Docs Confirm Lack of Due Process in Communications Management Units, Attorneys Say
press@ccrjustice.org
April 23, 2014, Washington D.C. – For the first time, hundreds of documents detailing the Bureau of Prisons’ process for designating prisoners to controversial Communications Management Units (CMUs) are public. The documents had been under a protective order in the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) lawsuit, Aref v. Holder, since CCR filed the case in 2010.
The law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and attorney Kenneth A. Kreuscher of the Portland Law Collective are co-counsel in the case.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
press@ccrjustice.org
April 23, 2014, Washington D.C. – For the first time, hundreds of documents detailing the Bureau of Prisons’ process for designating prisoners to controversial Communications Management Units (CMUs) are public. The documents had been under a protective order in the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) lawsuit, Aref v. Holder, since CCR filed the case in 2010.
The CMUs were quietly opened in Terre Haute, IN
and Marion, IL in 2006 and 2008, respectively, to monitor and control
the communications of certain prisoners and to isolate them from other
prisoners and the outside world. But the documents revealed today show
that the BOP did not draft criteria for designating prisoners to the
facilities until 2009
and that, even then, different offices within the BOP, each of which
plays a role in the designation process, have a different understanding
of the criteria. Other documents reveal that the reasons provided to CMU prisoners for their designation were incomplete, inaccurate, and sometimes even false. Discovery in the case also shows that prisoners were told they could earn their way out of the CMU by completing 18 months with clear conduct,
but upon meeting that goal, their requests for transfer out of the CMU
were repeatedly denied without explanation. Other documents show political speech
was used as a factor in CMU designation. The documents made public
today also show that 60 percent of CMU prisoners are Muslim, though
Muslims comprise only six percent of the federal prisoner population.
“The documents revealed today show that CMU prisoners
have been denied due process at every step, from designation to review,”
said CCR Senior Staff Attorney Alexis Agathocleous. “The CMUs impose
harsh restrictions on prisoners, including a ban on even momentarily
hugging their families. Meanwhile, the BOP has denied hundreds of
prisoners, who are mostly Muslim, the opportunity to understand or rebut
the rationale for their placement, or a meaningful review process to
earn their way out,”
The documents revealed today also show that
decision-makers are not required to, and do not, document their reasons
for selecting a prisoner for CMU placement. As a result, it is
effectively impossible for prisoners to challenge their designation.
“I was told the reason
I was moved to CMU was because of ‘recruitment and radicalization,’ but
wasn’t told anything else. I tried to find out more about these
allegations so I could challenge my designation,
but to no avail,” said former plaintiff Avon Twitty, who has been
released from prison since this lawsuit was filed. “Without knowing what
I had allegedly done to land in a CMU, I was helpless to challenge
those allegations and had no hope of being transferred out. This
lawsuit is my first opportunity to get to the bottom of my placement in a
harsh, restrictive, and secretive prison unit.”
In addition to heavily restricted telephone and
visitation access, CMU prisoners are categorically denied any physical
contact with family members and are forbidden from hugging, touching or
embracing their children or spouses during visits. The plaintiffs in Aref
spent years under these conditions without knowing why and were
designated to CMUs despite having relatively or totally clean
disciplinary histories; none of the plaintiffs have received any
communications-related disciplinary infractions in the last decade.
For further information about CCR’s federal lawsuit around CMUs, visit the Aref, et al. v. Holder, et al case page or www.ccrjustice.org/cmu.
The law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and attorney Kenneth A. Kreuscher of the Portland Law Collective are co-counsel in the case.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
the center for constitutional rights
