New Mexicans Want Protection from Terrorism But Not at the Expense of Civil Liberties
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: Tuesday, October 10, 2006, 9 AM MST
CONTACT: Whitney Potter, Communications Manager, ACLU-NM
PHONE: (505) 266-5915 ext. 1003 or (505) 507-9898 Cell
ALBUQUERQUE, NM —New Mexico voters want to see Congress take a stronger role in providing checks and balances to the President’s actions in fi ghting terrorism. They also voice a strong preference for House and Senate candidates who will oppose the President’s policies on the treatment of Guantanamo detainees, the use of torture and extraordinary rendition of detainees as well as secret searches of the private records of Americans, according to a recent survey of 600 New Mexico registered voters.
“This poll shows that the voters of New Mexico care deeply about protecting our civil liberties, which have been under unprecedented attack by the Bush Administration,” said New Mexico ACLU Executive Director Peter Simonson. “We think it is important that this solid support for civil liberties be a key part of the debate leading up to November’s elections. Candidates should know that while the voters of New Mexico want protection from terrorism they don’t want it at the expense of their Constitutional rights,” he said. “Those who try to use terrorism as a political wedge issue are in for a rude awakening.”
In this time of an unpopular war and a troubled economy, the survey reports that New Mexico voters view the country as on the wrong track (58 percent) versus going in the right direction (35 percent), and they also voice strong support for the protection of their civil liberties.
Two-thirds (66 percent) of New Mexicans reject President Bush’s claim that he should be able to take whatever actions are necessary to protect America from terrorists without the checks and balances of Congress and the judiciary.
Looking to the November elections, New Mexico voters strongly express a preference for candidates who oppose policies the President has sought in the name of fighting terrorism. For example:
- Extraordinary rendition: 73 percent would vote for a candidate who opposes “allowing government agents to capture people in foreign countries and secretly fl y them to other countries, and then torture them to gather information about terrorism,” over a candidate who supports it(19 percent);
- Torture: 70 percent would vote for a candidate who opposes “the government torturing prisoners to gather information about terrorism,” over a candidate who supports it (23 percent);
- Military Tribunals: 60 percent would vote for a candidate who opposes “putting detainees at Guantanamo military base on trial in military tribunals at which the suspects are NOT allowed to see all of the evidence against them and the government could use hearsay evidence obtained during the interrogation of other terrorist suspects” over a candidate who supports this (29 percent); and
- Holding detainees without charges: 58 percent would vote for a candidate who opposes “the government holding detainees at Guantanamo military base as it has for the past fi ve years without charging them with a crime or without access to a lawyer,” over a candidate who supports this (33percent).
And, more than half of New Mexico voters (56 percent) would be more likely – and 42 percent would be “much more likely” – to support the Congressional candidate who “says the President is wrong when he violates our laws and civil liberties in the name of fi ghting terrorism and we can protect America and at the same time uphold the Constitution” than the candidate who “strongly supports the actions the President has taken in the name of fi ghting terrorism and says we should be willing to give up some civil liberties to keep Americans safe.” Three in ten (31 percent) would be more likely to choose the candidate who supports the President.
The ACLU is a non-partisan organization that does not support or oppose candidates for elective offi ce. The organization works with both Republicans and Democrats in advocating protections for civil liberties.
The random sample telephone interview survey was conducted for the ACLU by the Washington, D.C.-based polling fi rm of Belden Russonello & Stewart Sept. 13-24, 2006, and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percent.
# # #

Date

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - 10:31am

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

Standard with sidebar
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 28, 2006
CONTACT: Whitney Potter (505) 266 5915 ext. 1003, Cell (505) 507 9898 or Joleen Youngers (505) 541-8000, Cell (505) 496-7422
LAS CRUCES, NM--Three Muslim athletes have accused New Mexico State University head football coach Hal Mumme of discharging them from the NMSU football team in 2005 because of their religious beliefs.  Mu'Ammar Ali played on athletic scholarship for the team for 3 consecutive seasons, and Anthony and Vincent Thompson joined the team on red-shirt status in 2004.  Today the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico sued Mumme, NMSU president William Flores, and the NMSU board of regents for religious discrimination and violations of the athletes’ right to freely exercise their religion.
“Universities are supposed to be places of evolved thinking and reason, not of base intolerance and bigotry” said ACLU executive director Peter Simonson.  “They are supposed to rise above the knee-jerk prejudices that sometimes afflict our society.  In this case, the university failed its purpose and a coach indulged in those prejudices to assert his own religious preferences over the players and the team.”
When Mumme took over the NMSU program in spring, 2005, he established a practice of having players lead the Lord’s Prayer after each practice and before each game.  Ali and the Thompsons claim that the practice made them feel like outcasts and caused them to pray separately from the other players.
Not long after Mumme learned that Ali and Thompson were Muslim, he prohibited the Thompsons from attending the spring 2005 training camp and questioned Ali about his attitudes towards Al-Qaeda.
The Thompsons were discharged on September 2, 2005 allegedly because they moved their belongings to an unapproved locker and were labeled “troublemakers.”
On October 9, 2005, Mumme left Ali a message on his home answering machine that his jersey was being pulled and that he was discharged from the NMSU football team.
Simonson said, “Being coach doesn’t give someone the right to make a football team into a religious brotherhood.  University coaches are tax-paid role models.  The public has a right to expect that they are going to model behaviors that we endorse as a society.  Religious intolerance is not one of those behaviors.”
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.  Attorneys for the ACLU are Joleen Youngers and ACLU Staff Attorney George Bach.

###

Related Documents

Read the Complaint

PDF Icon
6_5_07_SJ_Ruling_Wallace

PDF Icon
6_5_07_SJ_Ruling3P

Date

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - 10:19am

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Free Speech

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of New Mexico RSS