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 (69)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

The ACLU should criminally prosecute and file civil lawsuits to "declassified" violations from decades ago. Why? It creates a strong deterrent against today's war crimes and crimes against humanity.

For example: go after the retired FBI agents that tortured and tormented the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. It will create a deterrent against abuses happening today.

That's the game here: war crimes and other abuses are classified secret for decades to obstruct justice. Since there is never any accountability it gave the green-light to Bush officials to commit torture, war crimes and other cruel treatment. If senior officials in their agency had been held accountable from decades before, they would never have committed those crimes against humanity.

Since 9/11, the Bush torture attorneys haven't been indicted or disbarred, most have been promoted. One is now a federal judge standing in judgement of others.

Anonymous

If people knew that the ACLU would be filing lawsuits from human rights violation from decades ago then they would be either destroy the evidence or not create any records. Without records you couldn't even bring a case against the accused. People willing to commit human rights violations are willing to go to great lengths to make sure they aren't discovered. We have seen this time and time again in Central and South America and Africa where people at the top manage to get away scot free while the patsy's take the fall. There isn't justice when you can find a patsy to pin the human rights violations on while you feign ignorance or blame a rouge operative.

Who needs "classified" information when it's simply easier not to create any documentation in the first place. Got reams of evidence? Easy, burn it or toss it in a paper shredder...out of sight, out of mind.. Potential charges of destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice is worth it for people who don't want their past activities/participation discovered.

Dr. Joseph Goebbels

Give him a "snitch jacket". Send him back to the enemy. They will think he works for the C.I.A. or MI6 or the No Such Agency. They will know how to deal with him.

Anonymous

And then we can send your ass in to rescue him, all alone. What a sick non-human.

Dr. Joseph Goebbels

It takes one to know one doesn't it?

Anonymous

Why is this person secretly locked up in Iraq when this person was allegedly in Syria fighting for ISIS? Let the Syrians make that determination as to this person's innocence or guilt.

Send this person to Syria and let them figure it out, the alleged participation happened over there with Syrians being the victims.

Anonymous

No fan of enemy combatants, but no fan of the shoot first, ask questions later mentality that my fellow Americans seem to largely have embraced. If the evidence is secret, then how can it be evaluated? Are we going to start locking people up on rumors or the word of someone who might have an axe to grind? It isn’t how we have done business. It isn’t the way I was raised to believe things worked. This is wrong and a frightening harbinger of the future.

VladTepes

Even if this guy is a terrorist piece of trash, the details surrounding how they're detaining him sets a terrifying precedent.

Anonymous

If there is no evidence to charge him and he is a citizen he is entitled to counsel. We are not (or shouldn't be) running a military junta.

Anonymous

Bill of Rights does not stop at the border. Will they take other rights away b/c the person is not doing what you feel is proper ? We must defend our rights as per the Constitution, here and abroad, or next thing you know, rights IN country will be over looked also.

Pages

Stay Informed