www.aclu.orgJOIN THE ACLUTAKE ACTIONABOUT US
ACLU Blog of Rights - Official Blog of the ACLU National Office American Civil Liberties Union Homepage Blog of Rights Homepage Support the ACLU
Jan 10th, 2012
Posted by Ateqah Khaki, ACLU at 5:45pm

Check Out Our "Close Gitmo" Activist Toolkit!

Tomorrow marks 10 years since the first prisoners were sent to the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, making it the longest-standing war prison in U.S. history.

To learn how you can amplify the call to close Guantánamo, once and for all, check out our new activist toolkit.

And in case you missed them, be sure to check out the “Gitmo by the Numbers” Infographic that we blogged about yesterday, and our blog post about Lakhdar Boumediene, an innocent man who was imprisoned at Guantánamo for seven and a half years without charge or trial. Tomorrow, we’ll feature a podcast conversation with Mr. Boumediene.

And be sure to let President Obama know that you’re counting on him to make good on his original promise to close Guantánamo and to shut down the un-American and illegal policies that it embodies.

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

Tags: Close Gitmo, detention, Gitmo at 10, guantanamo, indefinite detention

Jan 9th, 2012
Posted by Ateqah Khaki, ACLU at 4:48pm

INFOGRAPHIC: Guantánamo by the Numbers

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.

Tags: Close Gitmo, detention, Gitmo, Gitmo at 10, guantanamo, indefinite detention

Jan 8th, 2012
Posted by Zachary Katznelson, National Security Project at 10:38am

Injustice at Guantánamo: Past and Present

Image, left: Lakhdar and Yusuf (born 8/2010) - September 2011

This Wednesday marks 10 years since the prison at Guantánamo Bay opened. Today in The New York Times, Lakhdar Boumediene reflects on that anniversary and tells the harrowing tale of the seven and a half years he spent imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay. Mr. Boumediene always maintained his innocence, fought his case all the way to the Supreme Court in a case that bears his name, and ultimately won his freedom before a federal court in Washington. Today, he lives in France with his wife and three children.

Mr. Boumediene’s personal experience goes to the heart of what is wrong with Guantánamo. Originally from Algeria, he became a Bosnian citizen and worked there for the Red Crescent — the Muslim equivalent of the Red Cross. In October 2001, he was taken away from his wife and two daughters, arrested and falsely accused of being an al Qaeda operative. After three months of investigation, Bosnia's highest court found there was no evidence against him, but instead of tasting freedom, he was kidnapped by the United States government, trussed up and flown to Guantanamo. There, he was brutally treated, beaten, subjected to extreme temperatures, forced to stay in painful positions for hours at a time, sleep deprived and beaten. His wife and young children were never allowed to visit and their letters were either rejected entirely or heavily censored. Mr. Boumediene went on hunger strike to peacefully protest his incarceration without charge. He was force-fed for two years.

Boumediene in Paris weeks after his release from Guantánamo — Spring 2009

Still, somehow, Mr. Boumediene maintained the strength to fight for his freedom. In his historic 2008 case, Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners like him must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge their confinement. Months later, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. had no credible evidence against Mr. Boumediene and ordered him set free. It turns out the government’s entire case relied on a single unnamed informant, whom U.S. Embassy officials in Bosnia had found untrustworthy at the time Mr. Boumediene was originally seized. Yet he remained imprisoned for seven and a half years. He was finally reunited with his family in France in May 2009.

In his op-ed, he writes:

“Some politicians say that people in Guantánamo are terrorists, but I have never been a terrorist. Had I been brought before a court when I was seized, my children’s lives would not have been torn apart, and my family would not have been thrown into poverty. It was only after the Supreme Court ordered the government to defend its actions before a federal judge that I was finally able to clear my name and be with them again....I’m told that my Supreme Court case is now read in law schools. Perhaps one day that will give me satisfaction, but so long as Guantánamo stays open and innocent men remain there, my thoughts will be with those left behind in that place of suffering and injustice.”

While Mr. Boumediene is finally free, over 170 men remain in Guantánamo, stuck in a limbo created by the politics of fear that surround anything to do with terrorism. The majority of Guantanamo prisoners have been unanimously cleared for release by the United States intelligence and military communities, but remain incarcerated, to the cost of over $70 million a year. The reason is politics and failure by all three branches of government to act to bring an end to Guantánamo. It is a lot easier to bang the drum of fear than to sound the call of justice.

 

Taken the day before release, the only known photo of a prisoner and lawyer at Guantánamo - May 2009

I had the honor of interviewing Mr. Boumediene last week, and our conversation will be available online later this week as a podcast on the ACLU’s website. It is a unique opportunity to hear the words of a man who has actually experienced Guantánamo Bay from the inside, with all its failings and profound ugliness. We ask that you stand today with Mr. Boumediene and call upon the U.S. government to finally end the blight on our reputation — and our security — that is Guantánamo Bay. Join us in asking President Obama to keep his promise to close the prison camp by charging and trying the prisoners who are there, or sending them home.

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

Tags: Close Gitmo, Close Guantanamo, detention, Gitmo at 10, guantanamo, indefinite detention, Lakhdar Boumediene

Dec 15th, 2011
Posted by Ateqah Khaki, ACLU at 2:43pm

President Obama Should Listen to the American People – Not His Advisors – on the NDAA.

Last night, the House of Representatives voted to pass the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a bill that contains harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.

The final version of the NDAA was agreed to earlier this week by House and Senate conferees, and the Senate is expected to pass the bill later this afternoon. (You can tune in on C-Span.)

Although the Obama administration had twice threatened to veto a previous version of the bill based on these provisions, it reversed its position yesterday. Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU’s Deputy Legal Director appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show, last night to discuss our objections to the bill.

Needless to say, we’re deeply disappointed that the President’s advisors have recommended that he not veto the bill. In a statement released yesterday, Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office stated, “The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law. If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”

Our government must not enshrine permanently into law the power to militarily detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. Tell the president to listen to the American people and veto any bill that contains indefinite detention. If the president fails to veto the bill, ask him to publicly commit to limiting his use of this authority to actual battlefields only. The whole world is not a battlefield and the president should make that clear.

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

Tags: indefinite detention, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, President Obama

Dec 9th, 2011
Posted by Ateqah Khaki, ACLU at 4:24pm

Help Us Stop Congress From Passing Indefinite Detention Bill!

Earlier this week we told you about Congress trying to rush a bill to the President’s desk that would authorize the military to go literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians — even American citizens in the United States itself — without charge or trial. Prison based on suspicion alone.

But you certainly don’t need to take our word for it. In this new video, we’ve compiled some of the most disturbing statements made by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in support of the sweeping bill.

Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see You Tube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.

Despite the fact that the leadership from all the major intelligence agencies (the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the FBI, the Director of National Intelligence, the White House Advisor for Counterterrorism, and the DOJ National Security Division head) have spoken out in opposition to the bill and its indefinite detention authority, Congress is working behind closed doors to try to jam the legislation to the president’s desk very quickly. His White House has repeatedly threatened to veto the NDAA if these dangerous provisions stay in the bill.

The bills will be on the floors of the House and Senate within days, once the House and Senate conference committee puts an official stamp of approval on what the “Big Four” — the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee — wrote in secret. A final vote on the bill could happen as soon as the middle of next week.

That’s why Congress needs to hear from you today! Contact your senators and House member and ask them to vote ‘NO’ on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2012 if it includes indefinite detention without charge or trial.

Once you’ve sent a message to your representatives, help us spread the word by sharing the video.

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

Tags: indefinite detention, Lindsay Graham, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA

Dec 7th, 2011
Posted by Chris Anders, Washington Legislative Office at 4:45pm

Behind Closed Doors: Congress Trying to Force Indefinite Detention Bill on Americans

Maybe you spent the last weekend shopping for gifts, writing out holiday cards or studying for final exams. For most of America, the end of the year is a busy time. In Congress, this is a season usually spent trying to jam through bad bills while they hope no one is looking.

The Senate voted last Thursday to pass S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would authorize the president to send the military literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial. Prison based on suspicion alone. The power is so sweeping that the president would be able to direct the military to use its powers within the United States itself, and even lock up American citizens without charge or trial.

No corner of the world, not even your own home, would be off-limits to the military. And there is no exception for American citizens. Section 1031 — one of the indefinite detention provisions — of the Senate-approved version of the NDAA has no limitations whatsoever based on geography, duration or citizenship. And the entire Senate bill was drafted in secret, with no hearing, and with committee votes behind closed doors.

I'm not sure which was more surprising — that the majority of senators ignored the pleas of countless constituents, or that they also ignored every top national security official opposed to the provisions. Opposition to the detention provisions came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco. The Senate ignored them all.

Back in May, the House of Representatives passed its own version of the NDAA, which had a provision authorizing worldwide war wherever any terrorism suspect resides, even if there is no threat to America or Americans. Buried in the bill is a sentence that lets the president order the military to lock up without charge or trial American citizens and anyone else he decides is a suspect, even if the person is right here in America or in such friendly countries as Canada, Great Britain, or France.

Now, the two bills are in conference committee. The chairmen and ranking members of the Armed Services Committee — known as "the Big Four" — have been having one secret meeting after another over the past few days to quickly write a final bill. Who are the Big Four? From the Senate, it is Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) who were the very two who had secretly written the Senate indefinite detention provisions. The third member is the House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), who is the person who wrote the House indefinite detention provisions without so much as a hearing. And the fourth member is the House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who courageously fought the indefinite detention provisions on the House floor.

That's 3-1 for indefinite military imprisonment without charge or trial. There's good reason to worry about what the Big Four do in their secret meetings.

What happens next? First, there will be a more formal House-Senate conference in the next few days to put an official stamp of approval on what the Big Four wrote in secret. And then the bills will be on the floors of the House and Senate by early next week.

Their plan is to move very, very fast. Congress certainly has earned a reputation for being slow, but the plan for the NDAA is to jam it through the House and Senate with as little debate as possible. But you can help stop them.

Amazingly, as soon as a week from today, a final bill could be passed by Congress and headed to President Obama's desk. His White House has repeatedly threatened to veto the NDAA if these dangerous provisions stay in the bill.

But should it really come to that? Congress itself should come to its senses and ditch the indefinite detention provisions. And just as importantly, Congress should listen to you and every other American on what we all as Americans want for our country. Secret deals for indefinite military detention without charge or trial? Tell Congress we are better than that. It's not who we are as Americans, and it is not the country or the world we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Now is the time to act and contact your senators and House member. Tell them vote "NO" on the NDAA if it includes indefinite detention without charge or trial.

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

Tags: Adam Smith, Buck McKeon, Carl Levin, indefinite detention, John McCain, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA

Nov 29th, 2011
Posted by Ateqah Khaki, ACLU at 7:27pm

Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention

Today, the Senate voted 38-60 to reject an important amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have removed harmful provisions authorizing the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. The amendment offered by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would have replaced those provisions with a requirement for an orderly congressional review of detention power.

The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive, and the White House has issued a veto threat over the provisions.

We’re disappointed that, despite robust opposition to the harmful detention legislation from virtually the entire national security leadership of the government, the Senate said ‘no’ to the Udall amendment and ‘yes’ to indefinite detention without charge or trial.

The next opportunity to remove the harmful detention provisions from the bill will be when House and Senate conferees meet in conference committee next week.

If the conference committee fails to remove the detention provisions, President Obama should follow through with his veto threat. Today’s vote on the Udall amendment shows there’s more than enough opposition to these provisions to sustain a veto. Stay tuned for more information.

UPDATE: The vote changed from 37-61 to 38-60. The final vote is reflected in the post.

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

Tags: indefinite detention, Mark Udall, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA

Nov 23rd, 2011
Posted by Chris Anders, Washington Legislative Office at 10:46am

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

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.

Tags: Carl Levin, detention, indefinite detention, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte, Lindsay Graham, Mark Udall, National Defense Authorization Act, national security, NDAA, Ron Paul

Nov 3rd, 2011
Posted by Amy Cannata, ACLU of Montana at 3:24pm

Thank You Sen. Baucus for Opposing Indefinite Detention

We are heartened that Montana Sen. Max Baucus is opposing two provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which strike at the heart of our constitutional protections for a fair justice system.

Those two provisions would authorize indefinite detention of American citizens without any charges and without a trial (Section 1031) and require that all terrorism suspects be held in military custody (Section 1032).

In a letter to top Congressional leaders, Sen. Baucus states his opposition to both sections. Indefinite detention, he says, "violates basic American Constitutional principles" and "is contrary to the nature of the system of checks and balances the authors of our Constitution considered essential to the preservation of liberty."

As for mandatory military custody of terrorism suspects, Sen. Baucus notes that the federal court system works and should be available for these cases. He points out that since Sept. 11, 2001, more than 400 terrorism suspects have pleaded guilty or been convicted in federal courts. To move all those cases to the military would be foolish.

We couldn't agree more. Forcing all these cases into the military system would hinder F.B.I. investigations and agents' ability to disrupt plots. And as Sen. Baucus points out, it's unnecessary since civil courts have a track record of success. Military tribunals, on the other hand, have a record of failure.

And idefinite detention without judicial review is an appalling abuse of power. We know that our government has already mistakenly detained hundreds of people on suspicion of terrorism over the past 10 years. Many have languished in custody for years with no way to even assert their innocence or address the evidence against them. All people are entitled to due process.

Tags: indefinite detention, Max Baucus, Montana, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA

Oct 24th, 2011
Posted by Amanda Simon, ACLU at 4:43pm

Momentum Building Against NDAA Detention Provision

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have both joined our fight for civilian trials for terrorism suspects and against a troubling detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA provision would allow for the indefinite military custody of those accused of terrorism and could even allow for the indefinite detention without charge or trial of American citizens. Quoting from the New York Times, here are a few of the problems with the provision:

  • It could cripple F.B.I. investigations of terrorism suspects and agents’ ability to disrupt plots.
  • There is no provision for judicial review of the decision to send a prisoner to military detention. The government has mistakenly detained hundreds of men — that we know of — on suspicion of terrorism in the last 10 years.
  • It’s unnecessary since civil courts have a track record of success in trying, convicting and sentencing terrorism suspects. The military tribunals created by President George W. Bush and improved by President Obama have a record of failure.

In related news, Last week, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) offered an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have banned the use of federal courts for terrorism suspects. Thankfully, the amendment failed. The Los Angeles Times is completely correct when it says:

…the case for civilian trials is a strong one. They provide more due process than military commissions. To the extent that the war on terror is a battle for hearts and minds, they show the world that the United States is willing to accord even its enemies the full panoply of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Many within the beltway believe the failure of the Ayotte amendment bodes well for growing resistance to the NDAA’s detention provision.

To provide even more momentum against the NDAA’s detention provision, 13 Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee wrote to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) encouraging him to take the provision out of the bill.

Given all of the opposition mounting to this provision, it would be pretty unwise to bring the NDAA to the floor in its current form. We’ll be doing everything we can to make sure that happens. Add your voice to the opposition by contacting your Senator now.

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

Tags: FBI, Harry Reid, indefinite detention, Kelly Ayotte, National Defense Authorization Act

 

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map