FW: [lpsf-activists] Would You Consider Sponsoring a Resolution Against the NDAA?

Aubrey -- Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Starchild - To answer your questions, I've attached a copy of the resolution. I think the resolution will be passed. If folks would like to speak on behalf of the ordinance, you can come on February 26th to our 2pm full Board meeting, and have time to comment during General Public Comment (depending on the agenda, public comment is often anywhere from 2:30 to 4ish). The resolution describes the follow-up on the issue after it passes. I'm always happy to consider important civil liberties issues as they arise. Thanks for standing up for them.

David

Resolution Opposing NDAA.pdf (24.6 KB)

Resolution Opposing NDAA.doc (31 KB)

Starchild - Because I'm not a member of the yahoo groups, my email to them did not go through. Feel free to resend from your end.

David

David,

  Thank you for your response. I'm copying our local LPSF lists on this message so they will be able to see your response below, as well as the MS Word and PDF versions of the resolution text you provided, which I'm reattaching.

  Glad as well to hear you'd be happy to consider other important civil liberties issues. Here's a quick list of some of those issues which can be not only spoken out against, but addressed in concrete ways at the local level:

• On Nov. 20, 2012, Board members including yourself voted to retroactively(!) accept and spend $21,931,312 from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security for the "Urban Areas Security Initiative Program". The written agenda did not disclose specifically what this money would be used for, or what strings may be attached. Do you have information on that? Do any law enforcement in San Francisco currently possess, or have plans to acquire, drone aircraft for domestic surveillance or other use? This is a growing new threat to civil liberties, and passing an ordinance prohibiting the use of such aircraft in San Francisco, or by SF government agencies or personnel, would be a welcome action.

• The SF Weekly recently had a cover story ( http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-11-21/news/barred-from-freedom-how-the-pretrial-detention-system-ruins-lives/) in which it is documented that a majority of the people incarcerated in our county jail have not been convicted of any crime, and in fact are behind bars mainly because they are too poor to afford bail. This is an absolute outrage! I have asked Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi to address the issue, and he says he intends to try to get more people into diversion programs, but it would be helpful if the Board would take action to reign in the police department, so that fewer people are needlessly sent to jail in the first place. Unless someone is an imminent threat to public safety, there is no reason to lock them up when they have not admitted guilt or been found guilty. You could also pass a resolution asking judges to reduce bail amounts, defund the SFPD's vice squad which is responsible for arresting people for victimless "crimes" like drug use and prostitution, and/or pass a law strengthening sunshine requirements and increasing the ability of the press and the public to monitor what goes on at SF County Jail. I would like to see a daily updated list on the Internet of the prisoners being held, their contact information, what they are charged with, and their release dates. Requiring accused persons, along with crime victims and witnesses, to be provided with police reports of the incidents they were involved in within 48 hours of the incident would be another important reform.

• San Francisco airport personnel, while not part of the TSA, are using similar intrusive screening procedures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. While this is federally mandated, the Board can certainly pass a resolution condemning the federal rules, and take other steps to counteract the abuses. Those steps could include having videocameras monitoring the screeners whose footage is automatically sent to the Internet and/or to the press, having complaint forms present at the security lines, with names, email addresses, and phone numbers for people to contact with their complaints, having fliers present telling people how they can go about retrieving items that are confiscated at security checkpoints, etc. In fact, people should have the option of paying the postage on the spot to have any confiscated item mailed to them, and the items should be placed in envelopes or boxes and addressed for mailing right there on the spot, in view of the victim from whom the item was unconstitutionally seized.

• Repeal the anti-nudity ordinance and the Sit/Lie law criminalizing people for sitting or lying on public sidewalks in San Francisco. These issues address fundamental human and civil rights and are not going to go away!

• Repeal the law criminalizing people for sleeping in their own vehicles, and make sure there are adequate places in the city where people can park their vehicles for extended periods of time without police harassment. Forcing people to continually move their cars to avoid parking tickets or police harassment or towing is not only a civil liberties issue, but an environmental issue as well, since it means people spending more time driving around burning fossil fuels, not to mention contributing to traffic congestion.

• The Board should pass a strongly worded resolution condemning U.S. attorney Melinda Haag, and the Obama administration that appointed her and stands behind her, for her office and the Justice Department's ongoing war against medical cannabis providers in violation of state law. Contrary to popular myth, federal law does *not* automatically trump state and local law! It depends on the subject matter of the particular law. That is the whole point of having a *federalist* system of government where powers are divided between the federal and state governments. Since the U.S. Constitution does not authorize any laws prohibiting marijuana or any other substance, this is an area in which state law prevails. (The unconstitutionality of these federal statutes can be plainly seen in the fact that in order to have alcohol Prohibition from 1919 to 1933, they first had to pass a Constitutional amendment, and there has been no similar amendment passed with regard to marijuana or any other drug!)

• Contrary to what I understand are rules that have been established by the Board, I believe members of the SFPD continue to provide various types of support to federal drug warriors operating in this jurisdiction, as well as to immigration officials seeking to detain or deport undocumented migrants in violation of SF's sanctuary city law. There should be an investigation into this, and penalties established and enforced for any officers or other city employees who provide such cooperation in contravention of city policy.

  I hope you or one of your aides will get back to us with your thoughts on each of the above issues, and what if anything you are willing to do on these issues. Again, please don't hesitate to let us know how we can help.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Nicely done...

Mike

Hi David,

  Congratulations on the passage of the anti-NDAA resolution, and thanks again on that. Did you get the follow-up message I sent below prior to that Board meeting? I haven't seen anything from your office and it's been a few weeks, so I just thought I'd check back.You had indicated a willingness to consider other civil liberties issues. Can we expect a response from you or one of your staff to the issues raised below? Please also keep us posted about any rallies, or events dealing with the NDAA, immigration, or other civil liberties, and we would be happy to try to send a speaker and participate.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))
Outreach Director, Libertarian Party of San Francisco

P.S. - If you want a bulldog on civil liberties issues on any city commissions dealing with such subject matter, I'm also open to being appointed to sit on such a board, as I believe some of our other members may be as well. I don't think there are currently ANY Libertarians serving on city boards or commissions, which seems like something that deserves to be corrected, given the large number of such seats and seeing as the LP is the third largest party in the country and probably the 4th largest here in SF.

Starchild,

Thanks for reaching out. My office is swamped with a lot of initiatives we're moving on simultaneously, including a measure this week in support of Muslim and Arab communities being targeted by a Muni advertisement campaign this week. Will review these in the coming months when we have bandwidth to consider new measures - thanks for the good ideas.

David

David,

  Thanks for your response; I understand you are busy. We'll look forward to hearing from your office in the coming months when you are considering new measures.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))
Outreach Director, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
                               (415) 625-FREE

Well, for a while there we were hoping our Board of Supervisors might be starting to lean in favor of individual liberties. But it appears it is more like selective liberties. Today's San Francisco Examiner has a news article, "San Francisco Supervisors Take Issue with Bar Surveillance Video;" which sounds good, until you read that they are OK with it, if some "safeguards" are in place, like destroying the video after 30 days. Scott Wiener is worried about the gay bars in the Castro -- one would think he would be worried, period.

I posted my comment, you might want to do the same.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2013/04/san-francisco-supervisors-take-issue-bar-surveillance-video

Marcy