The State-Journal Register published an article about heightened security measures since the September 11th terrorism attacks. The State Terrorism Information Center (STIC) was created as Illinois' "fusion center," one of many across the country that faciliatates the gathering, storage, sharing, and analysis of information about suspected criminal activity among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies regarding potential terrorism threats. The ACLU of Illinois has filed FOIA requests with the Illinois State Police to release details about the types of information they are collecting and their privacy policies.

“We have concerns with what sorts of controls are put on those entities in terms of privacy protections for innocent persons,” said the ACLU's Edwin Younka. "There's been some issues around the country when these (kinds of centers) pull together information they have access to, who gets targeted for investigations and labeled as a threat."

Younka said the ACLU hasn't received the information it wants, even though discussions have gone on for a year.

Read the whole thing.

The Chicago Tribune editorialized this morning in favor of a just-passed ordinance requiring Chicago's police board to publish their decisions, including findings and explanations of their decisions (or dissents) online. The Chicago police board is responsible for, amongst other duties, hearing and making final decisions on disciplinary actions for police officers which result in longer suspensions or removal from the police force. Download a copy of the new ordinance (pdf).

The ACLU of Illinois, as a member of the Chicago Coalition for Police Accountability, has actively advocated for this ordinance for the past three years because it will create greater public trust in the legitimacy of the police board by providing more complete and timely information to the public about the police disciplinary process. The Tribune writes:

Ald. Robert Fioretti's proposal would require the police board to post its decisions online, along with explanations from those voting both for and against. We can't think of a single good reason not to provide that information.

We're not talking about a public airing of every complaint against every officer; even the best cops are the target of an occasional crank. Cases heard by the police board must make their way through the Internal Affairs Division or the Independent Police Review Authority before the superintendent's review and recommendation. Whether it agrees or disagrees with those conclusions, the board ought to explain why. The public deserves to know. So do rank and file officers.

Read the whole thing.

Think Progress, a blog run by the Center for American Progress, noted that several GOP Presidential candidates commented on Catholic Charities v DCFS, a case here in Illinois:

While the presidential forum focused on the economy and jobs... [candidates were] asked if religious adoptions organizations should continue to receive government contracts from states that allow for civil unions or same-sex marriage.

Of course, what the questioner (and the candidates) missed is that this case is about doing what is right for children. They are the real victims of discrimination, not Catholic Charities. It is not discrimination to require an agency that receives state money to provide services on behalf of the State of Illinois – in this case, the placement of children in foster care and adoptive families – to follow the law. And, despite the efforts of ideologically-driven advocates, government does not infringe on religious entities’ practice or faith when demanding that state-subsidized and secular social services be provided in a way that advances the best interests of children, not the particular group’s religious values.

In this case – where a Sangamon County Judge recently granted summary judgement against Catholic Charities – the religiously-based organizations were asking a court to permit them to make decisions about placing children in foster and adoptive homes based on the agencies’ religious and ideological values, not on the best interest of the child – the appropriate legal and child welfare standard. In this instance, the major concern of the Catholic Charities agencies was that they refuse to place children with same sex couples now recognized under the new Civil Union law.
We know – based on research and experience – that lesbian and gay male couples are able to provide safe, loving homes for children in the same fashion that heterosexual couples provide such an environment. It is not appropriate for children to be denied the broadest possible pool of foster and adoptive parents while under state care simply because of an agency’s religious views about same-sex couples. The Catholic Charities position harms children, it harms prospective parents and it sends a damaging message to state wards who are gay or lesbian.
Read the whole Think Progress post.