SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 09 2009, 03:30pm EDT
Contact:
Linda Paris, (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
House Subcommittee Considers Bill To End "Life Without Parole" For Children
A
key House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing today on a bill to help
end the practice of sentencing children to life in prison without the
possibility of parole. This legislation, known as H.R. 2289, the
Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009, would deny
funding to states that refuse to offer a parole option to juvenile
offenders and authorizes state grants to improve legal representation
for youths charged with life sentences.
key House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing today on a bill to help
end the practice of sentencing children to life in prison without the
possibility of parole. This legislation, known as H.R. 2289, the
Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009, would deny
funding to states that refuse to offer a parole option to juvenile
offenders and authorizes state grants to improve legal representation
for youths charged with life sentences.
WASHINGTON
A
key House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing today on a bill to help
end the practice of sentencing children to life in prison without the
possibility of parole. This legislation, known as H.R. 2289, the
Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009, would deny
funding to states that refuse to offer a parole option to juvenile
offenders and authorizes state grants to improve legal representation
for youths charged with life sentences. The hearing was conducted by
the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security.
key House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing today on a bill to help
end the practice of sentencing children to life in prison without the
possibility of parole. This legislation, known as H.R. 2289, the
Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2009, would deny
funding to states that refuse to offer a parole option to juvenile
offenders and authorizes state grants to improve legal representation
for youths charged with life sentences. The hearing was conducted by
the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security.
The following can be attributed to Jennifer Bellamy, ACLU Legislative Counsel:
"The
United States is the only nation in the world that sentences children
to life without the possibility of parole, denying children convicted
of serious crimes a second chance and resulting in interminably long
prison sentences.. This legislation restores discretion to judges,
juries and parole boards, providing young people with an opportunity
for rehabilitation. If passed, the law would bring the United States
back in line with the rest of the world community."
United States is the only nation in the world that sentences children
to life without the possibility of parole, denying children convicted
of serious crimes a second chance and resulting in interminably long
prison sentences.. This legislation restores discretion to judges,
juries and parole boards, providing young people with an opportunity
for rehabilitation. If passed, the law would bring the United States
back in line with the rest of the world community."
The following can be attributed to Steven Watt, staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program:
"The fact that the U.S. is the only
country in the world still sentencing children to spend the rest of
their lives in jail with no possibility of parole is a stain on our
country's record, as well as a violation of our international legal
obligations. For the U.S. to regain its status as a leader on human
rights, we must recognize what the rest of the world already knows -
that children should be afforded special protection and treatment,
including the opportunity for rehabilitation and a second chance."
country in the world still sentencing children to spend the rest of
their lives in jail with no possibility of parole is a stain on our
country's record, as well as a violation of our international legal
obligations. For the U.S. to regain its status as a leader on human
rights, we must recognize what the rest of the world already knows -
that children should be afforded special protection and treatment,
including the opportunity for rehabilitation and a second chance."
To visit the ACLU page on juvenile life without parole page, go to www.aclu.org/endjlwop.
ACLU letter to the CERD Committee is available at: https://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/childrensrights/39787leg20090604.html
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
Led by Demise in US Under Trump, 'Democracy Around the World Continues to Weaken'
“Democracy faces a perfect storm of autocratic resurgence and acute uncertainty," said Kevin Casas-Zamora of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Sep 11, 2025
A new report from a Swedish think tank warns that democracy is backsliding all across the world, led by the US under President Donald Trump.
The Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) on Wednesday published findings from its annual Global State of Democracy report that found democracy is declining in 94 countries around the world, representing 54% of all nations the think tank analyzed.
"Democracy faces a perfect storm of autocratic resurgence and acute uncertainty, due to massive social and economic changes," Kevin Casas-Zamora, secretary-general of IDEA, told The Guardian. "To fight back, democracies need to protect key elements of democracy, like elections and the rule of law, but also profoundly reform government so that it delivers fairness, inclusion, and shared prosperity."
The US has shown itself to be in a particularly precarious position, as IDEA ranked the country well behind several other nations that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the categories of rights, representation, and the rule of law.
The report includes data only from 2024, before the start of Trump's second term, but it makes note of further negative developments that have occurred since his return to power.
"The rule of law has come under intensified pressure under the second Trump administration in the USA," IDEA writes. "Since Trump took office in January 2025, his administration has issued a series of executive orders attempting to overhaul key aspects of governance, including the day-to-day functioning of the federal civil service, the country’s migration and asylum systems, and the balance of power between federal and state-level governments."
IDEA adds that the administration has at times "disregarded or circumvented" court rulings, which has led to concerns about the rule of law in the US crumbling even further.
"The degree to which the balance of powers is respected in the months and years to come will be a key determinant of whether Rule of Law indicators in the USA remain resilient or continue to deteriorate," the report stated.
In a separate interview with German publication Deutsche Welle, Casas-Zamora explained why developments in the US are dangerous not just to American citizens, but citizens in democracies around the planet.
"Some of the things that we saw during the election at the end of last year and in the first few months of 2025 are fairly disturbing," he said.
The first months of Trump's term were characterized by his attempts to seize constitutional powers from Congress by impounding federal funds, challenging the judiciary's right to rule against the administration's actions, and blatantly disobeying court orders.
"Since what happens in the US has this ability to go global," said Casas-Zamora, "this does not bode well for democracy globally."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senator Says New Details of Venezuela Bombing Reveal 'Trump's Growing Lawlessness'
"At the very same time that Trump is ordering strikes on a boat in Venezuela, he's cutting, gutting the programs that we use to interrupt the drug trade coming through Central America and Mexico," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Sep 11, 2025
As new details emerged about the boat that the Trump administration bombed last week off the Venezuelan coast, legal experts and lawmakers said Wednesday that the White House's case for carrying out the unprecedented military strike against suspected drug smugglers had grown even weaker—with new evidence showing the vessel had turned away from the US, back toward Venezuela, just before it was bombed.
Legal analysts have said in the days since the attack that killed 11 people that the bombing amounted to an extrajudicial murder, dismissing President Donald Trump's claim that the White House has "tapes of [the victims] speaking" that proved they were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua—the only "evidence" that's been made public.
Even if the 11 people killed were members of the gang—which Trump has classified as a terrorist organization despite US intelligence agencies' finding that Tren de Aragua is a relatively low-level gang without connections to Venezuelan government—the administration used military force to stop a suspected criminal enterprise, instead of following law enforcement procedures, experts have said.
In a video posted on social media Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said it was highly unlikely that the boat was carrying fentanyl, which killed an estimated 48,422 people in the US in 2024 and which is primary trafficked through Central America and Mexico—not Venezuela.
"His stated reason for taking the strikes to try to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, makes no sense as the centerpiece of a counternarcotics strategy," said Murphy. "At the very same time that Trump is ordering these strikes on the boat in Venezuela, he's cutting, gutting the programs that we use to interrupt the drug trade coming through Central America and Mexico. We have dramatically fewer resources to stop fentanyl coming to the United States while we're taking airstrikes on a boat off the Venezeuelan coast."
The strike, said Murphy, particularly in light of the new information disclosed by US officials, is "another sign of Trump's growing lawlessness."
With US officials disclosing Wednesday that the boat had not been headed toward the US when it was bombed, a former military attorney told The New York Times that the new information further undermined Trump's claim that he ordered the strike to stop a threat to US national security.
"If someone is retreating, where's the 'imminent threat' then?" Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, a retired judge advocate general for the Navy, told the Times. "Where’s the 'self-defense’? They are gone if they ever existed—which I don’t think they did."
The people aboard the vessel had turned back after spotting US planes that had been surveilling them "for a significant period of time," The Intercept reported. Three sources including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has expressed outrage over the strike, said the boat was attacked by at least one drone, and The Intercept reported that the victims survived an initial attack before being killed in the second one.
The strikes were conducted after the boat turned back toward the Venezuelan shore.
Officials told the Times that a 29-second video Trump released that was purported to show several clips of a speedboat racing toward the US before an explosion, left out key details of the event.
"It does not show the boat turning after the people aboard were apparently spooked by an aircraft above them, nor does it show the military making repeated strikes on the vessel even after disabling it," the Times reported.
A high-ranking Pentagon official told The Intercept that even if the White House's claim that the boat's passengers were trafficking drugs is true, the strike was a "criminal attack on civilians."
"The U.S. is now directly targeting civilians. Drug traffickers may be criminals but they aren’t combatants,” the official said. “When Trump fired the military’s top lawyers the rest saw the writing on the wall, and instead of being a critical firebreak they are now a rubber stamp complicit in this crime.”
US officials have yet to share information confirming where the vessel was headed; before the administration began claiming it was headed to US shores and driven by "evil narco-terrorists trying to poison our homeland," as one White House spokesperson said, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters the boat was likely headed to another country in the Caribbean.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After 'Years of Neglected Oversight,' House Votes to Repeal Authorization Used by Presidents to Wage 'Forever Wars'
One foreign policy expert said these congressional authorizations "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
Sep 11, 2025
Almost exactly 24 years after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US House of Representatives voted Tuesday to finally repeal a pair of more than two-decade-old congressional authorizations that have allowed presidents to carry out military attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In a 261-167 vote, with 49 Republicans joining all Democrats, the House passed an amendment to the next military spending bill to rescind the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress in the leadup to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 2003 War in Iraq.
The decision is a small act of resistance in Congress after what the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein described in Foreign Policy magazine as "years of neglected oversight" by Congress over the "steady expansion of presidential war-making authority."
As Weinstein explains, these AUMFs, originally meant to give presidents narrow authority to target terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and use military force against Saddam Hussein, "have been stretched far beyond their original purposes" by presidents to justify the use of unilateral military force across the Middle East.
President George W. Bush used the 2002 authorization, which empowered him to use military force against Iraq, to launch a full invasion and military occupation of the country. Bush would stretch its purview throughout the remainder of his term to apply the AUMF to any threat that could be seen as stemming from Iraq.
After Congress refused to pass a new authorization for the fight against ISIS—an offshoot of al-Qaeda—President Barack Obama used the ones passed during the War on Terror to expand US military operations in Syria. They also served as the basis of his use of drone assassinations in the Middle East and North Africa throughout his term.
During his first term, President Donald Trump used those authorizations as the legal justification to intensify the drone war and to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria. He then used it to carry out the reckless assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
And even while calling for the repeal of the initial 2001 and 2002 authorizations, former President Joe Biden used them to continue many of the operations started by Trump.
"These AUMFs," Weinstein said, "have become like holy writ, documents frozen in time yet endlessly reinterpreted to justify new military action."
The amendment to repeal the authorizations was introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).
Meeks described the authorizations as "long obsolete," saying they "risk abuse by administrations of either party."
Roy described the repeal of the amendment as something "strongly opposed by the, I'll call it, defense hawk community." But, he said, "the AUMF was passed in '02 to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that guy's been dead... and we're now still running under an '02 AUMF. That's insane. We should repeal that."
"For decades, presidents abused these AUMFs to send Americans to fight in forever wars in the Middle East," said Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) shortly before voting for the amendment. "Congress must take back its war powers authority and vote to repeal these AUMFs."
Although this House vote theoretically curbs Trump's war-making authority, it comes attached to a bill that authorizes $893 billion worth of new war spending, which 17 Democrats joined all but four Republicans Republicans in supporting Wednesday.
The vote will also have no bearing on the question of President Donald Trump's increasing use of military force without Congressional approval to launch unilateral strikes—including last week's bombing of a vessel that the administration has claimed, without clear evidence, was trafficking drugs from Venezuela and strikes conducted in June against Iran, without citing any congressional authorization.
Alexander McCoy, a Marine veteran and public policy advocate at Public Citizen, said, "the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs" are "good to remove," but pointed out that it's "mostly the 2001 AUMF that is exploited for forever wars."
"Not to mention, McCoy added, "we have reached a point where AUMFs almost seem irrelevant, because Congress has shown no willingness whatsoever to punish the president for just launching military actions without one, against Iran, and now apparently against Venezuela."
In the wake of Trump's strikes against Iran, Democrats introduced resolutions in the House and Senate aimed at requiring him to obtain Congressional approval, though Republicans and some Democratic war hawks ultimately stymied them.
However, Dylan Williams, the vice president of the Center for International Policy, argued that the repeal of the AUMF was nevertheless "a major development in the effort to finally rein in decades of unchecked use of military force by presidents of both parties."
The vote, Williams said, required lawmakers "to show where they stand on restraining US military adventurism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular