On Thursday, July 31, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade will hold a hearing titled "Foreign Aid and the Fight Against Terrorism and Proliferation: Leveraging Foreign Aid to Achieve U.S. Policy Goals." The hearing's title seems to suggest that nongovernmental organizations will be addressed, yet there is no such representative. There should be a witness that can discuss the positive role played by civil society organizations.

The witnesses include terrorism "expert" Steven Emerson. The Muslim Public Affairs Council has released an action alert stating that "Emerson has a proven track record of anti-Muslim bigotry and is not a credible expert on foreign aid and non-proliferation."

"MPAC is concerned that testimony from Emerson will lead to reckless policy-making. This will undermine U.S. interests of achieving peace and stability in the Muslim world. MPAC calls upon all Americans to act now and urge Congressman Sherman to ensure that the hearing include qualified experts who can balance the bias of Emerson, or cancel the panel."

As the result of collaborative research conducted by OMB Watch and Grantmakers Without Borders, Collateral Damage: How the War on Terror Hurts Charities, Foundations, and the People They Serve has just been released. The paper comprehensively documents the impacts that the war on terror is having on charities, foundations, and underserved populations around the globe. Charities in the United States and throughout the world play a key role in democratic systems by giving citizens a vehicle for participation, providing tools and information that help people get involved, and delivering assistance to those in need. Since Sept. 11, 2001, counterterrorism programs have eroded the freedom and ability of charities and their funders to carry out their missions and improve the lives of the world's people. We hope this paper will serve as an important resource to understand the impacts that counterterrorism measures have on charities.

Read the paper here.

The Washington Post reports that during the administration of former Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., undercover Maryland State Police officers monitored the activities of activists against the Iraq war and the death penalty. The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland released records with details of the monitoring which they obtained after suing the state police in June to obtain the data. "The civil liberties group learned in 2004 that a state police intelligence unit was monitoring Baltimore peace groups that had protested at the National Security Agency in Fort Meade that year. The records show that undercover agents collectively spent 288 hours on surveillance activities over 14 months from March 2005 until May 2006." The groups monitored include the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, and the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a peace group that has been opposed the Iraq war. The surveillance reports were shared with numerous federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, including the National Security Agency.

" The ACLU contends that the surveillance was illegal, even under broader powers the federal government gave law enforcement agencies after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But the police force defends its legality, and some legal experts said the program appears to be a constitutional tool available to authorities investigating threats to public safety."

The Senate overwhelmingly approved a new federal wiretapping law, the FISA Amendments Act (HR 6304) by a vote of 69-28. President Bush signed the bill into law on July 10. Existing lawsuits against telecom companies that assisted with the administration's warrantless wiretap program would be waived if a federal district court ruled that there was "substantial evidence" that the companies received written assurances that the program was authorized by the president. Amendments that would have limited the companies' ability to gain immunity from lawsuits failed. In addition, it allows warrantless surveillance of foreign targets who may be communicating with people in the U.S. Read the AP story here.

Shortly after Bush signed the bill into law, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced the filing of a lawsuit charging that the new law did not include proper constitutional protections, seeking a permanent injunction that would bar the government from conducting surveillance activity under the law. The Nation Magazine joined a coalition of plaintiffs that includes Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, Global Fund for Women, PEN American Center, Washington Office on Latin America, and Service Employees International Union. A posting from the Nation states; "We believe the challenged law undermines the ability of The Nation's editors, writers, contributors and staff to gather information that is critical to their work. The ability to communicate confidentially with sources is essential to journalists' work. Many of the people with whom the Nation's staff and contributors communicate will not share information if they believe that their identities cannot be kept confidential."

A blog posting on the Electronic Frontier Foundation site explains What The New NSA Spying Decision Means for the Immunity Debate. It was posted by Kevin Bankston, who says:

With the Senate poised to vote on the FISA Amendments Act and immunity this Tuesday, this decision is particularly timely, as it demolishes key arguments made by proponents of telecom immunity:

It goes on to list seven myths about the surveillance bill compromise, and gives the facts, based on the court decision. This is a must read for understanding the confusing debate around the FISA bill.

Posted by Kay Guinane, 10:57:37 AM

Thursday, July 03, 2008