By Ahilan Arulanantham Director of Immigrants' Rights & National Security for the ACLU of Southern California.

In only two weeks a U.S. citizen will go on trial in the United Arab Emirates. The American man, who lived in Los Angeles for the better part of 20 years and built his family and business there, reports having been severely tortured while in the custody of the State Security forces of the United Arab Emirates. Yet, his own government has said nothing publicly to inquire about or protest his treatment. There is only one plausible explanation for the federal government's silence on the issue: our nation was complicit in the detention and torture that took place.

The case presents a simple yet profound question for the Obama Administration: whether it will actually end the human rights abuses of the Bush Administration, or instead simply stand silent while they continue.

More than eight months ago Naji Hamdan was arrested by State Security forces in the U.A.E. He was detained without charges or access to a lawyer until the ACLU filed a lawsuit in U. S. court seeking his release from incommunicado detention. One week later, he was transferred into U.A.E. criminal custody, officials disclosed his location and the torture stopped.

In criminal custody, Mr. Hamdan told both his family and the U.S. consular officer who visited him that he had been severely tortured: repeatedly beaten on his head, kicked on his sides, stripped and held in a freezing cold room, placed in an electric chair and made to believe that he would be electrocuted, and held down in a stress position while his captors beat the bottoms of his feet with a large stick. During this horrific process, he said whatever the agents wanted him to say, and those statements may now be used against him in a criminal trial in the U.A.E.

Mr. Hamdan's description of the torture and interrogation he endured strongly suggests that American agents have been involved. Although his captors blindfolded him, one of his interrogators spoke native English with an American accent and was not fluent in Arabic. In addition, the agents interrogated Mr. Hamdan on topics about which only federal agents could have knowledge, such as a meeting he had with FBI agents at the U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi. His interrogators also asked him in extreme detail about his life and activities when he lived in the United States.

Only a few weeks before his arrest, FBI agents from Los Angeles had flown to the U.A.E. and interrogated Mr. Hamdan at the embassy for several hours. This interrogation and the subsequent arrest were only the latest episodes in a two-year period during which the FBI intensively surveilled Mr. Hamdan. Yet throughout his subsequent ordeal in the U.A.E., the U.S. government claimed to know nothing about why Mr. Hamdan was detained or tortured. Indeed, documents filed with the Court show that the federal government has continued to investigate Hamdan's businesses in the U.S. even while it has denied any involvement in his detention in the U.A.E.

It appears that Mr. Hamdan is the latest victim of the U.S. government's practice of asking foreign governments to detain terrorism suspects whom the federal government cannot itself detain and interrogate under U.S. law ''' a practice known as '''proxy detention.' By asking other countries to detain on our behalf, the U.S. government apparently believes it can avoid the constraints of the U.S. Constitution, allowing federal agents to interrogate individuals held in secret, incommunicado detention, without charge or access to a lawyer, and subject to torture. The countries the U.S. partners with in this practice, including the U.A.E., typically have poor human rights records and weak protections against prolonged arbitrary detention. In fact, a document submitted in Mr. Hamdan's case make clear that the United States has used the U.A.E. previously as its proxy to detain people subject to the rendition program. The proxy detention program has also been documented by groups such as the NYU Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.

An ironic twist in this case is that Mr. Hamdan was more than willing to talk to FBI agents. He voluntarily submitted to their interrogation several times over the last few years. Obviously if Mr. Hamdan has done something wrong, he should be charged with a crime. But the basis for those charges cannot be statements obtained under torture. If there is no evidence against him, he should be released.

The ACLU's lawsuit demands the federal government seek his release and reveal the nature and extent of its involvement. President Barack Obama won election amidst promises to restore our nation's commitment to the rule of law. Surely he believes that our country owes its own citizens the right to learn what role our government has played in detaining and torturing them.

NEW YORK – In response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing Prop 8 to stand, four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups are reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back.  The groups released a new publication, “Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California.”  This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage.  The groups also revised “Make Change, Not Lawsuits,” which was released after the California Supreme Court decision ending the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in California.  This publication encourages couples who have legally married to ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, but discourages people from bringing lawsuits.

Read “Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California” here. “Make Change, Not Lawsuits” is available here.

Advocacy Groups Vow to Return to Polls to Restore Marriage for Same-sex Couples

May 26, 2009—Today, in a 6 to 1 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the ballot measure that eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry. In the ruling authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, the Court stated “We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure.” At the same time, the court unanimously ruled that the more than 18,000 marriages that took place between June 16 and November 4, 2008 continue to be fully valid and recognized by the state of California. The decision reaffirmed the Court’s prior holding that sexual orientation is subject to the highest level of protection under the California Constitution.

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Carlos Moreno stated, “The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.”

“Today’s decision is a terrible blow to same-sex couples who share the same hopes and dreams for their families as other Californians,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued the case before the California Supreme Court in March. “But our path ahead is now clear. We will go back to the ballot box and we will win.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU represent Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples. David C. Codell and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP are also counsel on the case.

At a press conference this morning, all of the groups vowed to return to the polls to restore the right to marry for same-sex couples.

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, said, “Shame on California. Shame on California! We are deeply disappointed by the California Supreme Court’s cowardly decision today, which for the first time in our state’s history permits a majority of voters in a single election to strip a fundamental constitutional right from a minority group that has historically been discriminated against. It will take time, determination and a united effort to overturn Proposition 8, but we have all those things, and we will use them to full advantage.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed the legal challenge on November 5, after Proposition 8 was approved by just 52 percent of the voters on Election Day.

An unprecedented 43 friend-of-the-court briefs, representing hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, and numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, were filed in the case, urging the Court to strike down the initiative.

“Public opinion is moving in the direction of fairness and equality, and it is only a matter of time until the freedom to marry will again be secure for all Californians,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. “Achieving equality always requires struggle, but over time people come to accept that equal treatment and equal protection of the laws is the best way to protect the rights of all.”

"By upholding Prop. 8, the Court has moved our state backward and has put all Californians at risk of losing fundamental rights at each and every election. Our Constitution must ensure that all Californians are treated equally by our government,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. “Despite this injustice, we are prepared to return to the ballot box together with our allies to restore the freedom to marry. As more and more states across the nation allow same-sex couples to marry, and as we continue our efforts to win the hearts and minds of Californians through real conversations in homes, in neighborhoods, online and on the air, we are confident that same-sex couples will soon enjoy the honor, dignity and protections that only marriage provides.”

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047).

***

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education.

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.

The American Civil Liberties Union is America’s foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education.

Equality California is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.