National Security

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-- Benjamin Franklin,
Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

Throughout U.S. history, "national security" has often been used as a pretext for massive violations of individual rights.

In the 1940s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans. Today, virtually all Americans recognize the internment as an unjustified action that compromised the fundamental freedoms that make America great.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, mobilized our country in the fight against terrorism. However, 9/11 also launched one of the most serious civil liberties crises our nation has ever seen.

The USA-Patriot Act and related government actions undercut many important checks and balances on government law enforcement and intelligence powers. The most powerful parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records ... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done, even if it turns out to have no connection with a terrorism investigation.

In Oregon, the ACLU led the way to protect two unique Oregon laws under attack after 9/11. ORS 181.575 prohibits law enforcement from spying on people based solely on religious, political or associational activities. ORS 181.850 prohibits law enforcement from enforcing federal (civil) immigration laws when a person is not suspected of any criminal activity. As a result of a 65-member coalition, those two laws were preserved from various attempts to weaken or eliminate them in the 2003 Oregon legislature.

If we allow the interests of "national security" to take away our freedoms, we surrender what it is to be an American.

Litigation

Court Rules No Fly List Process Is Unconstitutional and Must Be Reformed

Court Orders Government to Give Plaintiffs in ACLU Lawsuit a Chance to Clear Their Names

June 24, 2014 – In a landmark ruling, a federal judge struck down as unconstitutional the government’s procedures for people on the No Fly List to challenge their inclusion. The decision came in an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit brought on behalf of 13 Americans who found themselves on the list without any notice, reasons, or meaningful way to get off it. 

The judge ordered the government to create a new process that remedies these shortcomings, calling the current process “wholly ineffective” and a violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The ruling also granted a key request in the lawsuit, ordering the government to tell the ACLU’s clients why they are on the No Fly List and give them the opportunity to challenge their inclusion on the list before the judge. 

READ MORE >>

Mayfield v. United States of America

Constitutional Challenge to USA-Patriot Act

December 10, 2009 - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Brandon Mayfield has no standing to pursue his claims against illegal seach and seizure in his challenge to the constitutionality of portions of the USA-Patriot Act.

READ MORE >>

Legislation

ACLU Urges Lake Oswego to Consider Alternative Agreement With FBI

April 16, 2013 - Lake Oswego City Council is set to vote on a proposal to join the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) this evening, without discussion. The ACLU is urging the Council to postpone the vote until more details on the agreement between local law enforcement and the FBI can be reviewed.

UPDATE: April 17, 2013 - The Lake Oswego City Council voted unanimously to join the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF).

--------

The efforts to improve communication and cooperation among law enforcement agencies, including between the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies, is important. As yesterday’s events in Boston have once again illustrated, such cooperation can be essential to protect public safety. However, the FBI and other federal agencies operate under very different laws and policies than state and local police agencies are required to follow here in Oregon.

Unfortunately, the FBI’s standard agreement for participation by local agencies in their Joint Terrorism Task Forces does not make any accommodation for those different standards and requirements. Indeed, that standard agreement makes it extremely likely that local police officers, once deputized as members of the FBI JTTF, will engage in activities that violate the important protections and safeguards of Oregon law and the Oregon Constitution.

READ MORE >>

Portland and the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force

Annual JTTF Report Still Lacks Important Details

March 27, 2013 - ACLU of Oregon Executive Director David Fidanque testified before Portland City Council urging them to reject the recently released Portland Police Bureau's (PPB) Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) Report. The report contains few details , "... not enough detail to truly inform the public of the nature of PPB’s participation on the JTTF – certainly not enough to compel anyone to point to Portland as a model of transparency," Fidanque said.

The City Council voted to accept the report in a 3-2 vote despite concerns by many of the commissioners over the lack of information contained in the report.

Final Portland Reports on JTTF Greatly Improved, But…

February 29, 2012 – Significantly modified reports on the City of Portland’s relationship with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) were approved by the City Council after the ACLU’s testified they were greatly improved, but still lacked data that would permit the public to independently confirm that Oregon law and the Constitution are being honored by the City.

READ MORE >>

Other

Federal Court Sides With ACLU in No Fly List Lawsuit

Court Recognizes Due Process Rights of Americans on List

August 29, 2013 – A federal court in Portland, Oregon ruled late yesterday that constitutional rights are at stake when the government places Americans on the No Fly List, agreeing with the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. That suit challenges the process for attempting to get off the list as unfair, inadequate, and unconstitutional. The decision also asked the ACLU and the government to submit additional information about the No Fly List redress procedure in order to help the court decide the ultimate question of whether it satisfies the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process.

"This decision is a critically important step towards vindicating the due process rights of Americans on the No Fly List," said ACLU Staff Attorney Nusrat Choudhury, one of the attorneys who argued the case in June. "For the first time, a federal court has recognized that when the government bans Americans from flying and smears them as suspected terrorists, it deprives them of constitutionally protected liberties, and they must have a fair process to clear their names. The No Fly List procedures violate due process because the government refuses to provide any explanation or a hearing for innocent Americans to challenge their inclusion, and we look forward to making that case to the court."

READ MORE >>

ACLU in Court Friday for No Fly List Challenge

Lawsuit Argues List Violates Constitution's Due Process Guarantee

June 20, 2013 - PORTLAND - The American Civil Liberties Union will be in federal court tomorrow asking a judge to declare unconstitutional the government's practice of banning people from flying without giving them any notice, reasons, or meaningful way to clear their names.

"We're asking the court to finally put a check on the government's use of a blacklist that denies Americans the ability to fly without giving them the explanation or fair hearing that the Constitution requires. It's a question of basic fairness," said ACLU Staff Attorney Nusrat Choudhury, one of the ACLU attorneys who will argue the case Friday in Portland. "It does not make our country safer to ban people from flying without giving them an after-the-fact redress process that allows them to correct the errors that led to their mistaken inclusion on the list."

READ MORE >>