US Court Of Appeals: Genital Searches Of Guantanamo Inmates Can Continue

The government can continue genital searches of inmates at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled.

The Obama administration, which considers the genital searches essential to security at Guantanamo, had appealed a ruling of a federal judge who called the practice "religiously and culturally abhorrent."

District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth last week ordered Guantanamo guards to stop using their hands to conduct groin and anal area searches.

Typically, detainees were frisked on their way to meetings or phone calls with lawyers, and upon returning to their cells.

The detainees' attorneys said that some detainees opted to forgo legal counsel in order to avoid the full body inspections they considered so disrespectful towards their religion.

In his ruling last week, Lamberth concluded that the motivation for the searches is not to enhance security but to deter the detainees' access to attorneys.

Lamberth ordered that guards revert to a previously used method - shaking detainees' pants to dislodge any contraband.

On Wednesday, the appeals court granted a temporary delay in enforcing the ban, giving the administration time to mount a full appeal.

This article originally was published at Global Post.

Print This Story

Judge won't allow Trayvon Martin's texts in Zimmerman trial

SANFORD, Fla. - Judge Debra Nelson ruled Wednesday against two key pieces of evidence sought by George Zimmerman's defense team.

Nelson said that text messages from Trayvon Martin's phone which allegedly showed the slain teen to have a burgeoning penchant for violence will not be allowed into evidence.

Richard Conner, a computer forensics expert hired by the defense, was able to unlock "secret" text messages from the phone number used by Martin.

In those text messages sent from Martin's phone - which analysts for the state were not able to obtain - Martin was said to have had conversations with friends about getting into fights. Martin's half-brother allegedly asked Martin, "when you gonna teach me how to fight?"

Martin also sent text messages showing he was looking to obtain a handgun, he said. Those texts were sent in the week before Martin's February 2012 visit to Sanford.

Nelson had put a decision on Martin's text messages on hold prior to the trial. Both sides argued late into Tuesday evening over the relevance of the texts. State attorney John Guy argued "we don't know who typed these messages, we don't know if they're connected."

Nelson agreed, citing the "authenticity issue".

Nelson also blocked animation created by Daniel Schumaker. The animation relied on witness testimony and statements to re-create the defense's theory about the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin leading up to Martin's death.

Schumaker relied on analysis provided by Vincent di Maio, the renowned gunshot expert who testified Tuesday the Zimmerman's story - that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot - is consistent with the available evidence.

"This is a murder trial. This isn't 'Casablanca.' This isn't 'Iron Man'," argued state attorney Richard Mantei.

A point of contention Tuesday night was whether Martin first struck Zimmerman with his right or left hand.

Nelson ruled that while the animation cannot be introduced into evidence, it can be used as a demonstrative tool by the defense.

As Bradley Manning Trial Winds Down, Government Struggles To Defend ...

As the trial of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning began to wind down on Friday, the international human rights organization Amnesty International posted a message on its website asking the U.S. government to immediately drop the most serious charge facing the 25-year-old: aiding the enemy.

Widney Brown, the senior director for international law and policy at Amnesty International, said that since the evidence has now been presented by both sides in the case, "it's abundantly clear that the charge of 'aiding the enemy' has no basis."

"The government's case for 'aiding the enemy' is ludicrous, and that's not surprising," Brown said. "What's surprising is that the prosecutors in this case, who have a duty to act in the interest of justice, have pushed a theory that making information available on the Internet - whether through WikiLeaks, in a personal blog posting, or on the website of The New York Times - can amount to 'aiding the enemy.'"

As Mint Press News previously reported, the military whistleblower is being tried in military court for releasing more than 700,000 battlefield reports, diplomatic cables and video clips he accessed while working as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad.

One of the most significant documents Manning released included a video referred to as " Collateral Murder." The infamous video shows two U.S. Apache helicopters shooting at a group of unarmed adults and children in Iraq in 2007. Two Reuters journalists, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, were killed along with about a dozen other people. Initial reports from the U.S. military said the adults who died were insurgents in a battle with U.S. forces.

However, once the video was released along with transcripts, it became evident there was no battle. The journalists' camera bags were misidentified by the soldiers as AK-47 assault rifles.

Manning said he released the video because he was concerned about the "lack of concern for human life" and lack of "concern for injured children at the scene."

Of the 22 charges Manning faces, aiding the enemy is the most serious. If found guilty, Manning could face life in prison without parole. But in order for the government to be successful in proving Manning the charge, it would have to prove he knowingly gave potentially damaging intelligence information to an enemy of the United States.

In February, Manning took responsibility for releasing the documents to WikiLeaks and pleaded guilty to 10 lesser charges, for which he will serve about 20 years in prison.

In a statement, Manning said he decided to release the documents because he "believed that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information ... this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan."

Lack of evidence

On its website, Amnesty International says that the prosecution has struggled to prove Manning had "a general evil intent" in releasing the documents. The organization reports that even the government's own witnesses have testified that "they found no evidence that Manning was sympathetic towards al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that he had never expressed disloyalty to his country, that they had no evidence that he had ties to any government other than his own, and that they had no reason to believe he had ever collected money for the information he disclosed."

Brown says that in addition to dropping the aiding the enemy charge, "The prosecution should also take a long, hard look at its entire case and move to drop all other charges that aren't supported by the evidence presented."

Amnesty International said that the prosecutors seemed to be putting WikiLeaks on trial at times instead of Manning, weakening the government's case.

Amnesty International said the prosecution also seemed to have difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning was guilty of some of the lesser charges, such as unauthorized use of certain military intelligence software programs. Manning was charged with illegally adding software to his computer, but a special agent testified last week that everyone in Manning's intelligence unit had used that software.

Over the weekend, military judge Col. Denise Lind agreed to hear arguments on Monday afternoon from Manning's lawyers and the prosecution on whether Manning should be acquitted of seven charges, including aiding the enemy. The defense argues that Manning should not be charged with the crimes due to a lack of evidence.

Internet posts = aiding the enemy?

Since the beginning of Manning's trial, many advocates of government transparency have expressed concern that if Manning is found guilty of aiding the enemy, it will set a dangerous precedent for future whistleblowers and free speech in general.

"Charging any individual with the extremely grave offense of 'aiding the enemy' on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that the individual posted leaked information on the web and thereby 'knowingly gave intelligence information' to whoever could gain access to it there, does indeed seem to break dangerous new ground," Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard University and a constitutional law expert, said.

Free speech advocates are also concerned that Manning's defense team was barred from introducing information suggesting that little or no damage was caused by the leak. As Mint Press News previously reported, Manning was also reportedly not allowed to explain why he decided to leak the information as part of his defense. Instead, he will be allowed to explain himself only when he is sentenced.

Print This Story

Conservative groups targeted by the IRS reject the agency's new expedited ...

The law firm representing dozens of conservative groups targeted by the Internal Revenue Service announced Wednesday that its clients are rejecting the IRS's new expedited review process for 501(c)(4) applications.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) - which has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of 41 conservative groups targeted by the IRS - said its clients are rejecting the new process because it applies a standard that would require that groups spend at least 60 percent of their time and resources on social welfare promotion and no more than 40 percent on political activities.

Seven of ACLJ's clients rejected the process even though they would have qualified for expedited review and already have had applications pending for more than 645 days. One group has an application pending for 1,297 days.

According to ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow, the 60/40 standard the IRS would apply to expedite the applications is "deeply flawed" and not rooted in statutes or regulations.

In a letter to the Department of Justice in response to a notice about the "expedited process for recognition of exemption" Wednesday, Sekulow called the 60/40 standard "merely safe harbor provisions the IRS has crafted in response to the problems that have been created by its own admitted misconduct."

"We have been instructed by our clients to reject the IRS's offer for expedited review on the basis you have proposed," Sekulow wrote. "Respectfully, because these seven clients have been awaiting determination for years and have complied with all legitimate requests for additional information, we request that the IRS complete its review of their application and make a final determination immediately."

The IRS announced last month that it would offer an optional, faster option for the 501(c)(4) process with the 60/40 standard, as a way to reduce the application backlog.

"The IRS is committed to improving our tax-exempt review process," IRS Principal Deputy Commissioner Danny Werfel said in a statement. "This new streamlined option gives certain groups that have waited far too long a quick and clear path to get their status resolved."

The seven organizations that rejected the expedited process are the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots in Arizona, the Allen Area Patriots in Texas, the Laurens County Tea Party in South Carolina, the North East Tarrant Tea Party in Texas, the Myrtle Beach Tea Party in South Carolina, the Albuquerque Tea Party in New Mexico, and the Acadiana Patriots in Louisiana.

Of the 41 groups the ACLJ represents, 19 received tax-exempt status after long delays, 17 are still pending, and 5 withdrew their applications out of frustration. According to an ACLJ spokesman the IRS' criteria for expedited review of 501 (c)(4) applications only applied to the seven groups that rejected the offer.

Follow Caroline on Twitter

California Prisons Under Scrutiny For Sterilizing Female Inmates

More than 150 women in California prisons were sterilized between 2005 and 2010, according to Justice Now, an advocacy organization for women prisoners that's accusing prison officials of using the procedure as a form of birth control.

The California Institution for Women in Corona and the Valley State Prison in Chowchilla were the facilitators of the sterilizations, which cost the system more than $147,000 in payments to doctors. Some inmates say they were harassed and coerced into complying with the procedures.

In 2012, Justice Now presented information to the state's Budget and Financial Review Subcommittee.

"Through a public request act, Justice Now requested and received information that over 150 tubal ligations have been performed by CDCR medical partners during labor and delivery on people in women's prisons since 2006, beginning one month after the recommendation to begin this practice was presented to the Gender Responsive Strategies Committee," states the March 2012 budget testimony submitted by Justice Now.

The prison hospitals agreed in 2010 to adhere to new rules defining what "medically necessary" means. Since then, the prison system has performed just one forced sterilization.

Using federal funding to perform sterilizations for inmates is illegal. California used state funds but failed to seek the required medical approval necessary to perform such surgeries, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.

While women signed waivers agreeing to the sterilization procedures - including tubal ligations and ovary removal - many claim they were harassed and misled into doing so.

It is illegal for a physician - or anyone - to pressure a woman into a sterilization procedure. It also is illegal to request a woman agree to sterilization during labor.

But one woman interviewed by the Center of Investigative Reporting, Kimberly Jeffrey, claims that was the scenario she faced while she was being prepped for a cesarean section.

"He said, 'So we're going to be doing this tubal ligation, right?'" she told the Center for Investigative Reporting. "I'm like, 'Tubal ligations? What are you talking about? I don't want any procedure. I just want to have my baby.' I went into a straight panic."

Jeffrey claims this wasn't the first time she had been asked to consider a tubal ligation. Her records show that she refused the procedure during a prenatal appointment in 2009, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting. Jeffrey claims the reason for the tubal ligation request was never explained to her.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Kelli Thomas, a former inmate at the state's Chowchilla prison, underwent surgery to have two cysts removed. She gave permission for the doctor to remove her ovaries only in the case that cancer was detected. During the procedure, cancer was not detected, but the doctor still removed her ovaries.

"I feel like I was tricked," she told the Times. "I gave permission to do it based on a (cancer) diagnosis, and the diagnosis wasn't there."

Aside from not receiving permission from the California Medical Board, the prison performed such procedures outside legal bounds because they were not deemed "medically necessary." Instead, physicians allegedly claimed that a woman who had a history of C-sections could be deemed as qualified for a "medically necessary" sterilization.

Print This Story

Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida over the Zimmerman verdict. Are you?

On Sunday during a concert in Québec City, Stevie Wonder announced that, like many people, he plans to boycott the state of Florida as a reaction to the not guilty verdict in George Zimmerman's trial for killing Trayvon Martin.

He said:

The truth is that, for those that are being lost in the battle for justice, wherever that fits in any part of the world, we can't bring them back. What we can do is we can let our voices be heard, and we can vote in our various countries throughout the world for change and for equality for everybody. That's what I know we can do. And I know I'm not everybody, I'm just one person, I'm a human being. But for the gift that God has given me, and for whatever I mean, I decided today that until the Stand Your Ground law is abolished in Florida, I will never perform there again. As a matter of fact, wherever I find that law exists, I will not perform in that state or in that part of the world. Because what I do know is that people know that my heart is of love for everyone. When I say everyone, I mean everyone. And so, as I said earlier, you can't just talk about it, you have to be about it. We can make change by coming together for the spirit of unity - not in destruction, but in the perpetuation of life itself.

Watch video of his statement, which came near the end of his set, below:

As Alyssa Rosenberg points out at Think Progress, this is not the first time that Wonder has declined to perform in a state for political reasons: he did so in 1991 in protest of Arizona's refusal to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

On the one hand, it is not difficult to imagine why an African-American (or any person of color) might wish to avoid the state of Florida and its Stand Your Ground law after the Zimmerman verdict for their own safety and sense of security. (If you do have difficulty, shame on you and watch the primer LeVar Burton gave on CNN about what even some prominent African-Americans do in order to avoid being shot by the police during traffic stops.) So there are good reasons for a lot of people to make choices about where to travel and spend their money, both for political reasons and practical ones.

On the other hand, as the National Urban League's Marc Morial pointed out on Sunday, the Stand Your Ground law was a product of the conservative legislator organizing group ALEC (which, in the wake of the Martin shooting and successful, popular calls to boycott specific consumer companies that supported ALEC, rescinded its support for the laws). And, in Florida, there are approximately 1 million people employed by the leisure and hospitality industry, which would be affected by a wide-scale boycott. And, as the NAACP pointed out in a 2012 report, the vast majority of the positions in that industry are both low-paid and disproportionately filled by people of color (and hotel owners are the least diverse positions in the industry). In other words, the people who are paid the least in the hospitality industry are disproportionately people of color, who also occupy the positions most likely to face cutbacks in poor economic times - and the company executives and lobbyists who made the decision to join ALEC and fund their push for such laws aren't losing a wink of sleep that their salaries will go down as a result of any boycott.

One can also consider the words of an African-American blogger known as Coco, who wrote of efforts to boycott Texas over its anti-abortion push, "i know, i know, everyone just hates texas so much, and will boycott this an boycott that, and never, never, never go there, but have you thought about the actual women in Texas who don't have that choice?"

And beyond that, a boycott does nothing to fund legislative candidates who ( unlike some incumbents) care to overturn the laws , or a candidate to run successfully against a governor who supported expensive drug testing of welfare recipients and is super pro-gun. It doesn't direct money to groups like the National Urban League, the NAACP or Color of Change, which are trying to gain some justice for Trayvon's family, support hate crimes legislation and enforcement, elect leaders who will and challenge laws like these.

Like online petitions, many boycotts - unless they are tightly focused, strongly organized and sustained over the long term - might feel good to those that promise now or keep up with it later, but they aren't often successful over the long term.

But, as Alyssa noted, the 1991 boycott - especially when it resulted in the rescheduling of the Superbowl in another state - did lead to the reversal of the anti-MLK Day policy.

So where do you stand? Vote in our poll below.

Are you boycotting Florida?

There Needs To Be A Third Choice Besides Death Or Arbitrary Restraint By A ...

By Amanda MarcotteTuesday, July 16, 2013 8:37 EDT

This Tumblr that went up recently called We Are Not Trayvon Martin is an interesting experiment, a way to talk about the role of race and privilege in this case, and how some of us have the privilege-which should be a right!-of being at least safe from would-be vigilantes deciding to murder us for crimes we're committing only in their heads. A lot of us out here are angry and upset about George Zimmerman being able to chase down and murder an unarmed young man, and get away with it because he was able to convince a jury that the young man-gasp!-had the temerity to fight back. Anti-racists, I think, have long understood that the cops are a real threat to young black men who can be randomly treated like criminals on the thinnest of excuses, but the possibility that any random white (or white-appearing, anyway) person can, if you're black, just chase you down and detain you arbitrarily or they now have the legal right to take your life? That's a cold bath of WTF. This tweet captures exactly what is bothering me so much:

I've been thinking about it a lot, because as a woman, being followed by creepy dudes who clearly have bad intentions in their cars while I'm out walking and minding my own business is something I've experienced probably a dozen times in my life. Unsurprisingly, Rachel Jeantel-who was on the phone with Martin when Zimmerman began to follow him- had the threat of rape pop into her head and made a crack about it to Martin before telling him to run. A lot of scary things go through your head when this happens to you: You worry that if he catches up to you, he'll overpower you. You worry that you won't be able to fight him off. You worry about how violent he intends to get with you.

But you know what I never worried about? That if I defended myself, he would have an excuse to shoot me dead and that cops would shrug it off and not bother to contact my family.

I never worried that if he caught up with me, any hitting or kicking to get away would be used as evidence that he was in his rights to murder me.

That's because I'm a white woman, and if a man chased me down and shot me dead, a few scratches on his face would probably be seen as evidence that he was really determined to hurt or kill me, not that he was acting in "self-defense". I have the privilege of people using their basic common sense when it comes to what's going on when creepy guys start following me. Even sexists have to admit that creepy guys stalking women are up to no good. With that in mind, if anyone ever started to chase me with the intention to restrain me against my will (which is, uh, kidnapping) or do bodily harm to me, I can give into the instinct to protect myself by fighting back without worrying that he now has the "right" to kill me.

I've seen a lot of conservatives arguing that Martin should have just surrendered if he didn't want to die. Surrendered, i.e. allowed someone to arbitrarily just hold him there under threat of violence if he tries to leave (which, again, is kidnapping) because, well, he wanted to. That any random white or white-appearing dude has the apparent right to just randomly tell a young black man that he is no longer allowed to move freely, on pain of death. This is bananas. They wouldn't say that for a white woman, and they sure as hell wouldn't say that for a white guy.

I don't know what else to say about this. I just wish that more people could perform the basic act of putting themselves in Trayvon's shoes and realizing that Zimmerman just got away with, functionally, offering him the choice between surrender to a crazy man with unclear but definitely dark intentions or death. In the year 2013, in America. And somehow we've decided that's legal.

Like Raw Story on Facebook