U.S. Military Treatment of Juvenile Detainees Undergoes International Scrutiny
When the U.S. ratified the international treaty on the rights of children in armed conflict in 2002, it committed to protecting children under 18 from military recruitment and deployment to war and guaranteeing basic protections to former child soldiers, including those in U.S. military custody. Formally known as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC), the treaty requires ratifying nations to submit periodic reports on the progress they have made to implement their treaty obligations to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, a body of independent human rights experts charged with monitoring countries’ compliance with the treaty. The U.S. government’s latest report will be reviewed by the Committee in January 2013. The list of issues to be discussed during this review, which was adopted by the Committee on July 3, raises serious concerns regarding U.S. compliance with the Protocol and provides an opportunity for the United States to provide transparency and accountability for its treatment of juveniles in military custody.
The Committee requested that the U.S. provide detailed information regarding the number of juveniles detained by U.S. military forces, their treatment in detention, reasons for their detention, and the physical and psychological recovery assistance available to them. As of 2008, the most recent year for which public data is available, 2,500 juveniles had been detained in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay since 2001. Responding to an ACLU request for updated figures in February 2010, the Department of Defense stated that fewer than five juveniles remained in U.S. military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan at that time. But we have insufficient information about measures the U.S. has taken to rehabilitate or reintegrate the children it has detained, or the remedies provided to children who suffered harm in U.S. custody. Indeed, although the U.S. maintains that, “in detaining juvenile combatants, the United States seeks to restore some hope for their future and to prepare them for reintegration into society,” evidence suggests that the U.S. has failed to provide rehabilitation or reintegration assistance to former juvenile detainees as mandated by the Protocol, let alone remedies for children subjected to abuse and wrongful detention.
Jan Sher Khan is just one of the many children whose lives have been damaged by the U.S. failure to adhere to international human rights standards for children detained in armed conflict. Khan, now 24, was detained for six years at Bagram without ever being charged with a crime. According to a recent Reuters article, he was repeatedly beaten while in U.S. custody, and as a result has suffered from frequent headaches, mood swings, and the stigma of being labeled a “terrorist,” which he fears will make it nearly impossible for him to rebuild his life, find a job, get married and start a family. “Sometimes I feel like I’m still in prison,” he told Reuters. Another former juvenile detainee, Kamil Shah, who was 16 when he was captured and was held in Bagram for five years without charge, said of his detention: “I was innocent. I lost my education. I lost everything.”
The prolonged detention, often without charge or trial, and ill treatment of juveniles by the U.S. military extends from the mountains of Afghanistan to the shores of Guantanamo, where Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen and former child soldier who was detained in 2002 at the age of 15 and was convicted by a military commission, continues to linger in a legal limbo. Although the Canadian and U.S. governments struck a deal in 2010 for Khadr’s repatriation to Canada provided he served one more year at Guantanamo, the Canadian government has yet to request the transfer of Khadr into Canadian custody. Canadian Senator Romeo Dallaire recently circulated an online petition to bring Khadr to Canada, which has garnered significant public support. Khadr is the youngest prisoner still detained at the naval base. Friday marks the fateful ten year anniversary of his detention.
Mohammed Jawad, another former child soldier and ACLU client was illegally held at Guantanamo for almost seven years. He was released in August 2009, after a federal court found that the government had no credible evidence to justify his detention. Jawad’s mistreatment during detention, as well as an assessment of the U.S. government’s failure to adequately respond to allegations of detainee abuse, is chronicled in a July 2011 University of San Francisco Law Review article written by his military defense lawyer. The Committee is seeking information regarding allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Khadr and Jawad, as well as what remedies were provided to Jawad once he was released.
The U.S. reply to the Committee’s list of issues is due on November 16. For the sake of Khan, Khadr, Jawad and the other children who have been traumatized by U.S. detention, we hope the United States will fully answer the Committee’s questions, and take immediate, meaningful action to bring its policies and practices into compliance with the Protocol.
Learn more about children's rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
Free Speech
Ahead of House Vote on Bill that Would Stifle Dissent, ACLU Sounds Alarm AgainAhead of House Vote on Bill that Would Stifle Dissent, ACLU Sounds Alarm Again
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is set to vote Thursday on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, a bill that would give the incoming Trump administration new power to muzzle, punish, and effectively shut down tax-exempt organizations without transparency or appropriate due process. This misguided piece of legislation would impact a wide range of tax-exempt organizations, including nonprofits, universities, and even news outlets. Last week, Congress narrowly blocked the bill based on due process concerns and significant constituent opposition. In just a few days, over 100,000 people sent messages to their members asking them to oppose H.R. 9495. Last week’s vote was brought up under suspension, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Tomorrow’s vote will come under regular order and only requires a simple majority. The American Civil Liberties Union led a coalition of over 180 non-profit organizations — including Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, and the NAACP — in a letter to Congress outlining why this bill is not only dangerous, but unnecessary. The letter also laid out how future administrations could abuse it to lock in power, silence dissent, and go after disfavored groups and vulnerable communities. “Every time we give the president new powers and more authority to act alone, we create an open invitation for abuse by the executive branch,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at ACLU. “While the ACLU would oppose this legislation no matter who the president is, and there is no question it could be weaponized against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum, the rhetoric we saw on the campaign trail from the president-elect is even more reason for Congress to reject this bill.” H.R. 9495 joins two unrelated measures together: one allowing the Treasury Department to withhold tax-exempt status from any nonprofit it accuses of being a “terrorist-supporting organization” — without being required to disclose the evidence against it — and another, non-controversial measure, which would offer tax relief to Americans imprisoned unjustly abroad. The latter provision already passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill, and as the coalition letter notes, none of the groups oppose these tax-relief provisions. In fact, not a single member of Congress has thus far raised any opposition to these provisions. The fastest way for it to become law is for the House to simply pass the Senate bill.