John Grisham: When I Found Out My Books Were Banned at Gitmo, I Had to Learn More -- And I Came Away Horrified 13AUG13

FROM renowned American author John Grisham (I think I have read almost all his books) another story of injustice from the American government's war on terror and the U.S. prison at gitmo. From AlterNet.....

The Guardian / By John Grisham

Why can't the US apologize for its errors?

August 13, 2013  | About two months ago I learned that some of my books had been banned at Guantánamo Bay. Apparently detainees were requesting them, and their lawyers were delivering them to the prison, but they were not being allowed in because of "impermissible content".

 

 

 

I became curious and tracked down a detainee who enjoys my books. His name is Nabil Hadjarab, and he is a 34-year-old Algerian who grew up in France. He learned to speak French before he learned to speak Arabic. He has close family and friends in France, but not in Algeria. As a kid growing up near Lyon, he was a gifted soccer player and dreamed of playing for Paris Saint-Germain, or another top French club.About two months ago I learned that some of my books had been banned at Guantánamo Bay. Apparently detainees were requesting them, and their lawyers were delivering them to the prison, but they were not being allowed in because of "impermissible content".

Tragically for Nabil, he has spent the past 11 years as a prisoner at Guantánamo, much of the time in solitary confinement. Starting in February, he participated in a hunger strike, which led to his being force-fed.

For reasons that had nothing to do with terror, war or criminal behaviour, Nabil was living peacefully in an Algerian guesthouse in Kabul,Afghanistan, on 11 September 2001. Following the US invasion, word spread among the Arab communities that Afghanistan's Northern Alliance was rounding up and killing foreign Arabs. Nabil and many others headed for Pakistan in a desperate effort to escape the danger. En route, he said, he was wounded in a bombing raid and woke up in a hospital in Jalalabad.

At that time, the US was throwing money at anyone who could deliver an out-of-town Arab found in the region. Nabil was sold to the US for a bounty of $5,000 and taken to an underground prison in Kabul. There he experienced torture for the first time. To house the prisoners of its war on terror, the US military put up a makeshift prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Bagram would quickly become notorious, and make Guantánamo look like a church camp. When Nabil arrived there in January 2002, as one of the first prisoners, there were no walls, only razor-wire cages. In the bitter cold, Nabil was forced to sleep on concrete floors without cover. Food and water were scarce. To and from his frequent interrogations, Nabil was beaten by US soldiers and dragged up and down concrete stairs. Other prisoners died. After a month in Bagram, Nabil was transferred to a prison at Kandahar, where the abuse continued.

Throughout his incarceration in Afghanistan, Nabil strenuously denied any connection to al-Qaida, the Taliban or anyone or any organisation remotely linked to the 9/11 attacks. And the Americans had no proof of his involvement, save for bogus claims implicating him from other prisoners extracted in a Kabul torture chamber. Several US interrogators told him his was a case of mistaken identity. Nonetheless, the US had adopted strict rules for Arabs in custody – all were to be sent to Guantánamo. On 15 February 2002, Nabil was flown to Cuba; shackled, bound and hooded.

Since then, Nabil has been subjected to all the horrors of the Gitmo handbook: sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, temperature extremes, prolonged isolation, lack of access to sunlight, almost no recreation and limited medical care. In 11 years, he has never been permitted a visit from a family member. For reasons known only to the men who run the prison, Nabil has never been waterboarded. His lawyer believes this is because he knows nothing and has nothing to give.

The US government says otherwise. In documents, military prosecutors say Nabil was staying at a guesthouse run by people with ties to al-Qaida and that he was named by others as someone affiliated with terrorists. But Nabil has never been charged with a crime. Indeed, on two occasions he has been cleared for a "transfer", or release. In 2007, a review board established by President George W Bush recommended his release. Nothing happened. In 2009, another review board established by President Obama recommended his transfer. Nothing happened.

According to his guards, Nabil is a model prisoner. He keeps his head down and avoids trouble. He has perfected his English and insists on speaking the language with his British lawyers. He writes in flawless English. As much as possible, under rather dire circumstances, he has fought to preserve his physical health and mental stability.

In the past seven years, I have met a number of innocent men who were sent to death row, as part of my work with the Innocence Project, which works to free wrongly convicted people. Without exception they have told me that the harshness of isolated confinement is brutal for a cold-blooded murderer who freely admits to his crimes. For an innocent man, though, death row will shove him dangerously close to insanity. You reach a point where it feels impossible to survive another day.

Depressed and driven to the point of desperation, Nabil joined a hunger strike in February. This was not Gitmo's first hunger strike, but it has attracted the most attention. As it gained momentum, and as Nabil and his fellow prisoners got sicker, the Obama administration was backed into a corner. The president has taken justified heat as his bold and eloquent campaign promises to close Gitmo have been forgotten. Suddenly, he was faced with the gruesome prospect of prisoners dropping like flies as they starved themselves to death while the world watched. Instead of releasing Nabil and the other prisoners who have been classified as no threat to the US, the administration decided to prevent suicides by force-feeding the strikers.

Nabil has not been the only "mistake" in our war on terror. Hundreds of other Arabs have been sent to Gitmo, chewed up by the system there, never charged and eventually transferred back to their home countries. (These transfers are carried out as secretly and as quietly as possible.) There have been no apologies, no official statements of regret, no compensation, nothing of the sort. The US was dead wrong, but no one can admit it.

In Nabil's case, the US military and intelligence agents relied on corrupt informants who were raking in American cash, or even worse, jailhouse snitches who swapped false stories for candy bars, porn and sometimes just a break from their own beatings.

The Obama administration has announced it is transferring some more Arab prisoners back to Algeria. It is likely that Nabil will be one of them, and if that happens another tragic mistake will be made. His nightmare will only continue. He will be homeless. He will have no support to reintegrate him into a society where many will be hostile to a former Gitmo detainee, either on the assumption that he is an extremist or because he refuses to join the extremist opposition to the Algerian government. Instead of showing some guts and admitting they were wrong, the US authorities will whisk him away, dump him on the streets of Algiers and wash their hands.

What should they do? Or what should we do?

First, admit the mistake and make the apology. Second, provide compensation. US taxpayers have spent $2m a year for 11 years to keep Nabil at Gitmo; give the guy a few thousand bucks to get on his feet. Third, pressure the French to allow his re-entry.

This sounds simple, but it will never happen.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rand-paul-doesnt-understand-his-own-economic-hero?paging=off

Brave Women, Syrian Slaughter, & Sham Trials in Bahrain: E WIRE from HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 22MAR12

READING this e mail newsletter it became clear to me it is getting harder to differentiate articles about human rights violations in the U.S. with human rights violations in the rest of the world, and that is a sad commentary on the status of our civil liberties and constitution. Here are updates on the Syrian revolution and the slaughter of civilians by the government, the continuing persecution of human rights activist in Bahrain, the Pentagon's billion dollar contract with the Russian weapons dealer who also supplies the Syrian government with weapons to kill their own people, Afghan prisons, world women activist and the threat to justice by American military tribunals, from Human Rights First....

HRF'S E-NEWSLETTER

March 22nd, 2011

EMAIL TO A FRIEND»

DONATE»

Letter from the President and CEO» The U.S. Should Cut Ties with Enabler of Atrocities in Syria» Protests Continue in Bahrain. So Does the Crackdown» Bagram Transfer Agreement Falls Short» Khan Plea Deal is a Bad Deal for American Justice» HRF In The News» Letter from the President and CEO In the wake of World War II, Eleanor Roosevelt was the driving force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United Nations adopted in 1948. Since then, women have played an essential role in the human rights movement, as advocates, organization, journalists, politicians, teachers, and lawyers. Some are women's rights activists; most are human rights activists who happen to be women. As women, they face unique challenges, from sexism to cultural bias to repression, which often takes the form of gender-based violence. But time and again, women activists refuse to be silenced. At Human Rights First, we're privileged to work with an array of courageous women leaders. We support their work, highlight their struggles, and amplify their voices. And we partner with them to press the U.S. government, American businesses, and international organizations to support human rights. For example, we teamed up Pakistani activist Shehrbano Taseer to block a proposed blasphemy code at the United Nations, and we brought Esraa Abdel Fattah, a leader in Egypt's revolution, to the United States so that together we could urge policy makers and tech companies to protect the ability of activists to use the Internet without fear of persecution. To commemorate Women's History Month, we're honoring the heroism of women fighting for human rights around the world. Please read their stories and support their efforts. Sincerely, Elisa Massimino President and CEO Human Rights First The U.S. Should Cut Ties with Enabler of Atrocities in Syria We've been urging the U.S. to stop doing business with Rosoboronexport, Russia's state arms dealer, which is selling weapons to the brutal Assad regime in Syria. Now a bipartisan group of seventeen United States Senators, led by John Cornyn (R-TX) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), is taking up the cause. In a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, they express "grave concern" over this "serious policy problem." Russia is Syria's top supplier of arms, and Russian weapons have been found at the scene of atrocities. In January, Rosoboronexport signed a deal with Syria to sell 36 combat jets capable of hitting ground targets, and the company's spokesperson says it has no plans to stop. At the same time Rosoboronexport benefits from a nearly $1 billion contract with the U.S. Department of Defense—signed on May 26, 2011, months after the crackdown began. The U.S. should cancel the contract immediately. Protests Continue in Bahrain. So Does the Crackdown As Bahrain's uprising enters its second year, Bahraini citizens demanding democracy and human rights show no signs of giving up. The largest protest yet, with an estimated 100,000 people marching on a highway west of the capital Manama, took place just days ago. The regime had intensified its crackdown in a largely successful attempt to deter protests marking the Feb 14th anniversary of the uprising's beginning. But this huge rally, which came in response to a call from Shia cleric Sheikh Isa Qassim, suggests that the democracy movement is stronger than ever. Brian Dooley of Human Rights First—who has done groundbreaking reporting on the abuses of the Bahraini regime—had been denied access to the country during February. But he's back in Bahrain, where he is reporting from the appeal hearing of 20 medics who were detained, tortured, and sentenced to long prison terms in sham military trials. The regime took them into custody last year after they provided medical care to protestors. Bagram Transfer Agreement Falls Short Over the next few years, the United States will give the government of Afghanistan control of the more than 3000 prisoners at Bagram Air Base. We welcome the transfer but only if it protects the rights and safety of the prisoners. A recently announced agreement between the two countries falls short. We've documented the human rights problems at Bagram, where many suspects are detained indefinitely based on secret evidence and have no access to lawyers. The transfer agreement threatens to exacerbate these problems and raises concerns about the potential for widespread abuse. The agreement contains no mechanism to ensure due process or humane treatment. As Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First told CBS news, "Afghan security services have a history of using torture to elicit confessions, and that was found just within the past year by the United Nations, so it's not clear from this agreement how the United States will make sure that's not happening." Khan Plea Deal is a Bad Deal for American Justice After spending nearly a decade in U.S. custody, Majid Shoukat Khan has pled guilty before a military commission to conspiracy, murder, attempted murder, providing material support for terrorism, and spying. Khan—who tried to kill himself at Gitmo by chewing through an artery in his arm—agreed to testify against fellow detainees in exchange for a lighter sentence. The deal may be in the best interest of both the government and Khan, but it's not in the best interest of justice. As Melina Milazzo of Human Rights First points out in the Washington Post, Khan was charged with terrorism and conspiracy, which are not war crimes under international law and were not originally crimes in the military commission system. "Prosecuting people for conduct that was not a crime when they committed the act violates the ex post facto prohibition enshrined in the Constitution and the international legal principle of legality," Milazzo says.  That's not the example we should be setting. This was only the seventh conviction in the military commission system and the first of a so-called "high-value detainee." Federal courts, by contrast, have secured more than 400 convictions of terrorists since 9-11 while protecting the rights of suspects. The military commission system is a risky strategy for cases of such importance.  The United States should recommit itself to trying terrorism cases in the federal courts, where there is a wealth of experience and a solid track record.  HRF in the News U.S. Prepares to Continue Egypt Military Aid Amid Dispute Nicole Gaouette, Bloomberg, March 18, 2012 Detention for Immigrants That Looks Less Like Prison Kirk Semple and Tim Eaton, New York Times, March 13, 2012 U.S. must aid Afghan judicial system Daphne Eviatar, Politico: Opinion, March 13, 2012 War's Strange Bedfellows Mark Thompson, Time, March 12, 2012 Human Rights First, 333 Seventh Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10001-5004 www.humanrightsfirst.org Join us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitter

Human Rights FIRST in the Middle East, HRF's E NEWSLETTER 14APR11

HRF'S monthly e mail newsletter for April with updates on human rights and the Egyptian revolution, freedom of religion at the U.N., Gitmo, U.S. military tribunals, detainees in Afghanistan and more....

HRF'S E-NEWSLETTER

April 14, 2011

EMAIL TO A FRIEND»

DONATE»

From Our President and CEO» Human Rights Should Come First in the Middle East» Victory for Freedom of Religion at the United Nations» Fear Wins: Obama Administration to Try 9-11 Suspect at Gitmo» HRF Investigates Treatment of Detainees in Afghanistan» Riding for Human Rights» HRF in the News» From the President and CEO The stunning protests that began three months ago in Egypt captured world attention and sparked hope that democracy could take hold in the heart of the Middle East. In a mere 18 days, the Egyptian people forced an end to Hosni Mubarak's repressive 30-year rule. But that was only the beginning of a transition; the forces of the status quo are powerful, and there will be many hurdles in the path towards democratic government. We've been working with Egyptian activists for many years, and now we're supporting them as they attempt to build a new Egypt based on respect for human rights and the rule of law. As part of this effort, we recently brought Esraa Abdel Fattah to the United States. An online organizer, known as "Facebook Girl" after she was imprisoned by Mubarak's regime, Esraa spent a week in Washington meeting with U.S. officials and tech execs to promote policies to protect Internet freedom, a key issue we're working on in Egypt and around the world. She also spoke to students at a technology high school, with a local television news crew in tow. Our work with Esraa is a good example of the partnerships we form with those on the frontlines of change in their own societies. Their lived experience and firsthand knowledge informs our advocacy, and we connect them directly to the corridors of power so their voices are heard in the policy debates that affect their cause. We work to ensure that they can operate freely without harassment and threat, and when they are targeted for persecution because of their work, we defend them. Thank you for supporting us in this important work. Sincerely, Elisa Massimino President and CEO Human Rights First Human Rights Should Come First in the Middle East We're working to support democratic transformation not just in Egypt but across the Middle East. To that end, we're urging the United States to put human rights at the center of its policy toward the region. For decades the U.S. has backed "friendly" dictators in the name of stability. Now at this crucial moment, as protestors across the region rise up to demand what already belongs to them—their human rights—will the U.S. get on the right side of history? Only by championing human rights will the U.S. help bring peace and stability to the Middle East. Our blueprint, Seizing the Moment, details specific steps the U.S. government should take to defend human rights in the Middle East. Victory for Freedom of Religion at the United Nations Recently, two political leaders in Pakistan were murdered because they defended freedom of religion. Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian member of parliament, and Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, were killed for speaking out against the law banning blasphemy. It was under this law that a Christian woman, Asiya Bibi, was sentenced to death for allegedly criticizing Mohammed. The Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility for Bhatti's murder; Governor Taseer was killed by his own bodyguard. At the recent U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, we teamed up with Taseer's daughter Shehrbano, who is carrying on her father's fight for freedom of expression and religion. At an event we organized, Taseer spoke eloquently against a pending U.N. resolution backing a global anti-blasphemy code. Diplomats in Geneva lauded our event as the best they'd ever seen at the Human Rights Council and, more importantly, it worked. In a critical vote, all references to "defaming" a religion—the root of blasphemy laws—were stripped from the U.N. resolution that passed in March. Listen to our podcast on the Pakistani case—and read our report about other cases of how blasphemy laws are abused (including that of a man who was charged with "blasphemy" for throwing out the business card of a salesman whose name was Mohammed.) Fear Wins: Obama Administration to Try 9-11 Suspect at Gitmo The Obama administration announced it was withdrawing the federal indictment against alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and abandoning plans to try him in federal court. Instead, KSM and his co-conspirators will face trial in a military commission at Gitmo. Attorney General Eric Holder blasted Congress for choking off funding for civilian trials. He's right. But the truth is, the Obama administration had two years before their hands were tied to put the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks on trial and make the case that trying terrorism suspects in federal court is not just right, but wise. They didn't even try. But the political battle about terrorism trials is not over. The funding restrictions are temporary, and the President has said he supports using the courts to try some Gitmo detainees. We'll keep pushing for civilian trials and for the President to fulfill his commitment to closing one of al Qaeda's best recruiting tools: Gitmo. Read Elisa Massimino's op-ed on this subject in the New York Daily News. HRF Investigates Treatment of Detainees in Afghanistan Our team of investigators recently returned from Afghanistan where they were looking into the trials of detainees at the infamous Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Daphne Eviatar and Gabor Rona found that detainees at Bagram—which now houses almost 1700 prisoners, nearly ten times the number at Guantanamo—still have no right to challenge their detention in court or to be represented by a lawyer. We'll soon release a report detaining our full findings. Daphne and Gabor recently held a web chat to discuss trials in Bagram. If you couldn't join us, don't worry! We recorded it—watch it now. And Daphne was interviewed for this AP exclusive. Riding for Human Rights One of our long-time pro bono attorneys is hitting the road—by bike—at the end of April to raise money for Human Rights First and our work helping refugees win asylum in the United States. Jeffrey Heller will be riding 1400 miles from New York City to Iowa! Our asylum work saves lives. A refugee with a lawyer is three times more likely to win asylum than one without representation.  Yet most refugees go without this vital assistance. Our network of pro bono attorneys provides high quality legal help, for free. Make your pledge to help victims of persecution find safety and build a new life—100% of the proceeds will go to support our refugee protection work.  HRF in the News The Economist — Defusing the defamation issue. Gitmo: Politics trumps U.S. security — Daphne Eviatar in Politico Associated Press — UN Rights Body Ditches Religious 'Defamation' Idea

Human Rights First,
333 Seventh Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10001-5004
www.humanrightsfirst.org
Join us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitter

A month of freedom, and repression...HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST RIGHTS WIRE 1MAR11

UPDATES on the Egyptian revolution, freedom and democracy there, Gitmo detainees, and the internet.....freedom on the net here and abroad and internet censorship around the world, Bagram prison in Afghanistan and the plight of Iraqi refugees.

HRF'S E-NEWSLETTER

March 1st, 2011

EMAIL TO A FRIEND»

DONATE»

From Our President and CEO» Guantanamo: Cop a Plea or Die There» Internet Freedom and Cyber-Pragmatism» New Report: How Tech Companies Can Defend Human Rights» Live Web Chat on Afghanistan» Event: Iraqi Refugees» HRF in the News» From the President and CEO The democratic uprisings sweeping the Middle East are creating the possibility of once-in-a-generation progress. But they also present dangers, as repressive regimes crack down on protestors and citizens trying to create democratic institutions where none have existed for years. Change must come from within—the right to pick leaders and form governments belongs to citizens in these countries—but the U.S. can take action to support human rights and democracy. We're pushing our government to do just that. While there won't be a one-size-fits-all policy towards countries in the region, the U.S. should be making clear—in word and deed—that it will stand with people seeking to exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms. We're focusing special attention on Egypt, where we've been working with human rights activists for many years. The departure of Mubarak was a monumental event, but with the military now running the country, it's unclear whether a more democratic government will emerge. Take action today urging President Obama to end, decisively, U.S. support for despotism in Egypt. Guantanamo: Cop a Plea or Die There The U.S. Department of Defense hearts military commissions. On Valentine's Day, the Obama Administration opened the hearing of Noor Uthman Muhammed, a citizen of Sudan detained for more than eight years because of alleged involvement with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. He pled guilty, under a "perverse system where almost the only way one can get out of here is to cop a plea or die," said HRF's Dixon Osburn. Read more analysis live from the hearing on our blog. Meanwhile Congress moved to forbid the use of ANY government funds to transfer Gitmo detainees to the U.S. You helped us defeat this misguided effort in the House. We'll keep you posted on the upcoming battle in the Senate. Internet Freedom and Cyber-Pragmatism There's an ongoing debate between "cyber-utopians" and "cyber-skeptics" about the political power of the Internet. In a blog posted ahead of Secretary of State Clinton's recent speech on Internet freedom, HRF's Elisa Massimino offered a "cyber-pragmatic" approach, pointing out that the Internet is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It's what we make it. She also outlined how the government and companies can defend Internet freedom. In the speech, Secretary Clinton pledged to take some of the steps we've been recommending. She said the U.S. would increasingly confront governments that censor and spy online, establish a cyber-issues coordinator, and expand assistance to online activists around the world. New Report: How Tech Companies Can Defend Human Rights Last year, we discovered that Russia was using laws against software piracy to crack down on independent media and NGOs, and that Microsoft was assisting in the bogus prosecutions. Anastasia Denisova, an advocate for the rights of immigrants, was one of the victims, and she asked us for help. We brought the facts to the attention of Microsoft headquarters, which decided to provide the licenses to the NGOs and pledged to oppose all politically motivated piracy prosecutions. Now we've published a report, A Campaign Against Dissent, which documents how governments use legitimate antipiracy laws to pursue illegitimate ends. The report provides a set of best practices for tech companies so that they can avoid enabling repression. We've also reached out to telecommunications companies in Egypt to get details on how the Mubarak regime shut down the Internet during recent protests. We have a good idea of what happened—read more about it on our blog, or just check out the cartoon illustration. Live Web Chat on Afghanistan Two of our experts just returned from Afghanistan, where they investigated the trials of detainees in Bagram prison. It's a bleak picture. Ask Daphne Eviatar and Gabor Rona your questions during a live web chat on Facebook, this Friday, March 4th, at 2:30 pm EST. Send us your questions ahead of time, or just join us on Facebook this Friday. We'll put instructions on how to participate at that time. Event: Iraqi Refugees New Yorkers, come to our offices on March 8 for a breakfast briefing on Iraqi refugees and hear how the U.S. government can better respond to the ongoing refugee crisis in the region. It starts at 9 am. RSVP on Facebook.  HRF in the News For a round-up of our coverage during the protests in Egypt—including President Obama's response (NPR), lessons from the Internet crackdown (CNN), facts and fiction about the Muslim Brotherhood (LA Times), what's next post-Mubarak and more—check out our blog. Read Daphne Eviatar's op-ed in Politico on whether Obama is on the "wrong side of history" on detainees.

ACLU ONLINE NEWSLETTER 5NOV10

ARTICLES and actions on paycheck fairness, gene ownership, Amazon and privacy, cell phone tracking, fbi monitoring, religion, Bagram and more. Read, participate and share!

Enough Already! Let's Pass Paycheck Fairness! Who Owns Your Genes? You Do. Victory! Federal Court Upholds Amazon Users' Privacy and Free Speech Rights Cameras in the High Court: It's About Time Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Finds Civil Liberties Minute: The FBI and Your Online Habits ACLU Challenges Discriminatory Arizona School Tuition Program Government Can Keep Basic Facts about Bagram Prisoners Secret, Federal Court Rules Civil Liberties Minute: The FBI and Your Online Habits Do you mind if your online habits are monitored and recorded by the FBI? >> Listen to the podcast. ACLU Challenges Discriminatory Arizona School Tuition Program Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in an ACLU case challenging an Arizona tax credit-funded school tuition program under which most of the state-funded, private school scholarships are unconstitutionally awarded on a religiously discriminatory basis. Under the challenged program, Arizona scholarships are awarded by School Tuition Organizations (STOs). These organizations are certified and closely supervised by the state and financed exclusively by state income tax revenues. Taxpayers can direct their tax payments to the STOs for a 100 percent tax credit, rather than pay the Department of Revenue — essentially costing the taxpayers nothing. The cost is borne entirely by the state's general fund. Since its passage in 1997, the tuition tax credit scheme has been dominated by religious discrimination. More than half of over $50 million awarded by STOs in 2009, for example, was awarded by STOs that required students to attend religious schools in order to receive scholarships. The Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, a petitioner in this case, states that its goal is "to further Christian education by effectively implementing the provisions of [the program] for the benefit of Christian school students and their families." "The decision to award scholarships in Arizona rests entirely in the hands of taxpayer-funded, state-sanctioned organizations, the majority of which are religious in nature," said Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "The government should have no role in supporting programs that play favorites when it comes to religion." "By appointing religious organizations to disburse scholarships that are funded completely with tax revenues and allowing those organizations to grant scholarships based on the religion of applicants, the state is unconstitutionally engaging in religious discrimination," said Paul Bender, lead counsel, who argued the case for the plaintiffs. "We are hopeful that the Court will see that this is not a program of private taxpayer charity but a government spending program that supports religious discrimination." >> Learn more about this case. back to top Government Can Keep Basic Facts about Bagram Prisoners Secret, Federal Court Rules The Defense Department can continue to withhold key information from the public about the hundreds of detainees imprisoned by the U.S. military at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, according to a federal court ruling last month. The ruling came in an ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Defense Department and the CIA for records related to the detention and treatment of prisoners at Bagram (now known as Parwan). The Defense Department has released the names of the 645 prisoners who were detained there as of September 2009 but has kept secret other vital information, including their citizenship, how long they have been held, in what country they were captured and the circumstances of their capture. The ACLU charged that the Defense Department is improperly withholding these basic facts about Bagram prisoners and their detention, and asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to order the Defense Department to turn over the information. In denying the ACLU's motion, the court also ruled that the CIA did not act improperly when it refused to even confirm or deny whether the CIA had records about the rendition and interrogation of Bagram detainees. The U.S. military has announced its intention to transfer control of Bagram prison to the Afghan government next year. However, media outlets have reported that the Obama administration intends to maintain control over a portion of the prison and to continue detaining some prisoners in U.S. custody there, including non-Afghan terrorism suspects captured outside of Afghanistan and prisoners considered "enduring security threats." "The public has a right to know how long the U.S. has kept people locked up in military detention and under what circumstances," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The lack of transparency about these key facts is even more disturbing considering the possibility that the U.S. will continue holding and interrogating prisoners at Bagram well into the future. Unfortunately, today's ruling will allow the government to continue hiding this vital information." >> Learn more about the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit. back to top Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend.

November 5, 2010 Enough Already! Let's Pass Paycheck Fairness! Now is the time to end wage discrimination once and for all. Tell your senators to support the Paycheck Fairness Act today. When the Senate comes back to Washington on November 15 to finish its post-election work, one of the very first issues they will be voting on will be the Paycheck Fairness Act — legislation to finally achieve equal pay for men and women in the workplace. It's been 47 years since the passage of the Equal Pay Act, and yet, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, women, on average, make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. The figures are even worse for women of color. African American women only earned approximately 61 cents and Latinas only 52 cents for each dollar earned by a white male. Chronic wage discrimination can deprive a woman of between $700,000 and $2 million over her career. The House already passed this legislation. And the Senate is scheduled to vote on it as soon as November 17! We are very close to passage in this Congress, but we may not get another chance to finally close the wage gap for a very long time. That's why it's so important to let your senators know that you care about equal pay today. >> Take action: With less than two weeks remaining to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act in this Congress, we need our Senators to act now! back to top Who Owns Your Genes? You Do. Tell Congress your genes aren't for sale! The U.S. government filed a friend-of-the-court brief last week in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) challenging patents on human genes. The government agreed with our stance that isolated DNA is not patentable. The ACLU and PUBPAT filed the lawsuit in May 2009 challenging the patents held by Myriad Genetics on the human genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The lawsuit charged that the patents stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women's options regarding their medical care. A federal court ruled in March 2010 that the patents on BRCA1 and 2 are invalid, and Myriad is appealing that ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. According to the government's brief, "The chemical structure of native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is 'isolated' from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth." "We are extremely gratified that the government has agreed with us that genes are products of nature and therefore not patentable," said Sandra Park, staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project and a lawyer on the case. "Gene patents restrict patients' access to their own genetic information and chill important research. The lower court correctly found that no one should be able to patent human genes, and we are confident the appeals court will uphold that decision." >> Take action: Tell Congress your genes aren't for sale! back to top Victory! Federal Court Upholds Amazon Users' Privacy and Free Speech Rights Last month, a federal district court in Seattle ruled that the North Carolina Department of Revenue's (NCDOR) demands for detailed information about the purchases of Amazon.com customers violated the Constitution and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. NCDOR had asked for the records as part of a tax audit of Amazon. Amazon provided the agency with detailed information regarding the items purchased, including the dates of purchase, amount of purchases, and county to which the items were shipped — this being the only information, North Carolina has acknowledged, needed to assess sales taxes. Amazon did not turn over records revealing its customers' identities and linking customers to specific purchases, even though the requests called for such information. After North Carolina refused to back down from its demand for user information and Amazon sued, the ACLU intervened on behalf of several North Carolina residents who feared that disclosure of the books, movies, music, and other items they had purchased would reveal highly personal and intimate details of their lives. The court agreed that the government has no right to know such personal information. We applaud the court's ruling, the latest in a line of decisions making clear that the First Amendment limits the government's ability to seek information about individuals' reading, listening, or viewing choices. The court concluded, as we argued, that even the prospect of the government tracking these choices is harmful because it might cause any of us to fear buying perfectly legal materials online. Requesting information about what people are purchasing online causes real harm to real people, and it is unconstitutional in these circumstances. The ACLU will continue to fight against government requests for information that is so personal and private — and is so fundamental to our society. back to top Cameras in the High Court: It's About Time >> Urge your Senator to support the bill allowing broadcast television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger once said: "People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing." Yet despite this sentiment and the benefits of transparency in government, television cameras are still banned from open Supreme Court proceedings. This session alone, the court is scheduled to hear cases involving vital issues related to free speech, immigration, the establishment clause, and state secrets. Additional access to the court would allow Americans the opportunity to gain a better understanding of these issues and the debates surrounding them. Isn't it time the court moved into the 21st century and allowed the American people to witness first-hand the discussions surrounding these truly monumental issues? In a move to correct this outdated situation, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) introduced a bipartisan bill that would allow broadcast television coverage of open Supreme Court proceedings. The bill has advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and now awaits a floor vote. >> Take action: Urge your Senator to support the bill allowing broadcast television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings. back to top Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Finds In August, a New York federal court found that law enforcement agents are constitutionally obligated to get a warrant based on probable cause before obtaining historical cell phone location information. And in September, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that judges may order the government to get a warrant for cell phone location information based on probable cause. However, the 3rd Circuit also held that judges are not obligated to require probable cause and cautioned that they should only require the government to meet this high standard on rare occasions. Now, another court has joined the fray. In a detailed opinion citing documents obtained through litigation by the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation, Judge Stephen Smith of the Southern District of Texas held that "warrantless disclosure of cell site data violates the Fourth Amendment." A few aspects of the opinion are worth noting: According to Judge Smith, "the Government seeks continuous location data to track the target phone over a two month period, whether the phone was in active use or not." This is notable because the cell tracking applications we have seen previously only sought location information for those moments when an individual actually made a phone call. The government is now asking for a great deal more information, and consequently, its requests are now more invasive than we previously thought. Cell tracking information has grown to be more accurate over time. In fact, it is because of these "refinements in location-based technology" that Judge Smith concludes that requests for cell tracking information trigger the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Fourth Amendment requires the government to get a warrant and show probable cause to obtain historical cell tracking information. The court reached this conclusion both because cell tracking reveals information about constitutionally protected spaces, such as the home, and because the prolonged nature of such surveillance is very invasive. The ACLU agrees with Judge Smith that the government should be required to obtain a warrant and show probable cause before obtaining cell tracking information. As powerful new technologies enhance the ability of government agents to track our every move, it becomes all the more important that the courts hold the government to a rigorous standard it's able to access such sensitive information. back to top Join us on...

American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, New York 10004-2400 Lisa Sock and Joe McLaughlin, Editors

Privacy Statement This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here.