November, 27 2012, 02:02pm EDT
Coalition Urges President to Veto NDAA If It Extends Guantanamo Transfer Restrictions
Human Rights, Religious, and Civil Liberties Groups Ask Obama to Keep His Promise to Close Guantánamo Prison
WASHINGTON
A broad coalition of human rights, religious, and civil liberties groups wrote to President Obama today to urge him to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if it impedes the closing of the Guantanamo prison by extending restrictions on transferring detainees from the facility.
The current transfer restrictions are due to expire on March 27, but the pending NDAA bills in Congress would extend the restrictions for the remainder of the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The letter explains that, if the restrictions are extended, "the prospects for Guantanamo being closed during your presidency will be severely diminished, if not gone altogether." The letter urges Obama to "make the successful closing of the Guantanamo prison an important part of your historic legacy."
The Senate will likely consider the NDAA as soon as this week. At the same time, House and Senate negotiators have been meeting informally for several weeks to draft a final bill. Congress is likely to send a final NDAA to Obama during the current lame-duck session.
A pdf version of the letter is available here: https://www.aclu.org/accountability-torture/letter-president-obama-closi.... The full text of the letter follows:
Re: VETO the National Defense Authorization Act, If It Extends Restrictions on Transferring Detainees Out of the Guantanamo Prison
Dear President Obama:
The undersigned human rights, religious, and civil liberties groups strongly urge you to veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013--if it impedes your ability to close Guantanamo, by restricting the Executive Branch's authority to transfer detainees for repatriation or resettlement in foreign countries or for prosecution in federal criminal court. The House of Representatives passed a version of the NDAA that restricts all transfers out of Guantanamo for the full fiscal year, while the Senate version of the bill restricts transfers overseas. We urge you to veto the NDAA if any of these restrictions are included in the final bill sent to you by Congress.
Your commitment to close the Guantanamo prison was a hallmark of your 2008 campaign and a signal to everyone, both across America and around the globe, of a renewed commitment to the rule of law. Your executive order, on your second full day as president, directing the government to close the prison should have heralded the end of the prison, but instead triggered a long series of failures and obstacles to its closure. There are still 166 detainees left at Guantanamo, and the promise of closing the prison remains unfulfilled.
We appreciate that you publicly renewed your commitment to closing Guantanamo in public comments last month, and we strongly believe that you can accomplish this objective during your second term. You can still make the successful closing of the Guantanamo prison an important part of your historic legacy.
However, if the NDAA is signed with any transfer restrictions in it, the prospects for Guantanamo being closed during your presidency will be severely diminished, if not gone altogether. The current statutory restrictions on transfer expire on March 27, 2013. Those restrictions--which have been in place for nearly two years with zero detainees being certified for transfer overseas and zero detainees transferred to the United States for prosecution--are functionally similar to the restrictions in the NDAA bills pending in Congress. If extended for the entire fiscal year, then nearly a year of your second term could be lost, and the political capital required to start closing it later in your next term will be even greater.
Now is the time to end the statutory restrictions on closing Guantanamo, by vetoing the NDAA if it extends them. When signing earlier versions of these restrictions into law, you stated, "my Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future." The restrictions have proven unworkable, and should not be extended for yet another year.
There is broad support among national security and foreign policy leaders for closing Guantanamo. Your own national security and foreign policy leadership team shares your commitment to closing Guantanamo. The list of leaders who support closing the Guantanamo prison is long, and crosses party lines, including: former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former National Security Advisor James Jones, General Charles C. Krulak (ret.) former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Joseph P. Hoar (ret.), former CETCOM commander, and Brigadier General Michael Lehnert (ret.), who set up the Guantanamo prison, and 25 retired admirals and generals. Closing Guantanamo is good human rights policy and good national security policy.
We realize that there is a long tradition of the NDAA being enacted annually. However, an annual NDAA is not required for the Department of Defense to carry out its functions. The NDAA does not fund the Department of Defense, and all of its provisions can be either implemented by agency action or enacted as part of other legislation. Four of your five immediate predecessors--Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush--each vetoed an NDAA. Restrictions impeding the closing of the Guantanamo prison clearly warrant a veto by you.
We believe that you will be far more likely to succeed in fulfilling your commitment to closing the Guantanamo prison if the transfer restrictions are allowed to expire on March 27. We strongly urge you to veto the NDAA, if it includes any extension of the restrictions on transferring detainees out of Guantanamo for either repatriation or resettlement overseas or prosecution in the United States. Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union
American Friends Service Committee
Appeal for Justice
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Brennan Center for Justice
Center for Constitutional Rights
Center for International Policy
Center for Victims of Torture
Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Defending Dissent Foundation
Disciples Justice Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Human Rights Watch
International Justice Network
Japanese American Citizens League
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
Peace Action
Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Public Witness
Physicians for Human Rights
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Rabbis for Human Rights - North America
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Unitarian Universalist Association
Win Without War
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
Trump Ripped for 'Absurdly Low' and 'Racist' Refugee Cap Prioritizing White South Africans
"Let's call this what it is—white supremacy disguised as refugee policy," said the head of the Haitian Bridge Alliance.
Oct 30, 2025
After months of reporting, President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday officially announced that it is restricting the number of refugees for this fiscal year to 7,500, with most spots going to white South Africans—a policy swiftly denounced by human rights advocates and Democrats in Congress.
"This decision doesn't just lower the refugee admissions ceiling. It lowers our moral standing," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. "For more than four decades, the US refugee program has been a lifeline for families fleeing war, persecution, and repression. At a time of crisis in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Venezuela to Sudan and beyond, concentrating the vast majority of admissions on one group undermines the program's purpose as well as its credibility."
The Trump administration's notice in the Federal Register doesn't mention any groups besides Afrikaners, white descendants of Europeans who subjected South Africa's majority Black population to a system of apartheid for decades. Multiple rich Trump backers—including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, venture capitalist David Sacks, and Palantir founder Peter Thiel—spent time in the country during those years.
The 7,500 cap, initially reported earlier this month, is a significant drop from both the 40,000 limit that was previously reported as under consideration by the Republican administration, and the more than 100,000 allowed under former Democratic President Joe Biden.
Four congressional Democrats who serve as ranking members on related committees—Reps. Jamie Raskin (Md.) and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), along with Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Alex Padilla (Calif.)—issued a joint statement condemning the new cap, which they noted is "an astonishing 94% cut over last year and the lowest level in our nation's history."
"To add insult to injury, the administration is skipping over the tens of thousands of refugees who have been waiting in line for years in dire circumstances to come to the United States, and it is instead prioritizing a single privileged racial group—white South African Afrikaners—for these severely limited slots," they said. "This bizarre presidential determination is not only morally indefensible, it is illegal and invalid."
The four lawmakers continued:
The administration has brazenly ignored the statutory requirement to consult with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees before setting the annual refugee admissions ceiling. That process exists to ensure that decisions of such great consequence reflect our nation's values, our humanitarian commitments, and the rule of law, not the racial preferences or political whims of any one president.
The reason for this evasion is evident: The administration knows it cannot defend its egregious policy before Congress or the American people. While nearly 130,000 vetted, approved refugees—men, women, and children fleeing persecution and violence—wait in limbo after being promised a chance at safety, Donald Trump is looking to turn refugee admissions into another political giveaway for his pet projects and infatuations.
We reject this announcement as both unlawful and contrary to America's longstanding commitment to offer refuge to the persecuted. To twist our refugee policy into a partisan straightjacket is to betray both our legal obligations and our moral identity as a nation.
"Let's call this what it is—white supremacy disguised as refugee policy," declared Guerline Jozef, executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance. "At a time when Black refugees from Haiti, Sudan, the Congo, and Cameroon are drowning at sea, languishing in detention, or being deported to death, the US government has decided to open its arms to those who already enjoy global privilege. This is not just immoral—it's anti-Blackness codified into federal policy."
This week alone, Hurricane Melissa killed more than 20 people in Haiti, and health officials said that the Rapid Support Forces, which are fighting against Sudan's government, killed over 1,500 people—including more than 460 systematically slaughtered at a maternity hospital—in the city of el-Fasher.
"We reject the idea that whiteness equates to worthiness," Jozef said of Trump's new refugee plan. She also took aim at the president's broader anti-immigrant policy, which has included deporting hundreds of people to El Salvador's so-called Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
"From Del Rio to Lampedusa, Black migrants and other immigrants of color have been criminalized, beaten, caged, and disappeared in CECOT camp in El Salvador—while their humanity is debated like a policy variable," she said. "This moment demands our humanity, our resistance, not silence."
Amy Fischer, Amnesty International USA's director for refugee and migrant rights, also tied Thursday's announcement to the broader agenda of the president—who, during his first term, faced global condemnation for policies including the forcible separation of families at the southern border.
"Setting this cap at such an absurdly low number and prioritizing white Afrikaners is a racist move that will turn the US's back on tens of thousands of people around the world who are fleeing persecution, violence, and human rights abuses," said Fischer. "Refugees have a human right to protection, and the international community—including the United States—has a responsibility to uphold that right."
"This announcement is yet another attack by the Trump administration on refugees and immigrants, showing disregard for international systems meant to protect human rights," she added. "The Trump administration must reverse course and ensure a fair, humane, and rights-based refugee admissions determination."
The announcement came just days after Trump's nominee to be ambassador to South Africa, far-right media critic Brent Bozell, faced intense criticism for refusing to say whether he would support or oppose repealing laws allowing Black Americans to vote during his Senate confirmation hearing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
North Carolina GOP Official Uses 'Connections With the Trump Admin' to Threaten ProPublica Journalist
“I’m sure you’re aware of our connections with the Trump administration,” said the North Carolina GOP's communications director. “I would strongly suggest dropping this story.”
Oct 30, 2025
Republican Party officials are now using their "connections" to the Trump administration to threaten journalists into dropping critical coverage.
That's what Doug Bock Clark, a reporter for ProPublica, recently discovered as he worked on a feature-length story on the rise of Paul Newby, the Republican chief justice of North Carolina's Supreme Court, who has become one of the most quietly influential jurists in the nation.
The piece published Thursday examines how Newby, a born-again Christian who was elected to the bench in 2004, believes he was called by God to exact what he calls "biblical justice."
Over the past two decades, Clark wrote that Newby has "turned his perch atop North Carolina’s Supreme Court into an instrument of political power" and "driven changes that have reverberated well beyond the borders of his state."
Newby's most significant contribution has been the landmark decision that legalized partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina, a state that had long had some of the strongest laws in the country against partisan redistricting.
The change led the state's Republican-controlled Legislature to draw up wildly slanted maps that netted the GOP an additional six seats in the US House of Representatives in 2024, handing the party a national trifecta at the beginning of President Donald Trump's second term, which has allowed him to wield extraordinary power almost totally free of oversight from Congress.
It's just one of the ways, Clark said, that "Newby has provided a blueprint for conservatives to seize most of the nation’s state supreme courts, which have increasingly become the final word on abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights and voting rights."
The report drew from more than 70 interviews with those who know Newby professionally and personally. But he was unable to get in contact with Newby himself.
"I reached out to Newby multiple times during the course of my reporting and was even escorted out of a judicial conference while trying to interview him," Clark wrote on social media. "The court’s communications director and media team also didn’t respond to detailed questions."
When Clark attempted to contact Newby's daughter for comment, he instead received an ominous message from that aforementioned communications director, Matt Mercer.
Mercer ranted that ProPublica was waging a “jihad” against “NC Republicans,” which would “not be met with dignifying any comments whatsoever.”
He continued: “I’m sure you’re aware of our connections with the Trump administration, and I’m sure they would be interested in this matter. I would strongly suggest dropping this story.”
As Clark pointed out, "He bolded and underlined 'strongly,' in case we missed his point."
After the story, which made note of Mercer's threat, was published, Mercer then doubled down on social media, urging Trump to "feed ProPublica to the USAID wood chipper," referencing the president's near-total stripping of funds from the foreign aid agency.
Trump has issued an executive order slashing federal funds for media organizations supported by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, like NPR and PBS, in response to critical coverage of his administration. But it's not entirely clear how he would actually go about doing such a thing to ProPublica, which does not receive government dollars but instead subsists on private grants and donations.
At any rate, Mercer's messages were widely perceived as a not-so-veiled attempt to coerce ProPublica into ceasing its inquiries.
Travis Fain, a freelance reporter who previously worked for Raleigh's NBC News affiliate, WRAL, expressed disbelief at Mercer's belligerence on social media: "Well, there you go," he said. "The North Carolina Republican Party officially threatens journalists now."
Wiley Nickel, the former Democratic US House representative for North Carolina's 13th District, lamented that it was "not normal" for a party official to "threaten ProPublica with retaliation from Trump" for writing a profile about another GOP official.
Despite the threats, Clark says "ProPublica persisted" with the story that Mercer "warned [it] not to tell."
"I'm always amazed when grown-ups with jobs say things like this to journalists," said Jessica Huseman, a former ProPublica reporter. "Like, do you think that's gonna do anything but make us more eager to publish the story?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Platner Mobilizes Mainers to Fight Billionaire-Funded Attack on Absentee Voting
"Right-wing billionaire Leonard Leo is pouring money into Question 1, which would shred absentee voting in Maine. But our movement is fighting back."
Oct 30, 2025
Graham Platner isn't on the ballot until next year, but while campaigning across Maine for the June Democratic primary, the US Senate candidate is rallying opposition to Question 1, which state voters are set to decide on in Tuesday's election.
If approved, the ballot measure would "eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes" to state elections.
Platner is running against multiple Democrats, including term-limited Gov. Janet Mills, for the opportunity to try to oust longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins by railing against the oligarchy and prioritizing the needs of the working class. On Thursday, he released a 30-second animated advertisement against Question 1.
"I work on the water, so November can be a very busy time of year for me," Platner, a military veteran who now works as an oyster farmer and harbormaster, explains in the ad. "That's why sometimes, I vote absentee."
Platner then takes aim at Leonard Leo, an island-dwelling "right-wing billionaire" spending big on Question 1. The candidate didn't name Leo in the ad, but made clear in a related social media post that he was the target.
As Maurice T. Cunningham, a retired politics professor who authored Dark Money and the Politics of School Privatization, wrote for CentralMaine.com earlier this month, "Concealed behind layers of dark money fronts funding Question 1 are the far-right billionaires and Christian nationalists who fueled the rise of President Donald Trump and MAGA." Among them is Leo, the lawyer and activist who masterminded Trump's effort to shift the federal judiciary to the right. He has a house on Mount Desert Island, known for Acadia National Park and Bar Harbor.
"He wants to make it harder for students to vote, for members of our tribes to vote, harder for those who serve our country. Question 1 will make it harder for all of us to vote," Platner warns in the ad. "Don't let a right-wing billionaire on Mount Desert Island screw up absentee voting in Maine. Vote no on Question 1."
As the Maine People's Alliance Beacon reported Thursday, "Platner will also host a 'Save Absentee Voting' concert and rally featuring Griffin William Sherry and The Ballroom Thieves in Portland on Sunday, November 2 at 1:00 pm at the State Theatre."
Last year, more than 370,000 Mainers sent in absentee ballots. This year, early voter turnout "is outpacing the last off-year election," with over 76,000 voters having turned in ballots as of Tuesday afternoon, according to the Maine Morning Star.
Organizations from across Maine "who believe that fair, open, and accessible elections are the cornerstone of our democracy" have come together to form the Save Maine Absentee Voting Coalition. They include the state chapters of the ACLU, AFL-CIO, and League of Women Voters as well as Maine Conservation Voters, Maine Education Association, Maine Equal Justice, Maine People's Alliance, Natural Resources Council of Maine, Planned Parenthood Maine Action Fund, and more.
"This measure isn't right for Maine," says the coalition's website. "We all want our elections to be as secure as possible. Instead of making it harder for Maine citizens to vote and tying the hands of our town clerks, we should focus on giving state and local elections officials the resources they need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular