[Pnews] Communication Management Units: BOP Targeting of Muslims, Political Speech

[Prisoner News]

*Communication Management Units: BOP's Lack of Process Allows for 
Targeting of Muslims, Political Speech 
<http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/04/24/communication-management-units-bureau-of-prisons-lack-of-process-permits-targeting-of-muslims-political-speech/>

*
By: 
<http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/04/24/communication-management-units-bureau-of-prisons-lack-of-process-permits-targeting-of-muslims-political-speech/#>Kevin 
Gosztola <http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/author/kgosztola/> Thursday 
April 24, 2014 4:07 pm
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/04/24/communication-management-units-bureau-of-prisons-lack-of-process-permits-targeting-of-muslims-political-speech/

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which has brought a lawsuit 
on behalf of prisoners placed in restrictive prison units known as 
Communications Management Units (CMUs), has revealed documentation that 
shows for the first time how people are designated for placement in 
CMUs, what they are told by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) when placed in a 
CMU, and how they're ongoing imprisonment in the CMU is reviewed by BOP.

CMUs can be found in prisons in Terre Haute, Indiana, and Marion, 
Illinois. They opened in 2006 and 2008, respectively. The stated reason 
for opening them was to control and isolate prisoners from being able to 
communicate to the outside world.

The lawsuit 
<http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/previously-secret-prison-docs-show-constitutional-violations-experimental-prison-units> 
does not challenge that practice if it is truly necessary, but what it 
does challenge is the lack of process for prisoners to contest their 
placement in CMUs and how broad discretion has made it possible for BOP 
to disproportionately target Muslims as well as others for their 
political speech.

The worst part of being under CMU restrictions is that prisoners cannot 
have contact with loved ones. They cannot hold hands with their wives. 
They cannot hug. "The lack of physical contact with his children for the 
47 months" that Aref has been in CMUs has been, to him, "a kind of torture."

For the first three years that CMUs were in existence, there was no 
process setup for reviewing CMU prisoners so they could be transferred 
out. Senior CCR attorney, Alexis Agathocleous, said there is 
"considerable confusion about how those reviews work and when they 
should occur."

Prison officials are supposed to be reviewing whether the "original 
reasons for CMU designation still exist," but, as Agathocleous 
explained, "If prison officials don't actually know fully the reasons 
why a prisoner was sent to a CMU to begin with, they can't possibly 
determine whether those original reasons still exist."

According to the CCR's latest court submission 
<http://ccrjustice.org/files/Memo%20in%20Support%20of%20Summary%20Judgment%20Motion.pdf>, 
a Counter-Terrorism Unit (CTU) within the BOP makes the initial 
recommendation---the "Notice for Transfer---to the CMU. The notice does 
not "actually reflect the reason(s) the prisoner was in fact approved 
for CMU designation." A North Central Regional Director "makes the 
ultimate decision" and that may or may not be similar to CTU's 
recommendation. This director can base the decision to transfer a 
prisoner to a CMU on any information, regardless of whether the 
information is in the "designation packet." This decision-maker is not 
required to document what goes into this "ultimate decision," even if it 
is different from CTU's recommendation.

Agathocleous told Firedoglake that "prisoners sent to the CMU were told 
that the only way they could appeal their placement was through the 
Administrative Prisoner Remedy Program." Several CMU prisoners did and 
what they received in response was "a repetition of the same inaccurate 
or incomplete paragraph" that they had initially been provided to 
explain why they were in the CMU.

For example, Daniel McGowan, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and an 
environmental activist who was charged with committing a series of 
arsons and other property crimes against numerous targets that they 
deemed to be agents of environmental destruction and animal 
exploitation, was informed 
<http://ccrjustice.org/files/SJ%20-%20Exhibit%2068.pdf> that he was put 
in a CMU for "destruction of an energy facility." He was told the BOP 
thought he was a "member and leader in both the Earth Liberation Front 
(ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF)" and that he "taught others how 
to commit arson." McGowan maintained that those allegations were not 
"supported by facts."

The response he received restated allegations and did not explain why 
they were true. He also was not able to go through a better process to 
argue the allegations weren't true. And, furthermore, he was not 
informed by the BOP that the Counter-Terrorism Unit had relied on his 
communications from the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, 
Minnesota, on environmental issues to justify putting him in a CMU.

According to Agathocleous, no CMU prisoner "has ever successfully 
challenged his CMU designation" through the administrative remedy 
process. Prisoners have been told that they can get out in 18 months if 
they cause no conflicts. However, the CCR learned through documents and 
depositions of officials that there was no policy. No time limit on how 
long a person could be in a CMU existed in policy.

Another plaintiff in the lawsuit, Yassin Aref, spent 18 months in his 
first CMU. He did not do anything wrong, but after 18 months, he was 
transferred to another CMU. The 18-month clock restarted. He has spent 
four years in a CMU without committing any misconduct.

Criteria for placement is unclear. CCR has discovered that different 
offices responsible for CMU designation use "different criteria to make 
their decisions about who should be sent to CMUs." They do not even know 
which criteria should apply, which gives officials very broad discretion.

"The system is broken at every level," Agathocleous declared. And it 
impacts Muslim prisoners the worst.

One hundred and one of 178 total CMU designations have been Muslim 
prisoners, according to data CCR was allowed to disclose for the first 
time. Six percent of the prison population is Muslim. As the filing 
states, "This marks a vast overrepresentation which cannot be explained 
away by virtue of the CMU's focus on terrorism."

"Of the first 55 prisoners designated to the CMU, 45 were sent there 
because of their connection to terrorism, but the other ten were 
designated due to involvement in prohibited activities related to 
communication; of that ten, eight self-reported as Muslim," it explains.

Prisoners with strong religious or political views are targeted as well, 
but prisoners are often not informed that consideration of religious or 
political beliefs factored into their CMU designation.

Marion CMU Unit Manager Paul Kelly apparently testified that a "prisoner 
could mitigate the reasons for his initial placement by no longer 
believing in the ideology that motivated the activities that led to his 
CMU placement." Also, Henry Rivas, the Intelligence Research Specialist 
at the Marion CMU, "thought that an individual sent to the CMU for 
environmental extremism who continued to read extremist environmental 
publications qualified for continued CMU placement."

The CCR's recent filing further indicates, "North Central Regional Staff 
opined that prisoner L required CMU designation due to his  offense 
conduct and 'continued militant beliefs.' The staff member indicated 
that prisoner L would have to 'change the militant portion of those 
beliefs' to be eligible for release from the CMU."

It is near impossible to get out of the CMU. Kifah Jayyousi, one of the 
plaintiffs in the lawsuit, was in a CMU for 58 months or 232 weeks. 
McGowan was in a CMU for 22 months or 98 weeks. Avon Twitty, another 
plaintiff, was in the CMU for 39 months or 156 weeks. Ninety-five 
prisoners have spent over 18 months in CMUs. Twenty-five prisoners have 
spent over 36 months or 144 weeks.

Agathocleous argued, "CMU prisoners are entitled to but have been 
deprived of meaningful notice of the reason of the CMU designation, 
reasonable and comprehensible designation standards, meaningful 
opportunity to contest their placement in the CMU and a meaningful 
periodic review process so they can figure out how to earn their way out."

"Extremely draconian restrictions" have a "very serious material impact 
on people's lives" are not accompanied with a meaningful process that 
gives prisoners the right to challenge these severe conditions. It 
deprives them of their right to due process and their First Amendment 
right to have contact with family (only two 15-minute phone calls are 
allowed per week).

The broad ability to make these decisions absent any accountability is 
what CCR hopes to bring to an end.

-- 
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20140425/0d8d0178/attachment.htm>