July, 19 2021, 09:32am EDT
First Gitmo Transfer Under Biden: Center for Constitutional Rights Gitmo Lawyers Respond
In response to news that Abdul Latif Nasser has been transferred out of Guantanamo, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:
WASHINGTON
In response to news that Abdul Latif Nasser has been transferred out of Guantanamo, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:
We are relieved that Mr. Nasser, who has been detained for 19 years without charge, has finally been transferred out of Guantanamo and sent home to Morocco--the administration must now transfer all of the remaining cleared men, including Center for Constitutional Rights clients Sufyian Barhoumi and Sharqawi al Hajj, without further delay.
While this transfer is a step in the right direction, the administration has much to do to fulfill President Biden's mandate to close the prison and show greater respect for human rights. In addition to increasing the pace of transfers, the government must purge torture from all detainee-related proceedings, afford detainees due process rights, and, as the U.S. formally withdraws from Afghanistan, finally abandon the already tenuous legal justification for indefinite "preventative" detentions that have been premised on preventing a return to an imagined battlefield. As we approach the 20th anniversary of 9/11, it is long past the time to close Guantanamo and reckon with 20 years of injustice and harm.
We wish Mr. Nasser well and hope that he may soon begin the process of rebuilding his life and healing after two decades were stolen from him by the United States government.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Dems Warn of 'Rampant' Medicare Advantage Abuses as Trump's GOP Aims to Boost For-Profit Plans
"Many of these plans are a maze of prior authorization word salad designed to deny seniors the coverage they're already paying for," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Oct 30, 2024
A trio of leading congressional Democrats expressed alarm Wednesday about increasingly widespread abuses and care denials by for-profit Medicare Advantage insurers as allies of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump aim to massively expand the for-profit program.
"We are writing to express our concerns on ongoing problems with Medicare Advantage (MA) that seem to be getting worse," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter to Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
"We are concerned that in many instances MA plans are failing to deliver, compromising timely access to care, and undermining the ability of seniors and Americans with disabilities to purchase the coverage that’s right for them," the Democratic lawmakers continued. "We continue to hear alarming reports from seniors and their families, beneficiary advocates, and healthcare providers that MA plans are falling short, and finding a good plan is too difficult."
Wyden, Pallone, and Neal pointed specifically to MA plans' growing use of prior authorization, a complex, barrier-ridden process whereby doctors must demonstrate a proposed treatment is medically necessary before the insurer will cover it.
The process is notorious for harming patients—sometimes fatally—but 99% of MA enrollees are required to obtain prior authorization for at least some medical services, according to the health policy research group KFF.
"Overuse of prior authorization is not only harmful to patients, it hinders healthcare providers' ability to offer best-in-class service," the congressional Democrats wrote, pointing to MA plans' increasing use of artificial intelligence-backed algorithms to decide whether to accept or deny patients' coverage claims.
The lawmakers also voiced concerns about MA plans' deceptive marketing practices—which are particularly dangerous to people with disabilities, as they could potentially be duped into enrolling in an MA plan that doesn't meet their health needs.
"We call on CMS to use every regulatory, oversight, and enforcement tool at the agency's disposal to rein in rampant misuse of prior authorization, simplify the experience of choosing a Medicare plan, and put an end to rampant marketing abuses," the lawmakers wrote.
The Democrats' call for a crackdown on MA abuses stands in stark contrast to a plan put forth by Project 2025, which has proposed making Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option for the nation's seniors—a change that one critic said would mean "destroying Medicare as we know it" while providing a huge boon to private insurance companies.
Though Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, some 140 people who served in his first administration helped craft the far-right agenda, and one architect of the proposals said earlier this year that the Republican nominee is "very supportive of what we do."
The Guardian's Jessica Glenza reported this past weekend that "one of Republicans' only healthcare policy specifics involves further privatizing" Medicare by boosting Medicare Advantage, privately run plans that have proven significantly more costly than traditional Medicare without obvious improvements in quality of care—leading some experts to call for the program's abolition.
Glenza noted that Project 2025's healthcare proposals were authored by Roger Severino, who previously served as Trump's director of the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Just over half of the Medicare-eligible population in the U.S. is currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, according to KFF.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a nonpartisan congressional agency, has estimated that the federal government will spend $83 billion more funding MA plans in 2024 than it would have paid to cover the same patients under traditional Medicare.
A recent analysis by the Center for American Progress (CAP) projected that "if making MA the default option for enrollees were to expand the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries in MA to 75%... wasteful spending could approach an eye-popping $2 trillion over 10 years."
"Project 2025 would put more control in the hands of profit-driven corporations by making MA the default enrollment option for Medicare beneficiaries," CAP concluded. "Corporations, not doctors or patients, would be able to control what care an even greater number of enrollees can and cannot receive, while enriching their bottom lines and threatening Medicare's future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'If It Looks Like Ethnic Cleansing, It Probably Is,' Says Israeli Newspaper of North Gaza Siege
"If this process doesn't stop immediately, hundreds of thousands of people will become refugees, entire communities will be destroyed and the moral and legal stain of this crime will cling to and pursue every Israeli."
Oct 30, 2024
The editors of Israel's oldest newspaper on Wednesday published an editorial decrying the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from northern Gaza amid a ferocious Israeli offensive there that's killed more than 1,000 people over the past three weeks.
"For three and a half weeks, Israeli forces have been besieging the northern Gaza Strip," the editors of the left-wing newspaper Haaretz wrote in Wednesday's lead editorial. "Israel has almost completely blocked the entry of humanitarian aid, thereby starving the hundreds of thousands of people who live there. Information emerging from the besieged area is only partial, because ever since the war began, Israel has barred journalists from entering Gaza."
"Israel says it told the residents that they needed to leave northern Gaza, and even now, they can still move southward on routes the army has designated for this purpose," the editors noted. "Thus the residents, many of whom have already been uprooted two or three times or even more from the places to which they have fled the terrors of war, are now being asked to move again. Yet Israel has refrained from giving the displaced any guarantee that they will be able to return once the war ends."
"Given this," they added, "it's no wonder that grave suspicions have arisen that Israel is effectively perpetrating ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza and that this operation is intended to permanently empty this area of Palestinians."
"This suspicion fits with both the principles of the 'Generals' Plan' being pushed by Maj. Gen. (Res.) Giora Eiland—a plan Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has denied implementing—and the demands of the Jewish supremacist parties in the governing coalition that are openly pursuing a policy of mass expulsions and the renewal of Jewish settlement in northern Gaza," the editorial states.
Last week, senior Israeli officials including members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Cabinet and far-right Knesset lawmakers gathered near the Gaza border for a conference dedicated to the ethnic cleansing of Arabs and Jewish recolonization in the embattled Palestinian enclave.
"We came here with one clear purpose: to settle the entire Gaza Strip... Every inch from north to south," settler leader Daniella Weiss told attendees of the rally, which was backed by Netanyahu's Likud party. "Each of you will witness how Jews go to Gaza and Arabs will disappear from Gaza."
As the Haaretz editors noted:
Ethnic cleansing is both a moral crime and a legal one. Criminal law treats mass expulsions as both a war crime and a crime against humanity. Horrifyingly, some members of Benjamin Netanyahu's government want to commit these crimes. As soon as the war began, they began calling for "erasing Gaza" and for perpetrating a "second Nakba." But many Israelis made light of such statements, and the law enforcement system, headed by Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, refrained from dealing with this incitement to commit crimes.
Now, we can see the results: Israel is sliding into ethnic cleansing; its soldiers are carrying out the criminal policies of the messianic, Kahanist right; and even the opposition on the center and center-left isn't making a peep. This consensus behind ethnic cleansing is shameful, and every public leader who doesn't demand an end to the de facto expulsion is supporting this crime and has become a party to it.
"If this process doesn't stop immediately," the editors stressed, "hundreds of thousands of people will become refugees, entire communities will be destroyed and the moral and legal stain of this crime will cling to and pursue every Israeli."
Israel was founded in 1948, largely through the ethnic cleansing of more than 750,000 Arabs from Palestine during the Nakba, or "catastrophe." Zionist militias—the two most violent of which were led by future Israeli prime ministers—utilized terror tactics including massacres and a death march to force the Indigenous Arabs from their homeland.
Israeli ethnic cleansing continued over the following eight decades and, according to critics, currently involves home demolitions and expulsions in the illegally occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, systematic land theft, and pogroms and other violent attacks by Jewish settler colonists backed—and sometimes joined—by Israel Defense Forces troops.
United Nations officials and international human rights groups said this week's Knesset vote to ban the life-saving U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) will exacerbate Israeli crimes in Gaza, including ethnic cleansing.
"Efforts to eliminate UNRWA are illegal under international law and will only amplify the genocide and ethnic cleansing Israel is enacting in Gaza while also undermining long-term prospects for peace," the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group, said Tuesday. "The Israeli government is not only deliberately blocking humanitarian and medical aid to people who are starving and dying, it is undermining support for Palestine refugees and the international legal framework protecting their rights."
On Monday, Francesca Albanese, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on Palestine, published a
report "contextualizing the situation within
a decadeslong process of territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing aimed at liquidating the Palestinian presence in Palestine."
Albanese's report was released a day after Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—who supports the "total annihilation" of Gaza and said that killing 2 million Palestinians would be "justified and moral"—reiterated his call for Israeli annexation of the entire West Bank and the expulsion of the occupied territory's Palestinians.
Israel's policies and practices in Gaza—where more than 150,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023—are the subject of an ongoing South Africa-led genocide case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dark Omen': Supreme Court Allows Virginia Voter Purge Just Days Before Election
Although eligible voters can still participate thanks to same-day registration, critics called the decision "outrageous."
Oct 30, 2024
Democracy defenders responded with alarm on Wednesday to a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority allowing Virginia to resume its purge of state voter registration rolls while early voting is underway for next Tuesday's election.
Stand Up America managing director of policy and political affairs Brett Edkins framed the court's decision as a gift to former Republican President Donald Trump, who appointed half of the conservative justices and is facing Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in the November 5 contest for the White House.
"This eleventh-hour move by the Roberts Court to allow Virginia to purge registered voters from the voter rolls is a troubling attempt by the Supreme Court's MAGA majority to come to Trump's aid just days before the election," Edkins said. "This last-minute purge will impact American citizens, including newly-eligible voters, and undermine our democracy and the freedom to vote."
"Americans deserve a nonpartisan Supreme Court that will stand up for our rights and protect the will of the people—the Roberts Court is not it," he continued. "We must turn out in record numbers to keep Trump out of the Oval Office and prevent him from appointing even more MAGA justices who put partisan interests over Americans' freedom to vote."
The high court's right-wing majority did not explain the reasoning behind Wednesday's decision, which came after a federal judge determined that Virginia illegally booted 1,600 people from the rolls and an appellate court agreed.
Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, only saying they would deny the application from the administration of Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who welcomed the high court's move.
Meanwhile, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern explained that "the Supreme Court's decision is extremely worrisome because the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 *explicitly forbids* systematic purges of voter rolls shortly before an election. It now looks like the conservative supermajority will let states ignore that prohibition."
The Virginia program was purportedly intended to remove noncitizens—who already cannot legally vote—from the rolls.
CNNreported Wednesday that "Trump and other Republicans have seized on claims of illegal voting and that was part of the argument they made to explain the former president's loss in 2020. But documented cases of noncitizens voting are extremely rare. A recent Georgia audit of the 8.2 million people on its rolls found just 20 registered noncitizens—only nine of whom had voted."
In the case of Virginia, Stern noted, "we know this purge has targeted qualified citizens."
The Campaign Legal Center represented state groups that challenged the program. In a series of social media posts, Danielle Lang, the organization's senior director for voting rights, said that "many of the Virginia voters who have been kicked off the rolls are eligible citizens. These are eligible Virginians who deserve to have their voices heard."
"The Supreme Court allowing Virginia to engage in a last-minute purge that includes many known eligible citizens in the final days before an election is outrageous," Lang declared. "But the voters will decide this election, not the courts. Eligible Virginia voters should know that regardless of this purge they can register to vote on Election Day and cast their ballots."
"I am hopping mad. The Supreme Court issued an unreasoned order reinstating a purge in Virginia based on faulty evidence that was capturing known eligible U.S. voters," she added. "But folks need to channel their (correct) anger into action. These voters can vote by registering same-day in Virginia. And that's why reforms like same-day registration are so important."
The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law also criticized Wednesday's decision but emphasized that eligible Virginia voters can still participate in the upcoming election.
"By issuing a stay in the Virginia mass voter challenge case, the Supreme Court has injected confusion into the election. This stay will cause eligible Virginia citizens to be purged from voter rolls just before the election—all in service of a conspiracy theory," the Brennan Center said. "For any eligible voter in Virginia who may be impacted by the purge, please use same-day registration to cast a vote in this election. Or call (866)-OUR-VOTE if you need assistance."
This decision is just the latest in a long series of moves that have heightened concerns about the court's right-wing justices.
"In any election-related cases, we should question the impartiality of Clarence Thomas, whose wife tried to overturn the 2020 election, and Samuel Alito, who had two January 6-supporting flags flying at his homes," Revolving Door Project executive director Jeff Hauser said in a Wednesday statement, referring to the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Hauser added that "this shadow docket decision is horrifying on the merits—but even more so if Thomas and Alito took part in it despite the fact that their impartiality can be reasonably questioned."
Take Back the Court Action Fund president Sarah Lipton-Lubet said that "when the right-wing court sees a law it doesn't like, it pretends it doesn't exist. And that's exactly what happened here: The partisan ideologues on Trump's Supreme Court pushed aside the clear language of the law to ensure fewer Americans can make their voices heard at the ballot box—all in service of supporting Donald Trump's bogus narrative about voter fraud. This is the Roberts Court's pattern: When in doubt, disenfranchise voters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular