Focus 580; Current Issues in Civil Liberties

In this first hour of the show we will spend some time talking about current issues in civil liberties at our guest of the program is Ed Young. He's the communications director for the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He will be in Champaign Urbana coming up this weekend on Sunday that's the 18th and he will be the speaker at the annual dinner of the champagne County chapter of the ACLU. So if you're here in the area it is possible to attend so you can do that but of course here on the show as we talk if you have questions comments you'd like to get involved the conversation you can certainly do that. The number here in Champaign-Urbana is 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line and that one is good anywhere that you can hear us and that is 8:00. Hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 so it would be a long distance call. Use that number and in fact any if you would have me listening on the Internet anybody in the United States could use that and could call and so that's 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. If you were here in Champaign-Urbana where we are the number is 3 3 3.

Part of me is. Yeah 3 3 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. The same numbers as always and will say here hello to Ed Young give us Young thanks very much for talking with us today. Good morning David how are you. I think I'm OK I don't know I might have to reassess here every couple of minutes. We appreciate you giving us some of your time. I'm happy to. For people like like you people who are involved in ACLU obviously your brief is to think about civil liberties all the time and I guess whenever I have a conversation with someone like you I feel that we could start out with some kind of global question and I kind of suspect I know what the answer is and that is to talk a little bit about the current state of civil liberties and whether we have reason to be. I suppose somebody like you would say we always have reason to be vigilant but whether at this point where we are particularly post 9/11 we have you know we have even more reason to be concerned about civil liberties.

Well sure. You know can I just say one thing I'm getting like some music in the background is making it hard for me to hear you. I don't. Well we're. We're not doing that on purpose. OK. If I know my my board operator here is sort of shaking his head and he's not really sure what's going on. OK we'll try real hard to make sure that we we fix it very great. If you're going to make sure that you speak up if you're OK. OK. I think that the issue that I think there is always an issue as people think about these things that we do always need to be concerned about our civil liberties. There is probably I think something inherent in us as a people over the last more than two centuries is we've wrestled through this constitutional system that we cherish that there are always questions that are before us. There are always things that we are going to be looking at and steps that people are going to take because they think them expedient at a particular moment that in fact do have a detrimental impact

upon our civil liberties and our basic constitutional rights. Up this moment I think seems particularly troubling because I think this may be a time when we see relief. Two things coming together that are particularly troubling. There are really two kinds of protections of our civil rights and civil liberties that are contained in our Constitution. There are the enumerated rights that I think most of us think of that are in the Bill of Rights. You know the freedom of speech protections against unreasonable search and seizure the right to counsel the right to a public trial the right to know the evidence against you. All of those things really have been under attack in a in a very significant way since 9/11. The Patriot Act for example really provides for this broad sweeping power for searches and seizures of material from people based on a level of evidence or a level of proof that's far below any

standard of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. You have the new FBI guidelines that really allow for the kind of scrutiny of people oftentimes based on their ideology or their political background or their political activities. And then finally you know I think you have a number of different things that are going on that affect the individual. In terms of in terms of those kinds of scrutiny then often dampening or tamping down their legitimate First Amendment activity. So those rights are under scrutiny. And I think under drafts the problem is that the overlay of that is that the very structural protections that were put into place also are are very much under siege as a matter of fact within the next 10 days or two weeks. The Supreme Court of the United States will hear two cases are on April 20th. The Guantanamo

case or I should say two arguments on April 20th. The Guantanamo case and on April 28 the matter involving the so-called enemy combatants who are U.S. citizens in which in point of fact. The government of the United States is arguing that the courts have no role in overseeing the validity of detention of people on U.S. soil. And that undermining I think of the courts really heightens concerns about the degree to which we are respecting individual rights and individual liberties at this point because there will always be I think some repression of rights that will exist. But the problem is is that when you when you take the courts out of the equation being the arbiters of that I think that's when you really have the danger that the executive branch can overreach and overextend

we can try and get back to some of these questions and others for people who are listening I have a caller I'm going to get to. I just want to ask Mr. Erakat did we take care of the music there is that you did OK. Absolutely. Thanks very much. Our policies we were. Exactly sure why that to happen but occasionally you get things right things sort of cross and you know we have we have this board here in our control room that has about one hundred seventy two channels on there so sometimes things get goofed up. Our guest in this part of the show and young He's communications director for the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and questions are welcome three three three. W I L L or 9 4 5 5. Toll free 800 1:58 W while we have a caller here who obviously is listening on the Internet because he's in San Francisco. We'll go there to our toll free line line number for that all morning I was interested in two different aspects of this. In one case it's the rise of religion and how Bush and his constant theological use of we are fighting evil

is is very much confounding to the Bill of Rights that virtually every one of the Bill of Rights were founded to compete against the old Inquisition days. That essentially if you were accused of being inhabited by the devil that you were not allowed to have a trial by jury because the jury the devil might jump out of you and jump in the jury that you were not intitled to have an attorney because the devil the attorney would be pleading the case for the Devil that the U.S. cant have the right to a public trial because the devil might jump into the public. You cant have the judge could have a hood over his head because the devil might jump into the judge in that virtually every one of the Bill of Rights were based upon the evil that came from

the inquisition days. And I wonder if you have any comment on that. The second thing you know here in San Francisco last night we had a conference on the impeachment of Bush and one of the professors that spoke was talking specifically about the the war time the Congress when they granted Bush essentially war powers to do this war without end were abdicating their own duties and that they had no right to to grant Bush this these war powers. It is obvious that he. He used weapons of mass destruction to give an excuse to do his attack into Iraq. And apparently the the way that the war powers have been granted Bush is that in the past when we invaded Grenada when we invaded Honduras what not the current state of it said that the president has the right to act for something like

30 days. But then they have to as the president has to go to Congress. In this case it's been written in such a way that that Congress can not have any further oversight. It cannot have the War Powers Act because it already granted Bush the ability to do a war on terror for for ever essentially for Bush and his boys keep talking about a war without end. And as that goes Bush is apparently doing a war against evil. And then that brings up the original precept that the bill of rights that we've got are very much based upon this fraud of fighting evil something that that cannot be proven and then is madness in its own right. As it goes to a structure of a society. Well two interesting complicated questions. You want to take it. That sure I think that the I think the

caller does raise an interesting. Let me let me take them in reverse order raises. I think if I can kind of weave these together raises an interesting notion. Because I think whether or not the the war on terror is waged under the construct of you know the kind of religious or some of the religious language that we've heard and clearly that we heard again last night from the president or whether it is articulated in the form of you know a simple kind of super patriotism. The problem is is that is that those kinds of arguments often lead to a sense that any ends justify the means. And so I think one of the things that we've seen in one of the things that is that is most disconcerting is the degree to which people seem willing to accept you know serious and and

really intrusive to munitions on their own rights to somehow under the notion that this is all protecting us that this is all for good because we're we're good and they're bad bad. That it makes sense to act out and to act in the ways that we have and to do anything to to engage that. And I think that's I think that's very troubling when we simply suggest that somehow there is there is any reason and any justification or rationale for somehow changing our most basic rights in our own our most basic constitutional values and principles. The other part of it is that I do think that this notion oft times of and this this this. I think what the caller identifies as and this you know religiosity of the president and some of those around him you know has manifested itself in a whole variety of

ways over the last three years that are troubling and should probably give us all you know pause for concern. The president for example has gone about the country pushing the notion or the idea of these faith based programs and has acted in a fashion to argue that the somehow the courts and others have not allowed faith based communities to participate fully in the work of you know trying to help their communities in getting federal later or doing federal projects. That's simply not true. It never has been true. And in fact the only you know sort of controls that have ever been placed on that is that the faith based groups by the way hundreds of which do this every single day across the country could not be discriminatory in their services either in the provision of services or in their employment of people on the basis of those individual's

religious views nor could they compel people to pract. It's a particular religion in order to get the services at these kinds of social services that we recognize as being important. The president sort of glides over that and really seems to suggest that we ought to somehow eliminate this. You know the notion of people having religious liberty that they ought to have the right to decide when and where they pray in order to provide the services again because they're important and I think that's a just another example of where there seems to be again and again this notion that the ends justify the means and that somehow the rules that we live by should no longer apply. I think those are very dangerous concepts. Well I appreciate the coming of the caller again I want to let people who are listening if you have questions you want to call in here in Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5. We do also have that toll free line and that's. 2 2 2 9 4 5. I want to ask a question going back

here to the criticisms that have been made of the Bush administration having to do with their treatment of people that they have arrested in connection with the war on terror and the criticism is that what the administration has done is take the the traditional rights of the accused and basically thrown them out the window. Their justification for doing this is that they're concerned that by providing access of reporters who are family members or attorneys to the accused that there would be the possibility of exchange of information and that also if the identity is people or how they were apprehended were how we think what role we think they have in organizations like al Qaeda if that becomes Pub. Like then that's information that the enemy quote unquote could use and so those are all offered as justifications for essentially holding people incommunicado not charging them not allowing them access to attorneys and so forth. Those kinds of concerns however must apply

to other cases where people are charged with some kind of ongoing criminal conspiracy and I guess I wonder in a more traditional kind of case like that how it is that you deal with the same sorts of concerns. Well I think your point is exactly right. We have seen these concerns over the course of our history in a whole range of cases. I remember back what the administration has done I think in absolutely the way you describe it is to argue that somehow our traditional justice system which has pretty. Activists helped to regulate our economy insure domestic tranquility in this country by giving a venue for dispute resolution that doesn't involve violence but somehow that system that we have trusted for this long that has been so critical to the operation of our government can't be trusted to keep us safe. That's that's what they've said. It can't be trusted to keep us safe. We can't trust

courts. We can't trust lawyers. We can't trust judges. We can't trust jurors. We can't trust any of the things that we have traditionally relied upon in this country as being important to our to our operation as a as a free and open society. And yet we have somehow dealt with the most critical kinds of cases in our justice system. We have for example and I think you know most people recognize you know we've been fighting say organized crime for years. Concerns always exist in trials regarding organized crime about the safety and I think justifiably so the safety and protection of jurors yet we have tried hundreds of those cases and managed to protect jurors. We have managed to try the drug kingpin cases the cases involving espionage without revealing sea state secrets and and things never. A national perspective or national security perspective

that we legitimately would want to protect and assure that they don't come out in the public. There are vehicles for doing that but they happen inside a courtroom. What the administration is essentially decided is that they don't want to trust the courts that they don't want to trust our courtrooms to do the work that they have traditionally done. And we see that you know not just in the cases I think most people will recognize of of Mrs. Humvee and BDA who are the individuals who are being held literally incommunicado under circumstances that I think for most of us would you describe them to us years ago we would have been virtually assured that you were describing. The circumstance from say Stalinist Russia as opposed to the United States but in the in point of fact you know we have tried all of these cases. I'm say that that we see these in a number of different examples whether it is the people who are being detained at Guantanamo who we simply say have no right to any kind of due

process whether it involves the individuals who were swept up in immigration sweeps immediately after 9/11 that you know that the administration has argued they couldn't even release their names because al Qaeda might find out when that was rejected by a federal judge and they had no argument around that protection they argued once that they were trying to protect these individuals privacy. I guess somehow taking someone into custody and holding them incommunicado doesn't violate their privacy but letting people know that you're doing it somehow would violate their privacy. We have seen it in a whole host of ways that they have reacted and treated individuals in these kinds of detention situations. And yet the odd thing is that you know for example you take the somewhere between 1 and 2000 people who were swept up off the streets in the days immediately after 9/11. And not a single one of those individuals was ever charged with being a terrorist or being involved in a crime of terrorism. The fact is is that all of this is

is just a reaction and an overreaction in a way that is not thoughtful is not considered does not apply due process. And so in the end really doesn't make us any safer. And so you know that ought to be as a beginning our yardstick ought to be that we obviously bide by our most fundamental and cherished constitutional principles. But the second yardstick clearly ought to be that we at least do things that that make us safer and not simply things that violate people's fundamental rights and don't add any value at the end of the day. We have someone else to bring into the conversation when we do that. The caller is in Normal Illinois. Line for toll free. Hello hello. Yes this is something altogether different. This is a local thing I'd like to tell you about since you're from Illinois. Bought a year ago a young boy in Streeter Illinois was murdered. The case is still unsolved attack a fourth about 50 or 60 law enforcement people FBI state police

and and another people descended on LaSalle County. And they've been doing these roadside checks and something like they've issued over 600 tickets and arrested over 40 people for completely unrelated matters and they won't say what they're looking for. And the black community in Streator says they're being harassed mentally and physically and I was wondering if the ACLU was and involved at all and Streeter in this matter. I hang up and listen thank you. I can say that that's not a matter that I'm familiar with. It is just as a as a side note to this I think it is unfortunate to note that earlier in this term the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case that came out of in fact came out of Illinois out of suburban Chicago that provided or allowed the police to conduct these kinds of roadside informational

gathering. It set up these kind of informational roadblocks and then used those as a predicate for making other kinds of arrests and circumstance like that. So depending on what that what that you know not knowing anything about this it's a little hard to say but depending on what it is that they're looking for what the justification is for setting up the roadblocks it is it's hard to know whether or not they would meet the Supreme Court's test that they set forth in that case. What one of the things that I think the caller does point out and it is is remarkably important about all of this is that of course these are exactly the kinds of circumstances that lead to the possibility of people of color being sick. Will be out for particular scrutiny and I think to give us all pause about the use of police powers on checked. Without that kind of individualized suspicion and individualized

justification for conducting any stop or any search. We are at a midpoint here our guest is Ed Young. He's communications director for the Illinois American LMI chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU. He'll be by the way this weekend here in Champagne Urbana to speak at the annual dinner of the champagne County chapter of the ACLU That's on Sunday that's taking place at the Illinois terminal building. And so it it is. It is open to the public. You do need to register however you don't need to be a member of the ACLU to go. And he's spending time here talking with us this morning to talk about some of the same kind of issues I'm sure some of the things that he'll be talking about this weekend questions are welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also have the toll free line and that's good anywhere that you can hear us. That is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 just to return to the issue of this sort of larger issue about civil liberties and the atmosphere after September 11 2001. You have talked

about this package of legislation that passed rather short. Or after September 11th pass the Congress. Thing is the shorthand is the Patriot Act. And. There. I think that this was last year maybe early in the year. A draft of additional legislation which some people called Patriot Act to begin to circulate it. It hasn't as far as I know it hasn't been formally introduced. But it's what some people in the government would like to do. If I take it that one step further and I know a lot of people were concerned about it the people who are concerned about aspects of patriot act one and even I think some members of Congress have started look at what it is they passed and ask questions about whether or not that was the right response and have even gone further is to say I don't think we need to not only do we not need to go any further than that but we may indeed maybe we should revisit the whole idea of the Patriot Act and I guess I wonder if As far as you follow what how people in Washington particularly in Congress are

thinking now about the Patriot Act and indeed whether there might be any kind of interest in Congress of revisiting that and looking at some of the provisions and perhaps saying that that now given careful thought and reflection. No we shouldn't. I think there is a lot of rethinking about the Patriot Act and its implications in Congress. And let me give you three quick examples of that. The first is the one that you mentioned which is that the Department of Justice drafted in early 2003 a draft legislation called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. What some have dubbed patriot 2 patriot 2 frankly made patriot one look like a walk in the park. It included things like giving the attorney general the authority to approve warrantless searches warrantless surveillance. It provided for the. Stripping of citizenship of

anyone who was believed to have provided material support to a terrorist organization it allowed the government to engage in a host of other surveillance activities as well as providing immunity for law enforcement officers who engaged who violated the civil or constitutional rights of individuals. It gave him unity both in a civil and criminal setting. As long as they were acting on the orders of their superiors. And it also contained for the first time that we had seen some actual punishments and some criminal actions that would have resulted from someone engaging in what is called domestic terrorism. And that's a definition that comes out of the Patriot Act which quite candidly is is far broader than anything and encompasses people engaged really in civil. Obedience. And so that thing that that draft even in the

release of that draft was something that was of great concern to to many people who were concerned about civil liberties. But I think what's instructive in terms of your question is the way that it was responded to on Capitol Hill which was that in effect members of Congress Republican and Democrat alike came together and said no thanks. And essentially told the administration that there was no reason to bring the measure forward because it wouldn't pass through this Congress be the next the next example of I think the way in which this sort of been this shift and change in mindset is that you may recall recollect that earlier this year at the time of the state of the Union message the president made use that state that statement as an opportunity to push. Now as opposed to waiting to make. Permanent some parts of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of 2005. That

legislation has gone nowhere even though the president made it a priority included that in the state of the Union message. Again members on both sides of the beyond all Republicans and Democrats alike have simply said that they don't want to to see that legislation go forward. They're looking forward to a full and complete debate next year about whether or not the back up parts of the Patriot Act should be should be continued. And then finally we see that the the the House earlier this I guess last summer excuse me acted to strip from the funding authorization for the Justice Department any funding that would have been used to exercise and execute a so-called sneak and peek warrants or delayed notification warrants which is been another issue within the Patriot Act that has garnered a great deal of attention and controversy. That measure passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives. And again passed on a on a on a wide bipartisan vote.

We hear all the time from members of Congress who I think are doing some very serious rethinking about the Patriot Act and its implications who want the administration to answer questions about why these broad sweeping law enforcement powers were really necessary after September 11th. And I think one of the things that that has come out of this quite frankly has been a really a strong sense. Again I want to underscore this one more time on both sides of the aisle that there is a need even in a time when we feel threatened that there is a compelling and overwhelming need for us to defend and protect these most basic of American values that in fact we can't even just because we're afraid. Can't turn our back on those principles that are most important in the. That in fact we suggest that we want to have emulated around the world and I think that that has been a very good development in terms of this

and I think what it sets up quite candidly is a debate any discussion next year about the continuation of the provisions of the Patriot Act which which I think Americans all across the country will have an opportunity to take a look at what's being done. Take a look at what's being said. Take a look at the promises that the Justice Department has made in terms of saying that they would be be cautious and not violate people's civil rights or civil liberties in enforcing these things and then see what the real truth was once they were put into action. We have another caller here to talk with champagne County and the callers on line one will go there. Hello. Sort of a comment and a question one of the things that's going on with the hearing from both Congolese arrived in our period. But seriously get our attorney general who sparingly conflicting reports but say that he's actually

being pretty or committing perjury anyway but there buse ing the phone wall of separation to applaud the Patriot Act and it's a gambit I think that they planned and I don't. It's playing but I don't want to digress too much on that but that's just a comment that they're using this current thing supposed to be investigating you know cultural the culture of the FBI and CIA and the arrogance and the non bureaucratic foul ups and all that and they're trying to blame it on once and we just dismiss these legalisms as if they they don't have any importance. But. And if you want to come in on that but I my question is is it could you just sort of survey the kinds of things that's going on you mention the DNA in the other case. That's a violation of Pavia corpus that has nothing to do with the Patriot Act a system by Sia. Basically we have the.

Seven hundred eighty six or so resident aliens and people who are out of status. You mentioned that only a handful I think it's probably one to two at the most. We're actually related to anything that had to do with terrorism so it was basically just a big sweep that's probably alienated more people and it said than it helped round up. And then there's the Guantanamo people which is not actually it's more of a violation of the Geneva Accords and and international law than anything American civil liberties. I mean they they make it they conflate these all these things and make the Guantanamo make it like the Khan tunnel people need a lawyer. Because people here should have right to a lawyer but it's not that at all it has to do to the accords. There has to be some kind of some kind of formal legal with that sort of assessment of whether what their status. So I just would like for you elaborate on all those three categories of current

violation of the release. That's the way I see it. And to them because I have you know that they get conflated and mixed up all the time because if you could just do some exposition. Thank you. Sure. But let me let me talk for just a moment I think that people have been hearing a lot about this this you know quote wall of separation between intelligence investigations and and criminal investigations in the FBI over the past few days and that certainly was I think that the poor much of the attorney general's testimony yesterday. I think that one of the things that is interesting about the discussion around this is that somehow whenever this topic comes up that supporters of the current administration attempt to suggest somehow that that wall the wall to the extent it ever really. We existed existed as a mechanism

for trying to inhibit legitimate investigations and nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is is that essentially what what happened was is as many you know those of those of us who are old enough to remember it was that during the 1970s and 1980s in 1077 into the you know and into the late 1970s. The both the FBI and the CIA were engaged in this country in investigations and people based soley on their legitimate First Amendment activities. And back when that was revealed the public rose up and surely said that that had to be stopped. And so it was and it was stopped in part by the Creator it was it was part of the solution and part of the fix was to create the so-called Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which would provide for

domestic surveillance in areas in issues where someone might be involved in representing a foreign power or acting on behalf of a foreign power. But the fact of the matter is is that is that the separation existed. Because the standard for getting permission to do surveillance of someone under 5 was far lower than the standard was in a traditional criminal setting. And so in order to create some protection that you couldn't simply use FISON as a vehicle for launching a criminal investigation when you really didn't have probable cause. They created this wall of separation that wall that everybody talks about and again has been the subject of so much discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the way in which various agencies did or did not interact with one another. The fact of the matter is is that none of those agencies were prescribed from sharing information they simply didn't

as the matter as a matter of bureaucratic policy. And that's not something that created that in any way needed or required any statutory fix before or after 9/11. And the fact the other issues that were raised I think in terms of thinking through some of the things that are going on in the case that I mentioned earlier the Cuba case in the case of Jose Padilla that will be coming before the Supreme Court of the United States. Essentially you have an administration arguing the administration arguing that an individual and a citizen can be held in the United States without charges without access to counsel without a right to a trial without a right to know the charges against them without being able to see family without being able to have any contact with the outside world and that this is something that they they cannot find I think really a justification for in any way shape or form. But it's simply I think as the caller had indicated just the right

that they claim. In fact it's interesting in the in the particular case of the DIA and humvee and these ongoing detentions. Without charges it is it is a fact that in 1971 the Congress of the United States actually acted to overturn an old law that would have that would have allowed detention of American citizens without charges. And they specifically spoke to this issue and said this can never happen this can never take place. Somehow it's curious that the administration seems to think there's a question about what the status of all this is when Congress has spoken to it. And then quickly I think we've seen as the caller indicates a number of issues over the years where over the last couple of years where the administration really has not served us well in terms of its interaction with a variety of different communities especially the Muslim Arab and South Asian communities. These are these are people

who you know quite frankly these are communities that we need at this moment that we need to help us ensure that we can be safe that we need in order to help do investigations and to help see if there are people in this country who do want to do us harm and instead of figuring out the ways in which we could bring these individuals and these communities. More closer to work more closely with us and to help and to assist in terms of these kinds of investigations. We seem to have figured out every possible way we could to drive them even further away. And there have been examples from the first hours after 9/11 when when agents fanned off out across the country and did these massive sweeps of people and took them into custody again people who had no links to terrorism whatsoever just simply disappeared. And we've also seen this been in the questioning of individuals by by law enforcement agencies in which people these are these are individuals who

often come from come from countries in which there is no such thing as a voluntary conversation with the local law enforcement agent. And yet we've tried to suggest that somehow these kinds of activities and this kind of coercion. Has create you know the government has argued has created new ties with these these communities. It's just a horrific situation and I think the reality is if you actually talk to law enforcement officials at the state at the local level they will argue back to wedge that has been driven between federal law enforcement and communities south Asian and other communities has actually I think created a circumstance where we are in more danger of attack than we are in in terms of having gone any further and protecting ourselves with the color I get right to for the benefit of people who might have tuned in in the last 20 minutes or so I do want to reintroduce our guest.

You're listening to Ed Young. He's communications director for the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He'll be here in town this weekend to speak at the annual dinner of the champagne County chapter of the ACLU. That's on Sunday April 18th by the way if you have access to the internet and your interest in learning more about the organization the Illinois ACLU and you would also like to find out if there is a regional chapter and there are a number of them. You can go to the Illinois ACLU website and look at all that information. It's w w w a c l u. Ash El Gato RG And you can find out what the organization is up to the issues that it's tracking and also get that information on whether or not there's a chapter that's close to you wherever you happen to be around the state. We have some other callers here and would be happy to bring them into the conversation and go next to Savoy closer to Champaign Urbana lie number one. I make a comment and a question I'm going to hang up and listen to your answer.

I haven't heard the entire discussion but I certainly appreciated your last comment about how we've alienated groups who might be assisting us in this quote unquote war on terrorism. My question is can you speak to whether patriot 1 and 2. Our monthly government agencies to me in the past have spoken to the media and we thank. All right thank you. The muzzling government agencies who in the past may have spoken to the media. I would be hard pressed to think of examples of that activity. I would be hard pressed I think to think of examples of government agencies being muzzled as the result of the Patriot Act. Except to this extent and it's not a Patriot Act issue but it but it's closely related. One of the other things that we have seen since 9/11 is that this

administration's over reliance on secrecy has frankly become almost obsessive. And one of the elements of that that I think is most troubling is that the administration has really limited the ability of all of us as Americans to get access to information about how our government is acting behaving and what policies it is taking in our name. And so one of the things that we've seen is a real difficulty in terms of accessing information through the Freedom of Information Act. And so to the extent I guess I would just say to the extent that one of the ways in which government agencies would often speak to the media is by responding to these Freedom of Information Act requests. We have certainly seen we have certainly seen of a great limitation

on their ability to do that. All right hope that gets at the question the calls go to Bloomington IN THE. One number for the low point. First I don't think prisoners of war and never had rights to due process. That's point number one. And second our government since 9/11 has. How should we say I'm going to do any further attacks on our country by terrorists. And I'm apparently the way they've been able to avoid those attacks is by by making everyone who would like to attack us are most almost everybody would like to attack us. A prisoner of war in other words. They can concentrate them in Cuba so they can attack us. I think that's pretty good. What do you think. Well let me say this. First of all in terms of the Guantanamo a circumstance it's not clear that all of the individuals who are being held in Guantanamo are in fact

prisoners of war they've never received that designation of the actual designation of being a prisoner of war does carry with it specific right. Dates and specific opportunities that the American government has frankly denied to be individuals who are being held at Guantanamo. I also might mention I think one of the things that's interesting about the Guantanamo circumstance is that I think all of us or many of us I should say because I think it includes me oft times have often thought that the people who are held at Guantanamo are simply those people who were rounded up in the military battlefields of Afghanistan. It turns out as you read the papers in these cases that's not true that in point of fact some of the people who are being held in Guantanamo are people who were swept up off the streets of different countries who were taken into custody in a variety of different ways that are not related to Guantanamo and so I think the question of whether or not you know there is a you know whether or not that they are

prisoners of war what status they have is something that's not clear. The issue really before the court in the Guantanamo case is whether or not we are going to fulfill our treaty obligations to provide the Amir kind of due process that is required in the Geneva Convention and other and other Agreed there are international agreements which says that you have to give or provide some sort of process to these individuals. It doesn't have to be. Due process but it has to be some sort of process to determine what the status is of individuals that you're holding and that is something that the administration has resisted in terms of the other. The other part of the question and whether or not there's a I think it's one thing one often hears. We have lived you know we lived in this country for a number of years without a terrorist attack we had a terrorist attack and now we've gone for some period without it. I don't think that the lack of terror a terrorist attack actually

demonstrates that we have gained the upper hand on the basis of our detention policies. In fact I think as I indicated earlier we have often detained people for lengthy periods of time. Have not been demonstrated to have anything to do with terrorism and the other thing is that we have simply said and especially in the case of Medea and Humvee which is coming before the Supreme Court that quite frankly if these people are bad people and they may well be we have a way of dealing with bad folks in this society we put them on trial and we hold cases and you know we convict them and we put them away. We've done that with everybody from Timothy McVeigh to Emmanuel Noriega. I cannot believe that there is some sort of justification that suggests that we don't have the means or the will to do it with people like Jose Padilla or or Hamdi. And what's really disturbing is when you read the

government's arguments as to why they won't do this it's not for an ongoing kind of protection. It's not to prevent a specific attack but rather they fundamentally argue that they have to detain these people so that they can continue questioning and gather information from them. It is I think a little frightening to consider what kind of questioning they are doing that has to take place outside of the presence of a lawyer. I hope the caller forgive me I have to jump in here because we come to the point where him. About two minutes left. Maybe this is a way of wrapping up it. It seems to me that since September 11th we have had in this country a more broad and spirited discussion of these kind of issues of civil liberties union issues than we had in a long time. At least it seems to me going back to maybe the time of the Vietnam War was the last time that we seem to be talking about these things this intensely and it seems that you'd have to say on one level that's a

that's a good thing. Do you think that that is true. I do David. I do. I think that you know I think one of the things that we did very poorly and by we I mean all of us including And I count among them myself as someone who does this professionally. I don't think we did a very good job in this country for years of making clear to young people and to others and to really all of us why B's liberties and why these rights are important. And one of the things that I think has been a byproduct of the fact that so many of them have been under attack is that perhaps it has built a deeper appreciation of all of these rights for all people in the United States. And I think you're correct in that we have been able then to have a dialogue about why they're important about why they matter not just in some abstract academic sort of fashion although I think those discussions are always bad. I would as well

but not in just some abstract academic fashion about the particulars of the right at the margins. But really what these rights mean to us broadly as a society. And I do think that's been positive and I do think that that is been something which frankly has been good and I don't tell you the other thing what it does is and what it what happens as the result of that is that more and more Americans I think really begin to understand how fundamental these are to this system of law and the system of justice that we hold so dear. And I think when that when people have an opportunity to do that they respond in a thoughtful way I think there they are they are considerate. I think they're considered and I think that they're ready tactic to carry on a debate and dialogue to fight and protect those rights. Well there we will leave it with our thanks to our guest and yucca He's communications director for the Illinois ACLU. He will be in the champagne County this weekend here in Champaign Urbana to speak at the annual dinner of the champagne County chapter of the Illinois ACLU Mr. Young. Thank you very

much. Thank you David. And I'm looking forward to being back in Champaign.