University of New Mexico administrators have issued a new permit for members of the “99 percent” movement to protest at Yale Park, which is on UNM’s campus. The permit was granted after the ACLU of New Mexico said they would file an injunction against UNM to allow (Un)occupy Albuquerque to exercise their First Amendment rights in a public space.

Last week, police evicted the “99 percenters” from Yale Park, and arrested over two dozen protesters who peacefully resisted the eviction after UNM refused to renew the permit for the protest site.

In a statement, the ACLU of New Mexico said they were “involved in facilitating the balancing of protesters’ First Amendment rights with the university’s desire to impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of the protest.”

ACLU state offices across the country have been intervening in civil rights disputes involving the “Occupy” movement.

ACLU attorneys in Nashville, Tenn. sued on behalf of arrested Occupy Nashville protesters, saying the state had violated their rights to free speech and assembly. In San Diego, Calif., the ACLU asked local police to release many Occupy San Diego protesters arrested when they refused to leave their encampment last week, over concerns that the protesters would be in jail for days before bail is posted.

The permit for (Un)occupy Albuquerque lasts through November 6, and is more restrictive than the previous one: The protestors can be in the park from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM during the week, and from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM on the weekend.

The ACLU of New Mexico’s managing attorney Laura Schauer Ives said they would ”continue to closely monitor the situation to ensure that these rights remain intact.”

The drone attacks that killed Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen have sparked renewed talks of due process for U.S. born citizens alleged to have been involved in terrorist activity.

Awlaki was born in New Mexico, and two presidential candidates, along with a host of civil liberties writers, have called into question the legality of killing a U.S. citizen without a court proceeding.

Former New Mexico governor and current presidential candidate Gary Johnson came out with fellow candidate Ron Paul against the drone attack, which also killed another U.S. citizen during an attack on a convoy carrying the two members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

From The Hill has Johnson’s comments:

“Well I as President of the United States I would have been a lot more transparent about what, and I understand all of the accusations against al-Awlaki and they are very significant and I don’t want to minimize at all the threat that he was posing to the United States. But he is a U.S. citizen, he was a U.S. citizen, and never before have we targeted a US citizen for death,” the former New Mexico governor said on Fox News.

And the Wall Street Journal has this from Ron Paul:

“Nobody knows if he ever killed anybody,” Mr. Paul said after a breakfast at Saint Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics. “If the American people accept this blindly and casually…I think that’s sad.”

Wall Street Journal does point out the congressman from Texas applauded the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, who said at the time, “Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served.”

Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), denounced the killing of Awlaki, telling CBS News:

As we’ve seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.

[…]

The government’s authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the president – any president – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.

And Glenn Greenwald, a former a constitutional law and civil rights litigator and writer for Salon, took exception to the government’s killing of Alwaki with incendiary prose:

 Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.  When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.  He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.  When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Timesnoted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.).  It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.  The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world.  The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

Awlaki studied extensively in the U.S., earning a bachelors in engineering from Colorado State University and a masters in education leadership from San Diego State University.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico sued Secretary of State Dianna Duran Wednesday in the Second Judicial Court of New Mexico, alleging that she violated the state’s public records law in claiming “executive privilege” by concealing documents related to her claims of voter fraud.

Duran announced that 37 foreign nationals had voted in New Mexico elections, 117 foreign nationals were registered to vote, and there were up to 64,000 cases of possible voter fraud in the 2010 elections. However, she did not offer evidence to back up these claims. ACLU-NM, Heath Haussamen of NMpolitics.net, and several others filed public records requests for the documents.

“These sorts of hit-and-run allegations are reckless and irresponsible,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “Without offering any proof, the Secretary of State has undermined the public’s confidence in our elections system while hiding the evidence for her claims behind the cloak of executive privilege.”

Both Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) and the American Civil Liberties Union agree: There needs to be an investigation into Spc. Adam Jarrell’s claims of racial discrimination. Jarrell, who is African American, claims that while deployed in Afghanistan with the New Mexico National Guard, he was subject to systemic racial discrimination: the worst incident happened when he found a noose outside his sleeping quarters.

More from the Alamogordo Daily News:

Lt. Col. Jamison Herrera, a spokesman for the New Mexico Army National Guard, said an internal investigation into Jarrell’s complaints was still going on.

“We have been and are continuing to look into this,” Herrera said Wednesday in an interview.

Pearce said in a statement that he was frustrated by the slow pace of the National Guard’s investigation.

“I have been patiently waiting for a report from the New Mexico National Guard since these facts were communicated to me earlier this year,” Pearce said in a letter to Cronin Byrd, inspector general of the National Guard Bureau in Washington. “But no substantial response, formal or informal, has been forthcoming. At this point I have no choice but to request that National Guard bureau inspector general look into the situation and report back to Congress.”

Jarrell has been a member of the National Guard since 2006 and has received numerous decorations, including two Army commendation medals, an Afghan Campaign Medal, a Combat Action Badge and the Army Good Conduct Medal.

The ACLU said he feared retaliatory attempts by the Army to discharge him because of his complaints.

In one instance, the ACLU said in its complaint, Army National Guard members mentioned discharging Jarrell because he is allergic to bee stings. The ACLU said the Army was well aware of his medical condition when it deployed him to war zones.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit (pdf) against the City of Albuquerque in state district court Monday, demanding that it reverse its decision to redistrict after the October 2011 city council elections. The ACLU wants the city to instead redraw districts before the October elections to reflect population changes in the 2010 elections, especially in the fast-growing West Side of Albuquerque.

More from the ACLU:

The City is constitutionally required to reapportion voting districts every 10 years following the release of federal census data to ensure equal representation among voters. 2010 census data shows that Albuquerque’s West Side experienced significant population growth, while other areas of the city remained stagnant or shrunk in population. By unlawfully postponing redistricting, the ACLU believes the Albuquerque City Council will dilute the voting power of residents on the West Side.

“At the heart of our democracy is the principle of ‘one person, one vote’,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “When one city council district is grossly underrepresented, other areas of the city speak with a louder voice when it comes to making decisions about political leadership, bond proposals, and other important issues that affect us all. Failing to redistrict waters down the vote of citizens living in high-growth areas.”

The bill would expand an existing law, named Katie’s Law, that currently requires DNA to be taken for arrests in violent felonies. Twelve states mandate the taking of DNA from those arrested for all felonies, and a number of others, including New Mexico, mandate it for certain felonies.

State Sen. Vernon Asbill, R-Carlsbad, who is carrying the legislation in the Senate along with Sen. Mary Kay Papen, D-Las Cruces, says that 37 of the 42 Senators have signed on to support the law.

Martinez held a press conference yesterday with legislators from both parties in support of the bill.

But the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico told the Santa Fe Reporter that it doubts the constitutionality of the legislation.

“It takes a foundational legal principle, innocent until proven guilty, and turns it on its head,” ACLU-New Mexico Communications Specialist Micah McCoy tells SFR. “DNA is more than a fingerprint. DNA contains your entire code; DNA is you: This is your entire genetic information that they are seizing from people, many of whom are presumably innocent.”

The ACLU sued against a similar law in California, and that lawsuit may be on track to reach the Supreme Court.

Katie’s Law is named after Katie Sepich, a New Mexico State University student who was attacked, raped and murdered in 2003. Sepich’s mother, Jayann Sepich, asked Martinez for the expansion of the law.

“Our proud tradition of diversity and multi-culturalism means that one in two New Mexicans would fit the racial profile that police will inevitably use to enforce the law,” Peter Simonson, Executive Director of the ACLU-NM said in a statement Wednesday.

The ACLU has offered to represent Kilmer and his First Amendment rights, but that offer now has a critic in the form of the Committee on Chicano Rights. President Herman Baca last week sent a letter to ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson criticizing the offer:

“It appears to many, and to the CCR that the NM ACLU has lost its way by violating its own founding principles to protect free speech, equal rights, and civil liberties by shamefully soliciting to represent Kilmer on contrived bogus charges of his1^st Amendment rights being violated,” the letter states.

Here’s the full text:

June 10, 2010

Peter Simpson, Executive Director

American Civil Liberties Union

P.O. Box 566

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103

Re: Val Kilmer

Mr. Simpson:

As a native born New Mexican, this correspondence is to state my personal and our organization’s position concerning New Mexico’s (NM) American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) position in soliciting to represent actor (“Joker” he ain’t no Batman) Val Kilmer before San Miguel County Commissioners. The ACLU’s actions were supposedly taken on the grounds that San Miguel County Commissioners violated Kilmer’s, “first amendment rights.” San Miguel residents forced Commissioners to order Kilmer to appear before the commission to explain his incendiary statements to them before voting if a moneymaking permit involving his $33 million 6,000-acre ranch should be issued.

For the record, note our organization’s following positions:

1. Express our unequivocal support to Mr. Abran “Abe” Tapia, San Miguel County and NM residents who are seeking and demanding an apology for the insulting, incendiary, racist and degrading statements against persons of Hispano/Mexican ancestry, and Vietnam veterans by “Joker” Kilmer.
2. Support the justifiable demands of Mr. Abran “Abe” Tapia, San Miguel, and NM residents to stop “Joker” Kilmer from being granted the zoning changes by San Miguel Commissioners and,
3. Adamantly oppose and condemn yours and the NM ACLU’s ludicrous and unbelievable position of soliciting (ambulance chasing) to represent “Joker” Kilmer’s before San Miguel Commissioners.

The ACLU’s position on soliciting to represent “Joker” Kilmer appears to have little to do with “first amendment rights” violations, but appears to be a cheap publicity tactic to politically pressure San Miguel County Commissioners to approve passage of Kilmer’s moneymaking zoning scheme.

What is incredulous to us is that the you and the NM ACLU (Johnny come lately’s) under questionable and bogus legal grounds have chosen to side against persons of Hispano/Mexican ancestry whose ancestors have resided in NM for hundreds (Spanish side) and thousands of years on our Native American side.

Even more incredulous is the ACLU’s position was taken after Kilmer was quoted as stating the below about NM residents, and with full knowledge that Rolling Stone and Esquire magazines stand by their articles:

1. “San Miguel County is the homicide capital of the Southwest, and carries a gun in his car,”
2. “80% of the people in my county are drunks, so driving home on the highway, especially with kids it’s (having a gun) just a precaution.”
3. “We shoot the automatic weapons at the trespassers and people a different color than us” and,
4. Vietnam veterans – “He’s some punk, most guys were borderline criminals or poor, and that’s why they got sent to Vietnam. It was all the poor, wretched kids who got beat up by their dads, guys who didn’t get on the football team, couldn’t finagle a scholarship. They didn’t have the emotional equipment to handle the experience.”

It is the opinion of the CCR, a rights organization for over 40 years that your position of; “a clear and obvious violation” of Kilmer’s first amendment rights is absurd, especially after reading that,

• He has yelled fire (which is illegal) in the proverbial crowed theater by stating “we shoot the automatic weapons at the trespassers people of a different color then us.”

Your position on this matter would be parallel to the ACLU defending KKK hoods or hangman’s nooses in an Afro-American schools as a 1^st Amendment free speech rights violations.

We find it strange that if Kilmer, (who has long contended since 2003) was misquoted, why he hasn’t (with all his millions) sued both Rolling Stone’s and Esquire magazines for slander and libel? Could it be that he and his attorneys know full well that one cannot sue if the statements are TRUE?

In our opinion, if the NM ACLU goes into a court of law, it will have a hell of a time (based on the above published statements) to legally or morally justify first amendment rights violations.

We question if the NM ACLU is so concerned about Kilmer’s (a millionaire) rights, where was the organization in the recent torturing and branding (with a hot iron) of a Nazi swastika into the skull of a Native American by white supremacists in Farmington, NM? Or the constitutional violation of Mr. Abran Tapia’s freedom of speech rights after he was charged $75 to address and seek redress on the Kilmer issue by the San Miguel Planning Commission?

It appears to many, and to the CCR that the NM ACLU has lost its way by violating its own founding principles to protect free speech, equal rights, and civil liberties by shamefully soliciting to represent Kilmer on contrived bogus charges of his1^st Amendment rights being violated.

In closing, rest assured that the CCR will continue to expose your ludicrous position, assist Sr. Tapia, San Miguel and NM residents in their just struggle to seek an apology from “Joker” Kilmer, and politically urge San Miguel Commissioners to deny Kilmer his money making permit!

Herman Baca, President

CC. Abe Tapia, National ACLU, Organizations, News Media, Gov. Bill Richardson, San Miguel Commissioners.

“The Administration is buying into an electoral political rhetoric that claims an interest in border enforcement first, before the dialogue on a fair and just immigration reform has even been considered,” Vicki B. Gaubeca, director of the ACLU of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, said Wednesday.  ”The truth is that there have never been more federal resources and technologies placed at the U.S.-Mexico border than at this point in history.”

An increase in border enforcement has also meant an increase in civil rights violations, according to ACLU, including racial profiling and harassment of Hispanics.

“While ACLU affiliates recognize that it is the job of federal officials to enforce immigration law, it is equally important for the Administration to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of border enforcement needs prior to taking a step of this magnitude,” Gaubeca said. “Instead of conducting a true risk assessment, consulting with border communities, or focusing on how to better deploy and train currently deployed CBP agents, the Administration has chosen to simply throw more money at the problem and add to the already massive deployment of federal forces along the border.”

Photo by Jonathan McIntosh

Two New Mexicans have joined a federal lawsuit that seeks to stop Arizona’s tough new immigration law from taking effect in July.

Jesús Cuauhtémoc Villa and Vicki Gaubeca of Las Cruces are among the more than a dozen plaintiffs that challenged the law that empowers Arizona’s police to stop anyone on the reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally and that has sparked a national debate.

Both Villa and Gaubeca told The Independent they joined the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Arizona, because they said they travel back and forth between the two states and are concerned about being pulled over by Arizona police officers.

“It’s for myself and for my family — they travel over here too,” said Villa, who is is an anthropology student at Arizona State University in Tempe and returns to New Mexico periodically to see family. He grew up in Albuquerque.  “At least I am a student at a university. All they have is a New Mexico driver’s license.”

Under Arizona law, a New Mexico driver’s license wouldn’t prove U.S. citizenship because New Mexico does not require “proof of legal presence” when issuing driver’s licenses, the 98-page complaint reads.

Both Villa and Gaubeca said they are U.S. citizens but fear being taken into custody when the Arizona law takes effect because they don’t carry around citizenship documents when they travel. And they don’t think it’s practical to ask anyone to carry such important documents around all the time, citing how easy they are to lose.

“I have that fear that if they asked me for my driver’s license then I would haven’t proof of citizenship on me. Then they’d ask me where I was born and I’d say Mexico,” said Gaubeca.

Gaubeca, who said she was born and raised in Mexico but is a U.S. citizen through her U.S.-born mother, called it unfair that she should be asked for proof of citizenship and “they wouldn’t ask someone else.”

Villa, meanwhile, called Arizona’s new law “a very impractical bill.”

“I have a friend who is an Irish immigrant who knows several Irish immigrants who have overstayed their visa and they won’t be asked for their papers,” he said. “It can’t really be implemented fairly.”

Arizona’s new law has sparked a national debate on immigration since its passage last month, with groups opposed to it holding protests around the country while supporters elsewhere have tried to pass legislation to mimic Arizona’s tough new law.

In addition to Villa and Gaubeca, the plaintiffs in the federal suit include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and National Association for Advancement of Colored People.

Arizona’s county attorneys and county sheriffs are named as defendants in the complaint.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys said Monday that they were confident that could prove that the new law is unconstitutional on several counts, including its capacity to lead to unreasonable searches and seizures.

For example, even though the new law prohibits racial profiling, police officers would be compelled by the new law to rely too much on race, national origin and language when trying to determine someone’s immigration status under a “reasonable suspicion” standard, the attorneys said.

“Police are put in impossible position,” Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund told reporters on a midday conference call to announce the lawsuit.

Immigration status is a legal status, not something that is visibly apparent, she added.

Arizona’s law enforcement community, while largely supportive, is not of one mind on the new law. A Tucson police officer already has sued in federal court to stop the new law from taking effect and an Arizona sheriff has openly criticized the new law as “stupid” while the current president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes it.

Attorneys also said the new law violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause in that the law would lead to people being treated differently because of race and origin.

“This is the most extreme and the most dangerous law dealing with immigration,” Lucas Guttentag, Director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, said.

Added Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP: “It turns citizens into suspects.”

Julie Su of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, which also is part of the suit, described the new law as Arizona’s “own version of the Chinese Exclusion Act,” an 1882 federal law that severely restricted Chinese from entering the country.