Updated: 12/10/01

Big Brother is Watching You!

Shouldn't You be Watching Big Brother?

Leader Publicly Canes Naughty Daughter

06/02/01 Another public official who can't tell fantasy from reality

MONROVIA (Reuters) - Liberian President Charles Taylor has caned his 13-year-old daughter in public for lacking discipline, his office said. Taylor, a former warlord who has been censured by the United Nations for backing Sierra Leonean rebels notorious for their savage attacks on civilians, made the girl lie on a school bench for the punishment.

"President Charles Taylor administered l0 strokes of the cane," said a statement from the West African country's presidency.

"As president, I have the responsibility not only for my children but for all children in the country, to ensure that the responsibility of nationhood will be passed on to reliable custodians," it quoted him as saying.

The daughter had been suspended from school for one week. The statement did not say how she had broken the rules.

12/7/01

Why Did Police Arrest 734,498 Pot-smokers,
Instead of Tracking Murderous Terrorists?

WASHINGTON, DC -- American law enforcement is guilty of something close to "criminal neglect" for arresting 734,498 people for marijuana violations last year -- instead of investigating and stopping murderous terrorists, the Libertarian Party said today.

"Thousands of innocent Americans may be dead because law enforcement considered it more important to raid college frat parties and arrest people for smoking marijuana than to find and stop the deadly terrorist 'sleeper' cells that were plotting the greatest mass murder in American history," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director.

"You just have to wonder: If the tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, the millions of man-hours, and the billions of dollars that were spent monitoring, investigating, arresting, charging, processing, jailing, and bringing to trial non-violent marijuana users had been used, instead, for anti-terrorist activities -- could the September 11 atrocity have been prevented?"

That question has become especially crucial now that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) has released new figures showing that marijuana arrests in 2000 hit an all-time record.

According to figures collected from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report, police arrested an estimated 734,498 people for marijuana violations last year. That's up from the 704,812 Americans who were arrested in 1999 on marijuana-related charges.

Of the almost three-quarters of a million people arrested in 2000, approximately 88% -- or about 646,042 individuals -- were charged only with possession of marijuana.

The most chilling thing about those numbers, said Dasbach, is that every arrest for marijuana represents a "missed opportunity" for law enforcement.

"Local and state police, the FBI, and federal law enforcement agencies have only a finite amount of people, time, and money to investigate and stop crimes," he noted. "By directing so many of those resources to the War on Marijuana, law enforcement made the ill-advised decision that detecting murderous, fanatical terrorists was less important than arresting non-violent Americans who choose to use marijuana.

"The nearly 4,000 Americans who were killed in the World Trade Center, in the Pentagon, and aboard Flight 93 may have paid the price for that tragically misguided decision."

Of course, what law enforcement did last year can't be altered now, admitted Dasbach. However, such policies can be changed for the future.

"We can't bring back the thousands of Americans who were killed on September 11," he said. "And we can't bring back all the law enforcement resources that were squandered in the past. But we can learn from our mistakes -- and we can learn from the actions of other nations."

For example, noted Dasbach, Great Britain reclassified marijuana in October so it is no longer an arrestable offense.

"For the safety and security of our nation, it's time for the United States to follow the lead of Great Britain," he said. "Then, we could redirect law enforcement -- at the local, state, and federal levels -- to focus on preventing future barbarous acts of terrorism, instead of arresting marijuana-smokers who are no threat to anyone."

The Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037

Nowhere to Hide, Video Eyes Are Watching

By Richard Meares May 24, 2001

LONDON (Reuters) - If you live in a city, you are probably already an extra in a real-life version of the all-seeing Big Brother TV game show.

In Britain, which has the dubious reputation as the most monitored land of all, camera lenses track you as you go around town, feeding your image to controllers in far-off rooms.

Here, police or local government cameras have spread rapidly since pilot schemes showed they cut drug dealing, assault and other serious crimes in city blackspots. People like them.

The state has poured millions into closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems for surveillance of public spaces, to an extent rivaled only by places like security-conscious Israel.

"CCTV operators know they have a powerful tool but that public support could be reduced if they use it unwarrantedly," said Ron Alalouff, editor of CCTV Today magazine.

"I don't think any serious group is against it."

Gentler Japan has not had such a need to fight street crime, mainland Europe has tougher privacy laws and in the United States or crime-ridden South Africa, surveillance concentrates more on protecting private premises, experts say.

No one knows how many CCTV cameras are staring, swiveling and tilting across Britain -- a million, maybe two -- or how often a person is filmed on average each day.

But they are so widespread that people almost expect criminals to be caught on film -- in the same way an amateur video cameraman always seems to be there for the big plane crash.

Few Britons will ever forget the chilling pictures, taken in a shopping mall, that showed Liverpool toddler James Bulger being led to his death by two 10-year-old boys eight years ago.

Public CCTV, which began with the first traffic camera in 1959, is now spreading out of towns and into villages.

PRIVACY WORRIES

Civil rights activists acknowledge surveillance makes people feel safer, but demand tighter controls of how monitoring is done and crucially of what happens to the footage that is taken.

Tighter new laws introduced in Britain last year should stop film being used by third parties, and gives individuals the right to see footage taken of them, but there have been abuses.

Shots of bad driving, silly behavior or innocent crime suspects have in the past been sold to TV stations without the consent of those involved.

John Wadham, director of civil rights group Liberty, says surveys show Britons actually are concerned about the intrusive powers such technology gives the state, despite an outward display of public apathy toward the rise of CCTV.

"People have a right to privacy, not just in their own home but when they are walking around the streets," he said.

This includes the right not to be singled out unfairly.

Camera operators have been sacked for homing in on good-looking women and remotely following them around town, and surveys show the staff who control them also succumb to prejudice, for example following young black males most closely.

DO NO WRONG

As surveillance grows more sophisticated, detecting minor offenses -- out-of-date car tax, jaywalking, urinating in public or dropping litter -- will be easy, and societies will have to decide where to draw the line between freedom and punishment.

Software is even being developed to spot when someone's behavior pattern hints they may be about to commit a crime.

Fighting crime, the main benefit of and justification for CCTV, is only part of the story.

Just as transport authorities pore over traffic camera data to study road usage, retailers have whole teams sifting through in-store video to learn about shopping habits.

Coupled with face recognition and credit-card records, they could build up vast banks of information about individuals, bringing new concerns about the data people hold about us.

Face recognition is in its early days but already in use.

The Midlands city of Birmingham and London's Newham borough already use it to check film for known criminals.

U.S. police caused a row when they did the same at a recent Superbowl, screening all fans as they came in.

CONCEALED

Civil rights groups are also worried by the growth in concealed cameras.

What a nice new lamppost, nine out of 10 people thought as they passed a Victorian-style wrought-iron pole outside a suburban home -- according to the advert for what was in fact a hidden video eye, surveying unwitting passers-by.

It was one of the many innovations on show at one of the world's biggest CCTV shows in Birmingham in May, where pinhole cameras, night-vision sensors and digital storage systems showed how cheap, easy and undetectable surveillance is becoming.

There are cameras in police cars, on buses, and scientists are working on flying robobugs that will carry a monitor between their wings. James Bond's gadgets are looking outdated.

OTHER SNOOPERS

This puts snooping within reach of other authorities -- employers, teachers, parents -- or even just nosy neighbors.

A handful of British schools have already installed cameras behind the bike sheds -- the traditional hide for smoking pupils -- and in toilet washrooms to check for bullying.

The only safe place seems to be the home, but even this last haven could be the next battleground.

Police and private security companies, fed up with false alarms, are keen to use cameras to check remotely if there has been a real burglary or incident before dispatching forces.

Before long, the motion sensors of an alarm system that cover rooms are likely to contain mini cameras connected over the Internet with the control room.

Home owners might also decide to install a bit of DIY surveillance too, to check up on the kids or the nanny while they are out. A Webcam and a mobile phone will be all you need.

Total exposure seems to have a certain fascination for some people -- like the contestants in and viewers of voyeuristic shows like Big Brother, or fly on the wall documentaries whose subjects seem quickly to forget they are being watched.

"Research suggests that people rapidly acclimatize to the idea cameras may be present. Their behavior may be exaggeratedly self-conscious for a short time but they adapt," said Graham Davies, Leicester University psychology professor.

Humans have already shown how easily they can get used to things like cloning that sent shudders down the spine just a few years ago. Maybe public microphones will be next.

[I wonder: when young people in England today read George Orwell's novel 1984, do they understand it at all? Or has the Ministry of Information declared that book "double ungood" and removed it from the libraries already? It may be 2001, but it looks like Orwell's predictions were a lot more accurate than Kubrick's and Clarke's. -- Red]

Pinellas Fifth Grader Cuffed, Sent Home
Classmates Turn Him in for Drawing Weapons

From The South Florida Sun-Sentinel May 11, 2001

OLDSMAR, FL -- A boy was taken from his elementary school in handcuffs after his classmates turned him in for drawing pictures of weapons. The 11-year-old fifth grader was not charged with a crime in the Wednesday incident. His name is not being released to protect him, school officials said.

"There were some drawings that were confiscated by the teacher," Oldsmar Elementary School Principal David Schmitt said. "The children were in no danger at all. It involved no real weapons." Still, Schmitt refused to discuss details of the boy's case. "All I can tell you is it was a threat... against students," he said. "Nobody in particular, but students in general.

"We just need to get it through kids' heads that there are certain things you don't say and there are certain things you don't draw," he said. The boy was handcuffed by school police for his safety, according to Pinellas County School District spokesman Ron Stone.

"That's normal procedure in a situation like this," Stone said.

[What's the normal procedure with 10-year-old girls? Ball gags and duct tape? -- Red]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl-511gunboy.story?coll=sfla%2Dhome%

5/5/01 More people who enjoy their jobs a little too much!

Playful Judge Pays Price

From The National Law Journal April 30, 2001

In defending Ector County, Texas, Judge Robert Hollman, his attorney told the state Judicial Conduct Commission that the "little games" Hollman played with his secretary never interfered with official duties. Rather, they were consensual efforts to act out "vignettes from old cowboy movies and damsel-in-distress videos," it was explained.

One distressed damsel, however, identified only as A.H., filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that playing along was a condition of employment.

The Judicial Conduct Commission's reprimand of Hollman described the fun as one-sided.

"Judge Hollman would bind A.H.'s hands behind her back, tie her ankles together and gag her with a scarf," the document said. "Judge Hollman would sometimes carry the bound-and-gagged A.H. around the office. Other times, Judge Hollman would leave A.H. tied to a chair or lying on the floor for long periods of time."

While A.H. was bound and gagged, the reprimand continued, the judge sometimes would time her attempts to free herself, watch scenes from his personal collection of bondage videos or cruise adult Web sites.

Judge Hollman resigned after the EEOC complaint was made public.

[Bob, we tried to tell you, it's about romance, not employment. You have to start with flowers and candy...  -- Red and shevette]

1/3/01 Some people enjoy their jobs a little too much!

DUI Suspect Says:
Cop Made Me Walk Home Nude in Handcuffs!

MASTIC BEACH, N.Y. - A woman charged Tuesday that a Suffolk County, N.Y., cop ordered her to strip and made her walk home naked in the frigid cold after he stopped her for allegedly driving drunk on New Year's Eve.

Angelina Torres, 27, said the police officer told her he was making her walk the four blocks to her Mastic home wearing only her panties and high-heel shoes "to teach me a lesson."

"It was the most humiliating experience of my life," said Torres, a mother of three. "I was crying and I was scared. I was freezing cold.

"He watched me walk all the way home, wearing pretty much nothing. I felt so ashamed. If he thought I was drunk, he should have arrested me."

Torres said she was returning home from the Chardonnay bar in Shirley at 2:30 a.m. Jan. 1, when she pulled over to the side of the road to cry over an argument she had just had with her boyfriend, whom she left at the bar.

Moments later, a cop approached her BMW and asked her where she was coming from. She said he then gave her a Breathalyzer test, which she said she passed.

Torres said she had a few sips of champagne - and an Absolut with cranberry drink - but insists she wasn't drunk.

"I wasn't drunk," she said. "I barely had anything to drink."

She said the cop gave her two more sobriety tests until she failed.

Torres said the officer then handcuffed her and placed her in the back of his patrol car.

"I thought he was taking me to jail, but he just drove me around for at least an hour and a half," Torres said.

"He undid the handcuffs and told me to get undressed. I asked him why. He said, 'You're going to walk home to learn your lesson.'"

Torres Tuesday sued the county for $15 million.

A spokesman for the Suffolk County Police Department said the alleged incident is under investigation "and they're taking it very seriously."

And:

Second Woman Files Lawsuit Says Officer
Made Her Strip for Failing Sobriety Test

Thursday, January 4, 2001

MASTIC BEACH, N.Y. - A second Long Island, N.Y. woman said she will file a lawsuit accusing a police officer of ordering her to strip and walk around after she allegedly failed a sobriety test.

Juliana Rubio, 20, said an officer stopped her Dec. 27, told her she had failed a breath test, and then ordered her to take off her clothes, attorney Gary Gramer said Wednesday.

He said the officer made Rubio walk naked in front of him and told her, "I'm going to teach you a lesson."

Angelina Torres, 27, who is also represented by Gramer, made a similar allegation Tuesday.

Although Rubio did not know the name of the officer who stopped her, Gramer said the description she gave fit officer Frank Wright, who Torres said made her strip to her underwear early New Year's day and walk about four blocks after he said she failed a sobriety test.

Suffolk County Police Commissioner John Gallagher said police are investigating Rubio's allegation. Gallagher said Wright does not dispute that he stopped Torres and that she removed her dress but said, "Why she took it off is the disputed issue."

Police said investigators who interviewed Wright have concluded that protocol was breached. But they said they were still looking into discrepancies between the accounts of Wright and Torres.

Police said they did not yet know whether the officer Rubio complained about was the one who allegedly mistreated Torres.

Wright, a nine-year veteran, has been placed on administrative duty pending the outcome of the investigation.

Gramer said he notified police of Rubio's complaint Wednesday. He filed a second notice of his intent to file a lawsuit against the police and the county, asking for $15 million in punitive damages for Rubio.

Torres filed a notice of claim on Tuesday in which she also asked for $15 million.

Quoting unidentified police officials, Newsday also reported a third woman phoned police and made a similar complaint but said she refused when the officer ordered her to strip. The newspaper said she would not give police her name.

6/2/00

Dangerous New Bill Would Allow Secret
'Sneak and Peek' Searches of Your Home

WASHINGTON, DC -- A new bill that would allow federal law enforcement agents to secretly enter and search your home -- without ever notifying you -- would "pick the lock" on the Fourth Amendment and demolish your protection against "unreasonable search and seizure," the Libertarian Party warned today.

"This is the ultimate sneak and peek bill," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "It would allow law enforcement agents to invade your home like cat burglars, violate your rights, steal your security, and plunder your property.

"And worst of all: The bill could pass any day now unless Americans stand up for the Fourth Amendment -- and against politicians who want to behave like criminals."

The bill, HR. 2987, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, is currently being considered by several House committees. A similar bill, S. 486, passed the Senate in November.

In vague, seemingly innocuous language tucked deep in HR. 2987 in a section entitled "Notice of Issuance," the legislation would:

* Allow federal law enforcement to enter your home and search it without notifying you for several months -- or ever. Current law requires federal agents to announce their presence before entering, and to show a properly issued search warrant.

* Allow federal law enforcement to take "intangible" items -- such as copies of your personal papers or your computer's hard drive -- and never furnish a list of what they took. Current law requires federal agents to provide an immediate inventory of all seized items.

Although the legislation is specifically targeted at methamphetamine, legal experts say the secret search provisions could be used by any law enforcement agents -- which is why the bill is so dangerous, said Dasbach.

"The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures," he said. "That's why current law requires police to have probable cause and a valid warrant; to announce their intention to conduct a search; and to provide an inventory of whatever they take.

"But how can you determine if a search warrant is valid if the search is done in secret? How can you challenge an improper search if you're never told about it? How do you know whether police illegally seized items if they don't have to tell you what they took? This bill doesn't just allow law enforcement to pick the lock on your home -- it picks the lock on the Fourth Amendment and turns unreasonable searches and seizures into invisible searches and seizures."

And that's why the "sneak and peek" language was "snuck and tucked" into HR. 2987, said Dasbach.

"Politicians knew this unconstitutional provision would never stand the scrutiny of the American public," he said. "People would be outraged if politicians brazenly announced their plan to repeal Fourth Amendment protections. So politicians snuck it into a bigger bill in camouflaged language, and hoped no one would notice.

"But this sneak attack on our rights can't go unchallenged. Methamphetamine may be dangerous -- but not as dangerous as HR. 2987, or as dangerous as politicians who want to behave like sneak thieves and rob us of our security, our privacy, and our liberty."

The Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037

George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com

5/25/00

Warning: This Press Release Could Be
Illegal Under New Anti-Drug Legislation

WASHINGTON, DC -- Politicians are so desperate to win the War on Drugs that they're willing to outlaw this press release, the Libertarian Party said today.

"Warning: This press release contains illegal information," said the party's National Director Steve Dasbach. "You could be prosecuted -- and sentenced to a 10-year prison term -- for reading it on the air, publishing it in a newspaper, or linking it to your website."

The reason? Congress appears poised to pass legislation that would make it a crime to publicize information about illegal drugs. The bill, HR. 2987, would make it a federal felony to advertise, link a website to, or even publish certain kinds of factual data about drugs, drug culture, or drug paraphernalia.

"The War on Drugs has been turned into a War on Words," said Dasbach. "This bill would make certain kinds of Constitutionally protected speech illegal, and give politicians the power to put Americans in prison for writing, posting, or advocating information the government doesn't like."

The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, sponsored by senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- passed the Senate unanimously last November. It is now being considered by two House committees.

Supporters say the bill is designed to fight so-called "meth labs," which produce a dangerous form of amphetamine.

But the bill would go far beyond that, said Dasbach -- and would create several new "communication crimes," including:

* Illegal linking (three years in prison): It would be illegal for any "communications facility to post, publicize, transmit, publish, link to, broadcast or otherwise advertise" -- or even provide "indirect advertising for" -- Internet sites that sell drug paraphernalia.

"For example, this press release would be illegal if we mention that www.bongs.com has information about buying marijuana pipes," said Dasbach. "It could even be illegal if we provided this information so you could prevent your children from visiting that site."

* Illegal teaching (10 years in prison). It would be illegal to tell someone how to produce an illegal drug, such as growing marijuana.

"It would be a felony to mention that you can purchase a book about growing marijuana at www.marijuana-hemp.com," said Dasbach. "It could even be a felony if you intended to grow marijuana in a state where medical marijuana is legal, and you planned to grow it for bona fide medical reasons."

The bill is a dangerous expansion of government power, said Dasbach, because although politicians now have the power to outlaw certain activities, the First Amendment prohibits them from outlawing speech about those illegal activities.

"Politicians have already made possession of drugs a crime -- now they want to make possession of press releases, books, newspapers, magazines, and websites about drugs a crime," he said. "If this bill passes, the War on Drugs will have escalated into a full fledged War on the First Amendment."

The Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037

George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com

2/14/00

February 15th's Criminal Milestone:
2 Million Americans are Behind Bars

WASHINGTON, DC -- Tuesday, February 15 is a day that will live in incarceration infamy -- because it's the day America will lock its two-millionth citizen behind bars.

And that's no cause for celebration, the Libertarian Party said today.

"These 2 million prisoners do not mark a victory for law enforcement, but, all too often, mark a defeat for safety, justice, and liberty," said David Bergland, the party's national chairman. "Too many of these 2 million prisoners are behind bars for crimes that should not be crimes, and are serving sentences that no civilized nation should impose."

According to an estimate by the Justice Policy Institute, the number of Americans serving time in federal and state prisons and local jails will surpass 2 million on February 15.

To understand the unprecedented magnitude of that number, a few facts should be kept in mind, said Bergland:

* In 1970, fewer than 200,000 Americans were behind bars. By contrast, in the 1990s alone, 840,000 Americans were sent to prison.

* America has more prisoners in one state (California) than do the nations of France, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Holland, and Singapore -- combined.

* Over the past two decades, one new jail or prison has been built in America every week.

* Violent crime has dropped by 21% since 1993 -- but the number of Americans being incarcerated has grown by 5%-6% each year since then.

* Less than a third of the people sentenced to jail each year have been convicted of a violent crime, and at least 400,000 inmates are serving time for non-violent drug offenses alone.

* By one estimate, as many as 750,000 people are in jail for victimless crimes -- like gambling, violating censorship laws, not wearing a seatbelt, or consensual sex.

* The cost of keeping 2 million prisoners behind bars is $40 billion a year -- or about $20,000 for every man, woman, and teenager serving time.

* 30% of all African-American males will be sent to prison at some point during their lives. A major reason for this: While only 15% of all drug users are black, 74% of the people in prison for drug crimes are black, according to government statistics.

"When you add up all these numbers, you see a criminal justice system that is better at producing criminals than justice," said Bergland.

"And you see a nation that has too many laws that are too selectively enforced; a criminal justice system that wastes too many resources on victimless crimes; and a prison-industrial complex that has become America's most tragic growth industry."

What's to be done?

"Americans can use February 15th's grim milestone to mourn a criminal justice system gone hopelessly haywire -- or use it to mark a turning point toward genuine justice," said Bergland.

"As a first step toward a solution, we should immediately pardon anyone convicted of any victimless crime; begin to repeal laws that criminalize peaceful, consensual behavior; focus law enforcement resources on protecting decent people against violent, predatory criminals; and start examining alternatives to prison, like victim restitution.

"Such a Libertarian policy would keep Americans more safe from violent criminals," he said. "It would help us change from a nation that forces 2 million people to serve time in prison -- and into a nation where 270 million people can live in liberty, justice, and safety."

The Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037

For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com

2/14/00

Reality Check

Can you imagine working at the following organization? It has a little over 500 employees all doing what is considered important work. Among them are people with the following statistics:

29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
3 have been arrested for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are current defendants in lawsuits
In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving

These numbers total 373 out of 535 employees. That is a full 70%. And, do you know who they work for?
Can you guess which organization these undesirables work for?

The are 373 members of your United States Congress, out of 535 members. This same group which perpetually cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of new laws every year designed to keep you and me and the rest of us in line.

From: Matthew Gaylor [freematt@coil.com]
Sent: November 18, 1999
Subject: Talk About Screwed Up Priorities:

FBI Reports Marijuana Arrests Exceed Those For Violent Crime
http://www.natlnorml.org/news/archives/99-10-21.shtml

The number of marijuana related arrests dropped slightly in 1998 to 682,885 from 1997's record high of 695,200, according to the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report released on Oct. 17. Eighty-eight percent of those arrests were for possession.

Forty-four percent of all drug arrests nationwide were for marijuana, and one out of every 25 criminal arrests in the U.S. were for marijuana possession.

There were 6,985 more arrests for marijuana offenses last year than for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line.
List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month)
Matthew Gaylor
1933 E. Dublin-Granville Road #176
Columbus OH 43229
Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/

10/21/99

Why are police arresting more dope smokers
than murderers, robbers, thugs, and rapists?

WASHINGTON, DC -- Police are more eager to arrest people for smoking marijuana than for murder, robbery, or rape, according to new figures from the FBI -- and that's a criminal misuse of law enforcement resources that puts innocent Americans at risk, the Libertarian Party charged today.

"This is astonishing: Police apparently would rather arrest a person with marijuana in his possession than a sadistic killer with blood on his hands," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "We have to ask: What are these police smoking?"

According to the new FBI Uniform Crime Report, police arrested more people for non-violent marijuana offenses in 1998 than for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault -- combined.

In all, 682,885 Americans were arrested last year on marijuana-related charges, while only 676,020 people were arrested for the crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Of those arrested for marijuana offenses, 88% were charged with mere possession.

"These figures are great news for murderers, rapists, and robbers, since police appear to be more interested in arresting someone for smoking marijuana than for committing a cold-blooded killing, a sadistic rape, or a brazen burglary spree," said Dasbach. "This is a clear case of public endangerment -- and a tragic waste of criminal justice resources.

"The fact is, every marijuana arrest means there is less police time, less law enforcement money, less court time, and fewer jail cells available to arrest, convict, and imprison violent criminals," he said. "Does that make any sense?"

According to another new study from the Marijuana Policy Project, there are 59,300 people in U.S. prisons and jails for marijuana offenses at any given time, and there have been nearly 3.5 million marijuana arrests since President Bill Clinton took office.

"The next time you hear about a vicious murder on the news, ask yourself: Could the police have prevented this crime if they hadn't devoted uncounted millions of dollars and man-hours to arresting those 3.5 million people on marijuana charges over the past six years?" said Dasbach.

"How many people are dead, or raped, or had their possessions stolen, or were savagely beaten because a local cop was booking a marijuana suspect instead of protecting innocent Americans from evil criminals? That's the real, human cost of these new FBI figures -- and the sad price we pay for the government's War on Marijuana."

The good news in the new FBI Uniform Crime Report is that violent crime is down, acknowledged Dasbach -- falling by 5% last year.

"The question is: How much faster would crime be dropping if police made murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault their top priority, instead of marijuana?" he asked. "In other words, how much safer would we be if police targeted dangerous criminals like Jeffrey Dahmer and the Son of Sam -- instead of harmless victims like Cheech and Chong?"

The Libertarian Party
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037

For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com

Reuters 8/11/99

Kansas School Board Drops Evolution

New curriculum guidelines exclude scientific theory

TOPEKA, Kan., Aug. 11 — The Kansas Board of Education rejected evolution as a scientific principle Wednesday, dealing a victory to religious conservatives who are increasingly challenging science education in U.S. schools. The 10-member board, ignoring pleas by educators and established scientists, voted six to four to embrace new standards for science curricula that eliminate evolution as an underlying principle of biology and other sciences.

“Evolulion has been removed,” board member Janet Waugh, who opposed the new standard, said in a packed conference room near the state capitol. “Instead of Kansas’ curriculum having more and more credibility, it will have less and less.”

The board voted on a modified version of curriculum guidelines for grades kindergarten through high school that eliminates evolution as a way to describe the emergence of new species — for instance the evolution of primates into homo sapiens — while leaving intact references to ”microevolution,” or changes that occur within a single species.

The theory of evolution was developed by 19th-century British scientist Charles Darwin. His discoveries were famously argued in the 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial,” in which the state of Tennessee put teacher John Thomas Scopes on trial for knowingly infringing a law banning the teaching of evolution.

Defended by prominent trial attorney Clarence Darrow, Scopes was convicted and fined the minimum $100 but the verdict was reversed on a technicality by the state Supreme Court.

Prior to Wednesday’s vote, the presidents of Kansas’ six public universities wrote a letter saying the new standards "will set Kansas back a century and give hard-to-find science teachers no choice but to pursue other career fields or assignments outside of Kansas.

“The argument that teaching evolution will destroy a student’s faith in God is no more true today than it was during the Scopes trial in 1925,” the letter said.

Banning evolution from the classroom gave conservative forces a victory after previous attempts to eliminate evolution in states including Alabama, Arizona, Georgia and Nebraska.

Religious groups have argued that evolution cannot be proven, and some feel that evolution is not in accordance with Biblical teachings regarding the origins of life.

Teaching evolution misleads students, said Tom Willis, director of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, which helped write Kansas’ curriculum proposal.

“It’s deception,” Willis said prior to the vote. “You can’t go into the laboratory or the field and make the first fish. When you tell students that science has determined (evolution to be true), you’re deceiving them.”

Dozens of books have been published in the past two decades challenging the validity of evolution, bearing titles such as ”The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism,” and ”The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong.”

In Kansas, a 27-member state science committee spent a year writing the new curriculum standards for elementary and high school students that were based on national education standards and included evolution.

But this spring, a school board member introduced a competing proposal to remove evolution theories from classrooms. The board deadlocked over the matter in May, and the issue has since roiled political circles and prompted angry debate.

Kansas Gov. Bill Graves, a Republican, warned board members not to adopt the anti-evolution curriculum, and has said he would support an effort to abolish the Board of Education.

“It’s frustrating and it makes me angry,” said Steve Case, a member of the state science committee and a University of Kansas instructor. “There is potentially great damage that can be done to students in Kansas.”

Prior attempts by religious groups to include “creation science,” or Creationism, in school curricula included a failed attempt in Arkansas to require that it be taught alongside evolution.

In 1982, an Arkansas federal judge overturned the law, ruling it violated the constitutional clause barring the establishment of religion by the state. He said that creation science was not a valid science, had no secular educational purpose, but served only to promote religion. A similar law in Louisiana was struck down later the same year.

[Check that date again. It's not April 1 or 1919. This is for real. Thank God I'm not in Kansas anymore, and if you are, and you sat idly by and let this happen, shame on you. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. -- Red]

3/6/99

Amnesty International Says Women Behind Bars Suffer "Rough Justice"

The following is a press release issued by Amnesty International:

"My feet were still shackled together, and I couldn't get my legs apart. The doctor called for the officer... No one else could unlock the shackles, and my baby was coming... Finally the officer came and unlocked the shackles from my ankles. My baby was born then."

("Maria Jones" describing how she gave birth while an inmate of Cook County Jail, Chicago, 1998)

The use of shackles on pregnant inmates is just one example of the cruelty and ill-treatment many women suffer in US jails and prisons, Amnesty International said today in a new report issued as part of its international campaign against human rights violations in the United States.

As well as the use of restraints on pregnant and sick prisoners, Amnesty International's report -- "Not part of my sentence" -- details human rights violations including sexual abuse, lack of medical care and lengthy periods of confinement in so-called super-maximum units.

Reports of rape and other forms of sexual abuse -- including sexually offensive language and male staff touching women's breasts and genitals during searches or watching them when they are naked -- are widespread in US prisons and jails.

"Cases of sexual abuse actually reported are probably only the tip of the iceberg as victims are often reluctant to complain for fear of not being believed or suffering retaliation," Amnesty International said.

"The overwhelming majority of complaints concern male staff, reflecting the fact that many guards and other prison employees are male," the organization added.

The number of women in US jails and prisons has been growing dramatically, largely as a result of the war on drugs. In 1997 the figure was at 138,000 -- a three-fold increase since 1985. This amounts to about 10 times the number of women prisoners in Western European countries, which combined have a female population the same size as the USA.

"Authorities around the USA have been spending large sums of money building new prisons and jails but have not provided adequate funds for the health, welfare and rehabilitation of the people they are locking up," Amnesty International said.

As the world celebrates International Women's Day on 8 March, Amnesty International is calling on US federal, state and local authorities to make a strong commitment to implement the measures required to effectively protect the safety, health and dignity of all women in custody.

Concerns expressed in the report include:

• Sexual abuse: rape of an inmate by staff is internationally recognized as a form of torture and violates US federal and state criminal laws, yet reports of rape and other forms of sexual abuse are common in US prisons and jails. Amnesty International is calling for female inmates to be supervised by female staff only, and for victims to be more effectively protected from retaliation if they report abuses.
• Medical care: access to a doctor is often conditional on permission by non-medical staff, who may underestimate the seriousness of the case or be inclined not to believe inmates. In some cases, delays are reported to have had serious health consequences. In 1998 an inmate in an Arizona Jail wrote to Amnesty International reporting that she had lost her baby -- and almost bled to death -- after her call for urgent medical attention was left unheeded for hours. Amnesty International is urging that all women in custody have access to free and adequate medical care.
• Mental health care: there are concerns about the use of psychotropic drugs and a reported lack of counseling. Amnesty International is calling for an inquiry into prison mental health services and for women suffering from severe mental illnesses to be transferred to mental health institutions.
• Use of physical restraints on sick and pregnant women: handcuffs and shackles are often used on women both during transport and in hospital even if they do not have a history of violence or escape. In the case of pregnant women, restraints pose a serious health threat. Amnesty International is calling for the use of restraints to be limited to cases in which the inmates' conduct makes them necessary.
• Super-maximum security units: some women appear to be sent to such units -- where conditions are particularly harsh -- for comparatively minor infractions. Some of the rules in those units -- such as the one requiring that prisoners be "in full view" all the time -- violate the inmates' privacy and dignity, and their isolated nature can increase the opportunities for abuse.

(Learn more about Amnesty International's US campaign at http://www.rightsforall-usa.org/.)

2/24/99 New York Times

"Punish first and then get on with the trial."
Says Fascist Mayor Rudolph Giuliani

By IRA GLASSER

In "Through the Looking Glass," the White Queen announces a new legal doctrine: "Punish first and then get on with the trial." Mayor Rudolph Giuliani seems ready to emulate this logic.

First he announced that New York City would seize the cars of people accused of drunk driving and return the cars if the people were acquitted. Then he decided he'd keep the cars of those acquitted as well.

"Let's say somebody is acquitted," the Mayor explained, "and it's one of those acquittals in which the person was guilty, but there is just not quite enough evidence." So now the Mayor gets to decide who is "really" guilty, never mind the evidence or a jury's unanimous decision. Do you feel safe?

But perhaps Mr. Giuliani has done us all a favor by raising the subject of civil asset forfeiture. Under a 1984 Federal law, Federal officials can seize property suspected of being used in a crime, without arresting anyone. Many states have similar laws. By arresting property instead of people, the Government does an end-run around the Constitution. Since property has no rights, the argument goes, no notice is required, no prior hearing is required, and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt isn't required -- a neat trick. But consider the consequences. A couple in Connecticut lost their home because Federal agents found drugs in their grandson's room. A landscaper who bought supplies from nurseries that demanded cash payments was seized when he paid for an airline ticket with a portion of the $9,600 he was carrying. Federal agents assumed he was a drug dealer, and though he had no police record and no involvement with drugs, they confiscated all his money.

In another case, a man with glaucoma who owned a 90-acre farm in Kentucky grew a few marijuana plants on the advice of his ophthalmologist, who was authorized by the Federal Government to test marijuana for the medical treatment of the disease. The ophthalmologist testified that it was the only medication that could help. The Government confiscated his farm anyway.

In other cases, state and Federal authorities have taken cars, homes, restaurants and cash. Usually they sell the assets and keep the proceeds. There is now close to $3 billion in the Federal "Asset Forfeiture Fund," and local police departments have padded their budgets as well.

Many people who have had their property seized are not even arrested or charged with a crime. The statutes authorizing these seizures do not require a prior hearing. Worse, the Supreme Court has upheld seizures of this kind, so reform almost certainly will require legislation.

Modest reforms are pending in Congress with a bill sponsored by Representative Henry Hyde, who has called civil asset forfeiture "Kafkaesque." But these reforms are not enough.

Civil asset forfeiture is unfair and un-American. It deserves to be resisted by all citizens, any one of whom may one day be its victim.

Ira Glasser is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Columbus Dispatch
Metro column: Steve Stephens
January 18, 1999

David Stern must wish he had the kind of negotiating power wielded by the State Highway Patrol.

The commissioner watched as team owners in the National Basketball Association staged a six-month lockout to get contract concessions from NBA players.

But when the Highway Patrol wanted to squeeze some money from Los Angeles Laker Corie Blount, it simply seized a big bag of cash from his car.

Blount, a Columbus resident, was pulled over near Wilmington on Christmas Eve because the tint on his car windows was deemed too dark. The trooper who stopped him just happened to have a drug- sniffing dog along for the ride. The dog found no drugs but did alert its handler to a bag filled with $19,000. (Where can I get one of these money-sniffing dogs?)

No charges were filed, but the money was turned over to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

A fine of $19,000 seems pretty stiff for a window-tint violation, but U.S. law permits authorities to confiscate cash pretty much at will these days.

If the cops decide they want a particular pile of money, they need only claim that it would probably have been used to buy drugs. To get the money back, the (former) owner of the cash must take the cops to court to prove otherwise. The police undoubtedly would intervene if citizens began seizing squad cars and returning them only when cops proved the vehicles were not being used for doughnut runs.

But the rules applying to citizens do not apply to the authorities. (Maybe that's why we have so many authorities.)

Now Blount will have to sue to get back the money. What was he doing with $19,000 in cash? That's none of your business. None of mine, either.

As Blount made $1.43 million last year, $19,000 represents less than a week's pay for him. Blount said he got the cash from selling a car, but he shouldn't have to explain that to anyone -- including the Highway Patrol and the DEA -- unless charges are filed.

Citizens should have the right to drive cars filled with money (probably nickels in my case) around DEA headquarters, unimpeded, for hours on end if they so choose.

Those with the inclination should be allowed -- if not encouraged -- to fashion two-piece suits of $50 bills, with matching vests of $100s, and wear them as they ride the elevators at FBI headquarters.

A person's money should be his own, to do with what he will. Authorities should be forced to prove that money is connected to a crime before taking it. But we are living in a time when basic rights are routinely sacrificed to the "War on Drugs,'' and the Bill of Rights no longer means what it appears to say.

All money is now the government's, whenever it wants to come get it. If the proposed U.S. flag-burning amendment passes, it will likely become illegal even to light cigars with $20 bills, because they depict Old Glory atop the White House.

Blount probably won't miss his $19,000. But many other innocent citizens, less able to afford the loss and the high- priced attorneys needed for a court fight, have suffered from the same seizure laws.

How many basic rights will be seized before citizens demand their return?

Steve Stephens is a Dispatch Metro columnist. He can be reached at: sstephen@dispatch.com or 614-461-5201.

12/4/98 The Week Online #69

Criminalizing Our Chrildren
by Adam J. Smith, Associate Director
Drug Response Coordination Network

Last month a report was issued by Amnesty International detailing the treatment of children by the United States criminal justice system. The report found that there are over 11,000 children, under the age of eighteen, currently being held in prisons and other adult correctional facilities in this country. The report also cited over 89,000 cases of children being placed in solitary confinement for periods longer than 24 hours. According to Amnesty, such treatment offends internationally accepted standards. The U.S. incarcerates more of its children than any other nation on earth.

For several years now, law enforcement officials and politicians have courted the fears of the American public with dire warnings of "super-predators," a generation of children so violent, so evil, that they are barely human. Despite several well-publicized cases, however, the fact is that murderous children are the rare exception. Most children who come into contact with the justice system are there for far less nefarious reasons. Even of those who are transferred into the adult criminal justice system, more than half, according to the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, have been charged with non-violent offenses.

Children who are incarcerated are more than three times as likely to re-offend as children charged with similar offenses who are sentenced to a non-incarceratory alternative. And children under the age of eighteen who are incarcerated with adults are more than three times as likely to be beaten by staff, more than five times as likely to be raped, and more than eight times as likely to commit suicide than children who are incarcerated in juvenile facilities. Still, in the last session of Congress, legislation was introduced which would have mandated that states transfer out of the juvenile system children as young as fourteen who are charged with certain offenses, both violent and non- violent (including drug-related). The bill would have encouraged, though not required, the transfer of thirteen year-olds charged with such offenses.

The incarceration of children, large numbers of children, horrendous as it is, should not be surprising in light of current policies. It is, in fact, the predictable end- product of a society that has slowly but surely criminalized youth itself. In cities across the country, curfews have been instituted, both at night and during school hours. The effect, in some cities, is that for up to eighteen hours a day, it is illegal for a teenager to be out in public without his or her parents. When kids are allowed out on the streets, they are often insufficient public spaces for their activities. Go find a group of kids hanging out anywhere in this country, and there's a good chance that at least one of them has a key chain or a t-shirt emblazoned with the phrase "skateboarding is not a crime." In many parts of the country, running away from home is a criminal act, regardless of the conditions of the home that the child is fleeing.

Drugs, of course, play an enormous role in the criminalization of youth. "Protecting the children" is the most common excuse given for the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of American adults jailed for consensual acts. But despite the ongoing war, the number of kids using drugs has been unaffected, and they are using at younger and younger ages. For many kids, drug use is very simply an act of rebellion against an adult culture that seems oppressive. The answer, of course, is to lock up more kids. Arrest them for marijuana, arrest them for cigarettes, arrest them for beer, arrest them for being out too late. If we're not catching enough of them, drug test them. Drug test them for school sports, for the chess club, drug test them when they apply for drivers' licenses, or simply drug test them all. Or else, as the town of Peekskill, New York is attempting to do, place surveillance cameras in the places they hang out. Find them. Catch them. Punish them. Our national motto, it seems, is that it takes a prison to raise a child.

In the 1960's, the baby boomer generation, the ones whose children are now such a threat to the fabric of society, wore t-shirts warning not to trust anyone over thirty. Today their sentiment is not to trust anyone under eighteen. Perhaps they've forgotten what it's like to be young. Or perhaps it is a generation so full of self-righteousness, so convinced of their own infallibility and superiority, that they simply don't trust anyone at all who is not a member of their ranks. Whatever the reason, they are doing no favors for their kids.

Today's children are growing up in a world where the state has declared them suspect, and has been given absolute authority to control their lives. Far from the day when an errant child would be brought home by an officer of the law to be dealt with by his or her parents, that child is now routinely taken down to the station, booked, and thrown in a cell with all the rest of the criminals. The parents, who in another time would have had a long talk, or grounded the kid or even tanned his hide for, say, smoking marijuana or even dropping a tab of acid, will now frantically try to secure the services of a lawyer (if they can afford one) and will be left to hope and pray that the child is not sentenced to jail or even held before trial, where he is at risk of being raped or beaten.

Our children are criminals, and they know it all too well. Why then should they obey our rules? Why should they respect our authority? Why should they play the game? Out of fear? That works only when they are in your line of vision. Outside of that, your words, your rules, your wishes will be respected only if the child respects you. And respect is not what we engender when we send the state out after our children. Jail them and they will reject society. Surveille them and they will retreat to the shadows. Drug test them and they will find substances for which you are not testing. Teach them that the state is all-powerful, that the power of the state is to be used as a primary method of controlling behavior, and they will grow up to use the power of the state to do things unintended by our Constitution. Or they will overthrow it.

We will not solve the problems of adult society by making criminals of our children. And we will not solve the problems of our children by locking them up as if they were adults. There are more than 11,000 children sitting right now in American jails and prisons. Many of them are being beaten. And raped. And scarred for life. Hundreds of thousands of other children, living "free" are under the constant scrutiny of the state. It is a perverse way to raise the first American generation of the twenty-first century. They will not always be children.

Thank you!
You Made a Difference!
Friday, November 27, 1998

North Carolina medical marijuana patient Jean Marlowe has been released from jail. The judge refused to make a downward departure from the federal sentencing guidelines for her medical marijuana necessity, but did make a departure on the basis of her medical condition. Instead of 8-14 months in prison, she has received six months of home confinement and two years probation. Good legal representation by attorneys affiliated with NORML made a huge difference in the outcome of the sentencing. Marlowe also believes that the many phone calls from all over the country made a difference. Thank you to the many of you who took action on her behalf! We will keep you posted as there are further developments in this case -- it's a good start that she's out of jail, but it's not good enough until she can resume use of the only medicine that safely relieves her pain.

Thank you.

How You Can Make a Difference Today
Monday, November 23, 1998

On Tuesday, November 24, patient and hard-working medical marijuana activist Linda Jean Marlowe will face sentencing in the Asheville, North Carolina Federal District Court, for felonies relating to her obtaining marijuana for medicinal use. Jean, who is 45, suffers from porphyria (a congenital liver abnormality), degenerative disk disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia, diseases which cause her severe pain and vomiting. Because of her liver condition, she is unable to take conventional pain medications, and marijuana is the only medication she has found that works and that her liver can tolerate. The Court refused to allow Marlowe's attorneys to present evidence of her medical need for marijuana, and she was found guilty by a jury on June 8 of this year.

While on supervised release awaiting sentencing, Marlowe continued to use marijuana to alleviate pain, causing her to fail a court ordered drug test. On November 9 her bond was revoked and she was incarcerated. During her first several nights in jail, Marlowe had to sleep on the floor of an overcrowded, cold cell with no blankets -- eventually being moved to a solitary cell that had a bench for sleeping but no toilet. Marlowe has been receiving Marinol, the oft- cited "substitute" that medical marijuana opponents claim renders marijuana unnecessary. But her liver is unable to handle Marinol, at least in pill form, and since she started taking it, her liver has swelled up, according to the doctor who examined her.

The incarceration of Jean Marlowe for using the only medicine that helps her is a violation of human rights. Because it is a federal case, we are asking you to call her U.S. Representative and ask him to investigate the situation and see what can be done on Marlowe's behalf. Because the sentencing is taking place Tuesday, we are asking you to call him first thing in the morning tomorrow (Monday), or as soon as you get this message. If you are reading this message on Sunday, please print it out or write the information down and take it with you to work or wherever you will be during office hours.

Please call North Carolina Representative Charles Taylor (202) 225-6401. This is the most important call to make, because it is necessary for them to receive a large number of calls, in order to make an impression. Secondly, if you have time for more than this call, please call your own two Senators and your own U.S. Representative -- you can reach them, or find out who they are, through the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Tell them that Jean Marlowe is facing sentencing by Judge Lacey Thornburg in the Asheville, NC Federal District Court, and is being prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Jerry Miller. Remember to be polite and measured in all communications that you make on this case.

Even with federal medical prohibition in place, there is no excuse for a judge or prosecutor to fail to use rational discretion and subject a harmless patient to life endangering conditions, much less to disallow that patient the opportunity to present her evidence of her strong medical necessity. Marlowe's case is so unjust, that when 20 people gathered outside the jail for a candle-light vigil last week, a group of staffers from the jail itself joined them.

Remember, the sentencing is Tuesday -- please call Monday within office hours, as soon as you can! Jean Marlowe needs your support, and with enough of it will be able to continue to be an activist and an asset to the cause.

Thank you.

Open Letter to the News Media
Please copy and distribute freely.

From: Robert E. (Red) Daly
[Mailing address]
[Home telephone number]
October 12, 1998

Thank you so much for your continued, non-stop coverage of the exciting Washington sex scandals. Without it, we, the public, would have nothing to entertain us except dull, boring talk about complicated things like Congress repealing that pesky 4th Amendment. Our trustworthy law enforcement agencies have been hindered from turning America into a police state in their battle to protect us from child pornographers, dope dealers, terrorists, free thinkers, intellectuals and political dissidents for far too long now. By keeping the spotlight of public awareness focused on the scandal circus you help these radical new expansions of government power to become law. If you don't bother the people with any tedious explanations of Constitutional rights or useless debates about erosion of personal privacy or liberty, benevolent dictators can quietly take control of this country without any trouble at all. Just keep your spotlight on the clowns a little longer so nobody will stumble across any disturbing new stories like the following:

12:50 PM ET 10/08/98 Reuters

US Lawmakers Sneak Through Controversial Wiretap Law
By Aaron Pressman

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Without debate or notice, U.S. lawmakers were poised Thursday to approve a proposal long sought by the FBI that would dramatically expand wiretapping authority -- an idea Congress openly rejected many years ago.

The provision, allowing law enforcement agencies to more easily tap any telephone used by or near a target individual instead of getting authorization to tap specific phones, was added to the Intelligence Authorization Conference report during a closed door meeting and filed with the House and Senate Monday.

The conference report was easily adopted by the House on Wednesday, despite an objection to the wiretapping provision from Georgia Republican Bob Barr and is expected to be approved by the Senate later on Thursday.

Neither the House nor the Senate had included the provision, known as roving wiretap authority, in their versions of the intelligence bill, but lawmakers drafting the conference report, essentially a reconciliation of the two versions, decided to include it.

Civil liberties groups were outraged by the expanded wiretapping authority and the process of adding the provision in secret.

"Roving wiretaps are a major expansion of current government surveillance power," said Alan Davidson, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. "To take a controversial provision that affects the fundamental constitutional liberties of the people and pass it behind closed doors shows a shocking disregard for our democratic process."

Under current rules, law enforcement agencies seeking roving wiretap authority from a judge must prove that an individual is switching telephones specifically for the purpose of evading a surveillance. The standard has been difficult to meet and kept the number of roving wiretaps approved to a minimum, a telephone industry official said.

Without roving authority, police must get permission from a judge for each telephone line to be tapped. Under the change approved this week, the police would need show only that an individual's, "actions could have the effect of thwarting interception from a specific facility." The change removed the need to consider the target's motive in using different telephones.