'); document.write('

National Security News

'); document.write('

Rights Groups File Challenge To Targeted Killing By U.S.
'); document.write('
ACLU And CCR Charge That Practice Violates The Constitution And International Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2689; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) today filed a lawsuit challenging the government\'s asserted authority to carry out “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.

The authority contemplated by the Obama administration is far broader than what the Constitution and international law allow, the groups charge. Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. An extrajudicial killing policy under which names are added to CIA and military “kill lists” through a secret executive process and stay there for months at a time is plainly not limited to imminent threats.

“The United States cannot simply execute people, including its own citizens, anywhere in the world based on its own say-so,” said Vince Warren, Executive Director of CCR. “The law prohibits the government from killing without trial or conviction other than in the face of an imminent threat that leaves no time for deliberation or due process. That the government adds people to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and leaves them on the lists for months at a time flies in the face of the Constitution and international law.”

The groups charge that targeting individuals for execution who are suspected of terrorism but have not been convicted or even charged – without oversight, judicial process or disclosed standards for placement on kill lists – also poses the risk that the government will erroneously target the wrong people. In recent years, the U.S. government has detained many men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself to discover later that the evidence was wrong or unreliable.

According to today’s legal complaint, the government has not disclosed the standards it uses for authorizing the premeditated and deliberate killing of U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield. The groups argue that the American people are entitled to know the standards being used for these life and death decisions.

“A program that authorizes killing U.S. citizens, without judicial oversight, due process or disclosed standards is unconstitutional, unlawful and un-American,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “We don’t sentence people to prison on the basis of secret criteria, and we certainly shouldn’t sentence them to death that way. It is not enough for the executive branch to say ‘trust us’ – we have seen that backfire in the past and we should learn from those mistakes.”

CCR and the ACLU were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government\'s decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi, whom the CIA and Defense Department have targeted for death. The complaint asks a court to rule that using lethal force far from any battlefield and without judicial process is illegal in all but the narrowest circumstances and to prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings except in compliance with these standards. It also asks the court to order the government to disclose the standards it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.

Today’s lawsuit was filed against the CIA, Defense Department and the president in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorneys on the case are Jameel Jaffer, Ben Wizner and Jonathan Manes of the ACLU; Pardiss Kebriaei, Maria LaHood and Bill Quigley of CCR; and Arthur B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation\'s Capital. Co-counsel in Yemen is Mohammed Allawo of the Allawo Law Firm and the National Organization for Defending Human Rights (HOOD).

For more information on the case, including fact sheets and legal papers, visit: www.aclu.org/targetedkillings and www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. Visit www.ccrjustice.org.

The ACLU is our nation\'s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. Visit www.aclu.org.
'); document.write('
Delays In Al-Nashiri Case Underscore Unfairness Of Military Commissions, Says ACLU
'); document.write('
Terrorism Suspects Should Be Tried In Federal Criminal Courts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The revelation that the Obama administration is not planning to prosecute Guantánamo detainee Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri any time soon underscores the inherent unfairness of the military commissions, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. The disclosure that the prosecution of al-Nashiri has stalled came in a court filing earlier this week and was first reported in the Washington Post.

Earlier this week, defense attorney Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes requested the appointment of a mitigation specialist to assist him in preparing a defense in anticipation of a capital military commission trial against al-Nashiri. Bruce MacDonald, the Convening Authority for the military commissions, denied the request because “at this time, charges have not been sworn against Mr. al Nashiri.”

However, the Defense Department issued a statement on Thursday saying that military prosecutors are “actively investigating the case against Mr. al-Nashiri and are developing charges against him.”

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU:

“The current state of the al-Nashiri trial underscores the fact that the military commissions system is designed to get convictions – not to provide fair trials that result in real justice. In the military commissions, the prosecution has all the power and the money, while the defense remains severely under-resourced. While the prosecution is getting paid to perfect its case against al-Nashiri, his lone defense attorney has been denied much-needed resources and all but blocked from preparing a defense. This is one more reason the military commissions should be shut down for good, and terrorism suspects should be tried in federal courts that guarantee the right to a robust defense and uphold the rule of law.”
'); document.write('
New Reports On 9/11 Interrogation Tapes Underscore Need For Full Accountability And Transparency, Says ACLU
'); document.write('
(Updated 8/17/2010)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – An Associated Press report today provided the first public details about CIA tapes of interrogations of accused 9/11 conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union requested information from the government about these tapes, specifically asking why the CIA appears never to have noted the tapes\' existence in the ACLU\'s long-running litigation over records relating to the treatment of detainees. The government has not yet responded.

The tapes were reportedly discovered in 2007 under a desk in the CIA\'s Counterterrorism Center, and their existence was first revealed by the government in a letter sent that year to U.S. Circuit Judge Karen J. Williams and U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. Prior to that letter, the government had denied the tapes\' existence and until today, nothing was publicly known about the contents of the tapes.

Many critical records were destroyed by the CIA, including at least 92 other interrogation videotapes depicting waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques." The ACLU continues to believe that the CIA\'s destruction of those videotapes was in violation of court orders and the Freedom of Information Act.

The following can be attributed to Alexander Abdo, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

"Today\'s report is a stark reminder of how much information the government is still withholding about the Bush administration\'s interrogation policies. Many records critical to real accountability remain secret, such as transcripts in which prisoners tell of the abuse they suffered in CIA custody and the presidential directive authorizing the CIA to establish secret black sites.

"The content of these tapes could provide insight into the U.S.\'s troubling collaboration on interrogations with Morocco, a country routinely cited by the State Department for its use of torture. Only with real transparency and accountability for these abuses can the government turn the page on this dark chapter in our history."
'); document.write('
National Security Letter Recipient Can Speak Out For First Time Since FBI Demanded Customer Records From Him
'); document.write('
FBI Partially Lifts Gag Order In ACLU Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The FBI has partially lifted a gag it imposed on American Civil Liberties Union client Nicholas Merrill in 2004 that prevented him from disclosing to anyone that he received a national security letter (NSL) demanding private customer records. Merrill, who received the NSL as the president of an Internet service provider (ISP), can now reveal his identity and speak about his experience for the first time since receiving the NSL. The ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the NSL statute and the gag order on behalf of Merrill (then called John Doe) in April 2004, which resulted in numerous court rulings finding the NSL statute unconstitutional. Merrill was the first person ever to challenge an NSL in court.

"After six long years of not being able to tell anyone at all what happened to me – not even my family – I\'m grateful to finally be able to talk about my experience of being served with a national security letter," said Merrill. "Internet users do not give up their privacy rights when they log on, and the FBI should not have the power to secretly demand that ISPs turn over constitutionally protected information about their users without a court order. I hope my successful challenge to the FBI\'s NSL gag power will empower others who may have received NSLs to speak out."

NSLs are secret record demands the FBI issues to obtain access to personal customer records from ISPs, libraries, financial institutions and credit reporting agencies without court approval or even suspicion of wrongdoing. Because the FBI can gag NSL recipients to prohibit them from disclosing anything about the record demands they receive, the FBI\'s use and potential abuse of the NSL power has been shrouded in excessive secrecy. While the NSL served on Merrill stated that he was prohibited from telling anyone about it, he decided to challenge the demand in court because he believed that the FBI was ordering him to turn over constitutionally protected information about one of his clients. Because of the FBI-imposed gag, Merrill was prohibited from talking about the NSL or revealing his identity and role in the lawsuit until today, even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records from Merrill more than three years ago.

In December 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in Merrill\'s case, found that some of the NSL statute\'s gag provisions were unconstitutional because they wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to challenge gag orders, narrowly limited judicial review of gag orders and required courts to defer entirely to the executive branch. The appeals court sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and ordered the government to justify the constitutionality of the gag on Merrill. On July 30, the parties reached a settlement in the case. As part of that settlement, the FBI agreed that Merrill could now identify himself as the John Doe NSL recipient.

"We are thrilled that Nick will finally be able to speak out about why he took the courageous step of challenging the FBI\'s NSL power. Thanks to Nick\'s actions, courts have now recognized the need for judicial oversight of the government\'s dangerous NSL gag power," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "But even though this case has resulted in significant improvements to NSL procedures, innocent Americans\' private records remain too vulnerable to secret and warrantless data collection by the FBI. At a minimum, the FBI should have to show individual suspicion before it issues an NSL for an individual\'s personal information and invades Americans\' right to privacy and free speech on the Internet."

While misuse and abuse of the NSL power has been widely documented, the Obama administration is now seeking to expand the statute to allow the FBI to demand even more records without court approval. In July, the Obama administration proposed to expand the statute to allow the FBI to get Americans\' Internet activity records without court approval or even suspicion of wrongdoing.

In 2009, Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) reintroduced the National Security Letters Reform Act, aimed at reigning in abuse of the power. The ACLU has called on Congress to reform the remaining constitutional defects of the NSL gag power and reject Obama proposals to expand the NSL statute.

In addition to Goodman, attorneys on the case are Jameel Jaffer of the national ACLU and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU.

More information about the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/doe-v-holder
'); document.write('
Bush Administration Removed Detainees From Guantánamo To Avoid The Law
'); document.write('
ACLU Calls For Broad Investigation Into Bush Torture Program

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The Bush administration moved four detainees from Guantánamo to secret CIA prisons overseas in 2003 to keep them from having access to lawyers, according to the Associated Press today. The transfer came just before the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners at Guantánamo could challenge their detention in U.S. courts. The American Civil Liberties Union has long called for a broad investigation into the torture program and accountability for the government officials who knew about and authorized abusive practices.

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU:

"This revelation illustrates the lengths to which the Bush administration went in order to shield its conduct from the courts and keep prisoners outside the protection of the law. Secret detention constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and the officials who authorized the CIA\'s secret prisons and torture program should be held accountable.

"The Bush administration\'s efforts to defeat the courts\' jurisdiction must be added to the list of abuses that the current administration has thus far failed to prosecute or even to investigate. The Justice Department has initiated a criminal investigation into instances in which CIA interrogators exceeded their authority, but that investigation is too narrow. The Justice Department\'s investigation should examine not just the conduct of interrogators, but the conduct of the officials who authorized torture. The Obama administration\'s failure to hold senior officials accountable undermines the rule of law."
'); document.write('
CCR And ACLU Receive License From OFAC To Pursue Challenge To Targeted Killing
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) today received a license from the U.S. Treasury Department\'s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) allowing the groups to pursue their legal challenge to the government\'s asserted authority to kill American citizens without due process away from conflict zones. The license was granted in response to a lawsuit filed by the groups demanding the license and challenging OFAC\'s scheme.

The following can be attributed to CCR and the ACLU:

"The license issued by OFAC today will allow us to pursue our litigation relating to the government\'s asserted authority to engage in targeted killings of American civilians without due process. While we appreciate OFAC\'s quick response to our lawsuit, we continue to believe that OFAC\'s regulations are unconstitutional because they require lawyers who are providing uncompensated legal representation to seek the government\'s permission before challenging the constitutionality of the government\'s conduct. Notably, OFAC has indicated that the license issued to us today can be revoked at any time. We will pursue our claim that OFAC\'s attorney-licensing regulations are unconstitutional and should be invalidated."

More information about the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/ofac and www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings.
'); document.write('
Rights Groups File Lawsuit To Allow Challenge To Targeted Killing Without Due Process
'); document.write('
CCR And ACLU Charge It\'s Illegal For Government To Deny Counsel To Targets On Kill List

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to challenge their refusal to grant a license that would allow the groups to file a lawsuit challenging the government\'s asserted authority to use lethal force against U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield without charge, trial or judicial process of any kind.

In early July, CCR and the ACLU were retained by Nasser al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government\'s decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi, whom the CIA and Defense Department have targeted for death. On July 16, however, the Secretary of the Treasury labeled Anwar al-Aulaqi a "specially designated global terrorist," which makes it a crime for lawyers to provide representation for his benefit without first seeking a license from OFAC. CCR and the ACLU have sought a license, but the government has not yet issued one despite the urgency created by an outstanding execution order. CCR and the ACLU have not had contact with Anwar al-Aulaqi.

"The government is targeting an American citizen for death without any legal process whatsoever, while at the same time impeding lawyers from challenging that death sentence and the government\'s sweeping claim of authority to issue it. This is a dual blow to some of our most precious liberties, and such an alarming denial of rights in any one case endangers the rights of all Americans," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Attorneys shouldn\'t have to ask the government for permission in order to challenge the constitutionality of the government\'s conduct."

The OFAC requirements generally make it illegal to provide any service, including legal representation, to or for the benefit of a designated individual. A lawyer who provides legal representation for the benefit of a designated person without getting special permission is subject to criminal and civil penalties. The ACLU and CCR charge that OFAC has exceeded its authority by subjecting uncompensated legal services to a licensing requirement, and that OFAC\'s regulations violate the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the principle of separation of powers. Today\'s lawsuit asks the court to invalidate the regulations and to make clear that lawyers can provide representation for the benefit of designated individuals without first seeking the government\'s consent.

The lawsuit that CCR and the ACLU seek to file would charge that the government has not disclosed the standards it uses for authorizing the premeditated and deliberate killing of U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield. The groups argue that the American people are entitled to know the standards being used for these life and death decisions.

"President Obama is claiming the power to act as judge, jury and executioner while suspending any semblance of due process," said Vince Warren, Executive Director of CCR. "Yemen is nearly 2000 miles from Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S. government is going outside the law to create an ever-larger global war zone and turn the whole world into a battlefield. Would we tolerate it if China or France secretly decided to execute their enemies inside the U.S.?" He added, "This sets a dangerous precedent for other countries that will only lead to more violence and further diminish the rule of law."

While there are circumstances in which the government can legitimately use lethal force against civilians, the authority contemplated by senior Obama administration officials is far broader than what the Constitution and international law allow, the groups say. Under international human rights law, lethal force may be used outside of armed conflict only when there is an imminent threat of deadly attack and when lethal force is a last resort. A system in which names are added to a list through a secret bureaucratic process and stay there for months at a time does not appear to be limited to imminent threats or lethal force as a last resort.

Moreover, targeting individuals for execution who are suspected of crimes but have not been convicted – without oversight, due process or disclosed standards for being placed on the kill list – also poses the risk that the government will erroneously target the wrong people. Since the tragic events of 9/11, the U.S. government has detained many men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself to discover later that the evidence was wrong or unreliable and release them.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorneys on the case are, for CCR, Pardiss Kebriaei, Senior Attorney Maria LaHood and Legal Director Bill Quigley; for the ACLU, Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer, Ben Wizner, Jonathan Manes and Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro; and for the ACLU of the Nation\'s Capital, Arthur B. Spitzer.

For more information on the case, fact sheets and legal papers, visit www.aclu.org/ofac and www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings.

The ACLU is our nation\'s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. Visit www.aclu.org.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. Visit www.ccrjustice.org.
'); document.write('
Obama Administration In Danger Of Establishing \"New Normal\" With Worst Bush-Era Policies, Says ACLU
'); document.write('
Group Releases 18-Month Review Of President\'s National Security Policies And Civil Liberties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The Obama administration has repudiated some of the Bush administration\'s most egregious national security policies but is in danger of institutionalizing others permanently into law, thereby creating a troubling "new normal," according to a new report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration," an 18-month review of the Obama administration\'s record on national security issues affecting civil liberties, concludes that the current administration\'s record on issues of national security and civil liberties is decidedly mixed: President Obama has made great strides in some areas, such as his auspicious first steps to categorically prohibit torture, outlaw the CIA\'s use of secret overseas detention sites and release the Bush administration\'s torture memos, but he has failed to eliminate some of the worst policies put in place by President Bush, such as military commissions and indefinite detention. He has also expanded the Bush administration\'s "targeted killing" program.

The 22-page report, which was researched and written by staff in the ACLU\'s National Security Project and Washington Legislative Office, reviews the administration\'s record in the areas of transparency, torture and accountability, detention, targeted killing, military commissions, speech and surveillance and watchlists.

"President Obama began his presidency with a bang, signing executive orders that placed the power of the presidency behind the restoration of the rule of law and gave meaning to the president\'s stated view that America must lead with its values," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Unfortunately, since that time, the administration has displayed a decidedly mixed record resulting, on a range of issues, in the very real danger that the Obama administration will institutionalize some of the most troublesome policies of the previous administration – in essence, creating a troubling \'new normal.\' We strongly urge the president to shift course and renew his commitment to the fundamental values that are the very foundation of our nation\'s strength and security."

According to the ACLU\'s report, the first 18 months of Obama\'s presidency have been marked by a pattern wherein significant achievements for civil liberties have often been followed by setbacks. For instance, the positive step of releasing Justice Department memoranda that purported to authorize the Bush administration\'s torture regime was followed by the troubling decision to fight the release of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners in CIA custody. The administration\'s commitment to dismantle Guantánamo has been undermined by its assertion of the authority to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. And prohibitions against torture have been weakened by the failure to hold top Bush administration officials accountable for their role in the torture program.

"The Obama administration should work with Congress to restore the rule of law, and discourage any legislation that would institutionalize policies that were widely regarded as unlawful under President Bush. Together, Congress and the White House should make sure that abuses of power like the Patriot Act are dismantled, not extended, and that policies like indefinite detention are never signed into law," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "It is not too late for President Obama to build a legacy of justice and fairness."

The report concludes that, in addition to the initial executive orders, the administration has taken other positive steps and made genuine progress in some areas such as improvements to the government\'s handling of Freedom of Information Act requests, the release of key documents related to the U.S. torture program and an executive order disavowing torture. It also addresses more troubling practices such as the use of the "state secrets" doctrine to block lawsuits brought by torture survivors, the revival of the discredited military commissions to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, the assertion of broad surveillance powers and the authorization of a "targeted killing" program to kill terrorism suspects, including American citizens, wherever they are located, without due process.

"In its first days, the Obama administration took some important steps to restore civil liberties and the rule of law," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU. "It has not, however, abandoned the \'global war\' framework that was the basis for many of the last administration\'s counterterrorism programs. Indeed, some of the Obama administration\'s policies – like the policies on indefinite detention, military commissions and targeted killings – are entrenching this framework, presenting a profound threat to human rights and the rule of law. We urge the Obama administration to recommit itself to the ideals it articulated in its very first days. President Obama should not make \'global war\' the new normal."

"Establishing a New Normal" is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/establishing-new-normal
'); document.write('
State Department Ends Ban On Colombian Journalist
'); document.write('
U.S. Should End Practice Of Banning People On Ideological Grounds, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – A prominent Colombian journalist who was once barred from the United States today received a visa to come to this country to study. The American Civil Liberties Union, American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and PEN American Center sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this month expressing alarm over reports that Hollman Morris had been denied a visa to travel to the U.S. Morris was one of 12 international journalists selected to participate in the Nieman fellowship at Harvard University during the 2010-11 academic year. However, when he applied for a visa in order to attend the program, he was told by the U.S. embassy in Bogota that he had been found permanently ineligible for a visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The reversal of that decision means Morris will likely be able to come to the U.S. to participate in the program.

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU:

"We welcome the State Department\'s decision to end the exclusion of Hollman Morris from the United States. With the ban lifted, leading human rights groups and journalists will be able to engage with Mr. Morris on important human rights issues facing the world. We hope the decision to lift the ban on Mr. Morris is a signal that the Obama administration is committed to facilitating, rather than obstructing, the exchange of ideas across international borders. The administration should now make clear that it will end the practice of ideological exclusion once and for all."

The ACLU/AAUP/PEN letter to Secretary Clinton is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/letter-secretary-state-clinton-regarding-ideological-exclusion-colombian-journalis
'); document.write('
ACLU Seeks Records About FBI Collection Of Racial And Ethnic Data In 29 States And D.C.
'); document.write('
FBI\'s Claimed Authority To Track And Map "Behaviors" And "Lifestyle Characteristics" Of American Communities Invites Racial Profiling

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today is asking the FBI field offices in 29 states and Washington, D.C. to turn over records related to the agency\'s collection and use of race and ethnicity data in local communities. According to an FBI operations guide, FBI agents have the authority to collect information about and create maps of so-called "ethnic-oriented" businesses, behaviors, lifestyle characteristics and cultural traditions in communities with concentrated ethnic populations. While some racial and ethnic data collection by some agencies might be helpful in lessening discrimination, the FBI\'s attempt to collect and map demographic data using race-based criteria for targeting purposes invites unconstitutional racial profiling by law enforcement, says the ACLU.

"The FBI\'s mapping of local communities and businesses based on race and ethnicity, as well as its ability to target communities for investigation based on supposed racial and ethnic behaviors, raises serious civil liberties concerns," said Michael German, ACLU policy counsel and former FBI agent. "Creating a profile of a neighborhood for criminal law enforcement or domestic intelligence purposes based on the ethnic makeup of the people who live there or the types of businesses they run is unfair, un-American and will certainly not help stop crime."

The FBI\'s power to collect, use and map racial and ethnic data in order to assist the FBI\'s "domain awareness" and "intelligence analysis" activities is described in the 2008 FBI Domestic Intelligence and Operations Guide (DIOG). The FBI released the DIOG in heavily redacted form in September 2009, but a less-censored version was not made public until January of this year, in response to a lawsuit filed by the group Muslim Advocates. Although the DIOG has been in effect for more than a year and a half, very little information is available to the public about how the FBI has implemented this authority.

ACLU affiliate offices across the nation today are filing coordinated Freedom of Information Act requests to uncover records about the FBI\'s collection and use of racial and ethnicity data from their local FBI field offices. The requests were filed by the ACLU affiliates in Alabama, Arkansas, California (Northern, Southern and San Diego), Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.

"The public deserves to know about a race-based domestic intelligence program with such troubling implications for civil rights and civil liberties," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "We hope that the coordinated efforts of ACLU affiliates across the nation will finally bring this important information to light so that the American people can know the extent of the FBI\'s racial data gathering and mapping practices and whether the agency is abusing its authority."

The DIOG provisions in question are available online at: www.muslimadvocates.org/DIOGs_Chapter4.pdf

The entire DIOG is at: www.muslimadvocates.org/latest/profiling_update/community_alert_seek_legal_adv.html
'); document.write('