August, 09 2018, 12:00am EDT
Brennan Center Sues Justice Department Over Terrorism Prosecution Data
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law filed a lawsuit this week against the Justice Department after it failed to turn over key information about terrorism-related prosecutions. The information is needed to provide context for President Trump's misleading assertion that the vast majority of people convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related crimes are foreign born.
New York, N.Y.
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law filed a lawsuit this week against the Justice Department after it failed to turn over key information about terrorism-related prosecutions. The information is needed to provide context for President Trump's misleading assertion that the vast majority of people convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related crimes are foreign born.
"This stonewalling by the Department of Justice is getting old," said Faiza Patel, co-director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program. "This is already public data. We're simply asking for an additional piece of information so we can better understand how the department is fighting terrorism. Rather than just trusting the selective information the DOJ occasionally publishes to serve its own purposes, the public deserves a full accounting of the department's prosecutions of cases of both domestic and international terrorism."
The administration's claim that three out of four terrorists are foreign-born is based solely on 549 international terrorism prosecution identified by the DOJ. But U.S. Attorneys around the country have identified an additional 1366 federal domestic terrorism prosecutions. A complete and balanced assessment of U.S. terrorism prosecutions should include all kinds of terrorism.
The original Brennan Center freedom of information law request sought public docket numbers, or case numbers, from the Justice Department's Legal Information Office Network System, or LIONS database. Those docket numbers are the only reliable way to link LIONS records with the public prosecutions stemming from those cases. Without those numbers, there is no way to track down the cases that government lawyers say are related to terrorism.
"Without this critical information, no one can fully and effectively review what activities the Justice Department considers to be terrorism-related," said the Brennan Center's Patel. "Sorry, but the era of 'trust us,' especially on sensitive terrorism cases, is over."
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the Brennan Center and Charles Kurzman.
Read more about our original FOIA request here.
Learn more about our Liberty and National Security program here.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310LATEST NEWS
NY Appeals Court Delivers Reprieve for Trump on $454 Million Bond
"They sure let him twist in the wind until the last moment," said one legal expert.
Mar 25, 2024
As the deadline arrived Monday for Donald Trump to pay a $454 million bond following a New York judge's ruling that the former Republican president and his company committed fraud, an appeals court in the state ruled that Trump would be permitted to post a vastly reduced amount.
The appeals court panel said the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee could pay $175 million after the former president indicated he was unable to pay the full amount, having sought the bond from more than two dozen surety companies.
New York Attorney General Letitia James indicated earlier this month that she could begin seizing Trump's assets as soon as Monday if he was unable to pay the $454 million judgment.
Trump was hit with the fine as the result of James' civil fraud case against the former president and his real estate company, the Trump Organization. Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump and the firm had committed "repeated and persistent fraud," including by falsifying financial statements by as much as $2.2 billion.
The former president is appealing the ruling and had looked for companies to guarantee the full amount of the bond in the event that he lost the appeal, but with much of his fortune tied up in his properties, he was unable to come up with the collateral demanded by the institutions.
Trump said Monday that he plans to "post either a bond, equivalent securities, or cash" within the 10 days granted by the appeals court in order to delay enforcement of the full fine.
Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman, now a senior legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times, said the "pro-business" appellate court's decision was not surprising and was "reasonable," considering that "a bond is designed to secure eventual payment, not to financially wreck the defendant."
"In a sense the decision reducing Trump's bond and giving him more time is consistent with the 'treat Trump like any other litigant' credo," said Litman, "but they sure let him twist in the wind until the last moment."
James' office responded to the appeals court's decision by focusing on the fact that the full judgment against Trump, his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and former executive Allen Weisselberg still stands.
"Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud," said a spokesperson for James. "The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We're Calling for Justice': Allies Slam Trial for El Salvador Water Defenders
Ahead of proceedings next week, an international coalition continues to back a call to "drop the baseless charges against the Santa Marta Five."
Mar 25, 2024
Nine organizations from around the world on Monday renewed calls for El Salvador's government to drop "politically motivated charges" against the "Santa Marta Five" as the well-known water defenders prepared to stand trial beginning April 3.
Miguel Ángel Gámez, Alejandro Laínez García, Pedro Antonio Rivas Laínez, Teodoro Antonio Pacheco, and Saúl Agustín Rivas Ortega were arrested in January 2023 and accused of murdering an alleged military informant during a civil war over three decades ago. Rights groups worldwide have repeatedly highlighted that not only has the Salvadoran government failed to produce any proof of their guilt, but also the five men should be covered under a 1992 amnesty law related to the war.
"In the spirit of Saint Óscar Romero, these community leaders have embodied the legacy of the preferential option for the poor in their fight for justice and for the well-being of their communities," Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) senior adviser John Cavanagh said Monday, a day after the 44th anniversary of Romero's assassination in San Salvador.
"Now, we're calling for justice for the Santa Marta Five as they face politically motivated charges and attempts to silence their movement," added Cavanagh, whose group gave its 2009 Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award to the National Roundtable on Metals Mining, a coalition the arrested water defenders helped build.
"We recognize the historic and heroic struggle of the community of Santa Marta to build a better future for the most marginalized populations."
The Santa Marta Five, who were released to house arrest in September, helped pass a 2017 legislative ban on metal mining in El Salvador. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who was reelected last month, has reportedly been considering reversing the prohibition in response to economic issues resulting from his policies.
"The Santa Marta Five water defenders were part of an emblematic fight to protect their land and waters from Canadian gold mining and ban metal mining," declared Viviana Herrera, Latin America program coordinator at MiningWatch Canada. "However, as in other countries in the region, their environmental struggle has come at an immense cost for them and their communities."
Chris Aylward, national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said that "we recognize the historic and heroic struggle of the community of Santa Marta to build a better future for the most marginalized populations, one where universal rights are guaranteed, including to health and water for all."
Acknowledging the global movement that has rallied behind the Santa Marta Five, the United Church of Canada's Christie Neufeldt vowed to keep pushing "for the charges to be dropped and to accompany their work to protect the ban on metals mining."
Along with the Canadian groups and IPS, the coalition supporting the five men includes the Central American Alliance on Mining, Pax Christi International, the SHARE Foundation, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and the Washington Ethical Society (WES).
“The Washington Ethical Society has a long history with the communities of El Rodeo and Santa Marta. We partnered with ADES in an eight-year process to build a potable water system for the community," noted Ross Wells, co-chair of WES's sister community program in El Salvador. "Antonio Pacheco, director of ADES and one of the arrested water defenders, was instrumental in making this project possible."
"WES members met with him every year for 12 years. Like the other members of the Santa Marta Five, Antonio was arrested and jailed for political reasons. These men fought hard to protect the waters of El Salvador from the ravages of metallic mining," he continued. "To help prop up an imploding economy, the current regime is making moves to reintroduce mining against the will of the people."
Wells also pointed out that the Santa Marta Five are among the tens of thousands of people arrested under El Salvador's state of exception, which began in March 2022 and has provoked intense condemnation from rights groups that have documented sweeping abuse by security forces, including arbitrary detention without due process.
"WES stands with the people of Santa Marta, in working for a just El Salvador, where human rights and the rule of law are respected," he said. "We pledge to continue fighting with others in the international community to protect the existing law against mining and drop the baseless charges against the Santa Marta Five."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Abstains as UN Security Council Demands 'Immediate Cease-Fire' in Gaza
"This resolution must be implemented," said U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. "Failure would be unforgivable."
Mar 25, 2024
The U.S. on Monday declined to veto but still abstained from a United Nations Security Council on Monday to adopt a resolution demanding an "immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan" in the embattled Gaza Strip, a move that came amid an ongoing Israeli genocide in which more than 114,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded and hundreds of thousands of others are starving.
The Security Council voted 14-0, with the U.S. abstaining, to approve a resolution for the cessation of hostilities during the Muslim holy month after member states overcame a sticking point over the removal of the word "permanent" from an earlier draft version. Instead, the resolution calls for an "immediate" cease-fire.
"Humanity prevails. Humanity always prevails," Palestine's U.N. mission said on social media following the vote. "Today's historic vote by the Security Council for a #ceasefire and an end to Israel's crimes is a first step towards justice. The resolution is binding."
The U.S. had vetoed three of the previous four cease-fire resolutions.
"This resolution must be implemented," U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said following Monday's vote. "Failure would be unforgivable."
As the U.N. Newsexplained:
The resolution is a bare-bones call for a cease-fire during the month of Ramadan, which began on March 11. It also demands the return of about 130 hostages seized in Israel and held in Gaza and emphasizes the urgent need to allow ample lifesaving aid to reach a starving population in the besieged enclave.
The demand to end hostilities has so far eluded the council following the Israeli forces' invasion of Gaza in October after Hamas attacks left almost 1,200 dead and 240 taken hostage.
Since then, Israel's daily bombardment alongside its near-total blockade of water, electricity, and lifesaving aid has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the health ministry there, where a recent U.N.-backed report showed an imminent famine unfolding.
Palestinians—especially children—are starving to death in Gaza. Hospitals are under attack, with Israeli forces reportedly executing large numbers of people inside al-Shifa Hospital.
Meanwhile, the approximately 1.5 million Palestinians in the southern city of Rafah—most of them refugees forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza—are bracing for an anticipated ground invasion, which Israeli leaders say will proceed despite a warning from U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris that such an operation would have "consequences."
Monday's vote followed intense negotiations over the measure introduced by 10 non-permanent Security Council members—Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Korea, and Switzerland.
According to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the vote on the resolution was delayed 20 minutes as the United States "pushed to include condemnation of Hamas in the text."
"This is despite the fact that the U.S. has VETOED previous resolutions that clearly condemned Hamas," Parsi wrote on social media.
Parsi said:
America's abstention in today's U.N. vote marks a real shift by [President Joe] Biden—this is the first time we've seen his administration's rhetorical shift in favor of a cease-fire translate into political action.
There's no question that all of the domestic pressure on the Biden administration to stop blocking a cease-fire is having an impact. The pressure is working—without it, Biden likely would've vetoed today' resolution. Yet, while Biden is no longer standing in the way of a cease-fire, this is hardly the same thing as helping to bring about a cease-fire. America must do much more to bring an end to this war.
Politically, today's vote will certainly increase pressure on Washington to help implement an immediate cease-fire. Will the Biden administration continue to sell Israel arms, even if Israel refuses the UNSC's call for a cease-fire?
The United States—which, despite growing frustration over genocidal atrocities, still arms Israel—brushed off a threat from far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel a planned visit to Washigton by a high-level Israeli delegation if the U.S. did not veto the resolution.
The Associated Pressreported Netanyahu followed through with his threat and canceled the trip.
Human rights defenders welcomed Monday's vote.
"Israel needs to immediately respond to the U.N. Security Council resolution adopted today by facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, ending its starvation of Gaza's population, and halting unlawful attacks," Louis Charbonneau, director of Human Rights Watch's U.N. program, said in a statement.
"Palestinian armed groups should immediately release all civilians held hostage," he added. "The U.S. and other countries should use their leverage to end atrocities by suspending arms transfers to Israel."
In the United States, progressive lawmakers also welcomed the resolution's adoption.
"The U.N. Security Council just passed a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, the release of all hostages, and full humanitarian access," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who has been criticized by the left for his earlier failure to call for a cease-fire. "The U.S. must push all parties to honor this cease-fire and rush massive humanitarian aid into Gaza to feed starving people."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) praised the Biden administration's "significant change" in policy after three previous vetoes.
"Grassroots activism is making the difference," he added. "Moral positions that just a few weeks ago were described as fringe are starting to be vindicated."
Meanwhile, the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) said it was "disappointed" by the Biden administration's veto, which the group said "fails to acknowledge that Hamas is to blame for ongoing hostilities and could stop the fighting by surrendering and releasing all the hostages."
In response, Jewish Voice for Peace Action asserted: "AIPAC will not accept anything less than complete and unquestioning amplification of Israeli military's talking points. They are fueling every part of this genocide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular