Dear Supporter,

DDF is celebrating our 50th Anniversary this year!
Our small but effective organization has kept chugging on through very tough times, never backing down and never taking the easy way out.We invite you to help us celebrate!  Find out how...

Inside this month's newsletter:
Grassroots Lobby Day
We came, we lobbied... you and hundreds of others called or emailed...but Congress still passed the Patriot Act re-authorization, without any safeguards, oversight or other reforms.  Read more...

DDF Calls for Oversight Board
Who will guard our privacy and civil liberties as new policies are weighed in response to the Christmas Day bomber?  We know Congress is unwilling to stand up for us.  The national security folks who are developing new policies are certainly not focused on our privacy or liberties, it isn't really their job.  It is supposed to be the job of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), but since he has taken office, President Obama has neglected to appoint anyone to this board.  Read more...

Professor Cole and theSupremes
On February 23, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), an important case challenging the Constitutionality of the material support provisions in the USA Patriot Act.  David Cole, a longtime ally of DDF, represented HLP before the Supreme Court.  Read more...

"Shape Shifting" Material Support
Fahad Hashmi is a U.S. citizen charged with providing material support to al Qaeda.  His case really illustrates how dangerous the material support laws can be.  Read more...

Defining Terrorism
Congress just passed a resolution labeling Joe Stack's suicide plane attack on an IRS building in Texas a terrorist act, on a 408-2 vote.  The initial reaction of some in Congress and the media was to deny that Stack's action was terrorism, in marked contrast to their response to the Fort Hood shooting.  Many noted the hypocrisy, but, rather than insisting that Stack be labeled a terrorist like Major Hasan, we would do better to try to narrow the ever-expanding definition of terrorism.  Read more...
Embarrassing 'State Secret' Revealed
Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident, was detained in Pakistan in 2001, turned over to U.S. officials in 2002, subject to extraordinary rendition and finally imprisoned at Guantanamo for four years.  He was released last year after all charges against him had been dismissed.  He has been fighting to expose the truth of his detention in two important court cases, one in the U.S. (Mohamed v. Jeppeson) and one in the U.K.  Last month the British case had a breakthrough.  Read more...

Demonizing Dissent -- The Real Story
In the weeks and months before the Republican National Convention in St. Paul in 2008, the media painted a scary picture of the planned protests.  Anarchists and other dangerous types would be flocking to St. Paul to create trouble! shouted the papers and the TV news.  But who were these dissenters?  Find out here...

********************************** DDF March 2010 Letter ****************************************

Dear Troublemakers,
We're celebrating our 50th Anniversary this year!  Our small but effective organization has kept chugging on through very tough times, never backing down and never taking the easy way out.

Throughout our fifty-year history, this organization (under various names) has played a crucial and unique role in safeguarding our right to dissent.  We are constantly reminded that the more things change, the more they stay the same: whether the stated threat to our nation comes from an international communist conspiracy, international terrorism or environmental extremists, it is the dissidents and those at the margins of our society who are targeted and pay the price.

I am proud that the Defending Dissent Foundation has never wavered from our principles, and proud to be a part of this courageous organization.  I hope you are proud to be a part this organization also.

I invite you to help us celebrate our golden anniversary by hosting a house party for the Defending Dissent Foundation this year.  This is a wonderful way to introduce our work and history to your friends and associates.  A house party can be small or large, a celebration or an educational event.  It can also be a FOIA Party, so that you and your friends can finally file those Freedom of Information Act requests you've been thinking of filing for years (or decades!).  Please give me a call (202-529-4225) if you might be interested.  I promise it will be fun and worthwhile.

If you don't feel up for a party, how about making a pledge to become a sustainer?  Our sustainer program allows our supporters to spread their contribution out over the year, making monthly or quarterly payments.  This might fit your budget better, so please think about it.  You can fill out the enclosed postcard, or, if you prefer to use your credit card, you can donate here (opt for 'recurring donation' to make a monthly pledge).

In Solidarity,

Sue

GRASSROOTS LOBBY DAY
On February 3, DDF President Woody Kaplan and I joined with dozens of other activists on Capitol Hill to ask members of Congress to refuse to reauthorize the expiring Patriot Act provisions unless serious reforms were included.  The lobby day was sponsored by a number of organizations, but primarily by DDF, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), and the Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee.  Our lobby visits were backed up by emails and phone calls of hundreds of activists around the country who took action based on alerts that DDF and BORDC sent out.

These lobby visits, emails and phone calls were crucial; but, in the end, we were not able to mobilize enough voices to counter the prevailing political winds.  At the end of the month, the Senate and House both voted to extend the provisions for a year, without any privacy protections or reforms.  There is no voting record in the Senate.  The House vote is here (it was 315-97, with 20 not voting).

DDF CALLS FOR OVERSIGHT BOARD
Who will guard our privacy and civil liberties as new policies are weighed in response to the Christmas Day bomber?  We know Congress is unwilling to stand up for us.  The national security folks who are developing new policies are certainly not focused on our privacy or liberties, it isn't really their job.  It is supposed to be the job of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), but since he has taken office, President Obama has neglected to appoint anyone to this board.  There is no one watching out for us (except us!).

Congress first created the PCLOB in 2004, based on the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.  In 2007, Congress restructured the Board, strengthening it and moving it outside of the White House.  The Board was designed to play a vital independent role in oversight of privacy and civil liberties.  It is one of the few safeguards adopted to protect Americans from improper intrusions into lives and affairs as part of the major legal and policy changes put in place to fight terrorism.  However, the 2007 legislation that provided the Board with independence and subpoena powers remains an unfulfilled promise, because without anyone even nominated to fill these positions, the revamped Board does not yet exist.

Even the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair is eager to see the Board convene.  In testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, he said, "I think … that that panel should be -- should be manned up and started. It would provide a very valuable service".

Although the PCLOB will not be the cure for all that ails us, it is a step in the right direction, and there is no excuse for the delay in nominations.  In February, DDF mobilized our allies to call on the President to fill the Board.  On March 1, we sent a letter signed by 25 organizations to the President, and alerted the media.  Here's a link to the letter and our press release.

PROFESSOR COLE AND THE SUPREMES
On February 23, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), an important case challenging the Constitutionality of the material support provisions in the USA Patriot Act.  The case has been well-covered by NPR and other outlets, but to briefly summarize: HLP is a thirty year old human rights organization that has, since 1991 advocated for peace and human rights for Turkey's Kurdish minority.  One of the groups HLP regularly worked with was the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), providing training and assisting them in human rights advocacy.  But when the PKK was designated by the U.S. as a terrorist group, that peace-building work became illegal because it was deemed "material support of terrorism."

David Cole, a longtime ally of DDF, represented HLP before the Supreme Court.  He argued that the material support provisions of the Patriot Act violate the First Amendment because they outlaw speech and censor advice and training on entirely peaceful and legal activities.  "It is core political speech on issues of public concern; it is advocating only lawful, peaceable activities. This court has never upheld the criminal prohibition of lawful speech on issues of public concern."  Cole also made a distinction "between aid that is intended to further lawful activity and aid that is intended to further illegal activity."

Really, shouldn't the government be going after individuals and groups that seek to further terrorism, rather than groups that are trying to teach terrorists how to lay down their arms?

Material support was first outlawed by the Clinton era Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, but has been amended, clarified and expanded several times since, including in the USA Patriot Act.  In Terrorism and the Constitution, David Cole and his co-author, DDF Vice President Jim Dempsey, explain what happened:
… after lying virtually dormant for its first six years of existence, the material support law has since 9/11 become the Justice Department's most popular charge in antiterrorism cases.  The allure is easy to see: convictions under the law require no proof that the defendant engaged in terrorism, aided or abetted terrorism, or conspired to commit terrorism.  But what makes the law attractive to prosecutors - its sweeping ambit - is precisely what makes it so dangerous to civil liberties.

A decision is expected in this case by late June.  You can find additional information about the case, and the issue of material support at the Charity and Security Network website.  (DDF is a member of the steering committee of CSN)

"SHAPE SHIFTING" MATERIAL SUPPORT
Fahad Hashmi is a U.S. citizen charged with providing material support to al Qaeda.  His case really illustrates how dangerous the material support laws can be: 
Material support laws are the black box of domestic terrorism prosecutions, a shape-shifting space into which all sorts of constitutionally protected activities can be thrown and classified as suspect, if not criminal. Their vagueness is key. They criminalize guilt by association and often use political and religious beliefs to demonstrate intent and state of mind.
- Jeanne Theoharis (www.progressive.org)
 
In 2004, while living in London, Hashmi let an acquaintance stay with him for two weeks.  The acquaintance, Junaid Babar, stored luggage containing raincoats, ponchos and socks in Hashmi's apartment and borrowed Hashmi's cell phone on occasion.  Babar later delivered the raincoats and socks to al Qaeda, and the government says that he was calling terrorists on Hashmi's phone. 

These are the basics of the case against Hashmi.  The government says it has more evidence, but it's classified so Hashmi can't see it.  In addition to secret evidence, the government will be allowed to introduce Hashmi's political and religious speech and activities in court as evidence of his intent
 
The terms of Hashmi's confinement, under Special Administrative Orders (SAMs) raise additional concerns.  He's been held in solitary confinement for almost three years while awaiting trial, held in a small cell for 23 hours per day and kept under constant video surveillance.  He is allowed to see no one but his lawyers.  SAMs were originally designed to keep jailed leaders of organized crime syndicates from being able to give instructions to their networks, but have been used increasingly in these alleged terrorism cases.  Since Hashmi has not been convicted of anything, nor charged with any violent offense, the harsh terms of his confinement don't seem to make sense.

Muslim and anti-war activists in New York have staged weekly vigils to demand that the SAMs be dropped.  His trial is scheduled for the end of April


EMBARRASSING 'STATE SECRET' REVEALED
Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident, was detained in Pakistan in 2001, turned over to U.S. officials in 2002, subject to extraordinary rendition and finally imprisoned at Guantanamo for four years.  He was released last year after all charges against him had been dismissed.  He has been fighting to expose the truth of his detention in two important court cases, one in the U.S. (Mohamed v. Jeppeson) and one in the U.K.  Last month the British case had a breakthrough.

In the U.K., Mohamed has been seeking the release of secret intelligence material that describes his treatment while in U.S. custody.  Both the Bush and Obama administrations have fought the release of the intelligence material tooth and nail, threatening to stop sharing intelligence with Britain if the material is release.   They claim the information is vital to national security and must be kept secret.  A British court of appeal disagreed, ruling that the info would be of no interest or value to terrorists or criminals.  But the material is embarrassing.  It is seven previously redacted paragraphs from a British government summary of how the U.S. tortured Mohamed with sleep deprivation, shackling and threats that brought him close to suicide.  The summary concludes: "Although it is not necessary for us to categorize the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities"

DEFINING TERRORISM
Congress just passed a resolution labeling Joe Stack's suicide plane attack on an IRS building in Texas a terrorist act, on a 408-2 vote (Ron Paul (R-TX) and Don Young (R-AK) voted no).  The initial reaction of some in Congress and the media was to deny that Stack's action was terrorism, in marked contrast to their response to the Fort Hood shooting.  Many noted the hypocrisy, but, rather than insisting that Stack be labeled a terrorist like Major Hasan, we would do better to try to narrow the ever-expanding definition of terrorism.  DDF board member Hussein Ibish makes a compelling case in his blog (www.ibishblog.com):

Does it make sense, however, to lump these kinds of actions into the same category as carefully planned, ideologically-motivated conspiracies by organizations, no matter how small, to carry out acts of violence and sabotage in order to pursue a broader strategy, no matter how implausible? I doubt it. It seems to me that in order to deal with both problems effectively, distinguishing between the two is essential, since while they appear to share similar characteristics because the nature of the acts seems identical and the rhetoric similarly coincidental, in fact they are produced by very different dynamics and processes. What I'm arguing is that when two different equations produce similar results it does not make sense to deal with them as if they were reflective of the same essential problem. Of course fundamental security measures that would deter or prevent any act of violence, no matter the source or motivation, are essential in combating both of these phenomena and violence by organized criminals, gangs and others. But if we are serious about dealing with the problem of political terrorism it strongly behooves us not to confuse strategic actions by ideologically motivated organizations with the intersection of emotional crisis and political extremism that seems to produce these lone wolf atrocities.