October, 21 2009, 01:57pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Brenda Bowser Soder,bowsersoderb@humanrightsfirst.org,O -202/370-3323, C - 301/906-4460
Rights Group Welcomes Preservation of Civilian Court Option for Guantanamo Detainee Trials
Human Rights First welcomes President Obama's anticipated signature
of legislation that will keep open the option of bringing Guantanamo
detainees to the United States for trial. Following yesterday
afternoon's Senate passage of a homeland security appropriations
conference report that the House approved last week, the President's
signature places some restrictions on transfers, but will continue to
allow detainees to be transferred to justice in U.S. civilian courts.
"It appears that the strong track record of U.S.
WASHINGTON
Human Rights First welcomes President Obama's anticipated signature
of legislation that will keep open the option of bringing Guantanamo
detainees to the United States for trial. Following yesterday
afternoon's Senate passage of a homeland security appropriations
conference report that the House approved last week, the President's
signature places some restrictions on transfers, but will continue to
allow detainees to be transferred to justice in U.S. civilian courts.
"It appears that the strong track record of U.S. civilian federal
courts in handling complex terrorism cases is beginning to win out over
fear-mongering on Capitol Hill," stated Devon Chaffee, advocacy counsel
for Human Rights First. "In this bill Congress has echoed President
Obama's expressed confidence in the fact that U.S. civilian courts are
a proper forum for trials of Guantanamo detainees suspected of
terrorism crimes."
Human Rights First noted that the homeland security appropriations
conference report shows progress in the right direction, but cautioned
that some lawmakers continue to actively pursue roadblocks to trying
terrorists in the U.S. justice system. For example, last week, Senator
Graham introduced an amendment on the Commerce, Justice, and Science
Appropriations Act that would prohibit the use of funds to try the
alleged conspirators in the 9/11 attacks in U.S. civilian courts. That
proposal received criticism from four retired military leaders,
admirals and generals, who sent President Obama a letter urging him to pursue prosecution of the 9/11 defendants in U.S. civilian courts.
Yesterday beyond the halls of Congress, and in a move praised by
Human Rights First, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the
case of the Chinese Uighur detainees who cannot be repatriated to China
because of the risk of torture or other abuse. Thirteen Uighurs remain
at Guantanamo though the Department of Defense has determined that they
do not pose a threat to the United States. Chaffee observed, "The
Supreme Court was right to take this important case. The
administration's assertion that the Uighurs are free to leave to
Guantanamo Bay is clearly absurd. The U.S. government illegally
detained these men and forcibly transferred them to Guantanamo -- it is
the U.S. government's responsibility to find a suitable site for their
relocation."
Human Rights First has consistently called for Guantanamo detainees
to be tried in U.S. courts. In July 2009, the organization released In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Court -2009 Update and Recent Developments,
a comprehensive, fact-based assessment of the capability of federal
courts to handle terrorism cases written by former federal prosecutors
Richard B. Zabel and James J. Benjamin, Jr.--now partners at Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. For more information about this work,
visit https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/guantanamo/index.aspx.
Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Human Rights First believes that building respect for human rights and the rule of law will help ensure the dignity to which every individual is entitled and will stem tyranny, extremism, intolerance, and violence.
LATEST NEWS
Rights Groups Warn FBI Probe of Anti-ICE Activity Portends New Crackdown on Lawful Dissent
"People who are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing can be subjected to surveillance or investigation," said one critic of the FBI memo. "That imposes stigma."
Dec 19, 2025
Rights groups are expressing alarm over new reporting about the FBI carrying out nationwide anti-terrorism probes against activists protesting against federal immigration enforcement officers.
The Guardian on Friday published a report detailing an internal FBI document that outlines "criminal and domestic terrorism investigations” into “threats against immigration enforcement activity” in 23 regions across the US.
The FBI document, which was dated November 14, is a response to National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The FBI report cites two violent attacks against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in Texas to argue that there has been "an escalation in violence compared to past attacks, which primarily resulted in property damage."
Additionally, the FBI report directs agents to look for "indicators" that an anti-ICE activist may be planning to carry out an attack on immigration enforcement officials, including "stockpiling or distributing firearms," as well as using encrypted messaging apps and "conducting online research" about immigration agents' movements and locations.
The last two of these three "indicators" are raising red flags for rights groups, which are warning that they could be used as the pretext for mass infringement of constitutional rights to speak freely and protest peacefully.
Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Guardian that the FBI appeared to be treating US citizens with suspicion for engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment.
"It is not illegal to do online research about the publicly available movements of government officers or to communicate through encrypted apps like Signal or WhatsApp," she said. "While the document refers to using encrypted communications to ‘discuss operational planning’, that term is undefined and ambiguous, leaving it open what kinds of conversations might draw FBI scrutiny."
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, expressed concern to the Guardian that the FBI document is "infused with vague and over-broad language, which was exactly our concern about NSPM-7 in the first place."
"It invites law enforcement suspicion and investigation based on purely First Amendment-protected beliefs and activities," Shamsi explained. "People who are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing can be subjected to surveillance or investigation. That imposes stigma. It can wrongly immesh people in the criminal legal system."
Adam Goldstein, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), published an analysis on Thursday that criticized a recently unearthed memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi that fleshed out the concepts laid out in NSPM-7.
In particular, Goldstein argued that Bondi's memo risks using law enforcement to investigate people based on their political ideologies rather than on suspicion that they are engaging in criminal activity.
"People who conspire to engage in actual criminal behavior should be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted," Goldstein wrote. "But these memos aren’t narrowly focused on groups that exist for the purpose of ideologically motivated violence, which act to bring about violence; they broadly condemn particular viewpoints and lay a foundation for a government watchlist of American groups which share those viewpoints."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Do Not Become Inured': Death Toll From Trump Boat Strikes Tops 100 After Latest Murders
"This is premeditated killing outside of armed conflict. We call that murder," said one expert.
Dec 19, 2025
The US military on Thursday bombed two vessels in the eastern Pacific, killing at least five people and pushing the death toll from the Trump administration's lawless military campaign in international waters above 100.
Thursday's strikes marked the third time this week that the US military has bombed boats operated by people accused, without evidence, of smuggling drugs. None of the dozens of strikes that have now killed at least 105 people since early September have been authorized by Congress, and legal experts at home and abroad have said the attacks clearly constitute murder.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, warned against allowing the Trump administration to normalize and escape accountability for its extrajudicial killings.
"The lawless killing spree continues. Do not become inured," Finucane wrote on social media. "This is premeditated killing outside of armed conflict. We call that murder."
As with previous attacks, the Trump administration attached a short video clip to its announcement of the Thursday strikes, which came amid mounting fears that President Donald Trump is dragging the US into an illegal war with Venezuela and possibly other South American countries.
On Dec. 18, at the direction of @SecWar Pete Hegseth, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted lethal kinetic strikes on two vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters. Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known… pic.twitter.com/CcCyOgYRto
— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) December 19, 2025
But US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is refusing to release footage of at least one of the deadly strikes that he authorized with a verbal order to "kill everybody" onboard the targeted vessel.
"We’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public,” Hegseth told reporters earlier this week, referring to footage of a September 2 attack in the Caribbean that killed the survivors clinging to wreckage from an initial strike.
The ACLU's Jeffrey Stein and Christopher Anders wrote Thursday that "if a president can murder civilians at sea and keep the legal justifications secret, we should all be concerned."
"The harm is even worse when basic factual evidence, such as full videos and orders, is also hidden from the American people," they continued. "Transparency can’t wait while the government murders more people. That’s why we’re asking everyone to send a message to their representatives in Congress urging them to act now. Demanding answers, insisting on public hearings, and refusing to accept secret law as a license to kill, is how we can all help stop these unlawful strikes and defend the basic principle that no one—not even the president—is above the law."
The latest bombings came a day after House Republicans blocked a pair of resolutions aimed at stopping the Trump administration's unauthorized boat strikes and march to war with Venezuela.
In the Senate, Ruben Gallego is pushing a new resolution that "orders the US Armed Forces to immediately cease hostilities against vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean unless authorized by Congress."
"If the president believes the use of military force is necessary, he needs to come talk to Congress first and make that case. The decision to use military force is one that requires serious debate, and the power to declare war unambiguously belongs to Congress under the Constitution,” said Gallego. “As an Iraq war veteran, I know the costs of rushing into an unnecessary war and that the American people will not stand for it.”
But Trump insisted Thursday that he doesn't "have to" go to Congress before taking military action.
Asked if war with Venezuela is a possibility, Trump said, "I don’t rule it out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICC Slams New US Sanctions on Judges as 'Flagrant Attack' on Rule of Law
"When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk," the court said.
Dec 18, 2025
The International Criminal Court and human rights groups on Thursday condemned new US sanctions on two more of the tribunal's judges, which brought the total number of sanctioned ICC jurists to 11 amid the Trump administration's escalating campaign of retaliation against people and institutions seeking to hold Israel and the United States accountable for their alleged crimes.
"Today, I am designating two International Criminal Court (ICC) judges, Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia, pursuant to Executive Order 14203, 'Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,'" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's February edict.
"These individuals have directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals, without Israel’s consent, including voting with the majority in favor of the ICC’s ruling against Israel’s appeal on December 15," Rubio added, referencing Monday's rejection of an Israeli bid to block a probe into alleged war crimes committed during the genocidal two-year war on Gaza.
Although Israel and the US are not ICC members and do not recognize the Hague-based tribunal's jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute governing the court. The treaty says that individuals from nonsignatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
Last year, the ICC issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation in a war that has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing.
The Trump administration had previously sanctioned nine other ICC jurists: Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan (United Kingdom), Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan (Fiji), Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang (Senegal), Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru), Judge Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou (Benin), Judge Beti Hohler (Slovenia), Judge Nicolas Yann Guillou (France), and Judge Kimberly Prost (Canada).
The affected judges have recently described how the US sanctions have left them and their families—who are also blacklisted—"wiped out economically and socially."
Responding to the new US punitive measures, the ICC said Thursday that "these sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates pursuant to the mandate conferred by its states parties from across regions."
"Such measures targeting judges and prosecutors who were elected by the states parties undermine the rule of law," the court continued. "When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk."
"As previously stated, the court stands firmly behind its personnel and behind victims of unimaginable atrocities," the ICC added. "It will continue to carry out its mandate with independence and impartiality, in full accordance with the Rome Statute and in the interest of victims of international crimes."
Human Rights Watch also slammed the new US sanctions, which the group called "the latest attempt by the Trump administration to blatantly interfere with independent justice."
The US government has imposed sanctions on two additional ICC judges in order to shield Israeli officials from charges of grave international crimes.These sanctions are the latest attempt by the Trump administration to blatantly interfere with independent justice.
[image or embed]
— Human Rights Watch (@hrw.org) December 18, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Amnesty International's Center for International Justice lamented that "once again, the US administration is attacking international justice—sanctioning two ICC judges. This cannot be normalized."
"States must firmly oppose US threats and sanctions and uphold the court’s ability to pursue accountability," the group added, "even against the most powerful perpetrators."Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


