Civil Rights

Today marks a full year that the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity post within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been vacant.  The Bush Administration has left this position unfilled since its creation.

This failure reflects the larger inadequacies of the entire Department.  Half of the major Department of Homeland Security offices have critical staff vacancies.  Literally no one is home at DHS to protect our national security.

The reliability of computer networks is a constant need in our daily lives.  But DHS and President Bush have not made cybersecurity a priority in their homeland security strategy.  Filling the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity position would only be the beginning (not the end) of protecting our nation’s cyber infrastructure.  On the one year anniversary of the creation of this position, I am disappointed, but unfortunately not surprised, that DHS has yet to begin such a critical task.

The Constitution of the United States is over 200 years old.  Does that mean it is not relevant to the issues of today?  The age of a law has no bearing on whether or not it is just.  The opponents of the Voting Rights Act say it needs to be updated, but they never address the over 1000 objections to discriminatory voting plans filed by the DOJ since the last reauthorization in 1982.  They never address the persistent evidence of discrimination in the states covered by Section 5 that affect people in rural areas, the elderly, the disabled, ethnic and language minorities who are all citizens of this nation.

Anyone who is seriously interested in updating the act would introduce legislation that confronts the contemporary evidence of voting discrimination.  Instead, the Westmoreland and Norwood amendments are simply ways for states that violate voting rights law to get out from under the supervision of the law.  It's like the fox guarding the chicken house.  Law is not meant to relieve the discomfort of violators, but to implement a standard of compliance that upholds our principles of democracy.

I think we need a new era of the Voting Rights Act that addresses today's problems, not something 40 years old. Mr. Norwood's and my amendment addresses these problems.

Also, this is not up until September 2007, and I don't know any other reason other than politics that we have to address it now.

I hope that we will pass the Voting Rights Act within its current form resoundingly. I would hate for there to be a perception that this would be a Democratic or Republican victory. It should be a victory for democracy.

This Thursday, Congress has the chance to fulfill its promise to renew the landmark Voting Rights Act.

Warning: the following will look like a typical Washington cliché, but it isn't.  The Voting Rights Act is as important to a healthy and accountable democracy as any other act in United States history.  It is impossible to overstate its importance.

There are some members of Congress who say that the need has passed for protecting the rights of U.S. citizens to directly participate in the democratic process.  They ignore the fact that the VRA was upheld last month by the Supreme Court, and that the VRA reversed a case of electoral discrimination in Kilmichael, Mississippi only 3 years ago.

There are still other members who say the VRA discourages immigrants from learning English.  This argument not only completely ignores the fact that immigrants are eager to learn English so they can succeed - look at the 3-year waiting lists for ESL classes in places across the country - but it is also completely irrelevant to the VRA.  The VRA is about protecting the rights of U.S. citizens to vote - it is not about immigration.

The VRA has been tremendously successful in enfranchising millions of U.S. citizens.  We all wish it wasn't necessary anymore, but that's not the case.  Let's renew the VRA without destructive amendments and be a model for democracy around the world.

I was dismayed by John Tierney’s column in today’s New York Times attacking the merits of Title IX (“Let The Guys Win One,

In 1988, Congress mandated that the Department of Defense keep statistics of crimes committed within the armed forces, including sexual assault, similarly to the tabulation of civilian crimes by the Department of Justice. This would allow crime rates to be compared between the civilian population and military personnel. Eighteen years later, the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) has yet to be fully implemented, even though Congress has repeatedly ordered the Pentagon to complete the process.With hundreds of thousands of our soldiers on active duty defending our nation, we must ensure that servicemen and women are at the very least not at any more risk for crime than the general population, particularly in terms of sexual assaults. We cannot adequately do that unless we have accurate data about the crimes that are being committed, and we have been waiting eighteen years for the Pentagon to complete this project. I have introduced legislation (H.R. 5735) to give DoD a firm deadline to finally complete the implementation of DIBRS in the hope that it will not take DoD twenty years to get the job done. 

 

Democratic and Republican leaders from both chambers of Congress stood on the steps of the Capitol in May to reaffirm our commitment to the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, some House Republicans have been undermining our moral and historic commitment to voting rights by stalling the bill. I am encouraged that the Voting Rights Act is scheduled to come to the House floor next week. Democrats will continue to hold Republican leadership to their commitment of passing this bipartisan, bicameral legislation.

Posted by Mike Franc, Vice President for Government Relations, The Heritage Foundation

Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, we should expect numerous high-profile hearings in July and August exploring the sensitive security issues raised by terrorist detentions. By September, both chambers will likely devote considerable floor time to legislation that will bring suspected terrorists to justice.  Legislation is the likely route since the Court's decision addressed none of the potential constitutional issues involved. Indeed, nothing in the ruling calls into question the legitimacy of the camp at Guantanamo or the government's right to detain unlawful combatants. No suspected terrorists will be released as a result of the Court's ruling and the odds are that the lead plaintiff, Salim Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden's driver and bodyguard, will not be applying for an opening at your local limousine service anytime soon.  Thus, Congress will grapple with yet another high-profile security issue just in time for the 2006 elections. Americans are hawkish when it comes to our dealings with terrorists. Many are even willing to sacrifice some of their civil liberties in order to prevail in this war.

The need to address Hamdan offers Republicans another opening on a national security issue. Most will oppose any attempt to treat unlawful combatants seized on the battlefields of transnational terrorism as regular criminals or traditional prisoners of war. Democrats may argue for equal treatment, as Nancy Pelosi did. "All," she said, presumably referring to Hamdan and his colleagues, "are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system."

Posted by Ken Gude, Associate Director, International Rights and Responsibility Program, Center for American Progress

More than four years have already been wasted and we are now no closer to a trial of any of the detainees at Guantanamo than we were the day it was opened. In Hamdan v Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that nothing would prevent using the rules and procedures of courts-martial for trials at Guantanamo. At the very least, we could use courts-martial to finally bring some of our enemies to justice. But even that would only be a partial solution and applicable to a small number of detainees.

Another alternative would be to work with our closest allies to create a Special Tribunal for International Terrorist Suspects in order to share the responsibility and burden of detaining, trying, and imprisoning terrorists. This Tribunal should build on the experiences of previous tribunals that have handled some of the most serious threats to international peace and security and should adopt the procedures for courts-martial.

The debate about the future of Guantanamo has lacked legitimate and substantive alternatives. Supporters of the prison refuse to accept that it is a liability and insist that the status quo must be maintained. Opponents are quick to call for its closure, but often fail to take into account the difficult and unique challenges of detaining and putting on trial terrorist suspects. This Special Tribunal addresses each of those challenges with practical policy solutions and presents a concrete alternative to the fatally flawed policy President Bush has pursued on detainees.