On March 7, 2011, President Obama issued an executive order that permits ongoing indefinite detention of Guantánamo detainees while establishing a periodic administrative review process for them. The administration also announced it will lift the ban on bringing new military commissions charges against detainees that don’t already have ongoing cases in the substandard system.

The American Civil Liberties Union has long called for Guantánamo to be shut down and opposes the indefinite detention of prisoners there, some of whom have been imprisoned by the U.S. without charge or trial for nine years. The ACLU has also long called for an end to the illegitimate military commissions and for the government to prosecute terrorism suspects in the federal criminal courts.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“The best way to get America out of the Guantánamo morass is to use the most effective and reliable tool we have: our criminal justice system. Instead, the Obama administration has done just the opposite and chosen to institutionalize unlawful indefinite detention – creating a troubling ‘new normal’ – and to revive the illegitimate Guantánamo military commissions."

Read the full press release.

The Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), issued a statement last week stating that he would announce this week whether the House of Representatives will defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. On February 23, the Obama administration announced the president had concluded that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the discriminatory law in court.

The following can be attributed to Christopher Anders, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel:

“Because of DOMA, the 80,000 married same-sex American couples living, working and paying taxes across the country face daily discrimination that harms their entire families. We strongly urge the House not to defend what is not only an unconstitutional law but a law that has serious consequences for real people. Instead of defending DOMA, Congress should focus on repealing this unjust statute.”

Read the full press release.
Read more about the ACLU and DOMA.

From ACLU's Blog of Rights:

In March 2006, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS) issued a “Protective Intelligence Bulletin” from the “Intelligence Branch” of its “Threat Management Division.” The bulletin contained a “Civil Activists and Extremists Action Calendar” that identified dozens of peaceful advocacy groups and provided the details for over 70 demonstrations, almost entirely peace, environmental and social justice rallies and marches. With the exception of a single entry referring to a radio host’s call for “militant, pro-White rallies,” there was not a single item suggesting that criminal activity or violence was expected at any of these events.

This type of government monitoring and tracking of lawful demonstrations and political speech can have a chilling effect on Americans’ exercise of their rights to free speech and assembly. This is especially true when those demonstrations advocate positions that are in opposition to government policy. Moreover, and perhaps not surprisingly, many of the groups listed in this “action calendar” have been subjected to unwarranted surveillance by the FBI or other law enforcement agencies. Protection from this type of government monitoring is exactly the reason why the First and Fourth Amendments were adopted.

When we learned of the bulletin, we filed a complaint with DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL), so that they would investigate whether DHS officials abused their authority by improperly collecting and disseminating information regarding political demonstrations.

In November 2009, the OCRCL informed us that they had concluded their investigation, and that they had found no wrongdoing or abuse of authority, but that the memorandum detailing the findings of the investigation was a privileged communication that was protected from disclosure. Last week we received another letter with further details, but this letter, too, refused to disclose the memorandum detailing the investigative findings. The letter reaffirmed that FPS had acted within its authority when monitoring and collecting data on the non-violent political activities of advocacy groups. We strongly disagree with the OCRCL’s finding that FPS acted within its authority to compile and disseminate a list tracking the political activities of advocacy groups. No agency or department in government has the right to monitor the peaceful and lawful political activities and speech of Americans.

Read full blog post.