Mar 10, 2005 

The ACLU and Human Rights First last week filed a lawsuit charging that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody. This is the first federal court lawsuit to name a top U.S. official in the ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Secretary Rumsfeld bears direct and ultimate responsibility for this descent into horror by personally authorizing unlawful interrogation techniques and by abdicating his legal duty to stop torture," said Lucas Guttentag, lead counsel in the lawsuit and director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "He gives lip service to being responsible but has not been held accountable for his actions. This lawsuit puts the blame where it belongs, on the Secretary of Defense."

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Illinois on behalf of eight men who were subject to torture and abuse at the hands of U.S. forces under Secretary Rumsfeld's command. The plaintiffs were incarcerated in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were subjected to torture and other degrading treatment. None of the men were ever charged with a crime, and all have been released.

Get more information on the ACLU lawsuit.

Watch our Web movie: "The New Face of America?"

The latest round of investigative files released to the ACLU document an ongoing pattern of widespread abuses of detainees by military forces in Iraq, and describe shootings of unarmed civilians at checkpoints, the ACLU said this week.

In an unusual move, the Army released approximately 1,200 pages of documents to a select group of reporters late last Friday, along with a press statement and fact sheet purporting to explain the disposition of the incidents. It has not been the Army's practice to release Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents directly to the media.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said that the documents underline the need for an independent special counsel and congressional hearings to investigate the abuses. "Pieces of the puzzle are still missing," Romero said. "An outside special counsel is the only way to ensure that all civilians who violated, or conspired to violate, the laws are held responsible for their crimes."

While the government did not release the "Ramadi Madness" DVD, claiming that copies had been destroyed, the Palm Beach Post obtained a copy of the video and posted excerpts on its website.

More details about the newly released documents can be found here.

If you go to the hospital you shouldn't have to worry that the nurses might not treat you because it is against their religion. If you need help from the police, you shouldn't have worry that they won't enforce the laws that may conflict with their religion. Unfortunately, several Senators are expected to introduce the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, legislation that could increase the chances of this happening.

Take action! Urge your Senators to oppose legislation such as the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would endanger civil rights and proper health care by allowing employees to claim religious exemptions when they fail to do their duty!

The ACLU learned from documents unsealed in our National Security Letter case that, in the name of national security, our government sought to black out references in ACLU legal papers to the words "national security" as well as the phrase "I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

A decision September 2004 by Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York struck down as unconstitutional a law that permitted the FBI to issue National Security Letters ("NSLs") -- letters that allow the FBI to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight.

The NSL provision is worded so broadly that it could be used to obtain the names of a political organization's members, the names of a journalist's sources, or the names of people who write anonymous "blogs" on the Internet. The provision permitted the FBI to obtain this information without a subpoena or search warrant and without judicial oversight of any kind.

The September decision also struck down an associated gag provision, saying "an unlimited government warrant to conceal" has no place in our open society. The ruling was the first to strike down a surveillance provision of the Patriot Act. The court has not yet set a schedule for hearing the government's appeal of the ruling.

Find out more.

Read the AP story in the New York Times. **New users will have to register to read the article - registration is free.**

The ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America asked a federal court to strike down a broad abortion ban that would outlaw virtually all abortions in the state and interfere with a doctor's ability to provide other critical health care services.

"This radical law goes far beyond any other legislation in the country, threatening women's ability to obtain even a first-trimester abortion and, in some instances, preventing doctors from treating miscarriages," said Rev. Mark Pawlowski, CEO of Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "It is part of a larger anti-choice agenda that extends beyond abortion to restricting family planning, access to contraception and women's right to medical privacy."

The Michigan law is scheduled to take effect on March 30. The three organizations filed a single suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of reproductive health facilities, obstetrician-gynecologists, and their patients.

Read the full press release.

The ACLU is representing Louise Bizzari and Barbara Hackett, two women who were kicked out of a health/rehabilitation center because they are a couple. Louise has osteoarthritis and is in danger of losing her leg unless she can strengthen it and have surgery. On her doctor's advice she went to sign up for aquatic therapy at the Sitrin Health Center in New Hartford, NY. But when she told the Center that the health insurance to pay for the therapy came through her domestic partner, the Center decided it would not accept her insurance. When Louise said she would pay out of pocket, the Center told her she couldn't afford the program and refused to sign her up.

Louise and Barbara decided to join the Center and simply use the pool during public hours instead of getting aquatic therapy. They wanted, as they put it, "to keep a low profile." But when the Director of Rehabilitation discovered they were using the pool, she "dismissed" them from the Center and had police officers escort Louise out of the building.

The complaint filed by the ACLU charges that the Sitrin Center illegally discriminated against both Bizzari and Hackett in violation of the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act, a New York human rights law that protects against sexual orientation discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

"Unfortunately, this story demonstrates all too painfully the types of indignities that lesbian and gay people face every day in this country," said Barrie Gewanter, Executive Director of the Central New York Chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "It took a lot of courage for Louise and Barbara to come forward with this discrimination. I hope this case helps send a very clear message to all businesses in New York that this type of behavior won't be tolerated."

Learn more about Louise and Barbara's case.