May, 07 2010, 01:41pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Brenda Bowser Soder,bowsersoderb@humanrightsfirst.org,O -202/370-3323, C - 301/906-4460
Stripping Citizenship Unconstitutional, Unnecessary
Bill would overstep limits on government power that protect Americans' rights
WASHINGTON
Human Rights First today decried proposed legislation that would
strip United States citizens of their citizenship for "providing
material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization" or
"engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities
against the United States" or any of its allies. The group stated that
the legislation, introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Scott
Brown and Congressmen Jason Altmire and Charlie Dent, is
unconstitutional and unnecessary. It would undermine carefully
constructed checks on government officials' power that protect our
country's freedoms.
"This proposed knee-jerk reaction bill ignores the mandates of the
U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court's decisions interpreting the
14th Amendment's citizenship clause which set severe limits on the
government's power to revoke citizenship. It also attempts to punish
and render stateless individuals who have not been convicted of any
crime, which violates both the U.S. Constitution and international
human rights law. Fear is never an excuse to give government this kind
of unchecked power," said Human Rights First's Daphne Eviatar.
Eviatar continued, "This bill reeks of political posturing, not
protecting America's national security. It is a desperate attempt to go
around the constitution and push these cases into the ineffective and
legally questionable military commission system. They are not fooling
anyone."
Human Rights First noted that the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly
and unequivocally that Congress does not have the power to strip any
American of citizenship unless that individual has voluntarily
relinquished his citizenship. Even committing the most heinous crimes
does not automatically strip an American of his citizenship. As the
Supreme Court said in Vance v. Terrazas, "In the last
analysis, expatriation depends on the will of the citizen, rather than
on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct." Under the
U.S. Constitution, the government must prove that the individual
intended to relinquish his citizenship as well.
The Terrorist Expatriation Act proposed by Senators Lieberman and
Brown and Congressmen Jason Altmire and Charlie Dent purports to allow
the State Department to revoke citizenship based on a preponderance of
the evidence, a much lighter burden than is required to secure a
criminal conviction. The legislation is not only out of step with
American law, but it also implicates the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which provides that "everyone has the right to a nationality"
and that one's citizenship may not be stripped arbitrarily.
"There are serious consequences that result from revoking someone's
citizenship. The Supreme Court has said that the matter is 'no light
trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so' and that
doing so 'means that a man is left without the protection of
citizenship in any country in the world.' No member of Congress has the
right or ability to undermine that kind of legal precedent," Eviatar
concluded.
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
World Bank, IMF Must Prioritize Wealth Tax and Canceling Debt to Tackle Global Inequality
While global institutions claim to want to tackle inequality, said one campaigner, "ordinary people struggle more and more every day to make up for cuts to the public funding of healthcare, education, and transportation."
Apr 15, 2024
With world leaders convening in Washington, D.C. this week for the annual Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, global anti-poverty campaigners said Monday that delegates from the world's largest economies must prioritize taxing the superrich and taking other steps to alleviate rampant inequality in the Global South.
Oxfam International revealed that based on the World Bank's analysis of worldwide inequality and poverty, 64 out of 106 low- and middle-income countries that receive grants and loans from the bank and the IMF have high or increasing rates of income inequality.
Sixty percent of countries that are eligible for grants or low-interest loans from the International Development Association (IDA) have ratings above 0.4 on the Gini coefficient scale—a warning level developed by the United Nations. The scale rates more equal countries closer to 0 and countries with high income and wealth disparities closer to 1, with rating above 0.4 signifying high levels of income inequality.
Kate Donald, head of Oxfam International's Washington, D.C. office, noted that the news comes less than a year after more than 200 worldwide economists successfully pressured the World Bank to set a new goal of reducing the number of countries with high inequality rates.
The agreement was "a landmark move," said Donald. "But if the bank is serious about tackling inequality, the first test will be making it a headline priority for its lending to the world's poorest countries, being discussed now at the Spring Meetings."
According to Oxfam's analysis, half of IDA-eligible countries are overindebted and need roughly 45% of their debt to the banks canceled in order to address surging inequality in their own communities.
The global financial institutions must prove at the Spring Meetings that "tackling inequality is a priority," said Donald.
"Ordinary people struggle more and more every day to make up for cuts to the public funding of healthcare, education, and transportation," she said. "This high stakes hypocrisy has to end."
At Inter Press Service, Jaime Atienza, equitable financing director at the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, pointed to the example of Zambia, one of 37 countries identified by Oxfam as facing rising levels of inequality.
While still struggling, Atienza wrote, through the G20 Common Framework on Debt, Zambia "secured serious debt relief and restructuring with both government and private creditors, which will help enable vital and urgent investments in health, education, and social protection."
"For too long, Zambia's plans for ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030, and for realizing crucial development needs, have been held back by constraints in investment caused by the debt crisis," wrote Atienza. "The debt relief and restructuring that has been agreed at last gives the country a fighting chance. All those who have facilitated this agreement have saved and transformed lives."
In dozens of countries in the Global South, said Oxfam, "ballooning debt and interest repayments are diverting scarce resources from crucial areas like public education and healthcare and social safety nets."
Both Atienza and Oxfam said delegates from G20 countries, the world's largest economies, must center at the Spring Meetings Brazil's call for a global plan to require wealthy people to pay their fair share in taxes.
"Higher taxes on the income and wealth of richest could raise trillions of dollars to plug IDA funding shortfalls and to fill the huge development and climate funding gaps in low- and middle-income countries," said Oxfam, which noted that the net wealth of billionaires must by taxed more than 8% annually to help reduce inequality in the worst-affected countries.
Wealthy governments must also increase their donations to the IDA, said Donald, which have flatlined in recent years despite growing needs in African countries and throughout the Global South.
"We don't buy the excuse that 'we can't afford it,'" she said. "The money is there; it's just not flowing to where it's needed. We urgently need donor governments to step up their contributions to IDA, and for the G20 to move forward with a global deal to tax the super-rich."
"It's all part of ensuring that rich countries and rich people pay their fair share," she added, "towards tackling inequality and climate breakdown."
Keep ReadingShow Less
20 Years Later, Abu Ghraib Torture Victims Get Their Day in Court
"Meanwhile, the U.S. government STILL hasn't provided compensation or other redress to people tortured by U.S. troops in Iraq," said one observer. "These three men are the lucky few."
Apr 15, 2024
Two decades after they were tortured by U.S. military contractors at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, three Iraqi victims are finally getting their day in court Monday as a federal court in Virginia takes up a case they brought during the George W. Bush administration.
The case being heard in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Al Shimari v. CACI, was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute—which allows non-U.S. citizens to sue for human rights abuses committed abroad—by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of three Iraqis. The men suffered torture directed and perpetrated by employees of CACI, a Virginia-based professional services and information technology firm hired in 2003 by the Bush administration as translators and interrogators in Iraq during the illegal U.S.-led invasion and occupation.
"This lawsuit is a critical step towards justice for these three men who will finally have their day in court."
Plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Asa'ad Zuba'e, and Salah Al-Ejaili accuse CACI of conspiring to commit war crimes including torture at Abu Ghraib, where the men suffered broken bones, electric shocks, sexual abuse, extreme temperatures, and death threats at the hands of their U.S. interrogators.
"This lawsuit is a critical step towards justice for these three men who will finally have their day in court. But they are the lucky few," Sarah Sanbar, an Iraq researcher at Human Rights Watch, wrote on Monday. "For the hundreds of other survivors still suffering from past abuses, their chances of justice remain slim."
"The U.S. government should do the right thing: Take responsibility for their abuses, offer an apology, and open an avenue to redress that has been denied them for too many years," Sanbar added.
U.S. military investigators found that employees of CACI and Titan Corporation (now L3 Technologies) tortured Iraqi prisoners and encouraged U.S. troops to do likewise. Dozens of Abu Ghraib detainees died in U.S. custody, some of them as a result of being tortured to death. Abu Ghraib prisoners endured torture ranging from rape and being attacked with dogs to being forced to eat pork and renounce Islam.
A May 2004 report by Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba concluded that the majority of Abu Ghraib prisoners—the Red Cross said 70-90%— were innocent. In addition to thousands of men and boys, some women and girls were also jailed there as bargaining chips meant to induce wanted insurgents to surrender. Some of them said they were raped or sexually abused by their American captors; lesser-known Abu Ghraib photos show women being forced to expose their private parts. Some female detainees were reportedly murdered by their own relatives in so-called "honor killings" after their release.
Eleven low-ranking U.S. soldiers were convicted and jailed for their roles in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the prison's commanding officer, was demoted. No other high-ranking military officer faced accountability for the abuse. Senior Bush administration officials—who had authorized many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used at prisons including Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay—lied about their knowledge of the torture. None of them were ever held accountable.
Bush's successor, former President Barack Obama, promised to investigate—and if warranted, to prosecute—the Bush-era officials responsible for the torture that had become synonymous with the War on Terror. Instead, the Obama administration protected them from prosecution.
In 2013, L3 Technologies agreed to pay $5.28 million to 71 former Abu Ghraib detainees who were subjected to sexual assault and humiliation, rape threats, electrical shocks, mock executions, brutal beatings, and other abuse.
The following year, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling prohibiting Abu Ghraib torture victims from suing U.S. companies implicated in their abuse. But the court later reversed itself, finding the case had sufficient ties to the United States to be heard in an American court. The suit was later dismissed under the political question doctrine, which prevents courts from ruling on issues determined to be essentially political.
However, in 2016, a 4th Circuit panel ruled that "the political question doctrine does not shield from judicial review intentional acts by a government contractor that were unlawful at the time they were committed," allowing the Iraqis' case to proceed.
"This is a historic trial that we hope will deliver some measure of justice and healing for what President Bush rightly deemed disgraceful conduct that dishonored the United States and its values," CCR senior attorney Katherine Gallagher toldThe Guardian on Monday.
"In many ways, this case may be seen as setting a precedent for holding contractors accountable for human rights violations should they happen in other contexts, too," she added.
CACI—which denies any wrongdoing—has tried to get the case dismissed 20 times. The company still lands millions of dollars worth of U.S. government contracts. In February, Fortuneincluded the firm on its "World's Most Admired Companies" list for the seventh straight year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mehdi Hasan Launches Media Platform With Naomi Klein, Greta Thunberg, and More
The journalist says Zeteo will feature "hard-hitting interviews and unsparing analysis" in op-eds, podcasts, and streaming shows.
Apr 15, 2024
After a few weeks of "soft launch" mode, journalist Mehdi Hasan on Monday officially debuted his new media platform, Zeteo, and declared that "this is not a one-man band."
The former MSNBC and Peacock host—whose show was canceled in November and wrapped up in January, after his incisive criticism of Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip—revealed nine of the contributors he has lined up so far, calling them "some of the biggest, boldest, and best names from media, activism, entertainment, and beyond."
They are Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Spencer Ackerman, comedian and podcaster W. Kamau Bell, Palestinian Canadian lawyer Diana Buttu, former CNBC and CNN correspondent John Harwood, foreign policy analyst Rula Jebreal, author Naomi Klein, novelist Viet Thanh Nguyen, actor and activist Cynthia Nixon, and Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg.
"The tough interviews and knowledgeable analysis are all coming back, along with a global cast of contributors," Klein said on social media Monday. "I was honored when Mehdi asked me to be one of them, along with Rula Jebreal and Greta Thunberg and many others yet announced."
"Mehdi and I will be having a regular conversation called 'Unshocked,'" noted Klein, who authored The Shock Doctrine.
Hasan—who has also produced content for Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and The Intercept—has saidZeteo will feature "hard-hitting interviews and unsparing analysis" in a variety of forms, from op-eds and podcasts to streaming shows, beginning with "Mehdi Unfiltered."
"To keep Zeteo's journalism independent and free of advertiser and corporate influence," Hasan explained ahead of the formal launch, "and to allow us to continue investing in the future, we have to rely on our individual paid subscribers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular