Dispatches From Guantánamo
AIC PressACLU Attorney Jamil Dakwar speaking at a news conference about counterterrorism and human rights in Morocco.
ACLU ATTORNEY JAMEEL JAFFER'S DISPATCHES
Oct. 31, Nov. 1, Nov. 2, Nov. 3
ANTHONY ROMERO'S DISPATCHES
Aug. 22, Aug. 23, Aug. 24, Aug. 25, Aug. 26, Aug. 27, Aug. 29
NEWS RELEASES
ACLU to Continue Monitoring Military Commissions at Guantánamo Bay as Trials Resume
ACLU Executive Director Travels to Cuba To Observe Military Tribunals
ACLU Director Has Front-Row Seat for Gitmo Tribunals
Joint Statements of Commission Observers Aug. 23 | Aug 27
REPORT
Conduct Unbecoming: Pitfalls in the President's Military Commissions
SPEECH
Romero Calls Government's Policies on Guantánamo 'Fundamentally Lawless'
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Torture Freedom of Information Act
FORUM
OFFSITE LINK
ACLU staff attorney Jamil Dakwar writes his observations about the hearings taking place at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. The hearings are part of the new system of military commissions set up by President Bush.
Sunday | Monday
11-08-04 -- GUANTÁNAMO BAY, CUBA
Dear member of the ACLU family:
Today was an exceptionally dramatic day at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo. The Military Commission abruptly halted its session about 40 minutes into pre-trial arguments in the case of Mr. Salem Hamdan, who was charged in July 2004 with conspiracy to commit terrorism. Everyone in the Commission's hall was stunned when the presiding judge, Colonel Peter Brownback III, after briefly adjourning the hearing, returned seven minutes later to announce that the proceeding would go into recess ""indefinitely.""
No one attending the hearings expected such a dramatic development. The commission was expected to hear oral arguments in more than dozens of motions that were submitted by the defense. These motions challenge the legality, composition and the competence of the Military Commission under United States and international law.
We had started out the day curious to assess the quality of translation, particularly after the poor translation in the opening sessions of the Commission back in August (see Anthony Romero's dispatches from August 2004). A new system (translation booth and equipment) had recently been installed and new translators were present at today's hearing. However the length of the proceedings was too short to allow a full assessment of the quality of the translation. (Editor's note: Dakwar is fluent in Arabic.)
Hamdan, who appeared before the Commission in a traditional Yemeni dress and a jacket that was sent to him by his family, seemed to have lost weight since he was detained in Guantánamo. His lawyer explained to him what had happened as a result of this latest development: that he would no longer be held in solitary confinement (after more than 10 months) and that he would be transferred to Camp Delta where he will be held with other detainees.
A few minutes after the Commission panel rushed out of the hall, Neal Katyal, a Georgetown Law School professor who is the civilian defense lawyer co-representing Hamdan, approached the few reporters who were attending the hearing and told them that apparently the District Court in Washington had ordered a stop the Commission's proceedings. The court had accepted in part Hamdan's petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was argued on October 25 of this year. In that petition, Hamdan's attorneys challenged the lawfulness of the trial before the Military Commission rather than before a court-martial convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (The ruling is online at /node/35475.)
My first reaction to the halt of the Military Commission proceedings by the federal court was that this is the real judicial review in play. After reading the whole decision, a sense of relief and satisfaction captured all of us (observers on behalf of ACLU, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First). We felt that this decision was long overdue and is a victory to the rule of law, international law and particularly to the Geneva Conventions, which have been sidelined and undermined by the U.S. government. Although the decision was given only in Hamdan's case by the District Court in Washington (and will likely be subject to an appeal), its practical ramifications should go beyond this individual case to encompass and expose the travesty of the whole situation here in Guantánamo.
Shortly after the session was adjourned, we were escorted to the media center located in the Guantánamo Bay auditorium where press briefings take place. We were anxious to read the full decision and finally after an hour got copies of the 45-page ruling of Judge James Robertson of the District Court in Washington.
Judge Robertson ordered that until a competent tribunal determines that Hamdan is not entitled to the protections afforded to prisoners of war under the third Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, Military Commission may not try him for the offenses with which he is charged. The judge noted that the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) was not established to address detainees' status under the Geneva Conventions; it was established to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi. The judge also stated ""the President is not a 'tribunal.'"" Under international law a "competent tribunal" need not be a judicial tribunal and may not be required to guarantee the full gamut of rights accorded to an individual before a criminal court of law, however the core due process rights recognized as customary in international humanitarian law should be guaranteed. Judge Robertson also held that the military commission rules violate domestic statutory law because they allow Hamdan to be excluded from hearings and denied access to evidence.
This week there will be no more military commission sessions. It is unclear when and if the Military Commission will resume its hearings. In the meantime, the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) continues to hear Guantánamo detainees who appear before it without legal representation and with serious due process deficiencies. While journalists are allowed to attend CSRT's hearings, human rights observers are still not allowed to attend them -- with one single exception, when a representative of Human Rights First was allowed to attend a hearing last Thursday. So far, some 320 of the 550 detainees have appeared before the tribunals, and 104 final judgments were made. Of that group, 103 were found to have been properly deemed unlawful enemy combatants and properly imprisoned; only one detainee was released.
Jamil Dakwar
ACLU Staff Attorney
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.