The TRUST Act would allow local police to detain individuals for ICE only if they are convicted of a serious crime. Credit: photostock

By Charlotte Silver
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Apr 23 2013 (IPS)

Challenges are mounting to a key U.S. immigration enforcement programme that requires local police to share the fingerprints of individuals they arrest, triggering a federal investigation into the immigration status of the detainee.

Introduced in 2008, the Secure Communities programme (S-Comm) rapidly expanded over the next four years utilising approximately 750 million dollars allotted to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the programme."Immigrant communities are more fearful of going to the police, to report crimes they are victims of." -- ALC's Tim Huey

This month, the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) sued ICE and the Department of Homeland Security for information related to the agencies’ communications with California government officials about the California TRUST Act and S-Comm.

The lawsuit was filed after ICE failed to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request the San Francisco-based civil rights organisation submitted over three months ago.

The ALC submitted the FOIA request on Dec. 21, 2012 because of suspicions that ICE had attempted to improperly influence the governor’s decision on the TRUST Act, which was reintroduced to the state assembly that month.

“ICE has a history of misrepresenting facts about the Secure Communities program to the public and to state and local officials. ICE also has a history of attempting to influence state and local officials who seek to limit compliance with Secure Communities,” the complaint, filed on Apr. 9 with a San Francisco District Court, states.

According to the complaint, ICE has had two private meetings with Governor Jerry Brown: one before Brown’s veto of the bill last September and one shortly after the TRUST Act was reintroduced by California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano on Dec. 3, 2012.

California’s revised TRUST Act is slated to be voted on by the State Assembly on May 31.

“There’s a public right to know about issues surrounding pending legislation. The public has a right to know what information was given that may have motivated decisions on the bill,” said Jessica Karp, an adjunct professor at University of California, Irvine who also works with UC Irvine’s Immigrant Rights Clinic, which is representing ALC.

The TRUST Act, which passed the California Senate and State Assembly last summer only to be vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown on Sep. 30, 2012, would prevent the pre-conviction sharing of fingerprints by law enforcement with ICE, allowing local police to detain individuals for ICE only if they are convicted of a serious crime.

The TRUST Act was designed to alter the state’s participation in ICE’s Secure Communities programme, which is responsible for deporting 266,137 immigrants, ostensibly in order to prioritise the deportation of immigrants convicted of serious crimes. However, according to ICE’s statistics, less than 30 percent of those deported were convicted of Level 1 crimes.

“When it was first implemented it was politically untouchable,” Karp told IPS, explaining that it was impossible to publicly oppose a piece of legislation with the stated objective of removing serious criminals.

But two years after it was implemented, the actual impact on the community has been very different from the programme’s alleged goal. The vast majority of those detained or deported under S-Comm had no criminal history or had committed, at most, a small misdemeanor.

Numerous stories of individuals ending up in deportation proceedings because they had committed small infractions, traffic violations – or were themselves the victims of crime – quickly hit the news.

As Karp explained, “Secure Communities has allowed ICE to use local law enforcement agencies to help them meet their deportation quota of 400,000 people each year. S-Comm helps them do that using local resources.”

In addition, S-Comm has proven to be a pricey measure for state and local resources, costing the state of California an estimated 65 million dollars a year to detain immigrants for ICE.

In response to the overwhelming evidence that S-Comm was not focusing on serious criminals, some local communities, law enforcement agencies and state legislatures attempted to opt-out of the programme in which they had initially agreed to participate by voluntarily signing a Memorandum of Agreement.

San Francisco’s sheriff, Michael Hennessey, was one of the first to seek to opt out in 2010.

In an editorial for the San Francisco Chronicle in May 2011, Hennessy wrote, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s controversial Secure Communities program violates… hard-earned trust with immigrant residents.”

Hennessy went on to explain that S-Comm gave local law enforcement no discretion over which arrestees would trigger an ICE deportation proceeding.

Counties throughout California and the nation followed suit in seeking to opt-outof the programme.

However, to the confoundment of many localities and state representatives, ICE responded by asserting that sharing fingerprints was no longer optional and canceling the initial Memorandum of Agreements.

ICE has repeatedly emphasised that S-Comm targets immigrants with criminal histories, but evidence that the programme continues to ensnare individuals with no criminal conduct or background abounds.

In early April, in Bakersfield, California, Ruth Montano – a 14-year resident of the state whose three children were born and raised in the United States – faced deportation proceedings after police came to her apartment in response to neighbours’ complaints over her barking dogs.

Montano’s case caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and immigrants’ advocacy group Cuentame, which orchestrated a successful information campaign to pressure for Montano’s release from deportation. But as ACLU lawyer Jennie Pasquarella pointed out at the time, Montano’s good fortune is the exception.

“Immigrant communities are more fearful of going to the police, to report crimes they are victims of. This is why the TRUST Act is so important, so that Secure Communities can do what it is meant to do while restoring trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities,” Tim Huey of the ALC told IPS.

While the TRUST Act was originally drafted for California, copycat bills have been proposed in Massachusetts, Florida, Connecticut, Colorado and a number of other localities this year.

ICE does not take an official position on pending legislation and thus has not stated opposition to the TRUST Act. The agency would not comment on pending litigation with the Asian Law Caucus.

As the 2012 Farm Bill continues to take shape in the halls of the United States Congress, the immense influence of corporate interests is on display.

On Jun. 21 the United States’ Senate voted overwhelmingly against the Sanders Amendment that would have allowed states to pass legislation that required food and beverage products to label whether or not they contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The amendment, proposed by Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, is particularly relevant as many states prepare to vote on a ballot initiatives that would require such labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods.

Lobbyists from the biotech industry have ardently opposed GMO labelling. These opponents argue that because food labelling has historically been handled by the Food and Drug Association (FDA), it is a federal issue and, therefore, individual states do not have the right to implement such legislation. Indeed, in the case of Vermont, Sander’s home state, Monsanto successfully intimidated the state legislature from voting on a bill that would have required GMO labelling.

Patty Lovera, the assistant director of Food and Water Watch, explained that states planning to vote on GM labelling in November could face a legal fight to defend their right to enact such laws.

“However, this amendment would have taken this threat away,” Lovera told IPS.

In a move heralded by food advocates, Sanders introduced amendment 2310 on Jun. 14 this year, after his own state legislature backed out of voting on the popular bill, H.722, also known as the Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.

Vermont lawmakers allowed the bill to stall – and ultimately die – in the Vermont House Agriculture Committee in April, after a representative from biotech giant, Monsanto, threatened to sue the state if the bill passed.

Significantly, the Senate vote, 73-26, did not fall along partisan lines, with 28 Democrats voting against the Sanders Amendment.

Lovera emphasised that the powerful biotech lobby informs how politicians vote. “This doesn’t happen overnight, this is a result of years and years of lobbying and pressure from the biotech industry,” she said.

In a report published in November 2010, Food and Water Watch revealed that the largest food and agricultural biotechnology firms and trade associations spent a total of 572 million dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying over the course of ten years.

Importance of labelling

The Senate vote comes amidst near global agreement that there is a need for GMO labelling.

Codex Alimentarius, the food safety arm of the United Nations, concluded last year after nearly 18 years of debate, that countries were free to label goods as containing genetically engineered ingredients and that labelling of genetically-modified organisms would indeed help inform consumers’ choices.

“GMO labels are a risk management measure to deal with any scientific uncertainty,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with the Consumers Union, who has been a long-time advocate for mandatory testing and labelling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

“Labelling is the only way to track unintended effects,” Hansen said. “How can you know what you are allergic to if you do not know you are eating GMO’s?”

In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Association’s hands-off approach to regulating genetically engineered foodstuffs runs contrary to international standards. Currently the U.S. is the only developed country that does not require safety testing for GE plants. However, the Codex Alimentarius instructs countries to conduct safety assessments of all GE plants.

According to testimony written by Dr. Hansen, “This means the U.S. cannot meet the global standards for safety assessment of GE foods. Consequently, countries that require food safety assessments for GE foods could block shipment of such GE foods from the U.S.”

Recent polls conducted by MSNBC and Thompson Reuters found that between 93 and 96 percent of the American public believe genetically engineered foods should be labeled as such.

California’s GMO labelling initiative collected close to one million signatures, doubling over the requisite 500,000 signatures to secure a place on the November ballot, and the FDA received over 850,000 letters in support of labelling GE food.

Voting as they did, the U.S. Senate did not in any way reflect the desires of their constituents or reflect the guidance of food experts.

(END)

The European Commission has released a document that lists projects it funded that were destroyed or damaged by the Israel Defence Forces between May 2001 and October 2011.

The list documents 82 such instances, amounting to a monetary loss of 49.2 million euro, 30 million of which came directly from European aid.

British Member of the European Parliament, Chris Davies, released the list following his inquiry to the European Commission. Davies subsequently published the findings on his webpage where he stated that the list was “the most detailed response I have ever received from the European Commission.”

The recently published record is yet another indicator of the disregard with which Israel treats its European allies’ activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. Last year, it was calculated that Israeli-imposed travel restrictions cost international aid organizations 4.5 million dollars a year.

Davies notes that while the economic damage is not significant in the larger context of the conflict, the Commission’s meticulous record is illuminating.

The bulk of the damage was inflicted during the years of the second Intifadah (uprising, 2000-2005) as well as Israel’s attack on the besieged Gaza Strip in the winter of 2008-2009.

The projects range in scale. In the winter of 2001, Gaza’s International Airport was devastated, costing contributing countries (Spain, Sweden and Germany) 9.5 million euros.

Smaller-scale but significant destruction also incurred. For example, during the second Intifadah, Israeli attacks destroyed a fleet of Red Crescent ambulances financed by the European Commission.

Israel’s attack on Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009 destroyed nearly two million euros worth of European- funded projects, including several waste management and water treatment plants.

Apart from European-funded projects, demolition of homes, schools and water collecting devices in Area C of the West Bank occurs on a regular basis. Sixty-two percent of the West Bank is classified as Area C – meaning it comes under full Israeli military and civilian control. Area C is home to 150,000 Palestinians and 300,000 Israeli settlers.

The IDF and Israeli Civil Administration maintain the right to demolish any structure built without a permit. International, Israeli and Palestinian human rights organisations all concur that building permits are virtually impossible to acquire.

In 2011 alone, 746 Palestinian structures and homes and 46 rainwater collective devices were destroyed by Israeli forces. Hundreds more homes throughout Area C are awaiting demolition.

Palestinians and solidarity activists agree that it is crucial to help Palestinians living in Area C to stay on their land. One such organisation, the Jordan Valley Solidarity Project, has taken the saying “To exist is to resist” as their guiding principle – helping to build homes, schools and other needed structures, in spite of the constant risk of demolition – in order to help Palestinians stay on the land.

The European Commission’s list suggests that member states of the EU are not funding projects in Area C, even though it is arguably the most needy population.

This was confirmed in a study conducted by Birzeit University last year on the effectiveness of development aid, which included interviews with both donors and recipients of aid.

The study found that the policy of most international aid agencies was to not build without a permit because it would constitute a political confrontation to the occupation, in addition to being laden with bureaucracy.

There are exceptions to this. There are two cases of the Spanish and German governments funding solar panels in villages Area C of the Hebron hills. However, in news that stunned many, both projects received demolition orders this year.

Speaking critically of the way aid has been given to the Palestinian territories, representative from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Peter Lundbergh said, “Development should help Palestinians stay on their land; too many have left Area C.”

By Charlotte Silver and - -
JERUSALEM, Mar 11 2012 (IPS)

The High Court of Justice in Israel has annulled the 2002 Tal Law that had allowed Yeshiva students – scholars of Jewish religious texts – to avoid an otherwise mandatory service in the Israeli army. While politicians on the left and right welcome the court’s decision, the Haredim community considers it an assault on their way of life.

The Haredim are also known as the “ultra-Orthodox” and represent around 10 percent of the country, which has a population of nearly eight million.

The law in its current form gives students of the Yeshiva the choice at age 22 to continue their religious studies or enlist in the IDF. All other non-Arab citizens are required to serve two to three years in the Israel Defence Force after the age of 18. The ten-year-old law has been extended repeatedly. Now, with the court’s recent ruling, the law is set to expire this August.

Organisations and political parties in opposition to the law have argued that it is unfair to exempt a significant portion of Israeli society from civic and military service.

“We must share the burden of our duties and our rights. If you want equal rights you should have equal duties,” Tal Nachom, speaker of the far right nationalist party Yisrael Beitenu, told IPS. Enlistment in the IDF has been steadily decreasing since 2002 as a result of religious and medical exemptions.

Critics of the Tal Law point out that when Israel was established, only 400 exceptional students were exempted from military service. Today that group has swollen to more than 60,000.

However, members of the Israeli Haredim community – the primary beneficiaries of the law – argue that the court’s decision is an attack on religious life in Israel.

“The judges don’t know what they’re talking about because they are coming from a secular background and don’t know the rules of Judaism. They shouldn’t be making these decisions,” Rabbi Simon Hurwitz told IPS.

Rabbi Hurwitz moved to Israel nearly 39 years ago from Baltimore in the U.S. He explains that after living a mostly secular life in America, he became observant after being properly exposed to Judaism.

The Haredim adhere strictly to the rules laid out in the Shulchan Aruch – also called the Code of Jewish Law – separating them culturally from most communities. Some examples of what sets the Haredim apart from other Israelis are a requirement not to possess television sets or access the Internet, in order to avoid offensive material.

Women and men’s attire must conform to strict regulations. In addition, Zionism for the Haredim is justified by religious entitlement above nationalism.

“It’s hard for me to imagine Zionism without a religious base. What does it come from? Nationalism? That just sounds racist to me,” said Rabbi Hurwitz.

At stake with the cancellation of the Tal Law is more than just forced enlistment in the army. At the core of the debate is a battle for power and security between the Haredim and the rest of Israeli society. While secular Israelis find themselves discomfited by the Haredim’s high growth rate and political mobilisation, the latter see themselves as a threatened minority.

Studies indicate that the birth rate among the Haredi is nearly three times that of the rest of Israel; predictions estimate that by 2020 the Haredi community will constitute 17 percent of the Israeli population.

Many in Israel view the Haredim as a drain on the Israeli economy. While they still constitute a small portion of society, they receive a disproportionate amount of state subsidies. Because men consider their occupation a study of the Torah and women are systematically undereducated, they are one of the poorest communities in Israel. Sixty percent of the Haredim community live in poverty compared to only 10 percent of the rest of the non-Arab Israeli population.

Indeed the International Monetary Fund published a report last month that warned of the peril this growing impoverished community poses to the Israeli economy.

Conversely, the Haredim believe their contribution to Israeli society to be vital. Rabbi Hurwitz sees studying the Torah as itself a national service. “Morality is a part of society. Without a moral compass how will you keep a society above water?”

Because the Haredim are dependent on a selective state welfare system, they are vulnerable to the changing winds of public attitude.

The rising tension between the Haredim and the rest of Israeli society is clearly evident in Bet Shemesh, a town of 80,000 that lies 30 kilometres west of Jerusalem. Currently, 40 percent of the town identify themselves as Haredi.

Called a “mixed city”, Bet Shemesh has been the site of cultural clashes. It was originally one of Israel’s first development towns, but since the 1990s, it has been the destination of both modern Orthodox immigrants from North America and Haredi Israelis. Now, the two groups are finding each other as infelicitous neighbours.

Last January, the city made national news after an extremist from the Haredi community verbally attacked an eight-year old Orthodox girl on her way to school, spitting on her and shouting epithets at her regarding her “immodest” dress.

Since members of the Orthodox, non-Haredi community built a local national religious school for girls on the border of the Haredi part of the city, relations between the two communities have become increasingly strained.

“The school is telling them this is where your expansion stops,” explains Dr. Yoel Finkelman, a lecturer in contemporary Jewry at Bar Illan University.

Finkelman explains that the new, state-of-the art school building stands in stark contrast to the abysmal conditions of the Haredim’s educational facilities.

“In Bet Shemesh two classrooms are born every week, and the majority are ultra-Orthodox babies,” Shmuel Greenberg, the deputy-mayor of the city, told Haaretz.

However, this growing need within the Haredim community is not being met with adequate services. In fact, religious schools in the country are facing economic woes now more than ever.

“The government has been cutting funding for years and years. Just last week our principles called a meeting to tell us to be very frugal with materials. We are having a lot of money problems,” Tzippy Escriz, a teacher at a religious school in Jerusalem, told IPS.

“Our schools get less than half the funding that secular public schools get,” she said. “It makes no sense.”

Excerpt:

Last March, a vicious crime occurred in the occupied Palestinian territories. Five members of an Israeli settler family were slain in their home in Itamar, a settlement in the northern West Bank. A mother, father, two young children and a three-month-old were all stabbed to death.

Now, two men stand accused of the crime and await trial in a military court. However, given the investigative practices and “justice” system of the military courts that preside over the West Bank, there is scant confidence that justice will indeed prevail. This has profound implications for Palestinians and, in this case, the victims themselves.

Gruesome pictures of the slaughtered Fogel family appeared on the internet soon after the murders. The horrific crime was instantly labelled a “terrorist” act, and Israeli politicians called for the immediate prosecution of the culprits.

Itamar is located atop a northern West Bank hill next to Awarta. Its rabbi, Avichai Ronsky, is known for encouraging disregard of international war regulations during Operation Cast Lead. Awarta is a poor farming village known for its high concentration of communists and supporters of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

A year prior to the killings, two cousins from Awarta, Salah and Muhammad Qawariq, aged 18 and 19, were shot to death by the Israeli army. Palestinian sources maintain that settlers from Itamar had crossed the valley between Itamar and Awarta and attacked the two boys at work in their own fields before the Israeli army intervened and shot the young men.

Thus, the crime was cast as an act of retribution and the military focused its investigation on Awarta. The village was subjected to repeated and egregious forms of collective punishment: mass arrests, house raids and village-wide closures. Most villagers had bruises for weeks after being beaten by soldiers, and children remained traumatised by the violent raids on their homes.

Throughout the excruciating siege, Palestinians in Awarta and throughout the West Bank insisted that no Palestinian would commit a crime of this nature.

Palestinian media ran an alternative story that convinced many: A Thai or Philippine gardener had become enraged after not receiving any payment for his work and killed the family.

Because the investigation was put under a gag order, there was no evidence presented to the public supporting either accusation. The gross display of collective punishment caused the investigation to lose legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians and legal and human rights organisations.

After a little over a month the gag order was lifted, and the Israeli army announced that two young men from Awarta had confessed to the crime.

Now, Hakim and Amjad Awad, also aged 18 and 19, are being tried in Salem Military Court, located just north of Jenin, for the murders. The prosecution seeks the death penalty, which has not been called for by any Israeli judge since Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann was tried and convicted in a Jerusalem courtroom.

Salem Court lies along the increasingly irrelevant Green Line. “One door on our side, one door on their side,” explains Mohannad Alharaz, a lawyer who represents Amjad as part of the Palestinian Prisoner’s Club, a legal organisation of public defenders. Like most military courts, there’s a transitory façade to Salem Court. A series of beige trailers stand side by side, forming a labyrinthine block. But these military courts in the West Bank have been operating since 1967.

To describe what occurs in the Israeli military court as a trial would be misleading. In 2008, Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights organisation, found that less than 0.3 per cent of the Palestinians tried in Israeli military courts were acquitted.

“It doesn’t matter what happens in court. The only result is guilty,” Abed Aal explains with a pragmatic shrug. Aal is the director of the Palestinian Prisoner’s Club. Tall and slim, Aal has a black moustache that curves around the corners of his mouth.

In many regards the distinction between legal proceedings and military operations is seamless. Military orders, not international and Israeli law, govern the courts, and they are designed to strongly favour the army. Almost all judges are former military officers with little or no experience in civilian courts. Prosecuting attorneys are Israeli soldiers, who are not required to pass the Israeli bar.

So it is not surprising that the guilty verdict of a military court has no credibility among Palestinians. Naturally, the courts are not viewed as intending to restore “security and public order”, but as a kangaroo court aiming to criminalise Palestinians living in the West Bank.

“The soldier, the prosecutor, the judge and me – we are all just a part of the machine. Every time you are guilty,” says Alharaz, intimating the futile role of the defense.

What has become obvious is that for the last 44 years all people in historical Palestine – from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – have been ruled by one power: Israel. In all cases, Israel segregates the distribution of its rule according to ethnicity and religion.

Some examples: Israel will build a school in a Jewish settlement but destroy one in the neighbouring Palestinian village; settlements are connected to unlimited water supplies, while Palestinian crops and water tanks are desiccated; Israeli settlers are virtually never prosecuted for habitual attacks on Palestinians, while Palestinians are incarcerated at a dubiously high rate.

Up until now, this apartheid system has operated in dramatic favour of Israeli settlers. Yet the case of Itamar will suspend that duality and render both Israelis and Palestinians victims to the same fraudulent military justice system.

The term “show trial” is used to describe a trial in which the guilt of the defendant is predetermined. In such trials the evidence is inconsequential. Here there is no need for proof because its function is to imprison a population, not provide it with justice.

Israeli military trials are at once opaque and certain: the procedures are hidden from the light of media, and its language, Hebrew, is incomprehensible to most of its defendants. Their outcomes, however, are assured.

For these trials, the show is not the drama played out in court but the assertion of an unassailable authority that imposes absolute and senseless rule over the Palestinian population. Thus the court charade affects neither deterrence nor resolution. Rather, the military system stands with Israel’s occupation as a single monolith that inflicts wanton punishment, not protection or order.

Show courts have long thwarted justice – whether it was the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in America, Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the countless “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo Bay.

In some respects, all trials have a “show” aspect. Trials exist for the public benefit and are indeed meant to influence people outside of the courtroom. Society seeks a judicial process not only for the sake of a defendant, but for its own health and welfare. Through an objective and methodical process, a fair trial strives to provide the victims with as close an approximation of the truth as possible, and the gratification of seeing consequences meted out to the perpetrator. By establishing a reliable justice system, society can trust its judicial process to deliver these things.

But in this case, neither the Fogel family nor anyone living in the West Bank have that basic tenet of civilisation or can trust that the outcome of this case is accurate.

Glaring questions remain: in its zeal to find a culprit for a ghastly crime, were the investigation’s methods compromised? The ensuing siege of Awarta received attention and condemnation from independent media; was the need to find the culprit there motivated by the need to prove the siege was productive, if brutal?

Israel will never deliver justice to Palestinians, but we presume it would to its own citizens. If the justice system is tainted here – as we know it to be for most who come under its control – the Fogels and their loved ones will not see justice any more than the accused young men whose lives are over.

* Published under an agreement with Al Jazeera. Charlotte Silver is co-editor of The Palestine Monitor and a writer for The Electronic Intifada. She is based in the West Bank. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect IPS or Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

* Published under an agreement with Al Jazeera.