Norm Siegel, candidate for Public Advocate, has a new website and a new Youtube video:

For those who aren't familiar with Norman Siegel, he has been defending the Civil Liberties of Americans decades. From his website:

Norman Siegel, raised in Brooklyn, has been an advocate for New Yorkers throughout his 40 year career. He has been a leader in the fight for freedom, justice, and equality for all, issues that have pulled at our city’s fabric for too many generations.

The saga of government intrusion into the private lives of government workers continues. Congress is now taking up the issue of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12, a directive intended to, quite reasonably, standardize ID cards in government facilities to include contractors and students.

Big Kick Off Fundraiser for Norm Siegel for Public Advocate

Monday, February 25th, 2008, 6pm to 8:30pm

Cafe Deville
103 Third Avenue (at 13th Street)
NYC

Let me just preface this with the comment that Joy Romanski, Marjorie Gersten and myself have already held a fundraiser for Norm Siegel...so maybe we should claim the Kick off fundraiser

Norman Siegel is the ideal candidate for NYC Public Advocate. In essence he has been our public advocate for decades, having been head of the NY Civil Liberties Union, defending the rights of NYC protestors against the 2004 Republican Convention, defending the rights of Critical Mass bicyclists, fighting destruction of Harlem neighborhoods, etc.

You can read more about my impressions of Norman Siegel here.

And you can attend this big, big fundraiser and meet the man himself:

[UPDATE: Rep. Fossella's formidable fundraising factory showed prowess with more $300,000 raised in the just ended quarter -- with $250,000 cash on hand reports Liz Benjamin (Previous claims for Recchia were $220,000 and for Harrison $110,000.). Those keeping up with the race in the 13th Congressional District may also want to read the Sunday’s Strictly Political column by Tom Wrobleski in the Staten Island advance.]

I sometimes wonder if I have become a Yellow Dog Democrat – you know the sort who would vote for a yellow dog if it were the Democratic candidate. And then I remember Susan Molinari who represented Staten Island in the NYC Council and in Congress with wit, intelligence and care. I thought she was very good. I liked as well her Council successor and Finance Commissioner Alfred Cerullo. I have not admired the work of Congress Member Fossella. Let me give you an example of his work which in my view is bad not just because I disagree with his views (which I do) but because his views are couched in misstatements of fact and law.

Mr. Fossella’s essay appeared as a column in the NY Post by GOP Rep.Vito Fossella on a crucial issue pending before Congress; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (FISA) Congress Member Fossella also read this piece as the Republican radio address of the week and you can access from his website here .

[For a fair, left-partisan, discussion of the FISA issues, try Dahlia Lithwick's essay in Slate or try mcjoan's post at Kos . For the ACLU's view go here]. The Senate may vote on FISA Feb 4th or 5th. Consider calling your Senator .

As I read it, however, it misstates the facts and law about FISA and it repeats a part-fact part-fiction story which has been discredited. If this is the level of debate that Mr. Fossella is going to advance, the only question left is whether anyone will stay fooled by him

Today an appeals court in California handed a bunch of NASA scientists a victory that is a victory for the civil liberties of all Federal employees and contractors. At stake was the privacy of all NASA scientists and contractors and potentially all Federal employees and contractors. It all stems from a reasonable attempt by Homeland Security to standardize the procedure for obtaining ID cards that allow access to Federal facilities (Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12). The method of implementation required even low-risk employees and contractors (including my wife, a grad student studying climate) to sign a blanket waiver giving the Federal government permission to investigate all aspects of a person's private life, including finiancial and medical records, or risk losing the right to enter their place of employment with the government.

The Republican Party, the party that used to want to "get government off our backs" has led America to becoming one of the most intrusive governments in the world. We now rank right down with China and Russia as leading the world for surveillance of civilians, according to Privacy International. I should note that the study does not cover every nation, merely the EU and 20 non-EU nations including America.

Privacy International, based in London, was formed in 1990 by more than 100 human rights organizations to defend personal privacy. Here's what they have to say for themselves:

Just yesterday I delivered the bad news that a judge (a Bush appointee) denied the request of NASA scientists for protection against invasion of their personal privacy by the Federal Government. I mentioned that the case was under appeal. Those who have been following this story will know that this case directly affects my wife, who will also be required to waive her rights if she wants to work at a NASA facility even though none of the work she does is sensitive.

Well, in this case, the courts moved fast. The appeal has been successful and the Ninth Circuit Court has issued an injunction against the oppressive implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12. I received this news mere minutes ago:

PRESS RELEASE
Date: October 5, 2007

Re:
Nelson, et. al. v. National
Aeronautical and Space Agency, et. al.

NINTH CIRCUIT ISSUES INJUNCTION AGAINST NASA AND JET PROPULSION LABORATORY’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF INVASIVE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

In the ongoing case of my wife (and all other NASA employees and theoretically all Federal employees) vs. Homeland Security (see earlier entries for details: Part I (overview); Part II (the Suitability Matrix); Part III (the resignation letter)), the civil liberties of Federal employees just got dealt a setback. A judge just denied the case of 28 employees of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab to get court protection from excessively intrusive personal background investigations:

Media Advisory

JPL Employees vs Caltech, NASA and Department of Commerce
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12

For Immediate Release Oct 3, 2007

JPL Employees to Appeal Negative Ruling by Judge

Many of your followed my series on my wife's battle with the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (Part I here).

Part of the story is a court case filed by employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab to block parts of this implementation. Today there has been a media advisory in this case:

JPL Employees vs Caltech, NASA and Department of Commerce
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12

For Immediate Release Oct 1, 2007

Federal Judge Indicates He May Issue Temporary Limited Injunction

Judge Otis Wright suggested he may issue some form of a limited temporary injunction in the next few days in the case of 28 employees of Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who filed suit against Caltech and NASA for over-intrusive background checks that are being conducted in association with issuing new identification badges for access to JPL.

Judge Wright set a hearing on the question of a permanent injunction for October 19, at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 11 of the United States Courthouse in Los Angeles.

In Part I of this series, I described the way that government employees are being asked, in the name of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12, to sign away their rights in order to keep their jobs (in essence). I should note that not all the blame for the problems are due to Homeland Security. Some are due to the way individual agencies are implementing the procedure. I should also note that the precise wording of the directive is not necessarily objectionable. Nevertheless, the requirement to sign a blanket waiver allowing an intrusive government investigation applies across the board and is the way in which the directive is being implemented.