The Trump Administration Is Keeping a U.S. Citizen Secretly Locked Up Without Charges

For nearly two months, the U.S. military has been detaining an American citizen at a secret jail in Iraq, denying him access to a lawyer and even refusing to release his name. The Trump administration is calling the citizen an “enemy combatant,” claiming he was fighting for ISIS in Syria, but it has not presented any evidence to back up its allegations.

We went to court asking a judge to protect the citizen’s constitutional rights, including the right not to be imprisoned without charge and the right to challenge his detention in court. The Trump administration has told the court that it doesn’t have to respect these essential due process rights.

The Pentagon and Justice Department ignored our initial request for access to the U.S. citizen so we could advise him of his rights and offer him the opportunity of legal representation. We then filed a habeas corpus petition on the citizen’s behalf in federal court in Washington, demanding that the government justify its detention of the unnamed American. All U.S. citizens have the right to habeas corpus no matter where the government holds them or what it accuses them of. And, as we know from the government’s practices in places like Guantánamo, when it tries to undercut this right it opens the door to abuses, including the arbitrary detention of innocent people.

We also asked the court to order the government to connect the citizen with ACLU attorneys because he is facing grave threats to his liberty and possibly his life. The government could continue imprisoning him without charge, force him to confess to crimes he may not have committed, or, as a Human Rights Watch expert warns, hand him over to Iraqi custody, in which he would likely be subjected him to torture, an unfair trial, and possible execution.

The government’s response is straight out of “Catch-22.” It is arguing that the ACLU cannot seek relief on the citizen’s behalf because we have never met him and don’t know his wishes. But that is a conundrum of the government’s own creation because it has provided no other way for this citizen to legally defend himself.

Instead, the government is piling one speculation on top of another. Maybe, the government suggests, the American could have conveyed his needs to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) when it visited him in custody, and maybe that organization could have contacted his family, and maybe his family could have found a lawyer to file a case on his behalf.  

In fact, the American citizen has made his wishes clear. U.S. officials told The Washington Post that the citizen has repeatedly demanded a lawyer. The government has effectively denied that request. And, as a former ICRC official explains in our latest court filing, there are multiple reasons why the U.S. citizen is unlikely to obtain counsel by going through the ICRC. To begin with, the ICRC’s main purpose is to monitor conditions of detention, not to find lawyers for prisoners. The citizen may not have family he can contact, or he might be afraid of contacting family for fear they will suffer retaliation. It is also possible the citizen’s family might not welcome contact from him, or, even if it did, the family may not know how to navigate the U.S. court system.

The bottom line is that the imprisoned American citizen clearly wants a lawyer and doesn’t have one, thanks to the roadblocks the government itself has put in place.

Learn More About The Case

The government also complains that allowing counsel to have access to the citizen wouldn’t be “easy.” But constitutional rights do not depend on the government’s convenience. Federal courts have ruled that citizens have a right to an attorney even when detained as enemy combatants at secure military facilities, whether in the U.S. or abroad. And for more than 13 years, courts have ensured attorney access to non-citizens imprisoned at Guantanamo, rejecting government attempts to restrict it. Even George W. Bush’s attorney general and former federal district court judge, Michael Mukasey, ruled that the government’s national security interests cannot override an American citizen’s right to a lawyer.

By opposing the ACLU’s efforts in this case, the Trump administration is taking a very dangerous step: It is blocking an Americans citizen’s access to his own country’s courts. It is also undermining the bedrock guarantees of habeas corpus, which for centuries has served as the greatest check on unlawful government detentions. Now, we’re fighting to stop the government’s unconstitutional attempt to create a new rights-free zone.

Add a comment (67)
Read the Terms of Use

Dr. Joseph Goebbels

I remember this guy. I recommended that we return him to enemy. He is some loser that would be more of a burden that a benefit to them.

Anonymous

Too bad he has the same rights as you and me buddy! If he is an enemy combatant, the judge isn’t stupid, they’ll serve the justice that needs serving. Everyone has the right to a fair trial reguardless of the crime. Evil people like Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Casy Anthony, & the Green River killer all got their due process.

Anonymous

Maybe we can trade him for bergdahl. We need more killers, right?

Pius Pontince

It started with paranoid old white people, mostly Christian, who couldn’t tolerate anyone that didn’t love Jesus. You know what, fuck Jesus, there as said it. He was a lazy ass gay Jew with a foot fetish. Yup, it’s true. That’s right, the Bible says Jesus slept and ate with 12 other dudes day and night. Story after story of “brotherly” love, no wonder Ben Franklin was gay.

I killed Jesus Christ. I stabbed him the side with a long sword while my friend took a selfie of us. It was fun, but I never forgave myself.

Researcher

Do you think it’s the name you use that causes people to post hate comments at you? If so, it must be true that when a name dragged through shit, it remains shitty.

Anonymous

How could you remember someone when they haven't even released his name? Lie much?

The Real Dr Jos...

The truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Anonymous

You all might want to look at the name the original commenter chose, check your satire-meters, then take another stab at replying.

Dr. Joseph Goebbels

I remember him because this is not the first time this captive has been in the news. I first heard about him on the Al Jazeera news web site. I recommended then that we send him back. Too bad Al Jazeera no longer allows comments. I was just getting started there really giving those Muslims hell.

Anonymous

The Roberts Court has made some really good rulings on some issues like marriage equality, but it's about 15 years behind the curve on "checking" the political branches on warrantless surveillance and violations of the Writ of Habeas Corpus clause of The Constitution.

Is there any kind of oversight mechanism on the Judicial Branch when the top court refuses to "check" the political branches? Unlike the other two branches, the Judicial Branch is hierarchical - the highest court sets the constitutional legal boundaries for every court in the entire United States. In other words when the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to interpret the letter & spirit of individual amendments and articles - that affects every courthouse in America.

Pages

Stay Informed