| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2003/4/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:27959 Activity:very high |
4/2 Show your opposition to secret courts in the US: http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=12219&c=110 Oppose knee-jerk "victims' rights" amendment to Constitution (especially if you're registered in California) http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=9955&c=52 \_ Yawn.... \_ Bush stole my evil rights and all I got was a long dirt nap. \_ we doing this for the sake of democracy and human right for all. \_ Bush stole my civil rights and all I got was a long nap. \_ Blah blah blah blah blah. Whatever. This whole thing is just troll bait from the start. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=12219&c=110 National Security : 10 Surveillance/wiretapping Support Oversight of the Secret FISA Court 11 Printer-Friendly Version 12 Send this article to a friend! Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (most commonly known as FISA), a secret intelligence court was created to authorize government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. Since its initial enactment, FISA has been 13 steadily expanded in ways that pose an increasing threat to individual rights. Under FISA procedures, all hearings and decisions are conducted in secret. The Department of Justice has not disclosed even the most basic information about the court's activities despite repeated requests from Congress, the 14 American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups. Supreme Court have failed to address several fundamental issues. It is critical that the Congress ensure our judicial system is lawful and proper by providing proper oversight of this secret court. A bipartisan group of Senators, including Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), have introduced legislation called the FISA Oversight Bill (S. This bill would not hinder law enforcement but instead would simply require the public accounting of basic information such as the number of Americans subjected to surveillance under FISA and the number of times that FISA information has been used for law enforcement purposes. FISA powers are broad, and the secrecy of the proceedings makes FISA powers susceptible to abuse. Without oversight there is no accountability and this secret court could rampantly issue improper and illegal warrants. Without this legislation, the government will continue to operate in secret, in contradiction to traditions of fairness and open government that have been the hallmark of our democracy. Instead it requests basic information about the scope of the court's activities, such as the number of American citizens under surveillance and the number of times that FISA information has been used for law enforcement purposes. |
| www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=9955&c=52 Additional Resources 10 Criminal Justice : 11 Sentencing/Prisons Take Action on the Victims' Rights Amendment: Urge the Senate to Stop Messing with the Constitution 12 Printer-Friendly Version 13 Send this article to a friend! Rather than ensuring that victims are protected -- as many state legislatures have done -- the proposed constitutional amendment would instead jeopardize the principle that the accused are innocent until proven guilty and that everyone in this country has the right to a fair trial. Given that every state has either a state constitutional provision or law protecting victims' rights, proponents have not made the case that those measures fail to protect victims' interests. More importantly, providing these "rights" to victims will compromise the rights of the accused, eroding the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and guarantees of fairness or due process under law. In addition, federal and state prosecutors have stated that a federal constitutional amendment is likely to hamper the ability of law enforcement to effectively prosecute cases. For these reasons, victims are speaking out against a constitutional amendment. Action Alerts: Star Bullet Amending the Constitution is an extreme act that should be done only when there are no alternatives available. Victims of crime should be heard and protected, but we must not unnecessarily and recklessly change the Constitution, which has worked so well and has only been amended 17 times in 209 years. Amending the Constitution should be reserved for only those occasions when no other alternative is available. Every state has either a constitutional amendment or statute -- or both -- protecting victims' rights. Action Alerts: Star Bullet Many victims' organizations oppose the amendment. Victims' rights groups like the National Network to End Domestic Violence, 16 Citizens for the Fair Treatment of Victims and the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women oppose the amendment because they are concerned that battered women -- who are often arrested and charged with assaulting their batterers -- would lose the right to a fair trial and presumed innocence. Other victims' groups are concerned that giving victims the "right to a trial free from unreasonable delay" will force hasty prosecutions that result in the wrong person being convicted. Action Alerts: Star Bullet Our criminal justice system is based upon the presumption of presumed innocence. Amending the Constitution to allow victims to participate at every step of a prosecution may undermine the ability of the courts to operate in an impartial and fair manner. We can ensure that victims have a say in seeing that justice is done without amending the Constitution or putting the rights of the accused at risk. |