Human Rights First builds respect for human rights and the rule of law to help ensure the dignity to which everyone is entitled and to stem intolerance, tyranny, and violence. More »
Publications
Human Rights First has written a series of reports on the erosion of civil liberties in the U.S. since 9/11. The reports, and the dates they cover, are:
In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts — 2009 Update and Recent Developments(2009) / $10/ ISBN-13: 978-0-9799975-8-7 / 68 pp.
Purchase this report on Amazon.com
"Since its publication last year, In Pursuit of Justice has become a kind of Bible in the escalating debate over whether our 200-year-old system of justice can withstand the challenge of trying accused 21st-century global terrorists charged with killing Americans at home and abroad. This update vindicates the original report's conclusion that the criminal justice system continues successfully to surmount a wide array of novel dilemmas presented by these difficult cases within the parameters of time-honored rules for fair and efficient trials. The proven success of the efforts by the federal courts compares favorably with the rocky course alternative systems such as the military commissions have taken and the formidable conceptual and practical problems that would be posed by dramatic departures such as the establishment of a preventive detention scheme."
— Patricia M. Wald, Former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
"At a time when polemic continues to impede the national conversation about the government's response to terrorism, this report builds on the enormous achievement of its landmark predecessor, In Pursuit of Justice, by methodically presenting fresh empirical evidence of the ability of federal courts to meet the challenges of adjudicating these cases in the criminal justice system under our existing legal framework. It thus makes another exemplary contribution to the ongoing examination of the government's options for bringing accused terrorists to justice while remaining true to the rule of law and our core values as a society."
— David H. Laufman, Partner, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia
FROM THE AUTHORS
As the United States strives for a vigorous and effective response to radical Islamist terrorism around the globe, our country remains embroiled in an important and difficult national debate over when and how to detain and prosecute suspected terrorists. As part of this debate, some have argued for the creation of new, untested legal regimes to preventively detain and/or prosecute persons suspected of complicity in terrorism. However, often missing from the discussion is the fact that the federal courts are continuing to build on their proven track record of serving as an effective and fair tool for incapacitating terrorists.
We have updated our May 2008 report, In Pursuit of Justice, to include cases and developments from the past year. Our research shows a conviction rate of more than 91% since September 11, 2001 and many notable successes in a wide variety of terrorism prosecutions. This update examines recent developments in statutes used to prosecute terrorists in federal court, evolving case law clarifying the scope of the government's military detention authority, the application of legal rules to protect classified information, and developments on other issues such as the Miranda rule, evidentiary issues, sentencing, and safety and security within the federal prison system.
The creation of a brand-new court system or preventive detention scheme from scratch would be expensive, uncertain, and almost certainly controversial. In contrast, while they are not perfect, the federal courts are a fit and flexible resource that should be used along with other government resources?including military force, intelligence gathering, diplomatic efforts, and cultural and economic initiatives?as an important part of a multi-pronged counterterrorism strategy.
Richard B. Zabel
James J. Benjamin, Jr.
In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts(2008) / $15 / ISBN 978-0-9799975-4-9 / 179 pp
Purchase this report on Amazon.com
“In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts is a stunning compilation of the record of trying and prosecuting jihadist terrorism cases in the federal criminal justice system over the past two decades. In Pursuit of Justice will become an indispensable toolÑnot only for participants in such cases but for policymakers confronted with proposals to create new national security courts in response to claims that the existing federal courts cannot adequately handle terrorism cases.
The authors meticulously detail well over 100 successfully completed terrorism cases. They canvass the adequacy of existing laws as bases for prosecution, grounds for arrest and detention, and evidentiary structures for protecting security information, while keeping faith with due process. In the end they make a compelling case for the adaptability and competency of our federal courts to handle the significant challenges that the post 9/11 world has brought to their doors.”
— Patricia M. Wald, Former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
“Since 9/11, too many have claimed that America’s criminal justice system cannot handle international terrorism cases, leading them to urge military commissions, secret terror courts, or preventive detention as necessary alternatives.This indispensable study, drawn directly from the experience of federal prosecutors and judges who have handled terrorism cases, demolishes that myth. It proves that we need not reinvent the wheel: the federal criminal courts have been successfully adapted to handle the most important and challenging terrorism cases, and without sacrificing either national security or due process.”
— Harold Hongju Koh, Dean and Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
In recent years, there has been much controversy about the proper forum in which to prosecute and punish suspected terrorists. Some have endorsed aggressive use of military commissions; others have proposed an entirely new ‘national security court’. However, as the nation strives for a vigorous and effective response to terrorism, we should not lose sight of the important tools that are already at our disposal, nor should we forget the costs and risks of seeking to break new ground by departing from established institutions and practices. As this White Paper shows, the existing criminal justice system has proved successful at handling a large number of important and challenging terrorism prosecutions over the past fifteen years without sacrificing national security interests, rigorous standards of fairness and due process, or just punishment for those guilty of terrorism-related crimes.
We have analyzed the actual experience of more than 100 cases brought in federal court that involve terrorism that is associated organizationally, financially, or ideologically with self-described jihadist or Islamist extremist terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Based on our review of that data and our other research and analysis, we have found that the justice system has capably handled these cases, and continues to evolve to meet the challenge terrorism cases pose. This is not to say that the civilian criminal justice system, by itself, is the answer to the problem of terrorism far from it. However, as we move forward, we should confidently and judiciously make use of the criminal justice system an existing and valuable resource that reflects many of the best aspects of our legal and cultural traditionsÑas one of the important tools in the campaign to eradicate international terrorism.
Richard B. Zabel and James J. Benjamin, Jr.
In the National Interest (2001): Human Rights Policies for the Bush Administration
(2001) $10 / ISBN 0-934143-93-5 / 191 pp.
Purchase this report on Amazon.com
In every presidential election year since 1988, Human Rights First has published a detailed set of policy recommendations on human rights for the incoming administration. This report, our fourth, offers a wide-ranging analysis of the ways in which consistent support for human rights advances U.S. national interests in prosperity and global stability, and therefore deserves broad bipartisan backing. The report provides a blueprint for policies on the protection of asylum seekers and refugees, workers' rights and U.S. domestic compliance with international human rights norms. Two longer chapters - on the International Criminal Court and the role of the Internet in advancing human rights - have been jointly authored with the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Kennedy School at Harvard. In the National Interest is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the importance of human rights in a rapidly changing world.
Arbitrary Justice: Trial of Guantánamo and Bagram Detainees in Afghanistan
(2008) / $10 / ISBN 978-0-9799975-3-2 / 46 pp
Purchase this report on Amazon.com
Arbitrary Justice documents how detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Bagram Airbase, Afghanistan are being tried in Afghan courts based on allegations provided by the United States, with little or no evidence.
At the time of publication, more than 250 persons had been transferred to the Afghan National Detention Facility in Pul-i-Charkhi prison located in the outskirts of Kabul. Of the 160 persons referred for prosecutions, over 60 have been convicted in trials that violate fair trial standards.
The report, based on trial observations, examination of court documents, and interviews, outlines the problems in these proceedings such as the lack of prosecution witnesses and out-of-court prosecution witnesses to support the charges. The report also provides information about conditions of confinement, family visits, and U.S. involvement in justice sector reform issues in Afghanistan.
Arbitrary Justice makes specific policy recommendations to both the Afghan and U.S. governments. The report provides insights on how to improve the process of transferring detainees from U.S. custody to their home countries for criminal prosecutions, but that any such trials must be in accordance with international fair trial standards.
Tortured Justice: Using Coerced Evidence to Prosecute Terrorist Suspects(2008) / $10 / ISBN 978-0-9799975-2-5 / 81 pp
Purchase this report on Amazon.com
Tortured Justice finds the Bush Administration has undercut its own intended use of the military commission system at Guantanamo Bay by allowing the admission of coerced evidence. The administration sanctioned the use of harsh interrogation methods, claiming that the need to protect the nation against another terrorist attack took precedence over any future complications in prosecuting terrorist suspects. Then, rather than accept the inadmissibility of tainted evidence in court, Congress and the administration dug themselves in deeper by including provisions in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that authorize, for the first time in American history, the admission of coerced confessions during criminal trials.
The report focuses on six Guantanamo prisoners who have alleged abuse while in custody, some of which has been documented by military investigations and detainee interrogation logs, and some of which has been publicly acknowledged by administration officials. The report also includes a chart identifying 62 other prisoners who allege abuse, alongside the names of those they may have implicated. The chart offers a stark visualization of the cross-contamination of coerced evidence.
Private Security Contractors at War:Ending the Culture of Impunity
(2008) $15/ ISBN 978-0-9799975-0-1 / 117 pp.
Purchase this report on Amazon.com
Praise for Private Security Contractors at War: Ending the Culture of Impunity
“Human Rights First’s report is an incredibly comprehensive study of the ‘culture of impunity’ that has surrounded the private military industry for too long. Hopefully, our leaders will finally listen and, even more importantly, demonstrate the will to act.” — P. W. Singer, Author, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry
“Private Security Contractors at War clearly demonstrates how the Department of Justice has systematically failed to hold private security contractors legally accountable for their actions. Human Rights First unequivocally bares the facts so that from here forward we, as a country, cannot say that we did not know, but only that we did not act.” — Rear Admiral (Ret.) John D. Hutson, former Navy Judge Advocate General (1997-2000)
“As Human Rights First’s report proves, much can and should be done to improve contractor accountability in contingency operations. The industry fully supports such efforts.” — Doug Brooks, President, International Peace Operations Association (IPOA)
“This groundbreaking report lays out the problem of contractor accountability and offers solutions through practical, effective recommendations. I hope it spurs timely remedial action by the United States government.” — Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.)
“This explosive report by Human Rights First provides a solid road map to stop the spread of the mercenary virus. This report should be required reading for any legislator representing the people of this country.” — Jeremy Scahill, New York Times-bestselling author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army
Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality
8/07
The unprecedented analysis by Human Rights First and Physicians for Human Rights combines medical and legal expertise to comprehensively examine ten techniques widely reported to have been authorized for use in the CIA’s secret interrogation program, including sleep deprivation, simulated drowning, stress positions, beating, and induced hypothermia. The report demonstrates the mental and physical consequences of the use of these techniques and their intended design to inflict psychological trauma and pain without leaving physical scars. U.S. law requires an assessment of the physical and mental impact of an interrogation method to determine its legality. The report concludes that each of the ten tactics is likely to violate U.S. laws, including the War Crimes Act, the U.S. Torture Act, and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The report urges the US government to “refrain from repeating the mistake of allowing the euphemistic descriptions of interrogation techniques to blur the line between permissible and impermissible treatment.” It calls on the government to instead adopt the recommendations it sets forth as necessary steps to creating “a single standard of humane treatment.”
Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan(Feb. 2006) $15 / ISBN 0-9753150-6-4 / 130 pp.
Purchase this report on Amazon.com
Human Rights First’s new report,“Command’s Responsibility: Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan,” provides the first comprehensive accounting of the U.S. government’s handling of the nearly 100 cases of detainees who have died in U.S. custody since 2002. In its report, Human Rights First looked at some of the most troubling abuse cases, including up to 12 cases in which people were tortured to death. The report found that flawed investigations and a lack of punishment, especially at the highest levels, has lead to a culture of impunity on abuse.
Despite the number of deaths of prisoners in U.S. custody, as of February 2006, only 12 detainee deaths have resulted in any kind of punishment for any U.S. official, military or civilian. The report finds that often the more serious the case – particularly those involving people tortured to death – the less severe the punishment; the highest sentence in a torture-related death is five months in prison. Based on this, Human Rights First concluded that a gap exists between policies leadership says it respects on paper, and behavior it actually tolerates in practice.
Behind the Wire (2005) $10 / 0-9753150-3-X / 49 pp.
Purchase this report on Amazon.com
Outlines the scope of the global network of U.S. detention facilities holding suspects in the "war on terrorism." This is an update to the earlier report Ending Secret Detentions
Getting to Ground Truth:
Investigating U.S. Abuses in the
“War on Terror.”
9/04
Getting to Ground Truth, a Human Rights First report, identifies specific ways in which investigators were prevented from developing a full picture of the problem and calls for a comprehensive and independent investigation into the U.S. detention and interrogation practices.
Assessing the New Normal: Liberty and Security for the Post-September 11 United States
(2003) $15 / 148pp. /
Purchase this report on Amazon.com
Assessing the New Normal, the third in a series of reports, documents the continuing erosion of basic human rights protections under U.S. law and policy since September 11. Today, two years after the attacks, it is no longer possible to view these changes as aberrant parts of an emergency response. Rather, the expansion of executive power and abandonment of established civil and criminal procedures have become part of a "new normal" in American life. The new normal, defined in part by the loss of particular freedoms for some, is as troubling for its detachment from the rule of law as a whole. The U.S. government can no longer promise that individuals will be governed by known principles of conduct, applied equally in all cases, and administered by independent courts. As this report shows, in a growing number of cases, legal safeguards are now observed only insofar as they are consistent with the chosen ends of power.