

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Victims of post-9/11 racial profiling, illegal detention, and abuse in the U.S. may have the chance to sue high-level Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a U.S. federal court ruled on Wednesday in what the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) called an "exceedingly rare" decision.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday found that Ashcroft, former FBI director Robert Mueller, and former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner James Ziglar, who are all defendants in the case of Turkmen v. Ashcroft, "exceeded the bounds of the [U.S.] Constitution in the wake of 9/11" by profiling, detaining, abusing, and deporting numerous Arab, Muslim, and South Asian men based on nothing more than their race or religion.
"[T]here is no legitimate governmental purpose in holding someone as if he were a terrorist simply because he happens to be, or appears to be, Arab or Muslim," the three-judge panel wrote in its decision (pdf). "[W]e simply cannot conclude at this stage that concern for the safety of our nation justified the violation of the constitutional rights on which this nation was built."
"The suffering endured by those who were imprisoned merely because they were caught up in the hysteria of the days immediately following 9/11 is not without a remedy."
--U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals
CCR, which brought the case in 2002, said the ruling was historic and served as a reminder that "the rule of law and the rights of human beings, whether citizens or not, must not be sacrificed in the face of national security hysteria."
The eight plaintiffs, along with hundreds of other men who were arrested following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, were held as "suspected terrorists" and placed in solitary confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn for months on end, despite their only charges being civil immigration violations such as overstaying a visa or working without authorization. While in custody, the men were abused by guards, including through sleep deprivation, beatings, denial of religious rights, and by having "their faces smashed into a wall where guards had pinned a t-shirt with a picture of an American flag and the words, 'These colors don't run.'" They were then deported.
"Holding individuals in solitary confinement 23 hours a day with regular strip searches because their perceived faith or race placed them in the group targeted for recruitment by Al Qaeda violated the detainees' constitutional rights," Judges Rosemary S. Pooler and Richard C. Wesley wrote in their decision.
Following the ruling, CCR senior staff attorney Rachel Meeropol said, "Punishing low-level perpetrators is necessary, but hardly sufficient to prevent future abuse. Orders came from officials at the highest levels of government. Now we have the chance to ensure that they are held accountable and not treated as if they are above the law."
Pooler and Wesley concluded their 109-page decision with what CCR called an "unusual" section named "Final Thoughts." The section reads:
If there is one guiding principle to our nation it is the rule of law. It protects the unpopular view, it restrains fear-based responses in times of trouble, and it sanctifies individual liberty regardless of wealth, faith, or color. The Constitution defines the limits of the Defendants' authority; detaining individuals as if they were terrorists, in the most restrictive conditions of confinement available, simply because these individuals were, or appeared to be, Arab or Muslim exceeds those limits. It might well be that national security concerns motivated the Defendants to take action, but that is of little solace to those who felt the brunt of that decision. The suffering endured by those who were imprisoned merely because they were caught up in the hysteria of the days immediately following 9/11 is not without a remedy.
One of the plaintiffs, Benamar Benatta, said he was "very delighted" by Wednesday's ruling.
"It has been a long and stressful process that has taken a tremendous toll on my life, however, it is this kind of bold decision that restores my faith in the U.S. judicial system and gives me hope that justice will be served at the end," Benatta continued. "It is time for those officials at the highest levels of government to stop hiding behind excuses and answer for their arbitrary and discriminatory decisions that affected, and in some cases ruined, innocent people's lives."
The Justice Department said it was reviewing the court's decision. As CCR pointed out on Wednesday, it is rare for claims against high-level government officials to proceed.
Good riddance!
Eric Holder has announced that he is leaving his post of Attorney General, which he has sullied and degraded for six years.
A corporate lawyer with the Wall Street law firm Covington & Burling, Holder will be remembered for his timid defense of civil rights; his overseeing and even encouragement of the massive militarization of the nation's police forces; his anti-First Amendment efforts to pursue not just whistleblowers but the journalists who use them; threatening both with jail and in fact jailing a number of them (particularly in the case of whistleblower extraordinaire Edward Snowden, and WikiLeaks journalist Julian Assange, both of whom reportedly face U.S. treason charges); and his weak enforcement of environmental protection laws.
But Holder, who came into his position as the nation's top law enforcement officer in early 2009 at the start of the Obama administration and at the height of the financial crisis, will be best remembered for his overt announcement that there would be no attempt to prosecute the criminals at the top of the nation's top banks, whose brazen crimes of theft, deceit, fraud and perjury during the Bush/Cheney years and beyond sank not just the U.S. but the global economy into a crisis which is still with us.
Holder not only did not make any effort to put Wall Street's banking titans behind bars for their epic crimes, he did not even make them step down from their exalted and absurdly highly compensated executive positions when his office reached negotiated settlements with the banks in civil cases involving those crimes--civil cases that almost always allowed the banks to settle without even having to admit their guilt. (His ludicrous excuse: punishing these criminal executive might jeopardize the banks' stocks and hurt "innocent" shareholders!)
Nor was this legal benevalence limited to purely financial crimes. Banks like Citicorp and HSBC, which were found to have knowingly laundered millions--even billions--of dollars in drug money for drug cartels, were also allowed by Holder to escape with petty fines, and no prosecution of a single bank executive.
It is being suggested that Holder may opt to go back to his old post as a partner at Covington & Burling, which would be the final, though hardly surprising, insult to the American people, providing a particularly galling example of Washington's revolving door between government regulators and enforcers and the industries that they were supposed to be regulating or keeping honest.
God, how far we have fallen from the days when Ramsey Clark was Attorney General, and left to become a leading critic of Washington's imperial government at home and abroad!
At this point the Obama administration is little more than a place holder until the next presidential election in 2016. President Obama, who campaigned as a fire-breathing liberal who would restore constitutional government, end the Bush/Cheney wars, re-open the government so that transparency instead of secrecy would be the default position, and take decisive action against climate change, has abandoned all those false promises.
The illegal and unconstitutional wars continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are now being expanded into Africa and Syria and, at least by proxy, but most dangerously, to Ukraine. Civil liberties are under attack at least as severely as they were back in the McCarthy period, with whistleblowers being jailed, the president asserting the unfettered right to order the killing without trial of American citizens, and a spying system in place run by the National Security Agency that is monitoring and storing, by its own admission, virtually all electronic communications of the American people. The government is also as closed and secret in its operation as it has been since 1974, when it was broadened following the Watergate and Cointelpro scandals, and is certainly less transparent and open than it was even under Bush/Cheney. The Obama administration has also done little to nothing about tackling carbon emissions despite the president's lies to the contrary in his address to the UN.
In all of this extraordinary list of treachery and cowardice, Holder has played his sycophantic role as a defender of corporate America, of white privilege, and of Washington power. He has been both the John Ashcroft and the Alberto Gonzalez of the Obama administration. (Actually, that comparison is unfair to John Ashcroft, who at least was a man of conviction--repellent as some of those convictions may have been. In Holder's case, we have a man not of principle, but who is simply a corporate lawyer, ready to do his clients' bidding, however sordid and corrupt.)
Given the depths of unpopularity to which President Obama has sunk after six years of selling out his own electoral base and catering to the interests of the rich and powerful, the military establishment and neo-con right-wing of the Washington policy elite, it is safe to say that Holder's replacement, still unknown, will be no better--though given Holder's tenure it's also hard to imagine his successor being much worse either.
So good riddance to Holder. But it will be worthwhile, and indeed important, to watch carefully this departing Obama official's behavior back in the private sector, from under which rock he emerged to be Attorney General six years ago.
Remember when John Ashcroft put a drape over the bared breast of the "Spirit of Justice" statue at the Justice Department? The Republicans are now busy trying to cover their own political private parts after flashing a core part of their agenda - their war on women -- at an inopportune time.
Remember when John Ashcroft put a drape over the bared breast of the "Spirit of Justice" statue at the Justice Department? The Republicans are now busy trying to cover their own political private parts after flashing a core part of their agenda - their war on women -- at an inopportune time.

It's a motley conservative crew that makes up the Misogynistic Army of the Right. There are those who both fear women and believe them inferior to men. Pining for patriarchy, they seek to subdue and oppress women. There are others carrying water for a health insurance industry eager to save money wherever it can. And others just play for any advantage over Democrats.
Birth control gives women more power over their bodies and their lives, making it harder to keep them in their place. Equal health care costs money. Insurance reimbursement rates (in both private and public sector plans) are intended to drive down utilization. Women are generally more responsible about their health than men, so there's pressure to reimburse physicians less for treating women than men. Then there's the anti-Washington, anti-Obama faction that simply condemns anything Democrats are for.
Conservatives have had great success at tuning their racist dog whistles. They've learned how to use code to appeal to racial bigots ("welfare Cadillacs," "Willie Horton," "Derek Bell," "voter I.D."). The conservative chorus is often out of tune when it comes to singing about the subjugation of women.
Regrettably, Democrats have failed to take advantage of the dissonance. Roe v. Wade marked a moment similar to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Oddly, after securing those victories, Democrats began running away from them. In their pursuit of the so-called "swing voters," Democrats tried to avoid "polarizing" issues, that is, the important ones.
Republicans have been able to hide their antagonism toward women behind the abortion issue, an issue that scares many Democrats and their consultants. I'm not certain why. In Texas, for instance, one hears constantly that pro-choice candidates won't do well with Catholic Hispanic voters, but I've never seen the issue have any influence on election outcomes.
Last year, a Republican state representative in Texas, Wayne Christian, confessed that he was engaged in a war on birth control. My colleagues and I clipped the interview and posted it to YouTube, where it has received a good number of hits at one source or another.
I tried to convince many Democratic insiders that Republicans were more vulnerable than ever on the issues of women's health. I didn't get very far. Of course, I was making the argument at a time when the economy dominated voters' attention.
Still, state and national polls over the months show that women voters are increasingly uneasy with Republicans. Many women who voted Republican in 2010 seem to be moving back to Democrats.
If Democrats are to take advantage of this momentum, they are going to have to keep talking - shouting - about the issues surrounding women's health care. Typically, we think that our arguments are so powerful that if we just make them once or twice the reasoning world will accept our views automatically. We can move on to other things.
It doesn't work that way. The Right is going to keep up its attack on women. There are many Republicans who wish they wouldn't. They can see they are losing the argument with women voters. But their right wing won't stop. And if Democrats don't overwhelm them with progressive voices, sooner or later the right wing arguments will so dominate the media sphere that their views will begin to seem like common sense.
The FBI should not be given more power to spy on dissenters in America. In fact, it should not have that power at all.
Once upon a time, the FBI could investigate a person or organization only when the agency had reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. This crucial requirement came about after the revelations of massive FBI abuse in the 1960s and early 1970s.
In 1976, Sen. Frank Church of Idaho held hearings on FBI wrongdoing. The Church Committee's findings shed crucial light.
The FBI should not be given more power to spy on dissenters in America. In fact, it should not have that power at all.
Once upon a time, the FBI could investigate a person or organization only when the agency had reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. This crucial requirement came about after the revelations of massive FBI abuse in the 1960s and early 1970s.
In 1976, Sen. Frank Church of Idaho held hearings on FBI wrongdoing. The Church Committee's findings shed crucial light.
In the wake of the hearings, the attorney general of the United States drafted guidelines that mandated a criminal predicate before the FBI could launch an investigation. While often honored in the breach, and watered down over the years, until 9/11 this requirement served as a crucial bulwark against FBI intrusion into our protected First Amendment activities.
Unfortunately after the Sept. 11 attacks, first under Attorney General John Ashcroft and then under Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the requirement of a criminal predicate was removed. As a result, the FBI and other anti-terrorist agencies spied on many forms of legitimate protest and dissent. For example, pacifist groups such as the Thomas Merton Center and Catholic Worker were investigated under the rubric of domestic terrorism.
Protests have been a special target. For instance, 15 months prior to the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., a specially created FBI Intelligence Center began to spy on, and place informants in, groups it suspected were going to participate in demonstrations.
President Obama campaigned on protecting our civil liberties, so you might have expected his attorney general, Eric Holder, to provide people with greater protections from FBI snoops. But he has not. And it is about to get even worse.
The new Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide will empower the FBI to dispatch surveillance teams, to follow targets, to dig through trash, to search commercial databases and to expand the use of informants to infiltrate a wide range of organizations.
If you are part of a group that disagrees with government policy in Iraq or Afghanistan, or that dislikes nuclear energy, the next time you throw out your trash, an FBI agent may be examining it a few hours later -- from what you eat to what you buy to what you read and think.
The next time you attend a meeting to fight for better schools, protest drug testing on animals or criticize almost any aspect of government policy, the person next to you may be an informant, recording everything you say. Or perhaps the informant will participate in the meeting, steering the organization's activities in ways the government wishes.
It is now almost ten years after 9/11, the event that frightened many into giving the FBI broad spying authority -- authority that now threatens the very essence of democracy. Piece by piece, the constitutional protections for dissent are disappearing.
It's time for new congressional hearings, similar to the Church Committee's, on FBI spying. We must protest the new expanded powers about to be bestowed on the FBI and follow that with a demand to Attorney General Holder for new guidelines ensuring that dissent and protest will be off-limits to the FBI.
In March, 2002, American citizen Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago and publicly accused by then-Attorney-General John Ashcroft of being "The Dirty Bomber." Shortly thereafter, he was transferred to a military brig in South Carolina, where he was held for almost two years completely incommunicado (charges with no crime and denied all access to the outside world, including even a lawyer) and was brutally tortured, both physically and psycholog
In March, 2002, American citizen Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago and publicly accused by then-Attorney-General John Ashcroft of being "The Dirty Bomber." Shortly thereafter, he was transferred to a military brig in South Carolina, where he was held for almost two years completely incommunicado (charges with no crime and denied all access to the outside world, including even a lawyer) and was brutally tortured, both physically and psychologically. All of this -- including the torture -- was carried out pursuant to orders from President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and other high-ranking officials. Just as the Supreme Court was about to hear Padilla's plea to be charged or released -- and thus finally decide if the President has the power to imprison American citizens on U.S. soil with no charges of any kind -- the Government indicted him in a federal court on charges far less serious than Ashcroft had touted years earlier, causing the Supreme Court to dismiss Padilla's arguments as "moot"; Padilla was then convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison.
Padilla -- like so many other War on Terror detainees -- has spent years in American courts trying unsuccessfully to hold accountable the high-level government officials responsible for his abuse and lawless imprisonment (that which occurred for years prior to his indictment). Not only has Padilla (and all other detainees) failed to obtain redress for what was done to them, but worse, they have been entirely denied even the right to have their cases heard in court. That's because the U.S. Government has invented -- and federal courts have dutifully accepted -- a whole slew of legal doctrines which have only one purpose: to insulate the country's most powerful political officials from legal accountability even when they commit the most egregious crimes: such as imprisoning incommunicado and torturing an American citizen arrested and detained on U.S. soil.
Yesterday, in South Carolina, an Obama-appointed federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Padilla against former Bush officials Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz and others. That suit alleges that those officials knowingly violated Padilla's Constitutional rights by ordering his due-process-free detention and torture. In dismissing Padilla's lawsuit, the court's opinion relied on the now-depressingly-familiar weapons used by our political class to immunize itself from judicial scrutiny: national security would be undermined by allowing Padilla to sue; "government officials could be distracted from their vital duties to attend depositions or respond to other discovery requests"; "a trial on the merits would be an international spectacle with Padilla, a convicted terrorist, summoning America's present and former leaders to a federal courthouse to answer his charges"; the litigation would risk disclosure of vital state secrets; and "discovery procedures could be used by our enemies to obtain valuable intelligence."
Read the full article at Salon...
In his recently published memoirs called Decision Points, and in interviews publicizing those memoirs, former President Bush makes it clear his stand on what many consider a basic human rights violation: the use of waterboarding as a torture technique. With characteristic insouciance, Mr. Bush expresses his unqualified support for torture.
Waterboarding is one of the most cruel torture techniques, used in many countries worldwide. The technique has been practiced, among others, by the Spanish Inquisition and by the French paratroopers in Algeria. It has been also used by American soldiers in Vietnam and by the British Army in Northern Ireland.
During waterboarding, the subject is immobilized keeping his back with the head inclined downwards. Water is then poured over the face and then it goes into breathing passages and triggers a reflex causing the subject to experience the sensation of drowning. CIA officers who volunteered to experience the technique have lasted an average of 14 seconds before capitulating.
Although there is some discrepancy on the legality on the use of this technique, there is no discrepancy on its consequences. "Waterboarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over his face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD," declared Dr. Allen Keller, director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, at the Hearing on U.S. Interrogation Policy and Executive Order 13440, to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
There are also questions about the effectiveness of waterboarding as a torture technique. "It is bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture is bad enough," said former CIA officer Robert Baer. Several other former CIA officers have the same point of view.
Former President George W. Bush and officials in his administration such as former vice-president Dick Cheney and former attorney general John Ashcroft have stated, since leaving office, that they don't consider waterboarding to be torture. However, Senator John McCain, who has some personal experience on this issue, has stated unequivocally that he considers waterboarding to be torture.
"I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition for torture," stated Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. And she also stated that violators of the UN Convention Against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
Former president George W. Bush insists in his book that waterboarding is not torture, but it is just one of a number of "enhanced interrogation techniques." This point of view is not shared by officials within the British government, who agree with President Barak Obama that water boarding constitutes torture, and has banned the used of such practice.
Former president Bush said that waterboarding is "highly effective" and added that its use provided "large amounts of information." Although former president Bush has no regrets in having authorized the use of torture, Douglas Johnson, executive director of the Center for Victims of Torture, declared, "This cavalier attitude by the President who authorized torture in violation of US and international law not only damages our nation's credibility throughout the world, but also discourages global cooperation to combat terrorism."
NEW YORK - Hundreds of people who believe they were falsely detained and imprisoned by the Department of Justice in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks are now seeking redress through the U.S. courts.
The exact number of detainees is unclear, as no lists were ever released publicly. But according to a report by the Office of the Inspector General in 2002, 475 9/11 detainees were arrested and detained in New York and New Jersey. Hundreds more were arrested across the country.
Some of these men are plaintiffs in a federal class action lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top officials in the administration of President George W. Bush (2001-2009) who were responsible for their illegal roundup, abuse and detention.
The suit charges that the detainees were kept in solitary confinement with the lights on 24 hours a day; placed under a communications blackout so that they could not seek the assistance of their attorneys, families and friends; subjected to physical and verbal abuse; forced to endure inhumane conditions of confinement; and obstructed in their efforts to practice their religion.
Some of the abuse included beatings, repeated strip searches and sleep deprivation. The allegations of inhumane and degrading treatment have been substantiated by two reports of the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General, and several defendants in the case have been convicted on federal charges of cover-ups and beatings of other prisoners around the same time period.
On Sep. 13, six new plaintiffs joined the lawsuit, which is still a proposed class action; there has not yet been a ruling on class certification.
These plaintiffs include two Pakistani men, Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi and Anser Mehmood; two men from Egypt, Ahmed Khalifa and Saeed Hammouda; Benamar Benatta; an Algerian man who has sought and received refugee status in Canada; and Purna Raj Bajracharya, a Nepalese Buddhist whose prolonged detention after 9/11 prompted outrage not only by civil libertarians, but even by the FBI agent who originally investigated him.
Bajracharya was videotaping the sights of New York City for his family back in Nepal when he inadvertently included an FBI office. He was taken into custody, where officials found he had overstayed his tourist visa, a violation punishable by deportation.
Instead, Bajracharya wound up in solitary confinement in a federal detention center for three months, weeping constantly, in a six-by-nine-foot cell where the lights were never turned off. Bajracharya, who speaks little English, might have been in there much longer if James Wynne, the FBI agent who investigated him, had not summoned Legal Aid.
Despite the fact that the government never charged any of them with a terrorism-related offense, immigration authorities kept the men in detention for up to eight months, long past the resolution of their immigration cases, according to attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the class action on behalf of the plaintiffs.
"I was deprived of my liberty and I was abused at the hands of the U.S. government simply because of my religion and ethnicity. Now, nine years later, I seek to vindicate my rights and hold the people who mistreated me accountable," said Benamar Benatta. "My hope is that this never happens to anyone again."
Benatta succeeded in having a criminal charge for possession of false immigration documents thrown out of court when the federal judge in his case ruled that his immigration detention was a "subterfuge" and "sham" created to hide the reality that, because Benatta was an "Algerian citizen and a member of the Algerian Air Force, [he] was spirited off to the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center) in Brooklyn...and held in the [Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit] as 'high security' for the purposes of providing an expeditious means of having [him] interrogated by special agents of the FBI."
"After 9/11 hundreds of men were swept up and detained in deplorable conditions based only on their religion and ethnicity," CCR Attorney Rachel Meeropol told IPS.
"Nine years later, my clients are still determined to hold the masterminds of these sweeps accountable, and we will continue this fight until former Attorney General John Ashcroft, and his cronies, are forced to answer for their policy of profiling and abuse," she said.
"No matter what exalted position they hold, cannot get away with ordering abuse and racial profiling. This battle is far from over," Meeropol added.
The suit names as defendants then-Attorney General Ashcroft; Robert Mueller, current director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); former immigration commissioner James Ziglar; and officials at the MDC, where the plaintiffs were held.
It includes additional detail regarding high-level involvement in racial profiling and abuse, including allegations that Ashcroft ordered immigration authorities and the FBI to investigate individuals for ties to terrorism by, among other means, looking for Muslim-sounding names in the phonebook.
In the resulting dragnet, hundreds of men were arrested, many based solely on their physical appearance - "Middle Eastern-looking men."
Many other arrests were based on anonymous tips called in to the FBI. The complaint also discloses, in some cases for the first time, the "discriminatory and nonsensical tips" that led to each plaintiff's arrest and detention, the CCR says.
Lead plaintiff Ibrahim Turkmen, for example, was arrested after his landlady called the FBI to report that she rented an apartment to several Middle Eastern men, and "she would feel awful if her tenants were involved in terrorism and she didn't call."
Among other documented abuses in detention, many of the 9/11 detainees had their faces smashed into a wall where guards had pinned a t-shirt with a picture of a U.S. flag and the words, "These colors don't run." The men were slammed against the t-shirt upon their entrance to MDC and told "welcome to America".
The t-shirt was smeared with blood, yet it stayed up on the wall at MDC for months.
" Extraordinary rendition" is White
House-speak for kidnapping. Just ask Maher Arar. He's a Canadian
citizen who was "rendered" by the U.S. to Syria, where he was tortured
for almost a year.
Just this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, in New York City, dismissed Arar's case against
the government officials (including FBI Director Robert Mueller, former
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and former Attorney General John
Ashcroft) who allegedly conspired to have him kidnapped and tortured.
Arar is safe now, recovering in Canada with his family. But the
decision sends a signal to the Obama administration that there will be
no judicial intervention to halt the cruel excesses of the Bush-era
"Global War on Terror," including extraordinary rendition, torture and
the use of the "state secrets privilege" to hide these crimes.
Arar's life-altering odyssey is one of the
best known and best investigated of those victimized by U.S.
extraordinary rendition. After vacationing with his family in Tunisia,
Arar attempted to fly home to Canada. On Sept. 26, 2002, while changing
planes at JFK Airport, Arar was pulled aside for questioning. He was
fingerprinted and searched by the FBI and the New York Police
Department. He asked for a lawyer and was told he had no rights. He was
then taken to another location and subjected to two days of aggressive
interrogations, with no access to phone, food or a lawyer. He was asked
about his membership with various terrorist groups, about Osama bin
Laden, Iraq, Palestine and more. Shackled, he was then moved to a
maximum-security federal detention center in Brooklyn, strip-searched
and threatened with deportation to Syria.
Arar was born in Syria and told his
captors that if he returned there, he would be tortured. As Arar's
lawyers would later argue, however, that is exactly what they hoped
would happen. Arar was eventually allowed a call-he got through to his
mother-in-law, who got him a lawyer-and a visit from a Canadian
Consulate official. For nearly two weeks, the U.S. authorities held the
Syria threat over his head. Still, he denied any involvement with
terrorism. So in the middle of the night, over a weekend, without
normal immigration proceedings-without telling his lawyer or the
Canadian Consulate-he was dragged in chains to a private jet contracted
by the CIA and flown to Jordan, where he was then handed over to the
Syrians.
For 10 months and 10 days, Maher was held
in a dark, damp, cold cell, measuring 6 feet by 3 feet by 7 feet high,
the size of a grave. He was beaten repeatedly with a thick electrical
cable all over his body, punched, made to listen to the torture of
others, denied food and threatened with electrical shock and an array
of more horrors. To stop the torture, he falsely confessed to attending
terrorist training in Afghanistan. Then, after nearly a year, he was
abruptly released to Canada, 40 pounds lighter and emotionally
destroyed.
The Canadian government, under conservative Prime Minister Stephen
Harper, investigated, found its own culpability in relaying unreliable
information to the FBI and settled with Arar, giving him an apology and
$10 million. The U.S. government has offered no apology and has kept
Arar on a terrorist watch list. He is not allowed to enter the U.S. Two
years ago, he had to testify before Congress via video conference.
He said: "These past few years have been a
nightmare for me. Since my return to Canada, my physical pain has
slowly healed, but the cognitive and psychological scars from my ordeal
remain with me on a daily basis. I still have nightmares and recurring
flashbacks. I am not the same person that I was. I also hope to convey
how fragile our human rights have become and how easily they can be
taken from us by the same governments that have sworn to protect them."
Given the excesses of the Bush
administration and Barack Obama's promise of change, it has surprised
many that these policies are continuing, and that Congress and the
courts have not closed this chapter of U.S. history. President Obama
has never once condemned extraordinary rendition. Arar's lawyer, Maria
LaHood of the Center for Constitutional Rights, calls the court
decision against Arar "an outrage." In his dissent, Judge Guido
Calabresi wrote, "I believe that when the history of this distinguished
court is written, today's majority decision will be viewed with
dismay." Given the torture that Arar suffered, his response was
remarkably measured: "If anything, this decision is a loss to all
Americans and to the rule of law."
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
The last line of this article
on how the Najibullah Zazi arrest was a victory for the Obama
Administration's approach to terrorism boasts that the Administration
didn't have a John Ashcroft-style press conference on the day of the
arrest.
With Zazi's arrest, administration
officials said they had a renewed sense of confidence that they could
approach security threats in a new way. "The system probably worked the
way it did before, but we made a conscious decision not to have a big
press conference" about Zazi's arrest, a senior official said.
Which is pretty hysterical, coming as it does in one article of
several that are obviously similarly seeded, boasting of Obama's new
approach to terrorism. There are several aspects to this apparent PR
blitz. Articles providing details (though none as detailed as the NPR story over the weekend) explaining how the CIA learned of Zazi and shared info with the FBI. Articles discussing
the address by Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Robert Mueller
yesterday, lauding information sharing. All of which will lead into
coverage of Obama's address to the National Counter-Terrorism Center,
scheduled for today at 11:40.
We didn't have a press conference when we arrested Zazi, the WaPo's
source (who could be Rahm or John Brennan) seems to be saying, but
we're sure as hell going to have a media blitz about it when it serves
our purposes.
What's especially nice about this WaPo piece, though, is it makes
the goal of the media blitz explicit, tying it to the discussion of the
PATRIOT Act.
At the same time, the Obama
administration is pressing Congress to move swiftly to reauthorize
three provisions of the USA Patriot Act set to expire in late December.
They include the use of "roving wiretaps" to track movement, e-mail and
phone communications, a tool that federal officials used in the weeks
leading up to Zazi's arrest.With the apprehension of Zazi, as well as several other covert
operations at home and abroad, the Obama administration is increasingly
confident that it has struck a balance between protecting civil
liberties, honoring international law and safeguarding the country.
Note, however, that the WaPo focuses on one of the least controversial of the practices, roving wiretaps.
It does not discuss how the Administration wants to lower the legal
standard for allowing FBI agents to get business records and things
like medical records on people who may have no tie to terrorism. It
does not talk about National Security Letters, which let the FBI get
certain records with no court review. And it does not discuss how the
Administration is using more and more data mining of US persons.
In other words, it boasts of Obama's approach to terrorism without
actually revealing what it is, without even providing the level of
detail Dina Temple-Raston provided over the weekend.
So the PR blitz serves the same purpose as John Ashcroft's
circus-like pressers did: to wow citizens that our national security
team has prevented an act of terrorism. But to offer that--rather than
an honest discussion of what that means for civil liberties--as the
sole discourse on terrorism.
Don't get me wrong: the men and women who tracked down Zazi deserve
some public kudos. But that shouldn't be tied to a political campaign
designed to further curtail civil liberties.
Tuesday night at Howard University, RNC chair Michael Steele did an
impression of the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz: he was absolutely
heartless. Not everyday do we see the head of a major political party
insult a 23 year old whose mother just died of cancer.
But first let's set the scene:
Steele spoke at Howard in front of roughly 150 students as part of
his outreach program to Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
His effort to connect with young black students got off to a rather
cringe-worthy start when right before the billed "student dialogue" two
dozen white members of area young Republican groups arrived to sit in
the reserved first two rows of the packed room. One wondered, as
students grumbled, if Steele hired John Ashcroft to be his event
manager.
But the discomfort turned to boredom as Steele's "dialogue" turned
quickly into a monologue. The RNC chair went on a long rambling speech
about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, while the texting
audience strained to stay awake. There was no impassioned argument or
defense of the Republican Party and any questions in the "dialogue" had
to be submitted in writing while Steele spoke. The only thing that
caused even a raised eyebrow was Steele's occasional effort at slang.
When a student told Steele she was going into business law he said,
"Business law! Mo money!"
But when challenged, Steele exposed himself, and it was awful to see
the Tin Man's tin ear. When the RNC chair took a written question on
health care, he blasted the public option, saying that "every time the
government gets involved in something it doesn't work."
Then came Amanda Duzak, and Steele's evening just got a whole lot worse.
Duzak, a 23 year old Towson University grad, stood up, against the rules and out of turn.
"My mother died of cancer 6 months ago because she could only afford
three of her six prescription chemotherapy medications," she projected.
"There are 50 million people in this country who could end up like my
mom, suffering or dying because they do not have adequate health care.
Everyone in this room and everyone in this country should have access
to good health care."
The room woke up and other than those glaring from the front, the
applause was wall to wall. But it's Steele's response that makes this
moment both newsworthy and a terrible comment on his character. After
saying that he believed in a mature, honest discussion and not in
shouting, Steele said, "People are coming to these town meetings and
they're like [he then shakes]." He then looked and gestured right at
Ms. Duzak and said, "It makes for great TV. You'll probably make it
tonight, enjoy it." He then turned his back to her, as the crowd
clapped.
Think about what Steele did. He didn't only turn his back and rudely
dismiss a young woman whose mother just died of cancer. He used the
shameful recent behavior of the right wing town hall screamers -- his
own party's base -- to try and turn the crowd against Ms. Duzak.
Damian Smith, a after school counselor and Prince George's County
resident, also weighed in about how his aunt is losing her home because
of her medical bills. Other people started to shout out as well.
But Steele was worse than non-responsive. He was dismissive and
profoundly disrespectful. As Smith said to me afterward, "I couldn't
believe he acted that way toward her... toward all of us. He was just
mean."
The roots of Steele's unconscionable behavior lie in his own
political bankruptcy. The nation faces a health care crisis and has no
answer other than telling students, "Everyone in the country needs
health care." Lately he has been running commercials telling seniors,
"No cuts for Medicare," just two short years after running for senator
of Maryland saying that "everything has to be on the table" - including
Medicare cuts. As Ron Brownstein wrote in National Journal on
Friday, "Steele's pledge this week to 'protect Medicare' might have
been more convincing had it not come five months after nearly
four-fifths of House Republicans voted to literally end the program as
we know it for all Americans younger than 55."
It's one thing to be a fraud. That's politics as usual. But to turn
your back on a young person whose mother just died of cancer is more
than politics as usual. It's shocking. As Ms. Duzak said to me after
the event, very upset, "I wasn't trying to shout or be rude. I just
wanted an answer. I thought we were all owed that." We certainly are.
But if nothing else, Michael Steele owes Amanda Duzak a sincere
apology.