Today the international community commemorates the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. The U.S. government should take this time to reflect on some astounding statistics: Despite well-documented evidence of the systemic use of torture by Bush administration officials, not one of the architects of these policies that led to the torture and abuse of hundreds of men, women and children has been held accountable and not one survivor has had their day in a U.S. court. As a result, the ACLU is seeking accountability for survivors in the international legal arena.
For decades, the U.S. had claimed global leadership in the fight against torture - indeed, the Reagan administration hailed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as a "significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment." Yet the U.S. government has severely tarnished its credibility by promoting a culture of impunity for those who committed torture and denying victims the right to redress for their abuses.
Take the case of ACLU client Khaled El-Masri. In 2003, Khaled, a German citizen, was kidnapped by the CIA and whisked away to a secret prison in Afghanistan for interrogation. He was quietly released in Albania five months later after the agency determined that they had the wrong man. Khaled later described his abduction by men dressed in black and wearing ski masks, and being beaten, stripped, blindfolded, sodomized, and drugged before being flown half way around the world to a cold damp cell.
Khaled's tale of rendition and torture made headline news around the world and was the subject of numerous criminal investigations and governmental inquiries in Europe. President Bush acknowledged the existence of a rendition, detention and interrogation program. In response to questions about Khaled's mistreatment during a press conference in Germany in December 2005, then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice responded,
[W]hen and if mistakes are made, we work very hard and as quickly as possible to rectify them. Any policy will sometimes have mistakes and it is our promise to our partners that should that be the case, that we will do everything that we can to rectify those mistakes. I believe that this will be handled in the proper courts here in Germany and if necessary in American courts as well.
In 2005, the ACLU filed suit on Khaled's behalf against George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and U.S.-based aviation corporations that aided in Khaled's forced disappearance and torture. In response, rather than acknowledge any wrongdoing, the government sought to have the lawsuit dismissed from the outset claiming that any judicial consideration of Khaled's allegations would cause untold harm to U.S. national security interests by revealing state secrets. U.S. courts accepted the government's extraordinary position.
With no further avenue or redress before U.S. courts, in 2008 the ACLU filed a petition on Khaled's behalf against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming violations of his internationally protected rights to be free from forced disappearance and torture, and, as a survivor of these egregious practices, to a remedy. More than five years later, the government has yet to respond to the petition. Thus, while Khaled's torturers have evaded punishment for his barbaric treatment, Khaled hasn't received so much as an explanation or an apology. The only court to hear his claims and acknowledge illegal actions committed by U.S. officials – including abusive treatment, arbitrary detention, and forced disappearance – was the European Court of Human Rights, in a case brought against Macedonia, not the United States.
Khaled's failed efforts to secure accountability in the United States are sadly not unique. Other torture survivors' attempts have met a similar fate, thwarted by government claims of state secrets or immunity before U.S. courts and – so far – a stony silence when they brought their cases to the Inter-American Commission. As a result, three petitions on behalf of twelve men alleging forced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment by the United States presently languish before the Commission:
- Binyam Mohamed, et al. – A petition on behalf of five men who were subjected to forced disappearance and torture as a consequence of their "extraordinary rendition", filed on November 14, 2011;
- Sabar, Thahe Mohamed et al. – A petition on behalf of six Iraqi and Afghani men who were subjected to torture while detained in U.S.-run facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, filed on March 19, 2012;
- Jose Padilla and Estela Lebron – A petition on behalf of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, who was arbitrarily detained as an "enemy combatant" in South Carolina and tortured, filed on December 11, 2012.
The government should fully engage with the Inter-American Commission and respond to the four petitions that have been filed. This is both a moral and legal obligation – the U.S. is obligated under the Convention Against Torture to provide legal redress to victims. Impunity for torture is abhorrent and the ACLU will continue to press for accountability, for however long it takes. This is an effort we must all continue to make: to reject impunity, return to the rule of law, and provide adequate redress to Khaled and hundreds of other survivors of U.S. torture.
Learn more about accountability for torture: 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.