CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Rendition RewindYesterday, a federal appeals court announced that it will hear the government’s appeal of an earlier ruling that allowed the ACLU’s lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen DataPlan Inc., to go forward. In 2007, we sued Jeppesen for its role in the Bush administration’s unlawful “extraordinary rendition” program. Our lawsuit was filed on behalf of five men who were forcibly disappeared and then tortured in U.S.-run secret overseas prisons or by foreign intelligence agents. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Bush administration intervened, improperly asserting the “state secrets” privilege and asking the judge to have the case thrown out without considering any evidence in support of the mens’ case. Although the lower court upheld the government’s claims, in April, a three-judge panel reversed the lower court’s dismissal (PDF) of the lawsuit. The panel held, contrary to the assertions of Obama administration lawyers, and as we had argued, that the “state secrets” privilege can only be invoked with respect to specific evidence, and not to dismiss the entire suit. In June, the Obama administration appealed the decision, and asked an “en banc” panel of 11 judges to rehear the case, which the court announced yesterday that it will hear. Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, and counsel in the case, stated:
The San Francisco Chronicle’s coverage of the rehearing points out that, “Of the five plaintiffs, two are still imprisoned in Egypt and Morocco, and the other three were released without U.S. charges.” To date, no torture victim from the Bush-administration’s “War on Terror” has had his day in court. Tags: Human Rights Program, national security project, Rendition
Tortured TunesToday, a group of musicians, including REM, Pearl Jam and The Roots filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to find out whether their music was played at the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. The request for information stems from former Guantánamo detainees’ testimony and released government documents that document that music has been used as part of interrogations. The Roots said in a statement, “When we found out that music was being used as part of the torture going on at Guantanamo, shackling and beating people — we were angry. Just as we wouldn’t be caught dead allowing Dick Cheney to use our music for his campaigns, you can be damn sure we wouldn’t allow him to use it to torture other human beings. Congress needs to shut Guantánamo down.” Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, another of the artists who initiated the FOIA request, stated, “Guantánamo may be Dick Cheney's idea of America, but it's not mine. The fact that music I helped create was used in crimes against humanity sickens me – we need to end torture and close Guantánamo now." Documents that the ACLU has uncovered through our five-year-old FOIA request about the abuse and torture of detainees in U.S. custody detail how “torture music” was used. Criminal investigation records, sworn statements by military intelligence personnel and detainees, and other documents detailing the use of music as an interrogation method are searchable on the ACLU’s torture document database, which makes available to the public over 130,000 pages of government records released to the ACLU. Among the records we’ve disclosed through our lawsuit are:
The ACLU has also interviewed former Guantánamo detainees about their experiences in U.S. custody. Ruhal Ahmed, a 27-year–old, life-long British resident who spent two-and-a-half years at Guantánamo described the use of heavy metal music in combination with stress positions: …[T]hroughout our stay in Guantánamo, we was all physically, and psychologically, and sexually abused in many forms… we were put into stress positions for days… sometimes exceed[ing] two days, three days, and at the same time you would have the loud music playing, extremely loud, heavy metal would be the most common one they used to use. Strobe lights which you find in discos, these would be flashing in your eyes constantly for two hours and at the same time someone would come and interrogate you – shout questions. There were dogs coming in barking right by your face. (Emphasis added.) The more we learn about the inhumane methods used on detainees in the Bush administration’s “War on Terror,” the greater the need for meaningful accountability for the torture and abuse of detainees in America’s name. To read the documents and take action demanding accountability for torture toady, head on over to our Accountability for Torture site.
ACLU to Government: Shed Some Light on BagramToday, we sent a letter to the Department of Defense (DOD), asking them to reconsider their refusal to turn over information about the detention facility at Bagram in Afghanistan. The request is connected to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request we filed earlier this year with the Departments of Defense, Justice and State and the CIA for documents related to the detention and treatment of prisoners at Bagram. Since filing our initial request, the government has been far from responsive in terms of turning over information. DOD has told us (PDF) that it has a list containing basic information about the Bagram detainees but is withholding it in its entirety, claiming national security and privacy concerns. Today's letter (PDF) is an appeal of their withholding of that vital information, which includes names, citizenships, duration of detention and capture location of detainees currently held at Bagram. The CIA has refused to even confirm the existence of records about Bagram, stating in a letter dated May 2009 (PDF), that it could "neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive" to the FOIA request. In June, we sent a letter (PDF) to the CIA appealing their refusal to comply. Although the U.S.-run detention facility at Bagram has been the focus of widespread media attention and public concern, very little information is publically available about the secrecy-shrouded facility or the prisoners held there. We know that the U.S. government has been detaining prisoners at Bagram since 2002, and recent news reports indicate that more than 600 individuals are currently detained there – some of whom have been held for as long as six years without access to counsel or a meaningful opportunity to challenge their imprisonment. The conditions of confinement at Bagram are reportedly primitive, with allegations of mistreatment and abuse continuing to surface; in fact, at least two prisoners have died there. Former Bagram detainees say they were beaten, deprived of sleep, and threatened with dogs while at Bagram, according to a June BBC report based on interviews with detainees held there between 2002 and 2006. There is concern that Bagram has become, in effect, another Guantánamo – except with many more prisoners, less due process, no access to lawyers or courts and reportedly worse conditions. Although the nation is embroiled in an intense public debate about U.S. policy pertaining to the detention and treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, Americans remain in the dark about even the most basic facts about Bagram. And, as long as the Bagram prison is shrouded in secrecy, there is no way to know the truth or begin to address the problems that exist there. When prisoners are in U.S. custody and under U.S. control – no matter the location – our values and commitment to the rule of law are at stake. Now that President Obama has taken the positive step of ordering Guantánamo shut down, it is critical that we don't permit 'other Gitmos' to continue elsewhere. To learn more about our FOIA request and see the responses from government agencies, visit: www.aclu.org/bagram
A Victory for Free SpeechIn a victory for free speech and academic discourse, last week the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower-court decision upholding the government's exclusion of Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan from the United States. Professor Ramadan, a leading scholar of the Muslim world, was offered a tenured professorship at the University of Notre Dame in 2004, but could not take up the post because the government revoked his U.S. visa. The government initially justified its decision by claiming that Professor Ramadan had "endorsed our espoused" terrorism. After the ACLU filed suit, the government abandoned this claim but continued to defend his exclusion on the grounds that he had made small donations to a Swiss charity that the government alleged had given money to Hamas. But as the court correctly pointed out in the decision issued last Friday, the charity in question wasn't designated as a terrorist group until years after Professor Ramadan made the donations. When he made the donations, Professor Ramadan had no idea that the charity was providing funds to Hamas. The appeals court held that the government could not bar Professor Ramadan (or any other individual accused of providing "material support" for terrorism) without giving him the "opportunity to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and reasonably should not have known, that the recipient of his contributions was a terrorist organization." The appeals court also made clear that barring invited scholars from the United States deprives U.S. citizens of their First Amendment rights to hear ideas and engage in face-to-face debate with foreign scholars. The exclusion of scholars on ideological grounds stymies the global exchange of ideas. The government should not use its power to police the border as a tool of censorship. The United States has a sad — and long discredited — history of engaging in ideological exclusion. Through the years, many renowned writers and thinkers — including Nobel Prize winners Doris Lessing, Pablo Neruda, and Gabriel García Márquez — have been denied entry to the United States because of their "dangerous" political views. This practice was revived by the Bush administration after 9/11. The appeals court ruling Friday should serve as an opportunity for the Obama administration to disown the Bush administration's misguided policy of excluding scholars because of their political views. The Obama administration should also end Professor Ramadan's unjustified exclusion and reconsider the exclusion of other foreign scholars, writers and artists who were barred from the country by the Bush administration on ideological grounds. These currently excluded voices could contribute greatly to academic dialogue in the U.S. The ACLU has an online petition calling on Attorney General Holder and Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano to stop censoring ideas at America's borders. Click here to send your message!
ACLU Demands OLC Memo Regarding Constitutional Rights in Guantánamo Military CommissionsToday, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding the disclosure of a May 2009 legal memo from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The memo reportedly addresses the constitutional rights that Guantánamo detainees could legally claim during military commission proceedings, as well as the admissibility of statements obtained through coercion in those proceedings. The existence of the memo was made public in a June 29 Wall Street Journal article, which asserted that the memo's conclusions "could alter significantly the way the commissions operate." The article also discussed the memo's position that federal courts would find coerced evidence inadmissible under the Constitution in military commission trials. The constitutional rights of detainees in military commission trials have been a point of contention between the Justice Department and the Defense Department. In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill about the Guantánamo military commissions last week, Justice Department official David Kris testified that the Constitution's due process clause would indeed apply to military commission trials. Defense Department officials, however, have long sought to deny Guantánamo detainees due process rights in order to facilitate convictions through coerced evidence. The OLC memo is legally binding. The Senate is currently debating a draft of the defense authorization bill that includes language to revise the military commissions and that would allow the admission of some coerced evidence. The Justice Department, however, has testified that the position of the administration is that the standard for admission of evidence must be "voluntariness," and that coerced evidence should not be admissible before the military commissions. The OLC memo has not been made available to the Senators who are debating changes to the military commissions system. There has been much attention and controversy surrounding the military commissions. The release of the OLC memo on detainee rights would help to clarify the Obama administration's position on military commissions, deepen the public's understanding of this important issue, and provide Congress with the facts necessary to vote on any legislation that would redefine the military commissions. You can make your voice heard by sending a message to your Senator today asking them not to let the Defense Department Authorization bill become a vehicle for undermining civil liberties. The military commissions are inherently illegitimate and unconstitutional. Their continuation will only prove to further erode our system of justice.
Accountability 101 If you’ve been following our conversation about torture, you know by now that today is International Day in Support of Torture Victims. The ACLU has been calling for accountability for the abuse and torture of detainees in U.S. custody, but what does accountability mean in practice? Jameel Jaffer, the Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project explains in this short video.
We hope you’ll join us and take a stand against torture today.
Torture 101Pop quiz! This Friday, June 26 is: A: International Day in Support of Torture Victims If you answered "D," you are correct!
The Convention Against Torture (CAT) is the most important international human rights treaty that deals exclusively with torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The treaty went into effect on June 26, 1987, and was ratified by the U.S. in 1994. Countries that have signed the treaty are obligated to prohibit and prevent torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in all circumstances. The treaty also compels governments who ratified it to investigate all allegations of torture, to bring to justice the perpetrators, and to provide a remedy to victims of torture. In this new video, Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU's Human Rights Program, explains more about international legal standards — including CAT — that criminalize acts of torture, as well as the United States' obligations to seek accountability for torture.
Given the significance of this date, June 26 has also been named as International Day in Support of Torture Victims, a day to demonstrate solidarity with victims of torture. Although the U.S. once led the fight against torture around the world, this June 26 we face a different challenge — one that requires this country to face the facts and come to terms with the reality of this country's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody that took place over the last eight years. We hope you'll join us by taking action on June 26 (stay tuned for details), because if we don't demand accountability for the crimes that were in committed in our name, who will?
Talking About TortureLast week, we kicked off an Online Torture Forum to continue the conversation about torture and accountability. So far, we've featured a variety of voices calling for accountability for the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody, including an international torture expert, a former military interrogator in Iraq, and a professional psychologist who took a stand against the American Psychological Association's complicity in torture.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com helped commence the conversation by hosting an exclusive podcast (MP3) with ACLU Attorney Amrit Singh—counsel in our Torture FOIA litigation and co-author of Administration of Torture—and Philippe Sands, an expert on international law and the author of Torture Team. Both books reveal that the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody under the Bush administration was systemic and pervasive, and that decisions endorsing, encouraging, and authorizing torture were made at the very highest level of government. Sands also contributed a written piece to the torture forum, in which he discusses a one-page memo written in November 2002 by Jim Haynes (PDF), who was a DoD lawyer at the time. The memo, which recommended that Haynes' boss, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, provide blanket authorization for the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, dogs, and nudity, and left open the use of waterboarding, gained notoriety because in signing it Rumsfeld joked: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" Philippe describes: "The document was a shocker. It was difficult to understand how the senior lawyers involved could have authorized torture. So I spent 18 months trekking around the U.S., meeting many of the officials involved." The result? His book: Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values. Former U.S. military interrogator Matthew Alexander contributed a piece to the forum rebuking the false notion that torture has kept America safe, and advocating for accountability and a realignment of actions and policies to once again uphold the values and principles upon which our country was founded. Alexander writes: An independent investigation is an opportunity to look at those senior leaders who gave unlawful orders to torture and abuse prisoners and the senior military officers who followed those unlawful orders. It is a chance to emphasize again, for the next generation of America military leaders, that torture and abuse are inconsistent with our oaths of office, and that following unlawful orders is not acceptable conduct.Dr. Ghislaine Boulanger, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst who has conducted extensive research on adult-onset trauma as the result of catastrophic experiences such as torture, joined the conversation by contributing a piece condemning the role that psychologists played in the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies. Dr. Boulanger and other brave members of the American Psychological Association (APA) banded together to make their disapproval of the APA's involvement in torture known—some by resigning in protest and others by withholding their professional dues and mobilizing in protest by bringing a referendum to the entire membership in an effort to prohibit the involvement of psychologists in work settings that violate international law and the Constitution. Dr. Boulanger explains, "Just as the ACLU is calling for an Independent Prosecutor to investigate Bush era violations of human rights, Psychologists for an Ethical APA is calling for an independent investigation of psychologists and psychological organizations involved and indirectly complicit in activities that culminated in the treatment of detainees that is now known to have been torture." (Clinical psychologist, attorney, and author Brent Welch provides another take on the role of the APA and psychologists in torture in a Huffington Post piece this week.) Meanwhile, it's been busy in the world of torture revelations. Last Thursday, we filed a new Torture FOIA lawsuit seeking the disclosure of even more still-secret records. Many of the recent revelations about torture—including the "torture memos" released in April — have been a part of our original Torture FOIA request. Since filing the initial lawsuit in 2004, we have obtained more than 100,000 pages from the government that show both that hundreds of prisoners were tortured in the custody of the CIA and Department of Defense, and that the torture policies were devised and developed at the highest levels of the Bush administration. You can learn more about the documents we've obtained through the lawsuit, and use our new and improved Torture Document Search to read the documents yourself. On Monday, the CIA released documents in another ACLU FOIA lawsuit, concerning Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearing transcripts from Guantánamo Bay. In previously released versions of the documents, the CIA had redacted virtually all of the prisoners' accounts of the abuse and torture they suffered in CIA custody. Unfortunately, the documents released this week are still heavily redacted, but include some new information. Ben Wizner, the ACLU attorney on the case, discussed the newly received documents with Rachel Maddow earlier this week, and noted that, "The disturbing trend here is that . . . the Obama administration is stepping back from transparency because they see that it is an inevitable ingredient to accountability." And yesterday, The Washington Post reported that CIA officials are pressuring the Obama administration to suppress significant portions of a CIA Inspector General report on the agency's interrogation and detention policies. The government has a deadline tomorrow to reprocess the report in our Torture FOIA lawsuit. In response to the article, the ACLU's National Security Project director, Jameel Jaffer stated: It's not surprising that the CIA is fighting for the suppression of documents that would provide further evidence that its torture program was both ineffective and illegal…President Obama should not allow the CIA to determine whether evidence of its own unlawful conduct should be made available to the public…[R]estoring the rule of law at home and the moral authority of the United States abroad… will [not] be possible as long as the CIA is permitted to conceal evidence of its crimes. The public has a right to know what took place in the CIA's secret prisons, and on whose authority.Sounds like another internal government conflict between transparency and covering up past torture crimes . . . stay tuned for developments. And beyond the latest news and developments from us here at the ACLU, the robust conversation about torture and accountability for crimes committed in America's name continues. Yesterday, Salon.com ran an opinion piece calling for accountability by the ACLU's Executive Director Anthony Romero and Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld — a former prosecutor in the Guantánamo Bay military commissions who resigned from six cases due to ethical problems with the tribunal system. American Public Media's "Speaking of Faith" recently featured a conversation with Professor Darius Rejali, an Iranian-American political scientist, expert on torture, and author of Torture and Democracy. The conversation explores the long shadow of torture — how democracies change torture and are changed by it, as well as the collective reckoning with consequences yet to unfold. And in her latest piece for the New Yorker, Jane Mayer poses the question: can the CIA move forward without confronting its past? Amidst all the talk about torture, we hope one message rings loud and clear: the ACLU is committed to restoring the rule of law. We will fight for the disclosure of the torture files that are still secret. We will advocate for the victims of the Bush administration's unlawful policies. We will press Congress to appoint a select committee that can investigate the roots of the torture program and recommend legislative changes to ensure that the abuses of the last eight years are not repeated. And we will advocate for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to examine issues of criminal responsibility. We hope you'll join in the conversation next week and take action on Friday June 26th — International Day in Support of Torture Victims — to take a stand and demand accountability for torture (stay tuned for details!). We can't sweep the abuses of the last eight years under the rug. Accountability for torture is a legal, political, and moral imperative.
ACLU Sues TSA for Unlawful Detention of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty TreasurerToday, we filed a new lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over unlawful TSA search and detention practices. The case was filed on behalf of a traveler who was illegally detained and harassed by TSA Agents at the airport for carrying approximately $4,700 in cash. On March 29, 2009, the plaintiff in the case, Steven Bierfeldt was detained in a small room at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and interrogated by TSA officials for nearly half an hour after he passed a metal box containing cash through a security checkpoint X-ray machine. He was carrying the cash in connection to his duties as Treasurer of Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty. Steven's experience is part of a troubling pattern of the TSA transforming its valid but limited search authority into a license to invade people's constitutional right to privacy. Steven was detained and questioned as he returned home from a Campaign for Liberty event transporting proceeds from the sale of tickets, t-shirts, stickers and campaign material. He repeatedly asked the agents to explain the scope of their authority to detain and interrogate him and received no explanation. Instead, the agents escalated the threatening tone of their questions and ultimately told him that he was being placed under arrest. Steven recorded audio of the entire incident with his iPhone, which you can listen to here. [audio:http://stream.luxmedia501.com/?file=clients/aclu/bierfeldt.mp3&method=dl|titles=Bierfeldt]In a press release we issued about the case today, Steven states: I do not believe I should give up my constitutional rights each time I choose to travel by plane. I was doing nothing illegal or suspicious, yet I was treated like a potential criminal and harassed for no reason. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that TSA considers simply carrying cash to be a basis for detention and questioning. I hope the court makes clear that my detention by TSA agents was unconstitutional and stops TSA from engaging in these unlawful searches and arrests. I do not want another innocent American to have to endure what I went through.ACLU attorney Ben Wizner who is counsel in the case, explains: Airport searches are the most common encounters between Americans and law enforcement agents. That's why it is so important for TSA agents to do the job they were trained to do and not engage in fishing expeditions that do nothing to promote flight safety. It is, of course, very important to ensure the safety of flights and keep illegal weapons and explosives off planes. But allowing TSA screeners to conduct general purpose law enforcement searches violates the Constitution while diverting limited resources from TSA's core mission of protecting safety.TSA officials have the authority to conduct safety-related searches for weapons and explosives. Since 9/11, TSA agents have been using heightened security measures as an excuse to exceed their search authority and engage in unlawful searches that violate the privacy rights of passengers. Our lawsuit charges that unconstitutional searches and detention by TSA agents have become the norm. For the sake of public safety and constitutional values, these unlawful searches should stop.
Newly Released Detainee Statements Provide More Evidence of CIA Torture ProgramToday, in response to an ACLU lawsuit, the CIA released documents in which Guantánamo Bay prisoners describe abuse and torture they suffered in CIA custody. In previously released versions of the documents, the CIA had removed virtually all references to the abuse of prisoners in their custody; the documents released today are still heavily redacted, but include some new information.
The documents were released as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking uncensored transcripts from Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) that determine if prisoners held by the Defense Department at Guantánamo qualify as “enemy combatants.” The newly unredacted information includes statements from the CSRTs of former CIA detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Abd Al Rahim Hussein Mohammed Al Nashiri, Abu Zubaydah and Majid Khan, including descriptions of torture and coercion. These statements include:
In response to the documents’ release today, ACLU attorney Ben Wizner and lead attorney on the case stated, “The documents released today provide further evidence of brutal torture and abuse in the CIA's interrogation program and demonstrate beyond doubt that this information has been suppressed solely to avoid embarrassment and growing demands for accountability. There is no legitimate basis for the Obama administration's continued refusal to disclose allegations of detainee abuse, and we will return to court to seek the full release of these documents.” While the information released today shed some new light on the CIA’s torture program, there are still many unanswered questions. We hope the Obama administration will make good on its commitment to transparency by stopping the suppression of information about torture and abuse, and holding accountable the officials who put those policies in place. Do your part in demanding accountability for torture crimes: head over to the ACLU’s new Accountability for Torture site to learn more and take action. |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
