Office of the Press Secretary

March 22, 2012

Statement by the Press Secretary on Mali

The United States strongly condemns the violence initiated by elements of the armed forces of Mali. We call for the immediate restoration of constitutional rule in Mali, including full civilian authority over the armed forces and respect for the country’s democratic institutions and traditions. The United States stands by the people of Mali and the legitimately elected government of President Amadou Toumani Touré. We welcome the strong statements by the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States condemning this unconstitutional seizure of power.

To view the preceding content from S/He, please check out the Journal online or on CD via The Goodis Center.

Readers can view the PDF of this third part at http://robertgoodis.com/thatdaygodvisitsyou.pdf

-Nick Mwaluko

RG

In early 2010, I began an intensive study of documented human rights abuses in United States immigration detention facilities, focusing on one facility near Tacoma, WA, and another near Taylor, TX.  My research is ongoing, but I hope to update and expand the report over the next few months and release it to the public in due time.  Until that research is complete, I’ll refrain from making too many broad statements about the current state of this nation’s immigration enforcement practices.

What I will say, however, is that the Karnes County detention center merits a critical eye from the public.

ICE is touting the new facility—the first facility designed and constructed with consideration for the agency’s 2009 commitment to reform the immigration detention system and shift away from its longtime reliance on jails and jail-like facilities—as a model for reform.  That 2009 public commitment came after years of independent and governmental reviews raised one red flag after another, reporting inconsistencies between facilities and varying levels of human rights abuses throughout the immigration detention system nationwide.  Considering the gravity of the situation, and the amount of time ICE has had to effect reform, we should expect nothing less than a model facility.

Unfortunately, ICE has a history of failing to live up to their promises.  The T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility opened in 2006 after ICE retrofitted a county jail in Texas to become a first-of-its-kind family detention center.  The idea behind the detention center, which is one of the subjects of my ongoing study, was to keep detained families together, rather than separating children from their parents and spouses from their partners.

In reality, ICE and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)—a private corrections corporation that maintains prisons and detention centers across the country—had no idea what they were getting into.  Detaining small children in a former county jail proved troublesome and, as many independent reviews cited, dangerous for the children.  Guards were not trained to deal with children, and the resulting circumstances outraged the local community to the point of protests outside the detention center’s gates chanting “T. Don Hutto has got to go!”

Admitting their mistake, ICE closed their celebrated family detention center and reopened it as a women-only detention center in 2009, again touting the place as a model for reform.  A short time later, allegations of rape and other abuses began to surface.  While one guard was arrested and convicted for multiple assaults, many questions remain as to the viability of the detention center and its place as a “model facility.”

Given these trends, there’s no telling whether ICE has learned from its mistakes, or whether it’s just going to keep making more of them.  While the new facility in Karnes County is being lauded by ICE officials for moving decisively away from jails and jail-like facilities, many questions remain.  As a recent release from Human Rights First explains:

In October 2011 Human Rights First released its report, “Jails and Jumpsuits: Transforming the US Immigration Detention System – A Two-Year Review.” In it were recommendations for ICE’s successful switch to this new detention model. It included the following findings:

• More “normalized” conditions in detention are actually touted as best practice in the corrections context and can help increase safety inside a facility;
• Despite its 2009 reform commitments, the United States continues to hold the overwhelming majority of its nearly 400,000 detained asylum seekers and other civil immigration law detainees in jails and jail-like facilities across the country;
• A full 50 percent of immigration detainees are held in actual jails, a proportion that has not decreased in the past two years;
• U.S. taxpayers will spend more than $2 billion to maintain this system in 2012 – more than 28 times ICE’s budget for more cost-effective Alternatives to Detention, which save more than $110 per detainee per day; and
• Many of the individuals whom ICE will hold at the new facility are appropriate candidates for Alternatives to Detention or community-based release programs.

New Karnes County Immigration Detention Facility Touted as Model for Reform
(emphasis added)

Furthermore, groups such as Human Rights First which will have representatives inspecting the new facility on Valentine’s Day are already raising some serious concerns over the new facility, particularly in relation to the detainees’ due process rights.

Karnes County is located one hour from San Antonio and two hours from Austin. Detainees at Karnes will reportedly have their removal cases heard via video-conference rather than in person, because there will be no immigration judges on site. Legal service providers in Austin and San Antonio are under-resourced to meet the legal needs of hundreds of new detainees in the region.

“If Congress is going to fund detention and removal, they also need to provide funding for immigration judges to hear their cases – in person – and for detainees to receive basic legal information through the Legal Orientation Program at all detention facilities, including Karnes,” says Epstein. “While we welcome the development of a facility with conditions more appropriate for civil immigration detainees, ICE should not open any new facility without immigration judges in place, and adequately funded legal resources available.”

ibid

That said, here’s hoping ICE got it right this time.

The Karnes facility will be maintained by ICE and the GEO Group, Inc., another private corrections and detention company similar to the CCA.

If you want to learn more about the facilities mentioned in this blog, stay tuned for updates on the book I’m preparing on this subject.  In the meantime, a quick Google search will get you a ton of results.  Or, if you’re more moved by video, check out The Least of These, a documentary about the former family detention center in Texas.

I don’t normally send out announcements like this, but there have been some exciting new changes at The Goodis Center lately, and I want to keep everyone in the loop. If you have any questions about this announcement or The Goodis Center in general, don’t hesitate to contact us.

*The Goodis Center was awarded free advertising by Facebook.*

The Goodis Center received a small credit for advertising on Facebook as part of their effort to help promote specially qualified small businesses.

I drew up a quick ad tonight and launched it at 7pm. Since launching the ad, it’s used 2.4% of our ad credit and the page has gone from 137 “likes” to 146. We’re going to try to maintain the momentum going by keeping the social media and website pages active with new and up-to-date content on a regular basis.

If you aren’t already following us on Facebook and Twitter, you can check us out at:
http://on.fb.me/TheGoodisCenter
http://twitter.com/TheGoodisCenter

*Our redesigned website launched today.*

In keeping with my own deadline to launch the new website in the month of January, the new site went live around noon today. There are still several pages that need to be completed with new content, but the core of the site is up and functional.

One exciting new feature on the site is the ability to read the Journal for Human Advancement online by “paying” with a Tweet or Facebook post. CD copies (ISSN 2152-2766) are still for sale at their regular $3 price.

Check out the new site at it’s home domain, robertgoodis.com, or any of the new domains: robertgoodis.org, goodiscenter.org, or thegoodiscenter.org. The latter of the new domains is going to be the official domain used on all publications and materials.
http://www.thegoodiscenter.org

*We have a new logo!*

Graphic design of the new Goodis Center logo was done by Martin Krebs of Windy Meadow Graphic Design (windymeadow.net). We’ll be receiving new files with variations of the logo, including different resolutions and gray-scale versions, for use with all our print and digital materials in the near future. If any of the logos look a little fuzzy right now, that’s because I jumped the gun. Martin did a fantastic job with the logo, and I know you’ll agree when you see it in use on our various print and digital materials.

*Announcing our new staff members*

*Alexander Thompson* is still involved as our associate arts editor, and I’m still working in the same capacity as usual. We do have a few new staffing changes to announce, though: *Megan Towey* has joined us part-time as a research and administrative assistant, and *Lena Batchan* is going to be freelancing with us to help with projects like our Journal for Human Advancement.

I’m also in communication with a few individuals to see whether we can finally start a research-intensive internship with students at Bard College this semester. More details on this effort will be posted to the website in due time.

*Update on the Journal – New issue to be released in February*

We’ve received some great submissions for the forthcoming issue of the Journal for Human Advancement: Independent Projects for Progress and Human Rights, our interdisciplinary, multimedia-based human rights journal.

I’m working with Alexander, Megan, and Lena to prepare this issue for release in February. The release will be announced on our website, as well as our Facebook and Twitter accounts.

This issue of the journal will feature playwright Nick Mwaluko as our Artist in Focus, as well as contributions in arts and academia from several other individuals. If you missed the submission deadline for this issue, you can always send your materials to journal@thegoodiscenter.org to be considered for the next issue.

There will be more news and updates in the near future, so keep an eye on Facebook, Twitter, thegoodiscenter.org, and our blog (thegoodiscenter.org/blog).

Suggestions for new content on our site, blog, social media accounts, and journal are always welcome, and can be submitted through the Contact Us form on our website.

Robert D. Goodis, Director
The Goodis Center for Research and Reform, LLC
30 Campus Road
Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504
Phone: 845-206-9250
http://www.thegoodiscenter.org

*advancing and promoting human rights since 2009*

The extension of rights, privileges, and power under the mask of “corporate personhood” and its inherent application of the equal protection clause has turned industries into collections of Frankenstein’s monsters on track to devour their creators. In the midst of economic turbulence, demonstrators at Occupy Wall Street and around the globe have taken issue with the trend wherein corporate personhood extends rights traditionally reserved for natural persons to corporations, often without imposing the same standards of accountability traditionally applied to natural persons. But what exactly are “corporate personhood” and the rights granted by it? And to what extent can a corporation be held accountable for its actions? The answer to this question is soon to come.

The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear the Kiobel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) case, which will determine whether or not corporations can be held responsible for human rights violations overseas. This case involves the Ogoni people of Nigeria who, after demanding an end to the oil development that was destroying their region, were tortured and executed by Shell in collusion with the Nigerian government. Now, if Shell is found to be liable, corporations will have a new layer of responsibility, further completing their status as persons.

But rather than to delve into a discussion on morality in the post-industrial age, let’s consider the history of corporate personhood and how it came to be. In the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case regarding the taxation of corporations, the Supreme Court declared that corporations can be considered persons under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But more relevant and problematic to the Occupy protesters is the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which gave corporations the right to give exorbitant funds to political campaigns without disclosure. The Citizens United case overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which prohibited corporations from “electioneering” – driving politics with corporate funding, asserting that the Campaign Reform Act was a violation of the First Amendment rights of corporations. Strengthening the corporatocratic  behemoth behind modern politics, the ruling had unquestionable influence in the 2010 election cycle, in which spending from outside groups quadrupled from 2006 levels and nearly half of all campaign donations were provided by only ten corporations, according to Public Citizen.

However, the Occupy protesters believe that it is unfair that corporations can use their wealth to buy louder voices and bigger influence in the political sphere. In a recent interview with NPR, Professor John Witt of Yale Law School summarized the protesters’ opinion that “the differences…between natural persons and metaphysical persons or corporations might be a good reason to distinguish between natural persons and corporations for purposes of regulating speech.” In the spirit of Occupy Wall Street, the one-year anniversary of the Citizens United decision sparked a flurry of small demonstrations in January 2011.

The upcoming Kiobel decision, however, could be a significant step towards restoring corporate responsibility, or a tragic step towards unchecked corporate power and rights. If corporations are to enjoy the benefits of legal personhood and equal protection, they must also be held accountable for human rights violations and other criminal acts.

When I visited Zuccotti Park, the epicenter of the Occupy protests, on Oct. 15, I saw a few signs sporting this slogan: “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.” Even though a metaphysical execution, corporations have been “executed” for violating human rights laws. A key example is IG Farben, a German chemical conglomerate which was dissolved after WWII because of its role in the Holocaust and persistent widespread corruption. IG Farben worked closely with the Nazi government to secure chemical plants in the invaded countries of Poland and Czechoslovakia during WWII. Additionally, IG Farben held the patent for Zyklon B, the chemical used in gas chambers at the Auschwitz and Majdanek concentration camps, which killed roughly 1.2 million people. At the Nuremberg trials, 13 IG Farben executives were imprisoned for the war crimes committed by their company.  A few years later, the conglomerate was forcibly split up by the Allies into four smaller companies. Although a corporation cannot literally be “executed,” the break-up of IG Farben may serve as a guide for future human rights violations committed by corporations. With the outcome of the Kiobel case, hopefully, we will see the beginning of a new era of corporate responsibility.