I am Judge Claudia Morcom, retired from the Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit, MI, USA. I am appearing under the auspices of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers of which I am a member. I'm presenting the report requested by the Committee in August and submitted by the city Council of Berkeley, CA. The report was prepared by the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, a center for human rights and peace law and given to the Committee members in the book, "Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations Since 9/11," with citations to sources.

The 71 reports cover the 4 issues raised by this Committee. The specific concerns relate to the effects of measures taken in the fight against terrorism following the events of 9/11 and, notably, the implications of the PATRIOT Act on nationals and non-nationals and problems relating to the legal status and treatment of persons detained in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Iraq and other places of detention outside the U.S. Since the 71 reports contained in the book by Meiklejohn Institute are so exhaustive, my discussion will cover only a few, as time permits, which, as a lawyer and judge, I find particularly egregious.

The American people have a right to know what their government is doing, and to challenge such actions if they are in any way unlawful, unconstitutional or contrary to our principles of fairness, justice and humane treatment under our laws and treaty agreements. Therefore, we will discuss a few of the documented cases that have been found by many human rights and legal organizations including Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, the American Bar Association, the National Lawyers Guild, the ACLU, and the World Organization for Human Rights, to be contrary to our historic, democratic principles.

In 1991, a Pakistani citizen, Ahfaz Khan, entered the U.S. To years later he filed an application for political asylum with the I.N.S., stating that he had been harassed by Karachi police, would not be safe in his country, and would continue to be persecuted, imprisoned, abused and harassed if he returned. His wife, a legal U.S. citizen, filed a petition to sponsor him for U.S. residence and visa. A series of hearings were scheduled, and years later, through government inaction and Khan's move to Florida, nothing was done. After 9/11, Mr. Khan was arrested in a government sweep and deported. His wife and 2 small children remained in the U.S. since they were citizens. Four months after he was deported, his visa application was approved. Immigration officials did not know he had been deported. The INS had deported over 700 people with stories similar to Mr. Khan's, according to a September 12, 2002 story. None of them had been charged with any terrorist related crimes. Mr. Khan was murdered in his home town in Pakistan on March 26, 2003.

There are 17 reports of denials of specific rights and liberties of nationals and non-nationals in the U.S., including the right of equality regardless of race, free exercise of religion, and the right to privacy for all including librarians, academic freedom, the right to trial, and the government's duty to provide due process and the right to counsel and habeas corpus to all persons detained.

There are 23 reports of detentions in the U.S. of nationals and non-nationals. There was a reported incident of an INS dentist who tortured a Palestinian Canadian citizen in custody for deportation; reported torture of a legal immigrant from Egypt and a Saudi student. The FBI arrested a naturalized U.S. citizen, Mr. Alamoudi, an Egyptian, who was President of the American Muslim Foundation.

There are 23 reports of problems relating to the legal status and treatment of persons detained in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Iraq and other places of detention outside the U.S.

Two Afghan men were interrogated in December 2002 at the U.S. Armed Force based in Kabul. Both died. A 22 year old man, known as Dalawar, was beaten and died as a result of blunt force injuries to both lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease. Autopsied classified both deaths as homicides. In January 2003 in his State of the Union address, Geroge W. Bush announced that 3000 suspected terrorists had been arrested in many countries. He told Congress that many others "have met different fates" and are no longer a problem to the U.S.

Reports from James Doran, a veteran BBC film maker, included eye witness accounts of the human rights disaster in his documentary "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death." 200 to 300 prisoners were crammed in at gunpoint into large, oblong freight containers for a 2-3 day convoy. The metal doors were shut. They all suffocated. American soldiers were present. Two of the witnesses who appeared in the documentary were killed after the release of the film. Physicians for Human Rights attached to the UN Assistance Mission for Afghanistan investigated mass gravesites in May 2002. They found the remains of 15 people. Three bodies were exhumed and autopsied. The likely cause of death was determined to be suffocation.

The killing of Iraqi prisoners was reported by a U.S. sergeant, who reported that some of the MP brigade and U.S. intelligence Committed used sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses on some Iraqi prisoners, documented in graphic photographs. Those that the public saw on TV were just the tip of the iceberg.

In Guantanamo, an Australian lawyer charged the U.S. with torture of his client. Almost all the detainees were held without charges, forced into confessions through torture, had no attorney and never were told their rights. Many were detained for years.

800 Taliban fighters surrendered in November 2001 in the city of Mazar-i-Shariff. They were loaded into shipping containers for transport to Shebargan Prison. Only 300 arrived alive. U.S. troops were charged with their massacre. The atrocities committed by U.S. personnel occurred before the Taliban who were selected for interrogation were summarily executed.

In April 2004, a U.S. Army Major reported evidence of serious abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel and private contractors at Abu Ghraib prison. The Titan Corporation and CACI International were sued by the Center for Constitutional Rights on June 9, 2004, alleging violations of the 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Alien Tort Claims Act for summary execution, torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, enforced disappearances, and violations, 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions and a host of other violations.

Many guards who were sent to Iraq and engaged in torture had been U.S. prison guards who tortured U.S. prisoners, according to Amnesty International and Equal Justice USA, a prisoner advocacy group. Many juveniles and unaccompanied minors were detained, not charged with crimes, had no access to attorneys, and were in detention for months and years.

In 2002, an Algerian, Mohammed Bellahouel, working as a waiter in Florida, was detained by the FBI. He was not charged with a crime, filed a petition for habeas corpus, and posted bond. However, his record in the habeas corpus suit was sealed by a U.S. district court and kept off the public docket. The Christian Science Monitor referred to it as the "case that doesn't exist." Even though 2 different Federal courts have conducted hearings and issued rulings, there has been no public record of any action. No documents are available. No files. No lawyer is allowed to speak about it "period." The case came to light only because a brief docketing error identified MKB by name.

A former Democratic: Congressman and Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit said "When the government classifies things like that, they're usually trying to cover up their own mistakes".

Lynne Stewart, a New York attorney, was appointed counsel to represent Sheikh Omar al-el Rahman, The New York FBI had her under surveillance because of her relationship with her client. The Bureau of Prisons announced a new rule in the fall of 2002 allowing the BOP to monitor conversations between lawyers and inmates deemed threats; or committing acts of violence or terrorism based on these surreptitious tapings of her conversations with her client through an interpreter. She was indicted on charges she conspired to provide material support to a terrorist organization (the Islamic Group) among other charges. Violations of several constitutional guarantees are brought out by this indictment.

The first is the undermining of the legally protected attorney/client privilege and the chilling effect that such intrusion would have on lawyers who represent politically active clients or unpopular causes but are afraid to be singled out for government surveillance. Sixth Amendment concerns are raised by the denial of the right to counsel and preparation for defense or trial.

Secondly, whether the surveillance would be conducted without a warrant or judicial order, and in fact violates the Fourth Amendment constitutes an unreasonable search; and whether the regulation would unduly hamper speech protected by the First Amendment. Civil liberties attorneys are contemplating legal action challenging the constitutionality of the eavesdropping and surveillance.

Senior U.S. Airman Halabi, a native of Syria, served as interpreter for the Navy at Guantanamo for 9 months. However, on July 23, 2003, the Navy arrested and charged him with 32 counts of espionage, aiding the enemy, etc. Halabi retained both a military defense counsel and a private lawyer. On December 9, 2003, government agents took all of his trial preparation files and his laptop computer, even though everything was clearly marked "privileged". After his attorney complained, they returned the files and laptop. The next day, without a search warrant and while Halabi was working with his military attorney and defense paralegals, AFB officials issued an order prohibiting him from using "any computer connected to the internet" .One day later, federal agents had a warrant and conducted a search of the attorney's office while counsel was preparing for a preliminary hearing, and seized a computer in that office. The attorney vigorously protested the unwarranted invasion into the attorney/client relationship. On May 12, 2004, a military judge decided Halabi no longer represented a risk of fleeing from prosecution and he was released from jail. 'The judge said she made her decision based on new evidence, after Halabi's lawyer charged that the prosecutor had "tampered with evidence and obstructed justice". Although free, Halabi is still facing trial on charges of espionage and misusing classified information, with a possible maximum life sentence.

One bright side to all the dark dealings of the government and military in detaining foreign nationals, in Rasul and Al Odah 124 S. Ct 2686, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a 6-3 decision:

• *U.S. courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo.
• *The writ of habeas corpus is available in "all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the Constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States".
• *The allegations of the detainees that, although they were not terrorists or combatants, have been held in Executive detention for more than 2 years in territory subject to the longterm exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States, without access to counsel or being charged with any wrongdoing, unquestionably describe "custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States".
• *Nothing categorically excludes aliens detained in military custody outside the U.S from the privilege of litigation in U.S. courts, which have traditionally been open to non-resident. aliens, and,
• *The Federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive's potentially indefinite detention of the individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing.

The American Bar Association, citing the numerous recent reports regarding the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by U.S. personnel in the interrogation of prisoners captured in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts have brought international condemnation to the U.S. and undermine our standing in the world. As a result of these reports, the ABA set up a task force on the "Treatment of Enemy Combatants". As a consequence of their investigation, their findings and recommendations were adopted by their House of Delegates by voice vote on August 9, 2004. Their report confirmed many earlier reports that the U.S. was in fact using such policies that brought shame to our nation and undermined our standing in the world. The ADA was critical of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's approval of hard questioning techniques in Guantanamo and Iraq, and only after the American public became aware of the techniques in December 2002 was there a scaling back of these techniques. A series of memoranda were being prepared by high ranking legal officials in the Executive branch, which appeared to be designed to provide a legal basis for going beyond established policies with regard to treatment of detainees.

The ABA referred to an August 1, 2002 memo from the Dep't of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, to Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to the President, concluding that for an act to constitute torture as defined in 18 USC, Para. 2340

"It must inflict pain that is difficult to endure, equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death"

After extensive discussion of such maltreatment of the detainees, The ABA stated all detainees, where ever located and under the control or jurisdiction of the U.S. must be treated "with humanity".

The ABA made numerous recommendations to the U.S. government. The Bar urged the U.S. government to comply fully with the Constitution and laws of the U.S. and treaties to which it is a party, including the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture. Further, the resolution urged the U.S. government including its contractors to insure no person within the custody or physica1 control of the U.S. government be subjected to torture or other degrading, inhuman treatment. The Bar further condemned any endorsement or authorization of such treatment by government lawyers, officials or agents. The ABA further urged the U.S. to timely comply with its reporting obligations under all of the treaties and related customary law.

The U.S. has always espoused its belief in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms here and abroad. But since the PATRIOT Act and the U.S. pursuit of combating terrorism, this administration has lost sight of its obligations and responsibilities to safeguard the human and civil rights and freedoms of not only U.S. citizens but all persons in our world.

We must regain the respect of the global community and restore our standing in the world as champions of civil and human rights and liberties for all people regardless of race, class, color, religion, creed or economic status.