By William Fisher
This week will see the introduction of legislation in both houses of Congress designed to blunt the impacts of the recent Supreme Court decision that held that corporations are people and thus have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns for or against any candidate.
The DISCLOSE Act will be introduced by two powerful Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York.
Disclose stands for "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.”
According to the National Law Journal, the proposed law will require the head of a corporation, union, or not-for-profit organization to say he or she "approves this message" in any campaign ad and the top contributor to "stand by" the ad; require any covered organization to disclose within 24 hours to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) not just its campaign-related activity, but also transfers of money to other groups that then can be used for campaign-related activity.
It will also require covered organizations to disclose their donors; prohibit corporations controlled by foreign entities or foreign nationals from spending in U.S. elections; mandate disclosure by corporations, unions, and other groups to their shareholders and members in their annual and periodic reports; prohibit federal government contractors with a contract worth more than $50,000 from spending money on elections; and ban coordination between a candidate and outside groups on ads that reference a candidate and then run in the time period beginning 90 days before a primary and ending with the general election.
Firms that received government bailout money would be barred from spending on political ads.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has attacked the proposed legislation, calling it "nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to hijack the political playing field to his advantage on the eve of mid-term elections."
The Chamber said it was "no secret" that Van Hollen's campaign committee was facing "significant losses" in the House. "We will fight any and all attempts to muzzle and/or demonize independent voices from the election discussion," said Chamber President Thomas Donohue.
A Van Hollen spokesman told The National Law Journal, "It's not really surprising that powerful special interests based in Washington would be throwing temper tantrums over efforts to curb their influence and increase transparency so the American people know who is spending money on our elections."
The conservative Center for Competitive Politics said, “It's clear that the real intent and purpose of the bill is to harass and intimidate those who might criticize members of Congress into silence during the midterm elections and beyond.”
Van Hollen, who also serves as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, said he has received Republican support for the legislation from one Republican, Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware. No Republicans have as yet signed on to Sen. Chuck Schumer's version.
The new rules would also apply to labor unions and other organizations purchasing campaign ads and mailers.
The White House reportedly played an "active role" in working with Capitol Hill regarding the Congressional response to the court’s decision. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed varying degrees of disapproval of the court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United v. FEC overturned two decades of precedents that prohibited corporate and union expenditures in political campaigns.
Democrats generally believe that the Supreme Court's ruling amounts to “a takeover of our democracy and elections by powerful special interests.” They contend that it “allows big money interests to spend tens of millions of dollars on elections, which will undoubtedly drown out the voices of average Americans.”
As with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, the position taken on the Disclose Act by Sen. John McCain will be closely watched. The Arizona senator, who is generally regarded as the father of campaign finance reform, is currently locked in a potentially game-changing challenge from the right wing of his state’s Republican Party. Pressure from the right has caused McCain to endorse Arizona’s new anti-immigration law, abandoning his former position in favor of immigration reform.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Immigration Reform this Year? Don’t Bet the Farm!
Analysis by William Fisher
Advocates for comprehensive immigration reform are working against time to transform the groundswell of popular support into concrete legislation that Congress can pass this year.
But a wide variety of political and ideological forces have mobilized to ensure that that doesn’t happen.
The outcry surrounding the repressive law passed by Arizona’s legislators and signed by the state’s Republican governor has probably given immigration reformers a gift no amount of money could buy. It has mobilized the entire pro-immigration community and triggered a large, visible, highly vocal, and well-publicized backlash that some polling suggests is beginning to turn some fence-sitters into advocates.
It was this backlash that accelerated efforts by a group of powerful Democratic senators to unveil the outlines of an immigration policy designed to protect US borders while also dealing with the estimated 10-11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally.
A draft version of a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill summary was made public last week. It was championed by Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada – the Senate Majority Leader -- and his deputy, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, along with Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Bob Menendez of New Jersey.
But no sooner did their outline go public than it became the subject of criticism – and not from the usual suspects. Harsh words came from the Left, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which said it had “serious reservations” about parts of the bill summary that raise “serious civil liberties concerns. “
Specifically, the ACLU is opposed to a provision that would create a biometric national ID card.
“If the biometric national ID card provision of the draft bill becomes law, every worker in America would have to be fingerprinted and a new federal bureaucracy – one that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars – would have to be created to issue cards.”
The draft bill also provides for continuation of the much-criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 287(g) program that utilizes local police and sheriff’s departments to enforce immigration law in partnership with the federal government.
Earlier this month the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a scathing report on the 287(g) program, saying it lacked direction and was poorly managed. Many local law enforcement authorities have also opposed the program, charging that it diverts scarce personnel resources into activities for which they are not properly trained.
The draft CIR bill summary also describes some immigration detention reforms including a provision that would grant “heightened” detention authority to the government in certain circumstances.
“The Senate CIR summary raises many red flags about encroachments on due process and privacy,” said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
The raw partisan politics of the immigration issue raises further questions about whether it can be a legislative winner this year. Thus far, there has been next to zero support from Republicans. While it is known that a number of prominent Republican lawmakers favor of a robust legislative package, many Republicans are facing primary challenges from their Right, causing some of them to remain silent or support measures they might normally find unacceptable.
For example, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, had long been one of the Senate’s champions of comprehensive immigration reform. But facing an uphill battle for his party’s renomination for another six-year term. McCain has endorsed the Arizona legislation which has caused much of the current ruckus. His Arizona colleague, Republican Sen. John Kyl, has also endorsed the Arizona legislation.
Both contend that Arizona was forced to enact the new law because of the failure of the Federal government to meet it obligations to keep its citizens safe. At week’s end, there was also talk of Texas, another border state, adopting an Arizona-type bill.
Another Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has been working closely with the White House on getting Republican support for immigration legislation. But he has objected to it being considered before the equally controversial climate change issue.
On the other hand, the Senate’s Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, has promised that state’s huge Latino population that he would champion immigration reform this year. Reid is locked in a fierce primary battle with a strong opponent on the Right, and is trailing in the polls.
However, last week Reid told reporters that the climate change bill would probably come before immigration because that legislation had already been drafted.
Even President Barrack Obama is cautious about the prospects for immigration reform this year. He has said it was vital that Congress address the immigration issue before more states adopt Arizona-like laws.
He said that Congress might not have the stomach for another tough battle coming on the heels of the health care debate, and in the face of other battles over climate and financial industry regulatory reforms.
Obama concedes he will need backing from some Republicans, who would not normally be disposed to offering it in a difficult election year.
The new Arizona law gives police the authority to detain people they suspect are illegal immigrants. The White House has been outspoken in its criticism of the Arizona bill as a possible infringement of civil rights. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified to Congress last week that the Department of Justice is planning to review the Arizona law for issues of constitutionality.
Obama said, “I understand the frustrations of the border states,” but said that is why the country needed a comprehensive immigration overhaul.
Meanwhile, on May Day, May 1st, interest groups representing a broad coalition of like-minded immigration advocates participated in dozens of marches, rallies and vigils in major and minor towns across the country. Cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Ann Arbor and Milwaukee held massive events.
In Arizona, more than 25,000 people gathered in a rally-turned-vigil to sing, dance, chant and pray against the new state law, which they described as “anti-American."
On May 1st, in Washington, DC, 35 immigration advocates, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez, were arrested in an act of civil disobedience. They sat on the sidewalk in front of the White House wearing tee shirts that said “Arrest Me Not My Family” and “We are ALL Arizona.”
Carolyn B. Lamm, president of the American Bar Association, said in a statement, “The recently signed immigration law in Arizona runs contrary to the fundamental tenets of our Constitution relative to equal protection and due process. This draconian, and likely unconstitutional, law threatens to reverse nearly 50 years of civil rights advancements in our nation. It is, quite simply put, a law based on prejudice and fear, one whose purpose is to be divisive.”
As Washington’s long, hot Summer approaches, the pro- and anti- armies of advocates, lobbyists, analysts and publicists face one another across the National Mall. Even most Veteran Congress-watchers say this contest is still too close to call.
Advocates for comprehensive immigration reform are working against time to transform the groundswell of popular support into concrete legislation that Congress can pass this year.
But a wide variety of political and ideological forces have mobilized to ensure that that doesn’t happen.
The outcry surrounding the repressive law passed by Arizona’s legislators and signed by the state’s Republican governor has probably given immigration reformers a gift no amount of money could buy. It has mobilized the entire pro-immigration community and triggered a large, visible, highly vocal, and well-publicized backlash that some polling suggests is beginning to turn some fence-sitters into advocates.
It was this backlash that accelerated efforts by a group of powerful Democratic senators to unveil the outlines of an immigration policy designed to protect US borders while also dealing with the estimated 10-11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally.
A draft version of a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill summary was made public last week. It was championed by Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada – the Senate Majority Leader -- and his deputy, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, along with Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dianne Feinstein of California, and Bob Menendez of New Jersey.
But no sooner did their outline go public than it became the subject of criticism – and not from the usual suspects. Harsh words came from the Left, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which said it had “serious reservations” about parts of the bill summary that raise “serious civil liberties concerns. “
Specifically, the ACLU is opposed to a provision that would create a biometric national ID card.
“If the biometric national ID card provision of the draft bill becomes law, every worker in America would have to be fingerprinted and a new federal bureaucracy – one that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars – would have to be created to issue cards.”
The draft bill also provides for continuation of the much-criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 287(g) program that utilizes local police and sheriff’s departments to enforce immigration law in partnership with the federal government.
Earlier this month the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a scathing report on the 287(g) program, saying it lacked direction and was poorly managed. Many local law enforcement authorities have also opposed the program, charging that it diverts scarce personnel resources into activities for which they are not properly trained.
The draft CIR bill summary also describes some immigration detention reforms including a provision that would grant “heightened” detention authority to the government in certain circumstances.
“The Senate CIR summary raises many red flags about encroachments on due process and privacy,” said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
The raw partisan politics of the immigration issue raises further questions about whether it can be a legislative winner this year. Thus far, there has been next to zero support from Republicans. While it is known that a number of prominent Republican lawmakers favor of a robust legislative package, many Republicans are facing primary challenges from their Right, causing some of them to remain silent or support measures they might normally find unacceptable.
For example, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, had long been one of the Senate’s champions of comprehensive immigration reform. But facing an uphill battle for his party’s renomination for another six-year term. McCain has endorsed the Arizona legislation which has caused much of the current ruckus. His Arizona colleague, Republican Sen. John Kyl, has also endorsed the Arizona legislation.
Both contend that Arizona was forced to enact the new law because of the failure of the Federal government to meet it obligations to keep its citizens safe. At week’s end, there was also talk of Texas, another border state, adopting an Arizona-type bill.
Another Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has been working closely with the White House on getting Republican support for immigration legislation. But he has objected to it being considered before the equally controversial climate change issue.
On the other hand, the Senate’s Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, has promised that state’s huge Latino population that he would champion immigration reform this year. Reid is locked in a fierce primary battle with a strong opponent on the Right, and is trailing in the polls.
However, last week Reid told reporters that the climate change bill would probably come before immigration because that legislation had already been drafted.
Even President Barrack Obama is cautious about the prospects for immigration reform this year. He has said it was vital that Congress address the immigration issue before more states adopt Arizona-like laws.
He said that Congress might not have the stomach for another tough battle coming on the heels of the health care debate, and in the face of other battles over climate and financial industry regulatory reforms.
Obama concedes he will need backing from some Republicans, who would not normally be disposed to offering it in a difficult election year.
The new Arizona law gives police the authority to detain people they suspect are illegal immigrants. The White House has been outspoken in its criticism of the Arizona bill as a possible infringement of civil rights. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified to Congress last week that the Department of Justice is planning to review the Arizona law for issues of constitutionality.
Obama said, “I understand the frustrations of the border states,” but said that is why the country needed a comprehensive immigration overhaul.
Meanwhile, on May Day, May 1st, interest groups representing a broad coalition of like-minded immigration advocates participated in dozens of marches, rallies and vigils in major and minor towns across the country. Cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Ann Arbor and Milwaukee held massive events.
In Arizona, more than 25,000 people gathered in a rally-turned-vigil to sing, dance, chant and pray against the new state law, which they described as “anti-American."
On May 1st, in Washington, DC, 35 immigration advocates, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez, were arrested in an act of civil disobedience. They sat on the sidewalk in front of the White House wearing tee shirts that said “Arrest Me Not My Family” and “We are ALL Arizona.”
Carolyn B. Lamm, president of the American Bar Association, said in a statement, “The recently signed immigration law in Arizona runs contrary to the fundamental tenets of our Constitution relative to equal protection and due process. This draconian, and likely unconstitutional, law threatens to reverse nearly 50 years of civil rights advancements in our nation. It is, quite simply put, a law based on prejudice and fear, one whose purpose is to be divisive.”
As Washington’s long, hot Summer approaches, the pro- and anti- armies of advocates, lobbyists, analysts and publicists face one another across the National Mall. Even most Veteran Congress-watchers say this contest is still too close to call.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Hashmi: Finally, A Trial!
This article was published in Truthout.org on the day before Hashmi's trial. At the time it was not known whether the judge would grant to government motion for an anonymous jury. It obviously was also unknown that Hasmi would enter a guilty plea at the 11th hour.
By William Fisher
Tomorrow, April 28th, should be a big day for Syed Fahad Hashmi. After close to three years in solitary confinement in a Federal detention center in New York City, the 29-year-old Queens-born American citizen will finally get his day in court.
He will be charged with conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda.
If he is convicted, he could die behind bars.
The road Hashmi has traveled to get where he is has been, to say the least, tortuous and, some have said, Kafkaesque. And it doesn’t appear to be getting any less bizarre as the trial date nears.
Last week, the Department of Justice lawyers asked the court to grant its motion for an anonymous jury, they say, to protect the jurors, the audience in the courtroom, the prosecutors and defense counsel, the judge, and the criminal justice process.
The motion asks that the jurors not be required to disclose their names, addresses or places of employment, that they be kept together at all times under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Marshal Service.
The government lawyers tell the court that anonymous juries have been used in three terror-related cases in this same court, including the conviction of lawyer Lynn Stewart for passing a message from her terror-suspect client to his colleagues.
If Judge Loretta Preska grants the motion, jury selection would proceed under a process known as voir dire, referring to giving a true verdict.
UPDATE: The Judge granted the government’s motion.
FURTHER UPDATE: Hashmi has agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
The voir dire process in the U.S. is controversial. The amount of privacy that the potential jurors are afforded when asked questioned raises the issue of the definition of "impartial jury". Some question whether the intensive questioning of potential jurors looks not just for inherent bias but for a potential to be emotionally swayed. Proponents argue that this method gives both sides more confidence in the verdict.
But one of Hashmi’s most ardent defenders – Dr. Jeanne Theoharis, Hashmi’s teacher at Brooklyn College – terms the government’s action “egregious.”
“There's so many ways this is egregious -- not the least of which is that
it speaks to how the US Attorney's office views Muslims in the
audience and countenances racist speculation,” she says,
Theoharis cites the U.S. Attorney, who writes, “It is likely that the jurors
will see in the gallery of the courtroom a significant number of the
defendant’s supporters, naturally leading to juror speculation that at
least some of these spectators might share the defendant’s violent
radical Islamic leanings.”
But Theoharis says there are no demonstrations planned for the first day of trial. “The plan is to pack the courtroom with a possible press
conference with human rights groups on the courthouse steps or in the
park across the street for the first day, “ she explains, adding:
“This is just about ratcheting up the fear of the jurors. (Hashmi’s lawyers) will obviously contest the government's motion saying that in a democracy people are allowed to come and watch court. But of course the judge is very sympathetic to the government and will likely agree to do so.”
Clearly, she says, “this is proof that our organizing is getting to them--but
also that, in this climate, they will try to use that to increase the fear (and secrecy) of the jury. They are using this activism -- and people exercising
their right to watch the process -- to make the jury scared and gain a
conviction.”
Theoharis is not without allies in her support of Hashmi. In response to the government’s anonymous jury motion, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said, “The case against Fahad Hashmi in itself raises many red flags related to the violation of his rights, prosecutorial overreach under the material support statute, and the unduly punitive and restrictive special administrative measures under which he has been kept without trial for nearly three years.”
CCR said “The government’s call for the jurors at his trial…to be anonymous and kept under extra security because of the attention and political activism these issues have drawn to the case is a clear attempt to influence the jury by creating a sense of fear for their safety and to paint Mr. Hashmi as already guilty.”
“The government is manipulating the fact that many individuals and human rights organizations are supporting Mr. Hashmi and raising important criticisms of his treatment in detention in order to gain a conviction. This is deplorable,“ the group said.
Why has this case been so hotly contested for so many years?
To answer that question, readers need to understand Hashmi’s story. Here is it:
Hashmi grew up in Queens, one of the boroughs of New York City. After receiving an undergraduate degree from Brooklyn College, Hashmi moved to London to study for a master’s degree. According to prosecutors, a friend of his, Junaid Babar, stayed at Hashmi’s London apartment for two weeks and stored luggage containing raincoats, ponchos, and waterproof socks in the apartment.
The government says Babar later delivered these items to the third-ranking member of Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
By the time a Grand Jury charged Hashmi with "conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization," the socks, ponchos, and raincoats had become "military gear."
The government also charges that Hashmi let Babar use his cell phone "to call other conspirators." Hashmi says he had no idea whom Babar was calling. Hashmi has denied that he was part of conspiracies to help Al Qaeda, or that he ever gave support to anybody to pass on materials to the terrorist group.
He was initially arrested in London in 2006 as he prepared to board a flight to Pakistan and then extradited to the U.S. He has been held in New York since the Memorial Day weekend, 2007.
In the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York, Hashmi, a Muslim, is not allowed to pray with others of his faith. He is on a 23-hour solitary-confinement lockdown and 24-hour surveillance including when he showers and goes to the bathroom. He was not allowed family visits for months. Now, he can see one person for an hour and a half, every other week. Visits are through a thick glass. No touching or hugging is permissible or possible.
Hashmi is permitted to write one letter a week to a single member of his family, but cannot use more than three pieces of paper per letter. Within his own cell, he is restricted in his movements and he is not allowed to talk to guards or other inmates.
Hashmi is forbidden any contact -- directly or through his attorneys -- with the news media. He can read newspapers, but only those portions approved by his jailers -- and not until 30 days after publication. He is forbidden to listen to news radio stations or to watch television news channels.
He is also under 24-hour electronic monitoring inside and outside his cell.
He is allowed one hour of recreation every day -- which is periodically denied. He is not given fresh air but must exercise alone inside a cage.
One of Hashmi's Brooklyn College professors, Jeanne Theoharis, who has attended the hearings in his case, told us that Hashmi's "mental health appears to be deteriorating."
His attorneys are concerned that his extreme isolation "will cause lasting psychological, emotional, and physical damage" to their client.
That kind of damage has been thoroughly documented by major medical and psychiatric institutions and organizations. To learn more about damage caused by isolation, Truthout consulted Jeffrey Kaye, a prominent psychologist who is among those mental health professionals who have carefully studied the subject. This is what he told us:
“Solitary confinement and isolation are among the cruelest punishments that can be inflicted on a human being. It attacks the nervous system, as well as the core humanity of the individual. It is a pernicious form of sensory and social deprivation, which has cytotoxic effects upon the brain.
“One study out of the University of Chicago in 2007 showed that essential enzymes in the brain that regulate the GABA neurotransmitter that helps modulate stress and anxiety is reduced by half under conditions of isolation. The result is the person is unable to cope with fears, aggression, and loneliness.
“Even the CIA, in their 1983 Latin American torture manuals, called ‘a powerful stressor’, and explained its purpose as producing a psychological regression in the victim.
“People in long-term isolation, like Mr. Hashmi, can suffer from depression, panic attacks, hallucinations, and have great difficulty adjusting to a normal social life after incarceration.
“Isolation was the preferred form of torture used by the KGB and the East European Stalinist governments. It is one of the worst forms of psychological torture that can be inflicted on a human being, who is a social creature, and needs the stimulation of social contact to survive.
“When inflicted by people over whom the victim feels he has no control, or in an atmosphere of fear, control, and dominance, the effects of isolation are worsened tremendously. Most people can stand only a few months of such treatment before they break down, much less the years Mr. Hashmi has endured.”
Prof. Theoharis, an associate professor of political science at the City University of New York's Brooklyn College, was instrumental in organizing a campaign to draw attention to the civil liberties and human rights concerns in Hashmi's case. She enlisted more than 550 signatories to petition the Justice Department protesting the conditions of Hashmi's confinement and undermining his right to a fair trial. Among them were Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Duncan Kennedy of Harvard; Seyla Benhabib of Yale; and Eric Foner and Saskia Sassen of Columbia.
A number of prominent authors and journalists have written articles in Hashmi’s support. They include Nat Hentoff, Aziz Huq, Chris Hedges, Amy Goodman, and Prof. Theoharis. A website is dedicated to Hashmi’s case – (http://freefahad.com/).
Hashmi has no criminal record and no history of committing acts of violence. In court in January 2009, Hashmi's lawyers called the restrictions on Hashmi too severe and asked a federal judge to lift some of them, perhaps allowing Hashmi to have a cellmate or to exercise in fresh air. But the judge denied a motion to consider the psychological impact of solitary confinement and ease the conditions of his detention.
Hashmi's friend Babar has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support of Al Qaeda and has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain, Canada, and at Hashmi's trial. The Justice Department says Babar is the "centerpiece" of its case against Hashmi. In return, under a plea bargain, Babar will likely get a reduced sentence.
If Hashmi is convicted, he could be facing up to 70 years behind bars.
We asked Prof. Theoharis how she remembered Hashmi when he was one of her students? “He was a student of mine in 2002. He took the senior capstone seminar in political science with me -- that year, the course I taught was on post-civil rights racial politics, which focused on civil rights from the 1960s to the present. It is a small course where students are required to do a research paper. He did his on the treatment of Muslim groups in the United States post-9/11 and — ironically or perhaps not — described the violations of civil liberties that Muslim groups of various political positions were facing. Now that paper he did with me is being lived out in lower Manhattan -- and it is his rights that have been violated.”
People who remember Hashmi as a student in Brooklyn think of him as a person who enjoyed debating political issues. He was militant but never violent, they say.
Theoharis encouraged Hashmi to seek a Masters degree in the UK. She wrote a letter of recommendation for his applications to graduate school. “He came to see me about his desire to go to graduate school which made sense, given his scholarly interests. Also, as part of a class assignment for another course where students had to interview someone who had the job that they wanted, he came and talked with me about being a professor.”
“But next I heard about him, he'd been arrested and we were being instructed by Brooklyn College not to have any comment to the media.”
Theoharis says she has not seen him – “except for brief eye contact at his pre-trial court hearings” since he left for England. His mental health appears to have declined considerably, Theoharis says. “He appears less focused and more jittery. He used to pay attention to everything happening in court, constantly talking to his lawyer and for the brief moments entering and leaving court, making eye contact and smiling at people in the audience. He seems much more withdrawn (sometimes just keeping his head down the whole time), which certainly corresponds to the research on prolonged solitary confinement which documents this kind of degradation of people's mental health.”
Theoharis says Hashmi’s lawyers put up a solid defense against the imposition of the SAMs. She says, “His defense has challenged the SAMs on multiple occasions – including introducing medical and scholarly evidence of the damage that prolonged solitary confinement has on a person. The judge was unconcerned and ruled against every defense motion seeking to address the SAMs. She has refused even to make modest changes. She has determined the SAMs to be ‘administrative and not punitive’ and thus constitutional. Judges -- and particularly this judge, Loretta Preska, seem to be allowing the government wide latitude in imposing these inhumane measures.”
Judge Preska has cited possible dangers to prison guards after an August, 2008 incident where one guard said Hashmi was "shadowboxing" and practicing martial arts.
Hashmi's lawyer had argued the boxing incident was not properly investigated, and in court papers said Hashmi was not informed of his Miranda rights when the statements were taken.
Judge Preska was nominated by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She was confirmed by the Senate in August 1992.
“The SAMS are legalized torture,” Theoharis says.
“The level of isolation and sensory deprivation are dehumanizing. They go against international standards and have been shown in medical and scholarly research to have severe impact on a person's mental health and stability. And they severely impact the ability of a person to participate effectively in his or her own defense.”
She adds, “We have begun to have a public conversation in this country about torture but we have not addressed this crucial aspect of it happening right here in the federal system and, in Hashmi's case, right here in New York City. While there has been public attention to the use of torture and intelligence gathering, we have missed the use of torture to gain convictions —as a way to demonstrate the success of law enforcement and federal prosecution in the War on Terror.”
Prof. Theoharis does not believe Hashmi can get a fair trial. “His right to a fair trial has already been severely compromised by the SAMs, and the use of ‘classified’ evidence. We are hoping to salvage justice in his case. But three years of solitary confinement and severe isolation have made a fair trial impossible.”
Now, I have no idea about Hashmi's guilt or innocence. That's not what this is about. It's about getting our Department of Justice to dial back the Bush years and return to a tradition of humane treatment -- even for prisoners. It’s about the credibility of testimony from a convicted felon facing 70 years in prison. And it’s about the ‘material support’ laws, which lawyers say rely far too heavily on McCarthy-era guilt-by-association.
By William Fisher
Tomorrow, April 28th, should be a big day for Syed Fahad Hashmi. After close to three years in solitary confinement in a Federal detention center in New York City, the 29-year-old Queens-born American citizen will finally get his day in court.
He will be charged with conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda.
If he is convicted, he could die behind bars.
The road Hashmi has traveled to get where he is has been, to say the least, tortuous and, some have said, Kafkaesque. And it doesn’t appear to be getting any less bizarre as the trial date nears.
Last week, the Department of Justice lawyers asked the court to grant its motion for an anonymous jury, they say, to protect the jurors, the audience in the courtroom, the prosecutors and defense counsel, the judge, and the criminal justice process.
The motion asks that the jurors not be required to disclose their names, addresses or places of employment, that they be kept together at all times under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Marshal Service.
The government lawyers tell the court that anonymous juries have been used in three terror-related cases in this same court, including the conviction of lawyer Lynn Stewart for passing a message from her terror-suspect client to his colleagues.
If Judge Loretta Preska grants the motion, jury selection would proceed under a process known as voir dire, referring to giving a true verdict.
UPDATE: The Judge granted the government’s motion.
FURTHER UPDATE: Hashmi has agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
The voir dire process in the U.S. is controversial. The amount of privacy that the potential jurors are afforded when asked questioned raises the issue of the definition of "impartial jury". Some question whether the intensive questioning of potential jurors looks not just for inherent bias but for a potential to be emotionally swayed. Proponents argue that this method gives both sides more confidence in the verdict.
But one of Hashmi’s most ardent defenders – Dr. Jeanne Theoharis, Hashmi’s teacher at Brooklyn College – terms the government’s action “egregious.”
“There's so many ways this is egregious -- not the least of which is that
it speaks to how the US Attorney's office views Muslims in the
audience and countenances racist speculation,” she says,
Theoharis cites the U.S. Attorney, who writes, “It is likely that the jurors
will see in the gallery of the courtroom a significant number of the
defendant’s supporters, naturally leading to juror speculation that at
least some of these spectators might share the defendant’s violent
radical Islamic leanings.”
But Theoharis says there are no demonstrations planned for the first day of trial. “The plan is to pack the courtroom with a possible press
conference with human rights groups on the courthouse steps or in the
park across the street for the first day, “ she explains, adding:
“This is just about ratcheting up the fear of the jurors. (Hashmi’s lawyers) will obviously contest the government's motion saying that in a democracy people are allowed to come and watch court. But of course the judge is very sympathetic to the government and will likely agree to do so.”
Clearly, she says, “this is proof that our organizing is getting to them--but
also that, in this climate, they will try to use that to increase the fear (and secrecy) of the jury. They are using this activism -- and people exercising
their right to watch the process -- to make the jury scared and gain a
conviction.”
Theoharis is not without allies in her support of Hashmi. In response to the government’s anonymous jury motion, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said, “The case against Fahad Hashmi in itself raises many red flags related to the violation of his rights, prosecutorial overreach under the material support statute, and the unduly punitive and restrictive special administrative measures under which he has been kept without trial for nearly three years.”
CCR said “The government’s call for the jurors at his trial…to be anonymous and kept under extra security because of the attention and political activism these issues have drawn to the case is a clear attempt to influence the jury by creating a sense of fear for their safety and to paint Mr. Hashmi as already guilty.”
“The government is manipulating the fact that many individuals and human rights organizations are supporting Mr. Hashmi and raising important criticisms of his treatment in detention in order to gain a conviction. This is deplorable,“ the group said.
Why has this case been so hotly contested for so many years?
To answer that question, readers need to understand Hashmi’s story. Here is it:
Hashmi grew up in Queens, one of the boroughs of New York City. After receiving an undergraduate degree from Brooklyn College, Hashmi moved to London to study for a master’s degree. According to prosecutors, a friend of his, Junaid Babar, stayed at Hashmi’s London apartment for two weeks and stored luggage containing raincoats, ponchos, and waterproof socks in the apartment.
The government says Babar later delivered these items to the third-ranking member of Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
By the time a Grand Jury charged Hashmi with "conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization," the socks, ponchos, and raincoats had become "military gear."
The government also charges that Hashmi let Babar use his cell phone "to call other conspirators." Hashmi says he had no idea whom Babar was calling. Hashmi has denied that he was part of conspiracies to help Al Qaeda, or that he ever gave support to anybody to pass on materials to the terrorist group.
He was initially arrested in London in 2006 as he prepared to board a flight to Pakistan and then extradited to the U.S. He has been held in New York since the Memorial Day weekend, 2007.
In the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York, Hashmi, a Muslim, is not allowed to pray with others of his faith. He is on a 23-hour solitary-confinement lockdown and 24-hour surveillance including when he showers and goes to the bathroom. He was not allowed family visits for months. Now, he can see one person for an hour and a half, every other week. Visits are through a thick glass. No touching or hugging is permissible or possible.
Hashmi is permitted to write one letter a week to a single member of his family, but cannot use more than three pieces of paper per letter. Within his own cell, he is restricted in his movements and he is not allowed to talk to guards or other inmates.
Hashmi is forbidden any contact -- directly or through his attorneys -- with the news media. He can read newspapers, but only those portions approved by his jailers -- and not until 30 days after publication. He is forbidden to listen to news radio stations or to watch television news channels.
He is also under 24-hour electronic monitoring inside and outside his cell.
He is allowed one hour of recreation every day -- which is periodically denied. He is not given fresh air but must exercise alone inside a cage.
One of Hashmi's Brooklyn College professors, Jeanne Theoharis, who has attended the hearings in his case, told us that Hashmi's "mental health appears to be deteriorating."
His attorneys are concerned that his extreme isolation "will cause lasting psychological, emotional, and physical damage" to their client.
That kind of damage has been thoroughly documented by major medical and psychiatric institutions and organizations. To learn more about damage caused by isolation, Truthout consulted Jeffrey Kaye, a prominent psychologist who is among those mental health professionals who have carefully studied the subject. This is what he told us:
“Solitary confinement and isolation are among the cruelest punishments that can be inflicted on a human being. It attacks the nervous system, as well as the core humanity of the individual. It is a pernicious form of sensory and social deprivation, which has cytotoxic effects upon the brain.
“One study out of the University of Chicago in 2007 showed that essential enzymes in the brain that regulate the GABA neurotransmitter that helps modulate stress and anxiety is reduced by half under conditions of isolation. The result is the person is unable to cope with fears, aggression, and loneliness.
“Even the CIA, in their 1983 Latin American torture manuals, called ‘a powerful stressor’, and explained its purpose as producing a psychological regression in the victim.
“People in long-term isolation, like Mr. Hashmi, can suffer from depression, panic attacks, hallucinations, and have great difficulty adjusting to a normal social life after incarceration.
“Isolation was the preferred form of torture used by the KGB and the East European Stalinist governments. It is one of the worst forms of psychological torture that can be inflicted on a human being, who is a social creature, and needs the stimulation of social contact to survive.
“When inflicted by people over whom the victim feels he has no control, or in an atmosphere of fear, control, and dominance, the effects of isolation are worsened tremendously. Most people can stand only a few months of such treatment before they break down, much less the years Mr. Hashmi has endured.”
Prof. Theoharis, an associate professor of political science at the City University of New York's Brooklyn College, was instrumental in organizing a campaign to draw attention to the civil liberties and human rights concerns in Hashmi's case. She enlisted more than 550 signatories to petition the Justice Department protesting the conditions of Hashmi's confinement and undermining his right to a fair trial. Among them were Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Duncan Kennedy of Harvard; Seyla Benhabib of Yale; and Eric Foner and Saskia Sassen of Columbia.
A number of prominent authors and journalists have written articles in Hashmi’s support. They include Nat Hentoff, Aziz Huq, Chris Hedges, Amy Goodman, and Prof. Theoharis. A website is dedicated to Hashmi’s case – (http://freefahad.com/).
Hashmi has no criminal record and no history of committing acts of violence. In court in January 2009, Hashmi's lawyers called the restrictions on Hashmi too severe and asked a federal judge to lift some of them, perhaps allowing Hashmi to have a cellmate or to exercise in fresh air. But the judge denied a motion to consider the psychological impact of solitary confinement and ease the conditions of his detention.
Hashmi's friend Babar has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support of Al Qaeda and has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain, Canada, and at Hashmi's trial. The Justice Department says Babar is the "centerpiece" of its case against Hashmi. In return, under a plea bargain, Babar will likely get a reduced sentence.
If Hashmi is convicted, he could be facing up to 70 years behind bars.
We asked Prof. Theoharis how she remembered Hashmi when he was one of her students? “He was a student of mine in 2002. He took the senior capstone seminar in political science with me -- that year, the course I taught was on post-civil rights racial politics, which focused on civil rights from the 1960s to the present. It is a small course where students are required to do a research paper. He did his on the treatment of Muslim groups in the United States post-9/11 and — ironically or perhaps not — described the violations of civil liberties that Muslim groups of various political positions were facing. Now that paper he did with me is being lived out in lower Manhattan -- and it is his rights that have been violated.”
People who remember Hashmi as a student in Brooklyn think of him as a person who enjoyed debating political issues. He was militant but never violent, they say.
Theoharis encouraged Hashmi to seek a Masters degree in the UK. She wrote a letter of recommendation for his applications to graduate school. “He came to see me about his desire to go to graduate school which made sense, given his scholarly interests. Also, as part of a class assignment for another course where students had to interview someone who had the job that they wanted, he came and talked with me about being a professor.”
“But next I heard about him, he'd been arrested and we were being instructed by Brooklyn College not to have any comment to the media.”
Theoharis says she has not seen him – “except for brief eye contact at his pre-trial court hearings” since he left for England. His mental health appears to have declined considerably, Theoharis says. “He appears less focused and more jittery. He used to pay attention to everything happening in court, constantly talking to his lawyer and for the brief moments entering and leaving court, making eye contact and smiling at people in the audience. He seems much more withdrawn (sometimes just keeping his head down the whole time), which certainly corresponds to the research on prolonged solitary confinement which documents this kind of degradation of people's mental health.”
Theoharis says Hashmi’s lawyers put up a solid defense against the imposition of the SAMs. She says, “His defense has challenged the SAMs on multiple occasions – including introducing medical and scholarly evidence of the damage that prolonged solitary confinement has on a person. The judge was unconcerned and ruled against every defense motion seeking to address the SAMs. She has refused even to make modest changes. She has determined the SAMs to be ‘administrative and not punitive’ and thus constitutional. Judges -- and particularly this judge, Loretta Preska, seem to be allowing the government wide latitude in imposing these inhumane measures.”
Judge Preska has cited possible dangers to prison guards after an August, 2008 incident where one guard said Hashmi was "shadowboxing" and practicing martial arts.
Hashmi's lawyer had argued the boxing incident was not properly investigated, and in court papers said Hashmi was not informed of his Miranda rights when the statements were taken.
Judge Preska was nominated by President George H. W. Bush in 1992, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She was confirmed by the Senate in August 1992.
“The SAMS are legalized torture,” Theoharis says.
“The level of isolation and sensory deprivation are dehumanizing. They go against international standards and have been shown in medical and scholarly research to have severe impact on a person's mental health and stability. And they severely impact the ability of a person to participate effectively in his or her own defense.”
She adds, “We have begun to have a public conversation in this country about torture but we have not addressed this crucial aspect of it happening right here in the federal system and, in Hashmi's case, right here in New York City. While there has been public attention to the use of torture and intelligence gathering, we have missed the use of torture to gain convictions —as a way to demonstrate the success of law enforcement and federal prosecution in the War on Terror.”
Prof. Theoharis does not believe Hashmi can get a fair trial. “His right to a fair trial has already been severely compromised by the SAMs, and the use of ‘classified’ evidence. We are hoping to salvage justice in his case. But three years of solitary confinement and severe isolation have made a fair trial impossible.”
Now, I have no idea about Hashmi's guilt or innocence. That's not what this is about. It's about getting our Department of Justice to dial back the Bush years and return to a tradition of humane treatment -- even for prisoners. It’s about the credibility of testimony from a convicted felon facing 70 years in prison. And it’s about the ‘material support’ laws, which lawyers say rely far too heavily on McCarthy-era guilt-by-association.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
How Do We Secure Communities?
By William Fisher
Three civil rights organizations are suing the government to obtain records related to a little-known program known as “Secure Communities” program that further involves local and state police in federal immigration enforcement.
The National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law filed the lawsuit. The filing came as the groups launched “Uncovering the Truth,” a weeklong national campaign of coordinated actions and advocacy in more than ten cities to end ICE-police collaboration.
“The passage of S.B. 1070 in Arizona should be proof enough of the dangerous and disastrous nature of ICE-police collaboration programs like the so-called Secure Communities program,” said Pablo Alvarado, NDLON Executive Director. “The President should heed his own advice and act responsibly by reclaiming the federal government’s exclusive authority over the nation’s immigration laws. By terminating all police and ICE partnerships, the President can help restore community safety and protect civil rights and due process for all.”
“At a time when police and ICE partnerships have clearly failed, ICE is moving swiftly to implement the Secure Communities program in every U.S. jail by 2013,” said CCR attorney Sunita Patel. “Contrary to its name, this latest ICE program makes the public less safe. There is no doubt that the program has and will continue to deepen fear and mistrust of the police in our communities.”
Relatively little is known about Secure Communities program. Groups opposing it say it requires local and state police to run individuals’ fingerprints through multiple databases upon arrest, even if no charges are brought and regardless of how minor the charges are.
Advocates and attorneys say that, in addition to concerns presented by relying on potentially inaccurate and erroneous information in those databases, the program functions as little more than a racial profiling dragnet to funnel even more people into the overburdened and mismanaged ICE detention and removal system.
Secure Communities is currently operating in 168 jurisdictions in 20 states with more agreements anticipated in the next few days.
“This is a massive, invasive and untested federal immigration enforcement program that ICE has been deceptive and secretive about from the start,” said Bridget Kessler, Clinical Teaching Fellow at the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. “Without more information, we cannot allow for the spread of this dangerous ICE program.”
The plaintiffs seek the materials necessary to provide the public with comprehensive information on the Secure Communities program, including policies, procedures and objectives; fiscal impact; data and statistical information; individual records; communications; and assessment records. Plaintiffs filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in February 2010 seeking these materials. Despite ICE’s rapid expansion of the program, government agencies have not yet released the requested records.
In a related development, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will review the recently passed Arizona anti-immigrant law to determine its Constitutionality. She said she was unsure of the law’s legality, but suggested that it might be made acceptable if a Federal law enforcement officer was always present when local police were arresting someone for immigration violations.
The problem with that solution, she added, is that there are not enough Federal officers.
Napolitano said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has deep concerns with the law’s effects and that such broad immigration enforcement may detract and siphon resources away from ICE’s priority of focusing on the most serious criminals.
President Barack Obama has characterized the new law as “misguided” and threatening to “undermine basic notions of fairness.”
Under criticism by civil liberties advocates, Napolitano defended her department’s 287(g) program, which authorizes local law police and sheriff’s departments to enforce Federal immigration laws.
“The 287(g) program can be useful,” she asserted, in “focusing on serious crimes.” Her remarks drew enthusiastic support from the senior Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, a conservative from Alabama.
Sessions said (287(g) “represents a great opportunity to send a message to would-be immigrants that the door is no longer open. If you enter this country illegally, you won’t get a job. Instead you’ll get deported.
The 287(g) program has been heavily criticized by civil rights groups and, recently, by the Homeland Security department’s own Inspector General. Those who oppose the program say that local law enforcement officials are not properly trained to interpret complex immigration laws. They also contend that the program has failed to focus on serious crimes, citing the large number of immigrants in detention for minor infractions. Finally, with agreement from numerous law enforcement organizations, critics claim that 287(g) siphons off scarce resources away from protecting local communities.
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who was previously a major advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, defended Arizona’s action. He told the Committee that his state was “frustrated waiting for the Federal Government to do something to secure our borders.”
Another committee member, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, told the committee that “in the current environment, comprehensive immigration reform could not pass the Congress.”
Meanwhile, the act recently signed into law by the governor of Arizona continued to draw the ire of lawmakers and civil libertarians across the country.
In Washington, members of Congress will host a press conference at the U.S. Capitol to denounce what they call “the harshest immigration enforcement state law in the country.” Elected leaders will discuss why the Arizona immigration law creates a moral and political imperative for the federal government to act swiftly on comprehensive immigration reform.”
Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, called the Arizona law “the most extreme anti-immigrant law in the country.”
And Rinku Sen, executive director of the Applied Research Center (ARC), a not-for-profit advocacy group, said the new law “exchanges the security of Arizona’s communities of color to buy false comfort for a state on the brink of economic collapse. What about the right of communities of color to live without fear of random detention or their ability to report crimes without reprisal?”
Three civil rights organizations are suing the government to obtain records related to a little-known program known as “Secure Communities” program that further involves local and state police in federal immigration enforcement.
The National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law filed the lawsuit. The filing came as the groups launched “Uncovering the Truth,” a weeklong national campaign of coordinated actions and advocacy in more than ten cities to end ICE-police collaboration.
“The passage of S.B. 1070 in Arizona should be proof enough of the dangerous and disastrous nature of ICE-police collaboration programs like the so-called Secure Communities program,” said Pablo Alvarado, NDLON Executive Director. “The President should heed his own advice and act responsibly by reclaiming the federal government’s exclusive authority over the nation’s immigration laws. By terminating all police and ICE partnerships, the President can help restore community safety and protect civil rights and due process for all.”
“At a time when police and ICE partnerships have clearly failed, ICE is moving swiftly to implement the Secure Communities program in every U.S. jail by 2013,” said CCR attorney Sunita Patel. “Contrary to its name, this latest ICE program makes the public less safe. There is no doubt that the program has and will continue to deepen fear and mistrust of the police in our communities.”
Relatively little is known about Secure Communities program. Groups opposing it say it requires local and state police to run individuals’ fingerprints through multiple databases upon arrest, even if no charges are brought and regardless of how minor the charges are.
Advocates and attorneys say that, in addition to concerns presented by relying on potentially inaccurate and erroneous information in those databases, the program functions as little more than a racial profiling dragnet to funnel even more people into the overburdened and mismanaged ICE detention and removal system.
Secure Communities is currently operating in 168 jurisdictions in 20 states with more agreements anticipated in the next few days.
“This is a massive, invasive and untested federal immigration enforcement program that ICE has been deceptive and secretive about from the start,” said Bridget Kessler, Clinical Teaching Fellow at the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. “Without more information, we cannot allow for the spread of this dangerous ICE program.”
The plaintiffs seek the materials necessary to provide the public with comprehensive information on the Secure Communities program, including policies, procedures and objectives; fiscal impact; data and statistical information; individual records; communications; and assessment records. Plaintiffs filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in February 2010 seeking these materials. Despite ICE’s rapid expansion of the program, government agencies have not yet released the requested records.
In a related development, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will review the recently passed Arizona anti-immigrant law to determine its Constitutionality. She said she was unsure of the law’s legality, but suggested that it might be made acceptable if a Federal law enforcement officer was always present when local police were arresting someone for immigration violations.
The problem with that solution, she added, is that there are not enough Federal officers.
Napolitano said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has deep concerns with the law’s effects and that such broad immigration enforcement may detract and siphon resources away from ICE’s priority of focusing on the most serious criminals.
President Barack Obama has characterized the new law as “misguided” and threatening to “undermine basic notions of fairness.”
Under criticism by civil liberties advocates, Napolitano defended her department’s 287(g) program, which authorizes local law police and sheriff’s departments to enforce Federal immigration laws.
“The 287(g) program can be useful,” she asserted, in “focusing on serious crimes.” Her remarks drew enthusiastic support from the senior Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, a conservative from Alabama.
Sessions said (287(g) “represents a great opportunity to send a message to would-be immigrants that the door is no longer open. If you enter this country illegally, you won’t get a job. Instead you’ll get deported.
The 287(g) program has been heavily criticized by civil rights groups and, recently, by the Homeland Security department’s own Inspector General. Those who oppose the program say that local law enforcement officials are not properly trained to interpret complex immigration laws. They also contend that the program has failed to focus on serious crimes, citing the large number of immigrants in detention for minor infractions. Finally, with agreement from numerous law enforcement organizations, critics claim that 287(g) siphons off scarce resources away from protecting local communities.
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who was previously a major advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, defended Arizona’s action. He told the Committee that his state was “frustrated waiting for the Federal Government to do something to secure our borders.”
Another committee member, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, told the committee that “in the current environment, comprehensive immigration reform could not pass the Congress.”
Meanwhile, the act recently signed into law by the governor of Arizona continued to draw the ire of lawmakers and civil libertarians across the country.
In Washington, members of Congress will host a press conference at the U.S. Capitol to denounce what they call “the harshest immigration enforcement state law in the country.” Elected leaders will discuss why the Arizona immigration law creates a moral and political imperative for the federal government to act swiftly on comprehensive immigration reform.”
Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, called the Arizona law “the most extreme anti-immigrant law in the country.”
And Rinku Sen, executive director of the Applied Research Center (ARC), a not-for-profit advocacy group, said the new law “exchanges the security of Arizona’s communities of color to buy false comfort for a state on the brink of economic collapse. What about the right of communities of color to live without fear of random detention or their ability to report crimes without reprisal?”
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Welcome to Arizona!
By William Fisher
Immigration experts, law enforcement officials and religious leaders are hitting back at the draconian legislation signed into law in Arizona last week, charging it will subject the State to “staggering potential costs” and vowing to have the law declared unconstitutional in the courts.
In one Arizona county alone, Yuma County, the sheriff estimates that law-enforcement agencies would spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 in processing expenses; Jail costs between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720; and
attorney and staff fees between $810,067-$1,620,134.
The estimates by Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden were produced because there is no state-wide fiscal data yet available on the cost of the legislation’s implementation. Sheriff Ogden’s estimates were prepared for inclusion in a fact sheet produced in response to similar legislation in 2006. Yuma County is one of Arizona's 15 counties, with a population of about 200,000. The Sheriff's fact sheet also shows that additional detention facilities would have to be built at unknown costs.
These costs do not account for lost revenue such as tax contributions and consumer purchasing, as well as the potentially expensive lawsuits that will likely ensue.
Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed the legislation after a week of protests by anti- and pro-immigration groups. The new law makes Arizona the first state in the nation to consider it a crime for a person to be an undocumented immigrant.
Several legal challenges to keep the legislation from taking effect are already in the works by the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON).
“Arizona would have the same place in history as South Africa,” said Salvador Reza, organizer for the PUENTE movement, which advocates for human rights, comparing the new law to apartheid.
But the passage of the Arizona law may also have ignited new energy and resolve from the pro-immigration reform movement. President Barack Obama has criticized the Arizona bill, saying it threatens to “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” He called on Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform.
Sen. John McCain, a Republican of Arizona, has in the past been one of the champions of comprehensive immigration reform. Today, locked in a tight primary challenge from his right wing to win his party’s nomination for another term, he has endorsed the new law. Arizona’s other senator, Republican John Kyl, has done likewise.
Known as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act,” the law would allow police officers to arrest a person based on “reasonable suspicion ” that he or she is an undocumented immigrant. Police departments could face lawsuits by individuals who believe they are not enforcing the law.
A coalition of businesses and religious leaders has warned that the impact of the new measure could severely damage the Arizona economy.
The new law “is tearing our state into two. It humiliates us into the eyes of America and threatens our economic recovery,” said Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican from Mesa, the author of the bill, said the legislation would have the opposite effect. He believes the new legislation will lead immigrants to leave Arizona, causing the state to save money in services it currently provides to the children of undocumented immigrants at schools and hospitals. He has said that states have to take the matter into their own hands in absence of federal enforcement.
The recent death of a rancher on the border connected to violence in the area gave momentum to passage of the new law.
As the Arizona Governor signed the bill into law, the national and Arizona faith community condemned it as “an affront to moral conscience that will divide families and communities. The inhumane legislation demonstrates the urgent need for national political leadership to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” said a coalition of a dozen s leaders from evangelical, mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religions representing millions of Americans.
Rev. Jim Wallis, President and CEO of The Sojourners, said, “The law signed today by Arizona Gov. Brewer is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation. It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited – it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe.”
He said the legislation “crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. Enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is unacceptable. This law will make it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona, and will force us to disobey Jesus and his gospel. We will not comply.”
And Rev. Jan Flaaten, Executive Director of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, said, "All the religious leaders of Arizona know and understand that this law will not solve the issue of crime along the border or in our state, but it will demonize anyone who looks suspiciously like an undocumented person leading to inevitable racial profiling. Our religious traditions ask us to treat people with dignity and respect, and we look for a more enlightened and hopeful way of working with the undocumented people who live along side us."
The legislation was also condemned by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). The group said in a statement, “The measure allows law enforcement agencies to detain anybody if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants, and requires legal immigrants to carry paperwork proving their status at all times. There is a profound fear in the civil rights community that the new measure will permit the practice of racial profiling by Arizona law enforcement personnel.”
Abed Ayoub, ADC Legal Director, said, "To allow the use of racial profiling in law enforcement practices is both dangerous and unconstitutional. The measure signed into law by Gov. Brewer has a profound impact on not only the Latino community of Arizona, but on all individuals living in the state. This law also illustrates the pressing need for Congress, and the Obama Administration to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
Immigration experts, law enforcement officials and religious leaders are hitting back at the draconian legislation signed into law in Arizona last week, charging it will subject the State to “staggering potential costs” and vowing to have the law declared unconstitutional in the courts.
In one Arizona county alone, Yuma County, the sheriff estimates that law-enforcement agencies would spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 in processing expenses; Jail costs between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720; and
attorney and staff fees between $810,067-$1,620,134.
The estimates by Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden were produced because there is no state-wide fiscal data yet available on the cost of the legislation’s implementation. Sheriff Ogden’s estimates were prepared for inclusion in a fact sheet produced in response to similar legislation in 2006. Yuma County is one of Arizona's 15 counties, with a population of about 200,000. The Sheriff's fact sheet also shows that additional detention facilities would have to be built at unknown costs.
These costs do not account for lost revenue such as tax contributions and consumer purchasing, as well as the potentially expensive lawsuits that will likely ensue.
Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed the legislation after a week of protests by anti- and pro-immigration groups. The new law makes Arizona the first state in the nation to consider it a crime for a person to be an undocumented immigrant.
Several legal challenges to keep the legislation from taking effect are already in the works by the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON).
“Arizona would have the same place in history as South Africa,” said Salvador Reza, organizer for the PUENTE movement, which advocates for human rights, comparing the new law to apartheid.
But the passage of the Arizona law may also have ignited new energy and resolve from the pro-immigration reform movement. President Barack Obama has criticized the Arizona bill, saying it threatens to “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” He called on Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform.
Sen. John McCain, a Republican of Arizona, has in the past been one of the champions of comprehensive immigration reform. Today, locked in a tight primary challenge from his right wing to win his party’s nomination for another term, he has endorsed the new law. Arizona’s other senator, Republican John Kyl, has done likewise.
Known as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act,” the law would allow police officers to arrest a person based on “reasonable suspicion ” that he or she is an undocumented immigrant. Police departments could face lawsuits by individuals who believe they are not enforcing the law.
A coalition of businesses and religious leaders has warned that the impact of the new measure could severely damage the Arizona economy.
The new law “is tearing our state into two. It humiliates us into the eyes of America and threatens our economic recovery,” said Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican from Mesa, the author of the bill, said the legislation would have the opposite effect. He believes the new legislation will lead immigrants to leave Arizona, causing the state to save money in services it currently provides to the children of undocumented immigrants at schools and hospitals. He has said that states have to take the matter into their own hands in absence of federal enforcement.
The recent death of a rancher on the border connected to violence in the area gave momentum to passage of the new law.
As the Arizona Governor signed the bill into law, the national and Arizona faith community condemned it as “an affront to moral conscience that will divide families and communities. The inhumane legislation demonstrates the urgent need for national political leadership to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” said a coalition of a dozen s leaders from evangelical, mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religions representing millions of Americans.
Rev. Jim Wallis, President and CEO of The Sojourners, said, “The law signed today by Arizona Gov. Brewer is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation. It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited – it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe.”
He said the legislation “crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. Enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is unacceptable. This law will make it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona, and will force us to disobey Jesus and his gospel. We will not comply.”
And Rev. Jan Flaaten, Executive Director of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, said, "All the religious leaders of Arizona know and understand that this law will not solve the issue of crime along the border or in our state, but it will demonize anyone who looks suspiciously like an undocumented person leading to inevitable racial profiling. Our religious traditions ask us to treat people with dignity and respect, and we look for a more enlightened and hopeful way of working with the undocumented people who live along side us."
The legislation was also condemned by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). The group said in a statement, “The measure allows law enforcement agencies to detain anybody if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants, and requires legal immigrants to carry paperwork proving their status at all times. There is a profound fear in the civil rights community that the new measure will permit the practice of racial profiling by Arizona law enforcement personnel.”
Abed Ayoub, ADC Legal Director, said, "To allow the use of racial profiling in law enforcement practices is both dangerous and unconstitutional. The measure signed into law by Gov. Brewer has a profound impact on not only the Latino community of Arizona, but on all individuals living in the state. This law also illustrates the pressing need for Congress, and the Obama Administration to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
The Invasion of the Body Scanners
By William Fisher
More than thirty privacy and civil liberties organizations have filed a formal petition with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), urging the federal agency to shut down the use of ‘full body scanners’ (FBS) at the nation’s airports.
At a press conference, Marc Rotenberg, President of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), one of the signatories to the petition, said, "There is no question that the body scanner program should be shut down. This is a government boondoggle -- expensive, ineffective, and offensive to Constitutional rights and deeply held religious beliefs."
Last year, the groups asked DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal to expand the body scanner program. She rejected the request. Since that time, the groups charge that evidence has emerged that “the privacy safeguards do not work and that the devices are not very effective.”
The petition states that the body scanners are not effective and are not designed to detect the type of powdered explosive that was involved in the December 25 “underwear bomber” incident. The petition also states that the privacy safeguards do not work and that the body scanners violate religious beliefs, principally among Muslims.
Despite concerns over costs and benefits, privacy, reliability and safety of airport body scanners, the federal government plans to deploy 500 advanced imaging technology units this ear, roll out 500 more in 2011 and operate a total of 1,800 units by 2014, according to recent testimony last to the House Transportation Security and Infrastructure subcommittee.
The plan represents a "more than two-fold increase from the initial planned buy of 878 units," noted the Government Accountability Office's Steve Lord, director for Homeland Security and Justice issues. "Second, the Transportation Security Administration now plans to use this technology as a primary rather than secondary screening measure."
A signatory to the petition, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Protection Committee, told IPS, “The full body scanners fall into the same misleading ‘techno-utopian’ mindset that focuses on the symptoms rather than the causes of terrorism and assumes that some new surveillance technology will somehow eliminate all risk of terrorist incidents.”
He explained: “What happens instead is that companies push for and the government buys technology that merely fights the last war, produces new intrusions to fundamental freedoms like privacy, the presumption of innocence, and freedom from religious or other discrimination, while yielding only faux security instead of the genuine security promised. In the meantime, as Huxley warned in Brave New World, the population becomes used to the new surveillance methods (such as these digital strip searches) that normalize invasions of dignity and serve mainly to enhance government control of the citizenry.”
Pitts adds, “These body scanners weren’t designed for nor will they pick up powdered explosives of the sort used by the underwear bomber, but the misleading illusion that they work will distract us from following genuine leads and damage the genuine human security that comes only from respecting rights and meeting the main security challenge: changing the policies that are the root causes of terrorism.”
The “underwear bomber” is a young Nigerian who attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight as it was descending into Detroit from Amsterstam on Christmas Day last year, concealing an explosive device in his under shorts.
The signatories to the petition describe body scanner systems as "uniquely intrusive, subjecting all travelers to an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” They also say that the DHS “failed to comply with the Privacy Act when it did not inform the public about this new system that would collect personal information.” And they charge that the DHS Chief Privacy Officer violated the law when she approved the program.”
The group also contends that documents obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act “also appear to refute the agency's claims that the devices do not store and record images and that the public does not object to the program.”
The group cited a number of comments from unidentified passengers. “One traveler commented, ‘I am outraged and angry that what was supposed to be a ‘pilot’ for the millimeter scan machines has now become MANDATORY. Other fliers described the devices as ‘a disgusting violation of civil liberties and privacy,’ ‘for a bunch of peeping toms,’ ‘unconstitutional,’ ‘intrusive and ridiculous’ and ‘a joke.’ ”
The organizations signing the body scanner petition include the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), the Center for the Study of Responsive Law (CSRL), the Liberty Coalition, and Public Citizen.
The petitioners charge that “Deployment of Full Body Scanners in US airports, as currently proposed, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”
The petition says, “The FBS program effectively subjects all air travelers to unconstitutionally intrusive searches that are disproportionate and for which the TSA lacks any suspicion of wrongdoing. The FBS Program also violates the RFRA because it requires those of sincerely held religious beliefs to be subject to offensive intrusions by government officials. The program violates the Privacy Act because the system gathers personally identifiable information—a detailed and unique image of the human body easily associated with a particular airline ticket—yet the TSA failed to publish a System of Records Notice. The TSA Chief Privacy Office violated its statutory obligations to ensure that new technologies ‘sustain and do not erode’ the privacy of Americans when it effectively approved the program.”
EPIC’s Rotenberg said at the press conference that he would consider FBSs for secondary, but not primary, screening.
More than thirty privacy and civil liberties organizations have filed a formal petition with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), urging the federal agency to shut down the use of ‘full body scanners’ (FBS) at the nation’s airports.
At a press conference, Marc Rotenberg, President of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), one of the signatories to the petition, said, "There is no question that the body scanner program should be shut down. This is a government boondoggle -- expensive, ineffective, and offensive to Constitutional rights and deeply held religious beliefs."
Last year, the groups asked DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal to expand the body scanner program. She rejected the request. Since that time, the groups charge that evidence has emerged that “the privacy safeguards do not work and that the devices are not very effective.”
The petition states that the body scanners are not effective and are not designed to detect the type of powdered explosive that was involved in the December 25 “underwear bomber” incident. The petition also states that the privacy safeguards do not work and that the body scanners violate religious beliefs, principally among Muslims.
Despite concerns over costs and benefits, privacy, reliability and safety of airport body scanners, the federal government plans to deploy 500 advanced imaging technology units this ear, roll out 500 more in 2011 and operate a total of 1,800 units by 2014, according to recent testimony last to the House Transportation Security and Infrastructure subcommittee.
The plan represents a "more than two-fold increase from the initial planned buy of 878 units," noted the Government Accountability Office's Steve Lord, director for Homeland Security and Justice issues. "Second, the Transportation Security Administration now plans to use this technology as a primary rather than secondary screening measure."
A signatory to the petition, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Protection Committee, told IPS, “The full body scanners fall into the same misleading ‘techno-utopian’ mindset that focuses on the symptoms rather than the causes of terrorism and assumes that some new surveillance technology will somehow eliminate all risk of terrorist incidents.”
He explained: “What happens instead is that companies push for and the government buys technology that merely fights the last war, produces new intrusions to fundamental freedoms like privacy, the presumption of innocence, and freedom from religious or other discrimination, while yielding only faux security instead of the genuine security promised. In the meantime, as Huxley warned in Brave New World, the population becomes used to the new surveillance methods (such as these digital strip searches) that normalize invasions of dignity and serve mainly to enhance government control of the citizenry.”
Pitts adds, “These body scanners weren’t designed for nor will they pick up powdered explosives of the sort used by the underwear bomber, but the misleading illusion that they work will distract us from following genuine leads and damage the genuine human security that comes only from respecting rights and meeting the main security challenge: changing the policies that are the root causes of terrorism.”
The “underwear bomber” is a young Nigerian who attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight as it was descending into Detroit from Amsterstam on Christmas Day last year, concealing an explosive device in his under shorts.
The signatories to the petition describe body scanner systems as "uniquely intrusive, subjecting all travelers to an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” They also say that the DHS “failed to comply with the Privacy Act when it did not inform the public about this new system that would collect personal information.” And they charge that the DHS Chief Privacy Officer violated the law when she approved the program.”
The group also contends that documents obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act “also appear to refute the agency's claims that the devices do not store and record images and that the public does not object to the program.”
The group cited a number of comments from unidentified passengers. “One traveler commented, ‘I am outraged and angry that what was supposed to be a ‘pilot’ for the millimeter scan machines has now become MANDATORY. Other fliers described the devices as ‘a disgusting violation of civil liberties and privacy,’ ‘for a bunch of peeping toms,’ ‘unconstitutional,’ ‘intrusive and ridiculous’ and ‘a joke.’ ”
The organizations signing the body scanner petition include the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), the Center for the Study of Responsive Law (CSRL), the Liberty Coalition, and Public Citizen.
The petitioners charge that “Deployment of Full Body Scanners in US airports, as currently proposed, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”
The petition says, “The FBS program effectively subjects all air travelers to unconstitutionally intrusive searches that are disproportionate and for which the TSA lacks any suspicion of wrongdoing. The FBS Program also violates the RFRA because it requires those of sincerely held religious beliefs to be subject to offensive intrusions by government officials. The program violates the Privacy Act because the system gathers personally identifiable information—a detailed and unique image of the human body easily associated with a particular airline ticket—yet the TSA failed to publish a System of Records Notice. The TSA Chief Privacy Office violated its statutory obligations to ensure that new technologies ‘sustain and do not erode’ the privacy of Americans when it effectively approved the program.”
EPIC’s Rotenberg said at the press conference that he would consider FBSs for secondary, but not primary, screening.
An Anonymous Jury?
By William Fisher
Department of Justice lawyers yesterday petitioned a Federal court to begin a controversial terror-related trial in New York City with an “anonymous jury” in order to protect the jurors, the audience in the courtroom, the prosecutors and defense counsel, the judge, and the criminal justice process.
The motion asks that the jurors hearing the case of American citizen Syed Fahad Hashmi for conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda should not be required to disclose their names, addresses or places of employment, and that they be kept under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Marshal Service, which will provide extra security services.
Anonymous juries have been used in three terror-related cases in this same court, including the conviction of lawyer Lynn Stewart for passing a message from her terror-suspect client to his colleagues.
If Judge Loretta Preska grants the motion, jury selection would proceed under a process known as voir dire, referring to giving a true verdict.
The voir dire process in the U.S. is controversial. The amount of privacy that the potential jurors are afforded when asked questioned raises the issue of the definition of "impartial jury". Some question whether the intensive questioning of potential jurors looks not just for inherent bias but for a potential to be emotionally swayed. Proponents argue that this method gives both sides more confidence in the verdict.
But one of Hashmi’s most ardent defenders – Dr. Jeanne Theoharis, Hashmi’s teacher at Brooklyn College – terms the government’s action “egregious.”
“There's so many ways this is egregious -- not the least of which is that
it speaks to how the US Attorney's office views Muslims in the
audience and countenances racist speculation,” she says,
Theoharis references the U.S. Attorney, who writes, “It is likely that the jurors will see in the gallery of the courtroom a significant number of the
defendant’s supporters, naturally leading to juror speculation that at
least some of these spectators might share the defendant’s violent
radical Islamic leanings.”
But Theoharis says there are no demonstrations planned for the first day of trial. “The plan is to pack the courtroom with a possible press
conference with human rights groups on the courthouse steps or in the
park across the street for the first day,” she explains, adding:
“This is just about ratcheting up the fear of the jurors. (Hashmi’s lawyers) will obviously contest the government's motion saying that in a democracy people are allowed to come and watch court. But of course the judge is very sympathetic to the government and will likely agree to do so.”
Clearly, she says, “this is proof that our organizing is getting to them--but
also that, in this climate, they will try to use that to increase the fear (and secrecy) of the jury. They are using this activism -- and people exercising
their right to watch the process -- to make the jury scared and gain a
conviction.”
Theoharis is not without allies in her support of Hashmi. In response to the government’s anonymous jury motion, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said, “The case against Fahad Hashmi in itself raises many red flags related to the violation of his rights, prosecutorial overreach under the material support statute, and the unduly punitive and restrictive special administrative measures under which he has been kept without trial for nearly three years.”
CCR said “The government’s call for the jurors at his trial…to be anonymous and kept under extra security because of the attention and political activism these issues have drawn to the case is a clear attempt to influence the jury by creating a sense of fear for their safety and to paint Mr. Hashmi as already guilty.”
“The government is manipulating the fact that many individuals and human rights organizations are supporting Mr. Hashmi and raising important criticisms of his treatment in detention in order to gain a conviction. This is deplorable,“ the group said.
He has been held in New York since the Memorial Day weekend, 2007.
In the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York, Hashmi, a Muslim, is not allowed to pray with others of his faith. He is on a 23-hour solitary-confinement lockdown and 24-hour surveillance including when he showers and goes to the bathroom. He was not allowed family visits for months. Now, he can see one person for an hour and a half, every other week. Visits are through a thick glass. No touching or hugging is permissible or possible.
Hashmi is permitted to write one letter a week to a single member of his family, but cannot use more than three pieces of paper per letter. Within his own cell, he is restricted in his movements and he is not allowed to talk to guards or other inmates.
Hashmi is forbidden any contact -- directly or through his attorneys -- with the news media. He can read newspapers, but only those portions approved by his jailers -- and not until 30 days after publication. He is forbidden to listen to news radio stations or to watch television news channels.
He is also under 24-hour electronic monitoring inside and outside his cell.
He is allowed one hour of recreation every day -- which is periodically denied. He is not given fresh air but must exercise alone inside a cage.
Prof. Theoharis, who has attended the hearings in his case, told us that Hashmi's "mental health appears to be deteriorating."
His attorneys are concerned that his extreme isolation "will cause lasting psychological, emotional, and physical damage" to their client.
Hashmi's friend Babar has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support of Al Qaeda and has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain, Canada, and at Hashmi's trial. The Justice Department says Babar is the "centerpiece" of its case against Hashmi. In return, under a plea bargain, Babar will likely get a reduced sentence.
If Hashmi is convicted, he could be facing up to 70 years behind bars.
Department of Justice lawyers yesterday petitioned a Federal court to begin a controversial terror-related trial in New York City with an “anonymous jury” in order to protect the jurors, the audience in the courtroom, the prosecutors and defense counsel, the judge, and the criminal justice process.
The motion asks that the jurors hearing the case of American citizen Syed Fahad Hashmi for conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda should not be required to disclose their names, addresses or places of employment, and that they be kept under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Marshal Service, which will provide extra security services.
Anonymous juries have been used in three terror-related cases in this same court, including the conviction of lawyer Lynn Stewart for passing a message from her terror-suspect client to his colleagues.
If Judge Loretta Preska grants the motion, jury selection would proceed under a process known as voir dire, referring to giving a true verdict.
The voir dire process in the U.S. is controversial. The amount of privacy that the potential jurors are afforded when asked questioned raises the issue of the definition of "impartial jury". Some question whether the intensive questioning of potential jurors looks not just for inherent bias but for a potential to be emotionally swayed. Proponents argue that this method gives both sides more confidence in the verdict.
But one of Hashmi’s most ardent defenders – Dr. Jeanne Theoharis, Hashmi’s teacher at Brooklyn College – terms the government’s action “egregious.”
“There's so many ways this is egregious -- not the least of which is that
it speaks to how the US Attorney's office views Muslims in the
audience and countenances racist speculation,” she says,
Theoharis references the U.S. Attorney, who writes, “It is likely that the jurors will see in the gallery of the courtroom a significant number of the
defendant’s supporters, naturally leading to juror speculation that at
least some of these spectators might share the defendant’s violent
radical Islamic leanings.”
But Theoharis says there are no demonstrations planned for the first day of trial. “The plan is to pack the courtroom with a possible press
conference with human rights groups on the courthouse steps or in the
park across the street for the first day,” she explains, adding:
“This is just about ratcheting up the fear of the jurors. (Hashmi’s lawyers) will obviously contest the government's motion saying that in a democracy people are allowed to come and watch court. But of course the judge is very sympathetic to the government and will likely agree to do so.”
Clearly, she says, “this is proof that our organizing is getting to them--but
also that, in this climate, they will try to use that to increase the fear (and secrecy) of the jury. They are using this activism -- and people exercising
their right to watch the process -- to make the jury scared and gain a
conviction.”
Theoharis is not without allies in her support of Hashmi. In response to the government’s anonymous jury motion, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said, “The case against Fahad Hashmi in itself raises many red flags related to the violation of his rights, prosecutorial overreach under the material support statute, and the unduly punitive and restrictive special administrative measures under which he has been kept without trial for nearly three years.”
CCR said “The government’s call for the jurors at his trial…to be anonymous and kept under extra security because of the attention and political activism these issues have drawn to the case is a clear attempt to influence the jury by creating a sense of fear for their safety and to paint Mr. Hashmi as already guilty.”
“The government is manipulating the fact that many individuals and human rights organizations are supporting Mr. Hashmi and raising important criticisms of his treatment in detention in order to gain a conviction. This is deplorable,“ the group said.
He has been held in New York since the Memorial Day weekend, 2007.
In the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York, Hashmi, a Muslim, is not allowed to pray with others of his faith. He is on a 23-hour solitary-confinement lockdown and 24-hour surveillance including when he showers and goes to the bathroom. He was not allowed family visits for months. Now, he can see one person for an hour and a half, every other week. Visits are through a thick glass. No touching or hugging is permissible or possible.
Hashmi is permitted to write one letter a week to a single member of his family, but cannot use more than three pieces of paper per letter. Within his own cell, he is restricted in his movements and he is not allowed to talk to guards or other inmates.
Hashmi is forbidden any contact -- directly or through his attorneys -- with the news media. He can read newspapers, but only those portions approved by his jailers -- and not until 30 days after publication. He is forbidden to listen to news radio stations or to watch television news channels.
He is also under 24-hour electronic monitoring inside and outside his cell.
He is allowed one hour of recreation every day -- which is periodically denied. He is not given fresh air but must exercise alone inside a cage.
Prof. Theoharis, who has attended the hearings in his case, told us that Hashmi's "mental health appears to be deteriorating."
His attorneys are concerned that his extreme isolation "will cause lasting psychological, emotional, and physical damage" to their client.
Hashmi's friend Babar has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support of Al Qaeda and has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain, Canada, and at Hashmi's trial. The Justice Department says Babar is the "centerpiece" of its case against Hashmi. In return, under a plea bargain, Babar will likely get a reduced sentence.
If Hashmi is convicted, he could be facing up to 70 years behind bars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
