November, 18 2008, 05:18pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
James Freedland, ACLU, (212) 549-2666 or (646) 785-1894; media@aclu.org
Military And Civilian Attorneys Challenge The Military Commissions Act In Second Round Of Guantanamo Pretrial Motions
For
the second time this month, a group of military defense lawyers and a
team of civilian attorneys assembled by the American Civil Liberties
Union and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as
part of the John Adams Project filed several pretrial motions in
Guantanamo challenging the constitutionality of the military commission
prosecutions. The defense is protesting the legality of these ad hoc
tribunals, which may rely on coerced confessions and expressly preclude
prisoners from invoking the Geneva Conventions.
WASHINGTON
For
the second time this month, a group of military defense lawyers and a
team of civilian attorneys assembled by the American Civil Liberties
Union and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as
part of the John Adams Project filed several pretrial motions in
Guantanamo challenging the constitutionality of the military commission
prosecutions. The defense is protesting the legality of these ad hoc
tribunals, which may rely on coerced confessions and expressly preclude
prisoners from invoking the Geneva Conventions. The John Adams Project
is a partnership between the ACLU and the NACDL that sponsors expert
civilian counsel to assist the under-resourced military defense counsel
for several Guantanamo detainees.
"It has become painfully clear that the military commissions lack
meaningful constitutional protections and yet the Bush administration
is ramming these cases through the system in its final days - even as
President-elect Obama is making plans to shut down Guantanamo and these
sham proceedings," said Denny LeBoeuf, Director of the John Adams
Project. "History shows that federal civilian or military courts are
perfectly capable of handling terrorism prosecutions and accommodating
sensitive national security concerns, as has been demonstrated time and
time again."
Motions filed yesterday in the case of several 9/11 defendants focused
on the grave constitutional flaws underlying the Military Commissions
Act (MCA), charging that the tribunals lack the jurisdiction to
prosecute detainees for acts that do not constitute war crimes and that
the trial procedure established by the Department of Defense is so
deficient that it violates basic constitutional and international
standards of due process.
"These challenges cut to the heart of the commission's authority to
convict suspects in a system that resembles a trial in name only," said
Michael Price, National Security Coordinator for NACDL.
The filings come just one day after President-elect Obama reiterated his commitment to close Guantanamo Bay.
In a joint trial of five detainees implicated in 9/11, defense lawyers in United States v. Mohammed et al filed seven pretrial motions yesterday, bringing the total up to 73 since charges were referred in May. The motions include:
* Defense Motion to Dismiss for
Unlawful Command Influence by the President. The defense requested
dismissal of all charges because of evidence that President Bush, as
commander-in-chief, has unlawfully influenced the military commissions
through prejudicial and inflammatory public comments and by amassing
such unmovable public hostility towards the detainees that any
objective, disinterested person would harbor a significant doubt that a
fair trial in the military commissions can be achieved. The Commission
is duty-bound to ensure fair trials that will guarantee that a death
sentence will not be imposed due to the passion and prejudice that has
been injected into the proceedings by the President of the United
States.
* Defense Motion to
Dismiss Charge for Lack of Jurisdiction. Settled Supreme Court
precedent reiterates that Congress may only use military commissions to
prosecute war crimes. The Military Commissions Act unconstitutionally
creates jurisdiction to try detainees for conduct not traditionally
recognized as a war crime. As a result, the MCA is overbroad and
unconstitutional, and the military commissions lack jurisdiction to
consider such charges.
- Defense Motion to Dismiss (Ex Post Facto Application of Unlawful
Combatant Status). This motion rejects the concept or category of
detainees dubbed "alien unlawful combatants," arguing that there is no
basis for this classification under international humanitarian law, and
that prior to September 11, 2001, no such category existed in American
jurisprudence. The MCA simply invents a new class of prisoner in order
to substantially reduce the elements and burden of proof necessary to
convict and punish, including by execution, and subvert the presumption
of innocence by altering rules of evidence to make it easier for the
government to convict. This retrospective application of such changes
in the law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution (Art.
I, Sec. 9, cl. 3).- Defense Motion to Dismiss (MCA Exceeds Congress' War Powers). In Boumediene v. Bush,
the Supreme Court rejected the government's contention that it had "the
power to switch the Constitution on or off at will" and that it could
treat Guantanamo Bay as a law-free zone. In this motion, the defense
makes a related point: Congress cannot establish a Constitution-free
zone simply by calling a criminal proceeding a "military commission."- Defense Motion to Dismiss (The Commission Is Not a "Regularly
Constituted Court"). This motion seeks to dismiss all charges against
because the Military Commissions Act and the Rules for Military
Commissions fail to provide the minimum standards of due process
mandated by the Supreme Court in Hamdan, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and customary international law. The
commissions violate the right to equal protection and the right to due
process, denying the accused adequate time and facilities to prepare a
defense and permitting the admissibility of coerced confessions,
including those possibly obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment.
The motions were filed on behalf of detainees
Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi and Ramzi bin al Shibh. Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, Ali Abdul Azziz Ali and Walid bin Attash reserved the right
to join at a later time once the filings are translated into Arabic and
the detainees have had an opportunity to consult with counsel. The
linguists provided by the military have been unable to accomplish the
translations, and the ability of defense attorneys to meet with their
clients remains extremely restricted.
More information on the John Adams Project is available online at: www.aclu.org/johnadams
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Step Closer': Arizona House Votes to Repeal 1864 Abortion Ban
"With a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever," one state campaigner said of a November ballot measure.
Apr 24, 2024
Three Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives on Wednesday joined with Democrats to advance legislation that would repeal an 1864 ban on abortion—a development rights advocates welcomed while stressing that the fight is far from over.
The 32-28 vote on House Bill 2677—with GOP Reps. Tim Dunn (25), Matt Gress (4), and Justin Wilmeth (2) voting in favor—was the third attempt in as many weeks to pass repeal legislation since the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ban.
"The state Senate could vote on the repeal as early as next Wednesday, after the bill comes on the floor for a 'third reading,' as is required under chamber rules," according toNBC News. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Wednesday toldThe Washington Post that "I am hopeful the Senate does the right thing and sends it to my desk so I can sign it."
Applauding the House passage of H.B. 2677, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona president and CEO Angela Florez said that "today, Arizona is one step closer to repealing the state's Civil War-era total abortion ban. While the repeal still must pass the Senate, this is a major win for reproductive freedom."
"We must celebrate today's vote in support of abortion rights and harness our enthusiasm to spread the word and urge lawmakers in the Senate to support this necessary repeal bill," she continued. "Despite this step forward, Arizonans cannot stop fighting."
Florez noted that "even with the repeal of the Civil War-era ban, the state will still have a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that denies people access to critical care. And lawmakers continue to attack Arizonans' ability to access reproductive healthcare. Our right to control our bodies and lives is hanging on by a thread."
"Thankfully, voters will have the opportunity to take back control if the Arizona Abortion Access Act is on the ballot this November," she added. "Abortion bans are out-of-step with the will of Arizonans and will force pregnant people to leave their communities for essential healthcare. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona will continue fighting to ensure everyone has the right to make decisions about their health and futures."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.
The coalition supporting the amendment, Arizona for Abortion Access, highlighted on social media that the House-approved bill "did not include the emergency clause required to stop the 1864 ban from taking effect on June 8," meaning H.B. 2677 wouldn't apply until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.
Coalition campaign manager Cheryl Bruce said that "with a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever. We remain committed to taking these decisions out of the hands of extremist politicians."
Arizona is one of multiple states where rights advocates are promoting abortion rights ballot measures this cycle. Reproductive freedom is also dominating political races at all levels, including the presidential contest. Democratic President Joe Biden is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump in November.
"Donald Trump is responsible for Arizona's abortion ban. Women in the state are still living under a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and have been stripped of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions," said Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' reelection campaign manager.
While the presumptive GOP nominee has tried to distance himself from the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of a 160-year-old abortion ban, he has also campaigned on his three appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who helped reverse Roe v. Wade.
"Trump brags that he is 'proudly' the person responsible for these bans and if he retakes power, the chaos and cruelty he has created will only get worse in all 50 states," Chávez Rodriguez said. "President Biden and Vice President Harris are the only candidates who will stop him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular