But the path to a final decision on the admissibility of the 2007-08 “confessions” to FBI  interrogators who came to Guantánamo as “clean teams” (totally different from CIA interrogators, the government maintains) is far from straightforward.

One defendant, Ammar al-Baluchi, already successfully convinced the previous 9/11 judge that his FBI testimony could not be used at trial. The prosecutors in the 9/11 case have appealed this ruling in the Court of Military Commissions Review (CMCR). The three judges who heard arguments on the issue are expected to render their decision sometime this summer. Whatever the CMCR judges decide, the decision will likely be appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly to the Supreme Court.

While it does not establish a legal precedent in the 9/11 military commission, it is significant that in 2023, the judge in the case of U.S. v. Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the man accused of plotting the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, ruled his FBI confession was inadmissible. In 2025, the CMCR upheld the ruling, affirming that his “confession” was legally “tainted” and rendered  “involuntary” by the brutal torture Mr. al Nashiri endured at CIA “black sites” prior to the FBI interrogation.

The current 9/11 judge says he intends to issue a ruling on the confessions of three of the 9/11 defendants – Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the 9/11 “mastermind), Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi – by August. He will need to rule on each defendant separately, as they each had different experiences of CIA torture and of their later transition to Guantánamo. Mr. al-Hawsawi, for example, was for a period of time detained at Guantánamo when the CIA was still using it as a “black site.” His attorney argued forcefully that there was no way his client could ever experience any interrogation at Guantánamo as anything other than a continuation of CIA interrogation, that could lead at any time to renewed torture; in other words, he was programmed to tell the FBI agents “what they wanted to hear.”

Attorneys for all three defendants argued that their clients were not given a Miranda warning, notifying them of their right to remain silent, their right to have an attorney present, and the fact that anything they said could be used against them in court of law. Mr. Mohammed, in fact, asked if he could have an attorney and was falsely told that he was not yet charged with any crime, despite that fact that the FBI agents were brought to Guantánamo explicitly to obtain confessions to be presented at trial.

Further muddying the water, two years ago, in a surprising revelation in the 9/11 pre-trial hearings, veteran FBI analyst Kimberly Waltz testified that during the Obama Administration, when moving the 9/11 trial to Federal District Court in New York was being contemplated, the Justice Department decided it would not try to use the FBI “confessions” evidence in court. This was later confirmed by former federal prosecutor Adam S. Hickey.

There is no current litigation concerning the FBI interrogations of the fifth 9/11 defendant, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, because his case was severed following a ruling by the previous 9/11 judge that he was mentally incapable of participating in his own defense as a result of PTSD and a delusional disorder that developed following his torture in the CIA “black sites.”

 Should the current 9/11 judge find any of the defendants’ statements to the FBI admissible, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi’s defense attorney’s will be allowed to call witnesses and present additional arguments in the 9/11 pre-hearings. They are currently blocked from filing new motions in the military commissions until there is a final decision about the legality of the pre-trial agreements they signed in 2024, which were subsequently retracted by then Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin.

The one certainty about the prospects for a trial of the 9/11 accused, is that it will not start on January 11, 2027, as the prosecuting attorneys have requested.

The post As the 25th Anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks Approaches, the Prospects for a Trial in the Guantánamo Military Commissions Remain Uncertain appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

On Monday, April 20th, 150 veterans and military family members held an act of civil disobedience peacefully protesting, in the Cannon Building rotunda, Washington D.C.  Their demand was an end to the immoral Iran war and its funding.

The Veterans, wearing their fatigues, held a moving flag-folding ceremony in memory of the 13 service members killed while a bugler played taps.   Each person held a red tulip in remembrance of the Iranians killed by U.S. airstrikes.  The red tulip is an Iranian cultural symbol of mourning and sacrifice.  Following the ceremony, there was a demand that House Speaker Johnson meet with them to accept the folded flag and to   pledge a halt to war funding.

After Capitol Police issued a dispersal order, approximately 67 veterans and military family members refused this order; they were then zip-tied and arrested, including several disabled veterans.  As people were arrested, their tulips dropped to the floor, enveloping the scene with the sadness of death. Veterans and military families know all too well the devastating costs of war.

Among those arrested were Mike Prysner, an Iraq War veteran, and Executive Director of the Center on Conscience and War.  Mike stated: “The war I was sent to senselessly claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and a million Iraqis.  Like the other veterans here with me today, I have spent the last two decades wishing I could turn back the hands of time and refuse to go.” “Service members have that chance right now.  Conscientious Objection is your legal right, and we have professional counselors who will fight to ensure you are approved and kept from deployment.”  The Center on Conscience and War is asking all military members opposed to the Iran war to call its hotline (877) NO-2-WARS for free, professional counseling.

The protest was the work of a coalition of veteran groups:  About Face, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Common Defense, Center on Conscience and War, Fayetteville Resistance Coalition, and 50501 Vets.  Please click on the organizations to learn more about what they do and how you can join in the effort!

The post Veterans, Military Family Members Zip-Tied & Arrested Demanding “End War on Iran” appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

On the 24th anniversary of the opening of Guantánamo, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows (a founding member of UFPJ) issued a statement on Guantánamo’s legacy: “On January 11, 2002,  the first ’War on Terror’ detainees arrived at Camp X-Ray. Unnamed and unknown, these twenty men in orange jumpsuits ushered in an era of extraordinary rendition, terror jingoism, and a lack of accountability that continues to this day.”

Their statement continues, “When men in blindfolds arrived at the Guantánamo Naval base, they found themselves in a jurisdictional no man’s land. 24 years later, the world remains blind to the situation of the 15 men who remain at Guantánamo, and the history of how we got here. Furthermore, the five men alleged to have planned and supported the 9/11 attacks have yet to be held legally accountable. Indeed, the Guantánamo Military Commission has not even set a trial date. . . .   America has institutionalized a politics of fear. Just as our nation was scared into compliance in the aftermath of 9/11, we are being frightened into numbness now.”

Since February 2025, over 700 immigrants – most of them transported from the United States – have been temporarily detained at  Guantánamo’s Migrant Operations Center or  at Camp 6, part of the military detention facility. Read Peaceful Tomorrows’ full statement HERE.

 An outpouring of anger, frustration, and sadness has marked this year’s shameful anniversary. A statement from 115 U.S.-based organizations committed to human rights and the rule of law (including UFPJ, and our member organization, September 11^th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, FCNL, CPDCS, and PANYS) calls for:

1) Transferring without delay the six men who are not charged with a crime.

2) Ending the failed military commissions and resolving pending cases.

3) Permanently closing the Guantánamo military detention facility, without repurposing it for any future detention regime.

4) Holding perpetrators of U.S. crimes accountable; and

5) Providing redress to those whose fundamental human rights the U.S. has violated.

The 24th anniversary of Guantánamo’s opening also saw worldwide protests.

Only fifteen “war on terror” prisoners remain of the approximately 780 Muslim men and boys the Bush Administration sent to the Guantánamo military detention facility after 9/11. That is because over 97% of the detainees were never charged. Instead, they were “rendered” yet again to various countries around the world without their input or consent.

Life after Guantánamo is filled with challenges, as these former detainees make clear. Mansoor Adayfi organized and supports the Guantanamo Survivors Fund, which recognizes how, after suffering years of torture and imprisonment without charge, former detainees have been transferred to countries far from their families, where they are stigmatized, receive little or no assistance, and have no legal status or permit to work. The Guantanamo Survivors Funds supports men working to rebuild their lives. Read Mansoor Adayfi’s book, Don’t Forget Us Here, where he shares with great insight and empathy a narrative of fighting for hope and survival in unimaginable circumstances.

Another former detainee, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, discussed his current situation with Nael Georges, Middle East and North Africa Programme Coordinator at PEN International. Slahi ends with a powerful message to U.S. citizens: “Readers should know that law and democracy are valid and useful, and that despising democracy and human rights is invalid and inadmissible. Why am I saying that? Because the US said it would be torturing me until I confessed, then it would take me to court and prosecute me. I was sent to be tortured in Jordan, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, and yet it [the US] was unable to bring me before the court. The US did all that so it could collect proof of violence and sentence me in court. The United States failed. Why? Because a state of law is the only one that is valid.”

Is the United States TODAY a state of law? If we reflect on the 24 years of the Guantánamo Detention Facility and the former detainees’ messages, we must conclude otherwise.

The post The Shameful 24th Anniversary of the Opening of the Military Detention Facility on the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

Below are initial statements and responses to the U.S. attack on Venezuela by UFPJ member groups, reflecting a variety of perspectives. We are continuing to monitor the situation and will follow up as appropriate.

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC): The U.S. attack on Venezuela comes as the Trump administration revitalizes a long history of U.S. violence and imperialism against nations and people in Latin America. READ MORE.

Black Alliance for Peace: For those in North America, we echo the calls [of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela] to mobilize and coordinate resistance against this violence and subversion from within the empire. READ MORE.

Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security (CPDCS): We also need to understand that this war for Venezuelan oil – the world’s largest known reserves – is not only about profits for Trump and his fossil fuel cronies, but it is a critical factor in the drive for regime change in Cuba. Venezuelan oil has been a critical lifeline for long embargoed Havana. READ MORE.

Coalition for Peace Action (New Jersey): President Trump just attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its president and his wife, saying the U.S. will now “run” the country. This is an act of war and an enormous violation of both international and domestic law. READ MORE

CODEPINK: This act of aggression is a continuation of U.S. attempts to seize and plunder Venezuela’s natural resources and undermine Venezuela’s sovereignty as well as the sovereignty of other countries in Latin America. This war also does not reflect the will of the people. Nearly 70% of Americans oppose another war and reject the endless cycle of military interventions carried out in their name. READ MORE and FIND INFO about Emergency Actions.

Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL): This is a deeply immoral and unjust escalation of President Trump’s campaign of violence against Venezuela. It is an unauthorized act of war in violation of both domestic and international law. READ MORE.

Massachusetts Peace Action (MAPA): This administration is unusually blatant. The president openly says the United States is simply going to “run Venezuela,” as if that approach has not already failed catastrophically. It failed in Afghanistan and Iraq. It fails in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. It fails under presidents of both parties. READ MORE.

Pax Christi: We will continue to uphold the principle of the self-determination of peoples and stand in solidarity with the Venezuelan people in the respect for their human rights, including the right to a dignified life for the community now in the diaspora. READ MORE.

Syracuse Peace Council: We cannot sit back and watch another war being started with propaganda and lies. We must rally in dissent of the aggression by the Trump administration. We must be in solidarity with Venezuelans who did not ask for U.S. military aggression. READ MORE.

Veterans for Peace (VFP): In flagrant violation of International Law, the U.S. bombed civilian and military areas of the city of Caracas, the capital of the Republic, and the states of Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira in the early morning of Saturday January 3rd. Striking under the cover of darkness to maximize terror and psychological impact, the assault [killed] at least 80 people, including civilians, and destroyed vital Venezuelan infrastructure. READ MORE. ADD YOUR ORGANIZATION to VFP’s Statement “Stop the War on Venezuela! Defend Venezuela’s Sovereignty and Right To Resist!”

Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF): “Creating Zones of Lawlessness: Trump, Venezuela, and the Piecemeal Construction of an Authoritarian State” (December 4, 2025) An in-depth legal analysis of the Trump administration’s military actions in the Caribbean and threats to use armed force against Venezuela in the run-up to the January 2026 attack. READ MORE.

World Beyond War: Trump has now bombed Venezuela, kidnapped its president, and claimed that he would run the country. This is utter destruction of any rule of law. READ MORE.

United for Peace and Justice was formed in 2002 by hundreds of peace and justice organizations to coordinate opposition to the impending U.S. war on Iraq. We have continued to organize dissent to war and injustice under five successive administrations, standing against policies that inflict suffering abroad and impoverish communities at home.

UFPJ  works as a network, connecting our member organizations to establish common ground and identify opportunities for effective coalition work. Let us know what your group is doing!

In solidarity,
The UFPJ Coordinating Committee

The post UFPJ Groups Condemn U.S. Attack on Venezuela appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

The United States is now planning to establish an infrastructure capable of producing at least 80 plutonium pits for nuclear weapons per year. The project is well described and criticized in a comprehensive report released in May by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In the current approach, facilities would be located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico, and the Savannah River Site, in South Carolina. In a settlement of a lawsuit brought by activist groups (see video), the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) agreed to conduct programmatic environment review of this major project. This summer the NNSA accepted public comments on the scope of the review.

Many NGOs submitted comments, including the groups that brought the lawsuit resulting in the review: Savannah River Site Watch of Columbia, SC; Nuclear Watch New Mexico of Santa Fe, NM; Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs), based in Livermore, CA; and the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition of coastal Georgia. Other submissions included one from Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy and Western States Legal Foundation. Their comment focused on the nuclear disarmament obligation under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and argued that the NNSA must consider a true no-action alternative of no pit production.

According to the comment: “If the United States and other nuclear-armed states, in particular China and Russia, in accordance with Article VI take a negotiated path to the global elimination of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future, there will be no need, perceived or real, for plutonium pit production. While the current international landscape is not conducive to that enterprise, it should not be assumed that pit production will take place over the next several decades. The negotiation of the abolition of nuclear arms is a legal obligation of extraordinary practical and moral importance. The [Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)] should not assume non-compliance with the obligation.”

The comment also observed: “Additionally, a sometimes overlooked element of Article VI is cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. Production of pits for new-design warheads on a new delivery system, the Sentinel ICBM, and on submarine-based ballistic missiles, has aspects of nuclear arms racing, both in reality and, importantly, as it is perceived by rival nuclear-armed states. If the W87-1 serves to enable MIRVing [placement of multiple warheads] of the Sentinel ICBM, it would contribute to quantitative arms racing; MIRVing also would be destabilizing. Moreover, according to the Department of Defense, the Sentinel ICBM will have enhanced capabilities and thus its development and deployment amounts to qualitative arms racing. It also appears that the W93 warhead for submarine-based missiles will add some military capability ….”

It concluded: “The PEIS should not rule out the possibility that nuclear arms racing will cease and nuclear disarmament will be implemented in accordance with NPT Article VI …. Failing to consider a true no-action alternative would have that effect.”

The post Environmental Review Begins of Massive Project to Produce Plutonium Cores of Nuclear Weapons appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

photo: the Nagasaki Peace Statue

 August 6th and 9th marked the 80th anniversaries of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To commemorate this historic milestone, solemn official commemorations with thousands of governmental and nongovernmental representatives from around the world in attendance were held in each of the two cities, presided over by their respective mayors. There were also large international conferences that took place in multiple venues organized by Gensuikyo (the World Conference Against A and H Bombs), Mayors for Peace, and others.

While it would be nearly impossible to summarize the many talks, meetings, and events that took place, a number of common themes emerged. First and foremost, there was an emphasis on recognizing the hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors), whose average age is now over 86 years, by listening to and preserving their personal testimonies for future generations. In particular, the hibakusha were appreciated for their contribution to preventing another nuclear weapon use by painfully sharing their horrific experiences of the bombings, so that “no one else should ever again suffer as we have.” For  their efforts, Nihon Hidankyo, the association of Japanese a-bomb survivors, received the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize.

There was a palpable level of concern about rising tensions among nuclear-armed states, renewed arms racing, and the growing dangers of a nuclear confrontation, with particular reference to threats by the Russian government, and the U.S. and Israeli bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities. There were strong denunciations of the Israeli government’s genocidal war on Gaza, and it was particularly poignant to hear some of the hibakusha compare photos of bombed-out Gaza bombings with their own recollections of the aftermath of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Many presentations underscored the urgent need for new thinking, in an increasingly unstable world, to end states’ increasing reliance on the doctrine of “nuclear deterrence” as the basis for national security. As stated in the World Conference Against A and H Bombs International Declaration: “‛Nuclear deterrence’ is a policy based on the premise of a catastrophic outcome from a nuclear attack, far greater than the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and is absolutely unacceptable from a humanitarian and moral standpoint.”

It was noted that this year also marks the 80^th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations, “to end the scourge of war,” and calls were made to “uphold the UN Charter, oppose aggression, war, and military buildups, and work in solidarity with various movements seeking peace and disarmament to develop a global movement toward a ‘nuclear weapon-free, peaceful and just world’.”

Finally, since Japan is the only country that has (so far) experienced a nuclear weapons attack, the Japanese government was called upon to reaffirm the three non-nuclear principles in its Constitution –  not producing, possessing or allowing nuclear weapons in the nation.

The Japanese government was also called upon to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) or at least to send an observer to the TPNW’s first Review Conference next year.

Being in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the annual August commemorations of the U.S. atomic bombings is an emotional experience. For those attending for the first time, imagining and trying to come to grips with the reality of those bombings can be overwhelming. Nick Rabb, a board member of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament, and Common Security, writes about his experience at Testimony of the Hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: No More Nuclear Weapons – They have been telling their stories for nearly 80 years. It’s about time more of us listen.

 Read the World Conference Against A and H Bombs Declaration of the 2025 International Meeting here.

Read about the Mayors for Peace 2025 General Conference in Nagasaki here.

Read the 2025 Hiroshima Peace Declaration, delivered by Mayor Kazumi Matsui on August 6 here.

Read the 2025 Nagasaki Peace Declaration, delivered by Mayor Shinro Suzuki on August 9 here.

As Mayor Suzuki concluded: “I hereby declare that in order to make Nagasaki the last atomic bombing site now and forever, we will go hand-in-hand with global citizens and devote our utmost efforts towards the abolition of nuclear weapons and the realization of everlasting world peace.”

Quoting the late Senji Yamaguchi, the first hibakusha to describe the horrific scene of the bombing to the United Nations General Assembly in 1982, Mayor Suzuki demanded, “No more Hiroshimas. No more Nagasakis. No more war. No more hibakusha.”

The post “No more Hiroshimas. No more Nagasakis. No more war. No more hibakusha” appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

In his prophetic speech, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” delivered on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his tragic and untimely assassination, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. declared: “I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values…. we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

The Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival has picked up Dr. King’s unfinished work weaving the interlocking injustices of systemic racism, systemic poverty, environmental devastation, militarism and the war economy and a distorted moral narrative of Christian nationalism that blames poor people for their own poverty, into one “moral fusion” campaign.

Groups in Oakland, CA have been doing public participatory readings annually, since 2003. This year, standing in the bright sun at the amphitheater in front of Oakland City Hall, a group of activists, including members of the Bay Area Poor Peoples Campaign, gathered once again to read “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.” As one of the organizers said: “We have now been doing these annual readings in Oakland under five U.S. administrations! And each year something new stands out that is directly relevant to the moment we’re in. This year was no different. Dr. King truly was a prophet who continues to teach and inspire us 57 years later.”

In Los Angeles, CA, twenty people gathered at Alexandria House to read Dr. King’s speech. Although most in attendance were not familiar with the history of the Vietnam war, the present-day resonance was clear to all. Several people were so moved by his words that they broke down and cried. One of the readers put it this way: “The beauty and power of the words of Dr. King, along with the harmony of the voices reading, was a gift to my spirit. So grateful to have been present.”

A statewide online reading, organized by the California Poor People’s Campaign took place on April 9.

This was the fourth year that North Carolina Poor People’s Campaign folks did online readings of the speech. Nearly 50 people volunteered to participate in the readings. There were readers from the mountains to the coast and every area in the state was represented. Over 100 people joined Zoom to hear the reading of the speech. Watch the recording here.

United for Peace & Justice is proud to be a mobilizing partner with the Poor People’s Campaign. We have prepared a tool kit, updated annually, with everything you need to organize a reading in your community. Consider organizing a reading for next April 4 (or sooner; you don’t have to wait!)

The post MLK’s “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” – Now More Than Ever appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

A court filing by an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) official states, Guantánamo “will temporarily house aliens before they are removed to their home country or a safe third country. The use of NSGB is deemed necessary to complete ongoing removal operations due to the number of illegal aliens present in the United States.” Those “ongoing removal operations” can only entail further terrorizing of immigrant communities and violations of migrants’ rights. As justice and human rights activists contemplate an uncertain future, here is a look back at how the U.S. has arrived at this juncture.

On January 29, Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security “to take all appropriate actions to expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to full capacity to provide additional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States.” Trump has maintained that “full capacity” is 30,000 migrants.

Within days, there were ten alleged “high-threat” members of Tren de Aragua at Guantánamo, but they were NOT under the supervision of the Migrant Operations Center. Instead, they were being held in Camp 6, one of the military detention facilities used to house detainees brought to Guantanamo as part of the “Global War on Terrorism.”

The Guantánamo Bay Naval Base houses two separate facilities:

1. A Migrant Operations Center – established in the 1990s for migrants interdicted at sea. The Center was legally codified by an Executive Order of President George H. Bush in 2002 and clearly explained in a 2015 fact sheet from the United States Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.

2. The Military Detention Center – established in 2002, to detain terrorism suspects under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The government has no legal authority to detain migrants in Camp 6 or any other military detention facility. Moreover, federal law ensures due process and immigration protections for all migrants transferred from the United States to Guantánamo. These legal guarantees have generated several lawsuits as immigrant rights and human rights groups push back on the Trump Administrations actions.

One lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, aims to obtain more details concerning who has been deported to Guantánamo and their current conditions. Jointly filed by the Haitian Bridge Alliance (HBA), Detention Watch Network, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, the suit seeks to obtain all records and communications related to the administration’s criteria for determining who will be sent to Guantánamo, their immigration status and nationalities, the legal rights and processes they will be afforded, how long they will be held at the facility, the provision of food, health care, shelter, and other necessities, and where they will be taken next.

A second lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, seeks access to lawyers for all of the migrants who have been moved to any location at Guantánamo. “[A]t a minimum,” the lawsuit argues, “attorneys must be allowed to communicate with the migrants via phone calls, video conferences or email.” Deepa Alagesan, a senior supervising attorney at IRAP, said in a statement. “We will not stand by as the United States government tries to use Guantánamo as a legal black box to deny immigrants their basic rights to counsel and due process.”

While the government is denying these migrants at Guantánamo access to lawyers, the Department of Homeland Security released photos of men being taken off transport planes in shackles, along with a statement from Secretary Kristi Noem, “President Donald Trump has been very clear: Guantanamo Bay will hold the worst of the worst. That starts today.”

For all the above reasons, Guantánamo is recognized as the Place Where Presidents Abuse Human Rights, a place with a sordid history of human rights abuses designed to keep people while evading oversight. Exactly what Trump may do next is uncertain, but immigrant rights and human rights activists must remain vigilant. September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, a founding organization of UFPJ, whose members have sought justice and accountability for the crimes of 9/11 for more than 24 years without judicial finality, condemned the deportation of migrants to Guantánamo, which can only further erode the rule of law the U.S. has experienced since 9/11.

The post Trump Administration Deports Venezuelan Migrants from U.S. Territory to Guantánamo Only to Then Return Them to Venezuela appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

On July 31, three of the remaining four accused, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, each signed a pretrial agreement, which was approved by the Convening Authority (CA) of the Military Commissions, former Brigadier General Susan Escallier. Escallier, had been appointed as the CA by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in August of 2023. The CA, according to the rules of the Military Commissions:

(M)ay either accept or reject an offer of the accused to enter into a pretrial agreement or may propose by counteroffer any terms or conditions not prohibited by law or public policy. The decision whether to accept or reject an offer is within the sole discretion of the convening authority.

The agreements that Escallier approved included guilty pleas along with lengthy “stipulations of fact” describing each defendant’s actions related to 9/11. In exchange the government agreed to forego the death penalty, for sentences that would likely be life imprisonment. Then in near lightning speed, barely two days later, Secretary Austin overruled the prosecuting attorneys, who had worked for months to craft the agreements, and the CA issuing a terse statement:

I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused in the above-referenced case, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009. Effective immediately, I hereby withdraw your authority in the above-referenced case to enter into a pre-trial agreement and reserve such authority to myself.

Effective immediately, in the exercise of my authority, I hereby withdraw from the three pre-trial agreements that you signed on July 31, 2024 in the above-referenced case.

The developments have been described by legal scholars as a “train wreck and a serious embarrassment for the government.” The ACLU declared, “(b)y revoking a signed plea agreement, Secretary Austin has prevented a guilty verdict in the most important criminal case of the 21st century. This rash act also violates the law….” Analysis of the issues at stake by former government officials who have been close to the issues in the case for more than two decades explained, “(t)he history of torture-tainted cases in the military commissions demonstrates the near impossibility of obtaining death penalty judgements” and concluded that the pretrial agreements the were the only realistic options for achieving a conviction in the 9/11 case.

The former U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, framed Austin’s action in an international legal framework, emphasizing its human rights consequences. She described revoking the agreements as a lost opportunity “to conclude meaningful and rule of law compliant plea agreements, finally redeeming the rights of 9/11 families…with an admission of guilt…(and) offering the potential to write a new chapter of international law compliance following decades of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at the site (Guantanamo) and beyond.”

While just how the issues will be ultimately resolved, whether the agreements will stand, or whether Secretary Austin will prevail, is currently unclear. When the 9/11 pre-trial hearings resume following the 23^rd anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there will be lengthy litigation over the issues, as the judge in the case, Lt. Col Matthew McCall has ordered both the prosecution and the defense attorneys to file briefs and present arguments about a path forward.

The post 9/11 Pre-Trial Hearings at Guantanamo Enter Unchartered Legal Territory appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.

Kansas City Missouri is literally at the center of the 2lst century new nuclear arms race.

Kansas City MO is home to one of the 8 major sites that make U.S. nuclear weapons.  It has an innocuous name, the Kansas City National Security Campus (NSC), located at 14520 Botts Road, where it produces or procures over 80% of the non-nuclear components of U.S. nuclear bombs and warheads.  Honeywell runs the NSC facility.  Very few people living in and around Kansas City know it exists let alone know what it produces. Activists against nuclear weapons more accurately refer to it as the Kansas City Nuclear Bomb Parts Plant.  This plant is a vital link in the production of nuclear weapons.  And for this reason, the plant could be a target in an enemy attack.

The National Nuclear Security Administration plans to spend close to $2 trillion dollars over the next 30 years to maintain and modernize its nuclear weapons and their delivery systems – aircraft, ICBMs and submarines.

Spending trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons, weapons that destroy all life, is a choice. The U.S. government and its elected officials have chosen to enrich wildly profitable military contractors by spending outrageous sums of money on weapons that can never be used if we expect to continue to live on this planet.  The military bonanza hurts all U.S. citizens.  Americans deserve better.  Americans deserve affordable housing, affordable medical care, a livable wage, good schools, roads, bridges, allowing no one to go hungry in the richest country in the world.

The KC nuclear bomb parts plant will double in size over the next few years to handle this increased production.  Adding insult to injury, state legislators, with bipartisan support, are set to pass legislation that will provide a state sales tax exemption on the cost of all materials needed to double the size of the current nuclear bomb plant.  This huge windfall to Honeywell/NSC is a cost all Missourians will absorb!

Instead of wasting the intelligence, skills and talents of those employed by Honeywell at the NSC, those employees’ talents could be used to address the climate crisis, the other existential threat facing the world.

We all live on this planet together.  We are not each other’s enemies.   It is in deciding to come together that we can address the nuclear and climate threats so life continues on this planet.

With all that said, the Kansas City National Security Campus is one crazy notion of national security.

The post What People Need to Know about the Kansas City Nuclear Bomb Parts Plant appeared first on United For Peace and Justice.