A Week in Politics

"Congress"As the dust settles on the midterm election we thought it might be useful to take a moment to assess what implications the results have for the Counter Terror with Justice (CTWJ) campaign.

Economic woes dominated election stump speeches and national security issues were surprisingly little addressed by either main party. However, the changed political landscape is going to have a real impact on our issues.

The likely accession of Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee is going to present further obstacles to the administration’s attempts to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. Smith took the opportunity in his first press statement after the election to pledge that keeping the prison open for business would be one of his top priorities for the coming session.

Republican staffers on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee have already begun to investigate the security regimes under which former GTMO detainees cleared for release are currently living in the European countries that stepped forward to offer them sanctuary. We can expect to see security concerns raised in an effort to block the further release of cleared detainees.

Another troubling outcome of the vote was the election to the House of Representatives of Allen West (R-Florida) whose war record in Iraq one would have thought would have disqualified him from office. In August 2003 Lt. Col. West stood by and watched his men beat up an Iraqi suspect, Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi. He then threatened to kill Hamoodi, drawing his own handgun and discharging it next to the prisoner’s head.

SEE THE REST OF THIS POST

Senate to Vote on 9/11 Health and Compensation Act

The 9/11 Heath & Compensation Act would ensure medical treatment and compensation for 9/11 responders and other survivors.

In the morning of September 11 James Zadroga, an NYPD detective was driving home after an arraignment in the city.  He was almost there when he turned on the radio, he grabbed a bag and rushed back to Manhattan, leaving his crying wife Rhonda who was seven months pregnant.

In the city he was assigned to a traffic post, but made his way to the World Trade Center, one among ten thousand who combed the wreckage of the North and South Towers for three weeks after the attacks.

So much is clear, so much is unclear.  Why an otherwise healthy, fit, and strong NYPD detective, 216 pounds, six feet tall, who had never smoked, and never suffered from asthma, was forced to go sick in 2002, and why he died in 2006 – aged 34.  His last year was spent tethered to an oxygen bottle, gasping for each breath.

For many the debris that swirled in the air in the wake of the twin towers has never settled.  3,000 people died and the list is still growing.  We look to science and medicine for answers, we find doubt, we could have looked to law for justice, but we found fear. There are many open questions that may never be answered about 911 and its aftermath, but what we owe James Zadroga and his 4 year old daughter is not one of them.  We should weigh a doubt upon a certainty and support the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

The act reopens the Victims’ Compensation Fund, ensures medical treatment and monitoring for first responders, and offers liability protections for New York City.

The bill passed the House last month and is fast tracked for action as soon as the Senate returns in November.  Please ask your Senator to support the James Zadroga 911 Health and Compensation Act.

Congress: Pass the 9/11 Health & Compensation Act

The 9/11 Heath & Compensation Act would ensure medical treatment and compensation for 9/11 responders and other survivors.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (H.R.847) — named for a 9/11 responder whose death has been attributed to exposure to toxic dust and debris at the Ground Zero site — will help ensure medical treatment and compensation for 9/11 responders and other survivors, including firefighters, police officers and clean-up workers, as well as area residents and workers adversely affected by the attacks.

The New York Times reported that Detective Zadroga’s father, Joseph Zadroga, said he was pleased the bill was named after his son. “It’s an important issue because of the first responders,” he said. “They’re not getting the proper care that they should be getting.”

The bill was defeated earlier this year when some Representatives complained that it would create a new entitlement program and waste taxpayer dollars, and objected to the inclusion of undocumented workers who helped respond to and clean up 9/11 sites.

However, the bill will be voted on again soon, possibly even this week , so we need you to email your Representative, urging her/him to support it.

Under international human rights laws and standards, victims of crimes such as the attacks of September 11have a right to reparations, including medical care and compensation. Passing H.R. 847 would be a crucial step toward fulfilling this right.

It is shocking that U.S. government representatives would turn their backs on the very people who put their lives on the line to be involved in rescue, recovery and clean up efforts.  It amounts to nothing less than revictimizing people already traumatized by the attacks.  Nine years later, it is long past time to move beyond the rhetoric of being in  “solidarity” with victims, and actually pass the laws and adequately fund the programs that victims not only need, but have a right to.

Justice for 9-11 victims shouldn’t involve military commissions

Originally posted to McClatchy Newspapers

By Talat Hamdani, Amnesty International Activist

My son, New York Police Department cadet Mohammad Salman Hamdani, was one of the brave souls who died on Sept. 11 trying to rescue people in the World Trade Center.

My life, like countless others, will never be the same.

One thing that has kept me going is the hope that justice will be served. Unfortunately, after more than eight years of repeated delay, it looks like that process could get derailed before it even begins.

Along with many other victims’ family members, I was encouraged in November when Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the 9-11 trials would happen in federal court in New York instead of in the military commissions system. But then, much to my dismay, I watched as some New Yorkers cowered in fear of unsubstantiated threats to their safety, businesses near the courthouse complained they might lose money and local officials fretted about the cost of providing security for the trials.

And while some — though not all — of these concerns are understandable, I cannot tell you what it’s like to hear people say that bringing terrorists to justice is just too scary, too expensive, too inconvenient and not worth some sacrifice.

Is this New York? Is it America?

In the face of these objections, reports indicate that the Obama administration might not only move the trials to another location, but might actually move them back to the military commissions. This would be a monumental error. I’ve been to those commissions, and I can say first-hand that they are an unqualified and chaotic disaster where the rules get made up as they go along.

At one of the early 9-11 hearings, the military judge actually referred to the process as a “learning experience.” Now, years later, despite a missed deadline, new rules needed for the latest version of the law authorizing the commissions have not even been issued. Even when they are, they will not answer basic questions like whether a defendant can plead guilty to a death penalty charge.

The most important cases in U.S. history should not be a lab experiment.

In addition to their lack of clarity, the commissions have constitutional problems that could result in questionable verdicts, leading to years more delay due to legal challenges which, ironically, would probably end up in the federal courts, anyway.

For instance, some kinds of hearsay remain admissible, making it possible that statements of an individual pointing a finger at the defendant could come into trial even if that individual is not in court, denying the accused the opportunity to confront his accuser. The accusatory statement could even be used against the defendant if it was made under coercion. It doesn’t take a legal scholar to know this smells wrong and I, for one — after all this time — don’t want to be faced with a guilty verdict obtained by cutting corners and shrouded in a cloud of doubt.

Another minefield that could sink the entire commission system is that it can only be used to prosecute “aliens.” This sets up two systems of justice — one for Americans and one for others. I already had a personal experience with such thinking right after the 9-11 attacks. While my son was still missing, law enforcement authorities — joined by the media — initially decided he was a suspect in the attacks largely because of our last name. Because of this, they actually delayed informing me that Mohammad’s remains were found. It wasn’t until months later that he was recognized as a hero.

Some are saying that using military commissions is the “tougher” way to proceed against accused terrorists. But the facts say otherwise. Compared to the over 300 terrorism-related convictions in federal courts, the military commissions, in eight years, have produced only three for individuals who are already free after serving relatively short sentences.

The commissions are simply not prepared or experienced enough to handle complex international terrorism cases. Part of the problem is that while many military judges are competent, hard-working and honorable, military criminal cases typically involve prosecutions of U.S. soldiers and sailors for ordinary crimes. There are relatively few murder cases, fewer death penalty cases and almost no conspiracy cases, much less international terrorism trials. This is a problem no new law can fix.

Others worry that federal trials will give the accused a soapbox to spew their hateful agendas. In fact, federal judges are known for preventing such outbursts, as was the case in the Zacharias Moussaoui trial. It was in the Guantánamo commissions that the 9-11 defendants were allowed to give five-minute tirades.

This argument always seemed weak to me: can you imagine not putting Timothy McVeigh on trial because he might make hateful statements? Or any serial killer, for that matter?

The last eight and a half years have been tough. On top of dealing with my personal loss, my faith in our government has been repeatedly challenged as I’ve seen principle discarded in the name of politics and fear. The Obama administration’s November decision to choose principle when it came to the 9-11 trials was a breath of fresh air.

If the administration reverses itself now, it would almost be worse than had it made the wrong decision to begin with. Not only will our hopes have been raised only to be dashed, but it would send the message that our principled decisions become expendable when the going gets tough. That is not the legacy I wish for my son.

Talat Hamdani is the mother of Mohammad Salman Hamdani, an NYPD Cadet who died on September 11 attempting to rescue people at the World Trade Center.

My Name Is Khan and I'm Not a Terrorist

UPDATE: Shiv Sena, a political organization with waning popularity, has been actively campaigning against this film.  Given the recent history of Shiv Sena, one can only assume that this movie has been targeted because the lead actor, Shah Rukh Khan is Muslim and he is portraying a Muslim who has suffered discrimination.  Today, there has been a noticeable increase in security in Mumbai, but no plans to cancel screenings.  On the contrary, it seems as though this controversy has caused an upsurge in excitement over the movie.

A blog about human rights is not normally a place to read about upcoming movies, but you all should have a look at the Bollywood movie “My Name Is Khan” scheduled for release tonight (2/12/2010).  The movie is about a Muslim man (played by mega Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan) who grew up in a Muslim neighborhood (but secular family) in Bombay (now known as Mumbai), immigrates to America and falls in love with the person who becomes his wife (played by another mega Bollywood superstar Kajol). Oh, here’s the trailer:

So the wrinkle is that Shah Rukh Khan’s character has Asperger’s Syndrome (a mild form of autism) and so has trouble fitting in.  Despite that, things were going really swimmingly until 9/11 results in he and his family being targeted repeatedly because of their Muslim faith.  There is discrimination and racial profiling complicated by Khan’s Asperger’s Syndrome.  The seminal moment comes when Khan is in secondary screening at the airport and he says “My name is Khan and I’m not a terrorist.”

Of course, this being a Bollywood movie, there will still be some uniquely Bollywood touches like Khan somehow ending up in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and the over the top romantic element.  But, unfortunately, there are no song and dance routines which often substitutes for quality acting in many of Bollywood’s output.  Despite that, those interested in how foreigners view the United States after 9/11 albeit in a rather un-nuanced way, cannot go wrong with this movie.  It also shows quite graphically how it feels to be discriminated against in your adopted country.

The Road Not Taken

More disappointing news emerged on Monday for those who believe that US law and professional ethics should actually mean something.

The long awaited Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility report into the quality and probity of the work produced on coercive interrogation by John Yoo and Jay Bybee while working in the Office of General Counsel has reportedly undergone internal revisions neutering its findings.

David Margolis, a career civil servant who served in the Justice Department throughout the Bush administration, has reportedly downgraded criticism that Yoo and Bybee violated their professional obligations concluding rather that they merely exercised poor judgment.

This is no semantic distinction – it means the difference between potential disciplinary action before state bar associations, and in Bybee’s case potential impeachment as federal judge, and little more than a minor flurry of professional embarrassment.

Once again, we see key players in one of the darker chapters in America’s recent history squirm their way out of trouble scot-free, not a stain in their character. What a contrast to a spectacle unfolding across the Atlantic in the United Kingdom.

On January 29th the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was summoned to appear before the Chilcot commission established to investigate Britain’s decision to participate in the invasion of Iraq.

Blair spent a whole day being cross-examined by a blue ribbon panel of independent experts about his decision to take the country to war.

The committee conducting this inquiry consists of two of Britain’s most prominent academics, Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert and military historian Sir Lawrence Freedman, two former career civil servants, Sir John Chilcot and former Ambassador to Russia Sir Roderic Lyne, and Baroness Prashar, a prominent humanitarian.

SEE THE REST OF THIS POST

Senator Graham: Let’s Hear it for New York

Dear Senator Graham,

Sometime tomorrow, Thursday, likely before noon, the Senate will probably vote on the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and on your proposed amendment to that act that would block Guantanamo detainees from having trials in US federal courts.

I urge you to drop your amendment. And I’ve called my Senators, Gillibrand and Schumer, and urged them to oppose it, using the script below. I’ve encouraged others to call their Senators too.

Why? Because I live in New York City. I’m watching the Yanks as I write this.

And I could see the Twin Towers from my living room. I saw the second Tower fall with my own eyes, from the corner of West Broadway and Canal. I want the people responsible brought to justice. SEE THE REST OF THIS POST

Transparency Still an Unfulfilled Promise by President Obama

The Obama Administration has already taken several laudable steps to separate itself from illegal policies and practices of its predecessor, and I applaud them for it.  I’m glad Attorney General Holder released some of the shocking legal memoranda prepared by the Bush Office of Legal Counsel, which authorized blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional acts by the executive branch.  But I choked a bit on Mr. Holder’s statement that “Americans deserve a government that operates with transparency and openness.”  I agree wholeheartedly, but I find this sentiment glaringly at odds with some of the Justice Department’s own recent actions.

In several pending court cases that began before President Obama took office, summarized by blogger Glenn Greenwald, among others, the Obama Justice Department has recently taken positions that appear to embrace the Bush Justice Department’s expansive view of Presidential power.  For example, in a lawsuit brought against the Jeppesen company, a Boeing subsidiary, by five alleged victims of “extraordinary rendition,” the Obama administration invoked the “state secrets” doctrine to keep certain documents out of the hands of the plaintiffs, with the apparent aim of depriving them of their day in court.  In this and other recent cases where Eric Holder’s Justice Department has taken similar positions, no administration official has bothered to offer any explanation for doing so.  So much for transparency and openness!  Yet these actions cry out for an explanation because, on their face, they are so conspicuously at odds with President Obama’s and the Attorney General’s own declared values and promises.

It’s beginning to appear that what we have is a President who disagrees with many of the specific policies and practices of his predecessor but who reserves the right to adopt them himself — or other, possibly equally illegal practices — if he feels the need in the future.  This should serve as another sad reminder of the need to ensure that honoring our obligations under domestic and international law is not left up to the whim of whoever happens to be our President at any given time.  A good first step would be a thorough investigation by an impartial panel of experts into all US government counterterrorism practices since 9/11, in a manner that enables criminal prosecutions to be undertaken where warranted.  Only by demonstrating that lawlessness has serious consequences can we ensure that whether we have a government that obeys the law does not remain a matter of Presidential preference.

Calls Grow to Investigate Bush Detention Policies

Yesterday a coalition of 18 leading human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Institute launched a call for the establishment of a non-partisan commission of eminent persons to investigate and examine the detention, treatment, and transfer of detainees following the 9/11 attacks.

The call was backed by former FBI Director William Sessions, Major General Antonio Taguba who headed the military investigations into the abuses at Abu Ghraib, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, Juan Mendez, President of the International Center for Transitional Justice, and the President of the United Church of Christ Dr. John Thomas.

Former FBI Director Sessions commented:

“The president has a responsibility to protect and defend Americans and unfortunately, many questions remain unanswered as to whether the detention, transfer, and treatment of detainees following the September 11th attacks were in the country’s best interest. We need to understand what happened and how to prevent any illegal actions form taking place in the future.”

The United States used to inspire the world as a beacon for human rights.  The U.S. championed the international rule of law and pressed other countries in Latin America, Europe and Africa to bring human rights abusers to account for their actions.  The past eight years have greatly damaged America’s image in the world.  We need to repair than damage by showing that we hold ourselves to the same standards that we hold other nations.

What Beverly Eckert Can Teach Us About Seeking Accountability

With each new sudden loss of life, like the crash of a Continental Airlines flight near Buffalo on February 13, a fresh awareness of the fragility of life and a new sense of urgency washes over us like a powerful wave.  In particular, the life of Beverly Eckert, a passenger on the plane, offers special inspiration for all citizens who believe in holding our government accountable.

Ms. Eckert, who lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks, led families of other 9/11 victims in seeking a thorough investigation of mistakes made by the U.S. government that prevented it from thwarting the attacks.  The New York Times reported the obstacles the families encountered.  They were told all the reasons why such an investigation would not be good for the country.  It would expose weaknesses in the government’s counterterrorism capabilities, for example.  But Beverly Eckert and others pressed on relentlessly until they achieved their goal.  They portrayed resistance to an investigatory commission as a shameful abdication of the government’s moral responsibility to the 9/11 families, and they understood that failing to investigate would impair the nation’s ability to remedy the failures that made 9/11 possible.

We are at a similar juncture regarding this government’s responsibility to investigate apparent crimes in conjunction with the “war on terror.”  Just as Beverly Eckert and the 9/11 families were told that looking backward would harm the nation, we are being told that looking back at alleged crimes of the Bush administration will undermine the unity we need to solve the many serious problems our country faces.

But it is precisely the failure to look back that will gravely harm our nation in the long run.  It is likely that other acts of terror will be committed against the United States and that a future administration, perhaps even this one, will feel enormous pressure to subvert the law again.  If we refuse now to look at our government’s past illegal acts in the belief that our society is too fragile, we will — in setting that precedent — make it even harder for a future administration to resist pressure to break the law.  We will also undermine the ability of successive administrations to hold government lawbreakers accountable.

Beverly Eckert shunned the impulse in some quarters to make someone “pay for every human accident.”  But, for her, the magnitude of 9/11 made understanding what went wrong imperative so that we could learn how to prevent another similar catastrophe.  In examining the “war on terror,” we must make a similar distinction between mistaken policy judgments and serious crimes.  Authorizing torture is and was a crime, and, as Rep. John Conyers and others have noted, we must thoroughly understand how our government came to do it and the full scope of its consequences, in order to make clear our commitment to preventing its use in the future.

When it comes to upholding the law, we can’t keep saying next time we’ll really mean it.  Each successive kicking of the can down the road makes it more unlikely we will ever have the will to effectively punish and deter these kinds of crimes.  Take a lesson from Beverly Eckert and call your Senators today.  Tell them we must not give a pass either to ourselves or to policymakers who authorized illegal acts.  Looking the other way now means giving a green light to future abuses.  We need a thorough and impartial investigation of what has been done in our name over the past 8 years.