i want to recognize the hard work of the aclu in bringing issues to our attention. i want to say a few things to lay the context for why we are here, at least from the human rights commission. many of you who are here today were also present on september 23, 2010, when the human rights commission held a special hearing concerning the community. i believe that over 150 folks attended that hearing, many of whom spoke. what they said was heard. rolling from that hearing up through where we are today, a number of events have transpired, which i will identify in sequence. our commission convened unanimously and adopted a report of the hearing, and there were a number of recommendations in that report. what i will identify is number 12, which requested that the human rights commission, the board of supervisors, and the police commission ensure that all officers, including those deputized, follow and comply with local and state privacy laws, including the sfpd's general order, which provides guidelines for officers to ensure the protection of first amendment rights in their

i'm also -- by the way, i don't agree with the aclu all the time. believe me, i am surprised at this objection. for example, the aclu and the tea party in my state right now in northern california are working together to oppose free speech restrictions in front of the reading library. in fact, the aclu and the tea party filed parallel lawsuits to strike down the restrictions. so my friends on the other side who give the tea party tremendous amount of support, i'm a little surprised that they would go after the aclu, which is partnering with the tea party in defending the constitution. so, i mean it's hard for me to believe that because ed chen was once a staff attorney for the aclu he would come under this kind of fire. they never objected to anything from his nine years as a magistrate judge, mr. president. not one complaint about any of the opinions he has written. judge chen's record as a fair and impartial judge since 2001 demonstrates clearly that he understands the difference between being an an an sroe indicate and being -- an advocate and

i want to empathize again that neither the asian law caucus nor the aclu are suggesting a divorce between these agencies. we all collectively believe that sfpd can be effectively involved in the joint terrorism task force activity under sfpd rules and regularlations. but to protect the sfpd from highly criticized f.b.i. practices that amount to indiscriminant intelligence gathering and racial and religious profiling, sfpd officers must be bound by this which the f.b.i. special agent in charge sig blocked significant portions of. unlike the f.b.i., the sfpd is not a national security organization. this is thankfully still a local public safety, crime-fighting agency operating appropriate standards designed to serve that mission. there has been no public discussion by any governing body of transforming the sfpd into a national security organization. dd when the sfpd signed up to work with the joint terrorism task force under an m.o.u. that preserves local control and policies, it wasn't assuming that some of its officers, paid for by san francisco taxpayers, could be transformed into nation

attorney's office and there was some clarification of things that were said in the presentation by the aclu and the asian law caucus. we were told something differently. i do want to state for the record that the men and women of the f.b.i. and the men and women of the department of justice prosecute civil rights cases and i can say that being a former u.s. assistant attorney and what we saw today, i can't speak on behalf of those offices, but we saw people interested in the complapets we heard and that they -- complaint wes heard and they prosecute civil rights violations, they want the facts. we were also told today that there are no random assessments, there has to be a predicate of a criminal violation. they need to set the record straight that that's the business that the f.b.i. and the u.s. attorney's office is in and i refer back to what was quoted in an article about the f.b.i. director robert mull who are i worked for when there was a won flick in this issue and it was highlighted in "time" magazine issue where he asked that the attorney general not sign off on a particular warrant

and the latest comments that i heard from the aclu tonight do not specifically address this particular bureau order. and i think that that is in itself interesting as well and it also concerned me slightly that some of the comments that the aclu made were referring to whether or not the city of san francisco and county of san francisco should be removing it self from the m.o.u. or whether or not it should be removing itself from the joint terrorism task force as well. there were some conflicting statements that i heard with respect to that as well. so with all of that, i know my comments have been quite long and i don't have a particular question other than to make clear that i think a great deal of study still needs to take place regarding this particular bureau order and i look forward to that continues discussion. thank you very much. commissioner chan: thank you for this opportunity. i had several questions that i'd like to direct to the chief that are germane to the proposed bureau order. and chief, i commend you for moving very quickly to address the concerns and -- in the commun

that, i worked with the captain and the other members of the command staff with the cooperation of the aclu, hrc, and the fbi to draft a bureau order that all members are subject to, which essentially turns back the clock and emphasizes that officers are responsible for our policies and procedures first. there was also a question raised that was not in the order as to whether the officers would identify themselves as members of the police department or across-designated task force agents with federal credentials. our officers are bound to identify themselves as san francisco police officers. that is also in the bureau order i will give to presidents sparks -- president sparked. the department reviewed the resolution. the city stepped out of the jttf because of the concern of not being able to be informed of potential terrorist activities by the fbi and federal authorities. they recently rejoined and adopted an mou that we took content from in drafting this bureau order that i think

i did that for three years and i serve on the national board of the aclu. i am not representing either organization today. during my tenure, i trained 7000 law enforcement officials, including the fbi, the joint task force, and others. we did some of this work under the department justices community relations service. when a train on the issues, a key factor was trust between me as a trainer and the law enforcement officials that were there to learn about how to culturally, competently work with our communities. there were specifics mentioned in the presentation. within the muslim community, the case in l.a., the muslim public affairs council and many others worked with the fbi for a year on that one case. it reduced and eliminated funds that have been built over the years. if i decide to move to san francisco, we don't want what happened to a 16-room boy after 9/11 when he was taking a picture in maryland, hours later, an fbi agent showed up at his door in virginia and asked to see who he was and what he was doing. i don't want that to happen at the golden

. >> reporter: the aclu of northern california has expressed similar concerns but police say the cameras are on public property and will only be activated when the spark closed. >> at that point i don't see how the aclu would have a problem with just trying to up hold the law. >> reporter: neighbors can only hope criminals will get the picture. the cameras do have their limits. they can only detect motion from the direction that they are pointing so if you are standing back of it it's not going to pick up on your presence but police say they can be moved anywhere around this city and really pointed in any direction at any time. live in brentwood, christin ayers, cbs 5. >>> $36 billion, that's what the top five oil companies made in profits in just the 1st quarter this year. that's why today on capitol hill, senate democrats asked them, why should we keep giving you money? >> would you have an easier time convincing the american people that a unicorn just flew into this hearing room than that these big oil companies need taxpayers' sub dips. that's the real fairy tale. >> democrats want t

and, so the question is, therefore, should we tell them, you know, stop seeing the aclu four times a month, at least date around. [laughter] i don't want them to feel married to any of them, though, if you see what i mean. yes. >> let me ask the concluding -- why don't you stand up here or stay up here -- the concluding question. since i didn't know why john who introduced me was needed to mention my service on the u.s. commission on civil rights, but then you explained the answer. i see a few of my colleagues here. there have been several who have been agitating to abolish the u.s. commission on civil rights, apparently, because we no longer -- american civil rights is passe, and they want to replace it with a human rights commission. so if you wouldn't mind explaining, what is it that is so attractive to the so-called progressives about human rights? i'll suggest one or ask you one is, you know, civil rights law actually has some limits, but there are no limits to what you can dream up in the human rights realm. >> yeah. and i, i'm also highly alarmed by the effort to rename and reb

those participants are the aclu, john crew, the law caucus, and members of the san francisco police commission, myself, commissioner slaughter, and commissioner dejesus. members of the police department command staff, we have met to discuss what changes we think we need to happen in order to alleviate the concerns of the community and to change the perceptions. we have met with the police departments. we have met today with the u.s. attorney's office. we have met with the special agent in charge of the federal bureau of investigation. we have taken every step we can to address these concerns before coming here this evening. before i speak any further, let me say this commission takes your concerns and perceptions to heart. the san francisco police department has a policy against profiling, against racial discrimination. you can see from that command staff that did before you tonight, we are a diverse department to represent san francisco. we take this very seriously. we put a lot of work into tonight's hearing. i hope everybody is responsible in their comments. i ask that you be direct. in our

transition to a resolution, but as long as that mou is there and the fbi is telling some of us, the aclu, i cannot speak for the human rights commission, but if they are telling us they will enforce it, and we don't have anything in writing, this is not -- i have a lot of respect for chief suhr. i don't think he can issue an order to the fbi and expect them to follow it. when i asked the question, is there any reason that san francisco cannot adopt a resolution, and she said san francisco is an independent city, certainly has the authority to set its own standards, as portland. we are operating under an mou that they can block. commissioner slaughter: i think we're all frustrated the fbi is not here to answer some of these questions. i think that would help us. with respect to representation'' you are making, i have heard of the representations about compliance with 8.10. i still don't see how this language in the order that says the lot -- officers must be in compliance come if they're not -- i will leave it that. i think the language here in this bureau order can be improved upon. i al

i want to thank john crew from the aclu for presenting these issues and bring in the audience forward. the folks we heard from, especially those individuals who have been affected, it is important that we send a message that we are not born to tolerate this, and that we will protect civil rights. again, this is an unprecedented hearing. i want to thank the human rights commission. we're sending a strong message to night. no one should feel threatened by anybody. commissioner dejesus: i want to thank everyone for their participation. i want to say that i think we should have some next steps. on the commission level, we should follow up on the resolution aspect of this and continue to meet and discuss that and see whether it is feasible and how to proceed. i want to thank everyone for bringing this to our attention. i look forward to continuing to work with you to move forward. thank you. >> on behalf of the human rights commission, i would also like to say thank you and thank president mazzucco and his commission for sharing their meeting with us. i am sure i speak on behalf of everyon

. >> you are the policy director on the death penalty for the aclu in northern california. can you share with us how the efforts are happening in the united states and whether there is a healthy effort in the state of california? >> this is a great time to work on the issue of the death penalty. every day we get closer and closer to ending the death penalty in california and across the country and indeed, across the world. several states have into the death penalty in the last four years. most recently, the state of illinois into the death penalty in march of this year. [applause] we are now at the time when 16 states, puerto rico and the district of columbia do not have the death penalty. many more states are addressing this issue, connecticut and montana, colorado, kansas, these are all states that have had bills in their legislature to into the death penalty that have moved through least one

of the human rights commission, the former commissioner, we have had two meetings with members of the aclu and members of the police department regarding the general order. there was ambiguity in the current memoranda of understanding what the fbi participation in the joint terrorism task force. i think we made it abundantly clear in both meetings in this commission that there was an issue that arose. if there is a conflict between what our officers are doing, a conflict in what they have been asked to do with what the general order is regarding activities, that it would have from the general order. the commander is present tonight. he has said it may be for five times at the meeting. they were there this week for the meeting. i was shocked and dismayed to see an article today blowing things out of proportion with serious misrepresentations. somebody perhaps wasn't listening to the meetings. we have good faith to work with that. this is one of the new matter is that they get to deal with. from what i have seen, i think the officers are in complete compliance and the think it has been prett