CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Al-Marri Sentence Proves Federal Courts Can Handle Terrorism CasesLast week, a judge sentenced Ali al-Marri, the last “enemy combatant” held on U.S. soil, to eight years in prison. Although he faced up to 15 years, the judge sentenced al-Marri to 100 months (a little more than 8 years), taking into account the time he has already spent in military and civilian custody in departing from the sentencing guideline range. Al-Marri is expected to receive credit for the more than two years he spent in pre-trial detention both before and after he was declared an "enemy combatant."
Al-Marri, a Qatari national, lawfully entered the U.S. in September 2001 with his wife and five children. He was initially arrested in December 2001 for credit card fraud by the FBI. Al-Marri pled not guilty and prepared to contest the charges, but in June 2003, on the eve of a hearing to suppress illegally seized evidence and less than a month before trial, President Bush declared al-Marri an al Qaeda agent and designated him an "enemy combatant" in the so-called "war on terror." That same day, the military took custody of al-Marri and incarcerated him at the Navy brig in South Carolina, indefinitely and without charge.
The ACLU filed a habeas corpus petition on al-Marri’s behalf to challenge the constitutionality of his detention without charge or trial. The case was slated to be heard by the Supreme Court in April 2009, but in February, 2009, after nearly six years in detention without charge, the U.S. brought criminal charges against al-Marri for material support of terrorism. The government moved to dismiss the Supreme Court case as moot and transferred al-Marri from military to civilian custody. Because of this development, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the case, but significantly, the Court vacated the lower court’s ruling that asserted the president could indefinitely detain “enemy combatants” without charge or trial.
In May, 2009, al-Marri pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois to one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. In exchange, the government dropped a second charge of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
Although al-Marri faced up to 15 years in prison for the criminal conviction, we argued that the court should take into account al-Marri’s eight years in custody, including almost six years at the Navy brig, much of it spent in isolation. We’re pleased that the court took the time spent into account. As Jon Hafetz, a lawyer with the ACLU’s National Security Project and counsel in the al-Marri case stated in a New York Times article, the sentence is “a powerful reminder that America’s civilian courts can deliver justice even in the most challenging circumstances.”
Seven Reasons to Vote Approve on R-71: Reason #6On November 3, Washington voters will have the chance to approve or reject R-71, a measure that will allow same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex seniors to access many of the rights and protections granted to married couples. We’re counting down to Election Day with a series of seven videos, each a powerful illustration of why it’s so important to approve R-71. Reason #6: Senior domestic partners Rose and Joe Rose and Joe live in Evans, Washington, a tiny community on the edge of the Lake Roosevelt in the farthest northeast corner of the state. Rose has a rare autoimmune disease and relies on Medicaid to help pay for the medications she needs. If she and Joe were to marry, she would lose this health care coverage. Their domestic partnership allows Joe to be with Rose during her frequent hospitalizations, and also gives him the ability to help make medical decisions if she is unconscious.
Vote APPROVE on 71 to ensure that Rose and Joe will continue to able to care for each other. You can watch all seven videos and support the campaign here.
Seven Reasons to Vote Approve on R-71: Reason #5On November 3, Washington voters will have the chance to approve or reject R-71, a measure that will allow same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex seniors to access many of the rights and protections granted to married couples. We’re counting down to Election Day with a series of seven videos, each a powerful illustration of why it’s so important to approve R-71. Reason #5: Firefighters Penny and Karen and their son Calder Penny and Karen live in West Seattle with their son Calder. Both Penny and Karen are firefighters and, having seen colleagues seriously injured on the job, they know how dangerous their work can sometimes be. Knowing they have domestic partnership protections helps ease the fear, guaranteeing that if one of them were to be injured on the job, the other partner would have hospital visitation rights and would receive support from the fire department.
Vote APPROVE on 71 so Penny and Karen will know they are protected while they’re protecting their community. You can watch all seven videos and support the campaign here.
Haunted by Claims that Churches Will Be Required to Perform Same-Sex Weddings? Don't Be.Jim Nieves and Lisa Panensky of Elmsford, New York, had been planning a costumed Halloween theme wedding at the Old Dutch Church in Sleepy Hollow for over a year. But when they recently contacted the church to request that the organist play music from The Addams Family and The Munsters at the ceremony, the pastor backed out. Saying his church is no place for a “costume party,” he told the couple they couldn’t have their wedding there after all. Nieves and Panensky are now scrambling to find a location for their wedding and say they may just have it at home. While we wish them well and hope their wedding plans work out okay, their situation brings to mind the big lie anti-gay activists tell when they say that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then churches will be forced to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. Churches don’t have to marry anyone they don’t want to. That’s guaranteed by the Constitution. I personally think the Old Dutch Church missed out on a heck of a fun wedding, and so do churches that refuse to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. But nobody is going to force any church to perform any wedding ceremony it doesn’t want to, and trying to scare the public by saying so is creepy, kooky, and altogether ooky.
Stephen Colbert Signs Letter to Close Gitmo NowLast week, a coalition of musicians filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to find out if their music had been used during the interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. Last night, Rosanne Cash, one of the musicians who filed the request, appeared on The Colbert Report to go head-to-head with Stephen Colbert on the use of “torture music” at Guantánamo. Cash held her ground with the wily Colbert, stating, “Using music, a creative art, for the exact opposite purpose, to use it as a weapon to hurt someone, it’s wrong. There is no gray area, it’s wrong.” She even convinced Colbert to sign a letter agreeing with Gen. Colin Powell that Guantánamo “should be closed this afternoon.”
To join Rosanne Cash and Stephen Colbert and to learn more about the coalition of musicians who have joined the new National Campaign to Close Guantánamo, head on over to www.closegitmonow.org.
Ending the Inhumane Practice of Shackling Prisoners During Childbirth(Originally posted on Daily Kos.) This has been a year of progress on one of the least justified policies that many prison administrators still follow. On October 2, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 6-5, held that a jury should decide whether there was a need to shackle Shawanna Nelson while she was in late-stage labor, because such treatment, in the absence of a security need, constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is a critical legal victory in the campaign of the ACLU and many allies to end the practice of shackling pregnant prisoners who are in labor. Shawanna Nelson entered an Arkansas prison in June 2003 with a short sentence for a nonviolent crime. When she went into labor, the correctional officer accompanying her shackled her legs to both sides of her hospital bed. She remained shackled until she was taken to the delivery room. After the birth of her son, the shackles were again placed on her legs. She suffered intense pain and lasting medical problems from the birth and the inability to move her legs. After childbirth, authorities’ refusal to remove the shackles forced her to soil the bed. The correctional officer knew that she was not a flight risk, and knew that the restraints caused pain and unsanitary conditions. After a federal district judge allowed her case to go forward, Arkansas appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which threw out the case. At that point, the ACLU became involved, and staff from the Reproductive Freedom Project, National Prison Project and the ACLU of Arkansas assisted Shawanna’s lawyer in filing a petition asking that the case be reheard by the full 8th Circuit Court. The argument before the full court was hard fought and the court appeared to be closely divided. After I finished arguing on Shawanna’s behalf, I was uncertain whether she had won or lost that day. But I was thrilled and heartened by her presence, since she had been released from prison and was building a new life for herself and her son. Cathi Compton, her other attorney, introduced her to the court, so that they could see the real person who had been subjected to this inhumane practice. Shackling women in labor and during childbirth is extraordinarily dangerous, for both mother and newborn, yet most jails and prisons mindlessly continue the practice, despite a dearth of evidence that any woman has escaped from custody during child birth. Shackling women during labor and delivery is almost never needed from a security perspective. Rather, shackling imposes a physically and emotionally devastating additional punishment on those women who give birth during incarceration, and a punishment completely unrelated to the blameworthiness of the woman subjected to this degradation. Luckily, the ACLU and other advocates are gaining precious ground in the struggle to end this practice. Most recently, New York joined the list of states that have by statute prohibited this shackling during labor and delivery except in extremely limited circumstances. The federal Bureau of Prisons has also voluntarily reformed its practices; Immigration and Customs Enforcement, however, needs to follow suit so that women giving birth as immigration detainees do not suffer like Shawanna. Let us hope that, very soon, shackles in labor will have gone the way of the practice of chaining prisoners to a hitching post as punishment, and no more women will be victims of this painful and unnecessary practice.
Seven Reasons to Vote Approve on R-71: Reason #4On November 3, Washington voters will have the chance to approve or reject R-71, a measure that will allow same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex seniors to access many of the rights and protections granted to married couples. We’re counting down to Election Day with a series of seven videos, each a powerful illustration of why it’s so important to approve R-71. Reason #4: Kari and Julia from Washington’s apple country Kari and Julia live in a suburb of Yakima in the center of Washington’s apple country. Kari is a school nutritionist and Julia is a family physician and they love living in a community where they know half the people they see at Safeway. As a physician, Julia has seen patients who have been unable to be with their loved ones in times of crisis, and so she is grateful that their domestic partnership will ensure that Kari can be with her in the case of a medical emergency.
Vote APPROVE on 71 to protect the relationships of couples like Kari and Julia all across Washington state. You can watch all seven videos and support the campaign here.
Seven Reasons to Vote Approve on R-71: Reason #3On November 3, Washington voters will have the chance to approve or reject R-71, a measure that will allow same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex seniors to access many of the rights and protections granted to married couples. We’re counting down to Election Day with a series of seven videos, each a powerful illustration of why it’s so important to approve R-71. Reason #3: Janet, Cindy and their seven kids Janet and Cindy live in Richland in the Tri Cities area of Washington where Cindy works for the Hanford Site and Janet is a minister at River of Life MCC. They have seven kids, six of whom they adopted from foster care. Janet and Cindy love raising a large family, and when they need an extra pair of hands, Cindy’s mother, who lives next door, comes over to help out.
Vote APPROVE on 71 to give Janet, Cindy and their kids the security and protections their family need. You can watch all seven videos and support the campaign here.
Seven Reasons to Vote Approve on R-71: Reason #2On November 3, Washington voters will have the chance to approve or reject R-71, a measure that will allow same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex seniors to access many of the rights and protections granted to married couples. We’ll be counting down to Election Day with a series of seven videos, each a powerful illustration of why it’s so important to approve R-71. Reason #2: Seattle Firefighter Jen, her partner Heidi, and their children Jen and Heidi live in North Seattle with their two kids, Max and Maggie. Heidi teaches high school English and Jen is a firefighter in the Seattle Fire Department. Vote to Approve Referendum 71 to ensure that if something happens to Jen at work, Heidi and their kids will have access to Jen’s firefighter’s pension and death benefits.
Approve R-71 so that Jen will know that her family will be protected if something should happen to her in the line of duty. You can watch all seven videos and support the campaign here.
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 |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
