CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Close it Right: Guantánamo Must Be Shut Down Quickly And Properly(Originally posted on Huffington Post.) On January 22, 2009, his second full day in office, President Obama issued an executive order mandating that the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay be closed within a year. Well, the clock’s ticking and it’s not looking good. As January 22, 2010 fast approaches, the administration is signaling that it's unlikely to meet its own deadline. Guantánamo has become a symbol of American lawlessness and human rights violations, and it is highly disturbing that it is taking so long to shutter it. The prison should be closed now. While the administration has encountered diplomatic problems regarding the transfer of detainees to other countries, the potential delay has also been due to business as usual in the nation’s capital. Even with Democrats in power, we’ve once again seen the tail wagging the dog, with a slow and weak response to fear-mongering about the unfounded dangers of transferring detainees to maximum security prisons in the U.S. — the “Not In My Backyard” cry from obstructionist cynics. In fact, a Democratic-led Congress has voted four times to prohibit the transfer of detainees to the U.S. except for prosecution, making diplomatic efforts to convince other countries to accept detainees that much more difficult. Our very own elected officials who should be advocating for justice have essentially and shamelessly been obstructing it. Unfortunately, instead of continuing to passionately pursue the quick closure of Guantánamo, some members of the administration have played right into the obstructionism, sacrificing principle on the altar of political expediency. In fact, there are reports that White House counsel Greg Craig, who courageously led the charge for setting a closure deadline, has been criticized rather than supported for advancing the cause of American values. It is hard to know who started all this cynical maneuvering and who caved into it, but it’s time for the administration to regain its moral footing. That means reigniting its passion for ridding the world of Guantánamo as soon as humanly possible. But whether or not the administration breaks its deadline for closure, it must not break its commitment to American values. As important as closing Guantánamo soon is closing it right. That means putting an end not only to the prison itself, but also to the unconstitutional and inhumane policies that have come to define it. Approximately 775 individuals have been held at Guantánamo since it opened in 2002, only five percent of whom were captured by U.S. forces, according to a study by Seton Hall University School of Law. The great majority were captured by Pakistani or Northern Alliance forces, or turned in by bounty hunters for well-publicized rewards. At least one detainee was as old as 98 when he was brought to Guantánamo; several were teenagers. ACLU client Mohammed Jawad was only 14 or 15 when he was brought to the prison, where he spent the next seven years of his life — essentially growing up there — before a judge ordered his release when the U.S. government was unable could produce any legitimate evidence to continue holding him. It has become clear over time that, contrary to the Bush administration's assertions, not all Guantánamo detainees were the "worst of the worst." The ACLU has just released a video featuring interviews with five men who lost years of their lives at Guantánamo without any meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention, only to be released without ever having been charged with a crime. About 220 men remain at Guantánamo today, including 75 who have been approved for release by a presidential task force but remain in custody while the administration figures out what to do with them. The administration says it will announce the fate of at least some Guantánamo detainees by November 16. It is vitally important that each remaining case be handled correctly and according to the rule of law. No one should be tried in the illegitimate military commissions, a second class system of justice that will never shed the shameful legacy of Guantánamo. Detainees against whom there is enough evidence of criminal activity should be charged and prosecuted in federal courts. (See a new ACLU video featuring family members of 9/11 victims calling for prosecutions in federal court.) Detainees against whom there is not adequate evidence should be repatriated to their home countries whenever possible, in accordance with international law. Finally, detainees who can't be returned to their home countries because they could be tortured there should be resettled in other countries — including the U.S. After 7 1/2 years, no Guantánamo detainee should be indefinitely detained without charge or trial. In fact, the Obama administration’s decision to continue its predecessor’s indefinite detention policy has also contributed to the delay in closing Guantánamo; if it were charging or transferring detainees to other countries as it should be, it could be a lot further along in the process. It is true that the Supreme Court has held that prisoners captured while fighting against U.S. forces in Afghanistan can legally be detained until the "end of hostilities" under the laws of war. But the Obama administration has sought to expand that authority to include individuals picked up across the globe as part of a so-called "war on terror" — a war with no borders or any definable "end of hostilities." (See our new map that illustrates this borderless "war zone.") The laws of war do not contemplate indefinite detention in a conflict that takes place everywhere and forever. We already know that there are detainees being held indefinitely at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan who were not picked up in that country or near any battlefield, but in locations around the world. Some of them were swept up with no evidence of a connection to terrorist activity and should be released; others are being detained for activities for which they can and should be prosecuted in criminal courts. While the battle over whether detainees can be legitimately detained under the laws of war will be fought on a case-by-case basis in habeas proceedings in federal court, administration officials have stated publicly that there are dozens of prisoners who must be indefinitely detained without charge or trial because they are allegedly too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted in our legal system. This is a faulty premise. Our existing laws cover a wide range of terrorism-related acts, including assault and homicide, the use of weapons of mass destruction, harboring or concealing terrorists and, most far-reaching of all, “material support” laws. Moreover, our existing criminal justice system is more than capable of prosecuting terrorism suspects, having successfully prosecuted scores of terrorism suspects both before and after September 11. Proponents of this faulty narrative often say evidence against some detainees might be too "tainted" to use in federal court. In plain speak, they mean evidence was garnered through torture or abuse. But the reason such evidence is rejected in our courtrooms is not only because it is obtained illegally and immorally, but also because it is inherently unreliable. If this evidence is too unreliable to be used in court, it is certainly too unreliable to justify imprisoning an individual indefinitely. President Obama's promise to close Guantánamo was an important commitment that must be honored, and quickly. But it will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its shameful policies elsewhere. We can't go back in time and stop the tragedy of Guantánamo from happening. We can, however, stop it from happening again. Tags: Close Gitmo
Law & Order Tackles Accountability for Torture. Will We Have It in Real Life?(Originally posted on Huffington Post.) "Jack, you want to prosecute a member of the Bush administration for assaulting suspected terrorists?" "The word is 'torturing.' And yes — it's about time somebody did." If you watch Law & Order tonight, you'll see that the "Jack" laying down the gauntlet on accountability for torture is veteran district attorney Jack McCoy. What McCoy understands is that in America, the rule of law applies to everyone. No one is above the law, not even (and some might say especially) the most powerful. In this fictionalized but typically "ripped from the headlines" episode, McCoy decides to prosecute an author of a Justice Department legal memo authorizing torture, as well as his co-conspirators up the chain of command, including Vice President Cheney. ("This is an instruction on how to commit a crime and avoid prosecution," says McCoy's assistant D.A., referring to the torture memo. "A surgical parsing of words to draw hair-splitting distinctions between severe pain and extreme pain." "I know what we're talking about, sir. I don't need a memo to tell me what torture is," says a retired Army captain.) In real life, there has yet to be an investigation into the high-level authorization of torture, a crime that has stained the reputation of our nation at home and abroad. Last month, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor to conduct a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of some specific detainees. It was a good first step and a positive sign given President Obama's commitment to "looking forward" at the unfortunate expense of enforcing the law. But a narrow investigation limited to interrogators and contractors in the field is woefully inadequate. There is voluminous information already in the public domain that the Bush administration's torture program was widespread, systemic and authorized at the highest levels of government. This evidence comes from congressional reports, the Justice Department's infamous legal memos and the CIA inspector general report released as part of ACLU litigation, detainees' accounts and even the boastful admissions of officials, including former vice president Dick Cheney, who has been aggressive in his defense of waterboarding. But notwithstanding all this evidence, there are still those who would reduce the authorization of these crimes by government officials to discretionary policy decisions. And the attorney general appears to be clinging to a "bad apples" approach and resisting a thorough criminal investigation of not only those who committed torture, but also those who authorized and legally condoned it. Yes, these are weighty and politically fraught decisions. But once we start compromising our principles and laws because it is too messy, too inconvenient or even too painful to enforce them, we render them meaningless. We cannot move forward confidently knowing that the abuses of the past will not be repeated by future administrations if everyone knows that crimes were committed and that the powerful who perpetrated and enabled them got off scot-free. A failure to prosecute those responsible for torture - those who authorized it, those who legally sanctioned it and those who carried it out — would essentially serve to ratify illegal behavior by government officials. The attorney general should launch a full-scale criminal investigation that will follow the facts where they lead, whether it be to prisons overseas or to the halls of power at home. Tonight's Law & Order episode (8 p.m. on NBC), through its script, takes on the need to look ourselves squarely in the eye. "It's hypocritical to defend our values with torture," says the retired Army captain. "[W]hat is it about this country that you don't get?" asks the assistant D.A. of the lawyer who wrote the torture memo. Toward the end of the episode, the assistant D.A. declares, "[I]t is not disloyal to hold our officials to the highest standards of conduct." Indeed. In fact, it is the epitome of loyalty and patriotism to do so. Now the question is, in real life, will Attorney General Holder rise to the occasion? Tags: accountability
Tortured Logic(Originally posted on Huffington Post.) Recent reports that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is considering appointing a prosecutor to investigate illegal torture carried out during the Bush administration is a positive sign, especially given President Obama's desire to avoid what he has called "a backward-looking" inquiry. When Holder began studying the brutal acts carried out in America's name, some of them even exceeding the horrors authorized in the infamous Justice Department torture memos, he reportedly said it "turned my stomach." In "Tortured Logic," a video released by the ACLU today, you'll hear well-known people like Oliver Stone, Rosie Perez and Philip Glass, among others, read from those chilling memos, which were disclosed as part of ACLU litigation:
While it is encouraging that Holder now understands that there were serious crimes committed that demand investigation, press reports say that he envisions an investigation narrow in scope that would focus only on low-level interrogators and contract employees. This is deeply troubling. There is ample evidence already in the public domain that the widespread and systemic torture of detainees was authorized at the highest levels of the Bush administration. This evidence comes from congressional reports, the torture memos themselves and even the boastful admissions of officials including former vice president Dick Cheney, who has been aggressively forthright in his defense of waterboarding. But notwithstanding all this evidence, there are still those who would reduce the authorization of these crimes by government officials to discretionary policy decisions. This cannot be the case in a nation where the rule of law means anything. It is a core premise of our democracy that in America, no one is above the law, regardless of rank or position. Going after those who carried out illegal orders while shielding those who actually gave the orders goes against the most fundamental American ideals of fairness. To date, the highest-ranking officer to be prosecuted for detainee abuse is a lieutenant colonel who was acquitted. Yet there is simply too much evidence of high-level orders to justify limiting criminal investigations to the field. In this country, we investigate crimes — no matter how powerful the suspected perpetrators — and, when appropriate, we prosecute those who broke the law. The American system of justice would be rendered meaningless if we were to start compromising our principles and laws simply because enforcing them might be politically messy, inconvenient or even painful. We cannot move forward confidently knowing that the abuses of the past will not be repeated by future administrations as long as everyone knows that crimes were committed and that the powerful who perpetrated and enabled those crimes get off scot-free. A failure to prosecute those responsible for torture — those who authorized it, those who legally sanctioned it and those who carried it out — would essentially serve to ratify illegal behavior by government officials. The attorney general should appoint a special prosecutor who will follow the facts where they lead, whether it be to prisons overseas or to the halls of power at home. Visit www.aclu.org/torturedlogic to share the video with a friend and to send it to Attorney General Holder with a note urging him to conduct a full investigation of torture under the Bush administration. Tags: accountability
The Best of Days, The Worst of Days(Originally posted on Huffington Post.) It was a day of personal schizophrenia for me. I woke up on the west coast with news of President Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor as the next associate justice of the U.S. Supreme court. My heart swelled with such pride. Over the years, I've had occasion to meet Judge Sotomayor and watched her ascent in judicial circles with such pride. Perhaps my veneration and personal belief in Judge Sotomayor come from the fact that she and I have a similar "pedigree" of sorts. We're both of Puerto Rican descent, from public housing projects in the Bronx. We both went to Princeton, she went to Yale Law School. I was only wait-listed at Yale, and opted to go to Stanford Law School instead. Over the years, I watched from afar as she broke one glass ceiling after another. And today felt like the culmination of not just one remarkable woman's career, but of the sacrifices of generations of immigrant parents who struggled to give their kids a chance at achieving the pinnacle of the American dream. "Que dios me la bendiga" — may god bless her — my grandmother would have said today on Judge Sotomayor's behalf. And grandma was always right. Then three hours later, my mood worsened. As one glass ceiling was being shattered and as America was overcoming centuries of discrimination against women and Latinos, one other ceiling was being reinforced with concrete and steel over the heads of gay and lesbian couples in California. As proud as I was to be a lawyer in the morning, I was disgusted at my profession this afternoon. How could any judge — or any lawyer— not understand what Prop. 8 was really about? What is the role of the judiciary if it is not to protect the minority from the whims of the majority? I sat in the courtroom that day when Prop. 8 was argued, as I watched judges and lawyers struggle in legal speak as they tried to rationalize a decision to take away people’s rights. Was Proposition 8 an amendment or a revision to the state constitution? The first case that granted us full civil rights was a case of first impression. This second case that took away our new-found rights wasn't a case of first impression. The people — the homophobic majority — has spoken. I guess I just have to lump my civil rights. The majority speaks. In the afternoon, I went back to the clips of Judge Sotomayor talking of her personal triumph, and hearing President Obama speak of the importance of having a Supreme Court justice speak with empathy for the powerless. While the ACLU does not officially endorse or oppose U.S. Supreme Court candidates, I have never been personally prouder of any appointment. After watching the evening clips, I asked my media office to check and see if President Obama said anything about Prop. 8 or if a written White House statement was issued to the thousands of lesbians and gays in California who were relegated to second class citizens. Hope springs eternal. The answer from my press office: "Obama has not said anything about Prop 8 today. When asked for reaction at the White House press briefing today at 3:48 p.m., Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said: 'The issues involved are ones that, ah, you know where the president stands.'" "Brilla con su ausencia," my grandmother would say when one of her 12 grandkids didn't show up for her birthday. "He shines in his absence." President Obama's empathy for lesbian and gay Californians shines in its absence today — my grandma would tell him. May Judge Sotomayor's deep empathy rub off on all Americans. Tags: U.S. Supreme Court
Troubling signs from Obama's AdministrationOn his first day in office, President Obama moved our nation miles ahead on the road to restoring its fundamental values by signing executive orders to close Guantanamo, halt the military commissions and end torture. The ACLU, like millions of people the world over, cheered. The orders were an important first step toward restoring an America we can be proud of again. But we're not there yet, and there are some troubling signs that can't be ignored. Upon close reading, the executive orders contained worrisome ambiguities. While they halted the military commissions, they left open the possibility of their revival in some form. They also banned torture but left open the future possibility for the CIA to use interrogation techniques not found in the Army Field Manual, the basis for legal interrogations by the military. Knowing that our freshly minted president put together these orders with lightning speed, we took cautious note, but remained hopeful that once clarification came, so would reassurance. This was not the first cause for concern. There had been others, like the retention of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. We couldn't help but wonder whether the "new Gates" had experienced a Road to Damascus conversion and was capable of adopting the new president's ideals. Our worries intensified when John Brennan was appointed Deputy National Security Adviser after being shot down for CIA Director because of his problematic civil liberties record. But while we took cautious note of these appointments, we decided to leave speculation aside. Then came some increasingly troubling developments. On Feb. 4, the British High Court ordered that documentation of the torture and rendition of Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed must remain secret — not because releasing it would endanger national security, but because of a "threat" made by the Bush administration that disclosure would endanger intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Britain. The High Court said it was "difficult to conceive that a democratically elected and accountable government could possibly have any rational objection to placing into the public domain such a summary of what its own officials reported as to how a detainee was treated by them and which made no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters." With the "threat" still in place, the Obama administration's reply, thanking the U.K. "for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information," spoke volumes. Not only did an administration that prides itself on transparency and accountability fail to condemn the withholding of information about an already well-publicized rendition program, but it applauded it without qualification. Next was a Feb. 9 San Francisco federal court hearing in another case involving Mohamed in which he and four other rendition victims, represented by the ACLU, are suing a Boeing subsidiary for organizing the rendition flights that facilitated torture. A lower court threw out the lawsuit last year, indulging the Bush administration's improper use of the "state secrets" claim. Given Obama's stated commitment to transparency and opposition to torture and rendition, observers thought it was a given that his Justice Department would pull the plug on the over-broad state secrets claim in this case. Shockingly, a Justice Department lawyer stood up in court and fully adopted the Bush administration's position. To date, no torture victim has had his day in court. Another cause for concern was the testimony of CIA Director Leon Panetta. At his confirmation hearing, Panetta cited the "ticking bomb" scenario, and left open the possibility that in certain circumstances the CIA could use abusive interrogation methods. He stated that agents who had committed torture, like waterboarding, will not be prosecuted if their actions were authorized by the Justice Department. In fact, Obama's Justice Department has yet to release critical memos believed to have authorized those actions under President Bush. And just last week, Obama's choice for solicitor general, Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, said she believes the government can hold suspected terrorists without trial. We need President Obama to reassure Americans that these troubling signs are not indications that he's willing to compromise our fundamental principles. He must permanently end the flawed military commissions that allow evidence gleaned from torture, hearsay and coercion and are an assault on due process and the rule of law. These proceedings cannot be "modified" or "improved" — they must be scrapped — as in R.I.P. Obama must ignore any advice from "split-the baby" advisers that encourage him to "retrofit" our established legal system to assure a certain outcome in admittedly difficult terrorism cases. And his administration should also stop defending the Supreme Court case of ACLU client Ali Al-Marri, in which the Bush administration claimed the extraordinary power to declare anybody it chooses, even U.S. citizens, "enemy combatants" and hold them indefinitely on U.S. soil. Finally, President Obama must unequivocally commit to pursuing accountability for those who have authorized torture and other crimes. While his desire to move forward is understandable and necessary, it cannot be at the expense of upholding the law, which no one — not even the highest government officials — is above. Our government doesn't get to turn society's other cheek to admissions of torture and violations of law, especially when they come from officials like Guantanamo Convening Authority, Susan Crawford. The full truth of the torture and abuse of the Bush administration will inevitably see the light of day whether it is in a month, a year or a century; the truth is always known in our America. But President Obama should not mar his historic legacy by colluding with the Bush abusers or by failing to demand accountability for the most egregious human rights violations perpetrated by any administration. A full investigation must be conducted, and if warranted, prosecutions carried out. The ACLU remains hopeful that change has finally arrived. But restoring an America we can be proud of again cannot be done with half-steps, incomplete gestures or hesitancy. Hope realized is too hard won, and too easily lost. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service on Feb. 19, 2009
An Insider's View of Gitmo This WeekI just stepped off an airplane from Gitmo last night and thought it would be a good time to offer an insider’s take on what really happened down there this week. Unlike the many stories that have been in the press, what follows is a view from the defense table that provides a fuller perspective on the proceedings than what’s been reported. As you might know, the ACLU has, along with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), created the John Adams Project, through which we have sponsored expert civilian counsel to team up with the military defense lawyers representing the 9/11 defendants. It’s part of our ongoing struggle to bring a modicum of fairness to these sham prosecutions and to get Guantánamo shut down for once and for all. As I write this today our struggle to shut Gitmo and shutter the military commissions is far from over and is anything but a fait accompli. You probably read in the papers that on Monday, all five defendants expressed an interest in entering guilty pleas in the 9/11 case.This wasn't unexpected news to anyone, as they essentially expressed that viewpoint from the very first hearing in June of this year. What did change was that the defendants have been meeting as a group since the last hearing. They have recently asked to have all pending law and evidentiary motions withdrawn and that they be allowed to proceed to enter guilty pleas and be sentenced to death. All five men submitted a handwritten motion to the military judge on November 4, 2008 (Election Day) stating that this is how they would like to proceed. However, like so much in this made-up system, the process for how this might happen is not clear. First, the defendants have to formally enter guilty pleas, which they did not do for reasons I will explain below. Second, the military judge has to accept the pleas, but only after an extensive round of questioning and a review of the evidence that supports the entry of those pleas. In normal courts, this process is known as "allocution" and even in these fundamentally flawed commissions, it is hard to imagine any judge accepting guilty pleas in capital cases without undertaking this second stage with rigor and care. Third, a panel of 12 jurors (most likely military officers) would have to be convened, and they would have to render a unanimous decision in order for the death sentence to be applied. None of this happened this week. Why? First, two of the five defendants do not represent themselves.They were not allowed to represent themselves, as there were questions about their intentions and their competency to knowingly and voluntarily waive their right to counsel. One of them, Ramzi bin al Shibh, had been placed on psychiatric medication against his will. The issue of competency is also being raised in the case of Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi. These two defendants are still represented by JAG lawyers and by civilian counsel from the John Adams Project. In fact, Jeff Robinson from our John Adams Project did an outstanding cross-examination of Brig. General Thomas Hartmann on the unlawful command influence motion that did not garner any press attention. Legal and evidentiary motions on behalf of bin al Shibh and al Hawsawi have NOT been withdrawn and we expect continued back and forth with the government until issues of their competence have been resolved. Only then could Judge Henley allow them to represent themselves and move to the next stage of entering pleas. Second, three of the five defendants who do represent themselves (although we are still stand-by counsel for all three) changed their mind from the morning to the afternoon on Monday as to whether they wished to formally enter guilty pleas this week. Ironically, there is a conflict between the rules and the discussion section of the Military Commissions Act that leaves it unclear as to whether the death penalty could attach in an instance where guilty pleas are entered. In other words, if they plead guilty it is not clear they could be executed ("martyred" in their minds). When Mr. Mohammed learned this at lunch, he did a turn-around and said that he was not willing to enter pleas that day until he gained clarity from Judge Henley on this issue. Third, after the defendants understood that if the pro se defendants proceeded separately without resolution of the other two who are still represented by counsel, the five cases would not continue to proceed together. The idea that moving ahead on Monday on three pleas would essentially leave their other two "brothers" (as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed put it) behind made them reconsider their decision, much to the consternation of the prosecutor and the military judge. While these events have the potential to impact the nature of the John Adams Project’s involvement, we are not giving up. As I explained, two of the five defendants are still directly represented by the JAG and John Adams lawyers. Although Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did fire his JAG lawyer, Captain Prescott Prince, by the afternoon he had welcomed ACLU lawyer David Nevin back to the counsel's table, was conferring with him, and was receiving input from him in open court. As in many capital cases, lawyers often encounter an on-again/off-again dynamic with clients — even more so with those who have been tortured and waterboarded. This is far from over. Guilty pleas have not been entered or accepted, and sentencing is a ways off. What we have done by providing expert civilian defense counsel is ensure that the worst case scenario (entering of pleas, acceptance of pleas, and sentencing in a system void of due process) did not happen in the remaining days of the Bush administration. Without the ACLU and NACDL's involvement, I can immodestly speculate that those events almost certainly would have happened this week. What happens next?Well, who can ever say about Gitmo? The judge has set up a briefing schedule on the above issues that requires the last response motion from us on January 4, 2009. It seems like a long-shot that he would set up a hearing to hear the pleas, accept them and sentence the defendants before Inauguration Day, but no one can say with certainty. What is most likely is that this is all dropped in the lap of a new administration. Putting the pressure on the Obama administration to shut down Gitmo and the military commissions right away as he promised is our top priority, since the further this process goes, the harder it may be to stop it entirely. Monday’s Washington Post piece does a good job of exploring this conundrum for the Obama team. Notice the "no comment" from the transition team. Finally, what was most difficult for all of us at Guantánamo was hearing the 9/11 family members who were down there say that they were proud of America and the way in which the defendants were being afforded justice.They are earnest, well-intentioned people who suffered a great loss, and I can only imagine the mix of emotions that they were feeling as they were sitting in the courtroom alongside of us.But the fact is that their grievous loss and hope for justice does not fix the fact that this commission process is NOT the best example of American justice, as it is a system that allows hearsay, coerced confessions and evidence gleaned from torture and waterboarding. There are other 9/11 family members who share our views, 24 of whom issued a statement to that effect today, and some whose individual statements are on our website. Nothing changes the basic fact that this system changed the rules of tried-and-true systems of justice (whether civilian or military), and while the military commissions may look, smell and feel like a real court of law, they are not. No court of law would allow individuals who were tortured with the express approval of top government officials to be put to death when their mental health status is still in question. That's why we're sticking with this case, and that's why we ask for your support. Tags: Close Guantanamo
Turkey Day Talking Points on Prop 8This Thanksgiving we are reflecting on what family means to us. For those of us at the ACLU and many people across the country, that will bring to mind what happened to families in California as a result of Prop 8. So — in what is becoming an ACLU tradition — I’m writing to share some pointers for talking turkey this Thanksgiving about issues that really matter. Here’s my biggest piece of advice for when Prop 8 and gay marriage come up over the Thanksgiving dinner table: Don’t shy away from the conversation. Do what I’m hoping thousands of ACLU supporters will do over the holidays. Talk to someone you’ve never talked to about same sex marriage and explain that it’s just not right to deny someone their freedom because of who they are or who they love. And you can tell them something else: Tell them the fight to stop Prop 8 from disrupting people’s lives and denying gay couples the full measure of their freedom is far from over. Tell them your ACLU has gone to court to stop Prop 8. On the day after the election, the ACLU and our partners, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and Equality California filed suit asking the California Supreme Court to strike Proposition 8 down. The case we are making is a powerful one — and I want you to know its details — because if we are going to secure equal rights for everyone in our great nation, the argument for equality has to be made not just in a California courtroom, but in countless conversations between families and communities all across America. Here are the specifics on our lawsuit: Under California law, major changes in the Constitution — called revisions — have to be first approved by two-thirds of the legislature before going before the voters. The forces of intolerance behind Prop 8 went through a process for less serious constitutional changes called amendments. They didn’t go through the legislature. So, our lawsuit — and your Prop 8 conversations over the holidays — will all come down to the same question: Is it a big deal — a revision, rather than a mere amendment — to take the right to marry away from an entire group of people? We firmly believe it is.
The passage of Prop 8 has hit a powerful nerve all across America. People are seeing for themselves the unimaginable pain and anguish it has caused. And the sense of outrage is growing stronger every day. With holiday gatherings of family and friends right around the corner — I’m urging you to make the case against intolerance in a very personal way. Prop 8 has made clear that we all have a lot of work to do challenging discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. And we can’t do it without you. So, be a little bolder this Thanksgiving. When someone makes an uninformed remark about gay marriage, don’t let it slide. If they say they’re glad Prop 8 passed, tell them you love them. Then remind them that no one should ever lose their rights or face bigotry because of who they are and who they love. Make it clear that, no matter how someone feels about same-sex marriage, gay people are a part of our community entitled to the same rights, the same dignity, as everyone else. Today, it is clearer than ever that the struggle for LGBT equality is one of the defining civil liberties challenges of our time. You can count on the ACLU to defend LGBT rights in courtrooms, classrooms, and legislative hearings all across the nation. We’re counting on you to do the same around the water cooler at work and over Thanksgiving dinner. Be brave and outspoken. It’s the only way to move freedom forward. Best wishes to you and your loved ones for a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.
Obama: Close Gitmo On Day One. You Can Do It. We've Got Your Back.(Originally posted on Huffington Post.) It's already a time-worn cliché when we say that the election of Barack Obama is historic. I still like saying it. Let me share some of my personal reflections on why this election seems historic and hopeful for a sometimes jaded Executive Director.
Like many of you on Tuesday night, I was celebrating the end of the Bush era and the beginning of a historic one. My partner and I went to four festive and fun election parties that night. And then while lying in bed that night, excitedly talking about the world, we reflected on what that night's election meant for us. My partner remarked that he was born in 1954, and that the year he was born, African-American little boys like him were still legally put in "separate but equal" schools. Then Brown vs. Board of Education changed all that. And today, an African-American ascends to the highest office of the greatest nation. I remarked that when I was a little boy in the Bronx public housing projects, I never thought I could be president of ANYTHING when I grew up. I only believed I could go to college when I was a high school sophomore after receiving a letter telling me I was offered early admission at a community college. That was the first day I realized I would not have to be a waiter like my father who came from Puerto Rico and worked at the Warwick Hotel for 39 years. I told my partner that my Mom still proudly tells me that I was always smart, ambitious, and focused on school. But I never aspired for anything more than a job like my dad's because I never thought it was possible. My dad was the only great role model I knew and I wanted to be just like him. On Tuesday, all the African-American, Latino, poor of all races, and disenfranchised of all countries got the best of role models. Everyone knows who the U.S. president is, and now literally billions of little boys and girls who may have otherwise set their sights too low will invariably set them higher. If nothing more happens (and our collective job is to make sure a lot more happens), change will indeed happen by having a President Barack Obama inspire new generations of little boys and girls to write, "I want to be President when I grow up." No one will dare ridicule them because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, or convince them that the odds are insurmountable. Tuesday inspired many, but the best of those we inspired we won't know for generations to come. For our generation, however, we have to help realize the greatness that President Obama represents. It's not all on him. He needs us. He has two raging wars, a failing economy where good folks are losing their homes and can't drive their cars because they don't have the cash to go the pump, and where they avoid going to the doctor because they can't afford the bills that will come in the mail. Those are not ACLU priorities, but they are American priorities that President Obama confronts. Solutions to these problems won't be easy, as he will have to contend with well-moneyed lobbyists from pharmaceuticals, oil companies and military contractors opposing him at every turn. Solutions to those issues will require partisan horse trading with Republicans and Democrats alike — and I worry that he will have to water down what he wants and ultimately give up the Progressive Caucus to get the Blue Dogs and Conservative/Moderate Wing of Republican party, as well as the "Independent" likes of Joe Lieberman (smile). But our issues and our top agenda are easy by comparison. He doesn't have to contend with lobbyists in client-bought Ferragamos. Our issues won't require partisan horse-trading, congressional action, faux hearings and bipartisan committees that deliberate but never deliver. Our top issue — closing down Gitmo and shutting down the military commissions — can be done as soon as he lifts his left hand, picks up the new presidential pen and signs an executive order closing Gitmo and ending the military commissions once and for all. Call me naive, but I honestly believe he wants to do it. He promised us that on the campaign trail, and I believe it was more than an empty promise. I believe he knows what he needs to do to restore the America we believe in, to get us on back on track, to give us back our America, an America we never stopped believing in but have sorely missed for the past eight years. With a stroke of his pen on Day One, a good, courageous president can do that — as long as he listens to himself and to our pleas. As long as he doesn't listen to the centrist and DLC types who tell him, "It's too complicated." "It's tougher than it looks." "Take your time." "We need message discipline — you don't want to do what Clinton did with gays in the military. The nation wasn't ready." But what these so-called experts might forget is that America IS ready. The world is ready. And we need a courageous, optimistic president ready to say back to them, "I don't want America to live with the stain of President Bush's Guantánamo prison camp and his flawed commissions for one day longer. I'm closing them today. You tell me how we are going to accomplish that and begin cleaning up the mess we inherited." They're not likely to give him a solution — just their view of the realpolitik. They may play for time, and "get back to him" as he turns his attention elsewhere. But the solution to the stain on America's pride is in fact really easy: criminally charge all the Guantánamo detainees for whom the government has good evidence. Those we can't charge, you have to release. For those being tried in kangaroo military commissions, transfer them to federal criminal courts or to courts governed by the U.S. Code of Military Justice. Those are the best systems of justice in the world where the Constitution still stands for something. Let's use them. President Obama needs us. Even for the most extraordinary of men like him, his head must be spinning from the "expert" advice he's getting on a range of issues. Other pressing issues will take time, compromise and horse-trading. Our top issue — closing Gitmo and shutting down the military commissions — just requires us to remind him that that's what we want; that we have his back when the critics come after him for doing so. We can tell him that we understand that the best of presidents who want to do the right thing are better able to do so when the public, fans and supporters respectfully demand action. Like Dr. King forcing the hand of JFK. Both their legacies benefited from that pressure. And the nation remembers them fondly, even if there were tensions between them. We understand that. I have to believe President Obama understands that. So let's get to work to help Mr. Obama be the best president ever. A courageous commander-in-chief, who tells West Wing advisors sipping lattes in Italian calfskin loafers what they have to do, rather than ask the George Bush question, "What should we do?" In today's New York Times, we're running a full-page ad urging President-Elect Obama to close Guantánamo Bay and shut down the military commissions on his first day in the White House. Take a look at the ad. Today, we're also launching the first in a powerful series of short videos produced by filmmaker Robert Greenwald, the award-winning director and producer of documentaries including "Outfoxed" and "Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties." Check out the first video now. You can find Robert's video on closegitmo.com. We're hosting an open Town Hall Meeting on Thursday, November 13, when concerned citizens from all across the nation will gather via teleconference to brainstorm how we help Barack Obama take the steps we all want towards freedom on Day One. We can help him do the right thing, we can give him cover and we can respond to his advisors that it not as hard to close Gitmo and shut down Bush's military commissions as we're being told. We can't wait. The world can't wait. Our America can't wait. We want it back and need him to get us back on track. You are invited to this strategy session to help the president do the right thing that's in his gut. Go to www.aclu.org/townhall for more information and to sign up. For eight years, patriotic Americans have led the battle against the most un-American policies in recent history. The Bush administration created a prison camp at Guantánamo — a place where they claimed the law didn't apply. They have detained hundreds of men without charge or trial, prosecuted others in unconstitutional military commissions and authorized torture. Now, you can help us and our new president seize a dramatic opportunity for progress. You can help this historic president make history on Day One — not a day too soon. Before the weeds and vines of politics-as-usual creep over our hope and smother its light, let's come together and demand a new beginning and a new day — on the first day. We can and will close Gitmo, and we can shut down the un-American military commissions. It takes a president, but he needs his people. Not his advisors. Help us reach him. Help President-elect Obama. Help America. Get involved: Watch our first "Close Gitmo" video, check out our New York Times ad and sign up for our Town Hall Meeting. If not for us, do it for those legions of little boys and girls who now have a role model they believe in. Let's not lose their hope in him, in us, and let's not let their incipient hope in themselves dissipate. Hope is too hard won. And too easily lost.
On January 20, With the Stroke of a Pen, President Obama Can Undo Some of the Damage of the Past Eight Years(Originally posted on Huffington Post.) President-elect Barack Obama will become chief executive of a nation that has been greatly weakened — in particular, our freedoms, our values, and our international reputation have been significantly undermined by the policies of the past eight years. Presidents have enormous power not only to set the legislative agenda, but also to establish policy by executive order, federal regulation, or simply by refocusing the efforts and emphases of the executive agencies. President-elect Obama must use all of these tools to restore our freedoms and move the country forward. In preparation for the transition to a new presidential administration next year, I asked my staff to look at what a new president could do to begin to reverse the damage that has been done in the past 8 years to this great nation. What I got back — from experts on a wide variety of subjects from throughout the ACLU — was very revealing. And it brought home just how off-track our presidential campaigns have become. As you can see here: www.aclu.org/transition, some of the items were self evident for us: stop torture, close Guantanamo, shut down the military commissions, end "extraordinary renditions" in which suspects are kidnapped by the CIA and sent to countries where they are tortured. All of these practices are abominations — violations of our nation's dearest principles and a blotch on America's good name. Those are actions the next president, whoever he turns out to be, should take on his first day in office. Our other priorities are nearly as clear: steps such as ending warrantless spying on Americans, fixing the nation's broken watch list system, banning discrimination against sexual minorities in federal employment, stopping the monitoring of peaceful political activists, and restoring the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division as a meaningful body. But what is really striking is when you move down to the next level. I received dozens and dozens of action items from throughout our broad, multi-issue organization — issues that are never going to make the front page of the newspaper, but which can have a dramatic effect on the lives of Americans. Let me give you just one example. Until recently, residents of public housing were to be evicted from their homes whenever criminal activity took place in those units — without exception. But one result of this "get tough" law was that women who were victims of domestic violence were being evicted from their units because of the crime that took place there — the domestic violence — even though they were the victim of the crime! Congress fixed this absurdity in the 2005 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). But today, more than two years after enactment, the Bush Administration has still not acted to implement the fix. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has not issued regulations interpreting and explaining the law, and has distributed inaccurate information about how it applies. As a result, many public housing authorities remain unaware of the new law and have not trained their staff on the new protections. It's a fair bet you're never going to see that issue raised in a presidential debate, or read about it on a bumper sticker, or on the front page of your newspaper. Probably not in the back pages either. I worry that even the "big" issues like closing Guantánamo, shutting down the military commissions, and prohibiting torture and rendition will literally be thrown under the bus in a new administration. As I read over the list of requests our staff has compiled, it is striking how many issues are like this — vital, important issues that affect many lives, but which we have a dim hope of ever setting directly before the American people. The country's civil liberties "to do" list really brings home just how sweeping the power of the president of the United States is. The often obscure actions of various deputy assistant secretaries will together probably make as much difference to Americans as the new president's actions on the headline issues of our times. We need leadership at the top. And President Obama ought to act swiftly on day one by picking up his pen and signing executive orders that shut down Guantánamo and the military commissions and ban torture and rendition. Once he crosses those off of his "to do" list, we can pick up on the many other things that need to get done. But leadership needs to start on day one. Tags: Civil Liberties News
Please Fight Proposition 8's Assault On Same-Sex Marriage(Our Executive Director, Anthony D. Romero, sent out a heartfelt letter to supporters yesterday. Below is an edited version. Originally posted on Huffington Post.) I'm angry and heartsick about what may happen in California on November 4th. In the most personal way possible, I'm asking you for a favor: help us ensure that gay couples all across California keep their fundamental right to marriage — the basic right to be treated just like anybody else. I hope you will forgive the indulgence when I speak from the heart and tell you my personal story. You see, I grew up in a loving and supportive household, where my family believed I could be anything I chose — anything except being an openly gay man. Neither of my parents finished high school, and yet, they believed I could accomplish all I set out to do as I went off to Princeton University and Stanford Law School. They got me through the toughest of times, scrimped and saved, and always believed that failure wasn't in the cards for me. They had more faith in me than I often had in myself. Whenever my parents visited me at Princeton, my Dad would slip a $20 bill in my pocket when my Mom wasn't looking. I never had the courage to tell him that the $20 wouldn't go very far towards my bills, books and tuition. But, it was his support and belief in me that sustained me more than the tens of thousands of dollars I received in scholarships. When I finished college, they were hugely proud of my — and their — accomplishments. That was until I told them I was gay and wanted to live life as an openly gay man. Though I always knew I was gay, I didn't come out to them for many years, as I was afraid of losing the love and support that had allowed me to succeed against all odds. When I did tell them, they cried and even shouted. I ended up leaving their home that night to spend a sleepless night on a friend's sofa. We were all heartbroken. When my Mom and I spoke later, my Mom said, "But, Antonio (that's the name she uses with me), hasn't your life been hard enough? People will hurt you and hate you because of this." She, of course, was right — as gay and lesbian people didn't only suffer discrimination from working-class, Puerto Rican Catholics, but from the broader society. She felt that I had escaped the public housing projects in the Bronx, only to suffer another prejudice — one that might be harder to beat — as the law wasn't on my side. At the time, it felt like her own homophobia. Now I see there was also a mother's love and a real desire to protect her son. She was not wrong at a very fundamental level. She knew that treating gay and lesbian people like second class citizens — people who may be worthy of "tolerance, " as some assert, but not of equality — was and still is the last socially-acceptable prejudice. Even before I came out to them, I struggled to accept myself as a gay man. I didn't want to lose the love of my family, and I wanted a family of my own — however I defined it. I ultimately chose to find my own way in life as a gay man. This wasn't as easy as it sounds even though it was the mid-1980s. I watched loved ones and friends die of AIDS. I was convinced I would never see my 40th birthday, much less find a partner whom I could marry. As years passed, my Mom, Dad and I came to a peace, and they came to love and respect me for who I am. They even came to defend my right to live with equality and dignity — often fighting against the homophobia they heard among their family and friends and in church. The right to be equal citizens and to marry whomever we wish — unimaginable to me when I first came out — is now ours to lose in California unless we stand up for what's right. All of us must fight against what's wrong. In my 43 short years of life, I have seen gay and lesbian people go from pariahs and objects of legally-sanctioned discrimination to being on the cusp of full equality. The unimaginable comes true in our America if we make it happen. But, it requires effort and struggle. One of the things I love about the ACLU is that it's an organization that understands we are all in this together. We recognize that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Given what's at stake in the outcome of this election, I am personally appealing to you for help to fight the forces of intolerance from carrying the day in California next Tuesday. If you have friends and family in California, please contact them right now, and ask them to vote NO on Proposition 8. You can send them a message here. We need to make sure people keep in mind that gay people are part of every family and every community — that like everyone else, gay people want the same rights to commit to their partners, to take care of each other and to take responsibility for each other. We shouldn’t deny that, and we shouldn’t write discrimination into any constitution in any state. Certainly, we can't let that happen in California after the highest court in the state granted gay and lesbian people their full equality. Unfortunately, due to a vicious, deceitful $30 million advertising blitz, the supporters of Prop 8 may be within days of taking that fundamental right away. To stop the forces of discrimination from succeeding, we have to win over conflicted voters who aren't sure they're ready for gay marriage but who are also uncomfortable going into a voting booth and stripping away people's rights. With the ACLU contributing time, energy and millions of dollars to the effort, we're working hard to reach those key voters before next Tuesday. If you have friends and family in California, please contact them right now, and ask them to vote NO on Proposition 8. Share this email with them. Call them. Direct them to the ACLU of Northern California's Prop. 8 webpage for more information. Don't let other young people grow up to be afraid to be who they are because of the discrimination and prejudice they might face. Let them see a future that the generation before them couldn't even dream of — a future as full and equal citizens of the greatest democracy on earth. As Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." As we strive to defeat Prop. 8 and the injustice it represents, the ACLU is trying to make that arc a little shorter. On behalf of my Mom and family, and on behalf of all the people who will never face legally-sanctioned discrimination, I thank you for being part of this struggle and for doing everything you can to help. It is a privilege and honor to have you as allies in this fight for dignity and equality. For additional information on Prop. 8 and tools for advancing LGBT equality in your community, visit www.aclu.org/getequal. |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
