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.

View comments (74)
Read the Terms of Use

Shit, they held me for a lot longer than that without a lawyer. Held me in the freakin hole in Massachusetts in 2001 under a false name, without charges, without a phone call, without food and wouldn't release to the press where I was being held, while they kidnapped my wife and kids and moved them to California where I couldn't find them for almost 2 years until someone finally found them for me. And I was no goddamned enemy combatant. All I did was sell weed. They finally let me out after 13 1/2 years. Where was the damn ACLU back then when I wrote them letters constantly?


I'm not shocked, nobody SHOULD be. I'm so sorry. Very sorry you were so robbed.
I too lost all I had, plus ANY chance to ever work again at 46 y.o. but because I listened to a dr.
Anyway I do hope you were or are now able to start again, to be happy. As in the "right to life liberty and pursuit of.."
We're all just watching the end to what COULD'VE been the best place in the world.
If u still have your health.. you can do anything. I found success in Europe and one trip back here was the.. my.. end.
Carve another place for yourself. Anywhere.
Good luck

gift cards

Get xbox gift card

mary diorio

I'm here only because I lost all I had in Europe and no $ no health to return. So many mistakes by surgeons, then mistaken diagnoses.. I'd be going back to NOTHING but begging on the street.
This country is completely rancid now and TOTALLY INEPT


To make it in america, u must be 1) ruthless, 2) selfish and 3) very VERY healthy - or have a great support system.
How many are you, I wonder?
I rest my case.


Since when do we not GAS about due process, or EVIDENCE!?
This SHOULD frighten all of us.

Timothy K Marsh

If this story is indeed true then it proves my point that the " Patriot Act " was a sham from the get go and simply an extension of the Bush / Clinton / O'Bama & now Trump administration revealing that they likely answer to an entity other than " We The People "


Just kill the guy. Obama set the precedent. The left was pretty much silent then, why would they object now?

Chalchiuhticue ...

All U.S. citizens have the right to habeas corpus no matter where the government holds them or what it accuses them of, kissanime


No they don't. The Supreme Court ruled in 1936 that if a citizen lives U.S. soil and goes to a country into a war zone of their own they are no longer protected by U.S. laws they are subject to whatever that country wants to do to them if captured. Even if turned over to any other military including our own they are not protected by U.S. laws nor habeas since they left U.S. soil and are not on U.S. soil.
This man made a decision when he left this country and knew the remifications. He got caught so let the chips fall where they may.
The ACLU needs to take care of those on it's own soil here at home and quit trying to make itself appear to be so glorious by exploiting a case it isn't telling the whole story of to you who are defending this person.
Go read the court document from March 16,2018. It tells you he has not rights and gives the precedence case's.
Learn also with research who ISIS and IS


Stay Informed