Today marks 10 years since the first prisoners were sent to Guantánamo, making it the longest-standing war prison in U.S. history. Almost 800 men have passed through Guantánamo’s cells. To learn more about the ACLU’s call to close Guantánamo, visit www.aclu.org/closegitmo.

In 2001, Lakhdar Boumediene was falsely accused of being an al Qaeda operative while working for a humanitarian aid organization in Bosnia. Even though Bosnia's highest court found no evidence against him, the U.S. government kidnapped Mr. Boumediene and sent him to Guantánamo, where he remained for 7 ½ years without charge or trial.

In a 2008 landmark Supreme Court decision that bears Mr. Boumediene's name, the Court ruled that the constitutional right of habeas corpus applied to the men imprisoned at Guantánamo.

The Court ordered the government to give Mr. Boumediene and his fellow prisoners a meaningful opportunity in a civilian court to challenge their confinement. Five months later, a United States District Court in Washington heard the supposed evidence against Mr. Boumediene, found it utterly lacking and ordered him set free. In May 2009, Mr. Boumediene was released from Guantánamo and today, he lives in France with his wife and three children.

In the latest episode of ACLU Studio, ACLU National Security Project Senior Staff Attorney Zachary Katznelson talks with Mr. Boumediene about his experiences at Guantanamo and his reflections on the 10-year mark since the first prisoners were taken there.

Subscribe to our podcast feed in iTunes, or subscribe via RSS.

Learn more about detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

This Wednesday, January 11 marks 10 years since the first prisoners were sent to Guantánamo. Over the last decade, the prison camp has become a symbol of injustice, abuse and disregard for the rule of law.

Since it opened, almost 800 men have passed through Guantánamo’s cells. Today, 171 men remain imprisoned there; 89 of those men have been unanimously cleared by intelligence and military officials, but remain at the prison camp.

A new ACLU infographic details this information, as well as other alarming facts and figures about Guantánamo. Click here to view the infographic.

In case you missed it, this weekend we wrote about Lakhdar Boumediene, an innocent man who was imprisoned at Guantánamo for seven and a half years without charge or trial. Later this week, we’ll feature a podcast conversation with Mr. Boumediene.

On this shameful anniversary, the ACLU renews our call for the prison camp to be shuttered. Join us: ask President Obama to close Guantánamo, once and for all.

Learn more about Guantánamo: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

UPDATE III: The Senate rejected the Udall amendment 38-60.

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

UPDATE I: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday.

UPDATE II: The debate on NDAA has begun. Your Senator needs to hear from you RIGHT NOW! >>

Learn more about detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Many people in the United States and around the world remember the horrific events of September 11th, 2001 as some of the worst crimes against humanity of the last decade. These attacks savagely flouted the fundamental values of international human rights.

While the international community was united behind the U.S. call to bring those responsible to justice, the struggle against terrorism — hardly a new enterprise — took a wrong turn towards undermining the international legal frameworks and accountability mechanisms that were developed after World War II.

U.S. counter-terrorism policies today often blur the distinction between the more permissive rules that regulate the use of force and treatment of fighters and civilians in theatres of war, and the more restrictive rules that apply in all other contexts. The U.S.-led 'War on Terror' has resulted in the erosion of hard-fought human rights achievements, including the absolute prohibition on torture, and undermined accountability mechanisms against governmental abuses of power.

We all remember that President Bush's White House counsel Alberto Gonzales determined that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and "obsolete." We also recall the legal memos crafted by the U.S. Department of Justice, which distorted the legal definition of torture and purported to redefine U.S. obligations under the Convention against Torture — justifying systemic cruelty and barbaric treatment in legal black holes like Guantánamo Bay and CIA "black sites."

After 9/11, the U.S. engaged in policies in which anti-terror ends justified terrible means. In pursuit of such ends, the government justified racial and ethnic profiling, baseless surveillance of religious communities, warrantless wiretapping, unfair trials, indefinite detention, and the egregious use of torture. And Secret America became the rule rather than the exception.

Sadly, the post 9/11 anti-Muslim backlash continues to this date. In just the past year, more than twenty-five state legislatures have proposed (and some have enacted) measures designed to limit the role of "international" or "foreign" laws, including Sharia law, in state adjudication. These misguided and unconstitutional measures are largely driven by post-9/11 anti-Muslim rhetoric, which unfortunately seems to have become a national sport.

Commendably, the Obama administration has taken important steps to re-engage the international human rights community, including joining the U.N. Human Rights Council, signing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and supporting U.S. ratification of Additional Protocol II and Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. At the same time, however, the Obama administration has refused to provide accountability for torture by, for example, invoking the "state secret privilege" to deny torture victims their day in court, and it has continued, and even expanded, the Bush Administration's targeted killing program in which killings are carried out without transparency or accountability. The Obama administration has also implemented federal programs that encourage racial and ethnic profiling rather than securing communities.

Combined, these conflicting attitudes risk perpetuating a disastrous double standard on human rights issues and undermine the U.S. government's ability to hold foreign governments to account for their rights violations.

The Obama administration also has yet to issue an executive order to fully implement U.S. treaty obligations and create an accountable and transparent mechanism to integrate international human rights into domestic policy. While enforcement levels of some anti-discrimination laws have increased across the nation due to the hard work of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, more needs to be done in order to bring U.S. laws and policies in line with international human rights norms.

The legacy of a post-9/11 world must be reshaped from a narrative of violations of the rule of law into one in which the United States embraces human rights principles consistent with both the U.S. Constitution and international law. Ten years later, it is not too late for the U.S. to turn things around and do the right thing by making it clear that human dignity is of paramount importance and that accountability for human rights is a U.S. national interest, not just another foreign policy tool.

Learn more about human rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.