I was interviewed by Scott Horton recently about the government’s proposal to make Communications Management Units permanent.

We talked about the history of the experimental units, and what separates them from ADX-Florence, the Supermax. Most importantly, the Supermax was created for the most violent prisoners, who pose a physical threat, and the CMUs were created for political prisoners who pose an ideological threat.

The Bureau’s proposal makes clear that the CMUs are intended to keep political prisoners with “inspirational significance” from the public spotlight.

You can listen to the interview below, and on Antiwar Radio.

Will Potter, founder of the GreenIsTheNewRed blog, discusses the prison-within-a-prison Communications Management Units (CMUs) designed to silence non-violent activist prisoners, limited oversight and questionable legal authority for CMUs, the tendency of governments to criminalize dissent from the left and right and why the erosion of individual rights (even of prisoners) negatively effects the whole society.

Andy Stepanian is one of the SHAC 7 and a former prisoner at one of the secretive prison facilities called Communications Management Units. He has a powerful new article at the Huffington Post telling the story of his time there:

When it was hard for me to find vegan food in prison Abu-Sayyaf used to bring food to the bars at the front of my jail cell. He knew I was a strict vegan and that I abstained from the consumption of all animal products. He used to read all the ingredients on packages and even then double check with me if the food was something that would fit my diet. I am sure that in the government’s eyes they assume that Abu-Sayyaf wanted something from me in return, but in reality Abu-Sayyaf only wanted to make sure that I was safe, healthy, well fed, and taken care of.

Before Abu-Sayyaf was an inmate in a secretive US political prison called a “Communications Management Unit” Abu-Sayyaf was a computer programmer for a software company in Florida…

There are 70 other men in situations like Abu-Sayyaf’s split between the populace at the Marion CMU facility and a second CMU facility in Terre Haute, Indiana. These are 70 stories of doctors allegedly breaching economic sanctions to deliver penicillin and insulin to children in need, or anti-war tax protestors, not stories of car bombers, hijackers, or the incidents that most of us have come to identify as terror-related. These are 70 stories that our government is ashamed of, and hopes to keep tucked away within these restrictive, secretive, purely political prisons, out of the reach of the media, out of the reach of visitors, away from the touch of their families and children, hampered by vetted mail, a lack of telephone communication, and — worst of all — severed from constitutionally protected rights of due process.

Please share this Huffington Post article on Facebook and Twitter, and then submit a comment against the government’s proposal to make these political prisons permanent. For background on the proposal: Government Acknowledges Secretive Prisons for “Domestic Terrorists,” Proposes Making Them Permanent.

This week we learned that the government has proposed making secretive prisons for “domestic terrorists,” which have been operating for 3 years on U.S. soil, permanent.

In this video Rachel Meeropol and Alexis Agathocleous, attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights, discuss the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Communications Management Units, or CMUs:

As a quick introduction, there are two Communications Management Units, or CMUs, in the country. They radically restrict prisoner communications with the outside world to levels that rival, or exceed, the most restrictive facilities in the country, including the “Supermax,” ADX-Florence. [For more information on CMUs and who is housed there: "Secretive U.S. Prison Units Used to House Muslim, Animal Rights and Environmental Activists."]

On April 6, the Bureau of Prisons submitted a proposed rule (Docket No. 1148-P), listed in the federal register. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, there is now a required public comment period for responses to this proposal.

The public notice comes after the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union each filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the secretive facilities, where political prisoners have been transferred without notification, without explanation, and without opportunity for appeal. [See "5 Things You Should Know About America’s 'Little Guantanamo.'"]

FOLLOWING THE LAW IN HINDSIGHT

The submitted proposal is clearly a response to these lawsuits, and an acknowledgment that the Communications Management Units were opened secretly and illegally. Now government officials are trying to cover their tracks and follow the legal process in hindsight.

It is a positive development that the government is recognizing, and being forced to defend, prison facilities kept hidden from the public. There is the possibility of placing true checks and balances on the government’s power to create experimental units that are unparalleled in the federal prison system.

However, this step in the right direction is negated by the Bureau of Prisons’ proposal to actually make these secretive prisons even more inhumane.

INCREASING RESTRICTIONS

Daniel McGowan is housed at a Communications Management Unit

“I haven’t been able to hug my husband, or even hold his hand, for two years,” said Jenny Synan, the spouse of a CMU prisoner and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “This proposed rule does not explain how prohibiting a husband from holding his wife’s hand or keeping a father from hugging his daughter, is necessary for prison security.”

The new proposal includes even more restrictions, including:

• “Written correspondence may be limited to three pieces of paper, double-sided, once per week to and from a single recipient;
• Telephone communication may be limited to a single completed call per calendar month for up to 15 minutes;
• and Visiting may be limited to one hour each calendar month.

MORE POWER, LESS OVERSIGHT

It should be noted that all federal prisoners have their communications monitored. And there are already policies in place for dangerous inmates who need additional monitoring.

The most prevalent of those policies are called Special Administrative Measures, or SAMs. SAMs are authorized by the attorney general based on information from the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.

This new proposal lowers the threshold for such special restrictions. According to the proposal, it allows for prison officials to act on “evidence which does not rise to the same degree of potential risk [emphasis added] to national security or risk of acts of violence or terrorism which would warrant the Attorney General’s intervention by issuance of a SAM.”

The government is arguing two competing claims simultaneously: (1) That Communications Management Units are needed because the inmates are heightened security risks, and (2) That traditional oversight is too cumbersome because these inmates are not dangerous enough.

The aim is, admittedly, to place more unchecked power in the hands of lower-ranking government officials.

POLITICAL PRISONS

If, according the Bureau of Prisons, these inmates “do not rise to the same degree of potential risk to national security,” who is housed here?

As I have discussed here before, inmates and guards at the CMUs call them “Little Guantanamo.” They have also been described as prisons for “second-tier” terrorists.

The proposal confirms this, saying: “One important category of inmates which might be designated to a CMU is inmates whose current offense(s) of conviction, or offense conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related to international or domestic terrorism.”

It references past behavior as grounds for inmates being transferred there, but as I have reported, and as the recent lawsuits make clear, many of these inmates have no disciplinary history and no communications violations. Furthermore, these individuals were not the 9/11 hijackers or what most people think of as terrorists. They are prisoners like Daniel McGowan, who destroyed property as part of the Earth Liberation Front in the name of defending the environment.

The Bureau’s proposal makes clear that the CMUs are intended to keep these cases isolated, and to keep political prisoners with “inspirational significance” from communicating with the communities and social movements of which they are part.

These secretive prisons are for political cases the government would rather have out of the public spotlight.

Jeff “Free” Luers was released from prison early today after a Lane County Circuit Court Judge signed a supplemental judgment granting him an additional 30 percent reduction in his total incarceration time. In 2001, Luers was sentenced to 22 years, 8 months in prison for burning three SUVs in the name of defending the environment. In 2007, an appeals court reversed and remanded the decision. And in 2008, he sentenced was reduced to 10 years. In short, this has been a very, very long time coming.

When someone is released from prison, they have to start over. They must immediately secure housing, employment and essential things that we all take for granted, like shoes and bed sheets. It’s important that political prisoners receive support from the activist community to make this difficult, overwhelming transition as easy as possible. You can donate to Jeff Luers support committee, or purchase something from his wishlist.

As I write this, it is surreal for me to see Luers, a (former) political prisoner, on the REI gift registry. It makes perfect sense, of course: for an environmentalist locked up for 9 years, the first thing he wants to do is experience the natural world. It’s just so bizarre to think that while people are using the same registry for weddings or birthdays or college graduations, activists are using it to welcome home Luers, who has been labeled an “eco-terrorist,” from prison. We live in such indescribably strange times.

UPDATE: Six hours after being released, Luers was taken back into custody. According to the Civil Liberties Defense Center, it was an error by the Department of Corrections, not Luers. That’s all I have right now. Unbelievable. I can’t imagine how hard it must be to step outside the prison walls, feel the sunshine and take photos with friends, and then be forced to leave it all once again.

Four animal rights activists are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting, demonstrating with masks covering their faces, and chalking defamatory slogans on the sidewalk. If convicted, the “AETA 4,”—Joseph Buddenburg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo—could be sentenced to 5-10 years in prison.

The AETA 4 case is a startling example of how federal terrorism laws are being used to create new crimes targeting political activists, and astronomically increase sentences for existing crimes. For instance, Marie Mason was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison for setting fire to empty buildings and taking precautions to not harm anyone.

Meanwhile, during a Congressional hearing on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Justice Department proclaimed “we are apolitical in this.” But this is anything but apolitical. Animal rights activists could receive 5-10 years in prison, as terrorists, for not harming anyone or attempting to harm anyone. Meanwhile, take a look at what some others are facing for much more serious crimes:

• Burning at a cross at the home of an African-American man, close to his home, while his family is inside: 3.5 years.
• Threatening president-elect Obama with statements including, “I’m going to assassinate the new president of the United States of America. PS you have 48 hours to stop it from happening”: four years probation.
• Setting fire to a hotel with people inside: 1 year.
• Police officer rapes a girl in juvenile custody: 8 months.
• Assaulting black men on election night because Obama was elected president: about 5 years.
• Enron exec guilty of $7 million in wire fraud and securities fraud: 16 months.
• Possessing child pornography: 4 years.
• Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party: six months.
• Mailing anthrax threats to the IRS: one year.
• “Using the Internet to threaten to destroy buildings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by fire or explosives”: one year.
• Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth kills a construction worker while driving drunk: 30 days.
• Threatening to bomb an Air Force base: one year.
• Drunken man drives over his brother during an argument: 1.5 years.
• Scheming to defraud an insurance company through arson: 2 years.
• Mailing anthrax threats to an assistant U.S. attorney: up to 5 years.
• Manufacturing and selling home-made explosive devices: 5 years probation
• Sending 65 anthrax hoax letters: four years.
• Dumping nearly 13 million gallons of untreated liquid waste: 15 months.
• Threatening to bomb the Oklahoma city federal building: up to 5 years.
• Setting a dog on fire and burning 50 percent of his body: 45 days.

According to the government, high sentences for animal rights activists are intended as a deterrent, they are intended to send a message.

What kind of message do you think this sends?

Note: Funds are needed for the AETA 4 legal defense. Please make a contribution. Go to Paypal.com and send a donation to support@aeta4.org. Or you can make a tax-deductible donation through the National Lawyers Guild Foundation. The mailing address is 132 Nassau Street, Suite 922, NY, NY 10039, please indicate AETA Defense Fund on your check.

This morning Andy Stepanian and I were on Democracy Now talking about secretive political prisons called Communications Management Units. Stepanian is believed to be the first inmate ever released from one of the secretive facilities; he is one of the SHAC 7, a group of animal rights activists convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for running a controversial, and effective, website targeting an animal testing lab called Huntingdon Life Sciences.

I was invited back on the program to talk about my reporting on CMUs, and about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. [The previous program focused on Daniel McGowan's case and the Earth Liberation Front arrests of Operation Backfire.]

Thanks to Democracy Now for continuing to focus much-needed attention on these secretive prisons. The Obama administration needs to reverse the unconstitutional policies of the Bush administration, and provide accountability and transparency. Secretive political prisons have no place in a democracy.

The Huffington Post has published a letter from Daniel McGowan about his transfer to a Communication Management Unit without notice, without explanation, and without due process for appeal. [Here is some background on Communication Management Units, if you are unfamiliar.]

Here’s an excerpt from Daniel McGowan’s essay on the Huffington Post:

Many of the men here (both Muslim and non) are considered political prisoners in their respective movements and have been engaged in social justice, religious organizations, charities and humanitarian efforts. Another conception of the CMU is that it is a location designed to isolate us from our movements and to act as a deterrent for others from those movements (as in “step outside the line and you too will end up there”). The intended effect of long-term housing of this kind is a profound sense of dislocation and alienation. With your mail, email, phones, and visits monitored and no human touch allowed at the visits, it is difficult to feel a connection to “the streets.” There is historical evidence of the BoP utilizing political prisons — despite the fact that the Department of Justice refuses to acknowledge the concept of political prisoners in US prisons, choosing to call us “criminal” instead.

The Lexington High Security Unit (HSU) was one such example. Having opened its 16-bed facilities in 1988 and housing a number of female political prisoners, the HSU functioned as an isolation unit — underground, bathed in fluorescence, and limited interaction with staff. In the opinion of Dr. Richard Korn, speaking on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, the unit’s goal was “…to reduce prisoners to a state of submission essential for their ideological conversion. That failing, the next objective is to reduce them as efficient, self-directing antagonists. That failing, the only alternative is to destroy them by making them destroy themselves.”

I was on Democracy Now this morning talking about my investigation of Communication Management Units, secretive prison facilities housing inmates of being tied to “terrorism” groups. They overwhelmingly include Muslim inmates, along with at least two animal rights and environmental activists. Here’s the video from the segment.

It was really an honor to be on the award-winning program, one of the few media outlets that have consistently broken and reported critical investigative stories. It’s really amazing what Amy Goodman, Mike Burke and all the staff put out on a daily basis. Please check out the whole program (the first half has a great interview about the Bush administration’s torture policies). My segment starts at about the 30 minute mark.

Two federal Green Scare prisoners, Jonathan Paul and Daniel McGowan.

By all accounts, judges and prosecutors often say, there is every reason to believe that these activists can, and should, be leaders in their communities.

That’s exactly why new legislation called the Good Time Bill (H.R. 1475) is so vitally needed. It will reduce the sentences of people in federal prisons by increasing the “good time” credit they can receive. The bill would impact all federal prisoners (except those serving life sentences), but Green Scare prisoners would be some of the ideal candidates.

That being said, this is an issue that impacts everyone, regardless of how you feel about environmental issues or animal rights, and regardless of how you feel about these defendants. Along the lines of my previous post, “5 Reasons Why Republicans Should Care About the Government Labeling Activists “Terrorists,” here are three reasons why every taxpayer should support the Good Time Bill:

1. Money. The bill could save taxpayers more than $2-billion per year. It costs about $40,000 per year to keep each federal prisoner behind bars. With the greatest economic crisis since the depression, this money shouldn’t be spent on prisoners with a long, demonstrated track record of good behavior and rehabilitation.
2. Safety. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is over 40% overcrowded and many facilities are operating at 100% capacity. Increased incentives for good behavior will keep prisons at a more controlled level, and make them safer prisoners and staff.
3. Priorities. Nearly three out of every four federal prisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence. They aren’t the only ones who suffer from being locked up: they have children, spouses, and friends whose lives have been impacted. People in federal prison deserve a second chance to make positive contributions to society.

The bill was introduced last week, and has 11 cosponsors. It’s still early in the process, which makes it a great time to get involved and take action. Visit GoodTimeBill.info for a list of things you can do.