Over three months ago, a U.S. citizen named Naji Hamdan was arrested by the State Security forces of the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). He was detained without charges or access to a lawyer until the ACLU filed a lawsuit on his behalf. He has since been released into criminal custody in the U.A.E., and reports that he was severely tortured while in detention, apparently in the presence of American officials. Throughout, the U.S. government claimed to know nothing about why he was detained.

A few weeks before his arrest, FBI agents from Los Angeles flew 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.

Mr. Hamdan's description of the torture and interrogation he endured strongly suggests that American agents have been involved. Although his captors blindfolded him, his interrogators spoke native English with an American accent and were 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.

After his transfer into criminal custody, Hamdan told both his family and the U.S. consular officer who visited him that he had been severely tortured. He was repeatedly beaten on his head, kicked on his sides, stripped and held in a freezing cold room, put 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.

We believe 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 while subject to torture. The countries we partner with, like the U.A.E., typically have poor human rights records and weak protections against prolonged arbitrary detention. Although our government has revealed very little about the proxy detention program, it has been documented by groups such as the NYU Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.

In a perverse way, the government's proxy detention program represents a logical response to the Supreme Court's rulings in the Guantanamo cases. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government's attempt to create a law-free zone at Guantanamo, ruling most recently in as the government has done far too often in terrorism cases over the last several years ''' they appear to have asked the U.A.E.'s security forces to imprison him so that they could interrogate him free of the constraints of U.S. law. In doing so, American officials would have known that the U.A.E. State Security forces regularly torture those whom they detain. Amnesty on the U.A.E.'s torture record is here.

Our country owes better to its own citizens. The ACLU's habeas petition asks the government to correct its error by seeking Naji Hamdan's release. In addition, we ask the court to order the government to reveal the nature of its involvement in his detention. I hope the courts will step in to correct this grave injustice. Obviously if 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. Our government owes him nothing less.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - An American man detained in the United Arab Emirates at the behest of the U.S. government has been released from state security custody and transferred to a prison in Abu Dhabi, but only after suffering severe torture. Naji Hamdan's transfer came only one week after lawyers for the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit seeking his release.

On December 2, Naji Hamdan, who lived in the Los Angeles area for two decades, was allowed a phone call to his brother, Hossam Hemdan, a resident of Los Angeles. Hamdan reported to his brother that he had been transferred to a regular prison on November 26. Hamdan told his brother that his captors routinely beat him and kept him in a freezing underground room during his months-long detention by state security forces. The torturers sometimes beat him in the location of his liver, knowing that he has a liver condition, and denied him his prescription liver medication throughout his detention. His torturers also beat him on the soles of his feet, deprived him of sleep by shining a bright spotlight on his face for hours at a time, and engaged in other abuses.

The torture was so severe that he often passed out from the pain, Hamdan told his brother. The agents also threatened to punish Hamdan's wife and family if he did not confess to their allegations.

'Naji would never be involved with terrorism, but he has now suffered horrible torture for no reason. I am very worried for my brother's health. The U.S. government must help him,' said Hossam Hemdan.(CQ)

The news of Hamdan's transfer comes after the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court in Washington, D.C., alleging that the U.A.E. detained Hamdan at the behest of the U.S. government. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge James Robertson ordered the government to respond to the petition.

Human-rights organizations such as Amnesty International have documented the U.A.E.'s practice of torturing prisoners, and in particular state security detainees. 'U. S. officials knew that Naji Hamdan would likely be tortured in U.A.E. custody. The news today confirms what we most feared,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, Director of Immigrants' Rights and National Security for the ACLU/SC. 'Now that we know that Naji Hamdan was tortured, it is even more imperative that the U.S. government advocate strongly for his release. So long as the government fails to act, it remains complicit in the torture of this U.S. citizen.'

Hamdan, who was born in Lebanon, 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. In 2006, he decided to relocate his family and business to the U.A.E.

Hamdan's detention in the U.A.E. was the culmination of years of surveillance by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). This summer FBI agents traveled from Los Angeles to the U.A.E. to question Hamdan further. Approximately three weeks later he was detained by agents of the U.A.E. state security forces.

Hamdan's brother and others who know him from his activities at the Islamic Center of Hawthorne have all said that he is a peaceful family man who would never support violence.

Image: Hamdan with his daughter, Noor.

(San Francisco, California, November 19, 2008)'Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.

On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was 'Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples,' the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.

Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.

On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women's rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures.

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.

Founded in 1998, Equality California celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2008, commemorating a decade of building a state of equality in California. EQCA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.