![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Small victories
Feb. 28th, 2006 02:27 pmBecause I need some good news:
The federal government just settled one of the cases brought by a non-citizen detained in New York after 9/11, which alleged illegal detention and abuse. Several cases are pending, including a class action, but I believe that this is the first to be settled. Notably, a settlement allows the government to avoid having to produce Ashcroft, Mueller and other senior government officials to testify under oath. The government had lost a motion trying to dismiss the case (and thus avoid having to produce witnesses) last year.
The government had argued that these suits should be dismissed without testimony because the emergency circumstances justified extraordinary (i.e., illegal) measures. In other words, the government, in its self-proclaimed no-end-in-sight war on terror, may now violate any law it wishes with impunity—basically the administration’s standard argument for everything it does.
But the judge held that: "Our nation's unique and complex law enforcement and security challenges in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do not warrant the elimination of remedies for the constitutional violations alleged here."
And even better: "This proposition, which suggests that, as a matter of law, constitutional and statutory rights must be suspended during times of crisis, is supported neither by statute nor the Constitution.”
By way of background: in the weeks after 9/11, 762 non-citizens were arrested, mostly on immigration violations. 184 were identified as being "of high interest" to investigators and held in maximum-security conditions, in Brooklyn and elsewhere, until the F.B.I. cleared them of terrorist links. More than 80 men were classified as suspected terrorists and held in high-security cells at the Brooklyn facility between Sept. 14, 2001, and Aug. 27, 2002. Virtually all were Muslims or from Arab countries. The government has, of course, argued that there was no evidence of discrimination in their actions. Most of these people, many of whom were long time residents with families in the U.S., were eventually deported.
The inspector general's report on the detentions said that little effort was made to distinguish between legitimate terrorism suspects and people picked up by chance, and that clearances took months, not days, because they were a low priority. Among the abuses described in the report — many of them caught on prison videotape — were beatings, sexual humiliations and illegal recording of lawyer-client conversations.
While, of course, a settlement has no actual precedential value and is not any sort of admission by the government, it is a form of accountability. The plaintiff is only getting $300,000, though, which seems a bit paltry, given that the man, a 13-year NYC resident, was imprisoned for eight months, was most likely abused, then jailed for minor charges unrelated to terrorism (check fraud) before being deported (obviously, no ties to terrorism being found). The judge still has to approve the settlement. Another detainee was a co-plaintiff, and his case remains pending.
Edit:
Because you know it couldn't last--apparently the government has been putting war protesters on the no-fly list. You go, Bush administration!
The federal government just settled one of the cases brought by a non-citizen detained in New York after 9/11, which alleged illegal detention and abuse. Several cases are pending, including a class action, but I believe that this is the first to be settled. Notably, a settlement allows the government to avoid having to produce Ashcroft, Mueller and other senior government officials to testify under oath. The government had lost a motion trying to dismiss the case (and thus avoid having to produce witnesses) last year.
The government had argued that these suits should be dismissed without testimony because the emergency circumstances justified extraordinary (i.e., illegal) measures. In other words, the government, in its self-proclaimed no-end-in-sight war on terror, may now violate any law it wishes with impunity—basically the administration’s standard argument for everything it does.
But the judge held that: "Our nation's unique and complex law enforcement and security challenges in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do not warrant the elimination of remedies for the constitutional violations alleged here."
And even better: "This proposition, which suggests that, as a matter of law, constitutional and statutory rights must be suspended during times of crisis, is supported neither by statute nor the Constitution.”
By way of background: in the weeks after 9/11, 762 non-citizens were arrested, mostly on immigration violations. 184 were identified as being "of high interest" to investigators and held in maximum-security conditions, in Brooklyn and elsewhere, until the F.B.I. cleared them of terrorist links. More than 80 men were classified as suspected terrorists and held in high-security cells at the Brooklyn facility between Sept. 14, 2001, and Aug. 27, 2002. Virtually all were Muslims or from Arab countries. The government has, of course, argued that there was no evidence of discrimination in their actions. Most of these people, many of whom were long time residents with families in the U.S., were eventually deported.
The inspector general's report on the detentions said that little effort was made to distinguish between legitimate terrorism suspects and people picked up by chance, and that clearances took months, not days, because they were a low priority. Among the abuses described in the report — many of them caught on prison videotape — were beatings, sexual humiliations and illegal recording of lawyer-client conversations.
While, of course, a settlement has no actual precedential value and is not any sort of admission by the government, it is a form of accountability. The plaintiff is only getting $300,000, though, which seems a bit paltry, given that the man, a 13-year NYC resident, was imprisoned for eight months, was most likely abused, then jailed for minor charges unrelated to terrorism (check fraud) before being deported (obviously, no ties to terrorism being found). The judge still has to approve the settlement. Another detainee was a co-plaintiff, and his case remains pending.
Edit:
Because you know it couldn't last--apparently the government has been putting war protesters on the no-fly list. You go, Bush administration!
