Since our last newsletter was published in late September, there have been numerous civil liberties developments at the national level related to the war on terrorism, but Oregon also found itself in the spotlight because of Portlandâs refusal to participate in the Ashcroft Dragnet.

Some of the more important civil liberties news at the national level included:

÷Congress abandoned a bi-partisan, compromise anti-terrorism bill approved by the House Judiciary Committee and instead passed the Bush Administrationâs "USA-PATRIOT" Act that gives the Executive branch unprecedented new powers of surveillance, detention and secrecy while eroding the power of the judicial branch. Three Oregon House members (Reps. Blumenauer, DeFazio and Wu) were among the 66 votes in opposition. All other members of the Oregon delegation (Senators Wyden and Smith and Reps. Hooley and Walden) voted in support;

÷The Justice Department disclosed it had detained hundreds of non-citizens from Middle Eastern, South Asian and other Muslim nations but refused to disclose the names of those being held or whether they had been permitted to see attorneys or contact their families. In early December, National ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking release of such information. In early January, National ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero wrote to the consulates of the10 countries with the most citizens among those detained and offered ACLU assistance;

÷President Bush signed an executive order that would permit non-citizens accused of terrorist activity to be tried by military tribunals÷even if they are long-time legal residents of the U.S. While the Defense Department has not yet finalized the rules for such proceedings, the Presidentâs order would allow imposition of the death penalty and other sentences by less than a unanimous vote, allow use of hearsay evidence and allow proceedings to be held in secret using secret evidence. Thousands of ACLU members have sent free faxes to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urging the adoption of basic due process protections;

÷Attorney General Ashcroft announced unilaterally that the Justice Department would begin eavesdropping on privileged conversations between attorneys and some individuals held in federal prisons and detention facilities.

In November, while these multi-faceted attacks on civil liberties were unfolding at the national level, Oregon suddenly found itself in the midst of the storm when the City of Portland refused to participate in the Justice Departmentâs interrogation of approximately 5,000 men nationally÷about 200 of whom were believed to be foreign students and visitors in Oregon.

At the heart of the controversy was Attorney General Ashcroftâs pronouncement that while the men sought were not criminal suspects, each must be interrogated using a questionnaire that included questions probing individual political beliefs, immigration status and a number of other issues that could be incriminating.

Since ACLU was instrumental in the passage of both of those laws in the 1980âs, we soon found ourselves swept up in the controversy. We strongly supported the City of Portlandâs legal analysis and we actively encouraged other cities to follow Portlandâs lead. In the end, Hillsboro and Corvallis refused to participate for other reasons, but others followed the lead of Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers who concluded that the Justice Department interrogations did not violate Oregon law.

Although there is little case law on these state laws, we focused on the political surveillance ban this past fall when we objected to the Portlandâs participation in the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (see separate story on how "Portland is keeping us busy"). Coincidentally, Portland is one of the few cities to be successfully sued for violating that statute. Thus, we believe that by raising the issue repeatedly, we "sensitized" the Portland City Council, Chief Kroeker and the City Attorney to the Cityâs obligation to prevent political surveillance.

In the meantime, it became clear that the FBI and other police agencies were moving forward with the interviews and we quickly÷in the space of three days÷put together a panel of over 30 attorneys to represent any of those men who requested legal assistance for the interview/questioning process. We made this commitment because in the post-September 11th climate, simply asserting your right not to answer police questions can lead to detention, even if you have no involvement or knowledge of criminal activity. We believed that whether an individual wanted to answer questions or not, he should have an attorney to protect his interests and assist him in the process.

We were greatly assisted in our efforts by the Middle Eastern and Muslim communities in Portland and Eugene, where most of the targeted men lived. We held simultaneous press conferences in those cities, publicizing both the recent ACLU pamphlet "Know Your Rights" and the availability of legal assistance. We received a number of calls from individuals or family members seeking help and we followed through with those who requested formal representation.