ACLU Calls on President Obama to Address Police Brutality in Puerto Rico
Graphic Video Shows Repeated Assaults on Peaceful Demonstrators and Journalists by Police
Video of Numerous Incidents »
Full Text of the Letter »
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today called on President Obama to press Puerto Rican leaders about a pattern of police brutality and governmental suppression of First Amendment rights during his scheduled visit Tuesday to the U.S. commonwealth. In a letter sent today to the president, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero highlights ACLU interviews that reveal systematic violations of freedoms of speech, peaceable assembly and freedom from violence through police assaults on students, labor leaders, demonstrators, journalists and low-income, black and Dominican communities on a regular basis.
The ACLU will also raise these serious concerns in full-page ads to be taken out Tuesday in Puerto Rico's largest Spanish-language newspaper El Nuevo Dia and its only English-language newspaper The Daily Sun. An ad will also run Sunday through Tuesday in New York's El Diario La Prensa, one of the nation's largest Spanish-language newspapers.
"In contrast to recent non-violent protests in Wisconsin, Puerto Rican police have cracked down violently on protestors in the U.S. territory in blatant violation of their constitutional and human rights," Romero said in the letter. "The severity and scope of police abuse documented by the ACLU are on a level that would not be tolerated in the 50 states."
Under the U.S. Constitution, Puerto Ricans are entitled to the same fundamental rights and protections as all U.S. citizens.
The ACLU of Puerto Rico has verified numerous incidents of police abuse since 2004. These incidents have increased in their frequency and intensity over the last two years. University of Puerto Rico students at peaceful protests have been subjected to violent attacks and arrest while female students have been inappropriately touched by police officers during the protests. Union leaders and protesters outside the Capitol Building and other public spaces have been pepper sprayed, beaten and shot at with rubber bullets by police. Video of numerous incidents has been posted on YouTube. A compilation can be found at:
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-human-rights/police-abuse-puerto-rico
This year the national office of the ACLU conducted fact-finding research in Puerto Rico and last month convened a high-level delegation in the commonwealth that included such notables as actor Rosie Perez and baseball legend Carlos Delgado. The delegation met with government officials including the secretary of state, attorney general, the police superintendent and legislators of both the majority and the minority parties. The ACLU will issue a comprehensive report documenting the research findings in September.
The U.S. Department of Justice has been conducting an inquiry into these abuses, and the ACLU has provided information to the agency. This week in Washington Romero, along with Angelo Falcón of the National Institute for Latino Policy and Juan Cartagena of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, discussed the issue with members of the House and Senate, as well as representatives from the Justice Department and Department of Education.
"The federal government must intervene to ensure constitutional and human rights in Puerto Rico are respected," Romero said in his letter to the president. "We applaud your administration’s vigorous support for the free speech and assembly rights of civil society in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. However, as we turn our eyes toward abuses in other countries, we cannot turn a blind eye toward our own."
Additional information is available online at: www.aclu.org/puertorico
The full text of the letter can be found at:
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-human-rights/letter-president-obama-pue... and below:
June 9, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
I am writing to raise the ACLU’s concerns about recent restrictions on the rights to free speech, peaceful assembly, and freedom from police violence and abuse in Puerto Rico. Currently, a Department of Justice investigation of the Puerto Rico Police Department is underway for a pattern and practice of police misconduct. As you prepare for your historic trip to Puerto Rico, we think that it is important for you to be aware of the serious allegations of human rights abuses against the citizens of Puerto Rico. The severity and scope of police abuse documented by the ACLU are on a level that would not be tolerated in the fifty states. I am writing today to urge you to raise these urgent issues with the leadership of Puerto Rico and to make you aware that we understand that the Puerto Rican government is endeavoring to thwart this most necessary DOJ investigation.
We would also like you to be aware that the ACLU is planning to take out a full page advertisement in one of the leading newspapers using the occasion of your important visit to highlight the need for systemic reform and oversight of policing practices on the island.
The Puerto Rico Police Department is the second largest police force in the country, second only to the NYPD. Based on evidence documented by the ACLU, this police department has engaged in a level of brutality against U.S. citizens and acted with such a level of impunity, that it shocks the conscience. Since 2004, the ACLU of Puerto Rico has documented numerous incidents of serious police misconduct in Puerto Rico. These incidents have increased both in their frequency and intensity since 2008, at which time the Department of Justice opened an investigation in response to our complaints. Most recently, the national office of the ACLU conducted fact-finding research in Puerto Rico in March-May 2011, and convened a high-level delegation that conducted a two-day fact-finding mission in May 2011 to research the rise in police brutality in the Commonwealth. This letter details a few of those abuses, but for additional background, we have attached our preliminary findings to this letter. The ACLU will issue a final report documenting our findings in September 2011.
In contrast to recent non-violent protests in Wisconsin, the Puerto Rican police have cracked down violently on protestors in the U.S. territory in blatant violation of their constitutional and human rights. The ACLU has documented numerous incidents in which individuals protesting at the University of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rican Capitol building steps, the Supreme Court, and other locations during the past two years have been subjected to beatings by police armed with night sticks, tear gas, and pepper spray. Heavily armed riot squad teams have seriously restricted constitutionally protected expression and unjustifiably violated protestors’ human rights.
Starting in the summer of 2010, students of the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) have been involved in protests in opposition to an enrollment fee imposed by the UPR administration, after massive administration cuts to the university’s budget. In order to quash the largely peaceful protests, the government of Puerto Rico activated the riot squad unit and other police units, resorting to excessive force against student protesters on numerous occasions. According to our research and credible news reports, students have been beaten with nightsticks, maced with pepper spray, tasered, and shot at with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters. Police have also applied pressure-point techniques on immobilized student protesters, including application of pressure in the necks, eyes and jaws of the protesters to provoke pain, sometimes even causing unconsciousness. Female students have been sexually harassed and groped by police.
Since September 2009, union leaders and workers peacefully protesting the mass firing of 23,000 public workers have also faced police violence, including beatings with night sticks, tear gassing and pepper spray at close range. And on June 25, 2010, the President of the Puerto Rico Senate cut off public access to legislative sessions, even though it is mandated that all sessions should be open to the public. Five days later, at a protest outside the Capitol Building over the closing of access to legislative sessions, police pepper-sprayed and tear-gassed protestors, and riot squad police beat protesters with nightsticks. A member of the legislature’s minority party was hit with nightsticks and pepper-sprayed, and a ligament in her arm was torn by riot squad officers. In one case, police beat and dragged a mother who attempted to shield her 17-year-old daughter from physical abuse.
Journalists attempting to cover these incidents have faced physical assaults by police and other government-imposed restrictions. These have included physical obstruction by police and restriction of areas for press coverage, including at protest sites and at Senate legislative sessions.
Outside of the protest context, the ACLU and ACLU of Puerto Rico have identified a pattern and practice of severe police brutality against low-income communities and communities of African and/or Dominican descent, including excessive use of force by the Puerto Rico Police Department’s anti-drug units in public housing projects. In these cases, we have found that victims of severe police brutality, including lethal force, face serious obstacles to securing justice. The government’s failure to hold officers accountable for misconduct or excessive use of force has endowed these officers with a sense of impunity. Moreover, we have identified serious gaps in the existing oversight and disciplinary mechanisms for police who use excessive force.
The federal government must intervene to ensure constitutional and human rights in Puerto Rico. I urge you to discuss with the Puerto Rican government leaders the need to prioritize better training, supervision, control, and monitoring of officers’ use of force to ensure all Puerto Ricans are safe from unlawful police violence and free to exercise their First Amendment rights. We applaud your Administration’s vigorous support for the free speech and assembly rights of civil society in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. However, as we turn our eyes toward abuses in other countries, we cannot turn a blind eye toward our own. We hope that the Department of Justice will soon intervene, but we also hope that you will use the opportunity of your visit to Puerto Rico next week to send the message that the federal government will not tolerate violent and unlawful restrictions on free speech and peaceful assembly in the Commonwealth.
As a person of Puerto Rican descent, with family and friends on the island, I am both delighted about your visit and yet gravely concerned that your presence will be construed by some as an endorsement of government behavior that is antithetical to the protection of civil liberties and civil rights. I would be happy to brief your staff on our fact finding mission and to answer any questions that you may have. I can be reached at aromero@aclu.org or at (212) 549-2501.
Sincerely,
Anthony Romero
cc: The Honorable Eric Holder
Attachments:
Letter from Anthony Romero to Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, March 10, 2011
Preliminary Findings of the ACLU Human Rights Documentation Research May 27, 2011
Related Documents
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
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.