By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States Supreme Court declined without comment to hear the case Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc, ending a two-decade long legal battle. Even if the advocates had won, the legal grounds were decided on a procedural issue and therefore the team would have only lost trademark protection, but would not have been forced to change its name. The team is firm in its stance that it will not and would not change the team name.

The Petitioners only asked the Supreme Court to review whether the claim could be barred by laches when a suit is brought too late, and not whether the nickname was offensive. They cited a written decision by Justice Alito that supported the view that offensive trademark claims could be brought at any time, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The petitioners argued that the “Redskins” logo and mascot was not worthy of trademark protection, because it was very racially offensive and discriminatory. The Petitioners hoped to have a lower court’s procedural ruling that barred their suit based on time limitations.

Robert Raskopf, attorney for the Native American legal team, said “Obviously, we’re quite pleased; it’s been a long road. We’re not surprised the court didn’t see any issue worthy of review.” However, the advocates are disappointed. Speaking  about the new challengers of the same trademark issue but with slightly different circumstances, Raskopf said “I think we’re very confident with our likelihood of success.”

(PHOTO: Courtesy of the Washington Post)

The respondent, the sports team, have defended the use of the logo, stating that Native Americans should feel honored and not disparaged. In its legal brief, the team wrote that the name was “in honor of the team’s head coach, William ‘Lone Star’ Dietz, who was a Native American.”

Nonetheless, in an amicus brief Native American associations wrote that the Redskins name is “patently offensive, disparaging, and demeaning and perpetrates a centuries-old stereotype.”

For more information, please see:

Associated Press – Court Won’t Hear Complaint About Redskins Name – 17 November 2009

Wall Street Journal – Get Rare Win Over Name in Court – 17 November 2009

Washington Post – Court Won’t Hear Redskins Case – 17 November 2009

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – Since the United States Supreme Court decisions in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, fifteen Federal District Court Judges have heard and assessed habeas corpus petitions filed by Guantanamo Prison Facility detainees. These hearings continue as President Obama announced that ten detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be prosecuted in the U.S. in either federal court or by military commission. The judges have ordered the release of thirty Guantanamo prisoners since the hearings began.

The judges hearing the prisoners cases cited many reasons in granting their release, the main rationale being that there was a lack of evidentiary material to support a conviction. Judge Gladys Kessler wrote in granting the release of one prisoner that much of the government’s evidence was suspect because it contained second- and third-hand hearsay statements that were obtained by way of torture. Also, some of the statements and documents offered by the government could not be authenticated.

An example of a detainee that was released was a prisoner name Janko. Before being captured by the U.S. military, Janko was tortured by Al-Qaida for three months and was forced to falsely confess that he was an American spy. He was then imprisoned by the Taliban for a year and a half. Despite this evidence, the government argued that Janko had ties to al-Qaida. In ordering his release, Judge Richard Leon wrote that “surely this extreme treatment of that nature evinces a total evisceration of whatever relationship might have existed” between Janko and the terrorist organization.

Not all of the detainees who have had their cases heard have been released. For example, Judge James Robinson wrote that Adham Mohammed Ali Awad was a part of Al-Qaida despite questionable evidence that indicated otherwise.

The habeas corpus hearings last approximately one to two days. The prisoners are allowed to present testimony in their own defense. They participate in their hearings by a secure video link. Those detainees that have been granted release have either been repatriated to their original country or have been released to other countries. Those prisoners that have had their habeas petitions denied await their trial in either a federal district court or by military commission.

For more information, please see:

MSNBC – Gitmo Detainees Finally Get Day in Court – 16 November 2009

AP – Excerpts From Rulings in Guantanamo Bay Cases – 15 November 2009

NYTIMES – Uighurs Leave Guantanamo for Palau – 31 October 2009

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authorized more local police enforcement to use section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 287(g) allows state and local authorities to have some of their officers trained to enforce immigration laws. Many advocates believed that the Obama administration would end this program, because they believe that 287(g) is arbitrary and punitive. Civil and human rights organizations argue that this program leads to multiple violations of the law and the Constitution because it is so susceptible to abuse by law enforcement officials.

In the beginning of this year, the Government Accountability Office found that the program lacked internal controls, with the result that 287(g) officers were detaining traffic-offenders rather than genuinely criminal aliens.

Advocates argue that the program makes immigrant communities less safe, including those that are U.S. citizens and legal residents, due to the strained relationship between local police authorities and the people. In fact, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona is now being investigated by the Justice Department on allegations that include racial profiling and due process violations.

(PHOTO: The Economist)
Another strong supporter of “tough” immigration enforcement includes the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that the Southern Poverty Law Center designated as a hate group in part for its support of xenophobic hate speech.

Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, expects immigration work to restart in Congress in 2010. “As of right now, I have not been convinced that comprehensive immigration reform cannot move in 2010, so it needs to move,” Saenz said. “If that is not possible, then I’m interested in discussing this idea of down payments with a commitment to fulfill the obligation through comprehensive immigration reform that is not postponed indefinitely.”

“Part of President Obama’s mandate coming in, particularly in the high levels of support that he received from Latino voters in critical states, I think a significant part of his mandate was about comprehensive immigration reform,” Saenz said. However, Saenz is convinced that a good start is ending 287(g), a statute that has in effect created unsafe communities, and has essentially condoned civil rights abuses.

In New York, a multilingual religious group of Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Yoruba that took part in the prayer service and made a call for justice for hardworking, taxpaying communities, because “the need for comprehensive immigration reform remains as pressing as ever,” the religious leaders said in a written statement. “Our communities continue to suffer because of raids, anti-immigrant press, hate crimes against the immigrant community, and a broken immigration system that keeps at least twelve million people undocumented.” Reverend Donna Schaper stated that “this is un-American” and that family values did not stop at the borders.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics prove the claims that hate crimes are an increasing nationwide problem, particularly assaults against Latinos.

For more information, please see:

The Associated Press – AP Interview: Leader Has Back-Up Immigration Plan – 26 September  2009

The Economist – The Continuing Crackdown – 17 September 2009

The NY Daily News – Anti-Immigration Group FAIR Mars Smart Reform Push by Faith Groups – 17 September 2009