October, 23 2009, 11:59am EDT
ACLU To Honor Regina Kelly, Plaintiff In Landmark Civil Rights Case, With Baldwin Medal Of Liberty Award October 24 At New York Academy Of Sciences
Award-Winning Actress Alfre Woodard, Civil Rights Groups, ACLU Members And Staff To Recognize Kelly's Outstanding Contributions To Civil Liberties
NEW YORK
The American Civil Liberties Union will present the Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award to Regina Kelly,
an African-American single mother of four who, based on an unreliable
informant's false information, was arrested in a military-style drug
raid for felony cocaine distribution. Refusing to plead guilty, Kelly
fought the charges, resulting in a significant change in Texas law
whereby cases can no longer be prosecuted based solely on the claims of
a single confidential informant. The award will be presented on
Saturday, October 24 at 6:30 p.m. EDT at the New York Academy of
Sciences.
Kelly's story is the subject of a recent Hollywood film, "American Violet," released earlier this year in theaters nationwide. Academy Award nominee Alfre Woodard, who portrayed Kelly's mother in the movie, will join the ACLU in presenting the award.
Excessive paramilitary drug "sweeps"
by an out-of-control narcotics task force led to the arrest of almost
15 percent of the young African-American men in the small town of
Hearne, Texas in 2000. The busts were based solely on the
uncorroborated word of a single, drug-addicted, mentally ill
confidential informant coerced by police. Kelly was swept up in the
raids and, like other innocent people arrested, faced trumped-up drug
charges designed to illicit guilty pleas. Many innocent individuals
pled guilty to lesser charges rather than face decades behind bars and
risk trial before mostly white Texas juries. Kelly, however, refused to
plead guilty despite pressure from her court-appointed attorney at the
time and others in the community.
The ACLU represented Kelly and others in a successful civil rights lawsuit, Kelly v. Paschall,
against the Robertson County, Texas District Attorney and the local
narcotics task force after evidence of police and prosecutor corruption
and racist intent surfaced. Eventually, the charges against her were
dropped.
WHAT:
Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award Presentation
WHO:
Regina Kelly, Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty award recipient
Academy Award nominee Alfre Woodard, who portrayed Kelly's mother in the movie, to present the award to Kelly
Remarks by Susan Herman, President of the ACLU; Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project, who represented Kelly in Kelly v. Paschall; and Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU
WHEN:
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Doors open at 6:30 p.m. EDT
Program begins at 7:15 p.m.
WHERE:
New York Academy of Sciences
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street, 40th Floor
New York, NY
ADMISSION:
The event is closed to the general public. Press should RSVP to Maria Archuleta at marchuleta@aclu.org
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
Maduro Vows Venezuela Will Be a 'Colony Never Again' as Trump Intensifies Threats
He has described President Donald Trump's push for regime change as a "colonial threat" to "seize" Venezuela's oil.
Dec 02, 2025
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro remained defiant on Monday as US President Donald Trump plotted "next steps" against the South American nation with top national security brass.
Before thousands of Venezuelans at a rally in Caracas, the nation’s embattled president said he would not accept peace on US terms unless it came “with sovereignty, equality, and freedom.”
“We do not want a slave’s peace, nor the peace of colonies! Colony, never! Slaves, never!” he said.
The speech came days after Trump announced that the US would close Venezuelan airspace, which many interpreted as a final step before a series of strikes on the mainland.
The US has framed its military buildup in the Southern Caribbean as part of a campaign to stop drug smuggling, the same justification it has used to carry out the extrajudicial bombings of more than 20 boats in the region—which have killed at least 83 people—while disclosing zero proof of the victims' involvement with drug trafficking.
Trump has also accused Maduro of being the leader of the so-called "Cartel de los Soles," which he slapped with the label of “Foreign Terrorist Organization” last month, even though it is not an "organization" at all, but a media shorthand to refer to alleged connections between Venezuelan leaders and the drug trade.
Meanwhile, both US and international assessments have found that Venezuela is but a minor player in the global drug trade.
The US has amassed more than 15,000 troops outside Venezuela, the most it's sent to the region since 1989, when the administration of former President George H.W. Bush launched a land invasion of Panama to overthrow its drug-running dictator Manuel Noriega. Documents obtained by The Intercept last week suggested that the US seeks to maintain "a massive military presence in the Caribbean" for years to come.
"By a factor of at least 10, the US presence is too great for even an intensified anti-drug operation," wrote US national editor Edward Luce in the Financial Times on Tuesday.
Trump's motive for stopping drug trafficking was further called into question after he pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, a onetime US ally who was sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for helping to traffic at least 400 tons of cocaine to the US. The pardon was issued as part of Trump's efforts to influence Honduras' upcoming election to secure the victory of right-wing candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura.
The goal of regime change was essentially confirmed on Monday when Reuters reported that Trump had offered Maduro safe passage out of Venezuela if he were willing to abdicate power during a phone call on November 21.
“You can save yourself and those closest to you, but you must leave the country now,” Trump reportedly told Maduro.
Maduro reportedly said he'd be willing to accept the offer if his family members were granted complete amnesty and the US removed sanctions against them, as well as over 100 other Venezuelan officials. He also asked for the case against him before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be dropped.
Trump rejected that deal, and his offer of safe passage expired on Friday, the day before the US announced it had closed Venezuelan airspace. Trump confirmed to the press on Sunday that the talks had happened, but provided few additional details.
Maduro has categorically denied involvement with drug trafficking and has portrayed the White House's sabre-rattling as a "colonial threat." Last week, while brandishing the sword of South American anticolonial hero Simón Bolívar, he pledged that Venezuela would be a "colony never again."
On Sunday, he accused Trump of trying to "seize" the nation's oil reserves. He has called for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to step in to help the country counter what he said were “growing and illegal threats” from Trump.
Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves—about a fifth of the Earth’s total, and more than Iraq had at the time of the George W. Bush administration's 2003 invasion. However, US sanctions against Venezuela largely block American oil companies from accessing the reserves, which are controlled by the nation’s state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela. These sanctions, which have limited Venezuela's ability to export its most valuable natural resource, are considered one of the primary reasons for the nation's economic instability in recent years.
While at a rally in 2023, Trump said he regretted not having "taken [Venezuela] over" during his first term. "We would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door,” he said.
"We’ve seen this tragic play before," wrote Richard Steiner, a former marine professor with the University of Alaska, this weekend in Common Dreams. "The Bush administration justified its disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq with the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which, as it turned out, it didn’t. And as US Central Command commander General John Abizaid admitted about the Iraq war at the time: 'Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that.'"
"A similar pretext—this time 'drug interdiction'—is being used to justify a potential US invasion and regime change in Venezuela," he continued. "But this is not about stopping the flow of dangerous drugs, it is about actually increasing the flow of the dangerous drug some pushers want to keep us all hooked on—oil."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘We Must Stop Tinkering Around the Edges’: Van Hollen Makes Case for Medicare for All Amid ACA Fight
"Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen. "Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits."
Dec 02, 2025
Democratic US Sen. Chris Van Hollen on Monday became the latest lawmaker to champion Medicare for All as the best solution to the country's healthcare woes as tens of millions of Americans face soaring private insurance premiums.
In a social media post, Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that "we must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system," pointing to massive administrative costs and poor health outcomes under the for-profit status quo.
"Yes, let's extend the [Affordable Care Act] tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions," said Van Hollen. "Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits. We need Medicare for All."
We must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system.
Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions. Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits.
We need Medicare for All. pic.twitter.com/lszdO1vw2u
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) December 1, 2025
Van Hollen's remarks came as lawmakers continued to negotiate a possible deal to extend enhanced ACA subsidies that are set to lapse at the end of the year, an outcome that would further drive up healthcare costs for millions.
Politico reported late Monday that most senators "believe the chances for a bipartisan breakthrough" before a planned vote next week "are roughly zero."
"Instead, the most likely outcome is that Senate Democrats put up a bill that has little GOP support for a vote, if any, while Republicans offer a competing bill of their own," the outlet noted. "And even those partisan proposals remained in flux as lawmakers returned to Washington from a weeklong recess."
Neither side of the negotiations is offering much more than a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. Democratic leaders want a clean extension of the subsidies to avert catastrophic cost increases, while President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers are demanding new restrictions on the ACA that would make the system worse.
A handful of progressive lawmakers have used the worsening US healthcare crisis to make the case for a fundamental overhaul, one that would replace the for-profit model with a Medicare for All system that guarantees coverage to everyone for free at the point of service—and at a lower overall cost than the current system.
Van Hollen is the newest Senate cosponsor of the Medicare for All Act, formally backing the legislation led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) just last month.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the House, expressed "100%" agreement with Van Hollen's Monday post.
"Thank you, Chris Van Hollen!" Jayapal wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Furious Backlash' Inside Pentagon as Hegseth Seeks to Avoid Blame for Deadly War Crimes
"This is murder," said one legal expert.
Dec 02, 2025
Finger-pointing has reportedly begun inside the Pentagon as the Trump White House has tried to shield US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from taking the blame for a double-tap strike on a purported narcotics smuggling vessel that many legal experts say was an obvious war crime.
According to the Washington Post, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt set off "a furious backlash within the Defense Department" on Monday after she declared that Adm. Frank Bradley, not Hegseth, made the decision to launch a second strike to kill two men who had survived an initial strike on a purported drug boat off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago on September 2.
One defense official told the Post that Leavitt's statement was "'protect Pete' bullshit," while another said that the administration appeared to be "throwing us, the service members, under the bus."
Hegseth on Monday praised Bradley in a post on X as "a true professional" who "has my 100% support." However, Hegseth also appeared to make clear that Bradley was the person in the chain of command who made the final decision to authorize a second strike on the survivors.
"I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made—on the September 2 mission and all others since," Hegseth wrote.
Even Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume found Hegseth's praise for Bradley to be disingenuous, and he described it as "how to point the finger at someone while pretending to support him."
Bradley is set to give members of Congress a classified briefing on the strikes on Thursday amid bipartisan demands for more information.
The question of who authorized the second strike on the boat is crucial in determining who would face potential future war crimes charges. Earlier reporting from the Washington Post claimed that Hegseth gave a spoken order to "kill everybody" in the boat strikes, which was then interpreted as a justification for launching a second strike on the survivors.
Rachel VanLandingham, a military expert at Southwestern Law School, told Al-Jazeera that, regardless of who authorized the strike, it was clearly illegal.
"That second strike against individuals who are shipwrecked, clinging desperately to the side of their boat wreckage—that’s a war crime," she said. "It’s a war crime because those individuals who are shipwrecked have protected status under the law unless they were, for example, shooting a gun at somebody."
Todd Huntley, a former Staff Judge Advocate who served as a legal adviser on drone strikes carried out in Afghanistan and other nations by Joint Special Operations task forces, told The Intercept he had no doubt that the second strike on the survivors was a prosecutable offense under either federal law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
"This is about as clear of a case being patently illegal that subordinates would probably not be able to successfully use a following-orders defense," he explained.
Rebecca Ingber, professor at Cardozo Law School, told Time that authorizing the second strike violated "one of the most basic and longstanding rules" of the laws of armed conflict.
"It is absolutely unlawful to order that there will be no survivors,” she explained. "There is no actual armed conflict here, so this is murder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular