By William Fisher
OK, OK. I know. It’s time for my annual good news column.
It’s a deal I made with a friend to make up for all the depressing news stories I had to write this year.
This was no easy task. Aside from the end of the Bush era, and the election of Barack Obama, there wasn’t all that much good news to be had. But perseverance paid off: My discovery of a fitting subject came during a session of the U.S. Senate on C-SPAN, that exciting channel sponsored by the cable industry.
Amidst the hollow echo of a totally empty Senate chamber (did you know the C-SPAN cameras are only allowed to focus on whoever is speaking, and never allowed to pan the whole chamber, full of empty seats?) stood a Republican senator, voice quivering, arms flailing, face reddening, railing against our National Security Enemy Number One, the American Civil Liberties Union.
Now, what was this legislative grandstander getting so apoplectic about? The ACLU’s activities in coordinating defense teams for detainees at Guantanamo.
But why he should have been surprised – or acting surprised – is a mystery. The ACLU has been doing this kind of unpopular stuff for almost a century.
Let’s go all the way back to World War I. Then, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, the ACLU’s predecessor, defended the First Amendment rights of antiwar dissidents in the face of massive government repression. The administration of President Woodrow Wilson (winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!) banned anti-war literature from the mails and prosecuted individuals for merely expressing opposition to the war, or criticizing the President. Just like some Third World dictatorship!
People were convicted and sentenced to ten-year prison terms for allegedly interfering with the draft, even though they had said nothing about the draft itself.
These prosecutions were initially upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. But later the Court affirmed the principle that the First Amendment protects the right to criticize the government – even during wartime.
A generation later, the ACLU was the only national organization to challenge the government's World War Two evacuation and internment of the Japanese-Americans while organizations of every political stripe, fearful of alienating the government, pretended not to notice.
Today all of us except the truly delusional acknowledge that this was one of the darkest chapters in American civil rights history.
Then, just a few years after the war, in 1949, an ex-Catholic priest named Arthur Terminiello delivered a racist and anti-Semitic speech to the Christian Veterans of America. The Chicago Police Department was present, but was unable to completely maintain order. Terminiello was charged with violating Chicago's breach of peace ordinance and fined a hundred dollars.
Terminiello appealed and the ACLU successfully defended him before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, known as Terminiello v. Chicago, established the legal precedent for the ACLU's successful defense of the civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s.
Many other unsavory characters have been defended by the ACLU. Like the Neo-Nazis who claimed the right to march in Skokie, Illinois, in 1979. At the time, the ACLU’s Executive Director was Aryeh Neier, whose relatives had died in Hitler's concentration camps during World War II. Neier said: "Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened."
I wish the folks we send to Congress to represent us knew more American history – or chose to remember it. But, after ACORN, there is arguably no easier target for a rabble-rousing, demagogic lawmaker than the ACLU.
And these icons of good governance lose no opportunity to go the floor of the House and Senate to inveigh against it.
But they might be well advised to remember that the ACLU is an outfit to which they might one day find themselves having to reach out to defend their First Amendment rights to speak their mind – including the right to say stupid things.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
U.S. TREATMENT OF IRAQ REFUGEES
By William Fisher
After years of delay and bureaucratic red tape, refugees from the Iraq War are finally being allowed into the United States. But America “is opening its gates to refugees and simply forgetting about them after they have arrived.”
In the process, “the United States is in danger of failing to meet its legal obligations to extend protection to the most vulnerable refugees, promote their long-term self-sufficiency, and support their integration.”
These are among the key findings of a study carried out by a team of students at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. The students, members of Georgetown Human Rights Action, conducted the study in partnership with the Law Center’s Human Rights Institute. They interviewed Iraqi refugees in Jordan and in two cities in the U.S., Washington, D.C. and Detroit.
Their report says, “Across the United States, many resettled Iraqi refugees are wondering how, after fleeing persecution at home to seek refuge in (Jordan) a country that barely tolerated them, they have found themselves in ‘the land of opportunity’ with little hope of achieving a secure and decent life.”
It charges that recently resettled Iraqi refugees “face odds so heavily stacked against them that most end up jobless, some even homeless” and cites the experience of one Iraqi widow who lives with her three young children in a shelter.
“I left Iraq to find security,” the refugee says. “But what kind of security is it to live in a homeless shelter?”
The report applauds the advocates who “worked tirelessly to encourage the U.S. government to accept Iraqis who were forced to flee a war initiated by the United States,” but notes that “few have studied what happens to those refugees after they arrive here.”
Acknowledging that resettlement is one of three “durable solutions” for refugees, the report says there has been “scarce focus on just how durable the U.S. resettlement system actually is.”
It says that the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) “is unique in giving new life and opportunity to millions of refugees, accepting many times more than the rest of the world combined.” But it cautions that as these new refugees from Iraq arrive in increasing numbers, and “as the U.S. economy continues to offer little prospect for those seeking work, there is an urgent need to diagnose the ills of refugee resettlement before they become incurable.”
The project sought to determine the extent to which Iraqi refugees have been afforded protection and a durable solution through the USRAP. Throughout their report, “long-term self-sufficiency” and “long-term integration” are the terms used to describe both the goal of the USRAP and the standard against which it is measured.
The report says, “If the United States is to meet its own aims and serve as a guarantor of security for those it welcomes to its shores, it is imperative that U.S. policies be based on respect for these legal norms.”
The report’s principal findings:
· The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees created "11 resettlement eligibility criteria for Iraqi refugees," including survivors of torture and violence, including sexual and gender based violence; members of minority groups and persons targeted due to their ethnicity or sect; women at risk in country of asylum; unaccompanied or separate children; elderly refugees; and refugees with medical needs. Despite the U.S. government agreeing to these criteria, the study notes that the USRAP “offers resettlement to those refugees with particular vulnerabilities that can inhibit their ability to achieve self-sufficiency while expecting them to quickly become self-sufficient."
· Iraqi refugees rarely enjoy legal protection and long-term self-sufficiency in Jordan, and resettlement remains an important solution for many Iraqi refugees. Some refugees, including particularly vulnerable refugees, are refusing resettlement offers to the United States because of a perceived lack of post-resettlement services. However, most Iraqi refugees interviewed desired to be resettled to the United States.
· The application of mainstream U.S. anti-poverty programs to refugee assistance under the USRAP does not promote the long-term self-sufficiency of refugees. It does not break down barriers to sustainable employment, employment services are not properly funded, English language training is insufficient, transportation is inadequate, and professional recertification is not viable. These deficiencies result in low employment rates for Iraqi refugees. Additionally, cash assistance is insufficient, both in amount and duration, to allow refugees to support themselves…The USRAP makes it difficult for refugees to secure medical care, and treatment options are insufficient to address the serious mental health issues that affect many Iraqi refugees.
· Poor planning and coordination throughout the USRAP amplify the problems refugees face. Pre-resettlement processing takes little account of post-resettlement needs when gathering information about individual refugees. The USRAP does not base services capacity-setting on current or future refugee flows, leaving programs improperly funded. Secondary migration is not properly tracked, further preventing the USRAP from targeting resources to actual needs.
The report recommends that refugee resettlement should be decoupled from U.S. anti-poverty programs and tailored to the unique needs and experiences of refugees. It suggests that refugee assistance be increased from eight to eighteen months, and programs designed to promote the long-term self-sufficiency and integration of refugees should be better funded. Stronger emphasis should be placed on the core barriers to self-sufficiency and integration, including lack of English language skills, lack of transportation, and lack of opportunities for education and recertification.
It also recommends that funding for employment and social services should be tailored to estimates of incoming refugee arrivals and secondary migration, as well as the unique needs of these particular groups. Funding should not be based on the number of past refugee arrivals.
Finally, the report says, “All actors within the USRAP must improve planning and information sharing capabilities. Planning should anticipate and prepare for the unique needs of each refugee group prior to arrival.In order to tailor services for refugees, actors must take into account important information on refugees collected in the resettlement process, such as health status and professional background.
The United Nations estimates that there are currently 4.7 million Iraqi external and internal refugees. Until 2007, the numbers admitted to the U.S. were in the low hundreds. Then, under pressure from advocacy groups and increased reporting on the plight of Iraqi refugees, the U.S. began resettling more Iraqis. In the fall of 2007, Congress passed the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act, providing admission for Iraqis that worked for the U.S. or its contractors in Iraq, and allowing in-country processing for at-risk Iraqis.
In 2008, the United States appointed two Senior Coordinators for Iraqi Refugees, one at the Department of State (DOS) and one at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to strengthen the American humanitarian commitment to refugees with a particular emphasis on resettlement. In FY 2008, the U.S. resettled 13,822 Iraqi refugees. As of August 31, 2009, the U.S. has resettled 16,965, totaling approximately 33,000 since the start of the 2003 war.
After years of delay and bureaucratic red tape, refugees from the Iraq War are finally being allowed into the United States. But America “is opening its gates to refugees and simply forgetting about them after they have arrived.”
In the process, “the United States is in danger of failing to meet its legal obligations to extend protection to the most vulnerable refugees, promote their long-term self-sufficiency, and support their integration.”
These are among the key findings of a study carried out by a team of students at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. The students, members of Georgetown Human Rights Action, conducted the study in partnership with the Law Center’s Human Rights Institute. They interviewed Iraqi refugees in Jordan and in two cities in the U.S., Washington, D.C. and Detroit.
Their report says, “Across the United States, many resettled Iraqi refugees are wondering how, after fleeing persecution at home to seek refuge in (Jordan) a country that barely tolerated them, they have found themselves in ‘the land of opportunity’ with little hope of achieving a secure and decent life.”
It charges that recently resettled Iraqi refugees “face odds so heavily stacked against them that most end up jobless, some even homeless” and cites the experience of one Iraqi widow who lives with her three young children in a shelter.
“I left Iraq to find security,” the refugee says. “But what kind of security is it to live in a homeless shelter?”
The report applauds the advocates who “worked tirelessly to encourage the U.S. government to accept Iraqis who were forced to flee a war initiated by the United States,” but notes that “few have studied what happens to those refugees after they arrive here.”
Acknowledging that resettlement is one of three “durable solutions” for refugees, the report says there has been “scarce focus on just how durable the U.S. resettlement system actually is.”
It says that the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) “is unique in giving new life and opportunity to millions of refugees, accepting many times more than the rest of the world combined.” But it cautions that as these new refugees from Iraq arrive in increasing numbers, and “as the U.S. economy continues to offer little prospect for those seeking work, there is an urgent need to diagnose the ills of refugee resettlement before they become incurable.”
The project sought to determine the extent to which Iraqi refugees have been afforded protection and a durable solution through the USRAP. Throughout their report, “long-term self-sufficiency” and “long-term integration” are the terms used to describe both the goal of the USRAP and the standard against which it is measured.
The report says, “If the United States is to meet its own aims and serve as a guarantor of security for those it welcomes to its shores, it is imperative that U.S. policies be based on respect for these legal norms.”
The report’s principal findings:
· The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees created "11 resettlement eligibility criteria for Iraqi refugees," including survivors of torture and violence, including sexual and gender based violence; members of minority groups and persons targeted due to their ethnicity or sect; women at risk in country of asylum; unaccompanied or separate children; elderly refugees; and refugees with medical needs. Despite the U.S. government agreeing to these criteria, the study notes that the USRAP “offers resettlement to those refugees with particular vulnerabilities that can inhibit their ability to achieve self-sufficiency while expecting them to quickly become self-sufficient."
· Iraqi refugees rarely enjoy legal protection and long-term self-sufficiency in Jordan, and resettlement remains an important solution for many Iraqi refugees. Some refugees, including particularly vulnerable refugees, are refusing resettlement offers to the United States because of a perceived lack of post-resettlement services. However, most Iraqi refugees interviewed desired to be resettled to the United States.
· The application of mainstream U.S. anti-poverty programs to refugee assistance under the USRAP does not promote the long-term self-sufficiency of refugees. It does not break down barriers to sustainable employment, employment services are not properly funded, English language training is insufficient, transportation is inadequate, and professional recertification is not viable. These deficiencies result in low employment rates for Iraqi refugees. Additionally, cash assistance is insufficient, both in amount and duration, to allow refugees to support themselves…The USRAP makes it difficult for refugees to secure medical care, and treatment options are insufficient to address the serious mental health issues that affect many Iraqi refugees.
· Poor planning and coordination throughout the USRAP amplify the problems refugees face. Pre-resettlement processing takes little account of post-resettlement needs when gathering information about individual refugees. The USRAP does not base services capacity-setting on current or future refugee flows, leaving programs improperly funded. Secondary migration is not properly tracked, further preventing the USRAP from targeting resources to actual needs.
The report recommends that refugee resettlement should be decoupled from U.S. anti-poverty programs and tailored to the unique needs and experiences of refugees. It suggests that refugee assistance be increased from eight to eighteen months, and programs designed to promote the long-term self-sufficiency and integration of refugees should be better funded. Stronger emphasis should be placed on the core barriers to self-sufficiency and integration, including lack of English language skills, lack of transportation, and lack of opportunities for education and recertification.
It also recommends that funding for employment and social services should be tailored to estimates of incoming refugee arrivals and secondary migration, as well as the unique needs of these particular groups. Funding should not be based on the number of past refugee arrivals.
Finally, the report says, “All actors within the USRAP must improve planning and information sharing capabilities. Planning should anticipate and prepare for the unique needs of each refugee group prior to arrival.In order to tailor services for refugees, actors must take into account important information on refugees collected in the resettlement process, such as health status and professional background.
The United Nations estimates that there are currently 4.7 million Iraqi external and internal refugees. Until 2007, the numbers admitted to the U.S. were in the low hundreds. Then, under pressure from advocacy groups and increased reporting on the plight of Iraqi refugees, the U.S. began resettling more Iraqis. In the fall of 2007, Congress passed the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act, providing admission for Iraqis that worked for the U.S. or its contractors in Iraq, and allowing in-country processing for at-risk Iraqis.
In 2008, the United States appointed two Senior Coordinators for Iraqi Refugees, one at the Department of State (DOS) and one at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to strengthen the American humanitarian commitment to refugees with a particular emphasis on resettlement. In FY 2008, the U.S. resettled 13,822 Iraqi refugees. As of August 31, 2009, the U.S. has resettled 16,965, totaling approximately 33,000 since the start of the 2003 war.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Open Government: We Live in Hope
By William Fisher
Advocates for greater freedom of information are expressing approval of the Obama Administration’s "Open Government Directive" – but some are sounding cautionary notes that executive agencies are still hiding behind “national security” to conceal government misconduct.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued its "Open Government Directive" yesterday, instructing government agencies and departments to take specific actions to increase "transparency, participation and collaboration" in government, with the aim of creating "an unprecedented and sustained level of openness and accountability in every agency."
The directive is intended to make good on the pledge of transparency President Barack Obama made during his first week in office.
The directive establishes deadlines for action and imposes guidelines for publishing government information and improving the quality of that information. It also orders each agency to establish an "Open Government Plan" that details how it will incorporate transparency, opportunities for public participation and inter-agency collaboration into its core mission objectives.
The directive does not apply to classified security information and makes an exception for "information whose release would threaten national security."
It is this latter condition that concerns civil libertarians. Jameel Jaffer, Director of the National Security Project for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said, “We remain concerned that executive agencies are invoking national security concerns as a pretext to suppress records that relate to government misconduct. We are particularly concerned about the Defense Department's refusal to release photos relating to the abuse of prisoners, the CIA's refusal to release information about black sites overseas and the Justice Department's refusal to release the legal memos that supplied the basis for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.”
He said, “While we appreciate the steps that the Obama administration has taken to increase government transparency, the administration's stated commitment to transparency has not yet translated into real change on information relating to national security policy.”
While President Obama has talked about instituting “a new era of transparency” since his first days in office, in many instances his Department of Justice has followed precedents set by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. These have included invoking the “state secrets privilege” as a way of stopping court cases brought by people who claim to have been injured by U.S. Government actions. These injuries range from “Middle Eastern-looking” men being rounded up and imprisoned in the days following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to charges from others that they were victims of the “extraordinary rendition” program run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Extraordinary rendition refers to a program in which people are kidnapped by the CIA in countries overseas and then sent to third countries where they are imprisoned, usually denied access to lawyers or to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and tortured by their jailers.
Despite these flaws, the ACLU’s Jaffer said he welcomed the release of the Open Government Directive, “particularly because it sets out specific, concrete steps that agencies must take in order to fulfill the Obama administration's stated goal of increased government transparency. As the directive itself makes clear, the principles of transparency, participation and collaboration are fundamental to our democracy.”
The directive is comprised of four main components centered on four themes – publishing information; creating a culture of openness; improving data quality; and updating policies to allow for greater openness. Each section tasks agencies and other key offices with specific goals, complete with deadlines.
A major new requirement in the directive is for each agency to develop specialized Open Government Plans within the next 120 days. These plans must detail exactly how each agency will improve transparency and integrate public participation and collaboration into its activities. An attachment to the directive lays out the required components of the plan.
Agencies will also be required to establish an Open Government webpage on their sites and permit public participation on the development of the plans, as well as gather input on transparency issues on an ongoing basis. The White House website will also establish an Open Government Dashboard to track agency plans and performance. These will be the places to watch to see how well the next step in government openness proceeds.
It also requires agencies to make use of modern technology to take a proactive approach to distributing information. Today, people are often forced to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and to sue Federal agencies to compel their compliance. Federal agencies process thousands of FOIA requests each year.
The directive was welcomed by OMB Watch, one of a group of private not-for-profit advocacy groups that helped the administration draft it.
Gary D. Bass, the organization’s executive director, noted that the new directive marks a new direction for the executive branch. "The directive’s presumption of openness – certainly a positive step – reflects a thoughtful understanding that achieving the goal of transparency requires a cultural shift in the way government operates." stated Bass. "The directive’s scope and specificity blends both rigorous timelines and agency flexibility that will likely achieve significant improvements in government openness across agencies. The key will be how the public, the White House, and federal agencies work together in implementing the directive." Bass added.
The content of the directive reflects many of the transparency recommendations collaboratively developed by the right-to-know community during a two-year process coordinated by OMB Watch. Those 70 detailed recommendations were delivered to the Obama transition team in a report called Moving Toward a 21st Century Right-to-Know Agenda. Among those recommendations were requests for creating incentives for openness, interagency coordination, and publication of high-priority data that is currently unavailable – all of which are addressed in the new directive.
The organization said the task before government now is to implement the new policy prescriptions.
Advocates for greater freedom of information are expressing approval of the Obama Administration’s "Open Government Directive" – but some are sounding cautionary notes that executive agencies are still hiding behind “national security” to conceal government misconduct.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued its "Open Government Directive" yesterday, instructing government agencies and departments to take specific actions to increase "transparency, participation and collaboration" in government, with the aim of creating "an unprecedented and sustained level of openness and accountability in every agency."
The directive is intended to make good on the pledge of transparency President Barack Obama made during his first week in office.
The directive establishes deadlines for action and imposes guidelines for publishing government information and improving the quality of that information. It also orders each agency to establish an "Open Government Plan" that details how it will incorporate transparency, opportunities for public participation and inter-agency collaboration into its core mission objectives.
The directive does not apply to classified security information and makes an exception for "information whose release would threaten national security."
It is this latter condition that concerns civil libertarians. Jameel Jaffer, Director of the National Security Project for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said, “We remain concerned that executive agencies are invoking national security concerns as a pretext to suppress records that relate to government misconduct. We are particularly concerned about the Defense Department's refusal to release photos relating to the abuse of prisoners, the CIA's refusal to release information about black sites overseas and the Justice Department's refusal to release the legal memos that supplied the basis for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.”
He said, “While we appreciate the steps that the Obama administration has taken to increase government transparency, the administration's stated commitment to transparency has not yet translated into real change on information relating to national security policy.”
While President Obama has talked about instituting “a new era of transparency” since his first days in office, in many instances his Department of Justice has followed precedents set by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. These have included invoking the “state secrets privilege” as a way of stopping court cases brought by people who claim to have been injured by U.S. Government actions. These injuries range from “Middle Eastern-looking” men being rounded up and imprisoned in the days following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to charges from others that they were victims of the “extraordinary rendition” program run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Extraordinary rendition refers to a program in which people are kidnapped by the CIA in countries overseas and then sent to third countries where they are imprisoned, usually denied access to lawyers or to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and tortured by their jailers.
Despite these flaws, the ACLU’s Jaffer said he welcomed the release of the Open Government Directive, “particularly because it sets out specific, concrete steps that agencies must take in order to fulfill the Obama administration's stated goal of increased government transparency. As the directive itself makes clear, the principles of transparency, participation and collaboration are fundamental to our democracy.”
The directive is comprised of four main components centered on four themes – publishing information; creating a culture of openness; improving data quality; and updating policies to allow for greater openness. Each section tasks agencies and other key offices with specific goals, complete with deadlines.
A major new requirement in the directive is for each agency to develop specialized Open Government Plans within the next 120 days. These plans must detail exactly how each agency will improve transparency and integrate public participation and collaboration into its activities. An attachment to the directive lays out the required components of the plan.
Agencies will also be required to establish an Open Government webpage on their sites and permit public participation on the development of the plans, as well as gather input on transparency issues on an ongoing basis. The White House website will also establish an Open Government Dashboard to track agency plans and performance. These will be the places to watch to see how well the next step in government openness proceeds.
It also requires agencies to make use of modern technology to take a proactive approach to distributing information. Today, people are often forced to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and to sue Federal agencies to compel their compliance. Federal agencies process thousands of FOIA requests each year.
The directive was welcomed by OMB Watch, one of a group of private not-for-profit advocacy groups that helped the administration draft it.
Gary D. Bass, the organization’s executive director, noted that the new directive marks a new direction for the executive branch. "The directive’s presumption of openness – certainly a positive step – reflects a thoughtful understanding that achieving the goal of transparency requires a cultural shift in the way government operates." stated Bass. "The directive’s scope and specificity blends both rigorous timelines and agency flexibility that will likely achieve significant improvements in government openness across agencies. The key will be how the public, the White House, and federal agencies work together in implementing the directive." Bass added.
The content of the directive reflects many of the transparency recommendations collaboratively developed by the right-to-know community during a two-year process coordinated by OMB Watch. Those 70 detailed recommendations were delivered to the Obama transition team in a report called Moving Toward a 21st Century Right-to-Know Agenda. Among those recommendations were requests for creating incentives for openness, interagency coordination, and publication of high-priority data that is currently unavailable – all of which are addressed in the new directive.
The organization said the task before government now is to implement the new policy prescriptions.
Immigrant Detention System Broken
By William Fisher
"In New York when I was detained, I was about to get an attorney through one of the churches, but that went away once they sent me here to New Mexico.... All my evidence and stuff that I need is right there in New York. I've been trying to get all my case information from New York ... writing to ICE to get my records. But they won't give me my records; they haven't given me nothing. I'm just representing myself with no evidence to present." – (name withheld), writing from the Otero County Processing Center, Chaparral, New Mexico.
So reads testimony from one of the increasing number of immigrants transferred by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detention centers far from where they were apprehended – making it virtually impossible for them to retain their records, communicate with family members, or hire lawyers to contest their deportation.
The number of individuals held in hundreds of different detention facilities by the DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in fiscal year 2009 is estimated to have reached 369,483, more than double what it was a decade earlier. A new analysis of millions of government records shows that to handle this pronounced surge in detainees, ICE made 1.4 million detainee transfers in the decade from 1999 through 2008 -- 53 percent of them since 2006.
An increasing proportion of all detainees are being transferred. In FY 1999, one out of every five (19.6%) of the detainees was moved from one detention facility to another. During the first six months of FY 2008, the latest period for which complete data are available, the majority (52.4%) of detainees were transferred.
Almost as startling was the growth in the percentage of individuals who were subjected to multiple transfers — starting at one detention facility, being transferred to a second, and then again (and sometimes again and again) to other detention locations. Ten years ago only one out of twenty detainees experienced multiple transfers (5.6%). In FY 2008, one out of every four detainees (24%) was subject to multiple transfers.
This analysis is based upon previously unavailable data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearing House (TRAC) at Syracuse University and Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has published a new report, “Locked Up Far Away: The Transfer of Immigrants to Remote Detention Centers in the United States."
According to Alison Parker, HRW’s U.S. deputy director, “ICE is increasingly subjecting detainees to a chaotic game of musical chairs. And it’s a game with dire consequences since it may keep them from finding an attorney or presenting evidence in their defense.”
The human consequences of detainee transfers can be devastating. One detainee told Human Rights Watch that after living in upstate New York for
10 years with his wife and four children, ICE said he was deportable because of an old marijuana possession conviction, for which he had paid a fine and never served jail time. Initially detained in New York City, he was sent, just days later, to a detention center in New Mexico.
“In New York when I was detained, I was about to get an attorney through one of the churches, but that went away once they sent me here to New Mexico,” a detainee said from the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. “All my evidence and stuff that I need is right there in New York. I’ve been trying to get all my case information from New York … But they won’t give me my records, they haven’t given me nothing. I’m just representing myself with no evidence to present.”
ICE detains people suspected of violating civil immigration laws, not criminal laws. Many immigrants are first arrested and detained in major cities like Los Angeles or Philadelphia, places where immigrants have lived for decades and where their family members, employers, and attorneys also live. Days or months later, with no notice, many of these immigrants are loaded onto planes for transport to detention centers in remote corners of states such as Texas, California, and Louisiana (the three states most likely to receive transfers), the report found.
The average length of detention by ICE is 30 days, including the 25 per cent of detainees apprehended at the border and sent home within a day. But about 2,100 immigrants are detained for a year or more.
Says Rebecca Schreve, an immigration attorney in El Paso, Texas, "The transfers are devastating, absolutely devastating. [Detainees] are loaded onto a plane in the middle of the night. They have no idea where they are, no idea what [US] state they are in. I cannot overemphasize the psychological trauma to these people. What it does to their family members cannot be fully captured either. I have taken calls from seriously hysterical family members - incredibly traumatized people - sobbing on the phone, crying out, ‘I don't know where my son or husband is!'"
Detained immigrants have the right, under both US and international human rights law, to be represented in deportation hearings by an attorney of their choice and to present evidence in their defense.
But once they are transferred, immigrants are often so far away from their lawyers, evidence, and witnesses that their ability to defend themselves in deportation proceedings is severely curtailed, the report found.
"Immigrant detainees should not be treated like so many boxes of goods - shipped to the most convenient place for ICE to store them," HRW’s Parker said, adding, "We are especially concerned that the transferred detainees may find that their chances of successfully fighting deportation or gaining asylum from persecution have just evaporated."
The federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) has jurisdiction over the largest number of the transferred detainees. Those transfers are of particular concern, HRW said, because that court is widely known for decisions that are hostile to non-citizens and because the states within its jurisdiction collectively have the lowest ratio of immigration attorneys to immigration detainees in the country.
HRW acknowledges that some detainee transfers are inevitable, but says that ICE and Congress should use reasonable and rights-protective checks on detainee transfers as the best state criminal justice systems do. The report recommends concrete steps to help create such a system.
Although ICE has recently announced plans to revamp its detention system, which may provide an opening for reforms, the agency previously has rejected recommendations to place enforceable constraints on its transfer power.
A number of factors account for the dramatic increase in the numbers of detainees. In 1996, the immigration law was changed to require the detention of people convicted of crimes, including misdemeanors, and all asylum applicants. Unlike criminal defendants, these immigrants are not entitled to a bond hearing to determine if they are flight risks.
According to a recent ICE review of the detention system, about 11 percent of immigrant detainees in custody had committed violent crimes. “The majority of the population is characterized as low custody, or having a low propensity for violence,” the ICE report concluded.
Intensified law enforcement has also played a role in increasing the number of detainees. For example, ICE has expanded its so-called 287(g) program, named for a section of the immigration law, which allows local law enforcement officers to arrest and detain anyone suspected of violating federal immigration laws.
ICE has also expanded the “Secure Communities” program, which requires local police to check the immigration status of everyone booked into a local jail. Those convicted are deported after serving their sentences.
DHS, which recently received $200 million to expand the “Secure Communities” program, estimates that “tens of thousands” more immigrants will be deported under the program in 2010.
ICE has responded to the TRAC and Human Rights Watch reports. “ICE is in the process of fundamentally overhauling our immigration detention system to establish consistent standards across the country, prioritize risk, strengthen oversight and increase efficiency,” says the agency’s statement.
“ICE will also soon submit a plan to Congress to implement an alternatives to detention program nationwide for low-risk individuals. These steps will not only enhance accountability and safety in our system, but will also reduce detainee transfers that can separate detainees from counsel and prolong their legal proceedings.”
Earlier, ICE acknowledged that it had serious problems with the conditions under which detainees are held. A report from Dr. Dora Schriro, who was then Director of ICE’s Office of Detention Policy and Planning, concluded that ICE needed to do a better job of assessing the risks associated with individual detainees in order to house and treat them appropriately.
ICE detention centers – a collection of hundreds of Federally-owned facilities, county and city jails, and privately-run prisons – have been severely criticized for substandard physical and medical conditions. ICE has acknowledged these conditions.
The recent ICE report acknowledges that attorneys representing detainees have complained that their clients are often transferred to detention centers far away and without notice, making legal representation extremely difficult. The report therefore only recommends that those who are represented by attorneys “should not be transferred outside the area unless there are exigent health or safety reasons, and when this occurs, the attorney should be notified promptly.”
The findings in the HRW report were confirmed by other sources. One is a bipartisan study group, the Constitution Project, whose members include Asa Hutchinson, a former DHS under secretary, and the DHS Inspector General.
The group called for sweeping changes in ICE policies and amendments to immigration law, including new access to government-appointed counsel for many of those facing deportation. It recommended shrinking the use of detention, in part by adding more constitutional safeguards required in the criminal justice system.
“None of the recommendations being made should in any way compromise national security,” Hutchinson said in an interview with the New York Times before he presented the report at the National Press Club in Washington. “It simply allows for a more humane and more efficient system,” he said.
A separate report by the DHS Inspector General found that ICE detainee transfers were so disorganized that some detainees arrived at a new detention center without having been served a notice of why they were being held, or despite a high probability of being granted bond, or with pending criminal prosecutions or arrest warrants in the previous jurisdiction.
The investigation found that the consequences included a loss of access to legal counsel and relevant evidence; additional time in detention; and “errors, delays and confusion for detainees, their families, legal representatives” and the immigration courts. Some detainees were transferred with files lacking a photo and a security classification, field inspectors found.
According to the inspector general, it is estimated that in the future ICE will detain more than 442,000 people a year — more than double the number in 2003, the year ICE began its operations. Prior to the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE was known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
"In New York when I was detained, I was about to get an attorney through one of the churches, but that went away once they sent me here to New Mexico.... All my evidence and stuff that I need is right there in New York. I've been trying to get all my case information from New York ... writing to ICE to get my records. But they won't give me my records; they haven't given me nothing. I'm just representing myself with no evidence to present." – (name withheld), writing from the Otero County Processing Center, Chaparral, New Mexico.
So reads testimony from one of the increasing number of immigrants transferred by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detention centers far from where they were apprehended – making it virtually impossible for them to retain their records, communicate with family members, or hire lawyers to contest their deportation.
The number of individuals held in hundreds of different detention facilities by the DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in fiscal year 2009 is estimated to have reached 369,483, more than double what it was a decade earlier. A new analysis of millions of government records shows that to handle this pronounced surge in detainees, ICE made 1.4 million detainee transfers in the decade from 1999 through 2008 -- 53 percent of them since 2006.
An increasing proportion of all detainees are being transferred. In FY 1999, one out of every five (19.6%) of the detainees was moved from one detention facility to another. During the first six months of FY 2008, the latest period for which complete data are available, the majority (52.4%) of detainees were transferred.
Almost as startling was the growth in the percentage of individuals who were subjected to multiple transfers — starting at one detention facility, being transferred to a second, and then again (and sometimes again and again) to other detention locations. Ten years ago only one out of twenty detainees experienced multiple transfers (5.6%). In FY 2008, one out of every four detainees (24%) was subject to multiple transfers.
This analysis is based upon previously unavailable data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearing House (TRAC) at Syracuse University and Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has published a new report, “Locked Up Far Away: The Transfer of Immigrants to Remote Detention Centers in the United States."
According to Alison Parker, HRW’s U.S. deputy director, “ICE is increasingly subjecting detainees to a chaotic game of musical chairs. And it’s a game with dire consequences since it may keep them from finding an attorney or presenting evidence in their defense.”
The human consequences of detainee transfers can be devastating. One detainee told Human Rights Watch that after living in upstate New York for
10 years with his wife and four children, ICE said he was deportable because of an old marijuana possession conviction, for which he had paid a fine and never served jail time. Initially detained in New York City, he was sent, just days later, to a detention center in New Mexico.
“In New York when I was detained, I was about to get an attorney through one of the churches, but that went away once they sent me here to New Mexico,” a detainee said from the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. “All my evidence and stuff that I need is right there in New York. I’ve been trying to get all my case information from New York … But they won’t give me my records, they haven’t given me nothing. I’m just representing myself with no evidence to present.”
ICE detains people suspected of violating civil immigration laws, not criminal laws. Many immigrants are first arrested and detained in major cities like Los Angeles or Philadelphia, places where immigrants have lived for decades and where their family members, employers, and attorneys also live. Days or months later, with no notice, many of these immigrants are loaded onto planes for transport to detention centers in remote corners of states such as Texas, California, and Louisiana (the three states most likely to receive transfers), the report found.
The average length of detention by ICE is 30 days, including the 25 per cent of detainees apprehended at the border and sent home within a day. But about 2,100 immigrants are detained for a year or more.
Says Rebecca Schreve, an immigration attorney in El Paso, Texas, "The transfers are devastating, absolutely devastating. [Detainees] are loaded onto a plane in the middle of the night. They have no idea where they are, no idea what [US] state they are in. I cannot overemphasize the psychological trauma to these people. What it does to their family members cannot be fully captured either. I have taken calls from seriously hysterical family members - incredibly traumatized people - sobbing on the phone, crying out, ‘I don't know where my son or husband is!'"
Detained immigrants have the right, under both US and international human rights law, to be represented in deportation hearings by an attorney of their choice and to present evidence in their defense.
But once they are transferred, immigrants are often so far away from their lawyers, evidence, and witnesses that their ability to defend themselves in deportation proceedings is severely curtailed, the report found.
"Immigrant detainees should not be treated like so many boxes of goods - shipped to the most convenient place for ICE to store them," HRW’s Parker said, adding, "We are especially concerned that the transferred detainees may find that their chances of successfully fighting deportation or gaining asylum from persecution have just evaporated."
The federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) has jurisdiction over the largest number of the transferred detainees. Those transfers are of particular concern, HRW said, because that court is widely known for decisions that are hostile to non-citizens and because the states within its jurisdiction collectively have the lowest ratio of immigration attorneys to immigration detainees in the country.
HRW acknowledges that some detainee transfers are inevitable, but says that ICE and Congress should use reasonable and rights-protective checks on detainee transfers as the best state criminal justice systems do. The report recommends concrete steps to help create such a system.
Although ICE has recently announced plans to revamp its detention system, which may provide an opening for reforms, the agency previously has rejected recommendations to place enforceable constraints on its transfer power.
A number of factors account for the dramatic increase in the numbers of detainees. In 1996, the immigration law was changed to require the detention of people convicted of crimes, including misdemeanors, and all asylum applicants. Unlike criminal defendants, these immigrants are not entitled to a bond hearing to determine if they are flight risks.
According to a recent ICE review of the detention system, about 11 percent of immigrant detainees in custody had committed violent crimes. “The majority of the population is characterized as low custody, or having a low propensity for violence,” the ICE report concluded.
Intensified law enforcement has also played a role in increasing the number of detainees. For example, ICE has expanded its so-called 287(g) program, named for a section of the immigration law, which allows local law enforcement officers to arrest and detain anyone suspected of violating federal immigration laws.
ICE has also expanded the “Secure Communities” program, which requires local police to check the immigration status of everyone booked into a local jail. Those convicted are deported after serving their sentences.
DHS, which recently received $200 million to expand the “Secure Communities” program, estimates that “tens of thousands” more immigrants will be deported under the program in 2010.
ICE has responded to the TRAC and Human Rights Watch reports. “ICE is in the process of fundamentally overhauling our immigration detention system to establish consistent standards across the country, prioritize risk, strengthen oversight and increase efficiency,” says the agency’s statement.
“ICE will also soon submit a plan to Congress to implement an alternatives to detention program nationwide for low-risk individuals. These steps will not only enhance accountability and safety in our system, but will also reduce detainee transfers that can separate detainees from counsel and prolong their legal proceedings.”
Earlier, ICE acknowledged that it had serious problems with the conditions under which detainees are held. A report from Dr. Dora Schriro, who was then Director of ICE’s Office of Detention Policy and Planning, concluded that ICE needed to do a better job of assessing the risks associated with individual detainees in order to house and treat them appropriately.
ICE detention centers – a collection of hundreds of Federally-owned facilities, county and city jails, and privately-run prisons – have been severely criticized for substandard physical and medical conditions. ICE has acknowledged these conditions.
The recent ICE report acknowledges that attorneys representing detainees have complained that their clients are often transferred to detention centers far away and without notice, making legal representation extremely difficult. The report therefore only recommends that those who are represented by attorneys “should not be transferred outside the area unless there are exigent health or safety reasons, and when this occurs, the attorney should be notified promptly.”
The findings in the HRW report were confirmed by other sources. One is a bipartisan study group, the Constitution Project, whose members include Asa Hutchinson, a former DHS under secretary, and the DHS Inspector General.
The group called for sweeping changes in ICE policies and amendments to immigration law, including new access to government-appointed counsel for many of those facing deportation. It recommended shrinking the use of detention, in part by adding more constitutional safeguards required in the criminal justice system.
“None of the recommendations being made should in any way compromise national security,” Hutchinson said in an interview with the New York Times before he presented the report at the National Press Club in Washington. “It simply allows for a more humane and more efficient system,” he said.
A separate report by the DHS Inspector General found that ICE detainee transfers were so disorganized that some detainees arrived at a new detention center without having been served a notice of why they were being held, or despite a high probability of being granted bond, or with pending criminal prosecutions or arrest warrants in the previous jurisdiction.
The investigation found that the consequences included a loss of access to legal counsel and relevant evidence; additional time in detention; and “errors, delays and confusion for detainees, their families, legal representatives” and the immigration courts. Some detainees were transferred with files lacking a photo and a security classification, field inspectors found.
According to the inspector general, it is estimated that in the future ICE will detain more than 442,000 people a year — more than double the number in 2003, the year ICE began its operations. Prior to the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE was known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Thursday, December 03, 2009
The Irony of Unintended Consequences
By William Fisher
Thousands of legitimate refugees and asylum seekers — who pose no danger to the United States and who have committed no acts of wrongdoing — are being labeled “terrorists” and their applications for protection are being denied or delayed because of overly broad “terrorism” provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
These are the conclusions of a report by Human Rights First (HRF), a legal advocacy organization. They come as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the White House point person on immigration, is calling on Congress to provide temporary worker programs and a path to citizenship for 12 million unauthorized workers when it takes up a reform bill next year.
Napolitano is optimistic that immigration reform could pass in an election year, because she says border security goals have been met and the economic downturn has decreased unauthorized immigration significantly since a bipartisan bill died in the Senate two years ago.
But Congressional Republicans dispute the administration's claims that the border has been secured, and have repeated their opposition to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants.
Earlier, Napolitano outlined the efforts her department plans to make to improve and reform conditions for thousands of refugees currently being held in detention centers, county jails, and privately run prisons, most of them awaiting decisions on their applications for asylum in the U.S. Many of these centers, which are run by DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), have been severely criticized for denying detainees legal due process and basic medical care.
The HRF report -- Denial and Delay: The Impact of the Immigration Law’s ‘Terrorism Bars’ on Asylum-Seekers and Refugees in the United States -- describes the adverse and unintended consequences the overly broad “terrorism” provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are producing for asylum-seekers and refugees.
The report says that more than 18,000 refugees and asylum seekers have been directly affected by these provisions to date.
Anwen Hughes, Senior Counsel in HRF’s Refugee Protection Program, told Truthout that there are currently over 7,500 cases pending before the Department of Homeland Security. She said these cases are “on indefinite hold based on some actual or perceived issue relating to the immigration law’s ‘terrorism’-related provisions.” The overwhelming majority of the cases are applications for permanent residence or family reunification filed by people who were granted asylum or refugee status several years ago and have been living and working in the United States since then,” she said.
She added that there is a need for a comprehensive review of the program.
HRF’s report cites a number of examples of refugees who have been characterized as “terrorists” under the legal definitions currently in use:
- A refugee from Burundi, who was detained for 20 months in a succession of county jails because the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the immigration judge who would otherwise have granted him asylum, took the position that he had provided “material support” to a rebel group because armed rebels robbed him of four dollars and his lunch.
- A young girl kidnapped at age 12 by a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, used as a child soldier, and later threatened for advocating against the use of children in armed conflict, who has been unable to receive a grant of asylum, as her application has been on hold for over a year because she was forced to take part in armed conflict as a child.
- A man who fled political and religious persecution in Bangladesh, who has had his application for permanent residence placed on indefinite hold because he took part in his country’s successful struggle for independence—in 1971.
--The minor children of members of the democratic opposition from Sudan who were granted asylum in the United States years ago, who have been prevented from becoming permanent residents because the peaceful political activities of their parents have been deemed to constitute “material support to a terrorist organization.”
HRF says the provisions of the INA “are being applied to refugees who were associated with groups that the U.S. government does not consider to be ‘terrorist organizations’ in any other context. The INA’s sloppy definition of a ‘Tier III terrorist organization’ is causing groups that the United States does not treat as ‘terrorist’ in any other context to be defined in this way.”
The INA defines “terrorist activity” as any unlawful use of a weapon for any purpose other than personal enrichment and a “Tier III terrorist organization” as any group of two or more people who engage in—or has a subgroup that engages in—“terrorist activity.” These laws are overly broad, and for the past several years the immigration agencies have been interpreting them in an increasingly expansive way.
As a result, the report asserts, thousands of legitimate refugees and asylum seekers—who pose no danger to the United States and who have committed no acts of wrongdoing—have been labeled “terrorists” and had their applications for protection denied or delayed.
While the INA also provides broad authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, to grant “waivers” of most of the terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds, HRF says “the federal agencies involved have implemented this authority in a piecemeal and centralized fashion that has proved to be unworkable as a long-term, meaningful solution.”
Examples of groups labeled “Tier III terrorist organizations” include:
- - Iraqi groups who rose up against Saddam Hussein in the 1990’s, including those who took part in the failed uprising at the end of the Gulf War of 1991 that was encouraged by the first President Bush;
-- Iraqi groups that later fought against Saddam Hussein’s government at any other time, including in conjunction with the Coalition forces that ultimately overthrew his regime in 2003;
- - Afghan mujahidin groups that fought the Soviet invasion in the 1980’s, with U.S. support;
- - The Democratic Unionist Party and the Ummah Party, two of the largest democratic opposition parties in Sudan, many of whose members were forced to flee the country in the years after the 1989 military coup that brought current President Omar Al-Bashir to power;
- - Groups that fought the ruling military junta in Burma and were not included in the 2007 legislation that removed the Chin National Front and other Burmese insurgent groups from the scope of the Tier III definition;
Many of the refugees affected by the “Tier III” definition’s overbreadth were involved only in peaceful political activity in connection with groups that are now deemed to be “terrorist organizations” for immigration-law purposes, the report says..
It adds, “The federal immigration agencies charged with applying these laws—the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State — have also been interpreting all these provisions in a very expansive way. The immigration law’s ‘material support’ bar, for example, is being applied to minimal contributions, to people who were forced to pay ransom to armed groups, to doctors who provided medical care to the wounded in accordance with their medical obligations, and to persons who engaged in other forms of lawful activity. These interpretations have exacerbated the impact of the law’s overbroad definitions.”
The report’s policy recommendations focus on the scope and application of the INA’s “terrorism”-related provisions on those individuals whom Congress intended those provisions to target: people who threaten U.S. national security and those who have engaged in or supported acts of violence that are inherently wrongful and condemned under U.S. and international law. HRF is calling on Congress to:
-- Eliminate the statutory definition of a “Tier III” terrorist organization, which has led to numerous unintended consequences but is not needed as an enforcement tool against its intended targets;
-- Amend the immigration law’s definition of “terrorist activity” so that it (a) targets only the use of violence for purposes of intimidation or coercion (of a civilian population or of a government or an international organization), and (b) no longer applies to uses of armed force that would not be unlawful under international humanitarian law;
-- Amend the immigration law’s definition of “material support” to make clear that it does not apply to acts done under coercion;
-- Eliminate the provision that makes a person inadmissible simply for being the spouse or child of a person inadmissible under the immigration law’s “terrorism”-related grounds;
-- Give waiver authority to the Attorney General for cases pending before the Department of Justice, with the provision that the Attorney General delegate this authority to the immigration courts;
In addition, the report says, the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State should support its recommendations to Congress; interpret existing law consistently with its text and purpose, to target those who advance actual terrorist activity; and implement a more effective and fair approach to waivers.
Thousands of legitimate refugees and asylum seekers — who pose no danger to the United States and who have committed no acts of wrongdoing — are being labeled “terrorists” and their applications for protection are being denied or delayed because of overly broad “terrorism” provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
These are the conclusions of a report by Human Rights First (HRF), a legal advocacy organization. They come as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the White House point person on immigration, is calling on Congress to provide temporary worker programs and a path to citizenship for 12 million unauthorized workers when it takes up a reform bill next year.
Napolitano is optimistic that immigration reform could pass in an election year, because she says border security goals have been met and the economic downturn has decreased unauthorized immigration significantly since a bipartisan bill died in the Senate two years ago.
But Congressional Republicans dispute the administration's claims that the border has been secured, and have repeated their opposition to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants.
Earlier, Napolitano outlined the efforts her department plans to make to improve and reform conditions for thousands of refugees currently being held in detention centers, county jails, and privately run prisons, most of them awaiting decisions on their applications for asylum in the U.S. Many of these centers, which are run by DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), have been severely criticized for denying detainees legal due process and basic medical care.
The HRF report -- Denial and Delay: The Impact of the Immigration Law’s ‘Terrorism Bars’ on Asylum-Seekers and Refugees in the United States -- describes the adverse and unintended consequences the overly broad “terrorism” provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) are producing for asylum-seekers and refugees.
The report says that more than 18,000 refugees and asylum seekers have been directly affected by these provisions to date.
Anwen Hughes, Senior Counsel in HRF’s Refugee Protection Program, told Truthout that there are currently over 7,500 cases pending before the Department of Homeland Security. She said these cases are “on indefinite hold based on some actual or perceived issue relating to the immigration law’s ‘terrorism’-related provisions.” The overwhelming majority of the cases are applications for permanent residence or family reunification filed by people who were granted asylum or refugee status several years ago and have been living and working in the United States since then,” she said.
She added that there is a need for a comprehensive review of the program.
HRF’s report cites a number of examples of refugees who have been characterized as “terrorists” under the legal definitions currently in use:
- A refugee from Burundi, who was detained for 20 months in a succession of county jails because the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the immigration judge who would otherwise have granted him asylum, took the position that he had provided “material support” to a rebel group because armed rebels robbed him of four dollars and his lunch.
- A young girl kidnapped at age 12 by a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, used as a child soldier, and later threatened for advocating against the use of children in armed conflict, who has been unable to receive a grant of asylum, as her application has been on hold for over a year because she was forced to take part in armed conflict as a child.
- A man who fled political and religious persecution in Bangladesh, who has had his application for permanent residence placed on indefinite hold because he took part in his country’s successful struggle for independence—in 1971.
--The minor children of members of the democratic opposition from Sudan who were granted asylum in the United States years ago, who have been prevented from becoming permanent residents because the peaceful political activities of their parents have been deemed to constitute “material support to a terrorist organization.”
HRF says the provisions of the INA “are being applied to refugees who were associated with groups that the U.S. government does not consider to be ‘terrorist organizations’ in any other context. The INA’s sloppy definition of a ‘Tier III terrorist organization’ is causing groups that the United States does not treat as ‘terrorist’ in any other context to be defined in this way.”
The INA defines “terrorist activity” as any unlawful use of a weapon for any purpose other than personal enrichment and a “Tier III terrorist organization” as any group of two or more people who engage in—or has a subgroup that engages in—“terrorist activity.” These laws are overly broad, and for the past several years the immigration agencies have been interpreting them in an increasingly expansive way.
As a result, the report asserts, thousands of legitimate refugees and asylum seekers—who pose no danger to the United States and who have committed no acts of wrongdoing—have been labeled “terrorists” and had their applications for protection denied or delayed.
While the INA also provides broad authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, to grant “waivers” of most of the terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds, HRF says “the federal agencies involved have implemented this authority in a piecemeal and centralized fashion that has proved to be unworkable as a long-term, meaningful solution.”
Examples of groups labeled “Tier III terrorist organizations” include:
- - Iraqi groups who rose up against Saddam Hussein in the 1990’s, including those who took part in the failed uprising at the end of the Gulf War of 1991 that was encouraged by the first President Bush;
-- Iraqi groups that later fought against Saddam Hussein’s government at any other time, including in conjunction with the Coalition forces that ultimately overthrew his regime in 2003;
- - Afghan mujahidin groups that fought the Soviet invasion in the 1980’s, with U.S. support;
- - The Democratic Unionist Party and the Ummah Party, two of the largest democratic opposition parties in Sudan, many of whose members were forced to flee the country in the years after the 1989 military coup that brought current President Omar Al-Bashir to power;
- - Groups that fought the ruling military junta in Burma and were not included in the 2007 legislation that removed the Chin National Front and other Burmese insurgent groups from the scope of the Tier III definition;
Many of the refugees affected by the “Tier III” definition’s overbreadth were involved only in peaceful political activity in connection with groups that are now deemed to be “terrorist organizations” for immigration-law purposes, the report says..
It adds, “The federal immigration agencies charged with applying these laws—the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State — have also been interpreting all these provisions in a very expansive way. The immigration law’s ‘material support’ bar, for example, is being applied to minimal contributions, to people who were forced to pay ransom to armed groups, to doctors who provided medical care to the wounded in accordance with their medical obligations, and to persons who engaged in other forms of lawful activity. These interpretations have exacerbated the impact of the law’s overbroad definitions.”
The report’s policy recommendations focus on the scope and application of the INA’s “terrorism”-related provisions on those individuals whom Congress intended those provisions to target: people who threaten U.S. national security and those who have engaged in or supported acts of violence that are inherently wrongful and condemned under U.S. and international law. HRF is calling on Congress to:
-- Eliminate the statutory definition of a “Tier III” terrorist organization, which has led to numerous unintended consequences but is not needed as an enforcement tool against its intended targets;
-- Amend the immigration law’s definition of “terrorist activity” so that it (a) targets only the use of violence for purposes of intimidation or coercion (of a civilian population or of a government or an international organization), and (b) no longer applies to uses of armed force that would not be unlawful under international humanitarian law;
-- Amend the immigration law’s definition of “material support” to make clear that it does not apply to acts done under coercion;
-- Eliminate the provision that makes a person inadmissible simply for being the spouse or child of a person inadmissible under the immigration law’s “terrorism”-related grounds;
-- Give waiver authority to the Attorney General for cases pending before the Department of Justice, with the provision that the Attorney General delegate this authority to the immigration courts;
In addition, the report says, the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State should support its recommendations to Congress; interpret existing law consistently with its text and purpose, to target those who advance actual terrorist activity; and implement a more effective and fair approach to waivers.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Irony of Unintended Consequences
By William Fisher
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging a law that treats human rights advocates as criminal terrorists, and threatens them with 15 years in prison for advocating nonviolent means to resolve disputes.
The case is known as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, and is the first case to challenge a portion of the Patriot Act before the Supreme Court. The case, originally brought in 1998, challenges the constitutionality of the law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to groups the administration has designated as “terrorist.”
The plaintiffs, led by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), charge that the law goes too far in making speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity a crime. The lower courts have unanimously declared several provisions of the law – including one added by the Patriot Act – unconstitutionally vague because they encompass speech and force citizens to guess as to their meaning.
The case challenges those aspects of the “material support” statute that criminalize pure speech – specifically the prohibitions on providing “training,” “personnel,” “expert advice or assistance,” and “service.” Under the law, any speech that falls within these terms – no matter how peaceable and nonviolent – is a crime if communicated to, for, or with the collaboration of any organization placed on a list of “foreign terrorist organizations” maintained by the State Department.
Said CCR Cooperating Attorney David Cole, a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, “This statute is so sweeping that it treats human rights advocates as criminal terrorists, and threatens them with 15 years in prison for advocating nonviolent means to resolve disputes. In our view, the First Amendment does not permit the government to make advocating human rights or other lawful, peaceable activity a crime simply because it is done for the benefit of, or in conjunction with, a group the Secretary of State has blacklisted.”
The lower courts held unconstitutionally vague the law’s prohibition on the provision of “services,” “expert advice or assistance,” and “training,” reasoning that these terms could easily encompass a wide range of lawful speech, such as providing training in international law. The Obama administration sought Supreme Court review of that decision.
The Patriot Act added a prohibition on the provision of “expert advice or assistance” to the statute. After earlier court decisions declared that and other parts of the statute unconstitutional, Congress amended it in 2004 to try to correct the infirmities. However, the district court and court of appeals concluded that the prohibitions on “services,” “expert advice and assistance,” and “training” remained unconstitutionally vague. The court of appeals decision the administration is seeking review of is the sixth ruling from the lower courts since 1998 finding significant parts of the material support statute to be unconstitutionally vague.
Meanwhile, committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives continue to debate three provisions of the USA Patriot Act that are due to expire on December 31
The expiring provisions are the roving wiretap authority, the so-called "section 215" business records orders, and the nicknamed "lone wolf" provision.
The roving wiretap authority expands the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) by allowing it to order "roving" or multi-point surveillance. Previously, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required a separate FISC authorization to tap each device a target used.
Section 215’s reference to Business Records substantially revised the authority under FISA for seizure of business records, including third party records of individuals' transactions and activities. Previously, the FBI could apply to the FISC for an order to seize business records of hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities. Section 215 broadened that authority by eliminating any limitation on the types of businesses or entities whose records may be seized. The recipient of the order may not disclose the fact that the FBI has sought or obtained records.
The nicknamed "Lone Wolf" authorization allows intelligence gathering of people not suspected of being part of a foreign government or known terrorist organization. This authority removed the requirement that an individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under criminal surveillance procedures. It was intended to allow the surveillance of individuals believed to be doing the bidding of foreign governments or terrorist organizations, even when the evidence of that connection was lacking.
The Justice Department maintains that the “lone wolf” authority is necessary, even though there is no evidence that it has been used. Its opponents believe that existing authorities are sufficient to achieve the goals of the lone wolf provision while more effectively protecting the rights of innocent Americans.
The Obama Administration has quietly endorsed the reauthorization of the provisions due to expire. The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to make only minor changes to these measures, while the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is seeking far more sweeping reforms.
The new legislation proposed by the House committee would permit the so-called “lone wolf” provision to sunset. It would also restrict the use of National Security Letters (NSLs). According to a Congressional Research Service report, NSLs “are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information.”
Under current law, intelligence agencies have few restrictions on the use of NSLs, and in numerous cases, have abused the authority. An FBI inspector general report in 2007 “found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies.” The reform provisions seek to create greater judicial scrutiny of NSL use.
A jittery Congress passed The Patriot Act by a landslide 45 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks with virtually no debate. It provides law enforcement and intelligence agencies with sweeping additional powers to thwart terrorist activities. The law was reauthorized in 2005.
The legislation has been criticized by many from across the ideological spectrum as a threat to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions. Sections of the original act have been ruled unconstitutional, with certain provisions violating protected rights.
Among its most outspoken critics is Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. He told IPS, “In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it’s become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror -- and avoid being accused of being “soft on terror” -- brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed.”
He added, “President Obama’s flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it’s imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualized suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions.”
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging a law that treats human rights advocates as criminal terrorists, and threatens them with 15 years in prison for advocating nonviolent means to resolve disputes.
The case is known as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, and is the first case to challenge a portion of the Patriot Act before the Supreme Court. The case, originally brought in 1998, challenges the constitutionality of the law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to groups the administration has designated as “terrorist.”
The plaintiffs, led by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), charge that the law goes too far in making speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity a crime. The lower courts have unanimously declared several provisions of the law – including one added by the Patriot Act – unconstitutionally vague because they encompass speech and force citizens to guess as to their meaning.
The case challenges those aspects of the “material support” statute that criminalize pure speech – specifically the prohibitions on providing “training,” “personnel,” “expert advice or assistance,” and “service.” Under the law, any speech that falls within these terms – no matter how peaceable and nonviolent – is a crime if communicated to, for, or with the collaboration of any organization placed on a list of “foreign terrorist organizations” maintained by the State Department.
Said CCR Cooperating Attorney David Cole, a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, “This statute is so sweeping that it treats human rights advocates as criminal terrorists, and threatens them with 15 years in prison for advocating nonviolent means to resolve disputes. In our view, the First Amendment does not permit the government to make advocating human rights or other lawful, peaceable activity a crime simply because it is done for the benefit of, or in conjunction with, a group the Secretary of State has blacklisted.”
The lower courts held unconstitutionally vague the law’s prohibition on the provision of “services,” “expert advice or assistance,” and “training,” reasoning that these terms could easily encompass a wide range of lawful speech, such as providing training in international law. The Obama administration sought Supreme Court review of that decision.
The Patriot Act added a prohibition on the provision of “expert advice or assistance” to the statute. After earlier court decisions declared that and other parts of the statute unconstitutional, Congress amended it in 2004 to try to correct the infirmities. However, the district court and court of appeals concluded that the prohibitions on “services,” “expert advice and assistance,” and “training” remained unconstitutionally vague. The court of appeals decision the administration is seeking review of is the sixth ruling from the lower courts since 1998 finding significant parts of the material support statute to be unconstitutionally vague.
Meanwhile, committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives continue to debate three provisions of the USA Patriot Act that are due to expire on December 31
The expiring provisions are the roving wiretap authority, the so-called "section 215" business records orders, and the nicknamed "lone wolf" provision.
The roving wiretap authority expands the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) by allowing it to order "roving" or multi-point surveillance. Previously, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required a separate FISC authorization to tap each device a target used.
Section 215’s reference to Business Records substantially revised the authority under FISA for seizure of business records, including third party records of individuals' transactions and activities. Previously, the FBI could apply to the FISC for an order to seize business records of hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities. Section 215 broadened that authority by eliminating any limitation on the types of businesses or entities whose records may be seized. The recipient of the order may not disclose the fact that the FBI has sought or obtained records.
The nicknamed "Lone Wolf" authorization allows intelligence gathering of people not suspected of being part of a foreign government or known terrorist organization. This authority removed the requirement that an individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under criminal surveillance procedures. It was intended to allow the surveillance of individuals believed to be doing the bidding of foreign governments or terrorist organizations, even when the evidence of that connection was lacking.
The Justice Department maintains that the “lone wolf” authority is necessary, even though there is no evidence that it has been used. Its opponents believe that existing authorities are sufficient to achieve the goals of the lone wolf provision while more effectively protecting the rights of innocent Americans.
The Obama Administration has quietly endorsed the reauthorization of the provisions due to expire. The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to make only minor changes to these measures, while the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is seeking far more sweeping reforms.
The new legislation proposed by the House committee would permit the so-called “lone wolf” provision to sunset. It would also restrict the use of National Security Letters (NSLs). According to a Congressional Research Service report, NSLs “are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information.”
Under current law, intelligence agencies have few restrictions on the use of NSLs, and in numerous cases, have abused the authority. An FBI inspector general report in 2007 “found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies.” The reform provisions seek to create greater judicial scrutiny of NSL use.
A jittery Congress passed The Patriot Act by a landslide 45 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks with virtually no debate. It provides law enforcement and intelligence agencies with sweeping additional powers to thwart terrorist activities. The law was reauthorized in 2005.
The legislation has been criticized by many from across the ideological spectrum as a threat to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions. Sections of the original act have been ruled unconstitutional, with certain provisions violating protected rights.
Among its most outspoken critics is Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. He told IPS, “In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it’s become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror -- and avoid being accused of being “soft on terror” -- brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed.”
He added, “President Obama’s flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it’s imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualized suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions.”
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Obama's Fifth Category: The "Untriable"
By William Fisher
In his talk at the National Archives in May, President Obama referred to five categories of prisoners currently held at Guantanamo Bay.
First, there are those who have violated American criminal laws and will be tried in federal courts. There may be as many as a dozen men in this category, five of whose trials were announced last week, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Second, there are detainees who violated the laws of war and who will be tried by the "new and improved" military commissions. Five prisoners were also designated for such trials last week and there is speculation that there are perhaps 25 more who fall into this category.
The third group consists of 21 detainees who have already been released by the courts.
Fourth, there are believed to be some 90 prisoners who are cleared for release and who can be transferred safely to other countries if such countries can be found.
So what is this "fifth category" of detainees? It consists of prisoners who are thought too dangerous to release, but who cannot be brought to trial.
According to The Washington Post, quoting an unnamed official, there are some 75 prisoners in this "fifth category." And the administration's position is that these people are untriable because the evidence against them was obtained through torture or because public trials would involve and potentially expose an unacceptable volume of classified material.
Which leaves the administration with the question of what to do with these people.
The Obama administration gave the human rights community apoplexy when it referred to "preventive detention." Now, it is simply saying that it's not going to seek any additional authority from Congress for such preventive detention. Which perhaps gives us a clue to the approach the administration has in mind. In a study by the Obama-friendly Center for American Progress, analyst Ken Gude suggests that the Obama administration "incarcerate detainees convicted in US criminal courts in maximum-security US prisons and transfer those who will remain in military custody to Bagram prison in Afghanistan." (Emphasis mine.)
That latter group would presumably include the untriable. Which appears to create a neo-GITMO at Bagram in Afghanistan.
In an effort to make sense out of this maze of legal confusions, I contacted a group of people I consider to be some of the best minds in constitutional law. In my simplistic layman's way, I questioned the assertion that certain people can't be tried and opined that it seemed to me that anyone who is accused of a crime can - should, must - be tried for that crime, and can not be held indefinitely without a trial.
Here are some of their responses:
Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild: The 75 aren't even being accused of crimes. If there isn't enough evidence against them besides statements that have been tortured out of them, they should be released. Judges and prosecutors who have tried terrorism cases in the United States say that the Classified Information Procedures Act effectively protects classified material. If there is probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime, he should be charged and tried. If not, he should be released. Indefinite detention violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the United States has ratified which makes it part of US law.
Jameel Jaffer, director of the National Security Program for the American Civil Liberties Union: We should be very skeptical of the proposition that there are prisoners who can't be prosecuted but are too dangerous to release. The United States has sweeping detention authority under both domestic law and international humanitarian law - authority that is broad enough to reach both terrorists and battlefield combatants. The criminal laws have been used to successfully prosecute not only people who have planned terrorist attacks but also people who have attended training camps or raised money for terrorist groups.
In criminal trials, the government can protect intelligence sources and methods by relying on the Classified Information Procedures Act. It's true that federal courts are unlikely to allow the government to rely on evidence derived from torture, but that's a problem with the government's evidence, not a problem with the courts. The courts reject that kind of "evidence" not only because torture is illegal but because evidence derived from torture is unreliable. And if such evidence is too unreliable to justify detention after trial, it's surely too unreliable to justify detention without trial.
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights: I do not think there is any place for preventive detention in a country that claims it is a democracy under the rule of the law. We opposed it under Bush and it looks no more legal when rewrapped by Obama. The constitution and international law mandates that people be charged and tried or released. The claim that some GITMO detainees can't be tried is a pretext that will usher in a scheme that is contrary to 225 years of US law. There is no middle ground when it comes to human freedom. The claim that some GITMO detainees can be held without charges and trial is an assertion I hoped never to hear in a country claiming it acts under the rule of law. Preventive detention is the road to perdition. It sets a precedent that will haunt our justice system for all time.
Gabor Rona, international legal director of Human Rights First: The notion that we can hold GITMO detainees under the laws of war is wrong - a misapplication of those laws. There is presently not one GITMO detainee whose detention is authorized by the laws of war. Only domestic law governs detention in wars that are not between two or more states. For that reason, and because the US does not have an administrative detention scheme (which I think would necessarily be unconstitutional, although not necessarily in violation of international human rights law) all GITMO detainees must be either charged or released.
David Cole, professor at the Georgetown University Law Center: I don't think there is an obligation to try an enemy combatant for a war crime while the conflict is ongoing. For example, we did not try many Germans responsible for war crimes until the war was concluded, and issues of secrecy were less complicated. And I'm sure there were many we did not try at all. So I don't think there is an obligation to try. There is an obligation to ensure that anyone detained be provided a full and fair hearing on his status, that the definition of "enemy combatant" be defined narrowly, and that all detainees be treated humanely. But not that they be tried.
Brian J. Foley, visiting associate professor of law, Boston University: Ultimately this shows that the problem is that terrorism is something between crime and war. Though we know that the most effective way of combating terrorism groups is through police method, it seems akin to fighting "organized crime." Given that, then it seems that the court system we use should be geared more toward the criminal paradigm, which ultimately tests the government's claims that a person not wearing an enemy uniform has harmed, or is planning to harm, citizens.
The Obama Administration wants to be able to make those claims about people but not have them ever subjected to testing. We know that police often identify the wrong person; indeed, our court system itself is not perfect at correcting such government errors, as our history of wrongful convictions shows. So there needs to be testing of EVERY government claim that someone is planning an attack and/or is dangerous and therefore must be imprisoned. It is very often disputable whether someone is planning terrorist acts, ESPECIALLY when the only evidence is evidence gained by torture or is so-called "classified" evidence.
Under the Obama plan, a US government acting in error or in bad faith can detain forever anybody it claims is planning a terrorist attack. We have to be clear that the Administration is claiming a sweeping power with no check, a power - lifelong detention - that is rare in criminal law and rare in war (given that, unlike most wars, the GWOT will never end). The GWOT is Big Government's BFF ("best friend forever") and is the mortal enemy of democracy and human rights. This plan is the ultimate version of the government saying, "Just trust us" - a trust that is anathema to the spirit of the Founding Fathers.
The government appears afraid to take any risk at all that someone released might cause harm. But the assumption that someone might cause harm is assumption based on mere faith and belief, not on evidence. The bottom line is this makes no sense: the evidence gained by coercion is likely unreliable, and the secret evidence might be erroneous or even manufactured for political ends. Ultimately it's an epistemological question: How can you know someone is dangerous if it is based on evidence you obtained through coercion and is therefore unreliable, or if it is based on evidence you are afraid to have tested - again, we know our intelligence agencies are not perfect and make mistakes. The fact of the matter is that we have a system and a widely-held norm (among many nations and internationally) that says "prove it" to a government when the government wants to take away somebody's life or liberty. The real question at the heart of this whole dispute - a question that no one seems to want to ask openly, is, "Are we brave enough to adhere to such norm to prevent the many ills that can flow from giving the government the power to detain people indefinitely on its own say-so?" I don't think that the people arguing for this power are brave enough; I think they are cowards. Their cowardice will turn our country into something less than a democracy. "Land of the free, home of the brave" - freedom and bravery go together. You can't have freedom if you are not brave.
David Frakt, professor at Western State University Law School and former successful defense counsel to a Guantanamo detainee: The assertion that there are 75 detainees who are too dangerous to release, but can't be prosecuted, and therefore must be held indefinitely, defies common sense.
It is true that as a matter of the law of war that during an armed conflict, a person who is detained for taking part in the armed conflict may be held until the resolution of the conflict. Each of the detainees being held has been determined in a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to have been an "enemy combatant."
This does not mean that the detainee committed a crime. It could simply mean that the detainee fought against US or allied forces when they invaded Afghanistan or was prepared to do so if they had the opportunity. The government might feel that such detainees should not be released because they would return to the battlefield in an ongoing conflict. What is more troubling is the notion that some of the detainees are believed to have committed crimes but that such crimes can't be proven in a court of law. I find this hard to believe. Virtually any association with Al Qaeda is enough to support a federal charge of material support to terrorism, which would likely lead to a lengthy prison sentence. So why can't these people be tried - because they didn't commit a crime, or because the crimes they are believed to have committed can't be proved in court? If it is that the crimes can't be proven in court, why is that? Is it because of the government's belief that all of the evidence they have against an individual would be suppressed as the product of torture? In my opinion, if the only evidence we have is derived from torture, then we can't have any degree of confidence in the reliability of such evidence.
The government has shown a willingness to try several individuals who have admittedly been tortured based on the alleged existence of independent "clean" evidence, so the mere fact that someone was tortured is clearly not a bar to prosecution in the view of the Obama Administration. If there is independent corroborating evidence, then let the individuals be tried. If there is no non-torture derived evidence, then the government should not be able to even prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an individual should be held. We have seen repeatedly in the habeas corpus litigation that the government's evidence did not hold up to judicial scrutiny.
The Administration needs to come clean on who they believe fits into this category and why. Otherwise, we are just left to speculate.
Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee: You're right about the detention (but not necessarily right about the laws of war enabling us to hold them until "hostilities" come to an end - if by that you mean hostilities in the so-called Global War on Terror or GWOT).
The laws of war apply to the detainees variously (if at all! - don't forget that the GWOT framework is novel and legally and factually problematic in the extreme, and in my view and that of many other international lawyers and scholars it's utterly incorrect and inapplicable both in terms of the traditional law of war and in terms of human rights and constitutional law which apply even at all times even when there is no war).
Real wartime, i.e. battlefield detainees from Iraq or Afghanistan, are POWs and should rightly be seen as in a completely different legal category from civilians suspected of crime or simply rounded up and sent to GITMO, Bagram, or any of the secret prisons or interrogation sites used by the CIA, the government, and its allies. The former may be held until the end of those particular hostilities and the latter must be tried (supposedly under speedy trials as well as the other legal guarantees of fair trials) or promptly released.
You're right that indefinite detention without trial or legal due process of either category - of anyone, in fact - is outlawed both by the law of war and by international human rights law (as well as US constitutional law).
Moreover, there's no question that not all of the people now at GITMO are even accused of being criminals (war criminals or civilian criminals), all of which means that your question goes back again to the conceptual and legal framework with which we're viewing the situation; the legitimacy and legality of detention in general and indefinite detention in particular; and the individual facts of each person's case (to determine whether there are any legitimate legal grounds at all for detention and/or trial) - the interpretation of which becomes so much harder in light of the use of torture to coerce unreliable testimony.
So not even all the Constitutional experts agree precisely on the legal basis for putting a prisoner into that "fifth category" - the ones we're told can't be tried but are too dangerous to release. Largely because the Bush Administration tried to create its own law, the legal landscape is confused and confusing. But that doesn't help the Obama Administration. It still faces the question of what to do with these people.
In doing so, it faces a group - a very small group - of bad options. It can charge a person with a crime and risk being embarrassed by having tainted evidence thrown out of court. A court might also find that its evidence is insufficient or unreliable. A defendant might actually be exonerated or win on appeal - what then?
When, for one reason or another, you reject all but one of these options, you need then to accept that we are on our way to warehousing people.
For Americans, this is contrary to everything we've ever been taught about our system of justice.
In his talk at the National Archives in May, President Obama referred to five categories of prisoners currently held at Guantanamo Bay.
First, there are those who have violated American criminal laws and will be tried in federal courts. There may be as many as a dozen men in this category, five of whose trials were announced last week, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Second, there are detainees who violated the laws of war and who will be tried by the "new and improved" military commissions. Five prisoners were also designated for such trials last week and there is speculation that there are perhaps 25 more who fall into this category.
The third group consists of 21 detainees who have already been released by the courts.
Fourth, there are believed to be some 90 prisoners who are cleared for release and who can be transferred safely to other countries if such countries can be found.
So what is this "fifth category" of detainees? It consists of prisoners who are thought too dangerous to release, but who cannot be brought to trial.
According to The Washington Post, quoting an unnamed official, there are some 75 prisoners in this "fifth category." And the administration's position is that these people are untriable because the evidence against them was obtained through torture or because public trials would involve and potentially expose an unacceptable volume of classified material.
Which leaves the administration with the question of what to do with these people.
The Obama administration gave the human rights community apoplexy when it referred to "preventive detention." Now, it is simply saying that it's not going to seek any additional authority from Congress for such preventive detention. Which perhaps gives us a clue to the approach the administration has in mind. In a study by the Obama-friendly Center for American Progress, analyst Ken Gude suggests that the Obama administration "incarcerate detainees convicted in US criminal courts in maximum-security US prisons and transfer those who will remain in military custody to Bagram prison in Afghanistan." (Emphasis mine.)
That latter group would presumably include the untriable. Which appears to create a neo-GITMO at Bagram in Afghanistan.
In an effort to make sense out of this maze of legal confusions, I contacted a group of people I consider to be some of the best minds in constitutional law. In my simplistic layman's way, I questioned the assertion that certain people can't be tried and opined that it seemed to me that anyone who is accused of a crime can - should, must - be tried for that crime, and can not be held indefinitely without a trial.
Here are some of their responses:
Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild: The 75 aren't even being accused of crimes. If there isn't enough evidence against them besides statements that have been tortured out of them, they should be released. Judges and prosecutors who have tried terrorism cases in the United States say that the Classified Information Procedures Act effectively protects classified material. If there is probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime, he should be charged and tried. If not, he should be released. Indefinite detention violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the United States has ratified which makes it part of US law.
Jameel Jaffer, director of the National Security Program for the American Civil Liberties Union: We should be very skeptical of the proposition that there are prisoners who can't be prosecuted but are too dangerous to release. The United States has sweeping detention authority under both domestic law and international humanitarian law - authority that is broad enough to reach both terrorists and battlefield combatants. The criminal laws have been used to successfully prosecute not only people who have planned terrorist attacks but also people who have attended training camps or raised money for terrorist groups.
In criminal trials, the government can protect intelligence sources and methods by relying on the Classified Information Procedures Act. It's true that federal courts are unlikely to allow the government to rely on evidence derived from torture, but that's a problem with the government's evidence, not a problem with the courts. The courts reject that kind of "evidence" not only because torture is illegal but because evidence derived from torture is unreliable. And if such evidence is too unreliable to justify detention after trial, it's surely too unreliable to justify detention without trial.
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights: I do not think there is any place for preventive detention in a country that claims it is a democracy under the rule of the law. We opposed it under Bush and it looks no more legal when rewrapped by Obama. The constitution and international law mandates that people be charged and tried or released. The claim that some GITMO detainees can't be tried is a pretext that will usher in a scheme that is contrary to 225 years of US law. There is no middle ground when it comes to human freedom. The claim that some GITMO detainees can be held without charges and trial is an assertion I hoped never to hear in a country claiming it acts under the rule of law. Preventive detention is the road to perdition. It sets a precedent that will haunt our justice system for all time.
Gabor Rona, international legal director of Human Rights First: The notion that we can hold GITMO detainees under the laws of war is wrong - a misapplication of those laws. There is presently not one GITMO detainee whose detention is authorized by the laws of war. Only domestic law governs detention in wars that are not between two or more states. For that reason, and because the US does not have an administrative detention scheme (which I think would necessarily be unconstitutional, although not necessarily in violation of international human rights law) all GITMO detainees must be either charged or released.
David Cole, professor at the Georgetown University Law Center: I don't think there is an obligation to try an enemy combatant for a war crime while the conflict is ongoing. For example, we did not try many Germans responsible for war crimes until the war was concluded, and issues of secrecy were less complicated. And I'm sure there were many we did not try at all. So I don't think there is an obligation to try. There is an obligation to ensure that anyone detained be provided a full and fair hearing on his status, that the definition of "enemy combatant" be defined narrowly, and that all detainees be treated humanely. But not that they be tried.
Brian J. Foley, visiting associate professor of law, Boston University: Ultimately this shows that the problem is that terrorism is something between crime and war. Though we know that the most effective way of combating terrorism groups is through police method, it seems akin to fighting "organized crime." Given that, then it seems that the court system we use should be geared more toward the criminal paradigm, which ultimately tests the government's claims that a person not wearing an enemy uniform has harmed, or is planning to harm, citizens.
The Obama Administration wants to be able to make those claims about people but not have them ever subjected to testing. We know that police often identify the wrong person; indeed, our court system itself is not perfect at correcting such government errors, as our history of wrongful convictions shows. So there needs to be testing of EVERY government claim that someone is planning an attack and/or is dangerous and therefore must be imprisoned. It is very often disputable whether someone is planning terrorist acts, ESPECIALLY when the only evidence is evidence gained by torture or is so-called "classified" evidence.
Under the Obama plan, a US government acting in error or in bad faith can detain forever anybody it claims is planning a terrorist attack. We have to be clear that the Administration is claiming a sweeping power with no check, a power - lifelong detention - that is rare in criminal law and rare in war (given that, unlike most wars, the GWOT will never end). The GWOT is Big Government's BFF ("best friend forever") and is the mortal enemy of democracy and human rights. This plan is the ultimate version of the government saying, "Just trust us" - a trust that is anathema to the spirit of the Founding Fathers.
The government appears afraid to take any risk at all that someone released might cause harm. But the assumption that someone might cause harm is assumption based on mere faith and belief, not on evidence. The bottom line is this makes no sense: the evidence gained by coercion is likely unreliable, and the secret evidence might be erroneous or even manufactured for political ends. Ultimately it's an epistemological question: How can you know someone is dangerous if it is based on evidence you obtained through coercion and is therefore unreliable, or if it is based on evidence you are afraid to have tested - again, we know our intelligence agencies are not perfect and make mistakes. The fact of the matter is that we have a system and a widely-held norm (among many nations and internationally) that says "prove it" to a government when the government wants to take away somebody's life or liberty. The real question at the heart of this whole dispute - a question that no one seems to want to ask openly, is, "Are we brave enough to adhere to such norm to prevent the many ills that can flow from giving the government the power to detain people indefinitely on its own say-so?" I don't think that the people arguing for this power are brave enough; I think they are cowards. Their cowardice will turn our country into something less than a democracy. "Land of the free, home of the brave" - freedom and bravery go together. You can't have freedom if you are not brave.
David Frakt, professor at Western State University Law School and former successful defense counsel to a Guantanamo detainee: The assertion that there are 75 detainees who are too dangerous to release, but can't be prosecuted, and therefore must be held indefinitely, defies common sense.
It is true that as a matter of the law of war that during an armed conflict, a person who is detained for taking part in the armed conflict may be held until the resolution of the conflict. Each of the detainees being held has been determined in a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to have been an "enemy combatant."
This does not mean that the detainee committed a crime. It could simply mean that the detainee fought against US or allied forces when they invaded Afghanistan or was prepared to do so if they had the opportunity. The government might feel that such detainees should not be released because they would return to the battlefield in an ongoing conflict. What is more troubling is the notion that some of the detainees are believed to have committed crimes but that such crimes can't be proven in a court of law. I find this hard to believe. Virtually any association with Al Qaeda is enough to support a federal charge of material support to terrorism, which would likely lead to a lengthy prison sentence. So why can't these people be tried - because they didn't commit a crime, or because the crimes they are believed to have committed can't be proved in court? If it is that the crimes can't be proven in court, why is that? Is it because of the government's belief that all of the evidence they have against an individual would be suppressed as the product of torture? In my opinion, if the only evidence we have is derived from torture, then we can't have any degree of confidence in the reliability of such evidence.
The government has shown a willingness to try several individuals who have admittedly been tortured based on the alleged existence of independent "clean" evidence, so the mere fact that someone was tortured is clearly not a bar to prosecution in the view of the Obama Administration. If there is independent corroborating evidence, then let the individuals be tried. If there is no non-torture derived evidence, then the government should not be able to even prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an individual should be held. We have seen repeatedly in the habeas corpus litigation that the government's evidence did not hold up to judicial scrutiny.
The Administration needs to come clean on who they believe fits into this category and why. Otherwise, we are just left to speculate.
Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee: You're right about the detention (but not necessarily right about the laws of war enabling us to hold them until "hostilities" come to an end - if by that you mean hostilities in the so-called Global War on Terror or GWOT).
The laws of war apply to the detainees variously (if at all! - don't forget that the GWOT framework is novel and legally and factually problematic in the extreme, and in my view and that of many other international lawyers and scholars it's utterly incorrect and inapplicable both in terms of the traditional law of war and in terms of human rights and constitutional law which apply even at all times even when there is no war).
Real wartime, i.e. battlefield detainees from Iraq or Afghanistan, are POWs and should rightly be seen as in a completely different legal category from civilians suspected of crime or simply rounded up and sent to GITMO, Bagram, or any of the secret prisons or interrogation sites used by the CIA, the government, and its allies. The former may be held until the end of those particular hostilities and the latter must be tried (supposedly under speedy trials as well as the other legal guarantees of fair trials) or promptly released.
You're right that indefinite detention without trial or legal due process of either category - of anyone, in fact - is outlawed both by the law of war and by international human rights law (as well as US constitutional law).
Moreover, there's no question that not all of the people now at GITMO are even accused of being criminals (war criminals or civilian criminals), all of which means that your question goes back again to the conceptual and legal framework with which we're viewing the situation; the legitimacy and legality of detention in general and indefinite detention in particular; and the individual facts of each person's case (to determine whether there are any legitimate legal grounds at all for detention and/or trial) - the interpretation of which becomes so much harder in light of the use of torture to coerce unreliable testimony.
So not even all the Constitutional experts agree precisely on the legal basis for putting a prisoner into that "fifth category" - the ones we're told can't be tried but are too dangerous to release. Largely because the Bush Administration tried to create its own law, the legal landscape is confused and confusing. But that doesn't help the Obama Administration. It still faces the question of what to do with these people.
In doing so, it faces a group - a very small group - of bad options. It can charge a person with a crime and risk being embarrassed by having tainted evidence thrown out of court. A court might also find that its evidence is insufficient or unreliable. A defendant might actually be exonerated or win on appeal - what then?
When, for one reason or another, you reject all but one of these options, you need then to accept that we are on our way to warehousing people.
For Americans, this is contrary to everything we've ever been taught about our system of justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
