Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Westlaw.

5/22/05 NYT 11

The New York Times

Page 6

DETAINEE DEATHS

Nov. 30 Dec. 4, 2002 -- Mullah Habibullah arrives at the Bagram detention center. He dies after days of beatings by guards.

Dec. 5-10 A second Afghan man, Dilawar (left), is taken into custody. He dies after being shackled to the ceiling of his cell for much of five days.

Dec. 8, 13 - Initial autopsy reports show both men were victims of homicide.

INVESTIGATIONS

Dec. 2002 -- Military spokesmen at Bagram say the men died from natural causes.

Dec. 12 Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, commander of allied forces in Afghanistan, orders an investigation that finds serious problems at the detention center.

Dec. 31 -- The Army's Criminal Investigation Command conducts the last full interview of their initial inquiry into the deaths of the two men. Weeks later, they recommend that the case be closed without seeking charges against any of the soldiers.

April 15, 2003 -- Bagram report is sent back by Criminal Investigation Command headquarters for many issues that "required additional work, pursuit, clarification or scrutiny."

Aug. 6- After "a review of investigative shortfalls" by senior officials at the Criminal Investigation Command, the Bagram inquiry is assigned to the agency's headquarters.

Oct. 8- The Army's criminal investigation ends, finding probable cause to charge 27 officers and soldiers with crimes related to the deaths of Mr. Dilawar, and 15 of the personnel were charged in the case of Mr. Habibullah.

-

Aug. 2004 Report into abuses at Abu Ghraib by Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones finds that Captain Wood instituted methods at the Iraqi prison that were "remarkably similar" to those she applied at Bagram.

(pg. 18)

INDEX REFERENCES

NEWS SUBJECT: (Violent Crime (1V127); Legal (1LE33); Social Issues (1005); Judicial (1JU36); Crime (1CR87); Criminal Law (1CR79); Prisons (1PR87)}

INDUSTRY: (Commercial Construction (10015); Aerospace & Defense (1AE96); Defense (1DE43); Construction (1C011); Correctional Facilities (1C072); Ground Forces (1GR94); Defense Intelligence (1DE90); Military Forces (1M137))

REGION:

(North America (1N039); Latin America (1LA15); Cuba (1CU43); Iraq (1IR87); Arab

Westlaw.

5/22/05 NYT 11

The New York Times

Page 7

States (1AR46); Western Asia (1WE54); Afghanistan (1AF45); Americas (1AM92); Asia (1AS61); Middle East (1MI23); USA (1US73); Caribbean (1CA06)}

Language: EN

OTHER INDEXING: (ABU GHRAIB; ARMY, BRONZE STAR; DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE; PENTAGON; RED CROSS) (Activity; Advocate," Sergeant; Anthony R. Jones; Army; Army Faltered; Beiring; Blood; Carolyn A. Wood; Case; Christopher Grey; Christopher M. Beiring; Damien M. Corsetti; Daniel K. McNeill; David L. Hayden; Di Rita; Dilawar; Grey: Habibullah; Hayden; Jeff A. Bovarnick; Joseph G. Nesbitt, Larry Di Rita, Loring, Major Bovarnick; McNeill; Mr.; Mullah Habibullah; Nesbitt; Nonetheless; Photo; Photos; Sergeant Loring; Steven W. Loring; Wally Santana; Wood)

[blocks in formation]

(Series)

REPORT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, “INDEPENDENCE DAY 2003," JULY 3, 2003

Independence Day 2003

Main Street America Fights the Federal Government's Insatiable Appetite for New Powers in the Post 9/11 Era

A Special Report

by

The American Civil Liberties Union

Thursday, July 3, 2003

AOLU

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOREWORD

In arguably the most important area of government -- the preservation of individual liberty in our democracy -- Main Street America has played, and will always play, the preeminent role in gaining and safeguarding American freedoms. American society has a unique ability to achieve social, economic and political progress through spontaneous grassroots movements that begin in neighborhoods, towns and cities and grow into national movements, which, more often than not, actually produce meaningful change in government.

"I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." --Charles de Gaulle

Consider movements that brought about the abolition of
slavery, voting rights for women, labor rights, and more
recently, civil rights for African Americans in the 1950s and
1960s. Indeed, even our birth as a nation began with a whisper
of discontent as colonists threw tea into the Boston Harbor as
an act of protest, and grew into a thunderous declaration of
our fundamental rights and freedoms. The result? The creation of a nation with ideals of
freedom, liberty and respect for the individual as the fundamental core of its foundation.

Today, a new chapter in this history of political mobilization is being written. In the latest example of Americans fulfilling their civic entitlements in a free society and of our tradition of rejecting intrusive and offensive government policies, communities are banding together to repudiate congressional and Administration efforts to undermine and in some cases eliminate certain liberties as the price of securing safety after the tragic events of September 11, 2001 All across the country, Americans are challenging the notion that the very liberties that make our nation unique should be sacrificed for the sake of new measures that are of questionable effectiveness in assuring our safety. These communities are standing up to say that while concerned about safety in these difficult times, they believe strongly that our nation can be both safe and free. Their message is one that resonates particularly strongly on Independence Day, a day when the nation pauses to reflect on its founding charter and the men who wrote it more than 200 years ago.

To date, more than 130 American communities - of all shapes, sizes, and ideological persuasions - have adopted pro-civil liberties resolutions and laws rejecting federal policies that threaten our basic constitutional rights. Dozens more are considering such initiatives. By all accounts, this grassroots reaction to excessive government policies is only beginning.

What is invoking the ire of Republicans and Democrats alike in these communities? Overbroad federal policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act, new FBI domestic spying guidelines, misguided anti-immigration laws, indefinite imprisonment of American citizens in a manner that strips them of fundamental due process rights, and the failed Operation TIPS program which would have recruited neighbor to spy on neighbor -- are but only a few.

1

Although the Justice Department is actively seeking to downplay the resolutions by inaccurately characterizing them as the product of “liberal college towns," these resolution campaigns are cropping up in such places as the Republican-controlled state Legislature of Alaska to the conservative American heartland in places like Oklahoma City to liberal Democratic communities like Santa Cruz, CA and Cambridge, MA.

The Justice Department's summary dismissal of the resolution movement is particularly interesting given how closely it mirrors what federal government officials said about the political movements of the past that challenged their authority. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, for example, often characterized the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a troublemaker and an agitator whose movement, while annoying, did not merit much serious consideration. Yet, when the civil rights movement really started gaining steam, the government sought to discredit, defame and then suppress it.

2

The Justice Department's attempt to discredit the resolution campaign are in sync with the words of Attorney General Ashcroft, who in the days after the 9/11 attacks, characterized those who speak up to protect their freedoms and criticize government policies as un-American and unpatriotic. Testifying before Congress, Ashcroft said: "Those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists. "2

A year and a half later, faced with the fact that communities in more than half the states have passed resolutions that directly challenge anti-liberty government policies, the federal government is beginning to turn from ignoring this movement to seeking to discredit and combat it. Indeed, the Justice Department has deployed U.S. Attorneys and FBI agents in various localities to counter the resolution drives. These measures have ranged from trying to mislead the media in Maine to making false statements about the provisions in the PATRIOT Act in a hearing before the Alaska Legislature.

The civil liberties resolutions movement is a vindication of the intense concerns the ACLU raised about the welfare of our freedoms in the post-9/11 era. In the hopes of detailing just how this popular revolt developed and where it stands today, the following special report documents the resolution movement, its growing momentum and the scope of its impact. While the details are new, the story is as old as our nation -- a story of individuals working at the community level to protect civil liberties.

This report is the latest in a series of special reports issued by the ACLU on government actions since 9/11 that threaten our fundamental rights and freedoms without making us safer. These special reports include: The Dangers of Domestic Spying By Federal Law Enforcement (January 2002), Insatiable Appetite (April 2002), Civil Liberties After 9 11 (September 2002), Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains (January 2003), Freedom Under Fire: Dissent in Post-9 11 America

"Morning Edition" NPR. "Many Americans criticizing USA Patriot Act as Attorney General John Ashcroft asks for expanded powers." 06/09/2003

2 Mary Zepernick, About a most dangerous man,” Cape Cod Times, 01/14/2000, Available at: http://www.peace ca/dangerousman.htm

3 Testimony of The Honorable John Ashcroft Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on "DOJ Oversight Preserving our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism." December 6, 2001. Available at: http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/testimony.cfm'id=121&w#_id=42

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »