Video: ACLU Challenging "Extraordinary Rendition"

To accompany the filing of the new ACLU lawsuit challenging extraordinary rendition, a short web video about the case against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., the clients and the illegal rendition program, was created. Please view it, share it, and post it.

ACLU Sues Company that Profited from Torture

Wikipedia defines ‘extraordinary rendition’ as the “extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another with the intent of legally torturing them outside of the jurisdiction of the state which prohibits it.” That’s an oddly dispassionate way of describing the secret kidnapping and transportation of someone against their will to a country where they can be physically and emotionally abused without restraint. Were it to take place on American soil, extraordinary rendition would violate most every guarantee in the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, including but certainly not limited to due process and our rights against illegal seizures and cruel and unusual punishment.

Which is precisely why our government only practices extraordinary rendition in other countries.

Today the ACLU sued the company that facilitates the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program, Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing Company. Jeppesen provided direct flight services to the CIA that enabled the clandestine transportation of Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel and Ahmed Agiza to secret overseas locations where they were subjected to torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Jeppesen prepared flight plans, procured landing permits and customs clearances, and provided fueling and maintenance for the CIA flights. Thanks to Jeppesen-facilitated flights, each of the plaintiffs was tortured severely and repeatedly. Now they are imprisoned in Guantanamo, Morocco, and Egypt.

There’s no denying that Jeppeson management knew what they were doing. In a story by The New Yorker, a former Jeppesen employee recalled comments that the managing director of Jeppesen International Flight Planning made at an internal corporate meeting.

“We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights—you know, the torture flights,” the exec said. “It certainly pays well. They”—the CIA—“spare no expense. They have absolutely no worry about costs.”

Perhaps the only thing more repugnant than torture itself is a company that profits from torture.

--Peter Simonson, Executive Director

Court Affirms the Right to Effective Assistance of Legal Counsel

You may not like Jovan Edwards, but it’s hard to argue with the favorable decision that he received from the Court of Appeals in recent days. Edwards pled no contest in 2003 to a series of charges that made him a sex offender and therefore obligated to register on the state’s sex offender website. The only hitch was that his lawyer didn’t tell him that sex offender registration would result if the judge rejected his guilty plea—which the judge did. Having your picture and home and work addresses published on a public website that essentially declares you a dangerous pedophile is not a consequence to be overlooked.

Now the Court of Appeals has set aside Edward’s plea and returned the case to district court saying that the defense counsel’s performance was “deficient”.

Our sources tell us that the Court based it’s ruling partly on another criminal defense case, State v. Paredes, in which the ACLU of New Mexico, represented by attorney and ACLU board member Tova Indritz, provided a critical friend-of-the-court brief. In that case, an immigrant pled guilty to crimes without being told that his plea would permanently deport him from the country. The NM Supreme Court concluded that immigrants must be told “the specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty [to a crime], including whether deportation would be virtually certain...proper advice will allow the defendant to make a knowing and voluntary decision to plead guilty.”

The Court of Appeals ruling in Edwards’ case adds reinforcement to the crucial precedent established in Paredes that “effective assistance of counsel” means thoroughly informing a defendant about the consequences of a decision to plead guilty.

--Peter Simonson, Executive Director

ACLU to Wexford: Good Riddance!

“Gaping holes” was how the Albuquerque Journal characterized problems afflicting the health care delivery system for the state’s 6,500 prison inmates. For nearly a year, Dan Frosch of the Santa Fe Reporter has been documenting the dangerously substandard healthcare provided by private contractor Wexford, including failures to:

• Properly test for tuberculosis among inmates;

• Consistently supply diabetic inmates with vital medications;

• Provide timely treatment of dental problems. The Journal story says the wait time for routine dental care is 2 months at the Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs;

• Outfit medical personnel with protective gear to treat inmates with infectious diseases; and

• Issue timely reports on 14 inmates who died in corrections facilities during 2006.

A host of former and current employees have alleged staffing shortages as well as a systemic lack of medical supplies, failure to properly dole out prescription drugs, and a chronic reluctance to send sick inmates off-site for specialized treatment.

“In my entire career, I’ve never seen this sort of stuff happening,” one employee commented. “These inmates are not being treated humanely. They don’t live in sanitary conditions. They live in pain.” (Santa Fe Reporter)

Sure, inmates aren’t intended to live in country club conditions, but neither are they expected to endure physical torture, to which Wexford’s services apparently amount.

Wexford’s performance is not only a disgrace and a professional embarrassment of epic proportions, but it also presents a public health threat to the communities surrounding NM prison facilities. Fortunately, the Governor has vowed to terminate Wexford’s contract on July 1^st, 2007. One wonders, however, how many inmates suffered or may even have perished due to Wexford’s negligence during the year it took the state to respond to the situation.

--Peter Simonson, Executive Director

A recent victory for women's rights in New Mexico

The NM Supreme Court didn’t waste much time in dismissing a child endangerment case that was brought against Cynthia Martinez for continuing her pregnancy despite her ongoing struggle with drug addiction. The court reached its decision less than a week after hearing oral arguments on May 7th, 2007. A lower court also dismissed the suit, holding that the state’s child endangerment law was not intended as a mechanism for policing pregnant women.

In a friend-of-the-court brief the ACLU of New Mexico argued that the application of a child abuse statue to prenatal conduct profoundly burdens women by subjecting them to discriminatory policing, effectively criminalizing drug use and drug addiction for pregnant women, but not for others.

We also argued that guarantees of gender equality in the New Mexico Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) go beyond overt gender classifications to apply judicial scrutiny to discrimination that burdens, restricts, or punishes women for their ability to bear children. Furthermore, when the burden consists of criminal prosecution and the deprivation of the fundamental rights of liberty, the keenest judicial vigilance is required.

The National ACLU Women’s Rights Project and Reproductive Freedom Project, as well as Planned Parenthood of New Mexico and the NM Women’s Justice Project, joined the ACLU in the filing of its brief.

Celebrate a significant victory in the struggle to prevent government from holding women hostage with their reproductive role!

--Peter Simonson, Executive Director

Another Southwest Airlines moment for Alberto Gonzales

Imagine a host of your former college classmates taking out an ad in one of the country’s largest newspapers to tell you what a jerk you’ve become since graduating. If you’re US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, you don’t have to imagine. Fifty six of his fellow Harvard Law School graduates enlisted The Washington Post last Tuesday to publish an open letter to the country’s highest ranking lawyer, expressing their “dismay” at his “cavalier handling of our freedoms time and again.”

The lawyers tell Gonzales, “when it has been important that legal boundaries hold unbridled government power in check, you have instead used pretextual rationales and strained readings to justify an ever-expanding executive authority… Your country and your President are in dire need of an attorney who will do the tough job of providing independent counsel, especially when the advice runs counter to political expediency… We call on you and on the President to relent from this reckless path, and to begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love many years ago.”

Nothing like having your life’s work roundly criticized by professional peers.

“Wanna get away,” Mr. Gonzales?

--Peter Simonson, Executive Director

Mum’s the word from NMSU

Ever since NMSU regent Bob Gallagher publicly accused the ACLU of timing our lawsuit to cast a shadow on the beginning of the Aggies’ 2006 football season, university officials have remained strangely silent about our accusations of religious discrimination against four Muslim football players. The absence of university commentary is especially striking in yesterday’s in-depth report by Evan Woodward on the suit which aired on Las Cruces public radio station KRWG. The silence seems disdainful of the public’s right to know—of taxpayers’ right to know—the university’s side of the story.

Perhaps the intemperance of Gallagher’s remarks prompted NMSU to stay mum on the issue from here on in. After all, if NMSU Head Coach Hal Mumme hadn’t insisted that players pray to his god after each practice and before each game, Mr. Gallagher never would have had to worry about blemishes on the beginning of the Aggie football season in the first place!

--Peter Simonson, Executive Director

June 26th ACLU Day of Action

Dear Friend,

The Bush administration has trampled the Constitution and abandoned American values and the rule of law -- and so far Congress has failed to act. Our country is at a turning point, and we must take action now to restore the right of habeas corpus, end government-sponsored torture, and uphold the fairness and freedoms that define us as Americans. It's time Congress heard that we the people demand that they respect the Constitution and keep their promises to repair the damage done by the Military Commissions Act. Please join us at a historic event to hold them to their promise.

On June 26th we're taking our fight straight to Capitol Hill. The ACLU is bringing together thousands of activists, ACLU members and concerned citizens from all over the United States to deliver a message to Congress: It's time to restore our constitutional rights and fundamental American values.

The Day of Action will feature a rally, a public demonstration and meetings with Members of Congress. We need you with us as we meet face-to-face with lawmakers and demand that they restore habeas corpus, end torture and ensure that fundamental liberties are front and center on their agenda in the coming months.

Stand with us at this historic event. Join us on June 26th for our Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice .

This political battle is just the beginning and will be heating up in the coming months. Your participation -- by attending, signing our petition or telling friends -- is crucial to our success. Congress can do the right thing but they'll only do it if we demand action and let our voices be heard.

To preserve our American values of freedom and fairness, we must sound the alarm and send a rallying cry that we demand Congress respect and restore the Constitution. Please consider joining us on June 26th and getting involved by signing the petition and telling your friends.

On June 26th, 2007, activists, ACLU members and concerned citizens from across the United States are storming Washington, D.C. to tell Congress to restore habeas corpus and the Constitution.

-Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, ACLU
-Caroline Fredrickson, Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

Red light cameras go to Las Cruces

Las Crucens may soon know the “thrill” that Albuquerqueans experience every time they find a surprise ticket in their mail stemming from an incident of stop-light running or speeding that was surreptitiously photographed by a surveillance camera. Last night, the Las Cruces city council considered a proposal to install the same camera system that residents of Albuquerque have been struggling to accept since mid-2005.

Although the Albuquerque Police Department boasts that the cameras have significantly reduced intersection accidents, Albuquerqueans seem to hate the intrusion on their privacy and the unfairness of being automatically penalized without consideration for the specific circumstances surrounding their traffic violations. An Albuquerque Journal poll found that most Albuquerque residents want the cameras removed. Our office receives a steady stream of complaints.

Las Cruces councilors are no doubt inspired by the revenues that red light fines are generating for City of Albuquerque coffers. As of earlier this year, Albuquerque had collected $5.2 million in fines from nearly 80,000 citations caught on camera since May 2005. But as one intrepid resident commented at last night's city council meeting, "I am concerned about public safety being driven by a profit motive.”

--Peter Simonson, Executive Director

Reproductive rights in New Mexico under threat

New Mexicans enjoy greater freedom to prevent unwanted pregnancies than people in many—perhaps most--other states. That’s because, year after year, the ACLU, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other Choice advocates successfully beat back legislative attempts to force teenagers to obtain parental permission for abortion services. We fight off efforts to politically define the moment at which life begins. We push for greater access to emergency contraceptives.

Now reproductive rights in New Mexico may be under threat by a momentous US Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on the “intact dilation and extraction” method of terminating early unwanted pregnancies. Read in the latest edition of the Santa Fe Reporter how this decision may alter the landscape of reproductive health in our state.

--Peter Simonson, Executive Director

Update on ACLU case against NMSU

Thought you would be interested in developments in one of our most important cases this year. As you may recall, we sued the New Mexico State University on claims that they discriminated against four Muslim athletes, indeed, kicked three of them off of the football team, because of their religious persuasion. Now the case is set to go to trial on June 25th, 2007.

This is a case that will receive national attention. It will reveal a series of shocking incidents in which the football coaching staff, under Hal Mumme, insisted that the players “accept Jesus as their God”, taunted the players with foods that are taboo to Muslims, prohibited the players from wearing traditional religious garb, and insisted that they take part in regular Christian prayers. Mumme himself took actions to indoctrinate the players in support for the war against Iraq.

The University’s silence on this issue and it’s refusal to take seriously our well-substantiated claims signal a troubling mindset about religious freedom and tolerance at the University—one that may well go beyond the coaching staff. The ACLU is committed to see this case through to the end and address a whole system of wrongs. We hooked into a live one this time.

Stay tuned to developments on this case as they certainly will prove interesting…

--Peter Simonson, Executive Director