ACLU Calls On International Bodies To Intervene In Case Of Alleged Child Soldier At Guantánamo
Obama Administration Should Immediately Halt Military Commissions Proceedings Against Omar Khadr And Mohammed Jawad
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union called upon the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child and the U.N. Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict to intervene in the case of Omar Khadr, the 22-year-old Canadian national slated to be tried by military commission at Guantánamo for war crimes allegedly committed when he was 15. If Khadr's trial goes forward as scheduled on January 26, the United States will be the first western nation in recent years to hold a war crimes trial for crimes allegedly committed by a child.
In letters delivered yesterday, the ACLU urged the Committee (UNCRC) and the Special Representative to issue public statements calling on President-elect Obama to suspend Omar Khadr's trial and reminding the U.S. of its obligations under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, ratified by the U.S. in 2002, which guarantees certain protections for former child soldiers.
According to the letter to the UNCRC, "while such a public statement is an exceptional measure for the Committee to adopt, it is warranted by the urgent circumstances. If the trial of Omar Khadr goes forward, it would establish dangerous precedent for the United States and the entire world."
The ACLU has also called on the U.S. to suspend proceedings against Mohammed Jawad, another Guantánamo detainee facing a military commission trial for crimes allegedly committed when he was 16 or 17. The ACLU is representing Jawad in a habeas corpus challenge to his unlawful detention.
Last May, the UNCRC, which oversees compliance with the Optional Protocol, criticized the United States' treatment and military prosecutions of children held at Guantánamo and called on the U.S. government to treat children in its custody in accordance with international juvenile justice standards.
The full text of the ACLU letter to the UNCRC is below and online at: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/nationalsecurity/38360res20090115.html
The ACLU letter to the U.N. Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict is available online at: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/nationalsecurity/38359res20090115.html
A video calling on President Obama to bring the United States into compliance with treaties it has signed regarding the treatment of juveniles who have been recruited or used in armed conflict, and highlighting the Khadr and Jawad cases, is here: blog.aclu.org/2009/01/14/obamas-child-soldiers/
January 15, 2009
Ms. Yanghee Lee
Chairperson, Committee on the Rights of the Child
United Nations Office at Geneva, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
CH 1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Dear Ms. Lee,
We write to you regarding Omar Khadr, the 22-year-old Canadian national slated to be tried by military commission at Guantánamo for crimes allegedly committed when he was aged 15. If the trial, now scheduled for January 26, 2009, is allowed to go forward, Omar Khadr will become the first person in recent years to be tried by any western nation for war crimes allegedly committed as a child.
We respectfully request that the Committee on the Rights of the Child promptly issue a public statement to the United States about the impending trial of Omar Khadr, reminding the State Party of its obligations under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. While such a public statement is an exceptional measure for the Committee to adopt, it is warranted by the urgent circumstances. If the trial of Omar Khadr goes forward, it would establish dangerous precedent for the United States and the entire world.
Numerous human rights and children's rights organizations have recently called upon the U.S. government to suspend Omar Khadr's trial, and a public statement by the Committee would reinforce these efforts. This week, the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, and the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers submitted the attached letter, calling on President-elect Barack Obama to drop the military commission charges against Omar Khadr. A similar joint letter was submitted this week by the Juvenile Law Center and over 350 children's and human rights scholars, advocates, and professionals who work with youth []. Both coalition letters also called upon the United States to suspend proceedings against another juvenile detainee facing trial by military commission, Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan who is charged with attempted murder for acts allegedly committed when he was either 16 or 17 years old.
At the conclusion of the periodic review of U.S. compliance with the OPAC, in June the Committee expressed concern that children who were recruited or used in armed conflict have been charged with war crimes and subject to prosecution by military commissions, without due account of their status as children. A public reiteration of the Committee's concerns and recommendations is clearly warranted at this time.
We hope that you will act quickly on this matter in the interest of protecting the human rights of children recruited or used in armed conflict.
Sincerely,
Jamil Dakwar
Director, Human Rights Program
American Civil Liberties Union
National Security
Smart Justice
Mohammed Jawad - Habeas Corpus
National Security
Smart Justice
Mohammed Jawad - Habeas Corpus
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.