DOCSLIB.ORG

Establishing a New Normal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Establishing a New Normal ESTABLISHING A NEW NORMAL National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration AN 18-MONTH REVIEW JULY 2010 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 www.aclu.org INTRODUCTION On January 22, 2009—his second full day in office progress in some areas. Perhaps most notably, —President Obama signed a series of executive the administration’s release of Justice Depart- orders that squarely repudiated some of the most ment memoranda that purported to authorize egregious abuses of the Bush administration. the Bush administration’s torture regime, as The new orders categorically prohibited torture well as a CIA report describing how even those and limited all interrogations, including those lax limits were exceeded, evinced a commitment conducted by the CIA, to techniques authorized to transparency of truly historic significance, by the Army Field Manual. They outlawed the and the administration deserves high praise for CIA’s practice of secret detention and shut down making those critical documents available for the CIA’s overseas prisons. And they mandated public scrutiny. Regrettably, in a pattern that has the closure of the Guantánamo prison within one repeated itself throughout the administration’s year. These auspicious first steps towards fulfill- ing candidate Obama’s promise of change were There is a real danger…that more than symbolic gestures: they carried the force of law, they placed the power and prestige the Obama administration will of the presidency behind restoration of the rule of preside over the creation of a law, and they gave weight to the President’s oft- stated view that adherence to our nation’s funda- “new normal.” mental principles makes us safer, not less safe. first eighteen months, a significant achievement But in the eighteen months since the issuance was followed by a step back: the administration of those executive orders, the administration’s reversed its decision to comply with a court deci- record on issues related to civil liberties and sion ordering the release of photos depicting the national security has been, at best, mixed. Indeed, abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on a range of issues including accountability for it supported legislation granting the Secretary of torture, detention of terrorism suspects, and use Defense unprecedented authority to conceal evi- of lethal force against civilians, there is a very dence of misconduct. real danger that the Obama administration will enshrine permanently within the law policies and Similarly, the administration’s admirable com- practices that were widely considered extreme mitment to dismantle the Guantánamo prison and unlawful during the Bush administration. has been undermined by its unwillingness to There is a real danger, in other words, that the dismantle the legal architecture of the Bush- Obama administration will preside over the cre- era detention regime: the Obama administration ation of a “new normal.” has continued to assert the authority to detain militarily, without charge or trial, Guantánamo This report examines the Obama administra- detainees (and others) captured far from any con- tion’s record to date on a range of national secu- ventional battlefield, and there is a genuine dan- rity policies that implicate human rights and ger that the administration will close the prison civil liberties. It concludes that the administra- but enshrine the principle of widespread military tion has taken positive steps and made genuine detention without trial. Equally disappointing, the Establishing A New Normal | 2 administration’s unequivocal prohibition against The ACLU will continue to monitor the impact of torture has been fundamentally weakened by its the administration’s national security policies on continuation of the Bush administration’s efforts fundamental civil liberties and human rights. We to stymie meaningful accountability: the admin- hope that this report, published less than half- istration has adopted the same sweeping theory way through the President’s first term, will serve of “state secrets” to prevent torture victims from as a vehicle for reflection and further dialogue; seeking justice and compensation in U.S. courts, we hope that the administration will renew its and the President himself has publicly opposed commitment to the principle that the nation’s criminal investigations of the architects of the fundamental values are the very foundation of its torture regime. strength and security. Establishing A New Normal | 3 TRANSPARENCY Many of the Bush administration’s most contro- President Obama signaled a break from this past versial national security policies—the warrant- in his first days in office. In a Memorandum on less wiretapping program, the torture program, Transparency and Open Government, the Presi- the rendition program—were conceived, devel- dent acknowledged that transparency would oped, and authorized in secret. The American “strengthen our democracy,” and he pledged public found out about these policies long after that his administration would commit itself to they were put into place, and after a great deal of “creating an unprecedented level of openness in damage had already been done. Too often, Amer- Government.”1 In a Memorandum on the Free- icans had to rely on leaks to the news media, dom of Information Act, the President declared or litigation by public interest organizations, in that “[a] democracy requires accountability, order to find out about consequential national and accountability requires transparency,” and security policies that had been adopted in their he ordered all federal agencies to institute a name. Too often, national security policies that “presumption in favor of disclosure,” thereby should have been subject to public debate were reversing the so-called “Ashcroft rule” that had implemented secretly. And too often, this secrecy governed during the Bush administration. The shielded government officials from accountabil- President cautioned federal agencies that “[t]he ity for decisions that violated the public’s trust Government should not keep information confi- and the law. dential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of specu- lative or abstract fears.”2 Over the next weeks, the Obama administration made modest—though nonetheless important —improvements to the rules governing classi- fication.3 It funded a FOIA ombudsman.4 And it required agencies to release some information proactively and in formats useable by the general public.5 Most significantly, the Obama administration agreed to release the Justice Department mem- os that had been the basis of the Bush adminis- tration’s torture program—memos that the ACLU and other public interest organizations had long been seeking under the Freedom of Information Act. The decision to release the memos was of historic importance. The memos allowed Ameri- cans to evaluate for themselves the legal argu- Formerly secret government records released under the ments that were the foundation of the torture Freedom of Information Act Establishing A New Normal | 4 program, and to decide for themselves whether the legislation invested the Secretary of Defense the architects of the program had acted lawfully with sweeping authority to withhold any visual and in good faith. And in the weeks and months images depicting the government’s “treatment after the release of the memos, the Obama of individuals engaged, captured, or detained” administration released official reports that shed by U.S. forces—no matter how egregious the further light on these questions. In August 2009, conduct depicted or how compelling the public’s it released a report by the CIA’s Inspector Gen- interest in disclosure.8 As the ACLU noted at the eral assessing the CIA’s interrogation and deten- time, the legislation essentially gave the greatest tion program.6 In February 2010, it released a protection from disclosure to records depicting report by the Justice Department’s Office of Pro- the worst forms of government misconduct. fessional Responsibility assessing the conduct of the lawyers who wrote the torture memos.7 Since its change of heart on the abuse photo- graphs, the administration has fought to keep The administration’s commitment to transpar- secret hundreds of records relating to the Bush ency, however, has been inconsistent, and it administration’s rendition, detention, and inter- has waned over time. Although the administra- rogation policies. To take just a few of many tion initially stated that it would comply with an possible examples, it has fought to keep secret appellate court decision requiring it to release a directive in which President Bush authorized abuse photographs from detention facilities in the CIA to establish secret prisons overseas; the Afghanistan and Iraq, it later reversed course Combatant Status Review Transcripts in which and declared that it would seek Supreme Court former CIA prisoners describe the abuse they review, and it supported an invidious amendment suffered in the CIA’s secret prisons; records to the FOIA intended to retroactively exempt the relating to the CIA’s destruction of videotapes that photos from release under the statute. In addition depicted some prisoners being waterboarded; to thwarting the decision of the appellate court, and cables containing communications between “A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Evolution of Authoritarian Digital Influence Grappling with the New Normal
    The Evolution of Authoritarian Digital Influence Grappling with the New Normal By Shanthi Kalathil s the world contends with the wide-ranging ramifications of the global COVID-19 pandemic, it has been simultaneously beset by the global information crisis, which mimics the shape of the pandemic itself in its viral effects across huge segments of the global population. AMisinformation—unwittingly spread false information—is rampant. Overarching narratives, targeted propaganda, and particularly disinformation—the deliberate generation of false or misleading information designed to engender public cynicism or uncertainty—are being piped into the global information blood- stream in large quantities. While some of this comes from domestic political actors, determined authoritarian regimes and their proxies have been quick to seize this window of opportunity for asymmetric transnational impact. Many of those targeted, including governments, institutions, and segments of societies, have been too overwhelmed to respond effectively. These networked, cross-border influence operations by authoritarian actors have grown in sophistication and effectiveness in recent years,1 shaping narratives and targeting democratic institutions during important geopolitical moments.2 While not disavowing more traditional forms of propaganda, authoritarian regimes are increasingly using digital influence operations as a method of censorship and manipulation, flooding the infor- mation space3 with false or misleading narratives designed to crowd out independent voices
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative National Security
    ARTICLES Administrative National Security ELENA CHACHKO* In the past two decades, the United States has applied a growing num- ber of foreign and security measures directly targeting individualsÐ natural or legal persons. These individualized measures have been designed and carried out by administrative agencies. Widespread appli- cation of individual economic sanctions, security watchlists and no-¯y lists, detentions, targeted killings, and action against hackers responsible for cyberattacks have all become signi®cant currencies of U.S. foreign and security policy. Although the application of each of these measures in discrete contexts has been studied, they have yet to attract an inte- grated analysis. This Article examines this phenomenon with two main aims. First, it documents what I call ªadministrative national securityº: the growing individualization of U.S. foreign and security policy, the administrative mechanisms that have facilitated it, and the judicial response to these mechanisms. Administrative national security encompasses several types of individualized measures that agencies now apply on a routine, inde®- nite basis through the exercise of considerable discretion within a broad framework established by Congress or the President. It is therefore best understood as an emerging practice of administrative adjudication in the foreign and security space. Second, this Article considers how administrative national security integrates with the presidency and the courts. Accounting for administra- tive national security illuminates the President's constitutional role as chief executive and commander-in-chief and his control of key aspects of * Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School (Fall 2019); Post-doctoral Fellow, Perry World House, University of Pennsylvania; S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School; LL.B., Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2014).
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2013 The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists Anya Bernstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Anya Bernstein, "The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists," 61 Buffalo Law Review 461 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUFFALO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 MAY 2013 NUMBER 3 The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists ANYA BERNSTEIN† INTRODUCTION The No Fly List, which is used to block suspected terrorists from flying, has been in use for years. But the government still appears “stymied” by the “relatively straightforward question” of what people who “believe they have been wrongly included on” that list should do.1 In recent months, courts have haltingly started to provide their own answer, giving some individuals standing to sue to remove their names or receive additional process.2 This step is particularly important as the No Fly List continues † Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law, The University of Chicago Law School. J.D., Yale Law School; Ph.D., Anthropology, The University of Chicago. Thanks to Daniel Abebe, Ian Ayres, Alexander Boni-Saenz, Anthony Casey, Anjali Dalal, Nicholas Day, Bernard Harcourt, Aziz Huq, Jerry Mashaw, Jonathan Masur, Nicholas Parrillo, Victoria Schwartz, Lior Strahilevitz, Laura Weinrib, Michael Wishnie, and James Wooten for helpful commentary.
    [Show full text]
  • Guantanamo and Citizenship: an Unjust Ticket Home
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 37 Issue 2 Article 19 2006 Guantanamo and Citizenship: An Unjust Ticket Home Rory T. Hood Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Rory T. Hood, Guantanamo and Citizenship: An Unjust Ticket Home, 37 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 555 (2006) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol37/iss2/19 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. GUANTANAMO AND CITIZENSHIP: AN UNJUST TICKET HOME? Rory T. Hood t "Trying to get Uganda to take an interest is pretty difficult; [JamalAbdul- lah Kiyemba has] been here since he was 14. 1 am asking the [Foreign Of- fice] whether they will allow him to apply for citizenship from Guan- tanamo Bay. If you are out of the countryfor more than two years, it can be counted against you. He probably has now been-but not of his own free will.' -Louise Christian - Atty. representing Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba I. INTRODUCTION Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba, Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil al-Banna, Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, and Omar Deghayes are currently in the custody of the United States government at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.2 A citizen of Uganda, an Iraqi exile, a Jordanian refugee, a Saudi citizen, and a Libyan exile, respectively, these men form an unlikely group; yet, each share one common trait.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing Terrorists: the EU-Canada Agreement in PNR Matters
    Tracing Terrorists: The EU-Canada Agreement in PNR Matters CEPS Special Report/September 2008 Revised version 17.11.2008 Peter Hobbing Abstract Enhancing border security in support of the global ‘war against terrorism’ is very much in vogue these days, in particular as regards the control of air passengers. Seven years after 9/11, this trend is yet unbroken. While the build-up of defences occurs in most cases at the one-sided expense of civil liberties, the EU-Canada Agreement of 2005 is different: quite justly, it holds the reputation of a well-balanced instrument respecting the interests of citizens. Still, instead of serving as a model for future instruments, the Agreement rather runs the risk of being scrapped at the next possible occasion. A close look at the passenger name record (PNR) ‘mainstream’, as embodied by the EU-US branch of transatlantic relations with four Agreements rapidly succeeding between 2004 and 2008, reveals the opposite tendency away from data protection and towards an unconditional tightening of controls. This report undertakes to examine the doubtful benefits of such an approach by assessing the price to pay inter alia for ‘false positive’ mismatches and other collateral damages, while the actual achievement of a higher degree of public security remains very much in the dark, mostly owing to the impossibility of making all borders 100% secure. As a result, no critical reason emerges for taking leave of the good practices established by the EU-Canada instrument. This work was prepared as part of the EU–Canada project – The Changing Landscape of Justice and Home Affairs Cooperation in the European Union and EU–Canada Relations – funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General for External Relations, Relations with the US and Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • 9/11 Report”), July 2, 2004, Pp
    Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page i THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page v CONTENTS List of Illustrations and Tables ix Member List xi Staff List xiii–xiv Preface xv 1. “WE HAVE SOME PLANES” 1 1.1 Inside the Four Flights 1 1.2 Improvising a Homeland Defense 14 1.3 National Crisis Management 35 2. THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM 47 2.1 A Declaration of War 47 2.2 Bin Ladin’s Appeal in the Islamic World 48 2.3 The Rise of Bin Ladin and al Qaeda (1988–1992) 55 2.4 Building an Organization, Declaring War on the United States (1992–1996) 59 2.5 Al Qaeda’s Renewal in Afghanistan (1996–1998) 63 3. COUNTERTERRORISM EVOLVES 71 3.1 From the Old Terrorism to the New: The First World Trade Center Bombing 71 3.2 Adaptation—and Nonadaptation— ...in the Law Enforcement Community 73 3.3 . and in the Federal Aviation Administration 82 3.4 . and in the Intelligence Community 86 v Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page vi 3.5 . and in the State Department and the Defense Department 93 3.6 . and in the White House 98 3.7 . and in the Congress 102 4. RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 108 4.1 Before the Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania 108 4.2 Crisis:August 1998 115 4.3 Diplomacy 121 4.4 Covert Action 126 4.5 Searching for Fresh Options 134 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control to Major Tom: an Analysis of Failed Gun Regulations and the Terrorist Watchlist Paolo G
    University of Massachusetts Law Review Volume 12 | Issue 2 Article 3 Gun Control to Major Tom: An Analysis of Failed Gun Regulations and the Terrorist Watchlist Paolo G. Corso Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/umlr Part of the National Security Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Corso, Paolo G. () "Gun Control to Major Tom: An Analysis of Failed Gun Regulations and the Terrorist Watchlist," University of Massachusetts aL w Review: Vol. 12 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: http://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/umlr/vol12/iss2/3 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository @ University of Massachusetts chooS l of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Massachusetts Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository @ University of Massachusetts chooS l of Law. Gun Control to Major Tom: An Analysis of Failed Gun Regulations and the Terrorist Watchlist Paolo G. Corso 12 U. MASS. L. REV. 376 ABSTRACT As a division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Security Branch, the Terrorist Screening Center maintains the Terrorist Watchlist, a central database for identifying individuals known or suspected to engage in terrorism or terrorist activities. Subsumed under the Terrorist Watchlist is the No Fly List, which prohibits individuals from boarding commercial aircrafts in and out of the United States. Placement on either list presumes named individuals as a potential threat to U.S. national security, yet there is no restriction preventing them from legally purchasing firearms. Following a mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub in June of 2016, which was perpetrated by an individual recently removed from the Terrorist Watchlist, the Senate proposed two gun control measures specifically aimed at preventing individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist from purchasing firearms.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    (1 of 64) Case: 17-35634, 10/21/2019, ID: 11470596, DktEntry: 85-1, Page 1 of 60 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FAISAL NABIN KASHEM; RAYMOND No. 17-35634 EARL KNAEBLE IV; AMIR MESHAL; STEPHEN DURGA PERSAUD, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, 3:10-cv-00750- BR v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; OPINION CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY; CHARLES H. KABLE IV, Director, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 9, 2018 Portland, Oregon Filed October 21, 2019 Before: Raymond C. Fisher and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges, and Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge.* Opinion by Judge Fisher * The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. (2 of 64) Case: 17-35634, 10/21/2019, ID: 11470596, DktEntry: 85-1, Page 2 of 60 2 KASHEM V. BARR SUMMARY** No Fly List The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United States government in an action alleging that plaintiffs’ inclusion on the No Fly List, prohibiting them from boarding commercial aircraft flying to, from or within the United States or through United States airspace, violates their procedural and substantive due process rights. The panel held that the district court properly rejected plaintiffs’ as-applied vagueness challenges. The panel determined that the No Fly List criteria are not impermissibly vague merely because they require a prediction of future criminal conduct, or because they do not delineate what factors are relevant to that determination.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Bulletin on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights
    International Commission of Jurists E-BULLETIN ON COUNTER-TERRORISM & HUMAN RIGHTS No. 59, January 2012 AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST Ethiopia: Swedish journalists convicted under draconian Anti-Terrorism Law Ethiopia: Five people, including journalists, convicted under repressive Anti-Terrorism Law Burundi: Journalist arrested and charged for terrorism for interview of rebel leader Kenya: Wave of arbitrary arrests hits Kenya after terrorist attacks and warnings Egypt: Military Council ends emergency law but not for “thugs” Syria: President imposes the death penalty on “terrorist” weapon smugglers Iraq/Turkey: Anti-terrorism airstrike kills 35 smugglers; authorities admit “mistake” AMERICAS USA: Calls for closure multiply, as Guantánamo detention centre turns 10 USA: Indefnite detention of terrorists signed into law with “serious reservations” by US President USA: US President asked to justify US drones strategy by NGO USA: Federal court dismisses Guantánamo torture damage lawsuits USA: CIA torture interrogations whistleblower prosecuted by Justice Department USA: Remedies for torture in court are matters for Congress, rules Appeals Court USA/Italy: No obligation to give immunity to Abu Omar kidnapper, says federal court USA/Afghanistan: Governmental report accuses US of ill-treatment of prisoners in Bagram Canada: More than two years after clearing by Federal Court, Abousfan Abdelrazik de- listed by UN Chile: President accuses indigenous people of “terrorist” arson without evidence Argentina: Generic “terrorism” aggravating circumstance introduced
    [Show full text]
  • Cartographies of Differences: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
    New Visions Cartographies of Differences of the Cosmopolitan This volume investigates the process of learning how to live with individual and group differences in the twenty-first century and examines the ambivalences of contemporary cosmopolitanism. Engaging with the concept of ‘critical cartography’, it emphasizes the structural impact of localities on the experiences of those living with difference, while trying to develop an account of the counter-mappings that follow spatial and social transformations in today’s world. The contributors focus on visual, normative and cultural embodiments of difference, examining dynamic conflicts at local sites that are connected by the processes of Europeanization and globalization. The collection explores a wide range of topics, including conflicting claims of sexual minorities and conservative Christians, the relationship between national identity and cosmopolitanism, and the ways that cross-cultural communication and bilingualism can help us to understand the complex (eds) and Gill Valentine Ulrike M. Vieten nature of belonging. The authors come from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds and all contribute to a vernacular reading of cosmopolitanism and transnationalism, aimed at opening up new avenues of research into living with difference. Ulrike M. Vieten is a Queen’s Research Fellow at the Institute for the Study Cartographies of Differences of Conflict Transformation and Social Justice at Queen’s University Belfast. Her research deals with the (de-)construction of racialized, classed and gendered boundaries in the context of cosmopolitanism, nationalism and citizenship Interdisciplinary Perspectives and currently focuses on right-wing populism in Europe and beyond. Her publications include Gender and Cosmopolitanism in Europe: A Feminist Perspective (2012) and Revisiting Iris Marion Young on Normalisation, Inclusion and Democracy (2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 143 Ventura County Library Diversity, Inclusion, & Anti
    Ventura County Library Diversity, Inclusion, & Anti-RacismSort All Featured White Fragility By: DiAngelo, Robin; Dyson, Michael Eric ISBN: 9780807047422 Published By: Beacon Press 2018 EPUB3 View book URL https://ebook.yourcloudlibrary.com/library/venturacountylibrary-document_id-qv1u1r9 The New York Times best-selling book exploring the counterproductive reactions white people have when their assumptions about race are challenged, and how these reactions maintain racial inequality. In this “vital, necessary, and beautiful book” (Michael Eric Dyson), antiracist educator Robin DiAngelo deftly illuminates the phenomenon of white fragility and “allows us to understand racism as a practice not restricted to ‘bad people’ (Claudia Rankine). Referring to the defensive moves that white people make when challenged racially, white fragility is characterized by emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and by behaviors including argumentation and silence. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and prevent any meaningful cross-racial dialogue. In this in-depth exploration, DiAngelo examines how white fragility develops, how it protects racial inequality, and what we can do to engage more constructively. Page 1 of 143 Let Them See You By: Braswell, Porter ISBN: 9780399581410 Published By: Potter/Ten Speed/Harmony/Rodale 2019 The guide to getting hired, being promoted, and thriving professionally for the 40 million people of color in the workplace—fromthe CEO and cofounder of Jopwell, the leading career advancement platform for Black, Latinx, and Native American students and professionals. Let Them See You is a collection of Braswell’s straight-talking advice and mentorship for diverse careerists, from college students to mid-level professionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision--English
    ***UNOFFIAL TRANSLATION***§ Proceedings: Preliminary Investigations 150/09 – N Offense: Torture and others ADMINISTRACION CENTRAL COURT FOR PRELIMINARY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS DE JUSTICIA NUMBER FIVE NATIONAL COURT MADRID DECISION IN MADRID, THE TWENTY-SEVENTH OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN FACTS FIRST. – The facts under investigation are defined in the April 27, 2009 decision, completed, and with regard to Iaheen Ikarrien with the petition of complaint dated September 24, 2009, which was accepted October 29, 2009, according to the April 27 Decision: FIRST. -Indictment 25/03 was initiated in this Court against Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, Ikassrien Lahcen, Jamiel Abdul Latiff Al Banna and Omar Deghayes for alleged offenses of Involvement in the Terrorist Organization Al Qaeda. 1) Subsequently, the Criminal Division of the National Court handed down a sentence on 10/04/05, condemnatory against the first of those cited above (Hamed Abderraman Ahmed), even though the sentence of the Supreme Court dated 06/22/06 annulled [the lower court decision], acquitting the indicted party. 2) In the second case (Ikassrien Lahcen), the Criminal Division of the National Court handed down a sentence on 10/10/2006, acquitting the indicted party. 3) and 4) In the case of Mr. Al Banna and Mr. Deghayes, this Court issued European Orders for Detention dated 05/24/04, orders that were repeated on the 14 and 19 of December 2007 before the imminent arrival in the United Kingdom of said indicted § Translation provided by the Center for Constitutional Rights, www.ccrjustice.org. Page numbering differs from the original Spanish version. Please send any comments to: [email protected].
    [Show full text]