January, 30 2009, 11:46am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Rachel Myers, ACLU, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Sharon Singh, Amnesty International USA, (202) 544-0200 x289; ssingh@aiusa.org
Krista Minteer, Human Rights First, (212) 845-5207; minteerk@humanrightsfirst.orgÂ
Jennifer Daskal, Human Rights Watch, (202) 612-4349; daskalj@hrw.org Â
Leading Human Rights Groups Request Full Access To Guantanamo Prison
Four
leading human rights and civil liberties organizations asked President
Obama to grant them full access to the Guantanamo Bay detention center
so that they can review the conditions of confinement and make
recommendations for revising U.S. detention policies. The American
Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights First
and Human Rights Watch have had permission to observe the military
commissions at Guantanamo since August 2004, but have thus far only
been offered a guided tour of the detention camp without access to
detainees.
NEW YORK
Four
leading human rights and civil liberties organizations asked President
Obama to grant them full access to the Guantanamo Bay detention center
so that they can review the conditions of confinement and make
recommendations for revising U.S. detention policies. The American
Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights First
and Human Rights Watch have had permission to observe the military
commissions at Guantanamo since August 2004, but have thus far only
been offered a guided tour of the detention camp without access to
detainees.
On January 22, President Obama
issued an executive order requiring a review of detention conditions at
Guantanamo to ensure compliance with the Geneva Conventions and all
other applicable laws. According to today's letter, also allowing the
groups full access to the prison "will be welcomed as another break
from the prior administration's policies on detainees, and set an
example that will help advance human rights worldwide."
The full text of the letter is as follows and available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38600res20090130.html
January 30, 2009
Dear President Obama,
As heads of four prominent civil
liberties and human rights organizations, we greatly appreciate your
decisive action in restoring U.S. commitment to the rule of law and
respect for human rights by issuing executive orders to close
Guantanamo, suspend the military commissions, prohibit CIA prisons, and
enforce the ban on torture. We eagerly await your continued actions to
renew American justice.
Today, we write to request full
access to the Guantanamo Bay detention camps so that we may
independently review and report on the conditions of confinement there
and make concrete recommendations for change. In August 2004, our four
organizations were granted observer status to observe the military
commissions, but for years the Bush administration has denied our
organizations' repeated requests for full access to the detention
camps. We have only been offered the VIP tour to observe a model
Guantanamo detention camp, which was far from adequate access.
Section 6 of your January 22, 2009
executive order, "Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities,"
addresses the issue of conditions of confinement and orders Secretary
of Defense Gates to "immediately undertake a review of the conditions
of detention at Guantanamo to ensure full compliance with [Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions]."
Our presence can assist this effort.
We will provide an outside assessment of current conditions and, as
improvements are made, credibly, independently, and publicly report
them to the world. Such access and reporting would further the
objectives of the current Department of Defense (DoD) review and
amplify the international benefits of improving conditions at the
camps. Our presence itself will be welcomed as another break from the
prior administration's policies on detainees, and set an example of
transparency that will help advance human rights worldwide.
We ask you to reconsider our
organizations' request for full access to the Guantanamo Bay detention
camps and honor it in light of the current DoD review. According to
your executive order, the DoD review "shall be completed within 30 days
and any necessary corrections shall be implemented immediately
thereafter." We ask that, if granted full access, our independent
review should take place within the next few weeks, to allow time for
us to finalize our report and recommendations before the completion of
the DoD's review.
The Bush administration's past
policy of secrecy regarding detention conditions at Guantanamo makes it
critically important for your administration to open Guantanamo to
independent review as part of a new government policy of transparency.
Full and independent review of conditions of confinement by human
rights organizations is urgently needed because of the secrecy
regarding detention conditions at Guantanamo Bay as a whole. The ACLU
and other organizations continue to struggle for production of
materials requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
regarding Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration denied full access
to several UN independent human rights experts who insisted on
confidential interviews with the detainees as dictated by UN protocol
for such visits.
While the International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC) has had access to Guantanamo detainees, its access
has been restricted in the past and the extent of its current access is
unclear to us. A leaked version of the Camp Delta Standard Operation
Procedures (SOP) from March 2003 revealed that the ICRC was denied
access to various groups of detainees at the camp, and a leaked version
of the SOP manual from 2004 revealed continued restrictions on ICRC
access.
Regardless of the ICRC's present
level of access, its role is distinct from that of our organizations.
While the ICRC plays an important role in visiting prisoners under the
Geneva Conventions, the ICRC maintains full confidentiality in order to
preserve the exclusively humanitarian nature of its work. The role of
our human rights organizations in reviewing and reporting on conditions
at Guantanamo would be distinct and equally important.
Granting human rights organizations
full and unfettered access to a detention facility where torture and
abuse have occurred will send a powerful message to the world regarding
your administration's commitment to transparency and openness,
consistent with your January 21, 2009 FOIA directive, which noted, "A
democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires
transparency." Opening Guantanamo to full review by human rights
organizations would help to restore American legitimacy and standing in
the world, and place pressure on other governments to open their
detention centers for independent inspections.
Furthermore, independent review of
conditions of confinement by human rights organizations will assist
your administration in revising its policies and improving detention
conditions in the camps. If granted full access, our independent human
rights delegation would include experts on detention conditions and
medical professionals, and would offer your administration concrete
recommendations on how to improve conditions of confinement in order to
comply with relevant national and international standards and
guidelines on persons in detention.
We hope that you will act quickly on this matter in the interest of transparency and the protection of human rights.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union
Larry Cox, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA
Elisa Massimino, Executive Director, Human Rights First
Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch
cc:
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
White House Counsel Gregory B. Craig
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular