Interrogation Memos Provide Further Reason To Give Torture Victims Day In Court, Says ACLU
Group Submits Letter In Extraordinary Rendition Case Against Boeing Subsidiary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today alerted a California federal appellate court that the government's assertion of the "state secrets" privilege in an extraordinary rendition case has even less merit given last week's Justice Department release of four "torture memos."
In a letter sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today, the ACLU asserted that the recently released memos graphically describe several illegal interrogation techniques that were used by the CIA against some of the plaintiffs in its lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. for its role in the CIA's extraordinary rendition program. The government intervened and halted that case asserting "state secrets," relying upon former CIA Director Michael Hayden's declaration that disclosing specific interrogation techniques "would degrade the effectiveness of the United States' intelligence gathering activities by … providing terrorists information about interrogation methods."
"That rationale no longer exists, because the methods are now public, and because they have been expressly prohibited," said Ben Wizner, ACLU National Security Project attorney, in today's letter. "A program that does not exist cannot be 'degraded' by disclosures of information that is already public."
The case, Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen, is now on appeal. Because of the government's overbroad and improper use of the state secrets privilege, no CIA torture victim yet has had his day in court.
"The CIA and its contractors have used false claims of secrecy to avoid any judicial scrutiny for grave human rights violations," said Wizner. "The notion that the extraordinary rendition program could be discussed everywhere in the world except in a U.S. courtroom has always been absurd. Now that the CIA's detention and torture program has been publicly confirmed and officially terminated, there is no basis whatsoever for denying its victims their day in court."
In addition to Wizner, attorneys in the lawsuit are Steven R. Shapiro, Steven Watt and Jameel Jaffer of the national ACLU, Ann Brick of the ACLU of Northern California, Paul Hoffman of the law firm Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP and Hope Metcalf of the Yale Law School Lowenstein Clinic. In addition, Margaret L. Satterthwaite and Amna Akbar of the International Human Rights Clinic of New York University School of Law and Clive Stafford-Smith and Zachary Katznelson represent plaintiffs in this case.
A full copy of the letter is shown below and available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39407res20090421.html
More information on the ACLU's extraordinary rendition case against Jeppesen DataPlan is available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/29921res20070530.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
April 21, 2009
Molly Dwyer, Clerk of Court
Office of the Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939
Re: Mohamed et al v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., No. 08-15693 (argued February 9, 2009)
Dear Ms. Dwyer:
Plaintiffs-Appellants submit this letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), to advise the Court of supplemental authority that bears directly on the issues on appeal.
On April 16, 2009, President Obama declassified four legal memoranda prepared by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel that purported to authorize the CIA's use of abusive interrogation techniques. (The four memos are available at www.aclu.org/olcmemos.) The memos confirm the CIA's use of a range of coercive techniques, including prolonged sleep deprivation, forced nudity, dietary manipulation, and stress positions, as well as specific techniques used to set the "initial conditions" for interrogation through preparation and flight to CIA facilities. These techniques were employed by U.S. personnel against some of the plaintiffs in this litigation.
The government's invocation of the state secrets privilege in this case is predicated on an October 18, 2007 declaration by former CIA Director Michael Hayden. General Hayden's declaration asserts that, "[w]hile the President [Bush] acknowledged the existence of the CIA terrorist detention and interrogation program, the details of the program remain highly classified." Hayden Decl. ¶ 9 n.4, ER 738. General Hayden insisted that disclosing specific interrogation techniques "would degrade the effectiveness of the United States' intelligence gathering activities by, for example, providing terrorists information about interrogation methods that would assist their interrogation resistance programs." Id. at ¶ 24, ER 748.
That rationale no longer exists, because the methods are now public, and because they have been expressly prohibited. As President Obama explained upon declassification of the memos:
First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time.
Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos, April 16, 2009, available at . Indeed, the Executive Order issued by President Obama not only prohibited abusive interrogation techniques; it also directed that the "CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future." Exec. Ord. 13,491, 74 Fed. Reg. 4893 (Jan 22, 2009). A program that does not exist cannot be "degraded" by disclosures of information that is already public.
Respectfully submitted,
Ben Wizner
Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
cc: Douglas Letter
Michael P. Abate
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Appellate Staff
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room 7318
Washington, DC 20530
Daniel P. Collins
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
355 South Grand Ave., 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
National Security
Mohamed et al. v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.
National Security
Mohamed et al. v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.
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.