LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California succeeded this week in persuading the National Park Service to respect religious diversity and the separation of church and state on federal land in San Bernardino County, California and to remove a permanent cross over 8 feet tall from the Mojave National Preserve. The cross was plainly visible from the road that runs through the preserve, and the site was not open as a forum forany other form of religious expression, or other speech. The decision on the part of the National Park Service came after months of negotiation with the ACLU of Southern California, culminating in the threat of a lawsuit.

"Democracy and religion are both strengthened," said Michael Small, Chief Counsel of the ACLU of Southern California, "by the principle that the government should not champion one religious perspective over another, or, indeed, champion a religious perspective in general over none."

The cross was placed at the site by a group of private individuals, perhaps in the 1930's. The site is used as a gathering place for Easter and memorial services.

"The ACLU is fiercely committed to the rights of individuals to practice their religions, whether they do so on federal land, in their own back yard, or in a house of worship," said Small."Federal park land in the Grand Canyon, for instance, is used for services, but any religious symbols brought in for the service are removed when the service is done."

"Leaving a cross standing on federal land when a service is over," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, "promotes Christian beliefs over others, which is not the role of the government. Federal park land is for all of us, whether we are Jewish,Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or none of the above."

The cross was brought to the attention of the ACLU by an ACLU member, a practicing Catholic and former Park Service employee, who wrote a letter to the ACLU of Southern California,which, in turn, wrote the National Park Service requesting the cross's removal. The Park Service initially resisted, but the ACLU refused to accept its justifications.

"The Park Service offered some dubious legal rationales for continuing to display a Christian symbol without opening the space as a general public forum for free speech," said Small. "One was that the federal government allows private cattle ranching on the land ? which would be the first time, to my knowledge, that a grazing lease would trump the U.S. Constitution. Another argument proposed by the service was that the cross had historic value ? as if an unconstitutional practice were less objectionable by virtue of having been practiced for decades."

The exchange of letters and phone calls continued from October 1999 to this month, and included a letter from a San Bernardino County politician who advocated continuing the unconstitutional practice.

According to the National Park Service, the cross will be removed within the next few months.

"The National Park Service's decision," said Small, "represents another ACLU victory for the principle that governments and religions shouldn't mix ? because when they do, they produce intolerance, alienation, and division."

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of attorney Tony Capozzola, who represents Marie Elise West, in People v. West. Ms. West is charged with murder and hate crimes after allegedly using her car to run down and kill a Latino man in Van Nuys earlier this year. The gag order prevents Capozzola from discussing the case or related issues with the media.

"The public has an interest in a full discussion of the difficult issues raised by this case," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "Look at the facts: Ms. West has been involved in the county mental health system. Did the system work? Was there a breakdown in monitoring and treating her? Do mentally ill people receive adequate and timely treatment in this county, and, if not, how does that affect their own and the public's safety? These are compelling current issues - questions which this case urgently raises for the consideration of the public."

"A gag order stifles and undermines the free and full discussion which is so vital to the public good," said Eliasberg. "Imagine if the attorneys or plaintiffs in Rampart-related cases, for example, were laboring under a gag order - our understanding of the need for reform would be greatly diminished."

Eliasberg pointed out that concerns about pre-trial publicity prejudicing the jury pool must be considered in proper perspective.

"Courts have ruled that in a county as large as Los Angeles," said Eliasberg, "with a correspondingly large jury pool from which to select, the likelihood of prejudicing the entire jury pool through pre-trial publicity is generally too small to justify a gag order."

"The City of Los Angeles has not justified this gag order," said Eliasberg, "and a restriction of speech this severe requires the government to make the justification."

The gag order, already in effect, will be challenged in today's hearing before the Superior Court of the State of California.

On Sunday afternoon, the LAPD yet again trampled on the free speech rights of peaceful protesters, legal observers, and journalists at a demonstration of over 1,000 people held at LAPD headquarters in downtown Los Angeles. Ironically, the demonstration was against police brutality. Instead of dealing with the handful of individuals engaged in illegal behavior, the LAPD attacked indiscriminately. The police - who did not declare an unlawful assembly - intervened with a heavy hand and without warning, on horseback and in riot gear, dispersing the crowd by indiscriminately using batons and shooting rubber bullets. Two people who were wearing the brightly colored, clearly marked hats of official legal observers were standing on a public sidewalk when they were rammed by two officers on motorcycles.

Instead of cooperating with the rally organizers, the police responded with violence, turning a tense situation into a volatile one.

We already know that several people were hurt in yesterday's actions by the police and only hope that no one was seriously injured by the LAPD's extreme use of force and its undifferentiated attacks on a crowd of people, most of whom were trying to leave the scene.

Once again the LAPD's actions point out that the department is out of control, and underscores the critical need for truly independent, outside civilian oversight of the police department.