January, 21 2010, 03:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Frida Berrigan, 347-683-4928, frida.berrigan@gmail.com
Matt Daloisio, 201-264-4424, daloisio@earthlink.net
42 Arrested at U.S. Capitol in Day of Action to Denounce Obama's Broken Promises on Guantanamo, America's Broken Laws, and the Breaking of Lives by Torture
WASHINGTON
In a dramatic protest, 42 activists with Witness
Against Torture were arrested this afternoon at the U.S. Capitol. The
protest comes on the eve of the since-voided deadline President Obama
had set for closing the prison camp at Guantanamo.
Those arrested on the Capitol steps held banners reading "Broken
Promises, Broken Laws, Broken Lives." Inside the Capitol, 14
activists performed a "memorial service" for the three men whose
deaths at Guantanamo in 2006 were initially reported as suicides and
callously described as "acts of asymmetrical warfare" by military
officials. New reports provide strong evidence that the men may have
been tortured to death at a CIA secret prison in Guantanamo.
The ceremony brought the names of the men-- Salah Ahmed Al-Salami,
Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi and Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani-- into the Capitol
Rotunda, where deceased presidents have lay in state. "We perform this
ceremony to recognize the humanity of those whose lives have been
broken by our government's policies of torture and indefinite
detention," says Jerica Arents of Chicago, Illinois, one of those
arrested in the Capitol.
Witness Against Torture has called for an immediate, independent
investigation of the deaths, as it has called for the criminal
investigation of all those who allegedly designed, executed, and
carried out torture policies.
Most of the 42 arrested at the Capitol did not carry identification,
taking instead the names of men at Guantanamo through arrest and
processing. "Taking the name of Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif is a
necessary and real way of bringing his story to Congress," says Joshua
Brollier, a co-coordinator with Voices for Creative Nonviolence in
Chicago, Illinois. "Adnan was tortured and continues to be held after
eight years without charge or trial. It boggles the mind and breaks
the heart. It's time for Congress and the Obama administration to make
and fulfill a plan for his release." Brollier and others from Voices
will continue in Washington through February 2, participating in the
Peaceable Assembly Campaign to pressure Obama administration and
Congress to explore alternatives to U.S. militarism.
The actions at the Capitol followed a march of "Guantanamo prisoners"
dressed in orange jumpsuits and black hoods that began at the White
House and stopped at the Supreme Court before going to Capitol
grounds, home to the U.S. Congress. "Congress has played a horrible
role in refusing to check the power of the president and in supporting
torture," commented Matt Daloisio of New York City, a Witness Against
Torture organizer. "But it was important to pass by all of the
government institutions that have failed to uphold justice and protect
the rule of law."
Members of Witness Against Torture began a Fast for Justice on Monday,
January 11-- the date in 2002 when the first men were brought to
Guantanamo under the Bush administration's "war on terror."
One-hundred fifty people from around the country joined the 12 day
fast, which will end on Friday, January 22, the promised day for
Guantanamo's closure.
"We were so hopeful last year," says Christine Gaunt, a grandmother
and third generation farmer from Grinnell, Iowa, who was arrested at
the Capitol. "But Obama has broken his promise to close Guantanamo.
I am acting today because I am horrified and ashamed that this illegal
prison continues to exist, and that those responsible for torture have
not been held to account. I am using my body to demand that my
government stop the insanity of torture and illegal detention."
Witness Against Torture is a grassroots movement that came into being in December 2005 when 24 activists walked to Guantanamo to visit the prisoners and condemn torture policies. Since then, it has engaged in public education, community outreach, and non-violent direct action. For the first 100 days of the Obama administration, the group held a daily vigil at the White House, encouraging the new President to uphold his commitments to shut down Guantanamo.
LATEST NEWS
'Dangerous and Cruel': Trump VA Quietly Bans Abortion Even for Rape and Health Risks
"This decision endangers the health, lives, and futures of the people who have served our country—and it proves what we've long warned: Trump and his allies won't stop until they've imposed a national abortion ban."
Dec 23, 2025
Defenders of reproductive rights on Tuesday responded with alarm after President Donald Trump's administration quietly imposed an abortion ban at the US Department of Veterans Affairs following a legal opinion penned by a deputy assistant attorney general.
After the 2022 Roe v. Wade reversal, the Biden administration allowed the VA to provide abortion counseling and care for service members and beneficiaries in cases of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy threatened the health of the patient. Once Trump returned to power, the department proposed a rule that would end those exceptions—though the VA would continue treating ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages, and allow abortions "when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."
Although that rule hasn't taken effect, the US Department of Justice last week issued a memo in which Joshua Craddock of the Office of Legal Counsel concludes that the 2022 policy wasn't legally valid. The VA on Monday issued its own internal memo—obtained by the legal group Democracy Forward and reported by MS NOW—announcing immediate compliance with the DOJ's opinion, effectively implementing the proposed rule without finishing the formal process for doing so.
"DOJ's opinion states that VA is not legally authorized to provide abortions, and VA is complying with it immediately," Pete Kasperowicz, press secretary for the VA, confirmed to MS NOW, without answering further questions. "DOJ's opinion is consistent with VA's proposed rule, which continues to work its way through the regulatory process."
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement that "denying veterans essential healthcare and abortion access—even in cases of rape or serious health risk—after they have sacrificed so much for our country is callous and inhumane."
Democracy Forward represented Minority Veterans of America in submitting a comment opposing the proposed rule, and Perryman pledged that "we will continue to fight its implementation now that it has been finalized."
"This abortion ban makes it clear that the Trump administration will always choose its dangerous political agenda, even if the cost is veterans and their families' access to essential care."
Minority Veterans of America co-founder and executive director Lindsay Church also denounced the "dangerous and cruel" policy shift.
"Veterans face unique challenges that make it critical for us to be able to access abortion care, including possible exposure to toxic chemicals, waiting to start a family until after our service, and experiencing sexual assault," she said. "Abortion should not be a political issue—it is necessary, life-saving medical care, and denying this care will put veterans and their loved ones' lives in danger."
Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center, warned that "the Trump administration is confirming what we've always known: its promise to leave abortion to the states was a lie. No one is safe from their anti-abortion crusade, not even our nation's veterans."
Goss Graves called on federal lawmakers to "pass legislation to reverse this harmful new policy and reinstate abortion access to all veterans and their loved ones who depend on the VA for care," though such a bill is unlikely to advance in the current Republican-controlled Congress.
Reproductive Freedom for All president and CEO Mini Timmaraju similarly declared that "this decision endangers the health, lives, and futures of the people who have served our country—and it proves what we've long warned: Trump and his allies won't stop until they've imposed a national abortion ban."
Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, argued that "everyone should be appalled by this heartless policy. President Trump said he would leave abortion to the states, but he continues to seize new opportunities to restrict it nationally."
This means the VA won't cover abortions EVEN in the case of rape, incest, or serious threat to the health of the patient. The DOJ memo was authored by Josh Craddock, one of the chief legal advocates for fetal personhood, i.e. imposing a nationwide abortion ban through the courts.
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 23, 2025 at 2:18 PM
Planned Parenthood Federation of America highlighted that "this ban goes into effect as the Trump administration and its allies in Congress continue a full-scale attack on access to sexual and reproductive health: stripping veterans of essential healthcare, slashing Medicaid, and 'defunding' Planned Parenthood."
Alexis McGill Johnson, the group's president and CEO, said that "this abortion ban makes it clear that the Trump administration will always choose its dangerous political agenda, even if the cost is veterans and their families' access to essential care."
Earlier this year, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Ranking Member Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) led over 230 of their colleagues in submitting a public comment against the Trump administration's proposed rule. Takano and other members of the House panel also spoke out on Tuesday.
"As a country, we made a solemn promise to honor veterans' service and ensure they receive the healthcare they have earned. Veterans should be able to trust that promise and know they can walk into a VA medical center and receive the care they need," said Takano. "Instead of trusting veterans to make the healthcare decisions that are best for them, VA is allowing political opinion to supplant its duty to veterans."
"Instead of allowing veterans to discuss all their healthcare options openly and honestly with their providers, VA has decided that the government should be in charge of making healthcare decisions, even in matters of life and death," he continued. "And instead of fulfilling its duty to provide needed healthcare to veterans, VA has refused to acknowledge the unique and complex healthcare needs of veterans who are more likely to have complex health conditions that can increase the risks associated with pregnancy. Veterans fought for our rights. Now it's our responsibility to fight for theirs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Deals Trump Major Loss on Illinois National Guard Deployment
"Trump is losing his grip on the dictatorial power he so covets," said one legal analyst.
Dec 23, 2025
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt President Donald Trump a major loss by rejecting the administration's request to strike down a temporary restraining order that barred him from deploying the National Guard in Chicago.
In a 6-3 ruling that featured dissents from Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court determined that the Trump administration had not met statutory requirements needed to justify deploying the National Guard in a state over the objections of its own government.
The court noted that the administration justified its Illinois deployment—pursued alongside a federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants in and around the state's largest city—by pointing to a law stating that the president may federalize the National Guard in the event that he is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."
However, the court found that the "regular forces" referenced in the statute refers to the US military, not civilian law enforcement officials. This is relevant because the president faces significant restrictions on his ability to deploy the military domestically under the Posse Comitatus Act.
"Because the statute requires an assessment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws," the justices wrote. "Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from 'execut[ing] the laws' 'except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or act of Congress.'"
The justices further said that the Trump administration so far "has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois" and has not invoked any statute that would provide an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.
In conclusion, the court wrote that the federal government "has not carried its burden to show" that the law "permits the president to federalize the guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois."
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, who had sued the Trump administration over the deployment, cheered the ruling and said that "the extremely limited circumstances under which the federal government can call up the militia over a state's objection do not exist in Illinois."
Raoul added that he was "pleased that the streets of Illinois will remain free of armed National Guard members as our litigation continues in the courts."
Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling as a victory for the rule of law.
"Trump is losing his grip on the dictatorial power he so covets," Kirschner commented on X.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said he was "genuinely shocked" by the court's ruling, and he credited an amicus brief written by Georgetown University Law Center professor Marty Lederman with swaying the court, as it centered the definition of "regular forces" in the statute as central to determining the legality of Trump's actions.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen and co-chair of the Not Above the Law Coalition, hailed the court's ruling but warned that the danger posed by the Trump administration's authoritarian ambitions has not ended.
"With a lawful administration that understood the limits of executive power, this would be the end of the question," she said of the ruling. "Unfortunately, we are living under an authoritarian regime that persists in every possible effort to expand its power and override guardrails. With an administration that displays utter disregard for the Constitution, we must now watch diligently how it will respond to a decisive Supreme Court decision against its lawless power grab."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Devastating': Amnesty Rips Hegseth Memo Reversing Limits on Landmines
“Antipersonnel landmines are inherently indiscriminate weapons that take a disproportionate toll on civilian lives, oftentimes long after conflicts end," said the group's director for Europe and Central Asia.
Dec 23, 2025
In a move decried by human rights organizations, the Trump administration has scrapped a Biden-era prohibition on the use of antipersonnel landmines, which killed thousands of noncombatants last year.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sent a memo on December 2 reversing the policy, saying the use of such mines would provide the US military with a “force multiplier” against enemies during “one of the most dangerous security environments in its history.”
“Antipersonnel landmines are inherently indiscriminate weapons that take a disproportionate toll on civilian lives, oftentimes long after conflicts end," explained Ben Linden, Amnesty International USA's advocacy director for Europe and Central Asia, in a statement on Tuesday.
According to a report published earlier this month by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL), antipersonnel landmines and other explosive remnants of war killed at least 1,945 people and injured another 4,325 in 2024—the highest yearly casualty figure since 2020 and a 9% increase from the previous year.
Ninety percent of those casualties were civilians, and 46% of those civilians were children.
More than 160 countries have signed an international treaty, written in 1997, banning the use of antipersonnel landmines, defined as mines “designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons” in war.
The US military has not used antipersonnel mines widely since the Persian Gulf War over three decades ago. However, it is one of the few countries that has not signed the treaty, known as the Ottawa Convention, and until earlier this year was the only NATO member not to participate.
In June 2022—just months after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine—then-President Joe Biden announced the US would begin to follow many provisions of the convention, outlawing the use of antipersonnel mines in war zones with the exception of the Korean Peninsula. It was a return to a policy instituted under former President Barack Obama, before it was rolled back during the first Trump administration.
The Biden White House cited the mines' "disproportionate impact on civilians, including children," and drew a contrast with Russia, which it said was using the mines "irresponsibly" in civilian areas.
But Biden would reverse the policy just two years later, opting in 2024 to greenlight their provision to Ukraine, which was forbidden from acquiring or using the mines under the treaty.
The ICBL, a leading donor to global mine clearance, condemned the move, noting that "Ukraine already faces years of demining due to Russian landmine use."
In his memo, Hegseth has delivered another blow to global demining efforts. According to the Post:
He outlines five objectives for the new policy—including lifting geographic limits on the use of landmines, which would allow for their use globally, and giving combatant commanders the authority to use the explosives. It would also limit the destruction of landmines in the US inventory only to those that are “inoperable or unsafe."
The decision comes as other state actors are rapidly abandoning their obligations under the landmine treaty. Last week, Poland announced that after withdrawing from the convention, it plans to start producing antipersonnel mines again, deploying them to the eastern border, and possibly exporting them to Ukraine.
According to the ICBL report, Cambodia, Iran, Myanmar, and North Korea have all been alleged to have used mines within the last year. Meanwhile, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania are also in the process of withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty, while Ukraine is trying to “suspend the operation” of the convention during its war with Russia.
Hegseth's memo also states that President Donald Trump has rescinded the US Humanitarian Mine Program, a long-running government initiative that helps partner nations find and destroy unexploded landmines.
According to the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, the research arm of the Campaign to Ban Landmines, the US was the largest global donor to mine-clearing actions around the world in 2024. According to the State Department, it has provided more than $5 billion in assistance to more than 125 countries and areas since 1993.
Some of the money for the program has already been revoked through the Trump administration's slashing of funds for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) at the beginning of his term. The administration ordered mine-clearing nonprofits funded by the agency to cease operations "effective immediately."
According to a report earlier this month from the Century Foundation, the State Department "terminated or let expire" nearly 100 security assistance programs, which included demining programs, as part of its "foreign aid review" in January.
Hegseth's memo states that despite the end of the program, the US will remain "a global leader in unexploded ordnance clearing assistance and in conventional weapons destruction." It provides no details on how the new policy would allow for this.
Linden at Amnesty International called Hegseth's reversal of the landmine policy a "devastating decision."
"Not only will this policy change put more civilians at increased risk of harm, but it will undermine global efforts to eliminate the use of these dangerous weapons," Linden said. “This landmine policy reversal would make the United States and its partners less safe by eroding the prohibition against the use of these indiscriminate weapons on the battlefield."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular