By William Fisher
One of the nation’s senior immigration authorities is recommending that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) could substantially improve its performance by appointing an Ombudsman “to serve as an internal conscience, taking in reports on individual cases, checking them out, making sure that policy is followed and serving as an internal watchdog.”
The Ombudsman proposal was made by Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council, in an exclusive interview with IPS.
Giovagnoli has a long history of service with government immigration agencies. She served with ICE’s predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for almost seven years, and then with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) when INS was broken up in 2003 with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ICE has come under increasing pressure because of its poor treatment of would-be immigrants held in detention – including a number of unreported deaths – lack of medical facilities, administrative bungling resulting in loss of records, and absence of due process for detainees at ICE detention centers.
Giovagnoli says, “It can be argued that the DHS Office of Civil Liberties and Civil Rights is designed to play that function because it investigates allegations of civil rights violations across the Department and attempts to educate Department personnel about proper procedures.”
So why isn’t this sufficient?
Giovagnoli says that the office is small and “tasked with an incredible number of responsibilities. Similarly, the Office of Inspector General clearly has the ability and authority to investigate and monitor abuses within ICE. ICE also has some kind of Office of Professional Responsibility that looks at particular allegations against individual officers.”
“Often, these kinds of offices can't focus on the individual run of the mill case where policies and procedures cause the problem rather than any particular wrongdoing on the part of an officer. Because ICE is a law enforcement agency, but one that enforces a wide range of civil laws, its relationship to the community is, I think, unique and complex,” she says, adding:
“An ombudsman would serve as an internal conscience, taking in reports on individual cases, checking them out, making sure that policy is followed and serving as an internal watchdog.”
“When Congress established DHS, there was considerable concern that the former INS wasn't responsive to the numerous complaints on the services side and this led to the creation of an ombudsman's office as a separate entity within DHS. The ombudsman was supposed to monitor USCIS performance and advocate for change with a direct reporting requirement to Congress regarding different legislative proposals and recommendations. Although this model is statutory, there is no reason to believe that the Secretary couldn't establish a similar mechanism for monitoring ICE, at least in terms of investigating complaints and making recommendations,” she says.
Giovagnoli says there are particular concerns in implementing the Ombudsman idea for ICE. “You need a structure that is in tune with how the agency works. Thus, you have to have a chain of command structure that is respected by the officers -- an ombudsman needs to have sufficient authority to report to someone outside ICE but at the same time be seen as working within and through ICE to solve problems. So access, authority, and ability to make changes is critical.
“Then, an ombudsman needs representatives in the field -- ideally, you would have someone responsible for individual districts who would take complaints, gather information, and investigate concerns.
Finally, “an ombudsman needs a support system from within the community. Ideally, the ombudsman might be the central figure in a range of community oversight boards with the ability to advise and make recommendations to individual offices and to the national office about improved performance and working with the community.”
She added, “I think we see from the 287(g) report that the expectations for advisory committees (which appear to be just made up of ICE and local law enforcement people) were never met, but I question whether you can have successful oversight committees that don't involve average citizens.”
Giovagnoli was referring to a recent report by the DHS Inspector General (IG) that was highly critical of a program known as 278(g), in which local police and sheriffs are given authority to enforce immigration laws. The program has been attacked for encouraging racial and ethnic profiling, using untrained police officers to enforce the highly complex immigration laws, and diverting local law enforcement authorities from the work which they traditional perform,
Giovagnoli told IPS, “We have to change the model of immigration enforcement to reflect community needs and interests. There has been a lot of great thinking along the border about what that might look like in border communities, but we need to expand that thinking to all communities where ICE operates. An ombudsman who spearheaded a group of local community advisory boards would be in a position to speak for all the people who right now find their complaints unanswered whose issues are probably not big enough to get to the level of an IG report.”
Writer Jeffrey Lubbers points out that ombudsmen are not a new concept both in government and the private sector. About 20 years ago, ombudsman offices began to spread to state and local governments, prisons, universities, newspapers, and corporations. Now federal agencies are jumping on the bandwagon by creating such offices -- in some cases with Congressional blessing or mandates.
Lubbers says, “The ombudsman's role in federal agencies clearly is becoming better known. And there seems to be a fair amount of bi-partisan support for the concept in Congress.”
He adds, “With staff reductions in many agencies, the need for problem resolution between regulators and the regulated (or affected third parties) is becoming more acute. Ombudsmen will have an increasingly important role to play in and for agencies in the years to come.”
Ombudsman is a Swedish word meaning "agent" or "representative," and its Scandinavian origins have been traced to 1274. The first national Ombudsman was established in Sweden in 1809.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
GITMO DETAINEE ORDERED FREED -- BUT WHERE TO?
By William Fisher
After nine years in captivity, a federal court has ordered the release of a Guantanamo prisoner once described as the "highest-value detainee at the facility " –and set off a firestorm of protest from Republican lawmakers.
Federal District Judge James Robertson ruled in Washington, D.C. that the U.S. could not continue to detain Mohamedou Ould Salahi (sometimes spelled “Slahi”), a Mauritanian citizen who has been in U.S. custody since 2001. Judge Robertson’s opinion, providing the reasons for the granting of Salahi’s habeas corpus petition, was released last week after undergoing a classification review; some portions were withheld as classified.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and private attorneys challenged Salahi’s detention, arguing that the government had no reliable evidence that he was part of al-Qaeda when he was seized in 2001.
Salahi became the 34th GITMO detainee whose imprisonment has been declared illegal.
The Department of Justice said it would appeal Judge Robertson’s decision. However, even if the government’s appeal is unsuccessful it is unclear that Salahi could be released until another country offers to take him in.
Jonathan Hafetz, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, told IPS, “Salahi's case is a national disgrace -- rendition, brutal torture, and eight years of arbitrary detention without charge or any reliable or credible evidence. Regrettably, rather than ending this shameful episode that flouts the rule of law, and repatriating Salahi, the government is seeking to prolong his illegal imprisonment."
“Salahi's illegal detention for more than eight years without charge or trial embodies the most egregious abuses of Guantánamo,” he said. “The district court’s decision invalidating that detention and ordering Salahi’s release is an important step towards restoring the rule of law,” he added.
After Salahi was arrested in Mauritania on suspicion of ties to al-Qaeda, the U.S. government illegally rendered him to Jordan, where he was detained, interrogated and abused for eight months. He was then rendered to Bagram, Afghanistan and finally to Guantánamo, where he has been held in U.S. custody since August 2002.
While at Guantánamo, Salahi was held in total isolation for months, kept in a freezing cold cell, shackled to the floor, deprived of food, made to drink salt water, forced to stand in a room with strobe lights and heavy metal music for hours at a time, threatened with harm to his family, forbidden from praying, beaten and subjected to the “frequent flyer” program, during which he was awakened every few hours to deprive him of sleep. The government falsely told him that his mother had been arrested and was being sent to Guantánamo.
Salahi’s abuse was documented in a 2009 report by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Marine Corps Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, the military lawyer originally assigned to prosecute the case against Salahi in the military commissions, determined that Salahi’s self-incriminating statements were so tainted by torture that they couldn’t ethically be used against him. Couch told his supervisors that he was “morally opposed” to Salahi’s treatment and refused to participate in the prosecution.
In his decision, Judge Robertson wrote that there is “ample evidence in this record that Salahi was subjected to extensive and severe mistreatment at Guantánamo.”
Congressional Republicans expressed outrage over the decision. The Hill newspaper reported that Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, stated, "While (Attorney General Eric) Holder's Justice Department should appeal this outrageous decision, I'm not holding my breath. Holder seems more intent on closing Guantánamo Bay than keeping terrorists locked up where they belong."
The Hill also reported that Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, sent a letter to Holder asking him to appeal the ruling, in which he wrote, "It is certainly possible, if not likely, that Mr. Salahi will re-engage in efforts to commit terrorist attacks against innocent Americans if allowed to go free. This ruling clearly puts the American people in danger and should not be allowed to stand."
Salahi was subjected to several years of torture, which began soon after he was taken in by the Mauritanian authorities on November 20, 2001, at the request of the Bush administration. "My country turned me over, shortcutting all kinds of due process of law, like a candy bar to the United States," he said in his combatant status review tribunal at Guantánamo in 2004.
Salahi was transferred by the US from Mauritania to Jordan. According to historian Andy Worthington, he was one of at least 15 prisoners rendered to Jordan by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) between 2001 and 2004. He was held there for eight months and said what happened to him was "beyond description." He was tortured "maybe twice a week, a couple times, sometimes more." He was then transferred to the U.S. prison at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan for two weeks and arrived in Guantánamo on August 4, 2002.
Worthington reports that, “as the highest-value detainee at Guantánamo - in the days before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 13 other high-value detainees were flown in from secret CIA prisons in September 2006 - Salahi was again subjected to torture, which included prolonged isolation, prolonged sleep deprivation, beatings, death threats and threats that his mother would be brought to Guantánamo and gang-raped.”
This program, he says, was implemented in May 2003 and augmented with further "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It culminated in August 2003 in an incident when Salahi was taken out on a boat, wearing isolation goggles, while agents whispered, within earshot, that he was "about to be executed and made to disappear." As the German magazine Der Spiegel explained in an article in 2008, "He was so terrified that he urinated in his pants."
After nine years in captivity, a federal court has ordered the release of a Guantanamo prisoner once described as the "highest-value detainee at the facility " –and set off a firestorm of protest from Republican lawmakers.
Federal District Judge James Robertson ruled in Washington, D.C. that the U.S. could not continue to detain Mohamedou Ould Salahi (sometimes spelled “Slahi”), a Mauritanian citizen who has been in U.S. custody since 2001. Judge Robertson’s opinion, providing the reasons for the granting of Salahi’s habeas corpus petition, was released last week after undergoing a classification review; some portions were withheld as classified.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and private attorneys challenged Salahi’s detention, arguing that the government had no reliable evidence that he was part of al-Qaeda when he was seized in 2001.
Salahi became the 34th GITMO detainee whose imprisonment has been declared illegal.
The Department of Justice said it would appeal Judge Robertson’s decision. However, even if the government’s appeal is unsuccessful it is unclear that Salahi could be released until another country offers to take him in.
Jonathan Hafetz, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, told IPS, “Salahi's case is a national disgrace -- rendition, brutal torture, and eight years of arbitrary detention without charge or any reliable or credible evidence. Regrettably, rather than ending this shameful episode that flouts the rule of law, and repatriating Salahi, the government is seeking to prolong his illegal imprisonment."
“Salahi's illegal detention for more than eight years without charge or trial embodies the most egregious abuses of Guantánamo,” he said. “The district court’s decision invalidating that detention and ordering Salahi’s release is an important step towards restoring the rule of law,” he added.
After Salahi was arrested in Mauritania on suspicion of ties to al-Qaeda, the U.S. government illegally rendered him to Jordan, where he was detained, interrogated and abused for eight months. He was then rendered to Bagram, Afghanistan and finally to Guantánamo, where he has been held in U.S. custody since August 2002.
While at Guantánamo, Salahi was held in total isolation for months, kept in a freezing cold cell, shackled to the floor, deprived of food, made to drink salt water, forced to stand in a room with strobe lights and heavy metal music for hours at a time, threatened with harm to his family, forbidden from praying, beaten and subjected to the “frequent flyer” program, during which he was awakened every few hours to deprive him of sleep. The government falsely told him that his mother had been arrested and was being sent to Guantánamo.
Salahi’s abuse was documented in a 2009 report by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Marine Corps Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, the military lawyer originally assigned to prosecute the case against Salahi in the military commissions, determined that Salahi’s self-incriminating statements were so tainted by torture that they couldn’t ethically be used against him. Couch told his supervisors that he was “morally opposed” to Salahi’s treatment and refused to participate in the prosecution.
In his decision, Judge Robertson wrote that there is “ample evidence in this record that Salahi was subjected to extensive and severe mistreatment at Guantánamo.”
Congressional Republicans expressed outrage over the decision. The Hill newspaper reported that Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, stated, "While (Attorney General Eric) Holder's Justice Department should appeal this outrageous decision, I'm not holding my breath. Holder seems more intent on closing Guantánamo Bay than keeping terrorists locked up where they belong."
The Hill also reported that Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, sent a letter to Holder asking him to appeal the ruling, in which he wrote, "It is certainly possible, if not likely, that Mr. Salahi will re-engage in efforts to commit terrorist attacks against innocent Americans if allowed to go free. This ruling clearly puts the American people in danger and should not be allowed to stand."
Salahi was subjected to several years of torture, which began soon after he was taken in by the Mauritanian authorities on November 20, 2001, at the request of the Bush administration. "My country turned me over, shortcutting all kinds of due process of law, like a candy bar to the United States," he said in his combatant status review tribunal at Guantánamo in 2004.
Salahi was transferred by the US from Mauritania to Jordan. According to historian Andy Worthington, he was one of at least 15 prisoners rendered to Jordan by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) between 2001 and 2004. He was held there for eight months and said what happened to him was "beyond description." He was tortured "maybe twice a week, a couple times, sometimes more." He was then transferred to the U.S. prison at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan for two weeks and arrived in Guantánamo on August 4, 2002.
Worthington reports that, “as the highest-value detainee at Guantánamo - in the days before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 13 other high-value detainees were flown in from secret CIA prisons in September 2006 - Salahi was again subjected to torture, which included prolonged isolation, prolonged sleep deprivation, beatings, death threats and threats that his mother would be brought to Guantánamo and gang-raped.”
This program, he says, was implemented in May 2003 and augmented with further "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It culminated in August 2003 in an incident when Salahi was taken out on a boat, wearing isolation goggles, while agents whispered, within earshot, that he was "about to be executed and made to disappear." As the German magazine Der Spiegel explained in an article in 2008, "He was so terrified that he urinated in his pants."
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Corporate Social Responsibility: Wisdom or Window-Dressing?
The scary economic developments of the past two years are contributing to a renaissance of discussion about “Corporate Social Responsibility,” and how it might have helped head off Wall Street’s precipitous failure. To explore that question, Truthout contributor William Fisher talked with Chip Pitts, one of the world’s leading authorities on the subject. In this interview, Prof. Pitts answers key questions. He believes that CSR, if “properly implemented, would have prevented the crisis.”
Former Chief Legal Officer of Nokia, Inc. and former Chair of Amnesty International USA, Prof. Pitts currently serves as President of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and lectures on CSR and business/human rights at Stanford Law School and Oxford University. He is Advisor to the UN Global Compact and the Business and Human Rights Resource Center and has also advised the successful Business Leaders Initiative for Human Rights, among other global CSR initiatives. He is co-author and editor of the first systematic legal treatise on the subject, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Legal Analysis (the royalties for which all go to sustainability and human rights charities).
1.What is CSR? Is it more than charitable giving through the company foundation?
Believe it or not, CSR does not stand for “Corporate Scandal Response,” but for “Corporate Social Responsibility.” And, suspicions to the contrary notwithstanding, neither CSR nor “business ethics” is the oxymoron it may seem to be at first glance. There was a false suggestion (reaching its high point in a 2001 European Union “Green Paper”) that CSR was merely voluntary and thus “optional,” but this is now widely and rightly seen as a misleading diversion orchestrated by corporate lobbyists.
No corporation can be responsible without complying with law, so at a minimum, CSR of course begins with mandatory legal compliance: not just with local law, but (especially in developing countries where local law may be absent or unenforced) global human rights and environmental laws. But beyond that, CSR requires compliance with the highest global ethical standards, meaning that corporations must not only “do no harm,” but also “do what good they can.” This does not mean mere philanthropy -- charitable giving of some small percent of profits back to the community -- although a philanthropic impulse and philanthropy remains a (relatively minor) part of CSR.
CSR is responding to major structural drivers and expectations of investors, employees, NGOs, global media, governments, and society at large – stakeholders who will reward companies that “get it right” and punish those who get it wrong. As a result, CSR requires accountable and long-term sustainability: deeply integrated decision making that manages risk, seizes brand and employee recruitment and retention benefits, and drives the “triple bottom line” (people and the planet as well as profits) throughout the core business, so that corporations are not part of the problems experienced today (social and environmental externalities like climate change, pollution, human rights abuse, conflict and war) but instead are aligned with society and the expectations of all stakeholders to contribute to much-needed solutions.
“Sustainability doesn’t refer merely to profit-making sustainability, although some business executives have unfortunately started to use it perversely in that narrow sense, and doesn’t refer merely to environmental sustainability, but includes long-term, future-oriented social sustainability as well – of the systems that support all of us. An exciting CSR trend is thus corporate deployment of their core competencies – strategic thinking, marketing, logistics, inventory control, etc – in innovative public-private partnerships aimed at fighting HIV/AIDs, preserving scarce water resources, combating poverty, and achieving other public goods.
This “business case” for CSR is why it has held up so well during the financial and economic crisis of the last several years, as assessed by various independent sources. And this integration of CSR into the core business, and not unlimited campaign spending by fictional corporate persons granted “free speech rights” under the recent US Supreme Court Citizens United decision, is the true meaning of corporate citizenship (which properly understood and implemented should be synonymous with CSR).
2.Who uses CSR?
CSR is relevant to businesses of all sorts and sizes, although global corporations subject to tremendous stakeholder scrutiny and pressure (by NGOs such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International, governments, the global media, international organizations, and unions) have taken it up to a greater extent either as a result of various scandals or in order to achieve the various business benefits and proactively maintain their “social license to operate.” Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), though, have a tremendous economic impact, and form part of the supply chains of the larger global corporations – tens of thousands in Wal-Mart’s supply chain alone – and so can and must also implement CSR within their own spheres of influence.
People are also trying to enhance attention to core CSR concepts even within the informal or black-market sector (again, as ironic as that may seem), given its persistent importance especially in developing countries. Governments and international development and aid agencies are looking to forms of CSR in which companies join multi-stakeholder initiatives to help solve some of the world’s most significant problems. (This is the impetus behind the UN Global Compact, for example, or the International Labor Organization’s Better Work initiative). More broadly, CSR includes the increasingly convergent global norms of human rights and sustainable development – such as the human rights, environmental, and anti-corruption principles of the UN Global Compact -- that form the framework for our continued peaceful existence on the planet, so it is incumbent on all of us to support greater CSR, whether as employees of corporations, or consumers needing to make more ethical (e.g. fair trade) purchasing decisions. So if the question is “who uses it,” the answer should be: YOU – and all of us!
3.Do any companies have long histories and demonstrable achievements from their use of CSR?
The roots of CSR are deep in societies around the world, drawing on longstanding universal ethical norms such as the Golden Rule, and common sense notions of preserving the natural and other resources that sustain all of us (as well as the companies). Moreover, notions of CSR were “present at the inception” of the corporation. From the very inception of bodies corporate, such as the Roman societates, through medieval bodies corporate (universities, cities, guilds), and even chartered companies of the age of exploration, and the colonial companies and corporate churches, utilities, and charitable entities involved at the founding of the United States of America, corporations have generally had public as well as private purposes (although companies like the British and Dutch East Indies companies also caused great harm).
Modern corporations, too, which achieved key attributes of their current form (such as limited liability) in the 19th century, were often conceived with social purposes as well as private profit in mind. Thus, companies in England like Unilever (founded by Lord Leverhulme) and Cadbury chocolate company (conceived of by George Cadbury as having humanitarian purposes) have long-standing CSR traditions and demonstrable achievements that continue today – consider Unilever Hindustan’s Shakti program empowering female entrepreneurs – although these companies like other companies also have had CSR problems including serious issues pertaining to the labor conditions under which their products are manufactured.
In India, Tata similarly has a long tradition of investing in communities as well as occasional scandals, and in the United States the same could be said of companies such as Sears, whose founder Julius Rosenwald helped create 4-H programs and train farmers in agricultural techniques, and J.C. Penney, whose founding executives famously embraced positive values in ways that have been emulated by many companies today including Hewlett-Packard and Nokia. Ford is another example: it is prominent in environmental efforts today and was the birthplace of the doctrine of Fordism, whereby workers get paid enough to buy the products they make . . . but the company also has a dark history of complicity with forced labor in Nazi Germany and apartheid in South Africa, as well as with violent repression of unionists and political dissenters in Latin America. So even leading companies like Ford often have mixed records, at best, of compliance with CSR principles.
4.How about companies in the financial services sector? Any users here?
The financial sector is actually a place of great CSR activity in recent years, as initiatives like the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment and the Equator Principles now cover trillions of dollars in investment money committed to take environmental and social factors into account in investment activities. The Equator Principles now cover the vast majority of project finance in the world, in yet another demonstration of how the most sophisticated investors now understand that so-called “non-financial” risks (relating to the environment or human rights) can have a tremendous impact in terms of the financial bottom line and so must be the subject of enhanced monitoring and reporting.
5.Could CSR have impacted the behavior of the “too big to fail” institutions that brought us to the brink of financial disaster?
Properly implemented, CSR indeed would have prevented the crisis, which at core was about the opposite of each of the seven principles in my most recent CSR book.
Instead of integrated decision-making that recognizes longer-term duties to the system – to society and the planet as well as for short-term profit -- we saw utter neglect of those duties. Instead of adequate attention to all stakeholders, we saw myopic and greedy focus on returns only to top executives, managers, and shareholders. Instead of transparency, we saw manipulation of corporate forms and opaque financial instruments such as derivatives and credit default swaps. Instead of consistent best practices and compliance with the highest global legal and ethical standards, we again saw evasive manipulation of loopholes. Instead of precautionary risk management, we saw systemic moral hazard. Instead of accountability, we saw offloading risk and responsibility onto a stream of other actors. And instead of attention to and investment in the community, we saw rapacious inattention to and plundering of communities.
The ultimate cause of the crisis was the ideological embrace of Milton Friedman’s warped but still dominant view that “the only social responsibility of business is to make a profit for its shareholders,” and until that socially and economically counterproductive -- and empirically, legally and ethically inaccurate -- view is corrected, we will continue to have the increasing and more intense crises of global capitalism that we have seen recur with ever greater frequency over the past forty years.
Sadly but clearly, the lessons have still not been learned. The crisis was not just a crisis of the financial sector, but one arising from an ill-informed and erroneous mindset that still infects businesses in general and requires correction.
6.Is CSR a top-down or a bottom-up practice?
CSR is both top-down and bottom-up. Premised on engagement with all stakeholders instead of only shareholders, CSR requires broad dialogue with workers, community members, and other elements of society in order to align the company with society. It also requires transparency so that investors, communities, and other stakeholders can hold companies accountable. But without commitment and “tone at the top” – with the CEO, board members, and top managers leading by example – CSR will not succeed.
7.How is CSR organized?
CSR starts with a commitment to “integrated decision-making” i.e. systemic thinking that sees the interrelationships between top global issues, stakeholders, corporate departments, and previously segregated roles of individuals (e.g. applying different principles in their corporate life than they do in their personal or spiritual lives). By obliterating prior boundaries that blocked alignment with society, CSR can expand corporate vision, transform the corporate mission, inform strategy, and motivate employees and all stakeholders to take the enterprise to the next level in ways that sustain resources for present and future generations. Stakeholder engagement is a key procedural plank for CSR, with greater transparency within the corporation and outwards toward society driving progress, enhanced risk management, and accountability for results.
8.How is CSR managed?
Sometimes companies segregate the CSR or Sustainability or Corporate Citizenship function in a separate department and expect that department to handle CSR issues in isolation – a recipe for CSR failure and enhanced rather than reduced risk. Other companies still consider CSR mainly a “public relations” exercise and relegate it to the PR or Communications function – also a red flag that the company may not truly understand CSR.
Indeed, while reaping brand benefits is a major driver for CSR, and critics are wrong to say that CSR is “merely” PR, overemphasizing PR above substance remains one of the common traps to be avoided by companies attempting to implement CSR. Real CSR has resulted in tangible benefits in terms of enhanced attention to human rights by extractive industries and reduced instances of child and forced labor in supply chains, but those achievements take hard work and not glossy brochures.
Because of the broad purview and authority of the legal function in many leading global businesses, and the fact that CSR begins with legal compliance, the Legal Department is often the focal point for CSR in many companies, working to ensure an integrated CSR approach. At other times, there is a dedicated CSR function with a Senior VP in charge who works closely with Legal and other business functions. But whether tied to Legal, or Public Affairs, or another function, and even if there are senior executives and dedicated CSR staff, the best companies realize that to be successful CSR must truly be integrated into the company’s vision, mission, strategy, and core business.
Otherwise you may have the CSR or PR department saying one thing, for example, while procurement does the opposite or a business unit leader creates pressures for human rights violations or environmental degradation in the supply chain by establishing targets at odds with responsible action. Performance incentives must be aligned with CSR commitments and metrics, so that executives and employees alike are evaluated in part on CSR targets and values as well as more traditional revenue and profit targets, reaping rewards for successful achievements and risking penalties up to and including termination for violation of CSR and ethical commitments.
A variety of new management tools ranging from online guides to human rights impact assessments (complementing the more traditional environmental risk assessments) now exist to help manage CSR in a responsible fashion and ensure it is not treated as a mere “add on.”
Environmental tools have been around quite awhile, but for the last several years there has also been a new UN Framework for Business and Human Rights that emphasizes the corporate responsibility to respect all human rights, starting with having an explicit policy to that effect but backed up with a variety of “due diligence” procedures ensuring integration, risk management, evaluation, and existence of effective remedies and grievance procedures. The UN Framework as well as many new tools to assist are catalogued by the London-based Business and Human Rights Resource Center (www.business-humanrights.org). These range from the Guide for Integrating Human Rights Into Business Management created by the Business Leaders Initiative for Human Rights in conjunction with the UN Global Compact and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to various other management approaches to CSR issues, most of which revolve around traditional notions of planning, taking action, and checking on results as a feedback loop into renewed planning and action.
9.How is CSR evaluated?
CSR is evaluated both via internal audit and review mechanisms and a variety of external review, audit, and verification mechanisms, some of which are within the ambit of company influence and some of which are less subject to company control.
As an example of internal mechanisms, one leading company, General Electric, has a world-class internal audit team which goes far beyond the “green eyeshades” implication that the word “audit” suggests; the audit function there has historically served as a source for future corporate leaders as well as a critical check to ensure compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of the corporate code of conduct. GE also embeds CSR into its rigorous operational reviews. But in addition to such internal mechanisms, GE also participates in sustainability stock indexes such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, and is subject to other external review by various stakeholders. Of course, companies that do not adhere to CSR are also now subject to various sorts of market and legal pressures, ranging from protests and boycotts, to adverse media coverage, to enforcement actions by government agencies and litigation.
10.What are the roles of Chair, Board, CEO, CFO, shareholders, employees, etc. in making CSR a company-wide practice?
The balance to be struck here is between an unmistakably honest and strong commitment and accountability “from the top” – the CEO and board and other “C-suite” executives – and the distributed leadership necessary for CSR to truly permeate the enterprise.
While the CEO is and should be ultimately accountable, and it usually makes sense to have rigorous supporting mechanisms such as a top executive specifically charged and focused on CSR issues, as well as a board-level committee dealing with matters of CSR, business ethics, and risk management, this should not be an excuse for avoiding similarly accountable leadership by other core business functions including the heads of business units and country leaders and the heads of critical functions such as manufacturing, procurement, logistics, quality control, legal, human resources, finance, and the like. Indeed, within their own “spheres of influence and activity” each employee and each participant in the enterprise’s extended value chain should know and be accountable for their CSR obligations. One fascinating development in recent years is how large companies like Wal-Mart or the major apparel brands are dramatically influencing behavior throughout their supply chains by requiring CSR compliance as a condition of being a supplier.
11. How do you make CSR part of the corporate culture?
As with the question of human rights and environmental compliance in society at large, this is in fact the most critical question. The law and market incentives are inherently limited – they can only go so far without risking counterproductive legal, practical, or market failures. So even though (as discussed above) CSR involves compliance with law and is also “enforced” through both positive and negative incentives, both practical experience and academic research indicate that it can all be fruitless unless the culture and values of the company support CSR and accountable results.
To hear some business leaders or business school academics discuss the subject, you may come away with the impression that virtually any values are acceptable and that a “values-based” company is simply one that has values – even if those values merely relate to short-term shareholder and management wealth maximization. This is wrong. Genuine leadership is inherently moral. So the values chosen matter tremendously, and they must be values aligned with society (including the most universal statement of human values in history, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as clear values of sustainability evidenced in global declarations like the Stockholm and Rio Declarations). Objective analysis of the corporate values and culture – both stated/explicit and tacit/actual – is thus crucial, and can be accomplished by a variety of techniques including employee and stakeholder surveys and interviews.
My Stanford Law School students are working with the UN Global Compact to survey corporate values and consider means of promoting the uptake of appropriate world-class CSR values (which takes on even greater importance as China and the other “BRIC” countries come online). Already, it is clear that one thing you don’t want to do is simply consider CSR to be a narrow “check the box” compliance function, which is calculated to miss issues, create rather than appropriately manage risks, and undermine the authentic CSR culture that derives from the right values implemented in the right fashion.
Instead, the best companies are increasingly having recourse to innovative techniques based on the latest scientific understandings of human nature and learning, including scenario planning and proactive brainstorming, experiential methods, multimedia, literature/stories, and even theater, all of which can be excellent ways to enhance employee abilities to truly listen to, understand, and respond to stakeholder perceptions, and even create new products, services, business models, and entirely new market opportunities as a result.
This article originally appeared in Truthout.org.
Former Chief Legal Officer of Nokia, Inc. and former Chair of Amnesty International USA, Prof. Pitts currently serves as President of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and lectures on CSR and business/human rights at Stanford Law School and Oxford University. He is Advisor to the UN Global Compact and the Business and Human Rights Resource Center and has also advised the successful Business Leaders Initiative for Human Rights, among other global CSR initiatives. He is co-author and editor of the first systematic legal treatise on the subject, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Legal Analysis (the royalties for which all go to sustainability and human rights charities).
1.What is CSR? Is it more than charitable giving through the company foundation?
Believe it or not, CSR does not stand for “Corporate Scandal Response,” but for “Corporate Social Responsibility.” And, suspicions to the contrary notwithstanding, neither CSR nor “business ethics” is the oxymoron it may seem to be at first glance. There was a false suggestion (reaching its high point in a 2001 European Union “Green Paper”) that CSR was merely voluntary and thus “optional,” but this is now widely and rightly seen as a misleading diversion orchestrated by corporate lobbyists.
No corporation can be responsible without complying with law, so at a minimum, CSR of course begins with mandatory legal compliance: not just with local law, but (especially in developing countries where local law may be absent or unenforced) global human rights and environmental laws. But beyond that, CSR requires compliance with the highest global ethical standards, meaning that corporations must not only “do no harm,” but also “do what good they can.” This does not mean mere philanthropy -- charitable giving of some small percent of profits back to the community -- although a philanthropic impulse and philanthropy remains a (relatively minor) part of CSR.
CSR is responding to major structural drivers and expectations of investors, employees, NGOs, global media, governments, and society at large – stakeholders who will reward companies that “get it right” and punish those who get it wrong. As a result, CSR requires accountable and long-term sustainability: deeply integrated decision making that manages risk, seizes brand and employee recruitment and retention benefits, and drives the “triple bottom line” (people and the planet as well as profits) throughout the core business, so that corporations are not part of the problems experienced today (social and environmental externalities like climate change, pollution, human rights abuse, conflict and war) but instead are aligned with society and the expectations of all stakeholders to contribute to much-needed solutions.
“Sustainability doesn’t refer merely to profit-making sustainability, although some business executives have unfortunately started to use it perversely in that narrow sense, and doesn’t refer merely to environmental sustainability, but includes long-term, future-oriented social sustainability as well – of the systems that support all of us. An exciting CSR trend is thus corporate deployment of their core competencies – strategic thinking, marketing, logistics, inventory control, etc – in innovative public-private partnerships aimed at fighting HIV/AIDs, preserving scarce water resources, combating poverty, and achieving other public goods.
This “business case” for CSR is why it has held up so well during the financial and economic crisis of the last several years, as assessed by various independent sources. And this integration of CSR into the core business, and not unlimited campaign spending by fictional corporate persons granted “free speech rights” under the recent US Supreme Court Citizens United decision, is the true meaning of corporate citizenship (which properly understood and implemented should be synonymous with CSR).
2.Who uses CSR?
CSR is relevant to businesses of all sorts and sizes, although global corporations subject to tremendous stakeholder scrutiny and pressure (by NGOs such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International, governments, the global media, international organizations, and unions) have taken it up to a greater extent either as a result of various scandals or in order to achieve the various business benefits and proactively maintain their “social license to operate.” Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), though, have a tremendous economic impact, and form part of the supply chains of the larger global corporations – tens of thousands in Wal-Mart’s supply chain alone – and so can and must also implement CSR within their own spheres of influence.
People are also trying to enhance attention to core CSR concepts even within the informal or black-market sector (again, as ironic as that may seem), given its persistent importance especially in developing countries. Governments and international development and aid agencies are looking to forms of CSR in which companies join multi-stakeholder initiatives to help solve some of the world’s most significant problems. (This is the impetus behind the UN Global Compact, for example, or the International Labor Organization’s Better Work initiative). More broadly, CSR includes the increasingly convergent global norms of human rights and sustainable development – such as the human rights, environmental, and anti-corruption principles of the UN Global Compact -- that form the framework for our continued peaceful existence on the planet, so it is incumbent on all of us to support greater CSR, whether as employees of corporations, or consumers needing to make more ethical (e.g. fair trade) purchasing decisions. So if the question is “who uses it,” the answer should be: YOU – and all of us!
3.Do any companies have long histories and demonstrable achievements from their use of CSR?
The roots of CSR are deep in societies around the world, drawing on longstanding universal ethical norms such as the Golden Rule, and common sense notions of preserving the natural and other resources that sustain all of us (as well as the companies). Moreover, notions of CSR were “present at the inception” of the corporation. From the very inception of bodies corporate, such as the Roman societates, through medieval bodies corporate (universities, cities, guilds), and even chartered companies of the age of exploration, and the colonial companies and corporate churches, utilities, and charitable entities involved at the founding of the United States of America, corporations have generally had public as well as private purposes (although companies like the British and Dutch East Indies companies also caused great harm).
Modern corporations, too, which achieved key attributes of their current form (such as limited liability) in the 19th century, were often conceived with social purposes as well as private profit in mind. Thus, companies in England like Unilever (founded by Lord Leverhulme) and Cadbury chocolate company (conceived of by George Cadbury as having humanitarian purposes) have long-standing CSR traditions and demonstrable achievements that continue today – consider Unilever Hindustan’s Shakti program empowering female entrepreneurs – although these companies like other companies also have had CSR problems including serious issues pertaining to the labor conditions under which their products are manufactured.
In India, Tata similarly has a long tradition of investing in communities as well as occasional scandals, and in the United States the same could be said of companies such as Sears, whose founder Julius Rosenwald helped create 4-H programs and train farmers in agricultural techniques, and J.C. Penney, whose founding executives famously embraced positive values in ways that have been emulated by many companies today including Hewlett-Packard and Nokia. Ford is another example: it is prominent in environmental efforts today and was the birthplace of the doctrine of Fordism, whereby workers get paid enough to buy the products they make . . . but the company also has a dark history of complicity with forced labor in Nazi Germany and apartheid in South Africa, as well as with violent repression of unionists and political dissenters in Latin America. So even leading companies like Ford often have mixed records, at best, of compliance with CSR principles.
4.How about companies in the financial services sector? Any users here?
The financial sector is actually a place of great CSR activity in recent years, as initiatives like the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment and the Equator Principles now cover trillions of dollars in investment money committed to take environmental and social factors into account in investment activities. The Equator Principles now cover the vast majority of project finance in the world, in yet another demonstration of how the most sophisticated investors now understand that so-called “non-financial” risks (relating to the environment or human rights) can have a tremendous impact in terms of the financial bottom line and so must be the subject of enhanced monitoring and reporting.
5.Could CSR have impacted the behavior of the “too big to fail” institutions that brought us to the brink of financial disaster?
Properly implemented, CSR indeed would have prevented the crisis, which at core was about the opposite of each of the seven principles in my most recent CSR book.
Instead of integrated decision-making that recognizes longer-term duties to the system – to society and the planet as well as for short-term profit -- we saw utter neglect of those duties. Instead of adequate attention to all stakeholders, we saw myopic and greedy focus on returns only to top executives, managers, and shareholders. Instead of transparency, we saw manipulation of corporate forms and opaque financial instruments such as derivatives and credit default swaps. Instead of consistent best practices and compliance with the highest global legal and ethical standards, we again saw evasive manipulation of loopholes. Instead of precautionary risk management, we saw systemic moral hazard. Instead of accountability, we saw offloading risk and responsibility onto a stream of other actors. And instead of attention to and investment in the community, we saw rapacious inattention to and plundering of communities.
The ultimate cause of the crisis was the ideological embrace of Milton Friedman’s warped but still dominant view that “the only social responsibility of business is to make a profit for its shareholders,” and until that socially and economically counterproductive -- and empirically, legally and ethically inaccurate -- view is corrected, we will continue to have the increasing and more intense crises of global capitalism that we have seen recur with ever greater frequency over the past forty years.
Sadly but clearly, the lessons have still not been learned. The crisis was not just a crisis of the financial sector, but one arising from an ill-informed and erroneous mindset that still infects businesses in general and requires correction.
6.Is CSR a top-down or a bottom-up practice?
CSR is both top-down and bottom-up. Premised on engagement with all stakeholders instead of only shareholders, CSR requires broad dialogue with workers, community members, and other elements of society in order to align the company with society. It also requires transparency so that investors, communities, and other stakeholders can hold companies accountable. But without commitment and “tone at the top” – with the CEO, board members, and top managers leading by example – CSR will not succeed.
7.How is CSR organized?
CSR starts with a commitment to “integrated decision-making” i.e. systemic thinking that sees the interrelationships between top global issues, stakeholders, corporate departments, and previously segregated roles of individuals (e.g. applying different principles in their corporate life than they do in their personal or spiritual lives). By obliterating prior boundaries that blocked alignment with society, CSR can expand corporate vision, transform the corporate mission, inform strategy, and motivate employees and all stakeholders to take the enterprise to the next level in ways that sustain resources for present and future generations. Stakeholder engagement is a key procedural plank for CSR, with greater transparency within the corporation and outwards toward society driving progress, enhanced risk management, and accountability for results.
8.How is CSR managed?
Sometimes companies segregate the CSR or Sustainability or Corporate Citizenship function in a separate department and expect that department to handle CSR issues in isolation – a recipe for CSR failure and enhanced rather than reduced risk. Other companies still consider CSR mainly a “public relations” exercise and relegate it to the PR or Communications function – also a red flag that the company may not truly understand CSR.
Indeed, while reaping brand benefits is a major driver for CSR, and critics are wrong to say that CSR is “merely” PR, overemphasizing PR above substance remains one of the common traps to be avoided by companies attempting to implement CSR. Real CSR has resulted in tangible benefits in terms of enhanced attention to human rights by extractive industries and reduced instances of child and forced labor in supply chains, but those achievements take hard work and not glossy brochures.
Because of the broad purview and authority of the legal function in many leading global businesses, and the fact that CSR begins with legal compliance, the Legal Department is often the focal point for CSR in many companies, working to ensure an integrated CSR approach. At other times, there is a dedicated CSR function with a Senior VP in charge who works closely with Legal and other business functions. But whether tied to Legal, or Public Affairs, or another function, and even if there are senior executives and dedicated CSR staff, the best companies realize that to be successful CSR must truly be integrated into the company’s vision, mission, strategy, and core business.
Otherwise you may have the CSR or PR department saying one thing, for example, while procurement does the opposite or a business unit leader creates pressures for human rights violations or environmental degradation in the supply chain by establishing targets at odds with responsible action. Performance incentives must be aligned with CSR commitments and metrics, so that executives and employees alike are evaluated in part on CSR targets and values as well as more traditional revenue and profit targets, reaping rewards for successful achievements and risking penalties up to and including termination for violation of CSR and ethical commitments.
A variety of new management tools ranging from online guides to human rights impact assessments (complementing the more traditional environmental risk assessments) now exist to help manage CSR in a responsible fashion and ensure it is not treated as a mere “add on.”
Environmental tools have been around quite awhile, but for the last several years there has also been a new UN Framework for Business and Human Rights that emphasizes the corporate responsibility to respect all human rights, starting with having an explicit policy to that effect but backed up with a variety of “due diligence” procedures ensuring integration, risk management, evaluation, and existence of effective remedies and grievance procedures. The UN Framework as well as many new tools to assist are catalogued by the London-based Business and Human Rights Resource Center (www.business-humanrights.org). These range from the Guide for Integrating Human Rights Into Business Management created by the Business Leaders Initiative for Human Rights in conjunction with the UN Global Compact and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to various other management approaches to CSR issues, most of which revolve around traditional notions of planning, taking action, and checking on results as a feedback loop into renewed planning and action.
9.How is CSR evaluated?
CSR is evaluated both via internal audit and review mechanisms and a variety of external review, audit, and verification mechanisms, some of which are within the ambit of company influence and some of which are less subject to company control.
As an example of internal mechanisms, one leading company, General Electric, has a world-class internal audit team which goes far beyond the “green eyeshades” implication that the word “audit” suggests; the audit function there has historically served as a source for future corporate leaders as well as a critical check to ensure compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of the corporate code of conduct. GE also embeds CSR into its rigorous operational reviews. But in addition to such internal mechanisms, GE also participates in sustainability stock indexes such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, and is subject to other external review by various stakeholders. Of course, companies that do not adhere to CSR are also now subject to various sorts of market and legal pressures, ranging from protests and boycotts, to adverse media coverage, to enforcement actions by government agencies and litigation.
10.What are the roles of Chair, Board, CEO, CFO, shareholders, employees, etc. in making CSR a company-wide practice?
The balance to be struck here is between an unmistakably honest and strong commitment and accountability “from the top” – the CEO and board and other “C-suite” executives – and the distributed leadership necessary for CSR to truly permeate the enterprise.
While the CEO is and should be ultimately accountable, and it usually makes sense to have rigorous supporting mechanisms such as a top executive specifically charged and focused on CSR issues, as well as a board-level committee dealing with matters of CSR, business ethics, and risk management, this should not be an excuse for avoiding similarly accountable leadership by other core business functions including the heads of business units and country leaders and the heads of critical functions such as manufacturing, procurement, logistics, quality control, legal, human resources, finance, and the like. Indeed, within their own “spheres of influence and activity” each employee and each participant in the enterprise’s extended value chain should know and be accountable for their CSR obligations. One fascinating development in recent years is how large companies like Wal-Mart or the major apparel brands are dramatically influencing behavior throughout their supply chains by requiring CSR compliance as a condition of being a supplier.
11. How do you make CSR part of the corporate culture?
As with the question of human rights and environmental compliance in society at large, this is in fact the most critical question. The law and market incentives are inherently limited – they can only go so far without risking counterproductive legal, practical, or market failures. So even though (as discussed above) CSR involves compliance with law and is also “enforced” through both positive and negative incentives, both practical experience and academic research indicate that it can all be fruitless unless the culture and values of the company support CSR and accountable results.
To hear some business leaders or business school academics discuss the subject, you may come away with the impression that virtually any values are acceptable and that a “values-based” company is simply one that has values – even if those values merely relate to short-term shareholder and management wealth maximization. This is wrong. Genuine leadership is inherently moral. So the values chosen matter tremendously, and they must be values aligned with society (including the most universal statement of human values in history, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as clear values of sustainability evidenced in global declarations like the Stockholm and Rio Declarations). Objective analysis of the corporate values and culture – both stated/explicit and tacit/actual – is thus crucial, and can be accomplished by a variety of techniques including employee and stakeholder surveys and interviews.
My Stanford Law School students are working with the UN Global Compact to survey corporate values and consider means of promoting the uptake of appropriate world-class CSR values (which takes on even greater importance as China and the other “BRIC” countries come online). Already, it is clear that one thing you don’t want to do is simply consider CSR to be a narrow “check the box” compliance function, which is calculated to miss issues, create rather than appropriately manage risks, and undermine the authentic CSR culture that derives from the right values implemented in the right fashion.
Instead, the best companies are increasingly having recourse to innovative techniques based on the latest scientific understandings of human nature and learning, including scenario planning and proactive brainstorming, experiential methods, multimedia, literature/stories, and even theater, all of which can be excellent ways to enhance employee abilities to truly listen to, understand, and respond to stakeholder perceptions, and even create new products, services, business models, and entirely new market opportunities as a result.
This article originally appeared in Truthout.org.
Pat Leahy’s Refugee Bill
By William Fisher
Immigrants-rights activists are virtually unanimous in their endorsement of proposed legislation that would change decades of U.S. asylum practices. But proponents of the legislation fear it may never find its way out of the U.S. Senate to the President’s desk.
Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the Refugee Protection Act of 2010 (S.3113) back in March. The objective of the bill is to “affirm the U.S. commitment to provide refuge to individuals fleeing persecution in their homelands.”
It helps restore protection to deserving individuals fleeing persecution and torture, who have been denied refuge under increasingly restrictive immigration laws and court decisions. The bill protects women and girls fleeing gender-based harms -- such as forced marriage, female genital cutting, honor killings, and domestic violence -- children seeking asylum on their own, traumatized or isolated refugees who are unable to file an application for asylum within one year of arrival to the U.S., and other vulnerable victims of persecution.
But Congress-watchers point out that “historically, major refugee and immigration reform bills have not moved through Congress the same year that they were introduced. In addition, the Senate calendar has been so choked with health care legislation and other “must pass” bill that the House of Representatives is now referring to the upper body as “the place where bills go to die.”
Finally, the status of the Leahy bill could change if The White House decides to introduce comprehensive immigration legislation during the current session of Congress.
Meanwhile, pro-immigration groups are lobbying senators to obtain more co-sponsors. Thus far, all are Democrats; getting two or three Republicans is one of the objectives of the White House, but immigration is one of the most predictable third rails of American politics, especially in a mid-term election year.
But if grassroots support were ever enough to get a bill through the Senate, Leahy’s legislation would have smooth sailing. It has been lavishly endorsed by more than 25 of the country’s leading immigration organizations.
One of the most respected, The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings, said the legislation “makes critical reforms to our asylum laws and procedures, and helps bring the U.S. in line with its treaty obligations.”
Bill Frelick, director of Human Rights Watch's refugee policy program, told IPS, “The bill identifies the serious gaps and overly restrictive provisions in the US refugee and asylum system—the overly broad definition of terrorist activities for inadmissibility; the one-year filing deadline for asylum claims; disparate treatment of different nationality groups interdicted at sea; the lack of legal assistance for particularly vulnerable asylum seekers; the one-year delay in allowing refugees and asylees to adjust to lawful permanent resident status.”
In addition, he added, the legislation “confirms reforms that the Obama Administration appears to be trying to implement administratively, such as paroling from detention asylum seekers who establish a credible fear of persecution and promulgating regulations governing conditions of detention.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called on the Senate to swiftly pass the bill. “The Refugee Protection Act is a crucial step towards removing some of the obstacles that have prevented victims of persecution from obtaining refugee protection in the U.S.,” said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The Senate should take Senator Leahy’s lead and pass this bill as soon as possible.”
Amnesty International USA applauded Senator Leahy’s efforts, which it said would “reposition the US as a champion of refugee rights in the 21st century.”
"Thirty years ago this week, Congress passed landmark legislation that created important standards for America's response to refugees seeking our protection," said Human Rights First's Eleanor Acer. "In the decades since then, America has faltered in its commitment to the persecuted. Today, Senators Leahy and Levin have introduced legislation that will put our nation back on track and strengthen U.S. refugee protection laws so that they can once again reflect our values and commitments."
Leahy’s legislation includes provisions that would eliminate the one year asylum filing deadline that bars refugees with well-founded fears of persecution from asylum; remove barriers that prevent some asylum seekers from receiving prompt review by the immigration courts of detention decisions so that these asylum seekers are not subject to prolonged and arbitrary detention; clarify the "particular social group" basis and "nexus" requirements for asylum so that the asylum requests of vulnerable individuals, including women fleeing gender-based persecution and refugees persecuted for their sexual orientation, are adjudicated fairly and consistently; and protect refugees from inappropriate exclusion by refining the definitions of "terrorist activity" and "terrorist organization" so that our immigration laws target actual terrorists, as opposed to hurting thousands of legitimate refugees who are not guilty of any wrongdoing and pose no threat to American security.
The legislation has won the endorsement of the nation’s leading immigration advocates, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Forum, the American Immigration Association, the American Bar Association, and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The legislation would make several critical reforms to U.S. asylum laws. Notably, the bill clarifies definitions of what actions constitute “material support” to ensure that the innocent acts of asylum-seekers are not mislabeled as terrorist activities. The bill promotes efficient immigration proceedings by allowing the Attorney General to appoint immigration counsel where fair resolution or effective adjudication of proceedings would be served by appointment of counsel.
The bill also establishes a nationwide, secure “alternatives to detention” program, and institutes detention reforms to ensure access to counsel, medical care, religious practice and family contact visits. Finally, the bill restores judicial review to a fair and reasonable standard consistent with administrative law principles.
One of the cruelest ironies for people seeking protection in the US – many of whom have been detained and tortured at home – is that they are subject to mandatory detention as soon as they request “safety” here. Despite the fact that this law is in direct violation of obligations under the Refugee Convention, the US continues to use detention as a means to deter refugees from seeking asylum or to encourage them to abandon their asylum applications.
Immigrants-rights activists are virtually unanimous in their endorsement of proposed legislation that would change decades of U.S. asylum practices. But proponents of the legislation fear it may never find its way out of the U.S. Senate to the President’s desk.
Senator Patrick Leahy introduced the Refugee Protection Act of 2010 (S.3113) back in March. The objective of the bill is to “affirm the U.S. commitment to provide refuge to individuals fleeing persecution in their homelands.”
It helps restore protection to deserving individuals fleeing persecution and torture, who have been denied refuge under increasingly restrictive immigration laws and court decisions. The bill protects women and girls fleeing gender-based harms -- such as forced marriage, female genital cutting, honor killings, and domestic violence -- children seeking asylum on their own, traumatized or isolated refugees who are unable to file an application for asylum within one year of arrival to the U.S., and other vulnerable victims of persecution.
But Congress-watchers point out that “historically, major refugee and immigration reform bills have not moved through Congress the same year that they were introduced. In addition, the Senate calendar has been so choked with health care legislation and other “must pass” bill that the House of Representatives is now referring to the upper body as “the place where bills go to die.”
Finally, the status of the Leahy bill could change if The White House decides to introduce comprehensive immigration legislation during the current session of Congress.
Meanwhile, pro-immigration groups are lobbying senators to obtain more co-sponsors. Thus far, all are Democrats; getting two or three Republicans is one of the objectives of the White House, but immigration is one of the most predictable third rails of American politics, especially in a mid-term election year.
But if grassroots support were ever enough to get a bill through the Senate, Leahy’s legislation would have smooth sailing. It has been lavishly endorsed by more than 25 of the country’s leading immigration organizations.
One of the most respected, The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings, said the legislation “makes critical reforms to our asylum laws and procedures, and helps bring the U.S. in line with its treaty obligations.”
Bill Frelick, director of Human Rights Watch's refugee policy program, told IPS, “The bill identifies the serious gaps and overly restrictive provisions in the US refugee and asylum system—the overly broad definition of terrorist activities for inadmissibility; the one-year filing deadline for asylum claims; disparate treatment of different nationality groups interdicted at sea; the lack of legal assistance for particularly vulnerable asylum seekers; the one-year delay in allowing refugees and asylees to adjust to lawful permanent resident status.”
In addition, he added, the legislation “confirms reforms that the Obama Administration appears to be trying to implement administratively, such as paroling from detention asylum seekers who establish a credible fear of persecution and promulgating regulations governing conditions of detention.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called on the Senate to swiftly pass the bill. “The Refugee Protection Act is a crucial step towards removing some of the obstacles that have prevented victims of persecution from obtaining refugee protection in the U.S.,” said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The Senate should take Senator Leahy’s lead and pass this bill as soon as possible.”
Amnesty International USA applauded Senator Leahy’s efforts, which it said would “reposition the US as a champion of refugee rights in the 21st century.”
"Thirty years ago this week, Congress passed landmark legislation that created important standards for America's response to refugees seeking our protection," said Human Rights First's Eleanor Acer. "In the decades since then, America has faltered in its commitment to the persecuted. Today, Senators Leahy and Levin have introduced legislation that will put our nation back on track and strengthen U.S. refugee protection laws so that they can once again reflect our values and commitments."
Leahy’s legislation includes provisions that would eliminate the one year asylum filing deadline that bars refugees with well-founded fears of persecution from asylum; remove barriers that prevent some asylum seekers from receiving prompt review by the immigration courts of detention decisions so that these asylum seekers are not subject to prolonged and arbitrary detention; clarify the "particular social group" basis and "nexus" requirements for asylum so that the asylum requests of vulnerable individuals, including women fleeing gender-based persecution and refugees persecuted for their sexual orientation, are adjudicated fairly and consistently; and protect refugees from inappropriate exclusion by refining the definitions of "terrorist activity" and "terrorist organization" so that our immigration laws target actual terrorists, as opposed to hurting thousands of legitimate refugees who are not guilty of any wrongdoing and pose no threat to American security.
The legislation has won the endorsement of the nation’s leading immigration advocates, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Forum, the American Immigration Association, the American Bar Association, and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The legislation would make several critical reforms to U.S. asylum laws. Notably, the bill clarifies definitions of what actions constitute “material support” to ensure that the innocent acts of asylum-seekers are not mislabeled as terrorist activities. The bill promotes efficient immigration proceedings by allowing the Attorney General to appoint immigration counsel where fair resolution or effective adjudication of proceedings would be served by appointment of counsel.
The bill also establishes a nationwide, secure “alternatives to detention” program, and institutes detention reforms to ensure access to counsel, medical care, religious practice and family contact visits. Finally, the bill restores judicial review to a fair and reasonable standard consistent with administrative law principles.
One of the cruelest ironies for people seeking protection in the US – many of whom have been detained and tortured at home – is that they are subject to mandatory detention as soon as they request “safety” here. Despite the fact that this law is in direct violation of obligations under the Refugee Convention, the US continues to use detention as a means to deter refugees from seeking asylum or to encourage them to abandon their asylum applications.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Feel Safer Now?
By William Fisher
I write a lot of stories, news mostly. They’re carried by InterPress News Service. I’ve been doing this for a very long time, so I’m usually able to separate myself from what I’m writing about so I don’t get emotionally involved.
But there are those times when I find myself getting so angry over the subject of the story I’m writing that I can’t write it.
Usually, when that happens, I distract myself. I write another story. I watch a ballgame. I play some old standards on the piano. Something.
But this time, none of my usual distractions helped very much. I am still angry; in fact, I am furious. Furious enough to try to tell this story. Here goes:
This is a story about a fellow named Syed Fahad Hashmi. For the last close to three years, this guy has been living in solitary confinement in a federal lockup, awaiting a trial.
He is under 24-hour video and audio surveillance, even when he uses the toilet. He eats all his meals in his small cell. He is not allowed to communicate with other prisoners. He is a Muslim but is not allowed to participate in group prayer. He is not allowed to phone anyone but his lawyer. He did not even have his free choice of that lawyer and had to take one approved by the government.
The newspapers he receives have whole sections cut out of them by the government. They are always at least a month old. Once a day, for an hour, he is taken to another room where he remains in isolation. He cannot read any translated documents unless the translator is pre-approved by the government. Contact with the media is forbidden.
For one hour every other week, one member of his family can “visit” through a heavy screen. No touching or hugging is allowed or possible. Sometimes the government takes away his family visits as punishment. He once lost his visits for three months; he was seen shadow boxing in his cell and when asked what he was doing his response apparently failed to pass muster with the authorities.
Who is Syed Fahad Hashmi? Well, for starters, he’s an American citizen. He grew up in Queens and attended Brooklyn College. He is an outspoken Muslim activist. Does that mean he’s a terrorist? Only if you’re Steve King.
After Brooklyn College, where Hashmi’s profs remember him as a guy who loved to engage in debate, he moved to London where he earned a master’s degree in international relations. And that’s where his current troubles began.
An acquaintance from America phoned him at his London apartment and asked if he could stay with Hashmi. He brought a suitcase, later discovered to be filled with raincoats, ponchos and socks.
Now Hashmi was accused of being involved with al Qaeda because the government claims that the rain gear in the suitcase was “military gear” reportedly headed for Afghanistan. Hashmi also allowed his cell phone to be used, and whoever used it allegedly contacted some bad guys from al Qaeda.
Hashmi was arrested based on the testimony of Junaid Babar, an informant attempting to get a reduction in his own 70-year prison sentence. This was the guy who had briefly stayed in Hashmi's apartment in London
So, because of a suitcase full of raingear, and a cellphone allegedly used by someone to contact some unsavory dudes, an American citizen is held in solitary confinement for almost three years?
The answer is yes – which will be totally counter-intuitive to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution. Fashmi is held under Justice Department rules known as SAMs – Special Administrative Measures. He is held so he won’t escape. He is held so he can’t contact any Al Qaeda operatives.
Now, I have no idea whether Hashmi is guilty or not. That’s why we have trials.
But what about the Constitution? What about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? What about the Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial? And an attorney of our choice?
Those rules are evidently abandoned the instant someone utters the words Al Qaeda.
And how about the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment? Does three years in solitary sound “cruel” and “unusual?”
Well, the medical testimony presented in this case concluded that “after 60 days in solitary people’s mental state begins to break down.” According to Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights, “That means a person will start to experience panic, anxiety, confusion, headaches, heart palpitations, sleep problems, withdrawal, anger, depression, despair, and over-sensitivity. Over time this can lead to severe psychiatric trauma and harms like psychosis, distortion of reality, hallucinations, mass anxiety and acute confusion. Essentially, the mind disintegrates.”
That’s why extended isolation is banned by international treaties as a form of torture. Just ask John McCain whether his life in solitary confinement affected his mind.
Meanwhile, Hashmi’s case has become something of a cause celebre. His supporters have staged demonstrations outside his jail, launched a website
(www.freefahad.com) and worked to alert the public to his plight. And prominent figures such as Nat Hentoff, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges and his old Brooklyn College professor, Jeanne Theoharris, have all written articles about Hashmi and his vanishing Constitutional guarantees.
Now, finally, Hashmi has a trial date – April 28. He will be tried for conspiring to send money and military gear -- socks and rainproof ponchos -- to al Qaeda associates in Pakistan.
And my lawyer friends tell me that the way the “material support” statute is written, you could convict a ham sandwich of supporting al Qaeda.
If this case didn’t make you angry, you need to take a refresher course in American History or Civics 101.
And you need to do it right away! Before the Constitution disappears altogether.
I write a lot of stories, news mostly. They’re carried by InterPress News Service. I’ve been doing this for a very long time, so I’m usually able to separate myself from what I’m writing about so I don’t get emotionally involved.
But there are those times when I find myself getting so angry over the subject of the story I’m writing that I can’t write it.
Usually, when that happens, I distract myself. I write another story. I watch a ballgame. I play some old standards on the piano. Something.
But this time, none of my usual distractions helped very much. I am still angry; in fact, I am furious. Furious enough to try to tell this story. Here goes:
This is a story about a fellow named Syed Fahad Hashmi. For the last close to three years, this guy has been living in solitary confinement in a federal lockup, awaiting a trial.
He is under 24-hour video and audio surveillance, even when he uses the toilet. He eats all his meals in his small cell. He is not allowed to communicate with other prisoners. He is a Muslim but is not allowed to participate in group prayer. He is not allowed to phone anyone but his lawyer. He did not even have his free choice of that lawyer and had to take one approved by the government.
The newspapers he receives have whole sections cut out of them by the government. They are always at least a month old. Once a day, for an hour, he is taken to another room where he remains in isolation. He cannot read any translated documents unless the translator is pre-approved by the government. Contact with the media is forbidden.
For one hour every other week, one member of his family can “visit” through a heavy screen. No touching or hugging is allowed or possible. Sometimes the government takes away his family visits as punishment. He once lost his visits for three months; he was seen shadow boxing in his cell and when asked what he was doing his response apparently failed to pass muster with the authorities.
Who is Syed Fahad Hashmi? Well, for starters, he’s an American citizen. He grew up in Queens and attended Brooklyn College. He is an outspoken Muslim activist. Does that mean he’s a terrorist? Only if you’re Steve King.
After Brooklyn College, where Hashmi’s profs remember him as a guy who loved to engage in debate, he moved to London where he earned a master’s degree in international relations. And that’s where his current troubles began.
An acquaintance from America phoned him at his London apartment and asked if he could stay with Hashmi. He brought a suitcase, later discovered to be filled with raincoats, ponchos and socks.
Now Hashmi was accused of being involved with al Qaeda because the government claims that the rain gear in the suitcase was “military gear” reportedly headed for Afghanistan. Hashmi also allowed his cell phone to be used, and whoever used it allegedly contacted some bad guys from al Qaeda.
Hashmi was arrested based on the testimony of Junaid Babar, an informant attempting to get a reduction in his own 70-year prison sentence. This was the guy who had briefly stayed in Hashmi's apartment in London
So, because of a suitcase full of raingear, and a cellphone allegedly used by someone to contact some unsavory dudes, an American citizen is held in solitary confinement for almost three years?
The answer is yes – which will be totally counter-intuitive to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the U.S. Constitution. Fashmi is held under Justice Department rules known as SAMs – Special Administrative Measures. He is held so he won’t escape. He is held so he can’t contact any Al Qaeda operatives.
Now, I have no idea whether Hashmi is guilty or not. That’s why we have trials.
But what about the Constitution? What about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? What about the Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial? And an attorney of our choice?
Those rules are evidently abandoned the instant someone utters the words Al Qaeda.
And how about the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment? Does three years in solitary sound “cruel” and “unusual?”
Well, the medical testimony presented in this case concluded that “after 60 days in solitary people’s mental state begins to break down.” According to Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights, “That means a person will start to experience panic, anxiety, confusion, headaches, heart palpitations, sleep problems, withdrawal, anger, depression, despair, and over-sensitivity. Over time this can lead to severe psychiatric trauma and harms like psychosis, distortion of reality, hallucinations, mass anxiety and acute confusion. Essentially, the mind disintegrates.”
That’s why extended isolation is banned by international treaties as a form of torture. Just ask John McCain whether his life in solitary confinement affected his mind.
Meanwhile, Hashmi’s case has become something of a cause celebre. His supporters have staged demonstrations outside his jail, launched a website
(www.freefahad.com) and worked to alert the public to his plight. And prominent figures such as Nat Hentoff, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges and his old Brooklyn College professor, Jeanne Theoharris, have all written articles about Hashmi and his vanishing Constitutional guarantees.
Now, finally, Hashmi has a trial date – April 28. He will be tried for conspiring to send money and military gear -- socks and rainproof ponchos -- to al Qaeda associates in Pakistan.
And my lawyer friends tell me that the way the “material support” statute is written, you could convict a ham sandwich of supporting al Qaeda.
If this case didn’t make you angry, you need to take a refresher course in American History or Civics 101.
And you need to do it right away! Before the Constitution disappears altogether.
Monday, April 05, 2010
“Experiment in Social Isolation”
By William Fisher
Two federal prisons are being used overwhelmingly to hold Muslim prisoners and prisoners with unpopular political beliefs, and are practicing religious profiling, retaliation and arbitrary punishment.
These are the principal allegations in a lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ houses the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which runs the two units, one in Terre Haute, Indiana, the other in Marion, Illinois.
“These units are an experiment in social isolation,” said CCR Attorney Alexis Agathocleous. “People are being put in these extraordinarily restrictive units without being told why and without any meaningful review. Dispensing with due process creates a situation ripe for abuse; in this case, it has allowed for a pattern of religious profiling, retaliation and arbitrary punishment. This is precisely what the rule of law and the Constitution forbid.”
At the same time, some prisoners at the CMU are protesting their being designated as “terrorists” by the DOJ, despite never having been convicted of any terror-related crime.
One such prisoner is Dr. Rafil Dhafir, an American Iraqi-born upstate-New York oncologist. He was arrested by 85 federal agents who descended on his home, handcuffing him in his driveway. Then Attorney General John D. Ashcroft referred to him as a terrorism supporter apprehended
Dhafir was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to 22 years in prison for violating the Iraqi sanctions by sending money to Iraq through his charity, “Help the Needy,” and for fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and a variety of other nonviolent crimes. Five other people, including his wife, had already pleaded guilty to charges in connection with the case.
In the period leading up to his trial, political figures strove to paint Dhafir with a broad terrorist brush. Then New York State governor George E. Pataki described Dhafir's as a "money laundering case to help terrorist organizations . . . conduct horrible acts." The New York Times reported that prosecutors hinted at national security reasons for holding Dhafir without bail. And Federal prosecutors heralded his arrest as another blow in the Justice Department's war on terrorism.
However, federal prosecutors never filed any charges related to terrorism nor did they prove any link to terrorists. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “this turned out to be a case of white-collar crime; the trial process was filled with descriptions of financial statements and details of financial transactions.”
In a letter to a supporter, obtained by IPS, Dr. Dhafir wrote, “I am really upset about the lies concerning the DOJ list. I have every intention of going after them to correct this falsehood by any legal means. I think that we should publicize this as much as possible and ask people to protest these lies. I also ask your input regarding how to remedy this travesty.”
The CCR lawsuit is challenging violations of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to due process, at the two experimental prison units called “Communications Management Units” (CMUs). It was brought on behalf of five current and former prisoners, and the spouses of two prisoners.
The two experimental prison units were created in 2006 and 2007, during the administration of George W. Bush. They were designed to isolate certain prisoners from the rest of the prison population and the outside world. They were called ‘Communications Management Units’ or ‘CMUs.’
The CCR says that, “Despite the fact that their creation marked a dramatic change in BOP policy, they were opened without the required opportunity for public notice and comment.”
The group adds, “Prisoners in the CMU, alone out of all general population prisoners within the federal system, are categorically banned from any physical contact with visiting friends and family, including babies, infants, and minor children. To further their social isolation, the BOP has placed severe restrictions on their access to phone calls and work and educational opportunities. Adding to the suspect nature of these units, upwards of two-thirds of the prisoners confined there are Muslim – a figure that over-represents the proportion of Muslim prisoners in BOP facilities by at least 1000 percent. Many of the remaining prisoners have unpopular political views, including environmental activists designated as ‘ecoterrorists’.”
“Transfers to the CMU are not explained; nor are prisoners told how release into less restrictive confinement may be earned as there is no review process. Lawyers say that because these transfers are not based on facts or discipline for infractions, a pattern of religious and political discrimination and retaliation for prisoners’ lawful advocacy has emerged,” according to the CCR.
“In addition to heavily restricted telephone and visitation access, CMU prisoners are categorically denied any physical contact with family members and are forbidden from hugging, touching or embracing their children or spouses during visits. Attorneys say this blanket ban on contact visitation, which is unique in the federal prison system, not only causes suffering to the families of the incarcerated men, but is a violation of fundamental constitutional rights,” the CCR says.
Between 65 and 72 percent of CMU prisoners are Muslim men, a fact that attorneys say demonstrates that the CMUs were created to allow for the segregation and restrictive treatment of Muslims based on the discriminatory belief that such prisoners are more likely than others to pose a threat to prison security.
Other prisoners appear to be transferred to the CMU because of other protected First Amendment activity, such as speaking out on social justice issues or filing grievances in prison or court regarding conditions and abuse.
According the Bureau of Prisons, the 76 inmates housed in the isolation units are there to prevent them from furthering acts of terrorism. But civil liberties advocates say the extreme conditions in the CMUs amount to abuse and that the program violates the inmate’s constitutional rights. The BOP says CMUs were set up after authorities discovered that some Islamic militants were able to send messages abroad from their prison cells.
The lawsuit triggered angry responses – both for and against the CMUs – in the blogosphere. One fairly typical “pro” response: “Here we go again, our authorities try to protect us, and Muslims look to reverse policies by claiming discrimination. For the record, the Fort Hood terrorist Hasan also claimed discrimination.”
Two federal prisons are being used overwhelmingly to hold Muslim prisoners and prisoners with unpopular political beliefs, and are practicing religious profiling, retaliation and arbitrary punishment.
These are the principal allegations in a lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ houses the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which runs the two units, one in Terre Haute, Indiana, the other in Marion, Illinois.
“These units are an experiment in social isolation,” said CCR Attorney Alexis Agathocleous. “People are being put in these extraordinarily restrictive units without being told why and without any meaningful review. Dispensing with due process creates a situation ripe for abuse; in this case, it has allowed for a pattern of religious profiling, retaliation and arbitrary punishment. This is precisely what the rule of law and the Constitution forbid.”
At the same time, some prisoners at the CMU are protesting their being designated as “terrorists” by the DOJ, despite never having been convicted of any terror-related crime.
One such prisoner is Dr. Rafil Dhafir, an American Iraqi-born upstate-New York oncologist. He was arrested by 85 federal agents who descended on his home, handcuffing him in his driveway. Then Attorney General John D. Ashcroft referred to him as a terrorism supporter apprehended
Dhafir was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to 22 years in prison for violating the Iraqi sanctions by sending money to Iraq through his charity, “Help the Needy,” and for fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and a variety of other nonviolent crimes. Five other people, including his wife, had already pleaded guilty to charges in connection with the case.
In the period leading up to his trial, political figures strove to paint Dhafir with a broad terrorist brush. Then New York State governor George E. Pataki described Dhafir's as a "money laundering case to help terrorist organizations . . . conduct horrible acts." The New York Times reported that prosecutors hinted at national security reasons for holding Dhafir without bail. And Federal prosecutors heralded his arrest as another blow in the Justice Department's war on terrorism.
However, federal prosecutors never filed any charges related to terrorism nor did they prove any link to terrorists. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “this turned out to be a case of white-collar crime; the trial process was filled with descriptions of financial statements and details of financial transactions.”
In a letter to a supporter, obtained by IPS, Dr. Dhafir wrote, “I am really upset about the lies concerning the DOJ list. I have every intention of going after them to correct this falsehood by any legal means. I think that we should publicize this as much as possible and ask people to protest these lies. I also ask your input regarding how to remedy this travesty.”
The CCR lawsuit is challenging violations of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to due process, at the two experimental prison units called “Communications Management Units” (CMUs). It was brought on behalf of five current and former prisoners, and the spouses of two prisoners.
The two experimental prison units were created in 2006 and 2007, during the administration of George W. Bush. They were designed to isolate certain prisoners from the rest of the prison population and the outside world. They were called ‘Communications Management Units’ or ‘CMUs.’
The CCR says that, “Despite the fact that their creation marked a dramatic change in BOP policy, they were opened without the required opportunity for public notice and comment.”
The group adds, “Prisoners in the CMU, alone out of all general population prisoners within the federal system, are categorically banned from any physical contact with visiting friends and family, including babies, infants, and minor children. To further their social isolation, the BOP has placed severe restrictions on their access to phone calls and work and educational opportunities. Adding to the suspect nature of these units, upwards of two-thirds of the prisoners confined there are Muslim – a figure that over-represents the proportion of Muslim prisoners in BOP facilities by at least 1000 percent. Many of the remaining prisoners have unpopular political views, including environmental activists designated as ‘ecoterrorists’.”
“Transfers to the CMU are not explained; nor are prisoners told how release into less restrictive confinement may be earned as there is no review process. Lawyers say that because these transfers are not based on facts or discipline for infractions, a pattern of religious and political discrimination and retaliation for prisoners’ lawful advocacy has emerged,” according to the CCR.
“In addition to heavily restricted telephone and visitation access, CMU prisoners are categorically denied any physical contact with family members and are forbidden from hugging, touching or embracing their children or spouses during visits. Attorneys say this blanket ban on contact visitation, which is unique in the federal prison system, not only causes suffering to the families of the incarcerated men, but is a violation of fundamental constitutional rights,” the CCR says.
Between 65 and 72 percent of CMU prisoners are Muslim men, a fact that attorneys say demonstrates that the CMUs were created to allow for the segregation and restrictive treatment of Muslims based on the discriminatory belief that such prisoners are more likely than others to pose a threat to prison security.
Other prisoners appear to be transferred to the CMU because of other protected First Amendment activity, such as speaking out on social justice issues or filing grievances in prison or court regarding conditions and abuse.
According the Bureau of Prisons, the 76 inmates housed in the isolation units are there to prevent them from furthering acts of terrorism. But civil liberties advocates say the extreme conditions in the CMUs amount to abuse and that the program violates the inmate’s constitutional rights. The BOP says CMUs were set up after authorities discovered that some Islamic militants were able to send messages abroad from their prison cells.
The lawsuit triggered angry responses – both for and against the CMUs – in the blogosphere. One fairly typical “pro” response: “Here we go again, our authorities try to protect us, and Muslims look to reverse policies by claiming discrimination. For the record, the Fort Hood terrorist Hasan also claimed discrimination.”
IG Blasts 287(g)
By William Fisher
A controversial government program that enlists local police officers and sheriff’s deputies to help enforce the nation’s immigration laws is verging on being out of control and unable to assess whether it is meeting its stated goals.
These are among the findings in a new report released by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the program known as 287(g). The program, administered by Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE), authorizes local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws.
Calling ICE “an agency that has lost its way,” Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center, an immigration advocacy group, said the IG’s report was “a damning critique of the 287(g) program, confirming many of the criticisms levied against the program by community leaders, law enforcement officials, and immigration groups.”
The report “raises serious questions about the wisdom of state and local immigration enforcement partnerships with ICE,” she said, adding:
“There is no evidence that 287(g) makes communities safer or improves our broken immigration system. In the rush to engage state and local law enforcement on federal immigration matters, ICE has created a program that lacks oversight, undermines community relations, and breeds mistrust. As proven time and time again, a deportation-driven strategy exacts a high toll on individuals and communities with little real impact in stopping illegal immigration,” she said.
"The OIG report is further evidence that the Administration has yet to distinguish between deporting large numbers of immigrants and making us safe. In the rush to engage state and local law enforcement on federal immigration matters, ICE has created a program that lacks oversight, undermines community relations, and breeds mistrust. As proven time and time again, a deportation-driven strategy exacts a high toll on individuals and communities with little real impact in stopping illegal immigration."
Giovagnoli, an immigration lawyer who formerly served with ICE and several of its predecessor agencies, told IPS that ICE “needs to create an Ombudsman with the skills and resources to resolve conflicts and adjudicate complaints quickly and fairly.”
The IG found that the 287(g)program is poorly managed and supervised, and ICE has not instituted controls to promote effective program operations; lacks strict guidelines for implementation, which results in different implementation methods in different jurisdictions; lacks an adequate and consistent vetting process for jurisdictions that apply for the program, as well as for officers applying to be deputized under the program; does not gather data necessary to track how the program is being used; lacks a process for reviewing Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) on a regular basis, and for modifying or terminating an MOA as necessary; has not taken action against law enforcement agencies that are clearly violating the terms of the MOA, nor adequately trained deputized officers about immigration law or their authority under the MOA; lacks public outreach efforts, and often provides the public with misleading or inaccurate information” about the program.
The 287(g)program has created tensions within communities where local law enforcement agents have used their delegated authority to conduct large-scale operations in Latino and immigrant communities. Numerous law enforcement organizations and officials have cautioned against participating in 287(g) partnerships because they “foster community distrust and operate with inadequate supervision.”
Brittney Nystrom of the National Immigration Forum (NIF), said the IG’s report “confirms our worst suspicions about this program.”
“While some local law enforcement agencies continue to use this program to intimidate and terrorize immigrant communities, ICE does not have the structures in place to evaluate or restrain the actions of rogue enforcement agencies,” she said.
She noted that the Inspector General is calling attention to the program's inability to safeguard civil rights and civil liberties, to assess the program's effectiveness in targeting dangerous individuals, to properly train officers enrolling in the program, to receive and respond to community input, and to oversee local officers enrolled in the program. “In sum, the Inspector General made 33 recommendations for fundamental reforms necessary to make the program accountable and effective in its mission, “she said, adding, “We believe the program has proven itself to be beyond repair and should be terminated.”
She said that, “Given the well-documented abuses committed by some local enforcement agencies enrolled in this program, the lack of concern with the civil rights record of enrolled agencies is astounding.”
“Also troubling is the program's the lack of ability to track whether it meets ICE's stated goals for the program-to remove non-citizens who pose a threat to public safety or a danger to the community. In fact, the IG found that ICE's performance measures are more concerned with the quantity of arrests rather than adherence to program goals. This raises again the specter of arrest quotas driving ICE's detention and removal operations, which have been the subject of criticism earlier this week,” she said.
The IG report said, “We observed instances in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement and participating law enforcement agencies were not operating in compliance with the terms of the agreements. We also noted several areas in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement had not instituted controls to promote effective program operations and address related risks.”
The IG report comes on the heels of recent revelations that ICE is failing to prioritize genuine threats to the community. The Washington Post recently reported that a senior ICE official sent a memo to field offices outlining an enforcement strategy which emphasized large enforcement quotas rather than focusing on serious criminals. Similarly, the OIG found that 287(g) programs have not prioritized serious criminal immigrants, and performance standards by which local officers are evaluated focus on the number of immigrants encountered, not the seriousness of their crimes.
Section 287(g) refers to a law, written into the 1996 comprehensive immigration reforms, which for the frst time in US history created a formal mechanism for federal executives to extend to local communitybased agencies the arrest and incarceration powers originally reserved for immigration police stationed at the borders.
The IG’s report closely channels a finding by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, The GAO concluded that immigration bureau officials had not closely supervised how their agreements with the local agencies had been carried out, had inconsistently described the program’s goals, and had failed to spell out what data should be tracked, collected and reported.
A controversial government program that enlists local police officers and sheriff’s deputies to help enforce the nation’s immigration laws is verging on being out of control and unable to assess whether it is meeting its stated goals.
These are among the findings in a new report released by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the program known as 287(g). The program, administered by Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE), authorizes local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws.
Calling ICE “an agency that has lost its way,” Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center, an immigration advocacy group, said the IG’s report was “a damning critique of the 287(g) program, confirming many of the criticisms levied against the program by community leaders, law enforcement officials, and immigration groups.”
The report “raises serious questions about the wisdom of state and local immigration enforcement partnerships with ICE,” she said, adding:
“There is no evidence that 287(g) makes communities safer or improves our broken immigration system. In the rush to engage state and local law enforcement on federal immigration matters, ICE has created a program that lacks oversight, undermines community relations, and breeds mistrust. As proven time and time again, a deportation-driven strategy exacts a high toll on individuals and communities with little real impact in stopping illegal immigration,” she said.
"The OIG report is further evidence that the Administration has yet to distinguish between deporting large numbers of immigrants and making us safe. In the rush to engage state and local law enforcement on federal immigration matters, ICE has created a program that lacks oversight, undermines community relations, and breeds mistrust. As proven time and time again, a deportation-driven strategy exacts a high toll on individuals and communities with little real impact in stopping illegal immigration."
Giovagnoli, an immigration lawyer who formerly served with ICE and several of its predecessor agencies, told IPS that ICE “needs to create an Ombudsman with the skills and resources to resolve conflicts and adjudicate complaints quickly and fairly.”
The IG found that the 287(g)program is poorly managed and supervised, and ICE has not instituted controls to promote effective program operations; lacks strict guidelines for implementation, which results in different implementation methods in different jurisdictions; lacks an adequate and consistent vetting process for jurisdictions that apply for the program, as well as for officers applying to be deputized under the program; does not gather data necessary to track how the program is being used; lacks a process for reviewing Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) on a regular basis, and for modifying or terminating an MOA as necessary; has not taken action against law enforcement agencies that are clearly violating the terms of the MOA, nor adequately trained deputized officers about immigration law or their authority under the MOA; lacks public outreach efforts, and often provides the public with misleading or inaccurate information” about the program.
The 287(g)program has created tensions within communities where local law enforcement agents have used their delegated authority to conduct large-scale operations in Latino and immigrant communities. Numerous law enforcement organizations and officials have cautioned against participating in 287(g) partnerships because they “foster community distrust and operate with inadequate supervision.”
Brittney Nystrom of the National Immigration Forum (NIF), said the IG’s report “confirms our worst suspicions about this program.”
“While some local law enforcement agencies continue to use this program to intimidate and terrorize immigrant communities, ICE does not have the structures in place to evaluate or restrain the actions of rogue enforcement agencies,” she said.
She noted that the Inspector General is calling attention to the program's inability to safeguard civil rights and civil liberties, to assess the program's effectiveness in targeting dangerous individuals, to properly train officers enrolling in the program, to receive and respond to community input, and to oversee local officers enrolled in the program. “In sum, the Inspector General made 33 recommendations for fundamental reforms necessary to make the program accountable and effective in its mission, “she said, adding, “We believe the program has proven itself to be beyond repair and should be terminated.”
She said that, “Given the well-documented abuses committed by some local enforcement agencies enrolled in this program, the lack of concern with the civil rights record of enrolled agencies is astounding.”
“Also troubling is the program's the lack of ability to track whether it meets ICE's stated goals for the program-to remove non-citizens who pose a threat to public safety or a danger to the community. In fact, the IG found that ICE's performance measures are more concerned with the quantity of arrests rather than adherence to program goals. This raises again the specter of arrest quotas driving ICE's detention and removal operations, which have been the subject of criticism earlier this week,” she said.
The IG report said, “We observed instances in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement and participating law enforcement agencies were not operating in compliance with the terms of the agreements. We also noted several areas in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement had not instituted controls to promote effective program operations and address related risks.”
The IG report comes on the heels of recent revelations that ICE is failing to prioritize genuine threats to the community. The Washington Post recently reported that a senior ICE official sent a memo to field offices outlining an enforcement strategy which emphasized large enforcement quotas rather than focusing on serious criminals. Similarly, the OIG found that 287(g) programs have not prioritized serious criminal immigrants, and performance standards by which local officers are evaluated focus on the number of immigrants encountered, not the seriousness of their crimes.
Section 287(g) refers to a law, written into the 1996 comprehensive immigration reforms, which for the frst time in US history created a formal mechanism for federal executives to extend to local communitybased agencies the arrest and incarceration powers originally reserved for immigration police stationed at the borders.
The IG’s report closely channels a finding by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, The GAO concluded that immigration bureau officials had not closely supervised how their agreements with the local agencies had been carried out, had inconsistently described the program’s goals, and had failed to spell out what data should be tracked, collected and reported.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
