SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 16 2009, 02:23pm EDT
Contact:
Sharon Adams at 510.649.1331
or Carlos Villarreal at 415.377.6961
NLGSF Pursuing Ethics Complaint Against Torture Lawyer to California Supreme Court
State Bar Refused to Investigate Former Pentagon Lawyer Haynes
SAN FRANCISCO
The National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter (NLGSF) filed a petition with the California Supreme Court this
week asking it to review the decision by the State Bar not to
investigate William J. Haynes II. Haynes, now an attorney with the
Chevron
Corporation in San Ramon, used his position as a lawyer in the
Department of Defense to advocate for torture and illegal treatment of
detainees in
military custody during the Bush presidency. Despite voluminous
evidence that Haynes has violated California's rules of professional
conduct
that all attorneys must follow, the State Bar has maintained that the
NLGSF complaint is closed without prejudice to reopening.
"The Bar seems to be punting this one," said Carlos Villarreal,
Executive Director of the NLGSF. "They forwarded our complaint to bar
associations in other states and indicated that investigations
elsewhere might yield evidence they can act upon; but Haynes is
practicing law in
California and the State Bar needs to protect the people of California
from lawyers like him."
The petition alleges that Haynes, while at the Defense Department,
advised violation of the law, breached the duty of candor and good
faith required
of attorneys, and lacks the moral character needed for the privilege of
practicing law in California. The facts, revealed primarily in a
report
from the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), demonstrate that
Haynes' office sought out techniques normally used to train military
personnel how
to resist those techniques if captured by rogue nations. He then
recommended adoption of a number of these techniques by the military in
a
brief
memo to then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He did this without
citing relevant law and over the objections of a number of other
military
lawyers. Haynes' memo was called "grossly deficient" by the SASC.
"Haynes was one of the key officials who pushed radical legal fictions
that led to the abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Baghram, Abu Graib and
elsewhere,"
said NLGSF Board Member Sharon Adams. "He is now in another powerful
legal position with Chevron, a corporation that is also linked to
torture in
Nigeria and elsewhere. It is disgraceful that the State Bar refuses to
even open an investigation."
Haynes is also responsible for forcing a working group of officials to
accept legal opinions written by the notorious former Justice
Department
lawyer John Yoo, despite the fact that the group was already working on
a fair and unbiased analysis. The Yoo memo, like Haynes' earlier memo
to
Rumsfeld, was later withdrawn because of its legal inadequacy.
"The legal work of both Haynes and Yoo were repudiated while Bush was
still in power," said Adams. "There is nothing partisan about an
effort
to hold these lawyers accountable and protect the public from unethical
lawyers like Haynes."
The NLGSF petition can be downloaded in pdf format here: https://www.nlgsf.org/docs/HaynesPetitionCASupCrt.pdf.
The NLGSF Committee Against Torture is working to hold accountable
torture lawyers in California, including John Yoo (professor at Boalt
Hall School
of Law); Jay Bybee (federal judge in the 9th Circuit); and William
Haynes (registered in house counsel at Chevron Corp. in San Ramon).
For more
information, please see our website: https://www.nlgsf.org/committees/againsttorture.php.
The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) works to promote human rights and the rights of ecosystems over property interests. It was founded in 1937 as the first national, racially-integrated bar association in the U.S.
(212) 679-5100LATEST NEWS
Trump Cabinet Picks So Far Decried as 'Nightmare Fuel'
"The good news is, we can win these types of fights," said one campaigner. "We helped drive out three Cabinet secretaries from office last time, and we can do that kind of thing again."
Nov 11, 2024
Progressive advocates voiced alarm Monday over U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's initial leadership picks—including a border czar who oversaw the separation of migrant families during the Republican's first term—amid fresh allegations that the 2024 victor's transition team is breaking the law by failing to sign a required ethics agreement.
As of Monday, Trump has tapped—or in one case, is expected to imminently name—the following senior administration officials:
Elise Stefanik for United Nations ambassador
On Monday, Trump said he is nominating Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman from New York and longtime ally, to represent the United States at the world body. Stefanik is a dogged defender of Israel, even as the country is on trial for alleged genocide at the International Court of Justice for its ongoing obliteration of Gaza.
Stefanik also supports defunding the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which provides lifesaving aid to Palestinians, over dubious Israeli allegations that its members are members of Hamas and took part in the October 7 attack.
According to AIPAC Tracker, Stefanik has taken more than $900,000 in campaign contributions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and aligns with the lobby group's advocacy for unconditional U.S. military aid to Israel.
"Other countries send diplomats to serve as U.N. ambassadors. The U.S. always sends AIPAC-approved Israel shills. And, this time, one who is also an abrasive, bigoted, far-right clown," said Craig Mokhiber, a former U.N. human rights attorney who resigned last year over what he saw as the world body "failing" to respond to a "textbook case of genocide" in Gaza.
Mokhiber added that Stefanik is "a fitting pick to represent the rapid decline of the U.S. on the world stage."
Lebanese American University professor Jad Melki said sardonically of Stefanik's selection, "Thank you Trump for removing any illusions about your administration's supportive policy towards the Israeli genocide in Palestine and Lebanon."
While not a Cabinet-level pick, Trump is expected to appoint Brian Hook—described by Drop Site News' Murtaza Hussain as "a major Iran hawk who helped lead the 'maximum pressure' campaign of sanctions, sabotage, and assassinations that characterized Trump's approach to Tehran"—to lead his State Department transition team.
Lee Zeldin for Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Described by one Trump critic as a "fantastic pick to destroy" the EPA, Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, has an abysmal 14% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters and is expected to oversee the dismantling of Biden administration climate policies. He is an avid booster of the fossil fuel industry, which has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign coffers, and supports expanding fracking and offshore oil drilling.
"At the EPA, Zeldin could undermine any progress made on protecting our environment and slowing climate change, doing more harm than any administrator before him," warned David Arkush, who directs the climate program at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
"His record is clear: During his time in Congress, Zeldin cast vote after vote against measures that protect our environment and would slow the climate crisis," Arkush added.
Previewing their plans, Trump said in a statement that Zeldin "will ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions," and the ex-congressman declared that "we will restore U.S. energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the U.S. the global leader of AI." Both claimed they would do that while also protecting air and water, which critics contested.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asserted that Zeldin's "only job will be to reward corporate polluters by gutting the EPA and making our air and water dirtier. In Congress and the courts, we've got a fight ahead."
Tom Homan for "border czar"
Late Sunday, Trump announced that Homan, who served as the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during his first term, will be his point person on border policy, a position that will not require confirmation by what will soon be a Republican-controlled Senate.
Homan—who previously enforced Trump's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy that included the separation of thousands of children from their parents and other relatives—will oversee what the president-elect has promised to be the most sweeping mass deportation operation in U.S. history.
During a Monday interview on Fox News, Homan issued a warning to Democratic governors and sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the future administration's mass deportation program.
"If you're not going to help us, get the hell out of the way," he said. "If we can't get assistance from New York City, we may have to double the number of agents we send to New York City, because we're going to do the job."
Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security said that around 1,400 migrant children still have not been reunited with their families. This, after Homan told the Conservative Political Action Conference in October 2023 that family separation "worked."
"I'm sick and tired hearing about the family separation," he said. "Bottom line is, we enforced the law."
Trump has not ruled out a return to the highly controversial policy in his second term.
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said Homan's appointment "should make it clear to everyone that the Trump administration will make good on their promises of mass deportation."
"We know *exactly* who Tom Homan is. He is the architect of the 'zero-tolerance' policy that separated thousands of migrant children from their parents with no plan for reunification," Ramirez continued. "He demonstrates cold disregard for the U.S. citizenship of the at least 4 million children with an undocumented parent, suggesting to keep families together, they should be deported together."
"The Trump administration's goal is to inflict maximum damage on diverse American families, our children, and our communities," the congresswoman added. "But let it be known, I will fight like hell to keep our families together, and our communities are ready to be an obstacle at every turn as he tries to implement his cruel, vile, gruesome plan."
Susie Wiles for White House chief of staff
Wiles is a longtime GOP strategist who has managed Trump's campaign operations since 2021, even as she worked for the tobacco company Swisher International lobbying to influence Congress on Food and Drug Administration regulations. She is also co-chair of the lobbying firm Mercury Public Affairs, which represents Big Pharma and junk food companies in apparent conflict with Trump's stated goal to "make America healthy again."
Stephen Miller for deputy chief of staff for policy
Numerous U.S. media outlets reported Monday that Trump is expected to tap Miller, a first-term senior adviser and speechwriter, as his deputy chief of staff for policy. Miller—an architect of Trump's family separation policy who advocates racist and xenophobic immigration policies—was described in 2019 by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as a "verified white supremacist."
Although Miller's appointment was not yet official, Vice President-elect JD Vance on Monday congratulated what he called Trump's "fantastic pick."
Miller notoriously authored much of Trump's January 6, 2001 speech that is widely blamed for inciting that day's Capitol insurrection.
Last year, Miller vowed that Trump's first-term program to strip some naturalized Americans of their U.S. citizenship would be "turbocharged" should he win reelection.
Responding to reports of Miller's White House return, Jesse Mermell, the president and founder of the progressive deWit Impact Group, wrote on social media that "nothing about this is a surprise, but seeing it in print is still nightmare fuel."
Both Homan and Miller are among the at least 140 officials from Trump's first administration involved in Project 2025, a blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government that includes terminating the legal status of around 500,000 immigrants currently protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, people commonly called "Dreamers."
CNN reported Monday that billionaire backer Elon Musk has been seen visiting Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida "nearly every single day" since Election Day and is "weighing in on staffing decisions, making clear his preference for certain roles."
Trump said during his campaign that he would place Musk in charge of government efficiency, raising progressive fears of aggressive cuts to crucial social programs and regulators.
As Trump fills out his Cabinet, critics noted in recent days that his transition team still hasn't signed legally required ethics agreements with the Biden administration, possibly over a mandatory pledge to avoid the conflicts of interest that plagued his first term.
"Donald Trump and his transition team are already breaking the law. I would know because I wrote the law," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Monday on social media. "Incoming presidents are required to prevent conflicts of interest and sign an ethics agreement. This is what illegal corruption looks like."
Responding to the prospect of a return to the "countless abuses of power" in Trump's first administration, Lisa Gilbert, the executive vice president of Public Citizen, said Monday that "we need to prepare to push back."
"The good news is, we can win these types of fights," Gilbert added. "We helped drive out three Cabinet secretaries from office last time, and we can do that kind of thing again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US House Urged to Stop Bill Enabling Trump to Attack Nonprofits
"The bill could usher in repression on a massive scale," one critic warned.
Nov 11, 2024
The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote soon on legislation that would further empower President-elect Donald Trump, who won a new term last week after fear-mongering about the so-called "enemy from within" and vowing to "root out" people he described as "radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country."
Nonprofits and rights advocates are sounding the alarm about H.R. 9495, or the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. The bill would provide tax relief for U.S. nationals and their spouses who are unlawfully or wrongfully detained or held hostage abroad but also includes legislation to terminate the tax-exempt status of "terrorist-supporting" groups.
A version of the section targeting groups accused of backing terrorism previously passed the House but stalled in the Democrat-held Senate. As legal scholar Maryam Jamshidi explained on social media Monday, "The cynical move is intended to coerce Congress to pass the 501(c)(3) bill because no one wants to be seen as opposing tax breaks for U.S. hostages/prisoners abroad."
While the bill has long been on the radar of organizations like the ACLU—which led a diverse coalition that spoke out against it in September—the recent election results, Trump's campaign promises, and the upcoming vote are sparking fresh concerns.
"As soon as tomorrow, the House will vote on a bill that would give the incoming Trump administration a new tool they could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish groups that disagree with them," the ACLU said on social media Monday. "This broad, vague bill is an open invitation for abuse. Tell your representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495."
The ACLU highlighted reporting by The Intercept, which on Sunday detailed how the legislation would work:
Under the bill, the Treasury secretary would issue notice to a group of intent to designate it as a "terrorist-supporting organization." Once notified, an organization would have the right to appeal within 90 days, after which it would be stripped of its 501(c)(3) status, named for the statute that confers tax exemptions on recognized nonprofit groups.
The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence.
"It basically empowers the Treasury secretary to target any group it wants to call them a terror supporter and block their ability to be a nonprofit," said Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council Action, which opposes the law. "So that would essentially kill any nonprofit's ability to function. They couldn't get banks to service them, they won't be able to get donations, and there'd be a black mark on the organization, even if it cleared its name."
The bill is widely seen as an attempt to silence fierce critics of U.S. support for Israel's ongoing slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which has led to a genocide case against the Israeli government at the International Court of Justice. However, Costello warned that "the danger is much broader than just groups that work on foreign policy."
"It could target major liberal funders who support Palestinian solidarity and peace groups who engage in protest. But it could also theoretically be used to target pro-choice groups, and I could see it being used against environmental groups," he said. "It really would be at the discretion of the Trump administration as to who they target, with very little recourse for the targeted organization."
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action similarly stressed on social media Monday that "this bill would grant Donald Trump unilateral power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization based on a unilateral accusation of wrongdoing—without any explanation required."
"The House must vote no on H.R. 9495," Bend the Arc argued. "It is critical that we are able to organize and that we have a robust nonprofit sector that represents our needs and our interests to the government. This will be a necessary tool against the harms threatened by the second Trump presidency."
Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said in a statement that "this bill should be a five-alarm fire for anyone who seeks to protect free speech, civil society, and democracy. This bill is part of a broader MAGA assault on the right to protest that begins with attacks on Palestinian rights groups, and is aimed at outlawing the social justice movements that fight for progressive change. This is part of a well-worn authoritarian playbook to dismantle fundamental freedoms."
Describing the legislation as "terrifying," Ajam Media Collective editor Alex Shams said Monday that "the bill could usher in repression on a massive scale."
The threat extends to media organizations like Common Dreams. Freedom of the Press Foundation—whose director of advocacy, Seth Stern, wrote about the legislation for The Intercept in May—declared Monday that "this bill is a serious threat to nonprofit news outlets and Trump is sure to abuse these powers if given the chance."
"The threat is far more dire in light of the election," the foundation added. "Tell your representative to stop H.R. 9495 today."
Keep ReadingShow Less
57 Groups to Senate: Vote to Block Weapons for Israel
"Despite clear evidence showing that Israel is committing war crimes and blocking humanitarian aid, the U.S. is still unconscionably selling billions of dollars of offensive weapons to Israel," said one advocate.
Nov 11, 2024
Ahead of historic U.S. Senate votes on military aid for Israel that are expected next week, dozens of civil society groups on Monday launched a grassroots campaign aimed at pushing lawmakers to support blocking more than $20 billion in offensive weapons transfers.
Demand Progress, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), Action Corps, and the Center for Constitutional Rights were among the groups that launched the No More Weapons for Israel's War campaign, asking the groups' millions of supporters across the U.S. to demand that their senators to support the joint resolutions of disapproval (JRD) that are scheduled for a vote this month.
The JRDs were introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) in September. The resolutions could block transfers of certain U.S. weapons, such as joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs), tanks, and artillery shells, which have been linked to civilian casualties in Gaza since Israel began its assault on the enclave more than 13 months ago.
"For the last 13 months, the Biden administration has refused to use the leverage at its disposal to end to the war in Gaza and alleviate an ever-increasing humanitarian catastrophe," said Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser for Demand Progress. "Despite clear evidence showing that Israel is committing war crimes and blocking humanitarian aid, the U.S. is still unconscionably selling billions of dollars of offensive weapons to Israel."
Kharrazian noted that passing the JRDs is "even more urgent now," following the election last week of President-elect Donald Trump, a "notorious ally" of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Sanders pointed out when he introduced the JRDs in September that the weapons that would be impacted by the vote have been shown by "a mountain of documentary evidence" to be killing and maiming civilians in Gaza.
Amnesty International submitted a report to the federal government earlier this year detailing several Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure including homes in which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) used U.S. weapons to kill large numbers of civilians.
An attack using JDAMs manufactured by Boeing killed 43 civilians, nearly half of whom were children, in October 2023. Four strikes used bombs and other weapons made in the U.S. and killed at least 95 civilians, including 42 children.
A Guardian analysis last month also found that U.S. weapons were used by the IDF when it conducted an airstrike in Beirut, Lebanon, killing at least 22 people and wounding more than 115.
The Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that it is pushing Israel to limit civilian casualties, but has been condemned by human rights advocates and progressive lawmakers for continuing to provide offensive weapons despite mounting evidence that more civilians are being killed each day. Last week, the United Nations said it had found that 70% of people killed by the IDF in Gaza between November 2023 and April 2024 were women and children, despite persistent claims by the U.S. and Israel that it is targeting Hamas fighters.
"It's time for the Israeli government to take U.S. demands about de-escalation, civilian protection, and humanitarian aid seriously," said Tori Bateman, advocacy director for the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "If the United States wants to see the Israeli government change its behavior, then it must change too by being willing to leverage arms sales to achieve a cease-fire, protect civilians, and serve the U.S. national interest. Senators should vote 'yes' to block these transfers of offensive weapons to Israel."
Progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups have pointed out in recent months that $12.5 billion in U.S. military aid has continued flowing to Israel even as the Israeli government has blocked humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, resulting in the spread of disease and widespread hunger, with U.N. experts saying in July that the enclave was facing famine.
Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act prohibits the U.S. from providing weapons to a country that is blocking U.S. humanitarian aid.
"We are grateful Sen. Sanders has introduced the joint resolutions of disapproval and the historic vote to take place in November to block the sale of offensive arms to Israel," said Yasmine Taeb, legislative and political director for MPower Change Action Fund. "Sending any offensive arms to Israel is a violation of U.S. and international humanitarian law. We urge senators to co-sponsor and vote YES on the JRDs."
Hassan El-Yayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy for FCNL, called Israel's war in Gaza "not just a humanitarian catastrophe but a mass atrocity carried out with U.S. bombs and military support, funded by American taxpayers."
"It's long overdue for Congress to hold a public debate and vote on ending U.S. complicity in the mass killing and starvation of Palestinian civilians," said El-Yayyab. "These joint resolutions of disapproval mark a historic moment—the first major effort in Congress to block offensive arms sales to Israel in United States history. Senators must vote yes and press the Biden administration to use all forms of U.S. leverage to finally end the war in Gaza, bring hostages home, and de-escalate tensions across the Middle East."
In a separate statement on Monday, Chip Gibbons of the civil liberties group Defending Rights & Dissent noted that "war crimes" committed by Israel include "the deliberate assassination of Palestinian journalists, making our government complicit in the worst attack on free expression rights anywhere in the world today."
"As a domestic civil liberties group, we don't take stances on international issues," said Gibbons, the group's policy director. "But when our government provides weapons that are used to violate human rights, that implicates our core mission."
The group's executive director, Sue Udry, applauded Sanders for introducing the JRDs and urged every member of Congress to support them.
"It's well past time to hold our government accountable to our own laws," said Udry.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular