![]() |
PRESS RELEASES |
![]() |
OPINIONS |
![]() |
PUBLICATIONS |
![]() |
PRINT NEWSLETTERS |
![]() |
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT |
![]() |
RSS FEEDS |
![]() |
ACLU ON THE RADIO |

PRESS CONTACT
REBECCA FARMER
39 DRUMM STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CA 94111
415.621.2493
Email

Proposed Law Would Restore Local Control Over Intelligence Gathering![]() Supervisor Jane Kim has introduced legislation before the Board of Supervisors that would prohibit members of the San Francisco Police Department working with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force from collecting intelligence on San Franciscans unless there is reasonable suspicion that they are involved in significant criminal activity. Full story» |


Employers in Arizona are challenging a law passed in 2007 mandating the use of a flawed database system called E-Verify to check on the immigration status of employees. In a recent national newscast on the Spanish-language network Univision, ACLU-NC staff attorney Julia Harumi Mass explains why the Supreme Court should strike down the law.

The administration's chief rationale for dismissing the suit "no longer exists, because the (interrogation) methods are now public, and because they have been prohibited," Ben Wizner, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing five current and former U.S. prisoners, said in a filing with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The five men accuse Jeppesen Dataplan, a San Jose subsidiary of the Boeing Co., of colluding with the CIA in their kidnapping and torture in a practice known as extraordinary rendition.
The Bush administration acknowledged the rendition program, in which suspected criminals and terrorists were taken to foreign countries or CIA prisons for interrogation. The administration said, however, that the foreign governments guaranteed no one would be tortured.
A former Jeppesen employee, in a court declaration, quoted a company director as telling staffers in 2006 that Jeppesen handled torture flights.
A federal judge dismissed the suit last year, agreeing with the Bush administration's argument that it could damage national security. President Obama renounced torture and ordered secret CIA prisons closed after taking office, but his administration has adopted its predecessor's position in the Jeppesen case.
"Judges shouldn't play with fire," Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter told the appeals court in February. He argued that none of the critical issues in the suit - the CIA's alleged seizure and detention of the men, their treatment and the agency's relationship with a private company - could be aired safely in court.
Last week, Obama declassified four Bush administration Justice Department memos authorizing the CIA to keep al Qaeda suspects awake for as long as 11 days and use a variety of other techniques during interrogations, including head slaps, stress positions, slamming into walls and the simulated-drowning procedure called waterboarding. Department lawyers said none of the procedures would constitute torture.
None of the documents involved the plaintiffs in the Jeppesen case. But Wizner said former CIA Director Michael Hayden, who criticized the release of the memos, also provided a declaration that is central in the argument over the prisoners' lawsuit.
Hayden has said Obama's disclosure of the memos would aid the nation's enemies by displaying the outer limits of the CIA's methods.
"The CIA has managed to avoid liability for torture by promoting the fiction that its torture and rendition programs were secret," Wizner said in an interview.
"By declassifying and officially confirming some of the worst details of the Bush torture regime, President Obama has removed any basis for denying victims their day in court," Wizner said.
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Michael Finney Podcast
Download the interview » [skip to 15 minutes in]TOPIC: ACLU’s new publication, "Privacy and Free Speech: It's Good for Business."
OVERVIEW:
New technology has revolutionized the ways that we work and live. But as scores of recent controversies show, when companies fail to take privacy and free speech rights into proper account, the result can be bad for the public and bad for business.
A new primer produced by the ACLU of Northern California, Privacy and Free Speech: It’s Good for Business, is packed with case studies and hands-on tools to help companies avoid privacy and free speech mistakes that can lead to negative press, government investigations and fines, costly lawsuits, and loss of customers and business partners.
Among other sections, this primer will help businesses:
By making privacy and free speech a priority as new ventures and products are being developed, companies can save time and money by protecting customer rights while bolstering the bottom line.

Download the Fall 2011 ACLU of Northern California Newsletter and read about our latest events and initiatives.

| • | A New Frontier of Reproductive Freedom for U.S. Women |
| • | Oakland Gang Injunction is a False Solution |
| • | As Death Penalty Cases Fade, L.A. County Pays to Buck the Trend |
