ACLU: We're Fighting Back Against Efforts to Intimidate Professors into Silence

We're Fighting Back Against Efforts to Intimidate Professors into Silence

Last Spring, protests related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict engulfed universities across the country, with students and faculty weighing in on both sides of the issue. The ACLU expressed its strong opposition to any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses.

During student protests at Columbia University in April 2024, the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors (Columbia-AAUP), an organization of Columbia University faculty, issued a public statement condemning the school’s punitive response to students protesting the war in Gaza. The statement minced no words, describing then-President Minouche Shafik’s unilateral decision to authorize the NYPD to arrest student protestors as “a grotesque violation of norms of shared governance.” It described Shafik as “inaugurating a new era at Columbia,” marked by “repressed speech, political restrictions on academic inquiry, and punitive discipline against the University’s own students and faculty.” Columbia-AAUP, whose mission is to protect academic freedom and advocate for faculty and students, pledged to provide “continued support for our students’ right to protest and to speak freely, and for our colleagues’ right to teach and to write freely within their domains of expertise.”

Two months later, five current and former Columbia students filed a civil lawsuit in New York against Columbia AAUP in response to this and similar statements. The lawsuit names 21 people and organizations — including Columbia students and faculty, student organizations, the UAW, and three members of Congress — who publicly protested the war in Gaza or who made public statements in support of student protestors.

On behalf of Columbia-AAUP, the ACLU and the civil rights firm Wang Hecker LLP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and to order the plaintiffs to pay our client’s legal fees. We argue that the lawsuit is a clear example of a SLAPP, or “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” These cases weaponize our legal system to punish and silence constitutionally-protected speech.

SLAPP lawsuits have become a common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism—including from whistleblowers, journalists, and political protestors. The real goal of a SLAPP suit is not necessarily to win in court, but to entangle people in expensive litigation, using the prospect of mounting legal fees and a potentially ruinous financial penalty to chill speech. In other words, to bully people into silence.

The plaintiffs claim that because Columbia-AAUP spoke in support of student protestors, it somehow injured them by causing Columbia University to move classes online, restrict campus access, and cancel commencement. The plaintiffs have sued Columbia-AAUP for purported monetary and punitive damages resulting from Columbia University’s actions.

If this feels like a logical leap, that's because it is.

Fortunately, New York State—along with 33 other states and the District of Columbia—has an “anti-SLAPP” law specifically designed to protect those whose speech is targeted by such meritless lawsuits. Under New York’s law, a defendant may quickly move to dismiss a lawsuit based on public speech in connection with any issue of public interest—like a statement from professors about the treatment of student protesters on their campus. In a typical civil lawsuit, the defendant must prove that the case has no legal basis in order to dismiss it at the outset. By contrast, the anti-SLAPP law shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove that there is a “substantial basis” for the claims. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden, the court must not only dismiss the case, but also order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees. The purpose of the fee award is to ensure the defendant is not left with a hefty financial burden simply from fighting off a frivolous case and to dissuade others from filing such lawsuits in the future.

Columbia-AAUP’s case is exactly the type of lawsuit anti-SLAPP laws are designed to quickly dismiss and deter. The allegations against Columbia-AAUP focus exclusively on public statements that the faculty organization made in support of students’ rights to free speech and criticizing Columbia’s crackdown, including using the NYPD, on protesting students. These are issues of clear public interest; indeed, they have captured national attention. And it is clear there is no “substantial basis” for holding Columbia-AAUP liable for this speech, when there is no plausible connection between Columbia-AAUP’s words and Columbia University’s reaction to the student protestors.

Throughout American history, students have participated in and benefited from the marketplace of ideas on college campuses, particularly with respect to pressing and divisive social and political issues. Columbia University itself has frequently been a site of vibrant student protest, including with respect to the Vietnam War, South African Apartheid, and climate change. In this case, the unnamed plaintiffs are free to disagree with the student protestors’ message and those who defended their rights to free speech, but they cannot hold them legally liable for engaging in the rich tradition of dissent that characterizes American campuses.

At the ACLU, we won’t stand for SLAPP lawsuits that imperil this historic tradition and threaten the First Amendment rights of future generations of students, professors, and activists. New York’s anti-SLAPP law, and the First Amendment, clearly protect Columbia-AAUP’s speech–and we are confident that the court will send a clear message that New York will not allow abuse of the legal system to silence viewpoints simply because some people don’t like them.

Published January 10, 2025 at 08:11PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/vhEPBXT

ACLU: Who is Kash Patel?

Who is Kash Patel?

President-elect Donald Trump has stated that he intends to nominate Kash Patel, the right-wing commentator and former intelligence official, to be the next director of the Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI). If confirmed, Patel will lead the nation’s chief criminal investigation agency, as well as its substantial surveillance apparatus.

Patel wore a number of hats during the first Trump administration. He worked in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, as a national security advisor and senior counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and as a deputy assistant to the president on the National Security Council. In the final months of the first Trump administration, he served as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense. Since then, Patel has been a frequent contributor on conservative media, including appearing on podcasts hosted by Steve Bannon and Sean Ryan.

While the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions as a matter of organizational policy, we have spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. In line with that history, we are examining and publicizing cabinet nominees’ records on civil rights and civil liberties and urging senators to seek and obtain commitments from the nominees on key concerns.

Given its crucial role in law enforcement and surveillance, the FBI can have a serious impact on civil rights and civil liberties. Consequently, ahead of Patel’s confirmation hearing, we analyze his record and stance on key issues, flagging areas for senators to question the nominee and secure commitments to uphold our rights.

The FBI on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

In the federal government’s law enforcement structure, the FBI is the chief investigatory agency with the broadest authority. This tremendous authority has, at times, led to serious abuses of civil rights and civil liberties. For example, in 1975, the Senate formed the Church Committee in part to investigate wide-ranging FBI abuses, including planting informants in civil rights organizations, surveilling and threatening Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and keeping files on 1 million Americans.

The Church Committee’s shocking findings led to reforms at the FBI, but today it now wields significant investigative and surveillance powers, including under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications. Although Section 702 requires the government to direct this surveillance at people outside the U.S., in practice, it ensnares Americans who are communicating with those targets. Notably, targets need not have any connection to criminal activity or terrorism; they can be journalists, human-rights workers, or businesspeople discussing U.S. foreign affairs. After acquiring these communications, FBI agents across the country routinely search for Americans’ communications in their Section 702 databases — again, without a warrant.

Over time, Section 702 has morphed into a domestic surveillance tool. FBI agents use Section 702 databases to conduct millions of invasive searches for Americans’ communications, including those of protesters, racial justice activists, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, journalists, and even members of Congress. While the number of these warrantless queries has declined in recent years, they’re still happening far too frequently and without the judicial approval the Constitution requires.

Powers like this are even more concerning given President-elect Trump’s expressed desire to investigate and prosecute his perceived “enemies” — journalists, civil servants, and government officials — based on their political views or activities. For example, President-elect Trump has vowed, “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.” He expanded this sentiment to include “all others involved with the destruction of our elections, borders, & [sic] country itself!”

On the Record: Patel on Four Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Issues

Patel has made extensive comments on the record that raise significant concerns on crucial civil rights and civil liberties issues, including:

1. Patel has described his desire to target perceived enemies, including the press and civil servants. In September, Patel stated, “We [must] collectively join forces to take on the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen, and no it’s not Washington, DC, it’s the mainstream media and these people out there in the fake news. That is our mission!” He has also advocated revoking the security clearances of civil servants who participated in investigations of then-President Trump, describing the list of targets as “massive.”
2. His political allegiance and financial ties to President-elect Trump raise concerns about whether he can maintain the FBI’s traditional and important independence from partisan or political influence. Patel has called himself a member of “Donald Trump’s army,” and described the President-elect as “our juggernaut of justice,” “our leader,” and “our continued warrior in the arena.” He likewise serves on the board of Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which owns Trump’s Truth Social platform, and has been paid $465,000 to consult for the company.
3. He has falsely accused marginalized groups of wrongdoing and attacked their rights. He spread debunked conspiracy theories regarding undocumented people, stating, “What do you bring in all these people here for? . . . I think the Democrats are smart enough to say, well, we got to figure out a new way to rig the election.”
4. He has, however, also highlighted the dangers of certain kinds of overbroad governmental surveillance. He stated, for example, that “the biggest problem the FBI has had has come out of its intel shops” and asserted that Section 702 — the law that allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications — “needs major, major reform — tons,” which is also a longstanding ACLU priority. According to Patel, he would break up the FBI’s intelligence functions and distribute them to other agencies.

Commitments the ACLU Is Urging Senators to Demand at Patel’s Confirmation Hearing

Based on Patel’s record, the ACLU is concerned that he will use the FBI’s authority as a political tool to attack journalists, dissidents, civil society, civil servants, and former officials based on their political views. At his confirmation hearing, we’re urging senators to ask Patel:

1. Will you commit to not using the investigative and surveillance powers of the FBI to target journalists, civil servants, political opponents, or other individuals based on their ideology, speech, journalism, or political or religious activity?
2. Do you commit to ensuring that the FBI does not target individuals to any degree based on other protected characteristics, including race, ethnicity, national origin and nationality, religious beliefs, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability?
3. Will you commit to resigning from TMTG’s board and cutting other financial ties with the President-elect and his immediate family?
4. The claim that there is widespread voting by noncitizens in federal elections, which is already prohibited under federal and state laws, has been thoroughly debunked. Do you commit to refraining from spreading this disinformation and sowing distrust in our elections?
5. Will you commit to addressing FBI abuse of its surveillance authority and domestic investigative authority? In addressing those abuses, which components of the FBI would you spin out, where would those components then be placed, and how would that reorganization protect civil rights and civil liberties?
6. Do you commit to supporting renewed efforts to address surveillance abuses under Section 702, which is the law that permits the FBI and other agencies to engage in warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications? What policies will you implement at the FBI to address those abuses in the meantime?

Published January 8, 2025 at 06:47PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/mnqzjI0

ACLU: Who is Kash Patel?

Who is Kash Patel?

President-elect Donald Trump has stated that he intends to nominate Kash Patel, the right-wing commentator and former intelligence official, to be the next director of the Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI). If confirmed, Patel will lead the nation’s chief criminal investigation agency, as well as its substantial surveillance apparatus.

Patel wore a number of hats during the first Trump administration. He worked in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, as a national security advisor and senior counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and as a deputy assistant to the president on the National Security Council. In the final months of the first Trump administration, he served as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense. Since then, Patel has been a frequent contributor on conservative media, including appearing on podcasts hosted by Steve Bannon and Sean Ryan.

While the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions as a matter of organizational policy, we have spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. In line with that history, we are examining and publicizing cabinet nominees’ records on civil rights and civil liberties and urging senators to seek and obtain commitments from the nominees on key concerns.

The FBI can have a serious impact on civil rights and civil liberties, given its crucial role in law enforcement and surveillance. Consequently, ahead of Patel’s confirmation hearing, we analyze his record and stance on key issues, flagging areas for senators to question the nominee and secure commitments to uphold our rights.

The FBI on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

In the federal government’s law enforcement structure, the FBI is the chief investigatory agency with the broadest authority. This tremendous authority has, at times, led to serious abuses of civil rights and civil liberties. For example, in 1975, the Senate formed the Church Committee in part to investigate wide-ranging FBI abuses, including planting informants in civil rights organizations, surveilling and threatening Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and keeping files on 1 million Americans.

The Church Committee’s shocking findings led to reforms at the FBI, but today it now wields significant investigative and surveillance powers, including under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications. Although Section 702 requires the government to direct this surveillance at people outside the U.S., in practice, it ensnares Americans who are communicating with those targets. Notably, targets need not have any connection to criminal activity or terrorism; they can be journalists, human-rights workers, or businesspeople discussing U.S. foreign affairs. After acquiring these communications, FBI agents across the country routinely search for Americans’ communications in their Section 702 databases — again, without a warrant.

Over time, Section 702 has morphed into a domestic surveillance tool. FBI agents use Section 702 databases to conduct millions of invasive searches for Americans’ communications, including those of protesters, racial justice activists, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, journalists, and even members of Congress. While the number of these warrantless queries has declined in recent years, they’re still happening far too frequently and without the judicial approval the Constitution requires.

Powers like this are even more concerning given President-elect Trump’s expressed desire to investigate and prosecute his perceived “enemies” — journalists, civil servants, and government officials — based on their political views or activities. For example, President-elect Trump has vowed, “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family.” He expanded this sentiment to include “all others involved with the destruction of our elections, borders, & [sic] country itself!”

On the Record: Patel on Four Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Issues

Patel has made extensive comments on the record that raise significant concerns on crucial civil rights and civil liberties issues, including:

1. Patel has described his desire to target perceived enemies, including the press and civil servants. In September, Patel stated, “We [must] collectively join forces to take on the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen, and no it’s not Washington, DC, it’s the mainstream media and these people out there in the fake news. That is our mission!” He has also advocated revoking the security clearances of civil servants who participated in investigations of then-President Trump, describing the list of targets as “massive.”
2. His political allegiance and financial ties to President-elect Trump raise concerns about whether he can maintain the FBI’s traditional and important independence from partisan or political influence. Patel has called himself a member of “Donald Trump’s army,” and described the President-elect as “our juggernaut of justice,” “our leader,” and “our continued warrior in the arena.” He likewise serves on the board of Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which owns Trump’s Truth Social platform, and has been paid $465,000 to consult for the company.
3. He has falsely accused marginalized groups of wrongdoing and attacked their rights. He spread debunked conspiracy theories regarding undocumented people, stating, “What do you bring in all these people here for? . . . I think the Democrats are smart enough to say, well, we got to figure out a new way to rig the election.”
4. He has, however, also highlighted the dangers of certain kinds of overbroad governmental surveillance. He stated, for example, that “the biggest problem the FBI has had has come out of its intel shops” and asserted that Section 702 — the law that allows the FBI and other agencies to engage in mass warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications — “needs major, major reform — tons,” which is also a longstanding ACLU priority. According to Patel, he would break up the FBI’s intelligence functions and distribute them to other agencies.

Commitments the ACLU Is Urging Senators to Demand at Patel’s Confirmation Hearing

Based on Patel’s record, the ACLU is concerned that he will use the FBI’s authority as a political tool to attack journalists, dissidents, civil society, civil servants, and former officials based on their political views. At his confirmation hearing, we’re urging senators to ask Patel:

1. Will you commit to not using the investigative and surveillance powers of the FBI to target journalists, civil servants, political opponents, or other individuals based on their ideology, speech, journalism, or political or religious activity?
2. Do you commit to ensuring that the FBI does not target individuals to any degree based on other protected characteristics, including race, ethnicity, national origin and nationality, religious beliefs, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability?
3. Will you commit to resigning from TMTG’s board and cutting other financial ties with the President-elect and his immediate family?
4. The claim that there is widespread voting by noncitizens in federal elections, which is already prohibited under federal and state laws, has been thoroughly debunked. Do you commit to refraining from spreading this disinformation and sowing distrust in our elections?
5. Will you commit to addressing FBI abuse of its surveillance authority and domestic investigative authority? In addressing those abuses, which components of the FBI would you spin out, where would those components then be placed, and how would that reorganization protect civil rights and civil liberties?
6. Do you commit to supporting renewed efforts to address surveillance abuses under Section 702, which is the law that permits the FBI and other agencies to engage in warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications? What policies will you implement at the FBI to address those abuses in the meantime?

Published January 9, 2025 at 12:17AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/wtXQZA6

ACLU: "I Thought That Death Was Imminent"

"I Thought That Death Was Imminent"

*Jean Paul is a pseudonym. All names have been changed to protect those identified in this story.

I hail from Cameroon, a beautiful country tucked away in Central Africa that’s sometimes called “Africa in miniature” for its diverse geography, culture, food, and languages. Sadly, since 2016, this diversity has also contributed to conflict between the majority Francophone population and the Anglophone minority — folks including me and my family.

Growing up in Cameroon, I wanted to be a doctor and help people. As a student, I joined other fellow students in peacefully protesting the government’s marginalization of Anglophone Cameroonians. I was arrested for my efforts. The police broke into my house in the middle of the night and took me to a prison where they held me for weeks and tortured me. I was beaten and kicked, my legs were broken and I could not stand. I ate only when my cellmate’s family brought him food, which he shared with me. Cut off from my family, filled with fear and pain, I thought that death was imminent. In fact, I welcomed death as the only escape from this torture.

Thankfully, one day a guard at the prison helped me escape and connected me with my aunt. I felt immense relief, but knew little of the new struggle that awaited me. I was still in danger in the Francophone part of Cameroon, so my family put me on a plane to Ecuador. From Ecuador, I went to Colombia where I connected with other Cameroonians and together we decided to travel to the U.S. on foot and ask for asylum.

Making this journey meant crossing the treacherous Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama. For four days I walked through the jungle without food or water. We saw dead bodies in the road, we saw bodies floating in the river of those who had drowned. I, too, nearly drowned, but no one noticed. When you’re in the water drowning people don’t know you're drowning. I thought I might not make it, that death might be my only release, but thank God there was one man who stayed with me when I was struggling. When I had to stop and sit, he would stay. I am so thankful he didn’t abandon me, because anyone who stayed behind lost their life. Families would have to leave behind their loved ones who passed away and continue their journey. Sometimes, they would have to drink water from the very river that people drowned in.

Eventually we made it across Panama, and the rest of Central America, through Mexico all the way to the border city of Tijuana. Then-President Donald Trump’s immigration policies meant that we had to wait months before crossing the border to seek asylum. When it was finally our turn to enter the U.S., Mexican officials handed us over to the U.S. Border Patrol. Those agents processed us and immediately we were detained.

I was sent to a detention center in Southern California, where I stayed for nine months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody waiting for my case to be heard. During my stay there, some of the ICE officers treated us like animals. We slept in bunk beds, and sometimes people sleeping on the top bunk would fall off. The food we ate was terrible; you didn’t eat adequately unless you had family members sending you extra money to buy food. No matter how much we complained about the conditions, most ICE officers didn’t listen to us. They said, “if you don’t like it here, go back to your country.”

After nine months in detention, I was allowed to leave and continue my long journey to attain asylum. I stayed in Southern California, where, today, I’ve built my life. I bought a car and found work as a rideshare driver. I recently graduated from college with a master’s degree. I’ve come to love my newfound home in Southern California. I love trying new restaurants. I’ve even taken up surfing in my spare time. I still try to help people where I can; I’ve helped deliver food to community-run food banks during the pandemic and have served as a volunteer translator for other Cameroonian asylum seekers over the years.

Now, my only dream is to have a successful life here in the U.S. I just want to get a good job and open a business that I can use to help other people and employ them. Living in Southern California, I see a lot of immigrants who struggle, and I’ve had a lot of people help me and support me a lot. I pray that I’ll win my asylum case so I can help work towards a world where everyone has equal opportunity to live and work freely.

Published January 8, 2025 at 05:01PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/NDtr5Ig

ACLU: "I Thought That Death Was Imminent"

"I Thought That Death Was Imminent"

*Jean Paul is a pseudonym. All names have been changed to protect those identified in this story.

I hail from Cameroon, a beautiful country tucked away in Central Africa that’s sometimes called “Africa in miniature” for its diverse geography, culture, food, and languages. Sadly, since 2016, this diversity has also contributed to conflict between the majority Francophone population and the Anglophone minority — folks including me and my family.

Growing up in Cameroon, I wanted to be a doctor and help people. As a student, I joined other fellow students in peacefully protesting the government’s marginalization of Anglophone Cameroonians. I was arrested for my efforts. The police broke into my house in the middle of the night and took me to a prison where they held me for weeks and tortured me. I was beaten and kicked, my legs were broken and I could not stand. I ate only when my cellmate’s family brought him food, which he shared with me. Cut off from my family, filled with fear and pain, I thought that death was imminent. In fact, I welcomed death as the only escape from this torture.

Thankfully, one day a guard at the prison helped me escape and connected me with my aunt. I felt immense relief, but knew little of the new struggle that awaited me. I was still in danger in the Francophone part of Cameroon, so my family put me on a plane to Ecuador. From Ecuador, I went to Colombia where I connected with other Cameroonians and together we decided to travel to the U.S. on foot and ask for asylum.

Making this journey meant crossing the treacherous Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama. For four days I walked through the jungle without food or water. We saw dead bodies in the road, we saw bodies floating in the river of those who had drowned. I, too, nearly drowned, but no one noticed. When you’re in the water drowning people don’t know you're drowning. I thought I might not make it, that death might be my only release, but thank God there was one man who stayed with me when I was struggling. When I had to stop and sit, he would stay. I am so thankful he didn’t abandon me, because anyone who stayed behind lost their life. Families would have to leave behind their loved ones who passed away and continue their journey. Sometimes, they would have to drink water from the very river that people drowned in.

Eventually we made it across Panama, and the rest of Central America, through Mexico all the way to the border city of Tijuana. Then-President Donald Trump’s immigration policies meant that we had to wait months before crossing the border to seek asylum. When it was finally our turn to enter the U.S., Mexican officials handed us over to the U.S. Border Patrol. Those agents processed us and immediately we were detained.

I was sent to a detention center in Southern California, where I stayed for nine months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody waiting for my case to be heard. During my stay there, some of the ICE officers treated us like animals. We slept in bunk beds, and sometimes people sleeping on the top bunk would fall off. The food we ate was terrible; you didn’t eat adequately unless you had family members sending you extra money to buy food. No matter how much we complained about the conditions, most ICE officers didn’t listen to us. They said, “if you don’t like it here, go back to your country.”

After nine months in detention, I was allowed to leave and continue my long journey to attain asylum. I stayed in Southern California, where, today, I’ve built my life. I bought a car and found work as a rideshare driver. I recently graduated from college with a master’s degree. I’ve come to love my newfound home in Southern California. I love trying new restaurants. I’ve even taken up surfing in my spare time. I still try to help people where I can; I’ve helped deliver food to community-run food banks during the pandemic and have served as a volunteer translator for other Cameroonian asylum seekers over the years.

Now, my only dream is to have a successful life here in the U.S. I just want to get a good job and open a business that I can use to help other people and employ them. Living in Southern California, I see a lot of immigrants who struggle, and I’ve had a lot of people help me and support me a lot. I pray that I’ll win my asylum case so I can help work towards a world where everyone has equal opportunity to live and work freely.

Published January 8, 2025 at 10:31PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/F7wqAKj

ACLU: Who is Pete Hegseth?

Who is Pete Hegseth?

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the Fox News Channel host Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense (DOD). If confirmed, the military veteran will lead the nation’s armed forces in what will be his first appointment to a political office.

Hegseth was commissioned as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard and he served in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. Prior to his stint as a talk show host on Fox News, he led the nonprofits Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America.

The ACLU has spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. While as a matter of policy the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions, it does examine and publicize nominees’ civil liberties records. Given the power and influence defense officials have over U.S. national security policy and decision making, a president’s secretary of defense choice has serious consequences for civil liberties at home and abroad. Ahead of the January Senate confirmation hearings, we analyze Hegseth’s record on key civil liberties issues, and urge Congress to carefully consider the impact his leadership would have on our rights.

The Department of Defense on Civil Liberties

As the largest U.S. government agency with the largest discretionary budget, the DOD oversees all U.S. military operations. The secretary of defense is responsible for ensuring troops comply with all applicable laws, including the laws of war. Importantly, the secretary must comply with both the Constitution, which requires Congress alone to make the ultimate decision to go to war and use force except to repel a sudden attack (and then only for a limited period); and the War Powers Resolution, which Congress intended to reflect the Constitution’s checks and balances. The Constitution itself gives the power to declare war and authorize the use of force to Congress alone. The ACLU has long advocated against unlawful use of force abroad, as well as adherence to our system of checks and balances and international humanitarian and human rights law.

With blatant disregard for the appropriate role of the military on American soil, Trump has, on numerous occasions, stated that he plans to use military troops to help conduct his mass deportation plans, or suppress protest. Deployment of troops for these purposes would be an abuse of power. As secretary of defense, Hegseth could be called upon to support or carry out these extreme and unprecedented actions.

The DOD is the largest employer in the U.S., with nearly 1 million civilian employees and more than 2 million military personnel. Whether it’s protecting the rights of LGBTQ servicemembers and their families, ensuring that immigrant service members are given the expedited citizenship they may be entitled to, or demanding that parents be allowed to enroll and graduate from military service academies, it is vital for the DOD to protect the civil rights and liberties of its employees and comply with the rule of law in serving the American people writ large.

On the Record: Where Hegseth Stands

Hegseth has a long record of extremely concerning views on a variety of civil liberties issues related to the military and U.S. national security policy. His positions include:

1. He has excused war crimes. Disregarding the objections of senior defense officials, he encouraged Trump to pardon three U.S. servicemen accused, or convicted, of war crimes. Trump ultimately pardoned all three men.
2. He has supported overbroad claims of presidential authority to use lethal force without congressional authorization. He not only supported the Trump administration’s lethal strike against Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, he also pushed for Trump to bomb cultural sites in Iran, which would have contravened the laws of war. Hegseth has also suggested that the U.S. use the military against Mexico’s drug cartels.
3. He has supported using the military to suppress protests. In 2020, he supported sending the military to U.S. cities, like Seattle, to suppress racial justice protests.
4. He has opposed efforts to fight discrimination in the military. Hegseth has stated that, “any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever, that was involved in any of the DEI, woke s--t has got to go.” In reference to the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is Black, Hegseth wrote, “Take it to the racist bank: black troops, at all levels, will be promoted simply based on their race. Some will be qualified; some will not be.”
5. He recently shifted his views on women serving in combat. In November, he said he opposed women in combat, and used gender stereotypes to make his case. He stated, “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.” But after meeting with several women senators in December, he said “we support all women in our military today, . . . combat included.”
6. Hegseth has also opposed medical care for transgender soldiers. He stated that transgender soldiers are “not deployable” because they are “reliant on chemicals” and referred to discussions on transgender issues in the military as “trans lunacy.”
7. He has made virulently anti-Muslim statements. He asserted that Muslim communities in America represent “an existential threat” to the country and repeated other vitriolic and hateful stereotypes about Muslims, who already face discrimination in the U.S., especially by national security agencies.

Finally, credible allegations exist that Hegseth has engaged in sexual misconduct, and the Senate must investigate the matter further before advancing his nomination. Given longstanding concerns regarding sexual assault in the military and the statements Hegseth has made regarding the role of women in combat, these allegations are directly relevant to his nomination as secretary of defense.

Commitments the ACLU is Urging Senators to Demand at Hegseth’s Confirmation Hearing:

Based on his track record, the ACLU is concerned about how Hegseth would use the DOD’s vast power and resources, and about the impact his leadership would have on our civil liberties and civil rights. At his confirmation hearing, we’re urging senators to ask Hegseth:

1. When the framers drafted the Constitution, they wanted to ensure the clear separation of the civilian government from a nonpolitical, nonpartisan military. The military should have no role to play in mass deportation or suppression of protest and in fact we condemn other countries that send in troops to break up protests or enforce civil laws. Will you pledge not to deploy the military to intimidate or use force against protesters in American cities? Will you pledge not to deploy troops to carry out civilian law enforcement functions on American soil, which could place them at risk of violating criminal law?
2. In 2015, 78 Senators voted to ensure that this country never again engages in torture. Do you agree to support and adhere to that bipartisan pledge?
3. Adherence to the rule of law, including the laws of war, is critical for U.S. service members who rely on the secretary of defense to ensure they are not placed at risk of committing unlawful actions. Will you ensure that the DOD conforms to the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution and act only as authorized by Congress, as well as international humanitarian law?
4. Will you support LGBTQ service members continuing to serve in the military, and also provide health care, including reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, for all eligible service members and their families?
5. In the space of less than two months, you went from arguing, ““I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” to later saying, “we support all women in our military today, . . . combat included.” Will you commit now to continue all of the Department’s current policies and practices that support women serving in combat and in combat positions?

Published December 26, 2024 at 07:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/1yB0cn5

ACLU: Who is Pete Hegseth?

Who is Pete Hegseth?

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the Fox News Channel host Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense (DOD). If confirmed, the military veteran will lead the nation’s armed forces in what will be his first appointment to a political office.

Hegseth was commissioned as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard and he served in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11. Prior to his stint as a talk show host on Fox News, he led the nonprofits Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America.

The ACLU has spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. While as a matter of policy the ACLU does not endorse or oppose nominees for cabinet-level positions, it does examine and publicize nominees’ civil liberties records. Given the power and influence defense officials have over U.S. national security policy and decision making, a president’s secretary of defense choice has serious consequences for civil liberties at home and abroad. Ahead of the January Senate confirmation hearings, we analyze Hegseth’s record on key civil liberties issues, and urge Congress to carefully consider the impact his leadership would have on our rights.

The Department of Defense on Civil Liberties

As the largest U.S. government agency with the largest discretionary budget, the DOD oversees all U.S. military operations. The secretary of defense is responsible for ensuring troops comply with all applicable laws, including the laws of war. Importantly, the secretary must comply with both the Constitution, which requires Congress alone to make the ultimate decision to go to war and use force except to repel a sudden attack (and then only for a limited period); and the War Powers Resolution, which Congress intended to reflect the Constitution’s checks and balances. The Constitution itself gives the power to declare war and authorize the use of force to Congress alone. The ACLU has long advocated against unlawful use of force abroad, as well as adherence to our system of checks and balances and international humanitarian and human rights law.

With blatant disregard for the appropriate role of the military on American soil, Trump has, on numerous occasions, stated that he plans to use military troops to help conduct his mass deportation plans, or suppress protest. Deployment of troops for these purposes would be an abuse of power. As secretary of defense, Hegseth could be called upon to support or carry out these extreme and unprecedented actions.

The DOD is the largest employer in the U.S., with nearly 1 million civilian employees and more than 2 million military personnel. Whether it’s protecting the rights of LGBTQ servicemembers and their families, ensuring that immigrant service members are given the expedited citizenship they may be entitled to, or demanding that parents be allowed to enroll and graduate from military service academies, it is vital for the DOD to protect the civil rights and liberties of its employees and comply with the rule of law in serving the American people writ large.

On the Record: Where Hegseth Stands

Hegseth has a long record of extremely concerning views on a variety of civil liberties issues related to the military and U.S. national security policy. His positions include:

1. He has excused war crimes. Disregarding the objections of senior defense officials, he encouraged Trump to pardon three U.S. servicemen accused, or convicted, of war crimes. Trump ultimately pardoned all three men.
2. He has supported overbroad claims of presidential authority to use lethal force without congressional authorization. He not only supported the Trump administration’s lethal strike against Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, he also pushed for Trump to bomb cultural sites in Iran, which would have contravened the laws of war. Hegseth has also suggested that the U.S. use the military against Mexico’s drug cartels.
3. He has supported using the military to suppress protests. In 2020, he supported sending the military to U.S. cities, like Seattle, to suppress racial justice protests.
4. He has opposed efforts to fight discrimination in the military. Hegseth has stated that, “any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever, that was involved in any of the DEI, woke s--t has got to go.” In reference to the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is Black, Hegseth wrote, “Take it to the racist bank: black troops, at all levels, will be promoted simply based on their race. Some will be qualified; some will not be.”
5. He recently shifted his views on women serving in combat. In November, he said he opposed women in combat, and used gender stereotypes to make his case. He stated, “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.” But after meeting with several women senators in December, he said “we support all women in our military today, . . . combat included.”
6. Hegseth has also opposed medical care for transgender soldiers. He stated that transgender soldiers are “not deployable” because they are “reliant on chemicals” and referred to discussions on transgender issues in the military as “trans lunacy.”
7. He has made virulently anti-Muslim statements. He asserted that Muslim communities in America represent “an existential threat” to the country and repeated other vitriolic and hateful stereotypes about Muslims, who already face discrimination in the U.S., especially by national security agencies.

Finally, credible allegations exist that Hegseth has engaged in sexual misconduct, and the Senate must investigate the matter further before advancing his nomination. Given longstanding concerns regarding sexual assault in the military and the statements Hegseth has made regarding the role of women in combat, these allegations are directly relevant to his nomination as secretary of defense.

Commitments the ACLU is Urging Senators to Demand at Hegseth’s Confirmation Hearing:

Based on his track record, the ACLU is concerned about how Hegseth would use the DOD’s vast power and resources, and about the impact his leadership would have on our civil liberties and civil rights. At his confirmation hearing, we’re urging senators to ask Hegseth:

1. When the framers drafted the Constitution, they wanted to ensure the clear separation of the civilian government from a nonpolitical, nonpartisan military. The military should have no role to play in mass deportation or suppression of protest and in fact we condemn other countries that send in troops to break up protests or enforce civil laws. Will you pledge not to deploy the military to intimidate or use force against protesters in American cities? Will you pledge not to deploy troops to carry out civilian law enforcement functions on American soil, which could place them at risk of violating criminal law?
2. In 2015, 78 Senators voted to ensure that this country never again engages in torture. Do you agree to support and adhere to that bipartisan pledge?
3. Adherence to the rule of law, including the laws of war, is critical for U.S. service members who rely on the secretary of defense to ensure they are not placed at risk of committing unlawful actions. Will you ensure that the DOD conforms to the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution and act only as authorized by Congress, as well as international humanitarian law?
4. Will you support LGBTQ service members continuing to serve in the military, and also provide health care, including reproductive health care and gender-affirming care, for all eligible service members and their families?
5. In the space of less than two months, you went from arguing, ““I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” to later saying, “we support all women in our military today, . . . combat included.” Will you commit now to continue all of the Department’s current policies and practices that support women serving in combat and in combat positions?

Published December 27, 2024 at 01:22AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/wQni3za