, John Reinstein, in this story about a bill that would make it a crime for gang members to stand together or talk to each other on public property.

There are all sorts of problems with the bill, such as the constitutional right to meet, and the fact that people who are simply mistaken for "gang members" could suffer under the law.

News: RSU fights for poster rights, ACLU speaks

Derrick Perkins reports for the Daily Collegian in this article about a free speech rally at UMass Amherst. The story quotes Bill Newman, director of our Western Massachusetts Legal Office, who spoke at the rally.

News: Police Safe Homes plan leads to heated debates

Kyle de Beausset and Howard Manly at the Bay State Banner wrote this article about a Feb. 21 meeting on the so-called "Safe Homes" program. Manly moderated the discussion, and one participant was Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts.

One thing the article talks about is a sense of shame that problems have:

spiraled downward to the point where suspending the U.S. Constitution — specifically the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from illegal searches and seizures — seemed like a small price to pay to stop the inner-city bleeding.

News: Three blind mice?

Columnist Dianne Williamson at the Worcester Telegram cites the work of the ACLU of Massachusetts in this great piece on free speech in Spencer.

At issue is whether a citizen had the right to refer to town selectmen as "the three blind mice" during a meeting last September. The chairman, Vincent Cloutier, ruled her out of order for the comment.

Does this mean even mild criticism isn't permitted at a public meeting?

In a letter, Sarah Wunsch, our Staff Attorney, wrote:

“The town has created a citizen comment period, and the chairman does not have the right to silence those who are critical of the performance of town officials and employees, including the board members themselves."

Williamson writes: "Mr. Cloutier... is an elected official and needs to toughen up."

News: Boston Police vs. political protest?

Boston Now's Senior Reporter James O'Brien looks in this article at whether the Boston Police have been cracking down selectively on the free speech rights of demonstrators.

In a recent case, performance artist Milan Kohout stood outside a downtown Bank of America location with a pile of nooses and a sign saying "Nooses on Sale." He says they referred to the bind that stock market and mortgage problems have put people in, but police confiscated the ropes and sign and charged him with being an unlicensed vendor.

The article quotes John Reinstein, our Legal Director, and there's also an audio recording of the interview with some detailed discussion of free speech issues.

Letter to the Editor: Police gun searches raise concern

The Boston Globe carries a letter today by Carol Rose, our Executive Director. It's about the Boston Police Department's so-called Safe Homes plan, in which police ask for people (in predominantly African-American neighborhoods) to allow them to search their homes for guns, without a warrant.

The program raises many civil liberties concerns. As Rose says:

Boston residents have the right to say no when the police come to their door without a warrant. And when they do, the police should leave.

News: City takes another shot at voter ID requirement

This article in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune examines the issue of voter ID requirements, and quotes Chris Ott, Communications Manager for the ACLU of Massachusetts. Advocates say checking IDs is necessary to prevent voter fraud.

The ACLU's position is that there is little to no real evidence of fraud being committed, and that requiring an ID just prevents and discourages people from exercising a fundamental right.

News: State's mandate on health coverage has avoided legal challenge so far

Norma Shapiro, Legislative Director for the ACLU of Massachusetts, weighs in on the state's plan requiring everyone to have health insurance coverage, in this article in the New Bedford Standard-Times.