ACLU: FBI illegally used ‘outreach’ program to spy on Muslims

NY Daily News
Larry McShane

Wrong for FBI to ‘target American Muslim’ groups like this, American Civil Liberties Union says

The FBI’s San Francisco office illegally collected intelligence on Muslims religious activities under the guise of an outreach program, the American Civil Liberties Union says.

FBI records obtained by the ACLU indicated the federal agents violated the U.S. Privacy Act — which protects maintaining records on religious practice unless there is a clear law enforcement purpose.

“Everyone understands that the FBI has a job to do, but it is wrong and counterproductive for the bureau to target American Muslim religious groups for secret intelligence gathering,” said ACLU attorney Hina Shamsi.

The documents covered the years from 2004 through 2008, and were obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request.

The FBI, in its response, defended its action and noted that the agents involved identified themselves in every case — even handing out business cards in some instances.

“These 2004-2008 documents reflect that information was collected within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity ... including activities designed to strengthen relationships in various activities,” said FBI spokesman Michael Kortan.

The FBI has since established a formal community outreach program and put new rules into effect regarding intelligence gathering.

In the reports made public by the ACLU, the religious information was mentioned in passing in larger reports filed by FBI agents.

lmcshane@nydailynews.com

Groups Reject Holder’s Defense of Targeted Assassination

AntiWar
David Elkins

Two days after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder outlined the statutory justifications for “targeted killings,” civil liberties groups here continue to question the legality of the Obama administration’s policy, particularly as it applies to the rights and very lives of both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals.

Speaking before law school students on Monday, Holder rebuffed claims that the president is required, under the U.S. Constitution, to obtain permission through a process of judicial review to assassinate U.S. citizens suspected of involvement with al-Qaeda.

Holder argued that the distinction between due process — the right guaranteed to U.S. citizens that the government cannot deprive life without due process of law — and judicial process — the system of military courts used to try suspected terrorists during a time of war — was an important one.

“The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process… These circumstances are sufficient under the Constitution for the U.S. to use lethal force against a U.S. citizen abroad — but it is important to note that the legal requirements I have described may not apply in every situation,” Holder noted.

Although the Obama administration has stated publicly that its policy to assassinate U.S. citizens and foreign nationals allegedly involved with terrorist organizations does not fall outside of legal bounds, the actual decision-making process — how, when and under what circumstances — through which authority is granted remains classified.

The debate over targeted killings reignited in December 2011 when President Obama signed into law a bill that included language reaffirming the executive’s right “to use all necessary and appropriate force” in combating terrorism.

Holder says secret executive branch reviews of evidence for ‘targeted killings’ count as due process

End the Lie
Madison Ruppert

Attorney General Eric Holder has become such a farcical character with the Fast and Furious scandal (which he has been busted lying to Congress about), his attempt at debating the definition of lying with Representative James Sensenbrenner, and now his claim that the executive branch’s secret review process of the evidence against alleged terrorists counts as due process.

In his speech Monday at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago, Illinois, Holder actually argued that the process surrounding the approval of so-called “targeted killings” (which are, in fact, assassinations) meets the constitutional requirement for “due process” and that American citizenship does not protect anyone from being murdered by the government of the United States.

Meanwhile, the federal government says that the program is so secret that they cannot even confirm or deny its existence.

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder argued. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

I seriously doubt that the founding fathers thought that a future government would actually exploit the language so as to have a wholly unaccountable, unlegislated entity giving the green light on the murder of American citizens and call such a ludicrous practice “due process.”

Holder’s speech attempted to broadly outline the Obama administration’s supposed guidelines for their assassination program, even though the government has avoided all real legal challenges since they know such a laughable argument is unlikely to hold up in a court of law.

He stated that the American government could legally murder an alleged senior operational al Qaeda leader who is taking an active role in planning to kill Americans if they meet three basic requirements; they pose an imminent threat of violence, they could not feasibly be captured and the operation is conducted in line with war principles.

Of course, the Department of Justice hasn’t used such a supposed legal justification in court, instead opting to claim it is so secret they cannot even address it, thus avoiding the issue entirely.

Holder just continued to get more absurd; claiming that such operations do not violate the executive order which supposed bans assassinations or any other criminal statutes because the murder is committed in self defense.

He even went on to dispute the label of “assassinations,” claiming that the “use of that loaded term is misplaced” since an assassination is illegal while these targeted killings are supposedly legal in the eyes of the increasingly demented American federal government.