LOS ANGELES, Calif. – A judge in the United Arab Emirates sentenced U.S. citizen Naji Hamdan to 18 months after finding him guilty of unspecified terrorism-related charges that stem from an apparent U.S.- orchestrated arrest and a coerced confession obtained under torture.

Hamdan, who has been imprisoned in the U.A.E. for more than a year, will be released shortly based on time already served. In handing down the sentence Monday, the U.A.E. judge never specified the charges on which Hamdan was convicted.

“If the government of the U.A.E. thought that Mr. Hamdan was a threat to anyone’s security, he would not have been ordered released on time served,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrant rights and national security at ACLU/SC.

Hamdan has become an unfortunate example of the Obama administration’s willingness to continue the Bush-era practice of using foreign governments -- often those with abysmal human rights records -- to detain and interrogate suspects based on little if any evidence while subverting the U.S. judicial process.

Last year U.A.E. state security forces, at the apparent behest of the U.S. government, detained Hamdan in a secret prison for three months, during which time officials interrogated and tortured him until he agreed to confess to whatever the officials wanted. Hamdan believes that at least one American official was present during a torture session, when the interrogator spoke to him in American English while he remained blindfolded.

It was not until the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit alleging that the U.S. government was responsible for Hamdan’s detention that he was transferred from the secret prison into a regular prison in the U.A.E. and charged with having committed unspecified terrorist offenses.

“The United States is not safer today because Naji Hamdan was imprisoned in the U.A.E.” said Jennie Pasquarella, an ACLU/SC staff attorney. “But if the Obama administration continues Bush-era policies that tolerate arbitrary detention and torture of suspects on behalf of the U.S., Mr. Hamdan’s story is destined to be repeated itself.”

Hamdan lived for two decades in the Los Angeles area, where he ran an auto-parts business and helped manage the Islamic Center of Hawthorne, a mosque and community center. His nightmare began in 2006 when he relocated his family and business to the U.A.E. As the Hamdans tried to board a flight at Los Angeles International Airport, FBI agents separated him from his wife and children, detained him and questioned him for hours. He was eventually released and allowed to travel, but when he returned to Los Angeles in early 2007 to check on his business, he was subject to further intensive FBI surveillance.

Then, in the summer of 2008, FBI agents traveled from Los Angeles to the U.A.E. to question Hamdan further. Shortly thereafter he was detained incommunicado by U.A.E. state security agents.

“I don’t understand why my father was taken away from me,” said Hamdan’s 17 year-old son Khaled Hamdan. “This is so painful. I grew up in the United States, but I feel like my government abandoned me, my family and my father.”

Since Hamdan’s arrest, both U.S. and U.A.E. officials have refused to deny that the U.S. is responsible for his detention. However, the charges against him, which included visiting Islamic websites, are for alleged “crimes” that were not committed in the U.A.E. There is no appeal to the court’s decision.

“The United States betrayed the values of justice and due process at the expense of a beloved leader, father and friend. Everything Naji’s children believed this country stood for was turned upside down and in the process they were separated from their father,” said Hossam Hemdan, the brother of Naji Hamdan who lives in Los Angeles. “We are grateful today, that Hamdan can return to his family.”

The ACLU National office annually recognizes the efforts of graduating seniors who have demonstrated a strong commitment to civil liberties throughout their high school experience. This year, 15 high school students will each be awarded a $7,000 college scholarship through the program. These scholar-activists will also be invited to participate in the Youth Activist Institute at the National ACLU office in New York City, to be held over several days in the summer of 2010. There, the scholarship recipients will learn more about the work of the ACLU and receive hands-on training on how to be grassroots activists and leaders on their campuses.

To qualify, students must:

• Have demonstrated a strong commitment to civil liberties through some form of activism
• Be a high school senior planning on entering an accredited college or university as a full-time, degree-seeking student
• Have attained a cumulative GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale at the time of graduation
• Not be a current ACLU plaintiff or witness in a legal case

Application process:

• To apply for the scholarship, the student must be nominated by the affiliate, in this case, the ACLU of Southern California. Affiliates can nominate more than one student
• The first step for the affiliate is conducting a brief interview with the potential applicant to determine if he or she is a qualified candidate. If so, the affiliate sends out the application form.
• The application form includes: 1,000-word personal statement about your civil liberties activism; a recommendation form to be completed by an adult leader in your school or community that attests to your commitment as an activist and civil libertarian (this reference cannot be a family member); and an endorsement form that will be filled out by the local affiliate to formally nominate you for the scholarship. You will be required to submit your most up-to-date high school transcript to the GPA requirement.

Applicants will be judged on the following standards (in order of importance):

• The strength and depth of the candidate's contributions to civil liberties
• Demonstrated leadership
• The likelihood of the applicant continuing commitment to civil liberties in the future
• Commitment to academic excellence
• Demonstrated financial need

Winners will be announced in February 2010.

To schedule an application interview with the ACLU/SC, drop us an email. Deadline to schedule an interview: Nov. 13, 2009. Deadline to return completed applications to the ACLU/SC: Nov. 27, 2009.

Download this flyer to share with your friends!

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard arguments today in an American Civil Liberties Union case addressing whether Congress - transfer to private owners of a small parcel of land with a Latin cross on it in the Mojave National Preserve remedies the Establishment Clause violation found by the lower courts. The ACLU argued that transferring the land – with a cross on it designated by Congress as a national memorial -- to the Veterans of Foreign Wars does not cure the government's unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over another.

“We are hopeful that the Court will see that the land transfer does not fulfill the government's obligation not to favor any particular religion over others,” said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, in reference to his arguments before the court today. “The cross is unquestionably a sectarian religious symbol, and as a congressionally designated national memorial – one of only 49 national memorials in the country – it would convey the message that the military values the sacrifices of Christian war dead over those of service members from other faith traditions.”

The case, Salazar v. Buono, stems from a complaint raised by Frank Buono, a veteran and former assistant superintendent of Mojave National Preserve, who claimed that the designation of an overtly religious symbol as a national war memorial was offensive and violated the separation of church and state. In 2001, a federal district court found in Buono's favor, and granted a permanent injunction barring defendants from permitting the display of the cross. The cross was originally erected in 1934 by veterans of World War I, and has been replaced several times since then. The most recent cross was built and looked after by a local resident, Henry Sandoz. Requests to erect a Buddhist shrine on the property were denied.

"By designating the cross as a national war memorial, and transferring the land underneath the cross to the VFW on condition that it maintain the memorial or forfeit the land, Congress has merely highlighted its message of religious endorsement and preferential treatment,” said ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro. “Rather than resolving the Establishment Clause violation, Congress has compounded it."

In 2002, while the federal district court case was pending, Congress designated the cross as a national memorial, one of only 49 such memorials around the country. Others include Mount Rushmore, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, although the Mojave cross would be the only one dedicated to soldiers who fought and died in World War I. In an attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause violation, Congress also transferred one acre of land on which the cross stands to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Sandoz, the local resident looking after the cross, in turn transferred five acres of privately owned land to the federal government.

“The cross's message would not be, as the memorial's defenders claim, one of commemoration for all war dead and veterans, or for all veterans of World War I,” added Eliasberg. “Thousands of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and members of other faiths who have served their country with honor do not regard the cross as a „universal symbol. - That's one reason the military allows soldiers and their families to choose which religious symbol to put on headstones in military cemeteries – a policy the ACLU staunchly supports.”

Read more about the Mojave cross case at https://www.aclusocal.org/news_stories/view/102832/