By William Fisher
Prominent human rights groups went to federal court Thursday, seeking clarification of whether state and local law enforcement authorities can “opt-in” or “opt-out” of the Secure Communities program, a controversial federal-local partnership that provides prison inmates’ fingerprints and other information to a Federal database of persons wanted for immigration violations.
The action brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic (IJC) of Cardozo law school, seeks an emergency injunction and documents regarding the controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Secure Communities program.
The documents sought are part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency on behalf of the National Day Laborer Organization Network (NDLON). ICE is a unit of the Department of Homeland Security.
“As advocates across the country are pushing on the state and local levels to find a way to opt-out of Secure Communities, we are going to court to obtain information that the public and advocates need to determine how and if it's possible to opt-out,” said CCR staff attorney Sunita Patel. “Only the government has the information everyone needs.”
The emergency injunction specifically requests documents related to the voluntary nature of the program, which has been unclear and the subject of mixed messages thus far. Advocates and community leaders across the country have called this program “dangerous” and say it strains local law enforcement and resources while damaging already the already tenuous relationship between immigrant communities and the police.
“To keep our families together, we need to keep police and ICE separate. The Orwellian-named Secure Communities program does the opposite of making us safer,” said Sarahí Uribe of NDLON. “We see innocent people swept up in a massive dragnet sending a chilling effect through migrant communities.”
Advocates argue that ICE’S unwillingness to provide clear information about the program’s opt-out process at a time when municipalities such as San Francisco and Santa Clara in California and Arlington, Virginia voted to opt-out and numerous others localities are deliberating their participation, requires court-ordered immediate access to key documents.
The groups say immigration authorities in charge of the program, which culls fingerprint data from local jails, have been “inconsistent and dishonest in representing the relationship between local governments and the federal program.” In an email to New York Governor David Patterson, the agency said “We get it. No one will be forced.’ In a press conference two months later, ICE said, “We do not see this as an opt-in opt-out program.”
At a recent speaking engagement, Assistant Director of Secure Communities David Venturella was confronted by Maria Bolaños, a domestic violence survivor whose call for help resulted in deportation proceedings under the program.
His accusation of inaccurate reporting moved the Washington Post to publish “ICE Reversals Sowing Mistrust.” Citing cases like Bolaños as a reason for concern, the article said, “cities worried about the program’s effects on community-policing efforts are interested in opting-out of the overly broad dragnet.” The plaintiffs maintain that “the on-going dishonesty and desire to opt-out makes gives today's injunction urgency.”
With thirteen states yet to join the program, New York and numerous other activated jurisdictions still trying to opt out, and its current spokespeople unwilling to set the record straight, advocates are asking a judge to counteract the misinformation by opening the files related to the “opt-out” policies immediately.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The mission of the National Day Laborer Organization Network is to improve the lives of day laborers in the U.S. by unifying and strengthening its member organizations to be more strategic and effective in their efforts to develop leadership, mobilize day laborers in order to protect and expand their civil, labor and human rights.
The Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law was founded in 2008 to provide quality pro bono legal representation to indigent immigrants facing deportation.
Secure Communities is one of several ICE programs that rely on continuing cooperation from local law enforcement authorities. In the 287(g) program, for example, local police and sheriffs have been recruited to help federal immigration authorities by arresting and detaining persons suspected of having committed immigration crimes.
While many local law enforcement authorities have become part of the program, many others have refused to participate. They say enforcing Federal immigration law is the job of the federal government; that local peace officers don’t have the training and experience to enforce complex immigration law; and that existing police manpower is needed for community policing.
In addition, it has been revealed that many of those who have been deported by the Barack Obama Administration have committed only minor infractions such as broken taillights and driving without a license. ICE’s programs are supposedly geared toward deporting dangerous criminal aliens.
Friday, December 10, 2010
GITMO RECIDIVISM
By William Fisher
A prominent human rights organization and public interest law firm that has defended numerous Guantanamo Bay detainees charged Thursday that a recent government report on a high rate of recidivism among former GITMO inmates is loaded with “vague and unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.”
The Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement that the report to Congress by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was “the latest in a line of reports that have been repeatedly discredited for using dubious classifications to produce unreliable statistics.”
CCR said that the DNI’s report contains “unsubstantiated statistics on what it persists in calling recidivism or re-engagement of former detainees.”
In so doing, CCR added, the administration is “shooting itself in the foot, through political miscalculation and propaganda, in its efforts to close the prison.”
The report said that 150 detainees, or 25 per cent of those released, are confirmed or believed to have rejoined the fight. CCR questioned those figures and called on the DNI to provide more detailed information.
In the last two days, Congress has voted to block the use of any funds to pay for transporting Guantanamo detainees to mainland U.S. This effectively forecloses the possibility of Guantanamo detainees being tried in civilian courts. Most members of Congress believe GITMO trials should be before military tribunals.
CCR criticized the vague and unsubstantiated claims and misinformation in the National Intelligence Director’s release of figures regarding the supposed "recidivism" of former Guantanamo detainees.
“The director's summary report also persists in using the language of ‘re-engagement’ to describe individuals, despite the fact that the majority of them should never have been detained in the first place and were known early on by the government to be innocent. It is not possible to return to the battlefield if you were never there in the first place,” the CCR said, adding:
“If the underlying basis for most detentions was suspect, the claims of re-engagement are more so and only serve to whitewash the original situation.”
The group noted that Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a senior State Department official who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the Bush administration, recently stated in a federal court declaration in support of a former detainee's claims of wrongful detention that “the Bush administration knew early on that the majority of the men at Guantanamo were wrongfully detained, but did not release them because of political concerns that doing so could harm the government’s push for war.”
CCR said the latest DNI report “only summarizes its figures without actually naming any alleged recidivists or including any information that would enable meaningful scrutiny.”
Leili Kashani, a CCR attorney, told IPS, “The problem with the latest government recidivism report, as with the ones that have preceded it, is that it provides no substance that can be assessed, and from experience we know that we cannot just accept it at face value.”
She added, “If the government thinks individual men released from Guantanamo have “returned to the battlefield,” then it should tell us who they are and what they are alleged to have done. These periodic reports that do not provide names or any concrete allegations are useless at best and fear mongering at worst. They function much like those color-coded terror warnings that the government has now had the sense to drop.”
She continued: “Tragically, these reports continue to obscure the fact that the vast majority of the men at Guantanamo should never have been detained in the first place and that a great injustice has been done to them. Hundreds of men have now been released and are peacefully rebuilding their lives. Rather than fueling fear, the government should be acknowledging these facts and making sure that the remaining men who have been wrongfully detained are quickly repatriated or resettled.”
Earlier reports that did identify individuals by name revealed, for example, that former detainee Moazzem Begg had been classified as a "recidivist" because he participated in a documentary about Guantanamo.
“As we now know from cables released by WikiLeaks, Mr. Begg has been privately championed by the State Department for his lack of animosity towards the United States since his release and for his valuable work assisting with the resettlement of other detainees,” CCR said.
An August 2010 U.S. Department of Justice letter responding to a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that criteria for identifying recidivism are arbitrary and can change at any time: “DIA [U.S. States Defense Intelligence Agency] does not endeavor to create any sort of firm guidelines for identifying a detainee as having returned to the fight,” CCR claims, adding:
“In the absence of specific and concrete information, which has been called for each time new reports have been released, the latest findings can simply not be assessed or trusted. They only serve to thwart the release of men whom the courts or the government have determined should not be detained and to fuel unfounded generalizations about detainees, the vast majority of whom have been successfully repatriated and resettled.”
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that intelligence officials claimed that five of the 69 detainees transferred to other countries from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration are believed to have rejoined terrorist groups.
The DNI report also said two former detainees were confirmed to be "re-engaging in terrorist or insurgent activities" and three others released in 2009 are suspected of doing so. The former detainees weren't named.
Since the prison at GITMO was opened in 2002, 598 detainees have been released, most of them during the administration of George W. Bush. They were sent home or to other countries that agreed to take them in.
Among the recent diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks are some describing the inducements and pressure U.S. officials proffered to secure host countries for detainees scheduled for release.
In the past, other organizations have also taken issue with recidivism statistics provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) and other government agencies. Students and faculty of Seton Hall law school have carried out extensive examinations of the claims made in prior reports as well as questioning the methodology used to arrive at those claims, and revealed numerous errors and anomalies.
On his first day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay in one year. But the task has proved more challenging than the administration imagined. In addition to the difficulty of finding host countries for prisoners scheduled for release, the issue became highly politicized by widespread rumors that former detainees “would be allowed to roam the Main Streets of American towns and cities with impunity.”
While this was never the government’s intention, members of congress were [placed under considerable pressure by their frightened constituencies.
When the government proposed to try the alleged mastermind of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks in a New York federal court, a public outcry forced the Obama administration to put the idea on a back burner – where it remains.
One Guantanamo inmate has been tried in federal civilian court in New York without incident. He was found guilty and faces a sentence of 20 years to life.
A prominent human rights organization and public interest law firm that has defended numerous Guantanamo Bay detainees charged Thursday that a recent government report on a high rate of recidivism among former GITMO inmates is loaded with “vague and unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.”
The Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement that the report to Congress by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was “the latest in a line of reports that have been repeatedly discredited for using dubious classifications to produce unreliable statistics.”
CCR said that the DNI’s report contains “unsubstantiated statistics on what it persists in calling recidivism or re-engagement of former detainees.”
In so doing, CCR added, the administration is “shooting itself in the foot, through political miscalculation and propaganda, in its efforts to close the prison.”
The report said that 150 detainees, or 25 per cent of those released, are confirmed or believed to have rejoined the fight. CCR questioned those figures and called on the DNI to provide more detailed information.
In the last two days, Congress has voted to block the use of any funds to pay for transporting Guantanamo detainees to mainland U.S. This effectively forecloses the possibility of Guantanamo detainees being tried in civilian courts. Most members of Congress believe GITMO trials should be before military tribunals.
CCR criticized the vague and unsubstantiated claims and misinformation in the National Intelligence Director’s release of figures regarding the supposed "recidivism" of former Guantanamo detainees.
“The director's summary report also persists in using the language of ‘re-engagement’ to describe individuals, despite the fact that the majority of them should never have been detained in the first place and were known early on by the government to be innocent. It is not possible to return to the battlefield if you were never there in the first place,” the CCR said, adding:
“If the underlying basis for most detentions was suspect, the claims of re-engagement are more so and only serve to whitewash the original situation.”
The group noted that Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a senior State Department official who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the Bush administration, recently stated in a federal court declaration in support of a former detainee's claims of wrongful detention that “the Bush administration knew early on that the majority of the men at Guantanamo were wrongfully detained, but did not release them because of political concerns that doing so could harm the government’s push for war.”
CCR said the latest DNI report “only summarizes its figures without actually naming any alleged recidivists or including any information that would enable meaningful scrutiny.”
Leili Kashani, a CCR attorney, told IPS, “The problem with the latest government recidivism report, as with the ones that have preceded it, is that it provides no substance that can be assessed, and from experience we know that we cannot just accept it at face value.”
She added, “If the government thinks individual men released from Guantanamo have “returned to the battlefield,” then it should tell us who they are and what they are alleged to have done. These periodic reports that do not provide names or any concrete allegations are useless at best and fear mongering at worst. They function much like those color-coded terror warnings that the government has now had the sense to drop.”
She continued: “Tragically, these reports continue to obscure the fact that the vast majority of the men at Guantanamo should never have been detained in the first place and that a great injustice has been done to them. Hundreds of men have now been released and are peacefully rebuilding their lives. Rather than fueling fear, the government should be acknowledging these facts and making sure that the remaining men who have been wrongfully detained are quickly repatriated or resettled.”
Earlier reports that did identify individuals by name revealed, for example, that former detainee Moazzem Begg had been classified as a "recidivist" because he participated in a documentary about Guantanamo.
“As we now know from cables released by WikiLeaks, Mr. Begg has been privately championed by the State Department for his lack of animosity towards the United States since his release and for his valuable work assisting with the resettlement of other detainees,” CCR said.
An August 2010 U.S. Department of Justice letter responding to a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that criteria for identifying recidivism are arbitrary and can change at any time: “DIA [U.S. States Defense Intelligence Agency] does not endeavor to create any sort of firm guidelines for identifying a detainee as having returned to the fight,” CCR claims, adding:
“In the absence of specific and concrete information, which has been called for each time new reports have been released, the latest findings can simply not be assessed or trusted. They only serve to thwart the release of men whom the courts or the government have determined should not be detained and to fuel unfounded generalizations about detainees, the vast majority of whom have been successfully repatriated and resettled.”
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that intelligence officials claimed that five of the 69 detainees transferred to other countries from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration are believed to have rejoined terrorist groups.
The DNI report also said two former detainees were confirmed to be "re-engaging in terrorist or insurgent activities" and three others released in 2009 are suspected of doing so. The former detainees weren't named.
Since the prison at GITMO was opened in 2002, 598 detainees have been released, most of them during the administration of George W. Bush. They were sent home or to other countries that agreed to take them in.
Among the recent diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks are some describing the inducements and pressure U.S. officials proffered to secure host countries for detainees scheduled for release.
In the past, other organizations have also taken issue with recidivism statistics provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) and other government agencies. Students and faculty of Seton Hall law school have carried out extensive examinations of the claims made in prior reports as well as questioning the methodology used to arrive at those claims, and revealed numerous errors and anomalies.
On his first day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay in one year. But the task has proved more challenging than the administration imagined. In addition to the difficulty of finding host countries for prisoners scheduled for release, the issue became highly politicized by widespread rumors that former detainees “would be allowed to roam the Main Streets of American towns and cities with impunity.”
While this was never the government’s intention, members of congress were [placed under considerable pressure by their frightened constituencies.
When the government proposed to try the alleged mastermind of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks in a New York federal court, a public outcry forced the Obama administration to put the idea on a back burner – where it remains.
One Guantanamo inmate has been tried in federal civilian court in New York without incident. He was found guilty and faces a sentence of 20 years to life.
GITMO RECIDIVISM
By William Fisher
A prominent human rights organization and public interest law firm that has defended numerous Guantanamo Bay detainees charged Thursday that a recent government report on a high rate of recidivism among former GITMO inmates is loaded with “vague and unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.”
The Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement that the report to Congress by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was “the latest in a line of reports that have been repeatedly discredited for using dubious classifications to produce unreliable statistics.”
CCR said that the DNI’s report contains “unsubstantiated statistics on what it persists in calling recidivism or re-engagement of former detainees.”
In so doing, CCR added, the administration is “shooting itself in the foot, through political miscalculation and propaganda, in its efforts to close the prison.”
The report said that 150 detainees, or 25 per cent of those released, are confirmed or believed to have rejoined the fight. CCR questioned those figures and called on the DNI to provide more detailed information.
In the last two days, Congress has voted to block the use of any funds to pay for transporting Guantanamo detainees to mainland U.S. This effectively forecloses the possibility of Guantanamo detainees being tried in civilian courts. Most members of Congress believe GITMO trials should be before military tribunals.
CCR criticized the vague and unsubstantiated claims and misinformation in the National Intelligence Director’s release of figures regarding the supposed "recidivism" of former Guantanamo detainees.
“The director's summary report also persists in using the language of ‘re-engagement’ to describe individuals, despite the fact that the majority of them should never have been detained in the first place and were known early on by the government to be innocent. It is not possible to return to the battlefield if you were never there in the first place,” the CCR said, adding:
“If the underlying basis for most detentions was suspect, the claims of re-engagement are more so and only serve to whitewash the original situation.”
The group noted that Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a senior State Department official who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the Bush administration, recently stated in a federal court declaration in support of a former detainee's claims of wrongful detention that “the Bush administration knew early on that the majority of the men at Guantanamo were wrongfully detained, but did not release them because of political concerns that doing so could harm the government’s push for war.”
CCR said the latest DNI report “only summarizes its figures without actually naming any alleged recidivists or including any information that would enable meaningful scrutiny.”
Leili Kashani, a CCR attorney, told IPS, “The problem with the latest government recidivism report, as with the ones that have preceded it, is that it provides no substance that can be assessed, and from experience we know that we cannot just accept it at face value.”
She added, “If the government thinks individual men released from Guantanamo have “returned to the battlefield,” then it should tell us who they are and what they are alleged to have done. These periodic reports that do not provide names or any concrete allegations are useless at best and fear mongering at worst. They function much like those color-coded terror warnings that the government has now had the sense to drop.”
She continued: “Tragically, these reports continue to obscure the fact that the vast majority of the men at Guantanamo should never have been detained in the first place and that a great injustice has been done to them. Hundreds of men have now been released and are peacefully rebuilding their lives. Rather than fueling fear, the government should be acknowledging these facts and making sure that the remaining men who have been wrongfully detained are quickly repatriated or resettled.”
Earlier reports that did identify individuals by name revealed, for example, that former detainee Moazzem Begg had been classified as a "recidivist" because he participated in a documentary about Guantanamo.
“As we now know from cables released by WikiLeaks, Mr. Begg has been privately championed by the State Department for his lack of animosity towards the United States since his release and for his valuable work assisting with the resettlement of other detainees,” CCR said.
An August 2010 U.S. Department of Justice letter responding to a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that criteria for identifying recidivism are arbitrary and can change at any time: “DIA [U.S. States Defense Intelligence Agency] does not endeavor to create any sort of firm guidelines for identifying a detainee as having returned to the fight,” CCR claims, adding:
“In the absence of specific and concrete information, which has been called for each time new reports have been released, the latest findings can simply not be assessed or trusted. They only serve to thwart the release of men whom the courts or the government have determined should not be detained and to fuel unfounded generalizations about detainees, the vast majority of whom have been successfully repatriated and resettled.”
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that intelligence officials claimed that five of the 69 detainees transferred to other countries from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration are believed to have rejoined terrorist groups.
The DNI report also said two former detainees were confirmed to be "re-engaging in terrorist or insurgent activities" and three others released in 2009 are suspected of doing so. The former detainees weren't named.
Since the prison at GITMO was opened in 2002, 598 detainees have been released, most of them during the administration of George W. Bush. They were sent home or to other countries that agreed to take them in.
Among the recent diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks are some describing the inducements and pressure U.S. officials proffered to secure host countries for detainees scheduled for release.
In the past, other organizations have also taken issue with recidivism statistics provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) and other government agencies. Students and faculty of Seton Hall law school have carried out extensive examinations of the claims made in prior reports as well as questioning the methodology used to arrive at those claims, and revealed numerous errors and anomalies.
On his first day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay in one year. But the task has proved more challenging than the administration imagined. In addition to the difficulty of finding host countries for prisoners scheduled for release, the issue became highly politicized by widespread rumors that former detainees “would be allowed to roam the Main Streets of American towns and cities with impunity.”
While this was never the government’s intention, members of congress were [placed under considerable pressure by their frightened constituencies.
When the government proposed to try the alleged mastermind of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks in a New York federal court, a public outcry forced the Obama administration to put the idea on a back burner – where it remains.
One Guantanamo inmate has been tried in federal civilian court in New York without incident. He was found guilty and faces a sentence of 20 years to life.
A prominent human rights organization and public interest law firm that has defended numerous Guantanamo Bay detainees charged Thursday that a recent government report on a high rate of recidivism among former GITMO inmates is loaded with “vague and unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.”
The Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement that the report to Congress by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was “the latest in a line of reports that have been repeatedly discredited for using dubious classifications to produce unreliable statistics.”
CCR said that the DNI’s report contains “unsubstantiated statistics on what it persists in calling recidivism or re-engagement of former detainees.”
In so doing, CCR added, the administration is “shooting itself in the foot, through political miscalculation and propaganda, in its efforts to close the prison.”
The report said that 150 detainees, or 25 per cent of those released, are confirmed or believed to have rejoined the fight. CCR questioned those figures and called on the DNI to provide more detailed information.
In the last two days, Congress has voted to block the use of any funds to pay for transporting Guantanamo detainees to mainland U.S. This effectively forecloses the possibility of Guantanamo detainees being tried in civilian courts. Most members of Congress believe GITMO trials should be before military tribunals.
CCR criticized the vague and unsubstantiated claims and misinformation in the National Intelligence Director’s release of figures regarding the supposed "recidivism" of former Guantanamo detainees.
“The director's summary report also persists in using the language of ‘re-engagement’ to describe individuals, despite the fact that the majority of them should never have been detained in the first place and were known early on by the government to be innocent. It is not possible to return to the battlefield if you were never there in the first place,” the CCR said, adding:
“If the underlying basis for most detentions was suspect, the claims of re-engagement are more so and only serve to whitewash the original situation.”
The group noted that Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a senior State Department official who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the Bush administration, recently stated in a federal court declaration in support of a former detainee's claims of wrongful detention that “the Bush administration knew early on that the majority of the men at Guantanamo were wrongfully detained, but did not release them because of political concerns that doing so could harm the government’s push for war.”
CCR said the latest DNI report “only summarizes its figures without actually naming any alleged recidivists or including any information that would enable meaningful scrutiny.”
Leili Kashani, a CCR attorney, told IPS, “The problem with the latest government recidivism report, as with the ones that have preceded it, is that it provides no substance that can be assessed, and from experience we know that we cannot just accept it at face value.”
She added, “If the government thinks individual men released from Guantanamo have “returned to the battlefield,” then it should tell us who they are and what they are alleged to have done. These periodic reports that do not provide names or any concrete allegations are useless at best and fear mongering at worst. They function much like those color-coded terror warnings that the government has now had the sense to drop.”
She continued: “Tragically, these reports continue to obscure the fact that the vast majority of the men at Guantanamo should never have been detained in the first place and that a great injustice has been done to them. Hundreds of men have now been released and are peacefully rebuilding their lives. Rather than fueling fear, the government should be acknowledging these facts and making sure that the remaining men who have been wrongfully detained are quickly repatriated or resettled.”
Earlier reports that did identify individuals by name revealed, for example, that former detainee Moazzem Begg had been classified as a "recidivist" because he participated in a documentary about Guantanamo.
“As we now know from cables released by WikiLeaks, Mr. Begg has been privately championed by the State Department for his lack of animosity towards the United States since his release and for his valuable work assisting with the resettlement of other detainees,” CCR said.
An August 2010 U.S. Department of Justice letter responding to a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that criteria for identifying recidivism are arbitrary and can change at any time: “DIA [U.S. States Defense Intelligence Agency] does not endeavor to create any sort of firm guidelines for identifying a detainee as having returned to the fight,” CCR claims, adding:
“In the absence of specific and concrete information, which has been called for each time new reports have been released, the latest findings can simply not be assessed or trusted. They only serve to thwart the release of men whom the courts or the government have determined should not be detained and to fuel unfounded generalizations about detainees, the vast majority of whom have been successfully repatriated and resettled.”
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that intelligence officials claimed that five of the 69 detainees transferred to other countries from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration are believed to have rejoined terrorist groups.
The DNI report also said two former detainees were confirmed to be "re-engaging in terrorist or insurgent activities" and three others released in 2009 are suspected of doing so. The former detainees weren't named.
Since the prison at GITMO was opened in 2002, 598 detainees have been released, most of them during the administration of George W. Bush. They were sent home or to other countries that agreed to take them in.
Among the recent diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks are some describing the inducements and pressure U.S. officials proffered to secure host countries for detainees scheduled for release.
In the past, other organizations have also taken issue with recidivism statistics provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) and other government agencies. Students and faculty of Seton Hall law school have carried out extensive examinations of the claims made in prior reports as well as questioning the methodology used to arrive at those claims, and revealed numerous errors and anomalies.
On his first day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay in one year. But the task has proved more challenging than the administration imagined. In addition to the difficulty of finding host countries for prisoners scheduled for release, the issue became highly politicized by widespread rumors that former detainees “would be allowed to roam the Main Streets of American towns and cities with impunity.”
While this was never the government’s intention, members of congress were [placed under considerable pressure by their frightened constituencies.
When the government proposed to try the alleged mastermind of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks in a New York federal court, a public outcry forced the Obama administration to put the idea on a back burner – where it remains.
One Guantanamo inmate has been tried in federal civilian court in New York without incident. He was found guilty and faces a sentence of 20 years to life.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Who Supports Wikileaks?
By William Fisher
As pro- and anti-Wikileaks forces ratchet up their battle, and Wikileaks’ impresario marks time in storied, overcrowded, and very Victorian Wandsworth Prison in southwest London, a group of his supporters are taking a different tack. They’re not hacking Visa or Master Card or Sarah Palen; instead they’re speaking out in no uncertain terms. Their message: On balance, Wikileaks has performed a valuable public service for which he is now being persecuted with trumped up sex charges.
These champions of transparency and enemies of government secrecy are the small but vocal community known as the human rights constituency. Many were among the first to defend Wikileaks and among the most vocal.
Joining them is an equally articulate community: the groups that campaign tirelessly for press freedom.
Here are some of the sentiments expressed by these groups when contacted by IPS:
Dinah PoKempner of Human Rights Watch says she “has no information regarding Mr. Assange's personal actions in Sweden and thus no position on his arrest on charges of sexual assault other than that like any suspect in a criminal case, he should be accorded full rights of defense due under international and domestic law.”
However, [her organization does] have concerns at recent allegations from various political figures that the actions of Wikileaks in releasing classified US cables somehow amount to either "terrorism" or "espionage" in the absence of evidence of any intent to attack civilians or endanger national security. Threats made against Mr. Assange's life are particularly reprehensible,” she says.
She added: “Although the quantity of the Wikileaks cable release is unprecedented, the nature of the material is not. Traditional media frequently reveal non-public government information of an embarrassing nature, and this can be in the public interest and in furtherance of the right to receive information in a democratic society. We have expressed concern to Wikileaks that care be taken not to reveal information that endangers lives, and we continue to monitor the disclosures to that end.”
Michael Ratner, the firebrand President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “ Wikileaks has played a critical role in giving the American people the truth about the lies the US government has told about its wars, especially those in the Middle East and Central Asia. We were lied to about Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other places. There can be no issue more important then getting the truth out about war and the drum beats of war; only then can people act responsibly to protest war. Why did no other major newspaper bring the US lies to our attention?”
He pivoted to Assange's arrest, saying, “Yes, the charges for which he is being investigated need to be investigated. Yet the irregularities in the proceeding are glaring. Why was the case dropped originally? Why was he allowed to leave Sweden? Why was an arrest warrant issued to bring him back to Sweden for questioning--which he is willing to do at a Swedish embassy in the UK? Why was bail denied when he surrendered and his lawyers had let the police know he would do so when the warrant was served? Finally, is the hand of the US the answer to these questions? Sweden is not the UK; the US can squash that tiny country. The chances of getting its hands on Assange from there are probably improved--and that may be the story.”
Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, focused on widespread rumors that there is a conspiracy between the U.K. and Sweden to extradite Assange to the United States.
She told us, “We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents”
“If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome,” she said, adding,
“The broader lesson of the WikiLeaks phenomenon is that President Obama should recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.”
AMNESTY International played a more direct role than most. It said one of Wiki’s leaked diplomatic cables corroborates images released earlier this year by Amnesty International showing that the U.S. military carried out a missile strike in south Yemen in December 2009 that killed dozens of local civilians, including women and children.
The organization said that in the secret cable from January 2010 published by Wikileaks, Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh is reported as having assured U.S. General David Petraeus that his government would “continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”
Human Rights First notes that the latest round of WikiLeaks documents is rousing discussion about U.S. diplomatic relations – but Human Rights First, along with Human Rights Watch, has raised the question of human rights activists who may be at danger if certain information is not redacted. Wikileaks says it has been especially careful in removing those names and, according to human rights activist Chip Pitts, “The US Government has now repeatedly admitted that contrary to their prior alarmist statements no one has come to harm as a result of the Wikileaks disclosures (to which I would add none is likely, since Wikileaks has followed the lead of the other major news outlets in redacting information that would actually endanger lives or national security).
Organizations dedicated to press freedom have been equally outspoken.
Reporters Without Borders says it “can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.”
They say that “any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.”
John Kampfner, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, associated with IFEX (the International Freedom of Expression Exchange), says, “Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret.”
He predicts: “Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr. Assange’s industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr. Assange to be the conduit.”
He added, ”Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.”
IFEX reiterated its call for “governments to improve the public's access to information, and only limit access if governments can demonstrate it would cause a specific and articulated harm. "The rules should not be used to hide other interests. Indeed, the existing U.S. rules on secrecy prohibit classifying information about crimes and as a means to prevent embarrassment.”
He believes “those rules are ignored far too often."
Chip Pitts, past president and current member of the Executive Committee of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told us, “Assange’s arrest now further complicates and escalates the situation: The ferocity with which the establishment has targeted Assange reveals its profound concern over the historic new trend toward global transparency Wikileaks exemplifies: if the big thieves can’t keep their thievery secret, what will they do?
He answers his question: “They thus strive with all their might to dramatically quash this upstart before others follow Assange’s example. Yet international as well as U.S. law is now clearly implicated, including international human rights law (for example the rights to free expression – including “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” -- and fair trial) and the particulars of the extradition treaty to which Assange will ultimately be subject (for example Sweden’s, which precludes extradition for “political” offenses).”
Pitts believes these actions “will succeed only if the rule of law continues to be eroded on the global level as it has been at the national level in recent years, with Kafkaesque labels of ‘terrorism’ or ‘espionage’, and invocations of ‘state secrecy’ and ‘military necessity’ being used to chill journalists and shield even the most egregious facts from coming to light – let alone being used to finally hold the high and mighty accountable for their crimes.”
As pro- and anti-Wikileaks forces ratchet up their battle, and Wikileaks’ impresario marks time in storied, overcrowded, and very Victorian Wandsworth Prison in southwest London, a group of his supporters are taking a different tack. They’re not hacking Visa or Master Card or Sarah Palen; instead they’re speaking out in no uncertain terms. Their message: On balance, Wikileaks has performed a valuable public service for which he is now being persecuted with trumped up sex charges.
These champions of transparency and enemies of government secrecy are the small but vocal community known as the human rights constituency. Many were among the first to defend Wikileaks and among the most vocal.
Joining them is an equally articulate community: the groups that campaign tirelessly for press freedom.
Here are some of the sentiments expressed by these groups when contacted by IPS:
Dinah PoKempner of Human Rights Watch says she “has no information regarding Mr. Assange's personal actions in Sweden and thus no position on his arrest on charges of sexual assault other than that like any suspect in a criminal case, he should be accorded full rights of defense due under international and domestic law.”
However, [her organization does] have concerns at recent allegations from various political figures that the actions of Wikileaks in releasing classified US cables somehow amount to either "terrorism" or "espionage" in the absence of evidence of any intent to attack civilians or endanger national security. Threats made against Mr. Assange's life are particularly reprehensible,” she says.
She added: “Although the quantity of the Wikileaks cable release is unprecedented, the nature of the material is not. Traditional media frequently reveal non-public government information of an embarrassing nature, and this can be in the public interest and in furtherance of the right to receive information in a democratic society. We have expressed concern to Wikileaks that care be taken not to reveal information that endangers lives, and we continue to monitor the disclosures to that end.”
Michael Ratner, the firebrand President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “ Wikileaks has played a critical role in giving the American people the truth about the lies the US government has told about its wars, especially those in the Middle East and Central Asia. We were lied to about Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other places. There can be no issue more important then getting the truth out about war and the drum beats of war; only then can people act responsibly to protest war. Why did no other major newspaper bring the US lies to our attention?”
He pivoted to Assange's arrest, saying, “Yes, the charges for which he is being investigated need to be investigated. Yet the irregularities in the proceeding are glaring. Why was the case dropped originally? Why was he allowed to leave Sweden? Why was an arrest warrant issued to bring him back to Sweden for questioning--which he is willing to do at a Swedish embassy in the UK? Why was bail denied when he surrendered and his lawyers had let the police know he would do so when the warrant was served? Finally, is the hand of the US the answer to these questions? Sweden is not the UK; the US can squash that tiny country. The chances of getting its hands on Assange from there are probably improved--and that may be the story.”
Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, focused on widespread rumors that there is a conspiracy between the U.K. and Sweden to extradite Assange to the United States.
She told us, “We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents”
“If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome,” she said, adding,
“The broader lesson of the WikiLeaks phenomenon is that President Obama should recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.”
AMNESTY International played a more direct role than most. It said one of Wiki’s leaked diplomatic cables corroborates images released earlier this year by Amnesty International showing that the U.S. military carried out a missile strike in south Yemen in December 2009 that killed dozens of local civilians, including women and children.
The organization said that in the secret cable from January 2010 published by Wikileaks, Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh is reported as having assured U.S. General David Petraeus that his government would “continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”
Human Rights First notes that the latest round of WikiLeaks documents is rousing discussion about U.S. diplomatic relations – but Human Rights First, along with Human Rights Watch, has raised the question of human rights activists who may be at danger if certain information is not redacted. Wikileaks says it has been especially careful in removing those names and, according to human rights activist Chip Pitts, “The US Government has now repeatedly admitted that contrary to their prior alarmist statements no one has come to harm as a result of the Wikileaks disclosures (to which I would add none is likely, since Wikileaks has followed the lead of the other major news outlets in redacting information that would actually endanger lives or national security).
Organizations dedicated to press freedom have been equally outspoken.
Reporters Without Borders says it “can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.”
They say that “any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.”
John Kampfner, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, associated with IFEX (the International Freedom of Expression Exchange), says, “Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret.”
He predicts: “Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr. Assange’s industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr. Assange to be the conduit.”
He added, ”Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.”
IFEX reiterated its call for “governments to improve the public's access to information, and only limit access if governments can demonstrate it would cause a specific and articulated harm. "The rules should not be used to hide other interests. Indeed, the existing U.S. rules on secrecy prohibit classifying information about crimes and as a means to prevent embarrassment.”
He believes “those rules are ignored far too often."
Chip Pitts, past president and current member of the Executive Committee of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told us, “Assange’s arrest now further complicates and escalates the situation: The ferocity with which the establishment has targeted Assange reveals its profound concern over the historic new trend toward global transparency Wikileaks exemplifies: if the big thieves can’t keep their thievery secret, what will they do?
He answers his question: “They thus strive with all their might to dramatically quash this upstart before others follow Assange’s example. Yet international as well as U.S. law is now clearly implicated, including international human rights law (for example the rights to free expression – including “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” -- and fair trial) and the particulars of the extradition treaty to which Assange will ultimately be subject (for example Sweden’s, which precludes extradition for “political” offenses).”
Pitts believes these actions “will succeed only if the rule of law continues to be eroded on the global level as it has been at the national level in recent years, with Kafkaesque labels of ‘terrorism’ or ‘espionage’, and invocations of ‘state secrecy’ and ‘military necessity’ being used to chill journalists and shield even the most egregious facts from coming to light – let alone being used to finally hold the high and mighty accountable for their crimes.”
Targeted Killing. Of Who?
By William Fisher
A Federal judge yesterday dismissed a court challenge to the policy of the administration of Barack Obama to target and execute U.S. citizens outside combat zones who do not pose an imminent threat.
Judge John Bates found that the plaintiff, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, did not have “standing” before the court -- the right to assert the interests of his son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who it is believed has been targeted for assassination. For this reason, the judge did not consider the merits of the case.
Judge Bates ruled that “there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is ‘constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable." Regarding the latter "political question" issue, the judge acknowledged "the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion."
Bates called the case "unique and extraordinary," and said it presented "[s]tark, and perplexing, questions" and found that the merits "present fundamental questions of separation of powers involving the proper role of the courts in our constitutional structure."
Ultimately, however, he dismissed the case on procedural grounds and found that "the serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day…"
The suit had been brought by The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in August.
Following the granting the government's motion to dismiss the case, Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, said, "If the court's ruling is correct, the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation."
He added, "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty. It's worth remembering that the power that the court invests in the president today will be available not just in this case but in future cases, and not just to the current president but to every future president. It is a profound mistake to allow this unparalleled power to be exercised free from the checks and balances that apply in every other context. We continue to believe that the government's power to use lethal force against American citizens should be subject to meaningful oversight by the courts."
Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the National Security Project of the
ACLU Foundation, told IPS, “The court has drastically limited who can come into court to challenge a targeted killing before the fact. That said, if a targeted person is killed, the targeted person's estate could probably try to bring a wrongful death action after the fact.”
He continued: “The trouble is that Judge Bates's ruling suggests that courts should have no role in determining the lawfulness of a targeted killing even after the fact -- for example in a wrongful death lawsuit -- even if the victim is a U.S. citizen. The decision takes the view that killing citizens abroad in the name of national security is a ‘political question’," and so is reserved to the exclusive judgment of the President.”
“Under this view,” he said, “the courts can have no role whatsoever in assessing compliance with the Constitution -- either before or after a targeted killing occurs -- because those questions are reserved exclusively to the President. This is a very dangerous position, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantee of checks and balances.”
Manes drove home his point: Judge Bates's decision “would effectively grant the President unreviewable authority to order the targeted killing of Americans located far from any combat zone who pose no imminent threat. According to Judge Bates, the rules governing targeted killing of citizens can be written and applied in secret, with no independent checks at all. We reject the idea that the President has such a sweeping power over the lives and deaths of citizens abroad.”
The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asked the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asked the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
Judge Bates asked but did not answer the troubling question, "How is it that judicial approval is required when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for death?"
Meanwhile, A Yemeni judge ordered police on Saturday to capture "dead or alive" Anwar al-Awlaki, whom the U.S. government portrays as a radical Muslim cleric who has been linked to several terror plots in the U.S. He has been tied to the cargo plane bomb plot last month, the Detroit underwear bomber, and may be connected to the attempted Times Square bombing.
Other human rights organizations are also weighing on this controversial legal battle. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on President Barack Obama to “immediately clarify [the government’s] legal rationale for targeted killings.
In a letter to President Obama, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth said the government “should answer the fundamental questions of how his administration determines whether a person may be targeted”.
He added, “Such operations may be lawful under certain circumstances, but absent clear boundaries, they will inevitably violate international law and set a dangerous precedent for abusive regimes around the globe.”
The Obama administration dramatically expanded the use of targeted killings outside of traditional battlefields following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of these killings are conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency through the use of Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (drones). The US government asserts that it has authority under international law to use lethal force outside of clearly defined war zones because it is engaged in a global armed conflict with al Qaeda and associated forces.
Roth’s letter to Obama said the “US government claims that the entire world is a battleground in which the laws of war are applicable undermine the protections of international law. This discredited notion invites the application of lethal force by other countries in situations where the US would strongly object to its use.”
HRW called on Obama to “provide greater clarity on how the US government determines when a targeted killing in an armed conflict situation meets the requirements of distinction and proportionality under the laws of war and the measures it is taking to minimize civilian harm. During armed conflict, only combatants or civilians who are actively participating in hostilities may be lawfully targeted.”
Roth offered a number of detailed recommendations, including: Do not define all operations as part of a "global armed conflict"; define who may be legally targeted; ensure compliance with the laws of war; ensure compliance with international human rights law; improve transparency and accountability; minimize harm to civilians; and avoid dangerous precedents;
A Federal judge yesterday dismissed a court challenge to the policy of the administration of Barack Obama to target and execute U.S. citizens outside combat zones who do not pose an imminent threat.
Judge John Bates found that the plaintiff, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, did not have “standing” before the court -- the right to assert the interests of his son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who it is believed has been targeted for assassination. For this reason, the judge did not consider the merits of the case.
Judge Bates ruled that “there are circumstances in which the Executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is ‘constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable." Regarding the latter "political question" issue, the judge acknowledged "the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion."
Bates called the case "unique and extraordinary," and said it presented "[s]tark, and perplexing, questions" and found that the merits "present fundamental questions of separation of powers involving the proper role of the courts in our constitutional structure."
Ultimately, however, he dismissed the case on procedural grounds and found that "the serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day…"
The suit had been brought by The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in August.
Following the granting the government's motion to dismiss the case, Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, said, "If the court's ruling is correct, the government has unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation."
He added, "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty. It's worth remembering that the power that the court invests in the president today will be available not just in this case but in future cases, and not just to the current president but to every future president. It is a profound mistake to allow this unparalleled power to be exercised free from the checks and balances that apply in every other context. We continue to believe that the government's power to use lethal force against American citizens should be subject to meaningful oversight by the courts."
Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the National Security Project of the
ACLU Foundation, told IPS, “The court has drastically limited who can come into court to challenge a targeted killing before the fact. That said, if a targeted person is killed, the targeted person's estate could probably try to bring a wrongful death action after the fact.”
He continued: “The trouble is that Judge Bates's ruling suggests that courts should have no role in determining the lawfulness of a targeted killing even after the fact -- for example in a wrongful death lawsuit -- even if the victim is a U.S. citizen. The decision takes the view that killing citizens abroad in the name of national security is a ‘political question’," and so is reserved to the exclusive judgment of the President.”
“Under this view,” he said, “the courts can have no role whatsoever in assessing compliance with the Constitution -- either before or after a targeted killing occurs -- because those questions are reserved exclusively to the President. This is a very dangerous position, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantee of checks and balances.”
Manes drove home his point: Judge Bates's decision “would effectively grant the President unreviewable authority to order the targeted killing of Americans located far from any combat zone who pose no imminent threat. According to Judge Bates, the rules governing targeted killing of citizens can be written and applied in secret, with no independent checks at all. We reject the idea that the President has such a sweeping power over the lives and deaths of citizens abroad.”
The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asked the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asked the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
Judge Bates asked but did not answer the troubling question, "How is it that judicial approval is required when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for death?"
Meanwhile, A Yemeni judge ordered police on Saturday to capture "dead or alive" Anwar al-Awlaki, whom the U.S. government portrays as a radical Muslim cleric who has been linked to several terror plots in the U.S. He has been tied to the cargo plane bomb plot last month, the Detroit underwear bomber, and may be connected to the attempted Times Square bombing.
Other human rights organizations are also weighing on this controversial legal battle. Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on President Barack Obama to “immediately clarify [the government’s] legal rationale for targeted killings.
In a letter to President Obama, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth said the government “should answer the fundamental questions of how his administration determines whether a person may be targeted”.
He added, “Such operations may be lawful under certain circumstances, but absent clear boundaries, they will inevitably violate international law and set a dangerous precedent for abusive regimes around the globe.”
The Obama administration dramatically expanded the use of targeted killings outside of traditional battlefields following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of these killings are conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency through the use of Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (drones). The US government asserts that it has authority under international law to use lethal force outside of clearly defined war zones because it is engaged in a global armed conflict with al Qaeda and associated forces.
Roth’s letter to Obama said the “US government claims that the entire world is a battleground in which the laws of war are applicable undermine the protections of international law. This discredited notion invites the application of lethal force by other countries in situations where the US would strongly object to its use.”
HRW called on Obama to “provide greater clarity on how the US government determines when a targeted killing in an armed conflict situation meets the requirements of distinction and proportionality under the laws of war and the measures it is taking to minimize civilian harm. During armed conflict, only combatants or civilians who are actively participating in hostilities may be lawfully targeted.”
Roth offered a number of detailed recommendations, including: Do not define all operations as part of a "global armed conflict"; define who may be legally targeted; ensure compliance with the laws of war; ensure compliance with international human rights law; improve transparency and accountability; minimize harm to civilians; and avoid dangerous precedents;
No Laptops in Wandsworth Prison
By William Fisher
As pro- and anti-Wikileaks forces ratchet up their battle, and Wikileaks’ impresario marks time in storied, overcrowded, and very Victorian Wandsworth Prison in southwest London, a group of his supporters are taking a different tack. They’re not hacking Visa or Master Card or Sarah Palen; instead they’re speaking out in no uncertain terms. Their message: On balance, Wikileaks has performed a valuable public service for which he is now being persecuted with trumped up sex charges.
These champions of transparency and enemies of government secrecy are the small but vocal community known as the human rights constituency. Many were among the first to defend Wikileaks and among the most vocal.
Joining them is an equally articulate community: the groups that campaign tirelessly for press freedom.
Here are some of the sentiments expressed by these groups when contacted by IPS:
Dinah PoKempner of Human Rights Watch says she “has no information regarding Mr. Assange's personal actions in Sweden and thus no position on his arrest on charges of sexual assault other than that like any suspect in a criminal case, he should be accorded full rights of defense due under international and domestic law.”
However, [her organization does] have concerns at recent allegations from various political figures that the actions of Wikileaks in releasing classified US cables somehow amount to either "terrorism" or "espionage" in the absence of evidence of any intent to attack civilians or endanger national security. Threats made against Mr. Assange's life are particularly reprehensible,” she says.
She added: “Although the quantity of the Wikileaks cable release is unprecedented, the nature of the material is not. Traditional media frequently reveal non-public government information of an embarrassing nature, and this can be in the public interest and in furtherance of the right to receive information in a democratic society. We have expressed concern to Wikileaks that care be taken not to reveal information that endangers lives, and we continue to monitor the disclosures to that end.”
Michael Ratner, the firebrand President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “ Wikileaks has played a critical role in giving the American people the truth about the lies the US government has told about its wars, especially those in the Middle East and Central Asia. We were lied to about Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other places. There can be no issue more important then getting the truth out about war and the drum beats of war; only then can people act responsibly to protest war. Why did no other major newspaper bring the US lies to our attention?”
He pivoted to Assange's arrest, saying, “Yes, the charges for which he is being investigated need to be investigated. Yet the irregularities in the proceeding are glaring. Why was the case dropped originally? Why was he allowed to leave Sweden? Why was an arrest warrant issued to bring him back to Sweden for questioning--which he is willing to do at a Swedish embassy in the UK? Why was bail denied when he surrendered and his lawyers had let the police know he would do so when the warrant was served? Finally, is the hand of the US the answer to these questions? Sweden is not the UK; the US can squash that tiny country. The chances of getting its hands on Assange from there are probably improved--and that may be the story.”
Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, focused on widespread rumors that there is a conspiracy between the U.K. and Sweden to extradite Assange to the United States.
She told us, “We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents”
“If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome,” she said, adding,
“The broader lesson of the WikiLeaks phenomenon is that President Obama should recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.”
AMNESTY International played a more direct role than most. It said one of Wiki’s leaked diplomatic cables corroborates images released earlier this year by Amnesty International showing that the U.S. military carried out a missile strike in south Yemen in December 2009 that killed dozens of local civilians, including women and children.
The organization said that in the secret cable from January 2010 published by Wikileaks, Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh is reported as having assured U.S. General David Petraeus that his government would “continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”
Human Rights First notes that the latest round of WikiLeaks documents is rousing discussion about U.S. diplomatic relations – but Human Rights First, along with Human Rights Watch, has raised the question of human rights activists who may be at danger if certain information is not redacted. Wikileaks says it has been especially careful in removing those names and, according to human rights activist Chip Pitts, “The US Government has now repeatedly admitted that contrary to their prior alarmist statements no one has come to harm as a result of the Wikileaks disclosures (to which I would add none is likely, since Wikileaks has followed the lead of the other major news outlets in redacting information that would actually endanger lives or national security).
Organizations dedicated to press freedom have been equally outspoken.
Reporters Without Borders says it “can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.”
They say that “any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.”
John Kampfner, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, associated with IFEX (the International Freedom of Expression Exchange), says, “Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret.”
He predicts: “Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr. Assange’s industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr. Assange to be the conduit.”
He added, ”Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.”
IFEX reiterated its call for “governments to improve the public's access to information, and only limit access if governments can demonstrate it would cause a specific and articulated harm. "The rules should not be used to hide other interests. Indeed, the existing U.S. rules on secrecy prohibit classifying information about crimes and as a means to prevent embarrassment.”
He believes “those rules are ignored far too often."
Chip Pitts, past president and current member of the Executive Committee of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told us, “Assange’s arrest now further complicates and escalates the situation: The ferocity with which the establishment has targeted Assange reveals its profound concern over the historic new trend toward global transparency Wikileaks exemplifies: if the big thieves can’t keep their thievery secret, what will they do?
He answers his question: “They thus strive with all their might to dramatically quash this upstart before others follow Assange’s example. Yet international as well as U.S. law is now clearly implicated, including international human rights law (for example the rights to free expression – including “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” -- and fair trial) and the particulars of the extradition treaty to which Assange will ultimately be subject (for example Sweden’s, which precludes extradition for “political” offenses).”
Pitts believes these actions “will succeed only if the rule of law continues to be eroded on the global level as it has been at the national level in recent years, with Kafkaesque labels of ‘terrorism’ or ‘espionage’, and invocations of ‘state secrecy’ and ‘military necessity’ being used to chill journalists and shield even the most egregious facts from coming to light – let alone being used to finally hold the high and mighty accountable for their crimes.”
As pro- and anti-Wikileaks forces ratchet up their battle, and Wikileaks’ impresario marks time in storied, overcrowded, and very Victorian Wandsworth Prison in southwest London, a group of his supporters are taking a different tack. They’re not hacking Visa or Master Card or Sarah Palen; instead they’re speaking out in no uncertain terms. Their message: On balance, Wikileaks has performed a valuable public service for which he is now being persecuted with trumped up sex charges.
These champions of transparency and enemies of government secrecy are the small but vocal community known as the human rights constituency. Many were among the first to defend Wikileaks and among the most vocal.
Joining them is an equally articulate community: the groups that campaign tirelessly for press freedom.
Here are some of the sentiments expressed by these groups when contacted by IPS:
Dinah PoKempner of Human Rights Watch says she “has no information regarding Mr. Assange's personal actions in Sweden and thus no position on his arrest on charges of sexual assault other than that like any suspect in a criminal case, he should be accorded full rights of defense due under international and domestic law.”
However, [her organization does] have concerns at recent allegations from various political figures that the actions of Wikileaks in releasing classified US cables somehow amount to either "terrorism" or "espionage" in the absence of evidence of any intent to attack civilians or endanger national security. Threats made against Mr. Assange's life are particularly reprehensible,” she says.
She added: “Although the quantity of the Wikileaks cable release is unprecedented, the nature of the material is not. Traditional media frequently reveal non-public government information of an embarrassing nature, and this can be in the public interest and in furtherance of the right to receive information in a democratic society. We have expressed concern to Wikileaks that care be taken not to reveal information that endangers lives, and we continue to monitor the disclosures to that end.”
Michael Ratner, the firebrand President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS, “ Wikileaks has played a critical role in giving the American people the truth about the lies the US government has told about its wars, especially those in the Middle East and Central Asia. We were lied to about Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other places. There can be no issue more important then getting the truth out about war and the drum beats of war; only then can people act responsibly to protest war. Why did no other major newspaper bring the US lies to our attention?”
He pivoted to Assange's arrest, saying, “Yes, the charges for which he is being investigated need to be investigated. Yet the irregularities in the proceeding are glaring. Why was the case dropped originally? Why was he allowed to leave Sweden? Why was an arrest warrant issued to bring him back to Sweden for questioning--which he is willing to do at a Swedish embassy in the UK? Why was bail denied when he surrendered and his lawyers had let the police know he would do so when the warrant was served? Finally, is the hand of the US the answer to these questions? Sweden is not the UK; the US can squash that tiny country. The chances of getting its hands on Assange from there are probably improved--and that may be the story.”
Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, focused on widespread rumors that there is a conspiracy between the U.K. and Sweden to extradite Assange to the United States.
She told us, “We’re deeply skeptical that prosecuting WikiLeaks would be constitutional, or a good idea. The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information. Prosecuting WikiLeaks would be no different from prosecuting the media outlets that also published classified documents”
“If newspapers could be held criminally liable for publishing leaked information about government practices, we might never have found out about the CIA’s secret prisons or the government spying on innocent Americans. Prosecuting publishers of classified information threatens investigative journalism that is necessary to an informed public debate about government conduct, and that is an unthinkable outcome,” she said, adding,
“The broader lesson of the WikiLeaks phenomenon is that President Obama should recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to.”
AMNESTY International played a more direct role than most. It said one of Wiki’s leaked diplomatic cables corroborates images released earlier this year by Amnesty International showing that the U.S. military carried out a missile strike in south Yemen in December 2009 that killed dozens of local civilians, including women and children.
The organization said that in the secret cable from January 2010 published by Wikileaks, Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh is reported as having assured U.S. General David Petraeus that his government would “continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”
Human Rights First notes that the latest round of WikiLeaks documents is rousing discussion about U.S. diplomatic relations – but Human Rights First, along with Human Rights Watch, has raised the question of human rights activists who may be at danger if certain information is not redacted. Wikileaks says it has been especially careful in removing those names and, according to human rights activist Chip Pitts, “The US Government has now repeatedly admitted that contrary to their prior alarmist statements no one has come to harm as a result of the Wikileaks disclosures (to which I would add none is likely, since Wikileaks has followed the lead of the other major news outlets in redacting information that would actually endanger lives or national security).
Organizations dedicated to press freedom have been equally outspoken.
Reporters Without Borders says it “can only condemn this determination to hound Assange and reiterates its conviction that WikiLeaks has a right under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to publish these documents and is even playing a useful role by making them available to journalists and the greater public.”
They say that “any restriction on the freedom to disseminate this body of documents will affect the entire press, which has given detailed coverage to the information made available by WikiLeaks, with five leading international newspapers actively cooperating in preparing it for publication.”
John Kampfner, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, associated with IFEX (the International Freedom of Expression Exchange), says, “Good journalists and editors should be capable of separating the awkward from the damaging. Information that could endanger life, either in the short term or as part of a longer-term operation, should remain secret.”
He predicts: “Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr. Assange’s industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr. Assange to be the conduit.”
He added, ”Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power.”
IFEX reiterated its call for “governments to improve the public's access to information, and only limit access if governments can demonstrate it would cause a specific and articulated harm. "The rules should not be used to hide other interests. Indeed, the existing U.S. rules on secrecy prohibit classifying information about crimes and as a means to prevent embarrassment.”
He believes “those rules are ignored far too often."
Chip Pitts, past president and current member of the Executive Committee of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told us, “Assange’s arrest now further complicates and escalates the situation: The ferocity with which the establishment has targeted Assange reveals its profound concern over the historic new trend toward global transparency Wikileaks exemplifies: if the big thieves can’t keep their thievery secret, what will they do?
He answers his question: “They thus strive with all their might to dramatically quash this upstart before others follow Assange’s example. Yet international as well as U.S. law is now clearly implicated, including international human rights law (for example the rights to free expression – including “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” -- and fair trial) and the particulars of the extradition treaty to which Assange will ultimately be subject (for example Sweden’s, which precludes extradition for “political” offenses).”
Pitts believes these actions “will succeed only if the rule of law continues to be eroded on the global level as it has been at the national level in recent years, with Kafkaesque labels of ‘terrorism’ or ‘espionage’, and invocations of ‘state secrecy’ and ‘military necessity’ being used to chill journalists and shield even the most egregious facts from coming to light – let alone being used to finally hold the high and mighty accountable for their crimes.”
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Warring Over Dream Act
By William Fisher
Immigration enforcement would be improved if Congress approves the DREAM Act that would legalize hundreds of thousands of undocumented students brought here illegally by their parents when they were children, said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Napolitano, once the governor of a Southern border state, Arizona, lobbied for the act in remarks to reporters from around the country during a conference call from Washington.
She said passage of the DREAM Act would enable DHS to focus more aggressively on deporting foreign criminal convicts.
"It's important to point out that the DREAM Act fits into a larger strategy of immigration enforcement, and would actually complement the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prioritize our enforcement resources on removing dangerous criminal aliens from the country,'' Napolitano said.
Napolitano was clearly trying to persuade recalcitrant Republican lawmakers that the DREAM Act would complement enforcement, and that it was not an "amnesty" bill for undocumented immigrants.
Passage of the DREAM Act, she said, will allow Homeland Security to concentrate on catching the “criminals-first'' for the government’s deportation program. So far this year, the administration of barrack Obama has deported more people than were deported by his predecessor, George W. Bush, in the eight years of his administration. But despite Obama’s pledge to focus on serious criminals, many of those deported had been convicted of minor infractions, such as broken taillights and missing drivers’ licenses.
According to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, the DREAM Act will be brought up to a vote during the lame-duck session. However, the timing of the debate is unclear and the clock is ticking on the crowded calendar of the so-called Lame Duck session.
When Congress returns in January, Republicans will control the House of Representatives and the Democratic majority in the Senate will be diminished.
Meanwhile, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), launched a blistering attack on a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), an organization that advocates immigration reduction in the United States.
IPC asserts that CIS's “cynical mischaracterization of the DREAM Act is not only inaccurate, but hypocritical as well.”
The CIS report claims that, “On average each illegal immigrant who attends a public institution will receive a tuition subsidy from taxpayers of nearly $6,000 for each year he or she attends for total cost of $6.2 billion a year, not including other forms of financial assistance that they may also receive.”
Wendy Sefsaf, Communications Director for the American Immigration Council, which is affiliated with the Immigration Policy Council, told IPS, “We have no idea where these numbers come from. They are not only inaccurate; they are incomplete – for example, they assign no cost to deporting tens of thousands of children.”
She adds, “Over the years, we have yet to find any category of immigrant the CIS says it wants in the United States.”
IPC says, “CIS frequently laments that so many immigrants to the United States have low levels of education, yet opposes a measure that would allow some of these immigrants to become more educated. What alternative to the DREAM Act does CIS propose? According to the Center for American Progress the cost to deport more than two million children and young adults who were raised in the United States would be $48.6 billion. How is that sound fiscal policy?”
The report, the IPC said, “paints a misleading financial portrait of the DREAM Act…claims that the bill would be a burden on U.S. taxpayers and would ‘crowd out’ native-born students in the classroom.
IPS charges that available evidence does not support either of these dire predictions. In fact:
“Institutions of higher education overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act, which would likely increase school revenues as students who would not normally attend college start to pay tuition.”
“The 10 states which, since 2001, have passed laws allowing undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition have not experienced a large influx of new immigrant students that displaces native-born students.”
Most DREAM Act students, IPC says, would likely enroll in community colleges, most of which have open enrollment, based on a philosophy that all qualified students should have the opportunity to learn. Historically, more than 80% of community college students hold full or part-time jobs, thus contributing to their own educations (and the tax base) even as they attend school. The American Association of Community Colleges estimates that state and local governments receive a 16% return on every dollar they invest in community colleges due to the increased earnings of college graduates.
IPC continues: “Legalizing DREAM Act students would increase beneficiaries' earnings potential, as well as the U.S. tax base. A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion.”
The IPC says, “The U.S. economy doesn't need more deportations; it needs more college graduates.” It cites a recent report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, saying, "Not enough Americans are completing college... by 2018, we will need 22 million new college degrees-but will fall short of that number by at least 3 million postsecondary degrees, Associate's or better." The DREAM Act would help meet this need, the group said.
The IPC, established in 2003, is the policy arm of the American Immigration Council. The CIS was founded in 1985. Its executive director is Mark Krekorian. Krekorian is well-known for statements such as, “Although mass immigration once served our national interests, in today's America it weakens our common national identity, limits opportunities for upward mobility, threatens our security and sovereignty, strains resources for social programs, and disrupts middle-class norms of behavior."
Immigration enforcement would be improved if Congress approves the DREAM Act that would legalize hundreds of thousands of undocumented students brought here illegally by their parents when they were children, said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Napolitano, once the governor of a Southern border state, Arizona, lobbied for the act in remarks to reporters from around the country during a conference call from Washington.
She said passage of the DREAM Act would enable DHS to focus more aggressively on deporting foreign criminal convicts.
"It's important to point out that the DREAM Act fits into a larger strategy of immigration enforcement, and would actually complement the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prioritize our enforcement resources on removing dangerous criminal aliens from the country,'' Napolitano said.
Napolitano was clearly trying to persuade recalcitrant Republican lawmakers that the DREAM Act would complement enforcement, and that it was not an "amnesty" bill for undocumented immigrants.
Passage of the DREAM Act, she said, will allow Homeland Security to concentrate on catching the “criminals-first'' for the government’s deportation program. So far this year, the administration of barrack Obama has deported more people than were deported by his predecessor, George W. Bush, in the eight years of his administration. But despite Obama’s pledge to focus on serious criminals, many of those deported had been convicted of minor infractions, such as broken taillights and missing drivers’ licenses.
According to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, the DREAM Act will be brought up to a vote during the lame-duck session. However, the timing of the debate is unclear and the clock is ticking on the crowded calendar of the so-called Lame Duck session.
When Congress returns in January, Republicans will control the House of Representatives and the Democratic majority in the Senate will be diminished.
Meanwhile, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), launched a blistering attack on a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), an organization that advocates immigration reduction in the United States.
IPC asserts that CIS's “cynical mischaracterization of the DREAM Act is not only inaccurate, but hypocritical as well.”
The CIS report claims that, “On average each illegal immigrant who attends a public institution will receive a tuition subsidy from taxpayers of nearly $6,000 for each year he or she attends for total cost of $6.2 billion a year, not including other forms of financial assistance that they may also receive.”
Wendy Sefsaf, Communications Director for the American Immigration Council, which is affiliated with the Immigration Policy Council, told IPS, “We have no idea where these numbers come from. They are not only inaccurate; they are incomplete – for example, they assign no cost to deporting tens of thousands of children.”
She adds, “Over the years, we have yet to find any category of immigrant the CIS says it wants in the United States.”
IPC says, “CIS frequently laments that so many immigrants to the United States have low levels of education, yet opposes a measure that would allow some of these immigrants to become more educated. What alternative to the DREAM Act does CIS propose? According to the Center for American Progress the cost to deport more than two million children and young adults who were raised in the United States would be $48.6 billion. How is that sound fiscal policy?”
The report, the IPC said, “paints a misleading financial portrait of the DREAM Act…claims that the bill would be a burden on U.S. taxpayers and would ‘crowd out’ native-born students in the classroom.
IPS charges that available evidence does not support either of these dire predictions. In fact:
“Institutions of higher education overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act, which would likely increase school revenues as students who would not normally attend college start to pay tuition.”
“The 10 states which, since 2001, have passed laws allowing undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition have not experienced a large influx of new immigrant students that displaces native-born students.”
Most DREAM Act students, IPC says, would likely enroll in community colleges, most of which have open enrollment, based on a philosophy that all qualified students should have the opportunity to learn. Historically, more than 80% of community college students hold full or part-time jobs, thus contributing to their own educations (and the tax base) even as they attend school. The American Association of Community Colleges estimates that state and local governments receive a 16% return on every dollar they invest in community colleges due to the increased earnings of college graduates.
IPC continues: “Legalizing DREAM Act students would increase beneficiaries' earnings potential, as well as the U.S. tax base. A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion.”
The IPC says, “The U.S. economy doesn't need more deportations; it needs more college graduates.” It cites a recent report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, saying, "Not enough Americans are completing college... by 2018, we will need 22 million new college degrees-but will fall short of that number by at least 3 million postsecondary degrees, Associate's or better." The DREAM Act would help meet this need, the group said.
The IPC, established in 2003, is the policy arm of the American Immigration Council. The CIS was founded in 1985. Its executive director is Mark Krekorian. Krekorian is well-known for statements such as, “Although mass immigration once served our national interests, in today's America it weakens our common national identity, limits opportunities for upward mobility, threatens our security and sovereignty, strains resources for social programs, and disrupts middle-class norms of behavior."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
