By William Fisher
Three civil rights organizations are suing the government to obtain records related to a little-known program known as “Secure Communities” program that further involves local and state police in federal immigration enforcement.
The National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law filed the lawsuit. The filing came as the groups launched “Uncovering the Truth,” a weeklong national campaign of coordinated actions and advocacy in more than ten cities to end ICE-police collaboration.
“The passage of S.B. 1070 in Arizona should be proof enough of the dangerous and disastrous nature of ICE-police collaboration programs like the so-called Secure Communities program,” said Pablo Alvarado, NDLON Executive Director. “The President should heed his own advice and act responsibly by reclaiming the federal government’s exclusive authority over the nation’s immigration laws. By terminating all police and ICE partnerships, the President can help restore community safety and protect civil rights and due process for all.”
“At a time when police and ICE partnerships have clearly failed, ICE is moving swiftly to implement the Secure Communities program in every U.S. jail by 2013,” said CCR attorney Sunita Patel. “Contrary to its name, this latest ICE program makes the public less safe. There is no doubt that the program has and will continue to deepen fear and mistrust of the police in our communities.”
Relatively little is known about Secure Communities program. Groups opposing it say it requires local and state police to run individuals’ fingerprints through multiple databases upon arrest, even if no charges are brought and regardless of how minor the charges are.
Advocates and attorneys say that, in addition to concerns presented by relying on potentially inaccurate and erroneous information in those databases, the program functions as little more than a racial profiling dragnet to funnel even more people into the overburdened and mismanaged ICE detention and removal system.
Secure Communities is currently operating in 168 jurisdictions in 20 states with more agreements anticipated in the next few days.
“This is a massive, invasive and untested federal immigration enforcement program that ICE has been deceptive and secretive about from the start,” said Bridget Kessler, Clinical Teaching Fellow at the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. “Without more information, we cannot allow for the spread of this dangerous ICE program.”
The plaintiffs seek the materials necessary to provide the public with comprehensive information on the Secure Communities program, including policies, procedures and objectives; fiscal impact; data and statistical information; individual records; communications; and assessment records. Plaintiffs filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in February 2010 seeking these materials. Despite ICE’s rapid expansion of the program, government agencies have not yet released the requested records.
In a related development, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will review the recently passed Arizona anti-immigrant law to determine its Constitutionality. She said she was unsure of the law’s legality, but suggested that it might be made acceptable if a Federal law enforcement officer was always present when local police were arresting someone for immigration violations.
The problem with that solution, she added, is that there are not enough Federal officers.
Napolitano said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has deep concerns with the law’s effects and that such broad immigration enforcement may detract and siphon resources away from ICE’s priority of focusing on the most serious criminals.
President Barack Obama has characterized the new law as “misguided” and threatening to “undermine basic notions of fairness.”
Under criticism by civil liberties advocates, Napolitano defended her department’s 287(g) program, which authorizes local law police and sheriff’s departments to enforce Federal immigration laws.
“The 287(g) program can be useful,” she asserted, in “focusing on serious crimes.” Her remarks drew enthusiastic support from the senior Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, a conservative from Alabama.
Sessions said (287(g) “represents a great opportunity to send a message to would-be immigrants that the door is no longer open. If you enter this country illegally, you won’t get a job. Instead you’ll get deported.
The 287(g) program has been heavily criticized by civil rights groups and, recently, by the Homeland Security department’s own Inspector General. Those who oppose the program say that local law enforcement officials are not properly trained to interpret complex immigration laws. They also contend that the program has failed to focus on serious crimes, citing the large number of immigrants in detention for minor infractions. Finally, with agreement from numerous law enforcement organizations, critics claim that 287(g) siphons off scarce resources away from protecting local communities.
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who was previously a major advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, defended Arizona’s action. He told the Committee that his state was “frustrated waiting for the Federal Government to do something to secure our borders.”
Another committee member, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, told the committee that “in the current environment, comprehensive immigration reform could not pass the Congress.”
Meanwhile, the act recently signed into law by the governor of Arizona continued to draw the ire of lawmakers and civil libertarians across the country.
In Washington, members of Congress will host a press conference at the U.S. Capitol to denounce what they call “the harshest immigration enforcement state law in the country.” Elected leaders will discuss why the Arizona immigration law creates a moral and political imperative for the federal government to act swiftly on comprehensive immigration reform.”
Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, called the Arizona law “the most extreme anti-immigrant law in the country.”
And Rinku Sen, executive director of the Applied Research Center (ARC), a not-for-profit advocacy group, said the new law “exchanges the security of Arizona’s communities of color to buy false comfort for a state on the brink of economic collapse. What about the right of communities of color to live without fear of random detention or their ability to report crimes without reprisal?”
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Welcome to Arizona!
By William Fisher
Immigration experts, law enforcement officials and religious leaders are hitting back at the draconian legislation signed into law in Arizona last week, charging it will subject the State to “staggering potential costs” and vowing to have the law declared unconstitutional in the courts.
In one Arizona county alone, Yuma County, the sheriff estimates that law-enforcement agencies would spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 in processing expenses; Jail costs between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720; and
attorney and staff fees between $810,067-$1,620,134.
The estimates by Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden were produced because there is no state-wide fiscal data yet available on the cost of the legislation’s implementation. Sheriff Ogden’s estimates were prepared for inclusion in a fact sheet produced in response to similar legislation in 2006. Yuma County is one of Arizona's 15 counties, with a population of about 200,000. The Sheriff's fact sheet also shows that additional detention facilities would have to be built at unknown costs.
These costs do not account for lost revenue such as tax contributions and consumer purchasing, as well as the potentially expensive lawsuits that will likely ensue.
Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed the legislation after a week of protests by anti- and pro-immigration groups. The new law makes Arizona the first state in the nation to consider it a crime for a person to be an undocumented immigrant.
Several legal challenges to keep the legislation from taking effect are already in the works by the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON).
“Arizona would have the same place in history as South Africa,” said Salvador Reza, organizer for the PUENTE movement, which advocates for human rights, comparing the new law to apartheid.
But the passage of the Arizona law may also have ignited new energy and resolve from the pro-immigration reform movement. President Barack Obama has criticized the Arizona bill, saying it threatens to “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” He called on Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform.
Sen. John McCain, a Republican of Arizona, has in the past been one of the champions of comprehensive immigration reform. Today, locked in a tight primary challenge from his right wing to win his party’s nomination for another term, he has endorsed the new law. Arizona’s other senator, Republican John Kyl, has done likewise.
Known as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act,” the law would allow police officers to arrest a person based on “reasonable suspicion ” that he or she is an undocumented immigrant. Police departments could face lawsuits by individuals who believe they are not enforcing the law.
A coalition of businesses and religious leaders has warned that the impact of the new measure could severely damage the Arizona economy.
The new law “is tearing our state into two. It humiliates us into the eyes of America and threatens our economic recovery,” said Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican from Mesa, the author of the bill, said the legislation would have the opposite effect. He believes the new legislation will lead immigrants to leave Arizona, causing the state to save money in services it currently provides to the children of undocumented immigrants at schools and hospitals. He has said that states have to take the matter into their own hands in absence of federal enforcement.
The recent death of a rancher on the border connected to violence in the area gave momentum to passage of the new law.
As the Arizona Governor signed the bill into law, the national and Arizona faith community condemned it as “an affront to moral conscience that will divide families and communities. The inhumane legislation demonstrates the urgent need for national political leadership to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” said a coalition of a dozen s leaders from evangelical, mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religions representing millions of Americans.
Rev. Jim Wallis, President and CEO of The Sojourners, said, “The law signed today by Arizona Gov. Brewer is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation. It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited – it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe.”
He said the legislation “crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. Enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is unacceptable. This law will make it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona, and will force us to disobey Jesus and his gospel. We will not comply.”
And Rev. Jan Flaaten, Executive Director of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, said, "All the religious leaders of Arizona know and understand that this law will not solve the issue of crime along the border or in our state, but it will demonize anyone who looks suspiciously like an undocumented person leading to inevitable racial profiling. Our religious traditions ask us to treat people with dignity and respect, and we look for a more enlightened and hopeful way of working with the undocumented people who live along side us."
The legislation was also condemned by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). The group said in a statement, “The measure allows law enforcement agencies to detain anybody if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants, and requires legal immigrants to carry paperwork proving their status at all times. There is a profound fear in the civil rights community that the new measure will permit the practice of racial profiling by Arizona law enforcement personnel.”
Abed Ayoub, ADC Legal Director, said, "To allow the use of racial profiling in law enforcement practices is both dangerous and unconstitutional. The measure signed into law by Gov. Brewer has a profound impact on not only the Latino community of Arizona, but on all individuals living in the state. This law also illustrates the pressing need for Congress, and the Obama Administration to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
Immigration experts, law enforcement officials and religious leaders are hitting back at the draconian legislation signed into law in Arizona last week, charging it will subject the State to “staggering potential costs” and vowing to have the law declared unconstitutional in the courts.
In one Arizona county alone, Yuma County, the sheriff estimates that law-enforcement agencies would spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 in processing expenses; Jail costs between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720; and
attorney and staff fees between $810,067-$1,620,134.
The estimates by Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden were produced because there is no state-wide fiscal data yet available on the cost of the legislation’s implementation. Sheriff Ogden’s estimates were prepared for inclusion in a fact sheet produced in response to similar legislation in 2006. Yuma County is one of Arizona's 15 counties, with a population of about 200,000. The Sheriff's fact sheet also shows that additional detention facilities would have to be built at unknown costs.
These costs do not account for lost revenue such as tax contributions and consumer purchasing, as well as the potentially expensive lawsuits that will likely ensue.
Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed the legislation after a week of protests by anti- and pro-immigration groups. The new law makes Arizona the first state in the nation to consider it a crime for a person to be an undocumented immigrant.
Several legal challenges to keep the legislation from taking effect are already in the works by the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON).
“Arizona would have the same place in history as South Africa,” said Salvador Reza, organizer for the PUENTE movement, which advocates for human rights, comparing the new law to apartheid.
But the passage of the Arizona law may also have ignited new energy and resolve from the pro-immigration reform movement. President Barack Obama has criticized the Arizona bill, saying it threatens to “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” He called on Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform.
Sen. John McCain, a Republican of Arizona, has in the past been one of the champions of comprehensive immigration reform. Today, locked in a tight primary challenge from his right wing to win his party’s nomination for another term, he has endorsed the new law. Arizona’s other senator, Republican John Kyl, has done likewise.
Known as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act,” the law would allow police officers to arrest a person based on “reasonable suspicion ” that he or she is an undocumented immigrant. Police departments could face lawsuits by individuals who believe they are not enforcing the law.
A coalition of businesses and religious leaders has warned that the impact of the new measure could severely damage the Arizona economy.
The new law “is tearing our state into two. It humiliates us into the eyes of America and threatens our economic recovery,” said Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican from Mesa, the author of the bill, said the legislation would have the opposite effect. He believes the new legislation will lead immigrants to leave Arizona, causing the state to save money in services it currently provides to the children of undocumented immigrants at schools and hospitals. He has said that states have to take the matter into their own hands in absence of federal enforcement.
The recent death of a rancher on the border connected to violence in the area gave momentum to passage of the new law.
As the Arizona Governor signed the bill into law, the national and Arizona faith community condemned it as “an affront to moral conscience that will divide families and communities. The inhumane legislation demonstrates the urgent need for national political leadership to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” said a coalition of a dozen s leaders from evangelical, mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religions representing millions of Americans.
Rev. Jim Wallis, President and CEO of The Sojourners, said, “The law signed today by Arizona Gov. Brewer is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation. It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited – it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe.”
He said the legislation “crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. Enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is unacceptable. This law will make it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona, and will force us to disobey Jesus and his gospel. We will not comply.”
And Rev. Jan Flaaten, Executive Director of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, said, "All the religious leaders of Arizona know and understand that this law will not solve the issue of crime along the border or in our state, but it will demonize anyone who looks suspiciously like an undocumented person leading to inevitable racial profiling. Our religious traditions ask us to treat people with dignity and respect, and we look for a more enlightened and hopeful way of working with the undocumented people who live along side us."
The legislation was also condemned by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). The group said in a statement, “The measure allows law enforcement agencies to detain anybody if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants, and requires legal immigrants to carry paperwork proving their status at all times. There is a profound fear in the civil rights community that the new measure will permit the practice of racial profiling by Arizona law enforcement personnel.”
Abed Ayoub, ADC Legal Director, said, "To allow the use of racial profiling in law enforcement practices is both dangerous and unconstitutional. The measure signed into law by Gov. Brewer has a profound impact on not only the Latino community of Arizona, but on all individuals living in the state. This law also illustrates the pressing need for Congress, and the Obama Administration to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
The Invasion of the Body Scanners
By William Fisher
More than thirty privacy and civil liberties organizations have filed a formal petition with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), urging the federal agency to shut down the use of ‘full body scanners’ (FBS) at the nation’s airports.
At a press conference, Marc Rotenberg, President of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), one of the signatories to the petition, said, "There is no question that the body scanner program should be shut down. This is a government boondoggle -- expensive, ineffective, and offensive to Constitutional rights and deeply held religious beliefs."
Last year, the groups asked DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal to expand the body scanner program. She rejected the request. Since that time, the groups charge that evidence has emerged that “the privacy safeguards do not work and that the devices are not very effective.”
The petition states that the body scanners are not effective and are not designed to detect the type of powdered explosive that was involved in the December 25 “underwear bomber” incident. The petition also states that the privacy safeguards do not work and that the body scanners violate religious beliefs, principally among Muslims.
Despite concerns over costs and benefits, privacy, reliability and safety of airport body scanners, the federal government plans to deploy 500 advanced imaging technology units this ear, roll out 500 more in 2011 and operate a total of 1,800 units by 2014, according to recent testimony last to the House Transportation Security and Infrastructure subcommittee.
The plan represents a "more than two-fold increase from the initial planned buy of 878 units," noted the Government Accountability Office's Steve Lord, director for Homeland Security and Justice issues. "Second, the Transportation Security Administration now plans to use this technology as a primary rather than secondary screening measure."
A signatory to the petition, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Protection Committee, told IPS, “The full body scanners fall into the same misleading ‘techno-utopian’ mindset that focuses on the symptoms rather than the causes of terrorism and assumes that some new surveillance technology will somehow eliminate all risk of terrorist incidents.”
He explained: “What happens instead is that companies push for and the government buys technology that merely fights the last war, produces new intrusions to fundamental freedoms like privacy, the presumption of innocence, and freedom from religious or other discrimination, while yielding only faux security instead of the genuine security promised. In the meantime, as Huxley warned in Brave New World, the population becomes used to the new surveillance methods (such as these digital strip searches) that normalize invasions of dignity and serve mainly to enhance government control of the citizenry.”
Pitts adds, “These body scanners weren’t designed for nor will they pick up powdered explosives of the sort used by the underwear bomber, but the misleading illusion that they work will distract us from following genuine leads and damage the genuine human security that comes only from respecting rights and meeting the main security challenge: changing the policies that are the root causes of terrorism.”
The “underwear bomber” is a young Nigerian who attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight as it was descending into Detroit from Amsterstam on Christmas Day last year, concealing an explosive device in his under shorts.
The signatories to the petition describe body scanner systems as "uniquely intrusive, subjecting all travelers to an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” They also say that the DHS “failed to comply with the Privacy Act when it did not inform the public about this new system that would collect personal information.” And they charge that the DHS Chief Privacy Officer violated the law when she approved the program.”
The group also contends that documents obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act “also appear to refute the agency's claims that the devices do not store and record images and that the public does not object to the program.”
The group cited a number of comments from unidentified passengers. “One traveler commented, ‘I am outraged and angry that what was supposed to be a ‘pilot’ for the millimeter scan machines has now become MANDATORY. Other fliers described the devices as ‘a disgusting violation of civil liberties and privacy,’ ‘for a bunch of peeping toms,’ ‘unconstitutional,’ ‘intrusive and ridiculous’ and ‘a joke.’ ”
The organizations signing the body scanner petition include the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), the Center for the Study of Responsive Law (CSRL), the Liberty Coalition, and Public Citizen.
The petitioners charge that “Deployment of Full Body Scanners in US airports, as currently proposed, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”
The petition says, “The FBS program effectively subjects all air travelers to unconstitutionally intrusive searches that are disproportionate and for which the TSA lacks any suspicion of wrongdoing. The FBS Program also violates the RFRA because it requires those of sincerely held religious beliefs to be subject to offensive intrusions by government officials. The program violates the Privacy Act because the system gathers personally identifiable information—a detailed and unique image of the human body easily associated with a particular airline ticket—yet the TSA failed to publish a System of Records Notice. The TSA Chief Privacy Office violated its statutory obligations to ensure that new technologies ‘sustain and do not erode’ the privacy of Americans when it effectively approved the program.”
EPIC’s Rotenberg said at the press conference that he would consider FBSs for secondary, but not primary, screening.
More than thirty privacy and civil liberties organizations have filed a formal petition with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), urging the federal agency to shut down the use of ‘full body scanners’ (FBS) at the nation’s airports.
At a press conference, Marc Rotenberg, President of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), one of the signatories to the petition, said, "There is no question that the body scanner program should be shut down. This is a government boondoggle -- expensive, ineffective, and offensive to Constitutional rights and deeply held religious beliefs."
Last year, the groups asked DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal to expand the body scanner program. She rejected the request. Since that time, the groups charge that evidence has emerged that “the privacy safeguards do not work and that the devices are not very effective.”
The petition states that the body scanners are not effective and are not designed to detect the type of powdered explosive that was involved in the December 25 “underwear bomber” incident. The petition also states that the privacy safeguards do not work and that the body scanners violate religious beliefs, principally among Muslims.
Despite concerns over costs and benefits, privacy, reliability and safety of airport body scanners, the federal government plans to deploy 500 advanced imaging technology units this ear, roll out 500 more in 2011 and operate a total of 1,800 units by 2014, according to recent testimony last to the House Transportation Security and Infrastructure subcommittee.
The plan represents a "more than two-fold increase from the initial planned buy of 878 units," noted the Government Accountability Office's Steve Lord, director for Homeland Security and Justice issues. "Second, the Transportation Security Administration now plans to use this technology as a primary rather than secondary screening measure."
A signatory to the petition, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Protection Committee, told IPS, “The full body scanners fall into the same misleading ‘techno-utopian’ mindset that focuses on the symptoms rather than the causes of terrorism and assumes that some new surveillance technology will somehow eliminate all risk of terrorist incidents.”
He explained: “What happens instead is that companies push for and the government buys technology that merely fights the last war, produces new intrusions to fundamental freedoms like privacy, the presumption of innocence, and freedom from religious or other discrimination, while yielding only faux security instead of the genuine security promised. In the meantime, as Huxley warned in Brave New World, the population becomes used to the new surveillance methods (such as these digital strip searches) that normalize invasions of dignity and serve mainly to enhance government control of the citizenry.”
Pitts adds, “These body scanners weren’t designed for nor will they pick up powdered explosives of the sort used by the underwear bomber, but the misleading illusion that they work will distract us from following genuine leads and damage the genuine human security that comes only from respecting rights and meeting the main security challenge: changing the policies that are the root causes of terrorism.”
The “underwear bomber” is a young Nigerian who attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight as it was descending into Detroit from Amsterstam on Christmas Day last year, concealing an explosive device in his under shorts.
The signatories to the petition describe body scanner systems as "uniquely intrusive, subjecting all travelers to an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” They also say that the DHS “failed to comply with the Privacy Act when it did not inform the public about this new system that would collect personal information.” And they charge that the DHS Chief Privacy Officer violated the law when she approved the program.”
The group also contends that documents obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act “also appear to refute the agency's claims that the devices do not store and record images and that the public does not object to the program.”
The group cited a number of comments from unidentified passengers. “One traveler commented, ‘I am outraged and angry that what was supposed to be a ‘pilot’ for the millimeter scan machines has now become MANDATORY. Other fliers described the devices as ‘a disgusting violation of civil liberties and privacy,’ ‘for a bunch of peeping toms,’ ‘unconstitutional,’ ‘intrusive and ridiculous’ and ‘a joke.’ ”
The organizations signing the body scanner petition include the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), the Center for the Study of Responsive Law (CSRL), the Liberty Coalition, and Public Citizen.
The petitioners charge that “Deployment of Full Body Scanners in US airports, as currently proposed, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”
The petition says, “The FBS program effectively subjects all air travelers to unconstitutionally intrusive searches that are disproportionate and for which the TSA lacks any suspicion of wrongdoing. The FBS Program also violates the RFRA because it requires those of sincerely held religious beliefs to be subject to offensive intrusions by government officials. The program violates the Privacy Act because the system gathers personally identifiable information—a detailed and unique image of the human body easily associated with a particular airline ticket—yet the TSA failed to publish a System of Records Notice. The TSA Chief Privacy Office violated its statutory obligations to ensure that new technologies ‘sustain and do not erode’ the privacy of Americans when it effectively approved the program.”
EPIC’s Rotenberg said at the press conference that he would consider FBSs for secondary, but not primary, screening.
An Anonymous Jury?
By William Fisher
Department of Justice lawyers yesterday petitioned a Federal court to begin a controversial terror-related trial in New York City with an “anonymous jury” in order to protect the jurors, the audience in the courtroom, the prosecutors and defense counsel, the judge, and the criminal justice process.
The motion asks that the jurors hearing the case of American citizen Syed Fahad Hashmi for conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda should not be required to disclose their names, addresses or places of employment, and that they be kept under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Marshal Service, which will provide extra security services.
Anonymous juries have been used in three terror-related cases in this same court, including the conviction of lawyer Lynn Stewart for passing a message from her terror-suspect client to his colleagues.
If Judge Loretta Preska grants the motion, jury selection would proceed under a process known as voir dire, referring to giving a true verdict.
The voir dire process in the U.S. is controversial. The amount of privacy that the potential jurors are afforded when asked questioned raises the issue of the definition of "impartial jury". Some question whether the intensive questioning of potential jurors looks not just for inherent bias but for a potential to be emotionally swayed. Proponents argue that this method gives both sides more confidence in the verdict.
But one of Hashmi’s most ardent defenders – Dr. Jeanne Theoharis, Hashmi’s teacher at Brooklyn College – terms the government’s action “egregious.”
“There's so many ways this is egregious -- not the least of which is that
it speaks to how the US Attorney's office views Muslims in the
audience and countenances racist speculation,” she says,
Theoharis references the U.S. Attorney, who writes, “It is likely that the jurors will see in the gallery of the courtroom a significant number of the
defendant’s supporters, naturally leading to juror speculation that at
least some of these spectators might share the defendant’s violent
radical Islamic leanings.”
But Theoharis says there are no demonstrations planned for the first day of trial. “The plan is to pack the courtroom with a possible press
conference with human rights groups on the courthouse steps or in the
park across the street for the first day,” she explains, adding:
“This is just about ratcheting up the fear of the jurors. (Hashmi’s lawyers) will obviously contest the government's motion saying that in a democracy people are allowed to come and watch court. But of course the judge is very sympathetic to the government and will likely agree to do so.”
Clearly, she says, “this is proof that our organizing is getting to them--but
also that, in this climate, they will try to use that to increase the fear (and secrecy) of the jury. They are using this activism -- and people exercising
their right to watch the process -- to make the jury scared and gain a
conviction.”
Theoharis is not without allies in her support of Hashmi. In response to the government’s anonymous jury motion, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said, “The case against Fahad Hashmi in itself raises many red flags related to the violation of his rights, prosecutorial overreach under the material support statute, and the unduly punitive and restrictive special administrative measures under which he has been kept without trial for nearly three years.”
CCR said “The government’s call for the jurors at his trial…to be anonymous and kept under extra security because of the attention and political activism these issues have drawn to the case is a clear attempt to influence the jury by creating a sense of fear for their safety and to paint Mr. Hashmi as already guilty.”
“The government is manipulating the fact that many individuals and human rights organizations are supporting Mr. Hashmi and raising important criticisms of his treatment in detention in order to gain a conviction. This is deplorable,“ the group said.
He has been held in New York since the Memorial Day weekend, 2007.
In the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York, Hashmi, a Muslim, is not allowed to pray with others of his faith. He is on a 23-hour solitary-confinement lockdown and 24-hour surveillance including when he showers and goes to the bathroom. He was not allowed family visits for months. Now, he can see one person for an hour and a half, every other week. Visits are through a thick glass. No touching or hugging is permissible or possible.
Hashmi is permitted to write one letter a week to a single member of his family, but cannot use more than three pieces of paper per letter. Within his own cell, he is restricted in his movements and he is not allowed to talk to guards or other inmates.
Hashmi is forbidden any contact -- directly or through his attorneys -- with the news media. He can read newspapers, but only those portions approved by his jailers -- and not until 30 days after publication. He is forbidden to listen to news radio stations or to watch television news channels.
He is also under 24-hour electronic monitoring inside and outside his cell.
He is allowed one hour of recreation every day -- which is periodically denied. He is not given fresh air but must exercise alone inside a cage.
Prof. Theoharis, who has attended the hearings in his case, told us that Hashmi's "mental health appears to be deteriorating."
His attorneys are concerned that his extreme isolation "will cause lasting psychological, emotional, and physical damage" to their client.
Hashmi's friend Babar has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support of Al Qaeda and has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain, Canada, and at Hashmi's trial. The Justice Department says Babar is the "centerpiece" of its case against Hashmi. In return, under a plea bargain, Babar will likely get a reduced sentence.
If Hashmi is convicted, he could be facing up to 70 years behind bars.
Department of Justice lawyers yesterday petitioned a Federal court to begin a controversial terror-related trial in New York City with an “anonymous jury” in order to protect the jurors, the audience in the courtroom, the prosecutors and defense counsel, the judge, and the criminal justice process.
The motion asks that the jurors hearing the case of American citizen Syed Fahad Hashmi for conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda should not be required to disclose their names, addresses or places of employment, and that they be kept under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Marshal Service, which will provide extra security services.
Anonymous juries have been used in three terror-related cases in this same court, including the conviction of lawyer Lynn Stewart for passing a message from her terror-suspect client to his colleagues.
If Judge Loretta Preska grants the motion, jury selection would proceed under a process known as voir dire, referring to giving a true verdict.
The voir dire process in the U.S. is controversial. The amount of privacy that the potential jurors are afforded when asked questioned raises the issue of the definition of "impartial jury". Some question whether the intensive questioning of potential jurors looks not just for inherent bias but for a potential to be emotionally swayed. Proponents argue that this method gives both sides more confidence in the verdict.
But one of Hashmi’s most ardent defenders – Dr. Jeanne Theoharis, Hashmi’s teacher at Brooklyn College – terms the government’s action “egregious.”
“There's so many ways this is egregious -- not the least of which is that
it speaks to how the US Attorney's office views Muslims in the
audience and countenances racist speculation,” she says,
Theoharis references the U.S. Attorney, who writes, “It is likely that the jurors will see in the gallery of the courtroom a significant number of the
defendant’s supporters, naturally leading to juror speculation that at
least some of these spectators might share the defendant’s violent
radical Islamic leanings.”
But Theoharis says there are no demonstrations planned for the first day of trial. “The plan is to pack the courtroom with a possible press
conference with human rights groups on the courthouse steps or in the
park across the street for the first day,” she explains, adding:
“This is just about ratcheting up the fear of the jurors. (Hashmi’s lawyers) will obviously contest the government's motion saying that in a democracy people are allowed to come and watch court. But of course the judge is very sympathetic to the government and will likely agree to do so.”
Clearly, she says, “this is proof that our organizing is getting to them--but
also that, in this climate, they will try to use that to increase the fear (and secrecy) of the jury. They are using this activism -- and people exercising
their right to watch the process -- to make the jury scared and gain a
conviction.”
Theoharis is not without allies in her support of Hashmi. In response to the government’s anonymous jury motion, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said, “The case against Fahad Hashmi in itself raises many red flags related to the violation of his rights, prosecutorial overreach under the material support statute, and the unduly punitive and restrictive special administrative measures under which he has been kept without trial for nearly three years.”
CCR said “The government’s call for the jurors at his trial…to be anonymous and kept under extra security because of the attention and political activism these issues have drawn to the case is a clear attempt to influence the jury by creating a sense of fear for their safety and to paint Mr. Hashmi as already guilty.”
“The government is manipulating the fact that many individuals and human rights organizations are supporting Mr. Hashmi and raising important criticisms of his treatment in detention in order to gain a conviction. This is deplorable,“ the group said.
He has been held in New York since the Memorial Day weekend, 2007.
In the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York, Hashmi, a Muslim, is not allowed to pray with others of his faith. He is on a 23-hour solitary-confinement lockdown and 24-hour surveillance including when he showers and goes to the bathroom. He was not allowed family visits for months. Now, he can see one person for an hour and a half, every other week. Visits are through a thick glass. No touching or hugging is permissible or possible.
Hashmi is permitted to write one letter a week to a single member of his family, but cannot use more than three pieces of paper per letter. Within his own cell, he is restricted in his movements and he is not allowed to talk to guards or other inmates.
Hashmi is forbidden any contact -- directly or through his attorneys -- with the news media. He can read newspapers, but only those portions approved by his jailers -- and not until 30 days after publication. He is forbidden to listen to news radio stations or to watch television news channels.
He is also under 24-hour electronic monitoring inside and outside his cell.
He is allowed one hour of recreation every day -- which is periodically denied. He is not given fresh air but must exercise alone inside a cage.
Prof. Theoharis, who has attended the hearings in his case, told us that Hashmi's "mental health appears to be deteriorating."
His attorneys are concerned that his extreme isolation "will cause lasting psychological, emotional, and physical damage" to their client.
Hashmi's friend Babar has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support of Al Qaeda and has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain, Canada, and at Hashmi's trial. The Justice Department says Babar is the "centerpiece" of its case against Hashmi. In return, under a plea bargain, Babar will likely get a reduced sentence.
If Hashmi is convicted, he could be facing up to 70 years behind bars.
Colorado Sheriff Sued. A Buddy for Arpaio?
William Fisher
"Without any legal authority whatsoever, Sheriff Ted Mink imprisoned our client and kept him in legal limbo for 47 days with no charges pending, no opportunity to see a judge and no opportunity to post bail,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) charged as it filed a lawsuit against the Jefferson County, Colorado, lawman.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Colorado said Luis Quezada was detained simply because federal immigration officers suspected that the man was in the US in violation of federal immigration laws.
Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado said, "Our fundamental constitutional values prohibit depriving any person of liberty without due process of law."
Quezada was arrested and taken to the Jefferson County Jail where he was held for three days in May 2009 for failing to appear in court on a traffic charge. He promptly resolved the traffic charge, and the county court judge ordered him released.
But he was not released, because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- sent the jail an immigration detainer advising that it was investigating whether Quezada was violating immigration laws.
Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the ACLU immigrants’ project, told IPS, "Immigration detainers are inherently flawed. It is outrageous that someone could spend six weeks in jail because of nothing more than an ICE form saying that the agency wanted to investigate him."
An immigration detainer instructs a jail or prison to hold a particular detainee an additional 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) after the detainee's release date. The detainer states that its purpose is to provide adequate time for ICE agents to determine whether to take the detainee into federal custody and begin formal deportation proceedings. Yet after the 48 hour detainer expired, the Jefferson County sheriff continued to unlawfully hold Quezada for an additional 47 days.
When ICE finally took Quezada into custody in mid-July 2009, the agency immediately allowed him to be released on bond while he defended himself in immigration court.
The ACLU of Colorado says it has received multiple complaints of similar cases in which Colorado jails held suspected immigration violators without legal authority. To address the recurring issue, the ACLU of Colorado wrote to all Colorado sheriffs in the fall of 2008, advising that any legal authority of an immigration detainer expires after 48 hours. The ACLU also asked Colorado sheriffs for copies of any written policies instructing jail deputies on how to proceed when the jail receives immigration detainers. The Jefferson County attorney responded that the sheriff's office had no applicable written policies.
ICE routinely issues immigration detainers to law enforcement agencies around the country as part of part of ICE enforcement initiatives involving state and local police such as the 287(g) program, Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program. In addition to causing racial profiling and harming public safety, those initiatives raise the risk that agencies and officers will face increased claims for damages as a result of cases like Quezada's.
"ICE is issuing detainers by the thousands in an attempt to use state and local police and sheriffs as adjunct federal immigration officers," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "However, police officers and jailers are always required to obey the Constitution and simply cannot imprison a person in this way, even if an immigration detainer exists. States and municipalities open themselves to liability when they treat ICE detainers as if they were sentences imposed by a court."
The 287(g) program has recently come under severe criticism from the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, who said the program cannot be evaluated properly because its goals, mission and management are confused and substandard.
This program has also come under continuing criticism from local law enforcement officials and groups. They charge that local police officers and sheriff’s deputies are not trained in the complexities of immigration law, that
They are invoking immigration laws in inappropriate ways, and that the program is diverting limited local law enforcement resources away from the main mission, which is protecting the public from criminal behavior.
Sheriff Mink is far from the first local law enforcement officer to be taken to court for allegedly violating immigration laws, which are civil, not criminal. There are hundreds of citizen suits pending against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County (Pheonix) Arizona. Many have already been settled with cash judgments to the plaintiffs.
The Department of Justice is currently investigating a civil rights complaint against Arpaio, and the DHS has recently curtailed his participation in the 287(g) program.
"Without any legal authority whatsoever, Sheriff Ted Mink imprisoned our client and kept him in legal limbo for 47 days with no charges pending, no opportunity to see a judge and no opportunity to post bail,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) charged as it filed a lawsuit against the Jefferson County, Colorado, lawman.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Colorado said Luis Quezada was detained simply because federal immigration officers suspected that the man was in the US in violation of federal immigration laws.
Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado said, "Our fundamental constitutional values prohibit depriving any person of liberty without due process of law."
Quezada was arrested and taken to the Jefferson County Jail where he was held for three days in May 2009 for failing to appear in court on a traffic charge. He promptly resolved the traffic charge, and the county court judge ordered him released.
But he was not released, because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- sent the jail an immigration detainer advising that it was investigating whether Quezada was violating immigration laws.
Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the ACLU immigrants’ project, told IPS, "Immigration detainers are inherently flawed. It is outrageous that someone could spend six weeks in jail because of nothing more than an ICE form saying that the agency wanted to investigate him."
An immigration detainer instructs a jail or prison to hold a particular detainee an additional 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) after the detainee's release date. The detainer states that its purpose is to provide adequate time for ICE agents to determine whether to take the detainee into federal custody and begin formal deportation proceedings. Yet after the 48 hour detainer expired, the Jefferson County sheriff continued to unlawfully hold Quezada for an additional 47 days.
When ICE finally took Quezada into custody in mid-July 2009, the agency immediately allowed him to be released on bond while he defended himself in immigration court.
The ACLU of Colorado says it has received multiple complaints of similar cases in which Colorado jails held suspected immigration violators without legal authority. To address the recurring issue, the ACLU of Colorado wrote to all Colorado sheriffs in the fall of 2008, advising that any legal authority of an immigration detainer expires after 48 hours. The ACLU also asked Colorado sheriffs for copies of any written policies instructing jail deputies on how to proceed when the jail receives immigration detainers. The Jefferson County attorney responded that the sheriff's office had no applicable written policies.
ICE routinely issues immigration detainers to law enforcement agencies around the country as part of part of ICE enforcement initiatives involving state and local police such as the 287(g) program, Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program. In addition to causing racial profiling and harming public safety, those initiatives raise the risk that agencies and officers will face increased claims for damages as a result of cases like Quezada's.
"ICE is issuing detainers by the thousands in an attempt to use state and local police and sheriffs as adjunct federal immigration officers," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "However, police officers and jailers are always required to obey the Constitution and simply cannot imprison a person in this way, even if an immigration detainer exists. States and municipalities open themselves to liability when they treat ICE detainers as if they were sentences imposed by a court."
The 287(g) program has recently come under severe criticism from the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, who said the program cannot be evaluated properly because its goals, mission and management are confused and substandard.
This program has also come under continuing criticism from local law enforcement officials and groups. They charge that local police officers and sheriff’s deputies are not trained in the complexities of immigration law, that
They are invoking immigration laws in inappropriate ways, and that the program is diverting limited local law enforcement resources away from the main mission, which is protecting the public from criminal behavior.
Sheriff Mink is far from the first local law enforcement officer to be taken to court for allegedly violating immigration laws, which are civil, not criminal. There are hundreds of citizen suits pending against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County (Pheonix) Arizona. Many have already been settled with cash judgments to the plaintiffs.
The Department of Justice is currently investigating a civil rights complaint against Arpaio, and the DHS has recently curtailed his participation in the 287(g) program.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Is This an Exercise in Futility?
By William Fisher
Human Rights organizations are telling the United Nations that the United States is failing to hold corporations, including private government contractors, accountable for human rights abuses ranging from human trafficking to murder.
These and a plethora of other charges have been triggered by the UN’s formal process known as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for reviewing the human rights records of 192 UN member states by the UN Human Rights Council, scheduled for November, when the US human rights performance will be reviewed for the first time.
The UPR was established when the Human Rights Council was created in 2006 by the UN General Assembly. Numerous human rights groups have responded to the US State Department’s invitation to members of the US public to present their concerns about human rights in America.
Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, has attended the predecessor UN Commission on Human Rights and now the Council for more than two decades, as a delegate of the US government, Amnesty International, or other NGOs.
He told IPS, “The Universal Periodic Review process is a welcome step forward, in that it subjects all states to regular review of their human rights records, in addition to the work done by other mechanisms such as the treaty bodies and special rapporteurs as well as the Council’s own retained ability to make recommendations regarding acute situations of gross and systematic violations.”
But the problem, he said, is that “the process is far too slow, too limited in scope and authority, and still suffers from the inevitable politics that must be diminished if human rights implementation on the ground is to advance. The US government, in particular, should be the first to offer leadership and ensure authentic and full compliance with human rights law. But instead of setting this example, the United States all too often continues to seek refuge for itself and its allies in double standards.”
Jamil Dakwar, Director of the Human Rights Program of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), struck a more hopeful note, telling IPS, “We hope this process will help bring US policies in line with international human rights standards by shining a light on domestic human rights issues and holding state, local and federal government accountable to our human rights obligations.”
Specifically, the ACLU is urging President Obama to “issue a new executive order to revitalize the Inter-Agency Working Group on Human Rights, to coordinate the efforts of federal agencies and departments to respect and implement human rights obligations as U.S. domestic policy.”
He said other important steps are necessary including “the creation of a national human rights institution in the form of an expanded US Civil and Human Rights Commission, and effective coordination between federal bodies and existing state and local agencies charged with monitoring and enforcing civil and human rights laws.”
One coalition of groups includes The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Earth Rights International (ERI), the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) and the Western Shoshone Defense Project (WSDP).
These organizations cite numerous examples where private companies have been alleged to be responsible for serious human rights abuses, including human trafficking of Nepali laborers by Kellogg Brown & Root; nonconsensual medical experimentation by Pfizer; extrajudicial killings and torture committed by private military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan; complicity in war crimes by Chiquita; and violations of the indigenous peoples’ rights to health, land, and culture by private mining companies in Nevada.
The Federation of American Scientists asked the State Department to turn its attention to those cases where a resolution of alleged human rights violations has been barred by the government's use of the state secrets privilege.
Steven Aftergood, director of the Government Secrecy Project of the American Federal of Scientists, told IPS, "There are innocent individuals who have been swept up in US Government counterterrorism operations, wrongly detained, 'rendered' surreptitiously to foreign countries, subjected to extreme physical and mental stress, or otherwise wronged."
He added, "In some cases, like those of persons such as Maher Arar and Khaled el-Masri, efforts to seek legal remedies have been blocked by the Government's invocation of the state secrets privilege. As a result, the alleged abuses committed in such cases remain unresolved, and there is no way for the affected individuals to be made whole."
"If the judicial process in such cases is foreclosed by the state secrets privilege, then an alternate procedure should be created to rectify the wrongs that may have been committed," he suggested.
Another prominent human rights advocacy group, Human Rights First (HRF), focused its report on refugee protection and immigration detention, counter-terrorism policies, and hate crimes and discrimination.
The group said, “Despite its leadership in protecting victims of persecution around the world, the US has fallen short on its commitment to treat refugees who seek asylum in the United States in accordance with the1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It said, “The US should change its laws and regulations to provide asylum seekers who are detained on arrival with prompt immigration court custody hearings, eliminate the one-year asylum filing deadline, and ensure refugees are not improperly excluded from protection or returned to persecution after interdiction at sea.”
Regarding counterterrorism policies, the group notes that the US continues to hold more than 800 detainees in military facilities at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan without charge or trial.
“Due to the government’s overly broad definition of armed conflict and belligerency, many of these detainees are being held in violation of international law. Some are slated for trial in military commissions which do not comport with international due process standards. The government has also failed to provide adequate information about detainees reportedly abused in a “black site” in Afghanistan, the group said.
“Bias-motivated violence continues to be a serious problem in the US,” the report says. “Official response is not uniform across the country, and vulnerable groups continue to be subjected to violent acts motivated by racism, bigotry and intolerance.”
Human Rights organizations are telling the United Nations that the United States is failing to hold corporations, including private government contractors, accountable for human rights abuses ranging from human trafficking to murder.
These and a plethora of other charges have been triggered by the UN’s formal process known as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for reviewing the human rights records of 192 UN member states by the UN Human Rights Council, scheduled for November, when the US human rights performance will be reviewed for the first time.
The UPR was established when the Human Rights Council was created in 2006 by the UN General Assembly. Numerous human rights groups have responded to the US State Department’s invitation to members of the US public to present their concerns about human rights in America.
Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, has attended the predecessor UN Commission on Human Rights and now the Council for more than two decades, as a delegate of the US government, Amnesty International, or other NGOs.
He told IPS, “The Universal Periodic Review process is a welcome step forward, in that it subjects all states to regular review of their human rights records, in addition to the work done by other mechanisms such as the treaty bodies and special rapporteurs as well as the Council’s own retained ability to make recommendations regarding acute situations of gross and systematic violations.”
But the problem, he said, is that “the process is far too slow, too limited in scope and authority, and still suffers from the inevitable politics that must be diminished if human rights implementation on the ground is to advance. The US government, in particular, should be the first to offer leadership and ensure authentic and full compliance with human rights law. But instead of setting this example, the United States all too often continues to seek refuge for itself and its allies in double standards.”
Jamil Dakwar, Director of the Human Rights Program of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), struck a more hopeful note, telling IPS, “We hope this process will help bring US policies in line with international human rights standards by shining a light on domestic human rights issues and holding state, local and federal government accountable to our human rights obligations.”
Specifically, the ACLU is urging President Obama to “issue a new executive order to revitalize the Inter-Agency Working Group on Human Rights, to coordinate the efforts of federal agencies and departments to respect and implement human rights obligations as U.S. domestic policy.”
He said other important steps are necessary including “the creation of a national human rights institution in the form of an expanded US Civil and Human Rights Commission, and effective coordination between federal bodies and existing state and local agencies charged with monitoring and enforcing civil and human rights laws.”
One coalition of groups includes The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Earth Rights International (ERI), the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) and the Western Shoshone Defense Project (WSDP).
These organizations cite numerous examples where private companies have been alleged to be responsible for serious human rights abuses, including human trafficking of Nepali laborers by Kellogg Brown & Root; nonconsensual medical experimentation by Pfizer; extrajudicial killings and torture committed by private military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan; complicity in war crimes by Chiquita; and violations of the indigenous peoples’ rights to health, land, and culture by private mining companies in Nevada.
The Federation of American Scientists asked the State Department to turn its attention to those cases where a resolution of alleged human rights violations has been barred by the government's use of the state secrets privilege.
Steven Aftergood, director of the Government Secrecy Project of the American Federal of Scientists, told IPS, "There are innocent individuals who have been swept up in US Government counterterrorism operations, wrongly detained, 'rendered' surreptitiously to foreign countries, subjected to extreme physical and mental stress, or otherwise wronged."
He added, "In some cases, like those of persons such as Maher Arar and Khaled el-Masri, efforts to seek legal remedies have been blocked by the Government's invocation of the state secrets privilege. As a result, the alleged abuses committed in such cases remain unresolved, and there is no way for the affected individuals to be made whole."
"If the judicial process in such cases is foreclosed by the state secrets privilege, then an alternate procedure should be created to rectify the wrongs that may have been committed," he suggested.
Another prominent human rights advocacy group, Human Rights First (HRF), focused its report on refugee protection and immigration detention, counter-terrorism policies, and hate crimes and discrimination.
The group said, “Despite its leadership in protecting victims of persecution around the world, the US has fallen short on its commitment to treat refugees who seek asylum in the United States in accordance with the1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It said, “The US should change its laws and regulations to provide asylum seekers who are detained on arrival with prompt immigration court custody hearings, eliminate the one-year asylum filing deadline, and ensure refugees are not improperly excluded from protection or returned to persecution after interdiction at sea.”
Regarding counterterrorism policies, the group notes that the US continues to hold more than 800 detainees in military facilities at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan without charge or trial.
“Due to the government’s overly broad definition of armed conflict and belligerency, many of these detainees are being held in violation of international law. Some are slated for trial in military commissions which do not comport with international due process standards. The government has also failed to provide adequate information about detainees reportedly abused in a “black site” in Afghanistan, the group said.
“Bias-motivated violence continues to be a serious problem in the US,” the report says. “Official response is not uniform across the country, and vulnerable groups continue to be subjected to violent acts motivated by racism, bigotry and intolerance.”
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Life After Fifty? Listen Up Ladies!
William Fisher Reviews “In The Fullness of Time: 32 Women on Life After Fifty.” Edited by Emily W. Upham and Linda Gravenson. ATRIA paperback.
I have to admit, this is not my usual book. Generally I’m more comfortable with Sy Hersh or Jane Mayer or Tom Ricks or a history of the Supreme Court.
But this little volume turned up on my living room coffee table and I was drawn to it not by its title – which may be the least descriptive title in the history of book publishing -- but by its subtitle: 32 Women on Life After Fifty.
This is a book about what each of these people has lost and how each has adjusted her life to go on living. I found it a book that’s often amusing, always inspiring, and definitely worth reading.
And who are the authors? They are 32 extremely gifted American writers and artists. And they share the further common identity: Baby Boomers. As Emily Upham writes in her foreword, “the baby boomers had arrived at the second half of life…this half would be laden with loss.”
She goes on to describe this cohort as “the mapless generation.” We “came of age at a fleeting moment in history when all traditional expectations were tossed aside and torn up like confetti. Our womanhood was forged at a time when birth control was easy, abortion was easy, pursuing a career was easy, when there were no rules, no boundaries, no directions other than our own inner ones…As we age and begin to suffer the losses common to all women, our landscape is a very different from that of the women who came before and after us.”
The essays in this book were written for this book; there’s no boilerplate here. The authors range in age from fifty-five to a hundred and one. They are all “immersed in, or have emerged from, maelstroms of change.”
But this book is not only about the more predictable kinds of losses that face us as we age, for example, the loss of spouses and lifelong friends. Among my favorites:
Gail Godwin, who falls into a deep depression after being turned down for a home care insurance policy;
Katherine B. Weissman, who as an archetypal feminist “learned to assert my rights, own my successes, get angry and not apologize so damned much,” and is suddenly forced to confront her naked 63-year-old body;
Erica Jong ruminating about death, “The lucky ones die in restaurants after a good dinner. Or die in their sleep in bed during an erotic dream about a lover long since passed to the other side;”
Claire Bloom, reflecting on living a relationship-free life, with the help of Buddha – “I’ve been free to travel to be with my daughter, to be with my friends, in a way that I wasn’t when I was in a relationship.”
As co-editor Linda Gravenson writes of these 32 women, “These are the women I’d want in my lifeboat.”
Gravenson is also the author of one of the book’s moving essays. In it she recollects her totally crazy and confusing childhood-to-adulthood relationship with her debilitatingly dangerous mentally ill mother, and her feelings after this unfortunate creature had passed.
She writes: “My relationship with my mother keeps getting better and better. I can approach her now and take from the family album what I need. I can even return to the mischievous little girl who runs wildly around the garden as her mother holds out a sweater, insisting on protection from the evening chill. I am shrieking with glee as I skip just ahead of her, proud of my speed, and happy to be fooling around with my mom.”
One further observation about the dilemmas that face aging women. On many levels, they don’t really seem all that different from the dilemmas facing aging men.
I have to admit, this is not my usual book. Generally I’m more comfortable with Sy Hersh or Jane Mayer or Tom Ricks or a history of the Supreme Court.
But this little volume turned up on my living room coffee table and I was drawn to it not by its title – which may be the least descriptive title in the history of book publishing -- but by its subtitle: 32 Women on Life After Fifty.
This is a book about what each of these people has lost and how each has adjusted her life to go on living. I found it a book that’s often amusing, always inspiring, and definitely worth reading.
And who are the authors? They are 32 extremely gifted American writers and artists. And they share the further common identity: Baby Boomers. As Emily Upham writes in her foreword, “the baby boomers had arrived at the second half of life…this half would be laden with loss.”
She goes on to describe this cohort as “the mapless generation.” We “came of age at a fleeting moment in history when all traditional expectations were tossed aside and torn up like confetti. Our womanhood was forged at a time when birth control was easy, abortion was easy, pursuing a career was easy, when there were no rules, no boundaries, no directions other than our own inner ones…As we age and begin to suffer the losses common to all women, our landscape is a very different from that of the women who came before and after us.”
The essays in this book were written for this book; there’s no boilerplate here. The authors range in age from fifty-five to a hundred and one. They are all “immersed in, or have emerged from, maelstroms of change.”
But this book is not only about the more predictable kinds of losses that face us as we age, for example, the loss of spouses and lifelong friends. Among my favorites:
Gail Godwin, who falls into a deep depression after being turned down for a home care insurance policy;
Katherine B. Weissman, who as an archetypal feminist “learned to assert my rights, own my successes, get angry and not apologize so damned much,” and is suddenly forced to confront her naked 63-year-old body;
Erica Jong ruminating about death, “The lucky ones die in restaurants after a good dinner. Or die in their sleep in bed during an erotic dream about a lover long since passed to the other side;”
Claire Bloom, reflecting on living a relationship-free life, with the help of Buddha – “I’ve been free to travel to be with my daughter, to be with my friends, in a way that I wasn’t when I was in a relationship.”
As co-editor Linda Gravenson writes of these 32 women, “These are the women I’d want in my lifeboat.”
Gravenson is also the author of one of the book’s moving essays. In it she recollects her totally crazy and confusing childhood-to-adulthood relationship with her debilitatingly dangerous mentally ill mother, and her feelings after this unfortunate creature had passed.
She writes: “My relationship with my mother keeps getting better and better. I can approach her now and take from the family album what I need. I can even return to the mischievous little girl who runs wildly around the garden as her mother holds out a sweater, insisting on protection from the evening chill. I am shrieking with glee as I skip just ahead of her, proud of my speed, and happy to be fooling around with my mom.”
One further observation about the dilemmas that face aging women. On many levels, they don’t really seem all that different from the dilemmas facing aging men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
