National Security

Currently, there is a surge of activity in state legislatures all over the nation aimed at regulating domestic drone use. The vast majority of these bills include a requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant before using drones in an investigation.

The Heritage Foundation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police,the national Republican Party, and the ACLU all agree that guidelines on domestic drone use will help protect against unreasonable government intrusion.

The ACLU of Ohio recommends legislation to guide the use of drones in Ohio and protect Ohioans’ civil liberties. This legislation should require:

• Warrants prior to drone use;
• Retention and sharing policies to govern the use of any captured data;
• Explicit, written, and publicly accessible policies and procedures are in place for the use of drones;
• Independent audits of drone deployment; and
• A ban on the weaponization of domestic drones.

Click here to learn more.

KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc. v. Geithner et al.
The ACLU and several civil rights lawyers filed a lawsuit on behalf of KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, Inc., an Ohio-based charity whose property was frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control based simply on the assertion that KindHearts was “under investigation.”  Get details in our legal docket.

Kindhearts’ assets were frozen for over three years, despite no formal charges and no evidence presented against them. Unable to function as a charity, the organization finally ceased operations in January 2012.

Kindhearts has maintained all along that they did not support terrorism. Along with the ACLU, the charity won a major victory in 2011 when the federal court, for the first time, struck down the post-September 11th government’s troubling record of seizing private property and condemning organizations without presenting evidence or providing any semblance of due process.

In May, 2012, the government settled the lawsuit brought by KindHearts, agreeing to remove the organization from their blacklist and to let it distribute the funds it has raised for humanitarian causes.

This is the first time the government has agreed to remove an organization from a watch list as a result of a lawsuit, and then allowed the organization to distribute its assets. The government also agreed to pay KindHearts’ attorney fees.

Senate Bill 9 — the Ohio Patriot Act — was signed into law January 11, 2006, and went into effect April 14, 2006. Originally introduced in the Ohio General Assembly to ostensibly fight terrorism, the law infringes on Ohioans’ due process rights, chills dissent and encourages racial profiling of immigrants and people of color.

One section of the Ohio Patriot Act requires anyone doing business with the state to sign an oath stating they are not terrorists, do not employ terrorists and have never materially supported terrorist groups. If the person refuses to sign the oath, they may not conduct business with the state. The State of Ohio named the form, “Declaration Regarding Material Assistance/No Assistance to a Terrorist Organization.”

For many civil libertarians, the “declaration” is eerily similar to the McCarthy-era loyalty oaths of the 1950’s, when so many lives were ruined by fear-mongering accusations of Communism.

Current state of Ohio regulations related to the declaration form can be found here.

Currently, there is a surge of activity in state legislatures all over the nation aimed at regulating domestic drone use. The vast majority of these bills include a requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant before using drones in an investigation.

The Heritage Foundation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police,the national Republican Party, and the ACLU all agree that guidelines on domestic drone use will help protect against unreasonable government intrusion.

The ACLU of Ohio recommends legislation to guide the use of drones in Ohio and protect Ohioans’ civil liberties. This legislation should require:

• Warrants prior to drone use;
• Retention and sharing policies to govern the use of any captured data;
• Explicit, written, and publicly accessible policies and procedures are in place for the use of drones;
• Independent audits of drone deployment; and
• A ban on the weaponization of domestic drones.

Click here to learn more.

October 26, 2011 marked the ten year anniversary of the Patriot Act, one of the most sweeping and decisive blows to civil liberties in the United States.

We all watched as our government used the Patriot Act to unleash unprecedented campaigns of intimidation and surveillance on its own population. Over a decade later, the Department of Homeland Security has grown to monolithic proportions while the true scope of our nation’s domestic surveillance programs remains shrouded in secrecy.

For more information about the Patriot Act, click here.

Rep. Peter King (R-Long Island) announced in 2011 that he would conduct hearings on Muslim “radicalization” in the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee. King alleges that Muslims who hold devout religious beliefs are more likely to be associated with terrorism. The ACLU strongly opposes targeting of any person based on religious belief. Rep. King’s crusade evokes frightening imagery of past Congressional hearings targeting Jews, atheists, and left-leaning activists.

Read the ACLU’s testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee here.

On February 23, 2011, the ACLU of Southern California and the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed suit against the Federal Bureau of Investigations after revelations that they placed informants in mosques to spy on innocent Americans. From 2006-2007, an FBI informant posed as a Muslim convert and collected information on others at the mosque. Reportedly, the FBI directed the informant to specifically target devout Muslims.

For more information on the case, click here.