« January 2005 | Main | March 2005 »

February 24, 2005

The Magic of Internment

Michelle Malkin appeared on KPCC to argue that the internment and removal of Japanese from the West Coast in World War II was justified. Author Eric Muller represented the opposing view; you can give a listen at the link above.

Now US News and World Report columnist John Leo has written in support of the internment. He concludes:

Malkin’s point is that if the threat to the survival of America is severe enough, some civil liberties must yield. She is right that the internment issue is currently being wielded as a club to prevent reasonable extra scrutiny of suspect Arabs and Muslims. But the twin towers were not brought down by militant Swedish nuns. It is always reasonable to look in the direction from which the gravest danger is coming. It’s also reasonable and important to open an honest discussion of internment, past and present.
This echoes what Malkin says is the reason she wrote In Defense of Internment:
My aim is to kick off a vigorous national debate on what has been one of the most undebatable subjects in Amerian history and law: President Franklin Roosevelt’s homeland security policies that led to the evacuation and relocation of 112,000 ethnic Japanese on the West Coast, as well as the internment of tens of thousands of enemy aliens from Japan, Germany, Italy, and other Axis nations. I think it’s vitally important to get the history right because the WWII experience is often invoked by opponents of common-sense national security profiling and other necessary homeland security measures today.
All of this is supposed to sound reasonable, or rather, anyone who rejects on principle the internment of people based on their national origin is made out to be unreasonable. If people read Malkin's book so they can "get the history right," we'll stop opposing "common-sense national security profiling"

The main difficulty of responding or engaging with these views is they're so vague. WHICH "common-sense" measures are we talking about? WHAT are the revisionists proposing we do to "suspect Arabs and Muslims" that we aren't already doing?

I just have to return to the brilliance of that phrase of John Leo's:

She is right that the internment issue is currently being wielded as a club to prevent reasonable extra scrutiny of suspect Arabs and Muslims.
"Reasonable extra scrutiny of suspect Arabs and Muslims?" But that's not profiling. When someone's a "suspect," it means there's a reasonable suspicion of that individual not based on their race or ethnicity. No one's saying we should not follow the law and apprehend people based on individual evidence. But internment and profiling throw that all out the window. Leo's sentence taken literally doesn't make sense, but through its imprecision creates the idea there's a class of "suspect Arabs and Muslims" -- that ALL Arabs and Muslims are inherently suspect. And that we're being stopped from "scrutinizing" them by this faceless anti-internment mob.

WHO are these "suspect Arabs and Muslims?" WE ARE GOING AFTER SUSPECT AND NON-SUSPECT ARAB AND SOUTH ASIAN MUSLIMS.

If internment revisionists won't clearly say what they mean and what they want done, there's no way there can be a reasoned debate about proper national security measures. All that's clear so far from their irresponsible history and sloppy fearmongering is that a reasoned debate is not what they really want.

Anyone interested in this topic, check out Eric Muller's site. You'll find some freelance revisionists posting there too, so there's access to both sides.

February 17, 2005

Korean INS detainee hangs himself in Passaic

I got this bulletin from the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee:
NJCRDC continues to document horrible conditions at Passaic County Jail. Like Heq Sung Soo, many other detainees there are systematically denied appropriate medical care. They sleep in containers on the floor due to overcrowding. They are physically and mentally abused by jail guards and officials. Although the use of dogs to terrorize and torture has stopped, no one responsible has been prosecuted, and reports of beatings and abuse continue...

We call for an immediate investigation of all parties involved in Mr. Heq Sung Soo's death. We call for an immediate termination of ICE's contract with Passaic County Jail...

Read NJCRDC's full statement

I agree that there should be an investigation. The NJCRDC hasn't specified how Mr. Soo may have been abused or denied treatment, however. Here's part of the Statement from Passaic County Jail:

On Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at approximately 8:45, INS detainee Heq Sung Soo [DOB 2/13/54 (age 50) Korean Male] hanged himself in the Passaic County Jail.

Soo arrived at the jail on January 14, 2005, after BICE requested that we accept a "highly combative and uncooperative" detainee. LT Mason of BICE indicated that Soo was banging his head, biting himself, flinging himself, and generally refusing to comply with any orders.

He was charged with internal disciplinary charges for refusing a direct order and had a hearing. Those charges were dismissed after determining that Soo had difficulty understanding the English language.

Upon arrival, and during the booking Soo refused to be processed. When we attempted to take his picture he dropped to the floor and curled up into a fetal position. When we tried to fingerprint him he jammed his fingers into his mouth and tried to bite them off. He also refused to be medically processed. He was dressed in a paper gown and placed in SDU # 3 for his protection as well as the protection of other inmates and staff members.

On January 17, 2005, Officers making rounds discovered that Soo had made a braided rope out of his paper gown. He was placed in SDU #6 without clothing for observation.

On January 19, 2005, he appeared to unresponsive in his cell. He was checked by medical staff and found to be OK. All vitals were normal and he had no injuries. He was further evaluated by the Nurse Practitioner.

On January 20, 2005, he attempted suicide by wrapping a thin string around his neck (which turned out to be the piping from his mattress). He injured his head when he fell to the floor after the string broke. An officer discovered Soo face down his cell and unresponsive. Soo was transported to Barnert Hospital, treated and transported to St. Mary's for evaluation. He was treated medically and sent to St. Mary's for evaluation. From St. Mary's he was sent to the Ann Klein Forensic Hospital.

On Jan.22, 2005 inmate Soo was admitted to Ann Klein Forensic Center for psychiatric evaluation/treatment .

On Feb.11, 2005 inmate was discharged from Ann Klien and returned to PCJ. The aftercare plan states inmate is to be maintained as an individual who demonstrated self-injurious behavior. Inmate was placed in receiving for observation.

On Feb15, 2005, after discussing the case with BICE it was determined that they did not want him housed in receiving or 1-2. Inmate was placed into SDU#6 for special watch or observation.

On Feb16, 2005 inmate was discovered hanging in cell and was immediately treated and transported to St. Joseph's Hospital Emergency Room via ambulance.

The above is nearly the entire statement, except for Soo's physical description -- read the full pdf here.

What's the SDU? It's the "Special Detention Unit" mentioned in the Inspector General's report on the September 11 detainees:

INS detainees were housed in the medium security portion of the Passaic County Jail. Within that part of the facility, a Special Detention Unit (SDU) of six single-person cells is used when needed to segregate inmates either for their own protection or to punish inmates who commit disciplinary infractions. Inmates confined to the SDU are monitored 24 hours per day by cameras in each cell. In addition, SDU inmates only are permitted to place calls to and receive visits from their attorneys – no social calls or visits are allowed. According to Passaic policy, disciplinary infractions such as assaulting or threatening staff and inmates are usually punishable by confinement in the SDU for 15 to 30 days per incident. Later in this chapter, we discuss the experiences of the few September 11 detainees held in the SDU.
In essence, SDU means solitary confinement and denial of visits from anyone except an attorney -- if the detainee is lucky enough to have one. No visits or phone calls Passaic classifies as "social" -- those from friends, spouses, family members, and community volunteers -- none are allowed in SDU.

This kind of isolation, which goes by different names in different facilities, is officially used both for "punishment" and "protection." The relevant question is whether in a particular case this is truly justified.

Farouk Abdel-Muhti was placed in solitary confinement for eight months after he organized a hunger strike with five other detainees. He was also placed in isolation after he was beaten by a guard. In this incident, Farouk's cell was searched and the guard had found high blood pressure medication Farouk had kept in his cell, which is a violation of prison regulations. But the guard had also found leftist publications in Farouk's cell, which is not in violation of any regulation, and verbally abused him about being anti-American as he struck him and threw him to the ground.

So as a rule we can't take detention facilities' statements about their use of the SDU at face value. The Passaic County Jail statement portrays Mr. Soo as a mentally ill inmate dangerous to himself and others.

We don't know from either NJCRDC or Passaic how long Mr. Soo had been in immigrant detention prior to being taken to Passaic, or whether he had been in SDU conditions for any length of time before. We don't know how he was spoken to or treated prior to or at Passaic, the reason for his detention or what he understood about it, if anything, as a non-English speaker.

According to Passaic Mr. Soo was placed in solitary confinement upon arriving. After 6 days, he attempted suicide and was sent to the hospital for psychiatric treatment, where he stayed for just under three weeks. The evaluation recommended he be treated as a "self-injurious" inmate, and Passaic placed him in "receiving," where he presumably could be closely watched and prevented from injuring himself. Four days later BICE decided, for reasons which are unexplained, to move him back to solitary confinement for "special watch or observation", and the next day he killed himself.

At a glance, Mr. Soo's suicidal behavior is strongly connected with the isolation of SDU. People with any inclination to mental illness are not known to fare well in solitary confinement. In fact, solitary confinement can create mental illness in people who didn't have problems before.

The question is, was SDU the only option Passaic had for Mr. Soo? If it was, why? Passaic represents that they were entrusted with a mentally ill inmate they were unable to prevent from killing himself. But the BICE and the facility assume ultimate responsibility for the welfare of anyone they're holding, because absolutely no one else can. The system needs to be able to handle the mentally ill.

Immigrant detainees are not criminals: they are people being held until they can be deported, which the Supreme Court ruled cannot be for longer than six months. Yet there's virtually no difference in treatment between criminals and immigrant detainees. Except criminals have a right to a court-appointed lawyer, and immigrants do not.

So a detainee often has no one to represent their interests except the prison and the BICE. And when an immigrant without a lawyer is placed in SDU, the Passaic regulations pronounce the immigrant, in effect, "disappeared" -- no calls out or in. That in itself is not a prescription for mental health.

Living in a box day and night, unable to talk to anyone, with no idea how long you'll be there, perhaps no understanding why you're there.

Would only a crazy person contemplate suicide in that situation?

CCR adds Gonzales to War Crimes Suit: SIGN PETITION

I got an email from the Center for Constitutional Rights, following up on their war crimes suit naming Rumsfeld, here's an excerpt:
Dear Friend:

Last week we added Gonzales to the war crimes suit we filed with the German prosecutor that charges Rumsfeld and other high-ranking officials with responsibility for torture at Abu Ghraib. Despite the thousands of letters many of you sent, the evidence, and the legal merits of the case, Rumsfeld strong-armed the German government into refusing the suit before he would agree to attend an important security conference in Munich.

We knew this would be a long fight: we'll be re-arguing the case in 10 days, submitting additional papers and appealing to a higher court in Germany. Please take a minute to sign a letter demanding the appointment of a Special Prosecutor here in the U.S.

Ron Daniels and Michael Ratner
Executive Director and President
Center for Constitutional Rights

I posted about their suit here. If you agree that Rumsfeld should be held responsible for the abuses perpetrated in Iraq, please take action.

February 05, 2005

FOIA SUIT THWARTED?

Immigration News Briefs
Vol. 8, No. 6 - February 5, 2005

On Jan. 11 Marie O'Rourke, assistant director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, informed the civil rights group People for the American Way (PFAW) that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would charge "approximately $372,799" to search for records the group is seeking. PFAW filed its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in November 2003 for records involving "any request by the government to seal the proceedings of a case in any federal court arising from or relating to the detention of a post 9/11 immigrant detainee."

An "initial canvass of our 93 districts led to an estimate search time of 13,314.25 hours," billed at $28 an hour, O'Rourke told PFAW general counsel Elliot Mincberg in a letter--adding that the estimate could rise with the possible addition of "hundreds of hours" more in search time for the Southern Florida district and four other districts.

The letter came two days before the government was due to explain to a federal court in Washington why PFAW's lawsuit against the DOJ should be summarily denied. PFAW sued last Aug. 23 after the government first refused to release any records--citing federal privacy exemptions--then denied an appeal. PFAW has until Feb. 10 to respond to the fee letter. The DOJ lawyers have asked US District Judge John Bates to hold a hearing the week of Mar. 14.

PFAW hopes to produce a public report about government secrecy efforts against hundreds of unidentified detainees--including Algerian-born Florida restaurant waiter Mohamed Kamel Bellahouel, detained in October 2001 for overstaying his student visa after the FBI claimed he had served food to some of the men involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. Bellahouel filed a habeas corpus petition (M.K.B. v. Warden) in January 2002 in the Southern District of Florida; his case was kept secret and off the court dockets on orders of US District Judge Paul Huck. Bellahouel was freed around March 1, 2002, but continued to press his habeas case in an attempt to challenge the secrecy order. Bellahouel's name was discovered and made public by the Daily Business Review of Miami only because of a March 2003 clerk error at the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta [see INB 1/3/04]. [Daily Business Review 1/31/05]

Immigration News Briefs (INB), a weekly English-language summary of US immigration news, is forwarded out to the email list of the Coalition for the Human Rights of Immigrants (CHRI). If you receive INB as a forwarded message, and you wish to subscribe directly to INB, or to the CHRI email list (which includes INB and local NYC area events, average 4-5 messages a week), write to nicajg@panix.com (indicate "CHRI list" or "INB only").

ANTI-IMMIGRANT BILL LOOMS

from Immigration News Briefs Vol. 8, No. 6 - February 5, 2005

Immigration News Briefs is a weekly supplement to Weekly News Update on the Americas, published by Nicaragua Solidarity Network, 339 Lafayette St, New York, NY 10012; tel 212-674-9499; fax 212-674-9139; wnu@igc.org. INB is also distributed free via email (see below).

On Jan. 26, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced HR 418, the "Real ID Act," with 115 co-sponsors. The bill includes a host of anti-immigrant provisions which were left out of "intelligence reform" legislation passed by Congress last December [see INB 12/11/04]. Among other things, the bill would bar states from issuing driver licenses to undocumented immigrants, and set up a system of "temporary" and "regular" licenses according to immigration status; impose new restrictions on asylum seekers, such as allowing officials to require written corroboration of asylum claims; and mandate completion of a third border fence near San Diego, overriding 16 state and federal environmental laws that currently bar its construction [see INB 2/21/04]. In defining grounds for inadmissibility, the bill also states that "an alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist activity."

HR 418 is expected to move quickly to the House floor, where it may be attached as an amendment to fast-tracked supplemental appropriations bills for tsunami relief or the US war in Iraq, and scheduled for a vote as early as Feb. 9. Media reports suggest Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) may also introduce companion legislation in the Senate.

On Feb. 1, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA)--who co-sponsored HR 418-- introduced a separate bill, HR 368, the "Driver's License Security and Modernization Act," which would require that each US state confirm an immigrant's legal status before issuing a driver license or other state-issued identification card. HR 368 has been referred to the House Government Reform committee, which Davis chairs.

Immigrant rights supporters are urged to call Congress (202- 224-3121) and the White House (202-456-1111) to express opposition to these bills. For more information, see http://humanrightsfirst.org and http://aila.org. [National Immigration Forum Alert 2/2/05; Rights Working Group Alert 2/4/05; Latin America Working Group Alert 2/2/05; Text of HR 418 from http://thomas.loc.gov]

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), the House majority leader, said on Feb. 1 that a guest worker program proposed by President George W. Bush will not be included in debate over HR 418. Congress can consider such measures over the next two years, said DeLay. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who supports both the guest worker plan and HR 418, confirmed he would not try to combine the two proposals; he said he considers HR 418 to be a border security measure, not an immigration bill. [Washington Times 2/2/05]

On Feb. 3, the Senate voted 60-36 to confirm Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. [Roll call at senate.gov] Gonzales has been widely criticized for his positions on the use of torture in interrogations [see 11/20/04, 1/22/05].

Immigration News Briefs (INB), a weekly English-language summary of US immigration news, is forwarded out to the email list of the Coalition for the Human Rights of Immigrants (CHRI). If you receive INB as a forwarded message, and you wish to subscribe directly to INB, or to the CHRI email list (which includes INB and local NYC area events, average 4-5 messages a week), write to nicajg@panix.com (indicate "CHRI list" or "INB only").