NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label extraordinary rendition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label extraordinary rendition. Show all posts

08 February 2013

Report: These 54 Foreign Governments Helped the CIA Torture, Detain, and Transport Suspects After 9/11 & Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition 5FEB13

THIS is the kind of activity by our government that we should all be ashamed of. It is morally disgusting and shows the rest of the world we have lost our way and that our government is no longer qualified to pass judgement on the human rights record of any other nation. It is especially disturbing that Pres Obama's administration is committed to continue these policies when he campaigned against them. From Mother Jones and Open Society Foundation.....

| Tue Feb. 5, 2013 3:01 PM PST
interrogation prisoner machine gun soldier
On Tuesday, the Open Society Justice Initiative released a 212-page report that details international assistance to US covert action related to controversial Bush-era anti-terror policy. The report (PDF), titled "Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition," identifies 136 people who were captured or transferred by the Central Intelligence Agency, and lists available information about the detainees—both the Islamist operatives and the completely innocent.
"Globalizing Torture" also provides an annotated list of the dozens of foreign governments that played roles in the CIA's secret program in the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These governments provided crucial support in facilitating the CIA and Bush administration's war on Al Qaeda by, according to the report:
[H]osting CIA prisons on their territories; detaining, interrogating, torturing, and abusing individuals; assisting in the capture and transport of detainees; permitting the use of domestic airspace and airports for secret flights transporting detainees; providing intelligence leading to the secret detention and extraordinary rendition of individuals; and interrogating individuals who were secretly being held in the custody of other governments. Foreign governments also failed to protect detainees from secret detention and extraordinary rendition on their territories and to conduct effective investigations into agencies and officials who participated in these operations.
Here are the 54 listed, in alphabetical order:
  • Afghanistan
  • Albania
  • Algeria
  • Australia
  • Austria
  • Azerbaijan
  • Belgium
  • Bosnia-Herzegovina
  • Canada
  • Croatia
  • Cyprus
  • The Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Djibouti
  • Egypt
  • Ethiopia
  • Finland
  • Gambia
  • Georgia
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • Hong Kong
  • Iceland
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Jordan
  • Kenya
  • Libya
  • Lithuania
  • Macedonia
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mauritania
  • Morocco
  • Pakistan
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Somalia
  • South Africa
  • Spain
  • Sri Lanka
  • Sweden
  • Syria
  • Thailand
  • Turkey
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United Kingdom
  • Uzbekistan
  • Yemen
  • Zimbabwe
  • http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/globalizing-torture-cia-secret-detention-and-extraordinary-rendition


Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition

Download Files

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency embarked on a highly classified program of secret detention and extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects. The program was designed to place detainee interrogations beyond the reach of law. Suspected terrorists were seized and secretly flown across national borders to be interrogated by foreign governments that used torture, or by the CIA itself in clandestine “black sites” using torture techniques.
Globalizing Torture is the most comprehensive account yet assembled of the human rights abuses associated with CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations. It details for the first time what was done to the 136 known victims, and lists the 54 foreign governments that participated in these operations. It shows that responsibility for the abuses lies not only with the United States but with dozens of foreign governments that were complicit.
More than 10 years after the 2001 attacks, Globalizing Torture makes it unequivocally clear that the time has come for the United States and its partners to definitively repudiate these illegal practices and secure accountability for the associated human rights abuses.

Learn More:

Interactive Writing Fellow
Asawin Suebsaeng is an interactive writing fellow at the Washington, DC, bureau of Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter. Email tips, insights, and anger to asuebsaeng [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | 

07 February 2013

On Civil Liberties, A Tale Of Two Obamas 6FEB13

WE THE PEOPLE find our civil liberties threatened and under attack by this administration with an intensity and duplicity that we haven't see in decades. President Obama has not only been hypocritical, he has also been deceptive and manipulative and misleading concerning the US Constitution, constitutional law, civil liberties,  gitmo, the abuses of the patriot act, the ndaa, extraordinary rendition, war and drones. He hasn't made an attempt to right the wrongs of past administrations, but has broken his campaign promises and left in place and actually expanded and strengthened the abuses of power and violations of our civil liberties. From BuzzFeed.....

Image by Getty Images

A Justice Department memo that surfaced this week providing legal justification for the Obama administration's use of drone strikes against American citizens suspected of plotting terrorist attacks stands in stark contrast with the platform Barack Obama ran on in 2008 — and the civil liberties he championed as a young, liberal state senator in Illinois.
The memo, which was first reported by NBC News, argues that the U.S. government can legally use drone strikes to kill American citizens without due process if they are determined to be high-ranking al-Qaeda officials who show "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States."
"I can just say that this president takes his responsibilities very seriously, and first and foremost, that's his responsibility, to protect the United States and American citizens," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday, defending the drone policy. "These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise. The U.S. government takes great care in deciding to pursue an al-Qaeda terrorist, to ensure precision and to avoid loss of innocent life."
But for a politician who made his name in the state Senate by fiercely advocating reforms to the justice system — including mandatory recordings of all police interrogations and confessions in capital murder cases — and later decried the Patriot Act as an assault to civil liberties, Obama's defense of such drone attacks represents a remarkable departure from principles he championed not long ago.
As early as 2002, Obama was publicly carving out a decidedly progressive stance on these issues, using a Chicago television appearance to defend the civil liberties of American terror suspects who were being detained indefinitely without charges.
"There always has been a distinction between citizens and non-citizens," he said. "It means something to be a citizen. And that's important."
"I'm always more concerned about encroachment on civil rights or civil liberties that apply selectively to people. When they apply to everybody, there tends to be a majoritarian check," Obama added.
By comparison, in a Tuesday briefing, Carney said, "U.S. citizenship alone does not make a leader of an enemy force immune from being targeted."
Similarly, when George W. Bush signed the controversial Military Commissions Act of 2006, he did so at a desk with a sign on the front displaying the words "Protecting America." Obama was a vocal opponent of the law, which was criticized for its broad definition of an enemy combatant, its justification of torture, and its apparent encroachment on habeas corpus rights.
"I'm still disappointed, and I'm still ashamed," Obama said in a Senate floor speech in September 2006, criticizing the bill. "Because what we're doing here today, a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused, should be bigger than politics. This is serious."
"But we also know that some have been detained who have no connection to terror whatsoever," Obama said. He added, "As one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal, 'Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks.' And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria, and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information."
"In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence," then-Senator Obama said.
Less than seven years later, Obama's own press secretary would use those same words, "protecting America," to defend a drone policy that faces many of the same criticisms as Bush's law did.
When Obama ran for president in 2008, he built much of his messaging around rolling back what he considered Bush's assault on civil liberties. He pledged to shut down the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay and slammed Bush by declaring, "I was a Constitutional law professor, which means, unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."
He continued the same tack throughout Democratic primaries and the general election.
In a 2007 questionnaire given to the presidential candidates by the Boston Globe, Obama responded to a question about when it's OK to bomb a sovereign nation by saying, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
"I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security," Obama said in that same Globe questionnaire.
But in 2011, White House Homeland Security Advisor and the Obama administration's nominee for director of the Central Intelligence Agency defined "imminent threat" in broad terms that would likely contradict the view of then-Senator Obama.
"Over time, an increasing number of our international counterterrorism partners have begun to recognize that the traditional conception of what constitutes an "imminent" attack should be broadened in light of the modern-day capabilities, techniques, and technological innovations of terrorist organizations," Brennan said in a speech at Harvard Law School.
And when Carney was asked about the legality of the drone program this week, he cited the president's responsibility "to protect the United States and American citizens."

10 February 2011

Who Is Omar Suleiman? & What's Happening in Egypt Explained (UPDATED) 10FEB11

THURSDAY'S What's Happening In Egypt blog entries from Nick Baumann and Mother Jones.....and click the link to read the article on the torturer omar suleiman...
UPDATE 160, Thursday, Feb. 10, 10:30 a.m. EST (Siddhartha Mahanta): It's day 17 of the anti-Mubarak full court press.
  • Egyptian labor unions continue their nationwide strikes. Al Jazeera reports that thousands of doctors, lawyers, artists, and public transport workers marched through central Cairo and into Tahrir Square today. But its reporters also note that the marches "are more of an economic nature," and don’t necessarily suggest that the unions have merged their demonstrations with that of the political protestors. Meanwhlie, the Ministry of Interior has launched an investigation into the senior officer gave orders fire on protesters back on January 28.
  • Josh Rogin has the latest scoop from the homefront on the conflicting messages the White House and State Department have been sending. The key point of contention: the role of Vice President Omar Suleiman in the reform process. Foggy Bottom and the White House have agreed on three core principles: non-violence, respect for universal rights, and the need for political change. But "[t]he State Department is advocating a hosted dinner, where the power still resides with the incumbents," the New America Foundation's Steve Clemons told Rogin. "That's not good enough for the White House."
  • Via Democarcy Now, listen to the The Independent's veteran Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk, on how Washington has failed the protestors. "When the democrats came onto the streets of Cairo and wanted what Obama had advertised to them, it was Obama who clenched his fist and Hillary Clinton who said that it’s a stable regime. Only now, when they realize that perhaps Mubarak is going to go, mainly because the army want to get rid of him," he says.
  • And The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler does an exhaustive fact check on Obama administration's statements on Egypt.
UPDATE 161, Thursday, Feb. 10, 11:00 a.m. EST/6:00 p.m. Cairo: Egypt's prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, has told the BBC that Mubarak may step down. "This could be the day that changes everything," according to Al Jazeera. There was a meeting of Egypt's Higher Army Council today and Mubarak did not attend.
UPDATE 162, Thursday, Feb. 10, 11:05 a.m. EST/6:05 p.m Cairo: Things are moving quickly. Al Jazeera says CIA chief Leon Panetta has said there is a "strong indication" Mubarak will step down tonight. NBC News is running with the story, saying that Mubarak will definitely step down. UPDATE: A CIA spokesman now tells Politico: "Panetta was relaying news reports that emerged just as hearing began not speaking about independent CIA information."

UPDATE 163, Thursday, Feb. 10, 11:20 a.m. EST/6:20 p.m. Cairo: It turns out, via Sultan al Qassemi, that the BBC was talking to Hossam Badrawi, the Secretary General of Egypt's ruling party, the NDP, not to Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik. He told the BBC that "I don't know" where Mubarak is right now. For what it's worth, Egypt's information minister says it's all just a rumor and Mubarak will not step down. NBC, meanwhile, says it has two sources, including the military, and confirmation that Mubarak will speak tonight.
UPDATE 164, Thursday, Feb. 10, 12:15 p.m. EST/7:15 p.m. Cairo: VP Omar Suleiman, of lack-of-squeamishness-about-torture fame, is meeting with Mubarak now, state television channel Nile TV claims. And the BBC reports that opposition leaders believe Mubarak's message to the country has been pre-recorded to give the ruler time to flee in advance of the speech.
UPDATE 165, Thursday, Feb. 10, 12:30 p.m. EST/7:30 p.m. Cairo: Mubarak is reportedly scheduled to speak around 2:30 p.m. EST/9:30 p.m. Cairo today. Also, check out this WikiLeaks cable. It recounts a meeting Richard Posner, a top State Department official, had with Egyptian human rights activists in January 2010. Key quote: Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights Executive Director Hossam Bahgat... "asserted that many Egyptians believe the [government of Egypt] has interpreted the current administration's relative 'silence' on human rights and political issues as a signal of support." You can bet that supporting famed torturer Omar Suleiman to succeed Mubarak won't do much to dispel that perception.
UPDATE 166, Thursday, Feb. 10, 1:15 p.m. EST/8:15 p.m. Cairo: Fox News is reporting Mubarak will step down and hand power to a "military council." Foreign Policy's Blake Hounshell quotes opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei: "There is no credibility in either Mubarak or Suleiman or anybody who is associated with that regime."
UPDATE 167, Thursday, Feb. 10, 2:08 p.m. EST/9:08 p.m. Cairo (Siddhartha Mahanta): President Obama just spoke about the events in Egypt, and directed his message at the Egyptian youth. "We're watching history," he said, adding that the Egyptian people are looking for "irreversible change" and that the US will support an orderly transition to democracy.
UPDATE 168, Thursday, Feb. 10, 3:41 p.m. EST/10:41 p.m. Cairo (Siddhartha Mahanta): Via Al Jazeera: Reuters is reporting that sources in the Middle East say that Mubarak will not announce his resignation and will, instead, lift emergency law. Smart money says that's not going to do it for the protestors.
UPDATE 169, Thursday, Feb. 10, 4:17 p.m. EST/11:17 p.m. Cairo (Siddhartha Mahanta): Mubarak didn’t make history with his speech. And he isn’t going anywhere. Addressing the nation's youth just now, he promised not to "relent to penalize" those responsible for the violence that racked Tahrir square. "My heart went out and I felt the pain as you did. I tell you, that my response to your voice and message and your demands is a commitment that cannot be waived," he said. Continuing to affirm his lifelong commitment to defending his country, he made clear he "remains adamant to shoulder" his presidential responsibilty and stay in office till September's elections. He did promise to amend the constitution, in an indication that some reforms might be on the way that scrap the 30-year state of emergency. But he also railed on foreign interlocuters and their attempt to shape events in Egypt. The mood in Tahrir Square took an immediate turn for the worse, with furious protestors hurling their shoes during the address.
UPDATE 170, Thursday, Feb. 10, 5:45 p.m. EST/11:45 p.m. Cairo: Foreign Policy's Marc Lynch has a great take on what he calls "the worst speech ever." "It's hard to exaggerate how bad Hosni Mubarak's speech today was for Egypt." Lynch says Mubarak's address and VP Omar Suleiman's followup means "Things could get ugly tonight—and if things don't explode now, then the crowds tomorrow will be absolutely massive. Whatever happens, for better or for worse, the prospects of an orderly, negotiated transition led by Omar Suleiman have just plummeted sharply." Speaking of Omar Suleiman, we've just published an explainer about who Omar Suleiman is. Read it: Who is Omar Suleiman?
Nick Baumann covers national politics and civil liberties issues for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on twitter. Email tips and insights to nbaumann [at] motherjones [dot] com. Get Nick Baumann's RSS feed.
Siddhartha Mahanta is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones. Got story ideas? Email him at smahanta (at) motherjones (dot) com. For more of his stories, click here. Get Siddhartha Mahanta's RSS feed.

Who Is Omar Suleiman?

| Thu Feb. 10, 2011 2:35 PM PST
Omar Suleiman, the recently appointed Vice President of Egypt, may soon become the most powerful man in that country. Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for 30 years, appeared set to step down on Thursday night. (He didn't, but he still could.) Weeks of protests, riots, and violence have shaken the Mubarak regime's grip on power. There's no guarantee that the end of Mubarak's reign would mean democracy or even civilian rule for the largest Arab country. Opposition leader (and Nobel laureate) Mohamed ElBaradei has said, "there is no credibility in either Mubarak or Suleiman or anybody who is associated with that regime." But soon, Suleiman could be running the show, no matter what ElBaradei thinks. So who is this guy?
He's a spy: Prior to becoming Mubarak's official No. 2, Suleiman, was for nearly two decades, the head of Egypt's intelligence service, the famed (and feared) Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate (EGID).
He's a torturer: As the New Yorker's Jane Mayer noted in her book The Dark Side (read it!), Suleiman managed the Egyptian end of Clinton- and Bush-era "extraordinary renditions," in which people whom the US suspected of torture were flown to Egypt ("rendered") and tortured. (Stephen Grey's Ghost Plane and Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine also feature material on Suleiman's role in torture.) As noted in Mother Jones' Egypt explainer, Mayer quoted Edward Walker, the former US ambassador to Egypt, who described Suleiman as "not squeamish." MoJo's Jim Ridgeway has more on Suleiman's role in torture.
He's a close ally of the US: Because of his work on rendition and other intelligence-related cooperation, Suleiman may have an even better relationship with American officials than Mubarak did. "Suave, sophisticated, and fluent in English, he has served for years as the main conduit between the United States and Mubarak," Mayer wrote last month. A 2006 State Department cable released by WikiLeaks notes, "our intelligence collaboration with Omar Soliman... is now probably the most successful element of the relationship" between the US and the government of Egypt.
This makes any succession that puts Suleiman in power a win for the intelligence community.
He was trained by communists: Paging Glenn Beck! Suleiman received his initial military training in Egypt, but he finished up at Moscow's Frunze Military Academy—in what was then the Soviet Union.
He's fought Arabs and Israelis: The 73-year-old Suleiman is a veteran of Egypt's 1967 and 1973 (Yom Kippur) wars with Israel and the 1962 civil war in Yemen.
He's the Muslim Brotherhood's worst nightmare: Suleiman's intelligence forces don't just interrogate people who are rendered to them by the US. They also go after internal dissidents—especially Islamists. Reuters says he was "the mastermind behind the fragmentation of Islamist groups who led the uprising against the state in the 1990s."
He helped get the phony "intelligence" that led to the Iraq war: One of the renditions Suleiman reportedly handled was that of Ibn Shaikh al-Libi. I wrote about the case after reports emerged of al-Libi's mysterious death, which was ruled a suicide, in a Libyan jail in May 2009:
Al-Libi was the man whose false confession, obtained under torture, of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda provided the Bush administration with its casus belli for war with Iraq. It didn't seem to matter that al-Libi's claim that Bin Laden had sent operatives to be trained in the use of weapons of mass destruction by Hussein's people didn't make any sense. "They were killing me," al-Libi later told the FBI about his torturers. "I had to tell them something." [Michael Isikoff and Mother Jones' own David Corn were the first to report on these comments, which they revealed in their 2007 book Hubris.] A bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee report would later conclude that al-Libi lied about the link "to avoid torture."
Secretary of State Colin Powell cited al-Libi's confession when he argued the case for the Iraq war to the United Nations in February 2003.
He may have been connected to the death of torture subject Ibn Shaikh al-Libi, one expert believes: Terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann has said that "Al-Libi’s death coincided with the first visit by Egypt’s spymaster Omar Suleiman to Tripoli." Al Jazeera's Lisa Hajjar explains:
Kohlmann surmises and opines that, after al-Libi recounted his story about about an al-Qaeda–Saddam-WMD connection, "The Egyptians were embarassed by this admission—and the Bush government found itself in hot water internationally. Then, in May 2009, Omar Suleiman saw an opportunity to get even with al-Libi and travelled to Tripoli. By the time Omar Suleiman's plane left Tripoli, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi had committed 'suicide'."

Learn More: Jane MayerBill Moyers Journal | ABC News | Al JazeeraMother Jones: Al Libi's Suicide | Mother Jones: Al Libi and the Case for War
Nick Baumann covers national politics and civil liberties issues for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on twitter. Email tips and insights to nbaumann [at] motherjones [dot] com. Get Nick Baumann's RSS feed.

05 February 2011

Egypt Unrest: Didn't U.S. Intelligence See It Coming? 5FEB11

Billions of dollars for what????

U.S. intelligence officials are trying to assess what the protests in Egypt will mean for the partnership between the two countries.
The United States and Egypt work closely on a range of intelligence issues — especially terrorism.
Before it can look ahead, though, the spy community is being asked some hard questions about whether it missed the signals that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's regime was in jeopardy.
Secrets And Mysteries
There's a sense in Washington that the Egyptian uprising just came out of nowhere.
"It has taken not just us but many people by surprise," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on The Daily Show.
Some senators on Capitol Hill have started looking around for someone to blame. During an intelligence committee hearing this week, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein questioned whether the U.S. intelligence community should have been able to predict the Egyptian revolt.
The broad movement of Egyptian society isn't a secret that was hidden in somebody's safe that somebody should have expected us to purloin. This is far more difficult to understand.
The witness at the hearing was Stephanie O'Sullivan, who has been tapped to be the country's No. 2 intelligence officer.
At one point, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon asked her a direction question: "When did the intelligence community first alert the president and policymakers that protesters were likely to threaten President Mubarak's hold on power?"
"We have warned of instability," O'Sullivan answered. "We didn't know what the triggering mechanism would be."
Predicting the "triggering mechanism" is often the problem, says Gen. Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA. Hayden says political volatility in Egypt has been tracked for years. But there are limits to what spies can know.
To explain this, he borrows from what a CIA colleague, John McLaughlin, likes to say: There's a difference between secrets and mysteries.
"He said you can't hold intelligence services accountable in the same way for mysteries," Hayden says. "The broad movement of Egyptian society isn't a secret that was hidden in somebody's safe that somebody should have expected us to purloin. This is far more difficult to understand."
Cooperation In The Future?
What's also difficult to understand at this point is how the Egyptian uprising will affect the way U.S. and Egyptian spy agencies will continue to work together.
Omar Suleiman, Egypt's former intelligence chief and now its vice president, has been one of America's closest partners.
"We have a saying at the agency when we have a very good friend: 'We have a lot of time for him.' We always had a lot of time for Director Suleiman," Hayden says.
The relationship between the two spy agencies has been close. But it hasn't been without controversy. For example, there's the CIA program known as extraordinary rendition, in which suspects with links to al-Qaida were apprehended and flown to third-party countries, like Egypt.
Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch has studied extraordinary rendition. "Obviously, the Americans knew what was going to happen to people who were rendered to Egypt," he says. "Why send someone to Egypt if not for the purpose of having them interrogated in the Egyptian manner?"
U.S. officials have denied sending any detainees to countries where they may have been tortured.
Former U.S. intelligence officials say the Mubarak regime has been a key ally on Iran, Israel and the Palestinians, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Hayden says Egypt and the U.S. will always find ways to cooperate on intelligence matters when it's in their interests. But, he says, "to the degree the new government adopts policies that might be different than the policies of the Mubarak government, that could make the intelligence relationship less productive for both nations."
And as for who leads Egypt next? That may be another one of those mysteries the CIA can't solve.

More From This Series


 

10 September 2010

ACLU ONLINE NEWSLETTER 10SEP10

UPDATES and actions on privacy for international travelers and the 1st & 4th amendments, abortion, torture, the death penalty, extraordinary rendition, targeted killings of American citizens, National Security Letters, immigration and the American Justice system. I am proud to be a member of the ACLU, click the header to go to their website to join support their work.


ACLU Online

In This Issue

Laptop Searches and Seizures at the Border Challenged

We Won! Appeals Court Finds Anti-Immigrant Law Unconstitutional

Extraordinary Rendition Victims Denied Their Day in Court

It's Time for a Top-to-Bottom Review of the Criminal Justice System

Targeted Killings Violate the Constitution and International Law

ACLU Attorney Named One of Best LGBT Lawyers Under 40

Exhibit Commemorates 90 Years of Protecting Liberty

A Step Towards Justice in Ohio

National Security Letters: A "Civil Liberties Minute" Podcast

Nebraska Attorney General Agrees To Settlement In Intrusive Abortion Law

ACLU Attorney Named One of Best LGBT Lawyers Under 40

Christine Sun, senior counsel for the ACLU LGBT & AIDS Project since 2005, was recently named one of the Best LGBT Lawyers under 40 by the National LGBT Bar Association.

Sun has many gay rights accomplishments under her belt in her career. She was lead attorney in a Southern California case that led to the federal court ruling that a high school student cannot be "outed" to her parents without her consent. Most recently, Christine represented Constance McMillen in her successful litigation against the rural Mississippi school district that refused to let her bring her girlfriend to the prom and then cancelled the prom when told they had to.

back to top

Exhibit Commemorates 90 Years of Protecting Liberty

Join the ACLU in celebrating our 90th anniversary. A traveling exhibit will be on public view throughout the country highlighting ACLU accomplishments and the tremendous impact the ACLU has had on the lives of individuals and on society as a whole. Dates and times of the traveling exhibit can be found here.

back to top

A Step Towards Justice in Ohio

Last month, we told you about the case of Kevin Keith, a 46-year-old man on death row in Ohio. Keith was scheduled to be put to death on September 15, despite overwhelming evidence that he is an innocent man. Many groups, leading eyewitnesses and memory experts were petitioning the Ohio Parole Board and Ohio Governor Ted Strickland to grant clemency to Keith. The Parole Board rejected his claim and recommended that the governor deny his clemency request. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals denied one of Keith's final appeals.

As his September 15 execution date was fast approaching, activists around the country continued to press for commutation, asking Gov. Strickland to grant clemency to Keith. The response was overwhelming, and on September 2, our work paid off—Gov. Strickland commuted Kevin Keith's sentence.

Thank you to all of you who signed the petition and sent letters asking Gov. Strickland to commute Kevin Keith's death sentence. The struggle for Kevin Keith's innocence continues, but now, he will have the time he needs to continue his fight for exoneration.

>> Please take a few minutes to thank Gov. Strickland for doing the right thing by commuting Kevin Keith's death sentence.

back to top

National Security Letters: A "Civil Liberties Minute" Podcast

Can it be a crime to tell your fiancé or family what the FBI has done to you?

>> Listen to the podcast.

Nebraska Attorney General Agrees To Settlement In Intrusive Abortion Law

Late last month, the Nebraska Attorney General announced that he has agreed to a settlement with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland acknowledging that the recently enacted Women's Health Protection Act is unconstitutional and will be permanently enjoined. The ACLU was co-counsel in the case, which acknowledges that the Women's Health Protection Act is unconstitutional based on the merits presented in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Heineman.

The Act, which passed the Nebraska legislature in April 2010, would have required physicians who may perform an abortion to discuss the entire body of research literature about possible health risks related to abortion with their patients who are seeking abortions, even though much of this information may be outdated, false or misleading.

For instance, it would have required a physician to discuss flawed studies that purport to find a link between abortion and breast cancer, even though the leading medical organizations—such as the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—have all flatly rejected any association between abortion and breast cancer.

District Judge Laurie Smith Camp stated that complying with the law's requirements "would be impossible or nearly impossible," and would place "physicians who perform abortions in immediate jeopardy of crippling civil litigation, thereby placing women in immediate jeopardy of losing access to physicians who are willing to perform abortions."

"We are very pleased with this outcome. This statute was about political interference in a woman's private health care decisions," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney at the ACLU and co-counsel in the case. "The government should stay out of these difficult, private decisions and let physicians decide what information is best for a patient's individual situation."

back to top

Help fund us with just a click. Vote now at CREDO

Send to a friend
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.
September 10, 2010

Laptop Searches and Seizures at the Border Challenged




ACLU client Pascal Abidor was traveling from Montreal to New York on Amtrak when his laptop was searched and confiscated at the Canadian border.

>> Watch the video!

>> Take action: Tell Congress to rein in suspicionless laptop searches at the border.

Earlier this week, the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) filed a lawsuit challenging the government's claimed authority to search, detain, and copy electronic devices—including laptops, cell phones, cameras, etc.—at the country's international borders without any suspicion of wrongdoing.

We carry a lot of private information on these devices—pictures, personal emails, work-related documents, and much more. Normally, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant before sifting through this information, and the First Amendment protects this information from unwarranted government scrutiny. The Fourth and First Amendments should also bar the government from rummaging through all that information and detaining the devices indefinitely without any suspicion, just because a person is crossing the border.

The plaintiffs in this case are Pascal Abidor, a 26 year-old U.S.-French dual citizen and a Ph.D. student at McGill University in Montreal who was taken off an Amtrak train in upstate New York and whose laptop was detained and searched for 11 days; NACDL, an organization of approximately 10,000 attorneys with members who often travel overseas for work with documents protected by the attorney-client privilege; and the National Press Photographers' Association (NPPA), an organization of about 7,000 photojournalists.

Like NACDL, NPPA has members who travel frequently for their jobs with sensitive material—in their case, raw footage and imagery that are essential for newsgathering. In 2007, one of NPPA's members, Duane Kerzic, was stopped at the U.S.-Canada border where a border agent perused the contents of his laptop for about 15 minutes without any reason at all.

The government has claimed the authority to undertake these suspicionless searches and seizures of electronic devices under a policy issued in August 2009 by the Department of Homeland Security. Documents obtained by the ACLU in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for records related to the DHS policy reveal that more than 6,600 travelers—nearly half of whom are American citizens—were subjected to electronic device searches at the border between October 1, 2008 and June 2, 2010.

Border agents should have some suspicion that the search will turn up evidence of wrongdoing before looking through all the private information that people have stored in their devices.

>> Take action: Tell Congress to Rein in Suspicionless Laptop Searches at the Border.

back to top

We Won! Appeals Court Finds Anti-Immigrant Law Unconstitutional


In August 2006, the city of Hazleton, PA passed a law that would punish landlords and employers accused of renting to or hiring anyone the city deems an "illegal alien." The ACLU challenged that law in district court—and won—in 2007, and the city of Hazleton appealed that ruling to the 3rd Circuit of Appeals. And earlier this week, the 3rd Circuit found the city of Hazleton's anti-immigrant laws unconstitutional.

Hazleton's law spawned several copycat measures in other places, including Arizona, attracting very close interest from supporters of such discriminatory laws, as well as from their opponents. In the unanimous opinion, the court stated that it was "required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress." The Hazleton law, the court said, "attempted to usurp authority that the Constitution has placed beyond the vicissitudes of local governments" and "could not possibly be in greater conflict with Congress's intent" as reflected in federal law.

"Divisive laws like these destroy communities and distract from the very real problems that local governments are facing across the country," said Vic Walczak, Legal Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania and a lead attorney in the case. "Immigration reform needs to come from the federal level. Local ordinances like these have a toxic effect on the community, injecting suspicion and discriminatory attitudes where they didn't previously exist."

This decision comes on the heels of a recent legal victory against S.B. 1070, the racial profiling law passed in Arizona this summer, and several cities' decisions to suspend or abandon housing laws modeled after Hazleton's.

back to top

Extraordinary Rendition Victims Denied Their Day in Court


Earlier this week, a federal appeals court dismissed a case against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. for its role in the Bush administration's extraordinary rendition program. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in May 2007 on behalf of five men who were kidnapped by the CIA, forcibly disappeared to U.S.-run prisons overseas and tortured. The Bush administration intervened in the case, improperly asserting the "state secrets" privilege in an attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out.

This week's ruling all but shuts the door on accountability for the illegal program, but we intend to seek Supreme Court review of the decision.

"This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation's reputation in the world," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU, who argued the case. "To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration's torture program has had his day in court. If today's decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers."

>> Learn more about the ACLU's work on accountability for torture.

back to top

It's Time for a Top-to-Bottom Review of the Criminal Justice System


The United States' criminal justice system is broken and dysfunctional. The U.S. incarcerates roughly 2.3 million of its people—a higher percentage of its population than any other country in the world today—at staggeringly high costs. That's why it is so important that you urge your senators to support the National Criminal Justice Act, which is currently pending in Congress.

This legislation would create a blue ribbon commission to provide a comprehensive, top-to-bottom review of the criminal justice system. The National Criminal Justice Commission Act would be the first since 1967 to provide such a review, as well as propose recommendations for reform. The need for such a top-to-bottom review could not be clearer.

>> Take action: Urge your senators to support the National Criminal Justice Commission Act and begin the process of addressing America's incarceration crisis.

back to top

Targeted Killings Violate the Constitution and International Law






The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.

>> Watch the video to learn more.
The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.

The authority contemplated by the Obama administration is far broader than what the Constitution and international law allow, the groups charge. Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. An extrajudicial killing policy under which names are added to CIA and military "kill lists" through a secret executive process and stay there for months at a time is plainly not limited to imminent threats.

The groups charge that targeting individuals for execution who are suspected of terrorism but have not been convicted or even charged—without oversight, judicial process or disclosed standards for placement on kill lists—also poses the risk that the government will erroneously target the wrong people. In recent years, the U.S. government has detained many men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself to discover later that the evidence was wrong or unreliable.

"A program that authorizes killing U.S. citizens, without judicial oversight, due process or disclosed standards is unconstitutional, unlawful and un-American," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "We don't sentence people to prison on the basis of secret criteria, and we certainly shouldn't sentence them to death that way. It is not enough for the executive branch to say 'trust us'—we have seen that backfire in the past and we should learn from those mistakes."

The complaint asks a court to rule that using lethal force far from any battlefield and without judicial process is illegal in all but the narrowest circumstances and to prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings except in compliance with these standards. It also asks the court to order the government to disclose the standards it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.

>> Act Now: Urge President Obama to reject the policy of targeted killings outside of zones of actual armed conflict.

>> Read more on the case.

back to top

Join us on...
facebook twitter YouTube
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004-2400
Geraldine Engel and Lisa Sock,
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.