Center for Constitutional Rights

  • March 8, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    As is being widely noted by media, right-wing pundits, or blowhards, such as Fox News’ Sean Hannity, are feverishly working to create uproar over President Obama’s association with the late Harvard Law School Professor Derrick Bell.

    TPM’s Ryan J. Reilly reports on Hannity’s airing of a video edited by associates of the late Andrew Breitbart that shows a young Barack Obama, then a Harvard law student, hugging Bell at an event calling for the law school to hire more African American women for its tenured faculty. “This was supposedly secret video that the late Andrew Breitbart had promised from Obama’s college days, showing … Obama supporting Harvard Law Professor Derrick Bell’s campaign for more diversity at the institution,’ Reilly writes.

    The video, as TPM and Media Matters’ Simon Maloy note, has been aired and written about before. But, Breitbart’s team hasn’t given up on trying to sully Bell’s legacy.

    As Maloy writes, Breitbart, who died last week, has painted Bell as “a dangerous radical who, in the act of pressing his body to the young Obama’s, imparted to him all the insane radicalism that now animates the moderate liberal currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”

    The late professor, however, was no radical. Remember, this charge is coming from the late Breitbart, who Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone points out, should be celebrated largely for his shamelessness.

    Obama, and many others for that matter, should be proud of Bell (pictured) and his work.

    As noted by Inimai Chettiar, a civil rights attorney, for ACSblog, Bell “was a racial justice pioneer and teacher who enlightened many.” She continued, “He was the first black law professor at Harvard Law School, yet in 1990 he vowed to take an unpaid leave of absence until the school hired a black woman for its tenured faculty.”

  • February 2, 2010

    Maher Arar is appealing his torture suit to the U.S. Supreme Court, presenting the justices an opportunity to review the controversial "state secrets" privilege asserted by the Bush and Obama administrations. Arar's suit against the United States government stems from his 2002 arrest in New York and transfer to Syria for alleged ties to terrorism. At a prison in Syria, Arar alleges, he was tortured, interrogated and detained for almost a year.

    Arar (pictured at right) is a Canadian citizen who successfully sued his government for its role in misinforming the United States about his ties to terrorism. In lower courts here, though, Arar has been rebuffed. The government's assertion of the "state secrets" privilege has barred Arar from presenting evidence necessary to the advancement of his suit.

  • November 17, 2009
    Next year the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases challenging provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT as constitutionally suspect. Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a brief in one of the cases, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, arguing that the provision barring "material support" is too broad, vague and thus violates the Constitution's First Amendment.

    In a press statement about its brief, CCR cooperating attorney David Cole said, "This statute is so sweeping that it treats human rights advocates as criminal terrorists, and threatens them with 15 years in prison for advocating nonviolent means to resolve disputes. In our view, the First Amendment does not permit the government to make advocating human rights or other lawful, peaceable activity a crime simply because it is done for the benefit of, or in conjunction with, a group the Secretary of State has blacklisted."

    The CCR's statement also notes, "The lower courts held unconstitutionally vague the law's prohibition on the provision of ‘services,' ‘expert advice or assistance,' and ‘training,' reasoning that these terms could easily encompass a wide range of lawful speech, such as providing training in international law. The Obama administration sought Supreme Court review of that decision."

    In analysis of both cases, SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston writes that the groups and individuals involved in the cases -- the other being Humanitarian Law Project, et al., v. Holder -- are attempting to work with organizations that are on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. "They are," Denniston writes, "the Kurdistan Workers'; Party and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Those two groups, the brief said, ‘engage in a wide range of lawful, nonviolent activity,' and the groups and individuals in the case ‘seek to further only such activity.'"

    Ahilan T. Arulanantham, an attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, says that a frequently overlooked consequence of the "material support" provision of the Patriot Act is its effect on the rendering of humanitarian aid in certain parts of the world. 

    In an Issue Brief released by ACS, Arulanantham maintains:

    The current material support statute, with its limited exceptions and extremely broad intent requirement, leads to truly irrational results. A humanitarian organization may send medicine to perform dialysis, but risks prosecution if it also seeks to send either the doctor or the equipment needed to perform the dialysis itself. Surely we do not enhance our nation's security by enacting statutes that lead to such absurd, and cruel, results.