Worsening conditions for prisoners in Guantanamo Bay prison have caused many of the detainees to hold a mass hunger strike for the last three weeks. According to the detainees’ lawyers, the hunger strike is in reaction to searches of personal belongings, including mail and religious items. They said that the handling of their Qur’ans “amounted to desecration” and that the guards were often disrespectful during prayer times. Although the lawyers claim that almost all of the 166 prisoners are refusing food, a Guantanamo spokesperson denied that there are protests or any mishandling of religious items.

The prison  did later admit that six prisoners have missed enough meals to reach the army’s classification of hunger strike, and are now being force fed liquid protein to keep them alive. However, just how many meals and in what condition it takes to be classified as on a hunger strike is unclear. One lawyer reported that his client had not eaten in 23 days, but was still considered healthy enough to not require force feeding. The health of others like him on the hunger strike, “appears to be rapidly deteriorating and reaching a potentially critical level.” Prisoners have reportedly begun coughing up blood and fainting.

Further, this is only one of the slew of human rights related charges against the facility in recent weeks. Other recent news includes a guard shooting a “non-lethal” round of gunfire at prisoners on January 2, 2013 in what is being called a standard “crowd dispersal procedures.”  Also, Egyptians are pressing for the release of Tariq al-Sawah, who is not charged with any crimes but remains imprisoned. Al-Sawah appears to be in extremely bad health but is refused medical treatment by prison authorities.

(more…)

In just two months, in April, 2013, Yale University will officially open its doors to the United States Special Forces as the University debuts its first ever training center for military interrogators.  Yale and the U.S. Department of Defense see New Haven’s large immigrant community as a perfect test population for the lie detection and interrogation techniques they will be developing at the center.

In 2006, the New York Times called New Haven, Connecticut one of the poorest cities in the United States, where almost 25% of the population lives below the poverty line and the per capita income hovered at $16,393 in 2011.  The large majority of New Haven’s population is non-white; non-Hispanic whites made up 31.8% of the city’s population in 2010.  New Haven’s stark racial and economic divide is further emphasized by the presence of Yale University, a symbol of economic and racial privilege, which is now using these privileges to coerce its immigrant population into the role of guinea pig in the new center for “warrior academics.”

Charles Morgan III, a professor of psychiatry at Yale and head of the University’s new interrogation training program, euphemistically referred to “warrior academics” as fostering “people skills.”  He will specifically require the center’s test subjects to be brown-skinned immigrants, specifically naming “Moroccans, Colombians, Nepalese, Ecuadorians and others” as possible participants.  These individuals will be financially compensated for their participation, but far from being benevolent, this compensation stands as proof that the Military Industrial Complex (now inextricably linked with academic institutions) preys upon the economic vulnerability of marginalized populations to advance its own agenda.

The use of brown faces (which Professor Morgan hopes signifies “someone [soldiers] can’t necessarily identify with”) will only continue to disadvantage global and local non-white populations.  Here on  U.S. soil, New Haven’s non-white populations will be postured as unfamiliar racial “others.”  Abroad, it is likely that American soldiers will enter interrogation settings being predisposed to mistrust brown faces and with the supposition that all brown people “must belong to the same ‘category’ of liar” (which the center naturally assumes is a different category than white liars) as Guest Columnists for the Yale Daily News Nathalie Batraville and Alex Law argue.

(more…)

Just hours after the Hedges v. Obama oral argument at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month, an amazing panel of activists – many of whom are co-plaintiffs on the lawsuit – joined together at the Culture Project in New York City. The discussion, moderated by Matt Sledge of Huffington Post and Natasha Lennard of Salon.com, was divided into two panels: the first on updates from the case against indefinite detention, and a second discussing patterns of government abuse more generally.

I arrived during the second panel to a packed room, and stood near the doorway.  Michael Moore described his views on movement-building in response to government abuses of power.  He used the metaphor of creating enough pin pricks along the roof of a building to lead to a watershed, and the opportunity to fundamentally change the existing paradigm.  Moore referenced the recent Newtown tragedy. He then asked the audience and fellow panelists the chilling question, “What do we do to prevent the Newtown of this [government pattern of abuse, detention, and secrecy] from happening?”

One point of the conversation, however, concerned me.  Chris Hedges made some broad generalizations about corporations that are not clearly linked to the detention powers of the NDAA.  Although he accurately noted the disconcerting relationship between Goldman Sachs and the NYPD, as well as the destructive environmental track record of Shell, he failed to clearly link specific corporate activity to the NDAA case.

At one point, moderator Matt Sledge asked Hedges (viewable on this Democracy Now! clip), “Which of the corporations [that you are referencing] are lobbying for Section 1021 of the NDAA?”  Hedges implausibly replied, “All of them. Who writes our legislation but corporate lobbyists?”  Having acknowledged Hedge’s concerns about corporate power in other contexts, are all companies in the world really involved in promoting indefinite military detention under the NDAA?  A simple logical test of that blanket assertion results in a negative.

In general, it makes sense to identify specific circumstances whereby corporations may be linked to civil liberty violations, such as the telecom industry’s increased role in surveillance.  I do acknowledge and understand his mentions of corporate lobbyists and links to climate change.  Vague generalizations linking all corporations to the NDAA case, however, can only lead to vague actions in response.  As a journalist who communicates messages of social justice to the broader population, Hedges should be less reckless with his language so that audiences who receive his message are enabled to take effective actions in response.

During the Q&A, Michael Moore was challenged to defend his public decision to vote for Obama in 2012.  His initial response: “I drive.”  Then he went on to claim that simply by living in our society today, we are implicitly involved in all kinds of harmful and toxic structures (e.g. damaging the environment and depleting resources by burning fossil fuels).  After illustrating his own personal family background of working in auto factories in Michigan, he emphasized that his decision to vote for the president does not lessen the need to criticize him.  In fact, we need to work harder, yell louder, and hold the Obama administration more accountable now that the election is over.

Adding to Moore’s assessment of the Obama Administration, renowned Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg noted that Obama’s election has silenced many natural critics who were skeptical or even outspoken under the Bush administration.  “We should not be holding back [our criticism],” he affirmed.  Additionally, an audience member asked what kind of criticism Obama deserved, to which Ellsberg responded that the word “secrecy” has not been used enough in reference to his administration.  Ellsberg continued to paint a somber macro-level picture of Obama’s desire to continue his global program of illegal assassination.

The panelists encouraged the audience members to visit StopNDAA.org, where you can read the latest updates about the Hedges case. Visit BORDC’s campaign to restore due process for more information about how you can take local action against indefinite detention, as activists in San Francisco did just last week.

On Friday, February 4^th, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a declaration to officially make January 30th Fred Korematsu Day. For 40 years, Korematsu fought as the test case to stop the government’s unconstitutional internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Korematsu’s struggles included an appeal of a ruling that accounted for the detention of more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent, at locations including the Central Utah War Relocation Center in Topaz, Millard County. Two-thirds of this group were US citizens.

Gov. Herbert acknowledged the bravery and perseverance of Korematsu, who died March 30, 2005. He was just 23 years old when Ernest Besig, director of the San Francisco office of the ACLU, visited him and helped him start the fight for his rights. At the event Gov. Herbert discussed the unconstitutionality that Korematsu faced:

The declaration was wrong, the conviction was wrong, and under our Constitution, it shouldn’t have happened…He continued to fight for 40 years, and finally in 1983 had it overturned. That requires more than just a declaration, and having a Fred Korematsu Day is the least of what we can do for his great courage.

The director of the Fred T. Korematsu Institute for Civil Rights and Education, Ling Woo Liu, expanded on the Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution bill in California. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed this bill, designating January 30th as Fred Korematsu Day in California.

A Japanese-American activist who famously defied domestic military detention during  World War II, Fred T. Korematsu was a man who held our government accountable to uphold the human rights as a priority, not just an ideal.

One way to expand remembrance of his example is to propose BORDC’s model resolution to restore due process, which includes a provision based on the CA and UT resolutions, to your city council or state legislature.

Today, January 11, 2013 is the 11-year anniversary of Guantanamo Bay detention center’s opening and also the day that a vast coalition of groups will unite to uphold human rights and to protest President Obama’s inaction.

President Obama ordered that Guantanamo prison should be closed within one year. That order was nearly four years ago, yet Guantanamo remains open with one hundred sixty six detainees. Although many detainees have been cleared for transfer from the center by the Obama administration, they continue to be denied justice. As President Obama enters his second term, he has not only ignored his promise, but has made it harder for detainees to be transferred by signing the National Defense Authorization Act’s provisions about Guantanamo.

Amnesty International is holding an event in Washington D.C. where one hundred sixty six individuals dressed in orange jumpsuits will meet at Noon to march from the Supreme Court to the White House. There is also the option to stream the demonstration live on Amnesty International’s website. Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace is holding a silent vigil at 10am and rally at 10:45am at Downtown Los Angeles Federal building. These demonstrations are just some of many that will be taking place throughout the United States.

Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, explains why the closing of Guantanamo is a concern for every American:

January 11 offers a sad reminder of our country’s flagrant disregard for justice — not only for Guantanamo detainees, but also for 300 million Americans subjected to separate systems of law here within the US. Our country loudly claims to be the land of the free, yet conducts pervasive domestic surveillance and imprisons more people than any other country on the planet. Meanwhile, torturers have escaped even mere investigation, and even draw lifetime paychecks on the federal bench! Justice, national security (which suffered due to torture), and the law all require prosecuting US human rights abuses to make sure they never happen again. With the NDAA offering our military the power to detain anyone without proof of crime, every American has a personal stake in this struggle.

These demonstrations demand that Guantanamo be closed, indefinite detention should be removed from the National Defense Authorization Act, and all detained individuals should be prosecuted fairly or released. The only way to gain accountability from the government and to stop torture and other abuses is to demand it.

• 1/10, Dana Liebelson, Mother Jones, Why Is Obama Bashing a Whistleblower Law He Already Signed?
• 1/9, Kerry Wills, Robert Gearty and Stephen Rex Brown, New York Daily News, NYPD’s controversial ‘Stop and Frisk’ policy ruled unconstitutional
• 1/9, David Swanson, davidswanson.org, Talk Nation Radio: Shahid Buttar on Spying, Detention, Torture, and Zero Dark Thirty
• 1/9, Pete Yost, Associated Press, US defense contractor pays $5M to Iraqis who alleged torture at Abu Ghraib
• 1/9, Dorothy J. Samuels, New York Times Opinion Pages, Anti-Leak
• 1/9, Spencer Ackerman and Noah Shachtman, Wired, Leaks! Torture! Drones! Obama’s CIA Pick Faces Skeptical Senators
• 1/8, Peter B. Collins, peterbcollins.com, PBC News & Comment: No more appeals in wiretap case, President can break the law

The promise that the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba would be closed is continuing to remain just a promise.

President Obama signed a defense bill on January 2^nd that stresses stronger restrictions on the movement and transfer of detainees out of the center. The administration claimed he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act, but signed the bill into law anyway. The new defense legislation bans the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States for any reason. This new ban includes barring detainees from entering the United States even to merely attend trials in federal court.

The defense secretary also has a new set of guidelines and conditions that must be met before detainees can be returned to his or her country or a third party country.

The transfer process can only begin again with the Pentagon’s certification that is now required by Congress. However, this is unlikely to happen because of the political backlash that would be received. These new provisions continue to halt the justice system and detain individuals for unwarranted amounts of time. Eleven years is long enough to see that Guantanamo’s existence is destroying the way in which justice is enacted in the United States and tarnishing the importance of human rights.

(more…)

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee recently coordinated the filing of three amicus (friend of the court) briefs in Hedges v. Obama, a lawsuit in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals challenging domestic military detention under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.

The suit was brought by journalists and activists concerned about being subjected to indefinite military detention if they interview subjects hostile to the US, and secured a permanent injunction earlier this year from Judge Katherine Forrest of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The briefs coordinated by BORDC support the position of the plaintiffs and provide additional arguments to inform the court’s decision. One brief was filed on behalf of BORDC, arguing that when the government has previously used military domestic detention it has taken extreme steps to evade the oversight of the federal courts, and thus it is now especially important for the Second Circuit to decide the constitutionality of the NDAA, so that the government does not later avoid the courts’ oversight.

The other briefs were filed on behalf of the Government Accountability Project, which defends whistleblowers, and the the Korematsu Center, which seeks to combat discrimination and to support communities in advocating for themselves. Both of these briefs were recently highlighted by the Huffington Post, in an article that also points out “7 Ways to Get Yourself Indefinitely Detained.”

Oral argument in the case is anticipated to be before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City in January. Updates can be found on BORDC’s blog and at StopNDAA.org. You can also find others organizing across the country against the NDAA on BORDC’s national map of anti-NDAA movements. Read more about each brief after the jump.

(more…)

• 12/17, Robert Johnson, Business Insider, ‘Did We Just Kill A Kid?’ — Six Words That Ended A US Drone Pilot’s Career
• 12/17, Tony Romm, Politico, End is near for surveillance law powers
• 12/17, John W. Whitehead, Rutherford Institute, EyeSee You and the Internet of Things: Watching You While You Shop
• 12/17, Lyle Denniston, Business Insider, Obama Finally Gave Up On Trying To Control Guantanamo Bay Detainees’ Access To Their Lawyers
• 12/17, Noah Shachtman, Wired, How Joe Biden Accidentally Helped Us All E-Mail in Private

• 12/13, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Statement, Feinstein Statement on CIA Detention, Interrogation Report
• 12/13, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Statement, Senator John McCain On Intelligence Committee Report On Torture
• 12/13, Taylor Armerding, CSO, Drones increasingly used for surveillance in U.S.
• 12/13, Greg Miller, Washington Post, Report finds harsh CIA interrogations ineffective
• 12/12, Julia Angwin, Wall Street Journal, U.S. terror agency to tap citizen files
• 12/12, David Kravets, Wired, Expiring Warrantless Spy Bill to Be Reauthorized by Year’s End
• 12/7, Mary McCarthy and Bob Barr, Christian Science Monitor, How to protect Americans from anti-terrorism data sharing