Rights Groups to Government: Allow U.N. Torture Expert to Examine U.S. Use of Solitary Confinement
Human and civil rights groups around the country have asked the U.S. government to invite a U.N. expert to visit the United States to examine, among other things, the practice of solitary confinement. Juan Méndez, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, has repeatedly asked the U.S. government to extend such an official invitation, but his requests have thus far gone unanswered.
Méndez is a former Argentinian political prisoner and respected human rights lawyer who once served as president of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In a groundbreaking report presented last year to the United Nations (U.N.) Human Rights Council, Méndez found that solitary confinement can amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment – and even torture. He has repeatedly called for the absolute prohibition of solitary confinement of children and persons with mental disabilities, and recommended the implementation of alternative disciplinary sanctions. He has also called for increased safeguards and the universal prohibition of prolonged solitary confinement (exceeding 15 days).
As the special rapporteur recently reported to the Inter-American Commission, on any given day over 80,000 people are held in solitary confinement in prisons and jails in the United States, and more than 25,000 of them are held in so-called "supermax" prisons specifically designed for long-term solitary confinement. Despite Mr. Méndez's multiple requests to investigate the over-use of solitary confinement in the United States, the U.S. has, to date, failed to extend him an invitation.
Imagine if China or Russia refused to engage with independent human rights experts and provide them access to places of detention. What would the U.S. government response be? Certainly nothing short of protest and condemnation. For example, in 2011, the U.S. urged the government of Cuba "to allow access to the U.N. Special Rapporteur and the International Red Cross to its jails so that a fuller accounting of remaining political prisoners can be possible."
Americans should be outraged over this double standard. Indeed, there is broad support for allowing human rights experts to investigate rights abuses. According to a poll from 2008, 70 percent of Americans said they believe the U.N. should actively promote human rights in member states – 75 percent favored "giving the U.N. the authority to go into countries in order to investigate violations of human rights." Three other polls conducted between 2006 and 2010 found that over 70 percent support the principle.
So why won't the U.S. grant the special rapporteur access to the United States? Are we hiding something? Don't we only benefit by engaging with a human rights expert who might have some good advice about how to deal with this pervasive human rights issue, especially its use against juveniles, people with mental disabilities, and other vulnerable populations? U.S. leadership on the world stage suffers when we seem to present a double standard on human rights; the U.S. government shouldn't selectively ignore human rights violations at home or abroad. As Senator Lindsey Graham has said about solitary confinement, "American values are on display when you have the power to confine someone. It says a lot about who we are as a nation." It's time to be transparent.
So this week, over 50 civil and human rights groups are calling on the U.S. to take a step toward reversing the double standard by granting Mr. Méndez an official invitation to, among other things, examine the problem of solitary confinement. The coalition's letter says:
As a crucial step toward addressing the overuse and abuse of solitary confinement in this country, to fulfill commitments made by the U.S. government to support the work of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, and to promote greater transparency and accountability regarding the human rights record of the United States, we urge you to extend an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Juan Méndez, to undertake fact-finding in the United States, in accordance with the Terms of Reference for Fact-Finding Missions by UN Special Rapporteurs, on this most pressing human rights issue.
While the Obama administration took the commendable step of joining the Human Rights Council, it has yet to fully honor key commitments it made when it joined, such as supporting U.N. independent human rights experts. This includes hosting visits like that which Mr. Méndez has requested. While the U.S. has extended invitations and facilitated visits by other U.N. special rapporteurs, the administration has not fully implemented their recommendations. When the U.S. was re-elected to the council, the Obama administration pledged to "support… the work of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture." We hope that this administration decides to put words into action when it comes to cooperation with human rights bodies and implementation of international commitments. An important step in this direction would be to extend an invitation to Mr. Méndez and grant him access to detention facilities as appropriate under U.N. protocols.
Learn more about solitary confinement and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.