"Political prisoner" is an inherently vague term which is most commonly applied to people persecuted for their political beliefs or for their "threat" to the government.[1] Imprisonment for mere expression of political beliefs is rare in the United States, because free speech and free expression are well-established in law.[2] This was not always the case. For example, the Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders incarcerated dozens of Communist Party USA leaders for advocating the overthrow of the United States government, a fact which was only halted by Yates v. United States (1957). However, several human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, have pointed to repeated examples of US federal and state governments targeting people affiliated with dissident movements for "neutralization" by applying much harsher sentences for real or "framed" crimes, such as during COINTELPRO.
A 1989 pamphlet titled "Face Reality" from Freedom Now! features the faces of 48 alleged political prisoners[5]
There are no systematic estimates of the present or past scope of political prisoners in the United States. The number of political prisoners cannot be precisely determined.[6] However, Jane Taubner wrote in 1992 that "most of the individuals and organizations investigating the existence of political prisoners in the United States agree that there are a minimum of over 100 political prisoners in America".[6]
During a July 1978 interview with French newspaper Le Matin de Paris, Ambassador to the United NationsAndrew Young caused controversy when he said: "We still have hundreds of people that I would categorize as political prisoners in our prisons. Maybe even thousands, depending on how you categorize them."[7][8]
In 1988, Peggy Halsey, a senior member of the United Methodist Church General Board of Global Ministries,[a] wrote about inmates of the High Security Unit in FMC Lexington and claimed that "over 100 other inmates are recognized as political prisoners by their respective movements for social change".[6][9]
In 1990, various left-wing groups supported the Freedom Now! coalition[b] and organized a "Special International Tribunal" (or "1990 Tribunal")[c] on political prisoners in the US. The 1990 tribunal was inspired by the 1951 We Charge Genocide petition and modeled on the 1966 Russell Tribunal on Vietnam.[5] Freedom Now! alleged that there are "more than 100 people locked up in U.S. prisons because of their political actions or beliefs".[6][10] The 1990 Tribunal reached the verdict that political people "have been subjected to disproportionately lengthy prison sentences and to torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment within the U.S. prison system."[11]
Alice Paul (imprisoned 1917), a feminist, was incarcerated for peacefully picketing for women's suffrage. Paul explicitly described herself as a political prisoner in efforts that led to the 19th Amendment.[12] Other feminists arrested for picketing for women's suffrage led the 1919 Prison Special train tour.
Sacco and Vanzetti (imprisoned 1921–1927), both anarchists, were convicted and executed for murdering two people during an armed robbery. Kathlyn Gay includes them in a list of "political prisoners" and quotes Massachusetts GovernorMichael Dukakis as saying "their trial and appeals were permeated by prejudice against foreigners and hostility toward unorthodox political views".[12]
Angelo Herndon (imprisoned 1933–1937), an African-American labor organizer and member of the American Communist Party, was convicted of insurrection after leading a large peaceful demonstration of unemployed black and white workers in Atlanta.[16] The day after the demonstration, Angelo was arrested and was found in possession of communist publications. Fulton County Prosecutor John Hudson charged Angelo with "inciting an insurrection" under an 1861 slave statue that made the possession or distribution of seditious literature punishable by death. Hudson proclaimed that Herndon's trial was also a trial "of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Kerensky, and every white person who believes that black and white should unite for the purpose of setting-up a Nigger Soviet Republic in the Black Belt". An all white jury found Angelo guilty and was sentenced to 18–20 years.[17] Angelo won an appeal and was released on bail in December 1934. The Georgia Supreme Court later upheld the original conviction and he had to return to prison in October 1935. In April 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and ruled in favor of Angelo in a 5–4 decision, striking down the Georgia insurrection for violation of the First Amendment.[18]
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (imprisoned 1951–1953), spies for the Soviet Union, were the first Americans to be executed for espionage. Gay includes them in a list of political prisoners, in part because of their excessive sentence: "No other convicted spy — not even Rudolph Abel, the Soviet Union's chief spymaster in the United States — was executed by the United States during the entire Cold War".[12]
King was arrested in 1963 for protesting the treatment of black people in Birmingham.[19]
Rosa Parks (arrested 1956), a civil rights activist, is commonly named as a prisoner of conscience for her civil disobedience to Montgomery bus segregation.[23] In the 1970s, Parks organized for the freedom of political prisoners in the United States, particularly cases involving issues of self-defense.[24] She helped found the Detroit chapter of the Joanne Little Defense Committee, supported other prisoner's defense committees, and supported the Wilmington Ten, RNA 11, and Gary Tyler.[25][26] When Angela Davis was acquitted, Parks introduced her to an audience of 12,000 as a "dear sister who has suffered so much persecution".[25][27]
Amnesty International is an INGO founded to oppose violations of human rights. Amnesty International has named the following people and groups as prisoners of conscience or political prisoners in the United States:
Martin Sostre (imprisoned 1967–1976) was arrested at his bookstore for "narcotics, riot, arson, and assault", later proven to be fabricated as part of COINTELPRO.[29] Amnesty International wrote that Sostre "was falsely implicated because of his political activities".[30] Sostre's bookstore promoted Black nationalism, internationalism, and anarchism.
Imari Obadele (imprisoned 1973–1978), as part of the RNA 11, was convicted of conspiracy to assault a federal agent.[31] Amnesty International wrote that it "appears that the real reason for Mr Obadele's imprisonment is his political activity as leader of a black independence movement".[32]
The Wilmington Ten[d] (imprisoned 1976–1980) were convicted of arson and conspiracy for the firebombing of a white-owned business.[33][34] Amnesty International adopted the Ten because they were "denied a fair trial",[35] because "their prosecutions were politically motivated and that their convictions were the result of false testimony".[32]
Charlotte Three[e] (imprisoned 1977–1979) were convicted of arson of a white-owned business.[34][36] Amnesty International adopted the Three for the same reasons as the Wilmington Ten.[32]
U.S. military conscientious objectors to the Gulf War: By September 1991, Amnesty International had adopted 25 prisoners of conscience who conscientiously objected to the Gulf War.[37] In their 1995 report, Amnesty gave the full number as 30 prisoners of conscience.[2] In particular, Amnesty International named George Morse (imprisoned 1991–1992)[38] and Yolanda Huet-Vaughn (imprisoned 1991–1992).[39]
Amnesty International has highlighted the following people and groups as recipients of extensive inhumane treatment and/or wrongful or "framed" convictions, who may be considered political prisoners:
Geronimo Ji-Jaga Pratt (imprisoned 1972–1997), a prominent member of the Black Panther Party, was convicted of murder (now vacated).[53] In 1995, Amnesty International argued that evidence came to light after the trial that "Pratt had been targeted for 'neutralization' by COINTELPRO and suggested there had been misconduct by the FBI and state police in the prosecution of the case".[2]
The Angola Three[f] were convicted of robbery and/or bank robbery, sent to Angola prison. While in prison, the Angola Three became prominent Black Panther Party members. They were later convicted of prison murders[54] and faced near-continuous solitary confinement for decades, in the "longest period of solitary confinement in American prison history".[55][56][57]
Mumia Abu-Jamal (imprisoned 1981–present): Though Amnesty International concluded that his conviction proceedings violated the "minimum international standards that govern fair trial procedures and the use of the death penalty", but they did not describe Abu-Jamal as a political prisoner.[58] In August 1999, when Abu-Jamal began giving radio commentary live on Pacifica Network'sDemocracy Now! radio news, prison staff severed the connecting wires of his telephone in mid-performance.[59] The World Socialist Web Site described Abu-Jamal as a "political prisoner".[60]
Gary Tyler (imprisoned 1975–2016) was convicted of first-degree murder as a sixteen-year old, despite no physical evidence.[61] In 1994, Amnesty International highlighted several major inconsistencies in the police investigation and ineffective assistance of counsel.[62] In 2007, Amnesty International said Tyler's trial was "fundamentally unfair".[63]
Food Not Bombs: Amnesty International never formally named Keith McHenry or Robert Kahn as prisoners of conscience. However, in 1994, AI noted that "the law may have been used to harass and arrest these individuals because their activities" of "distributing free food to poor and homeless people and disseminating literature" are "unpopular with the City administration".[64] In 1996, AI suggested that Kahn "may be a prisoner of conscience".[65]
Mazen Al-Najjar (imprisoned 1997–2000), on the basis of secret evidence, was detained indefinitely on suspicions of links to Palestinian terrorist groups.[66] If Al-Najjar was "being held purely for his non-violent political sympathies and background, then he would be considered a prisoner of conscience".[67]
Prisoners considered by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WAGD) is a United Nations body which examines alleged cases of arbitrary imprisonment. Arbitrary imprisonment is substantially broader than political imprisonment, as it also includes all cases where non-arbitrary legal processes failed for non-political reasons. The WAGD has considered the detention of the following individuals to be arbitrary on multiple categories:
Leonard Peltier (imprisoned 1977–present) was convicted on two counts of murder of FBI agents during a shootout on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.[69] Amnesty International explicitly does not call Peltier a prisoner of conscience, but "believes that political factors may have influenced the way in which the case was prosecuted".[70] In 2005, the WAGD found that the "deprivation of Mr. Leonard Peltier is not arbitrary",[71] but in 2022 reversed that decision and found that Peltier's imprisonment was arbitrary on Category III (unfair trial) and Category V (discrimination) grounds.[72] Peltier was a prominent member of the American Indian Movement.
Marcos Antonio Aguilar-Rodríguez (imprisoned 2011–2017) fled El Salvador to the United States in 2001, where he sought asylum. He was arrested for speeding, but was ultimately placed in custody of ICE, who sought to deport him.[73] The WAGD found that Aguilar-Rodríguez's imprisonment was arbitrary on Category II (human rights), Category IV (prolonged custody of migrants), and Category V (discrimination).[74]
Fernando Aguirre-Urbina (imprisoned 2012–2019) was brought to the United States as an undocumented minor at age 3. He pled guilty to intent to distribute meth and marijuana, served 8 months, and was released to ICE detention for 7 years.[75] The WAGD found that Aguirre-Urbina's detention was arbitrary under all five categories.[76]
Oil pollution in Lago Agrio, November 2007, which Donziger described in 1993 as "what honestly looked like an apocalyptic disaster"[77]
Steven Donziger (imprisoned 2019–2022): Donziger, who had pursued a series of legal cases against Chevron Corporation, was placed under house arrest for contempt of court.[78] The WAGD found that Donziger's house arrest was arbitrary on Category I (no legal basis), Category III (unfair trial), and Category V (discrimination).[79]
The Cuban Five[g] (imprisoned 2001–2014) were convicted of espionage on Cuban-American groups for the government of Cuba. The WAGD found that their imprisonment was arbitrary on Category III (unfair trial), due to extended solitary confinement (17 months), limited access to evidence (under CIPA), and biased jury selection (anti-Cuban-government sentiment in Miami).[80]
Benamar Benatta (imprisoned 2001–2006) is a refugee from Algeria whose status was revoked soon after the September 11 attacks.[81] Despite having been cleared of suspicions of terrorist activities by the FBI, Benatta was held in detention for nearly five years.[81] The WAGD said that Benatta's treatment "could be described as torture" and found that his detention was arbitrary on Category I (no legal basis) and Category III (unfair trial).[82]
Because the term "political prisoner" is vague, there is disagreement on who should be included by that term.[1] The people below prominently described themselves (or were described by other prominent people) as political prisoners:
Fred Hampton (imprisoned 1969), a local chairman of the Black Panther Party, was convicted of assaulting an Good Humorice cream van driver, stealing $71 worth of ice cream bars, and giving them to kids on the street.[85][86] In a memoir, Frank B. Wilderson III places this incident in the context of COINTELPRO efforts to disrupt the Black Panthers of Chicago by the "leveling of trumped-up charges".[87] In 1969, Hampton was killed in his sleep by Cook County police officers. Civil rights activists Roy Wilkins and Ramsey Clark, styled as "The Commission of Inquiry into the Black Panthers and the Police", alleged that the Chicago police had killed Hampton without justification or provocation and had violated the Panthers' constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.[88] "The Commission" further alleged that the Chicago Police Department had imposed a summary punishment on the Panthers.[89]
Angela Davis (imprisoned 1970-1972): Davis, a Marxist and activist, assisted the Soledad brothers, three inmates who were accused of killing a prison guard at Soledad Prison,[90] in purchasing several of the firearms they would use in the attack, and was found to have been corresponding with one of the inmates involved.[91][92] Since California considers "all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, ... whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, ... are principals in any crime so committed", Davis was charged with "aggravated kidnapping and first degree murder in the death of Judge Harold Haley", and Marin County Superior Court Judge Peter Allen Smith issued a warrant for her arrest. On August 18, four days after the warrant was issued, the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover listed Davis on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitive List.[93] Soon after, Davis became a fugitive and fled California, but FBI Agents found her on October 13, 1970.[94]
Richard Wershe Jr. (imprisoned 1987–2021) was an FBI informant who was convicted of possession of over 650 grams of cocaine.[95] The film White Boy describes Wershe as a "political prisoner" who received harsh sentences for informing on several Detroit representatives.[96][97]
Lyndon LaRouche (imprisoned 1988–1994): LaRouche was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud.[98] LaRouche's attorney called the conviction politically motivated, while the judge in question said the idea that LaRouche's organization was a sufficient threat to warrant this "just defies human experience."[98] The LaRouche movement, which mixes far-left and far-right rhetoric, and which The New York Times calls "cult-like",[99] has claimed that LaRouche is a political prisoner and appealed to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for relief;[100] the WAGD did not consider his case.
People sentenced to prison for alleged involvement with the January 6 United States Capitol attack have been called political prisoners by InfoWars and Tucker Carlson, as well as several Republican members of Congress.[107] Citing poor conditions, 34 prisoners published a letter that requested a transfer to Guantanamo Bay[108] in which 7 signers called themselves "political prisoners".[109]
Stop Cop City (charged 2023): In March 2023, Amnesty International co-signed a letter which said that "application of the domestic terrorism statute" against 19 of the 35 arrested March 2023 protestors "is an escalatory intimidation tactic and a draconian step that seems intended to chill First Amendment protected activity".[110]
^Full title: Executive Secretary of the Ministries with Women and Families in Crisis National Program Division of the United Methodist Church General Board of Global Ministries
^Full organization name: "Freedom Now! The Campaign for Amnesty and Human Rights of Political Prisoners in the U.S."
^Full tribunal name: "Special International Tribunal on the Violation of Human Rights of Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War in United States Prisons and Jails"
^Full list: Benjamin Chavis, Connie Tindall, Marvin Patrick, Wayne Moore, Reginald Epps, Jerry Jacobs, James McKoy, Willie Earl Vereen, William Wright, Jr., Ann Shepard.
^(Robert Hillary King (imprisoned 1972–2001), Herman Wallace (imprisoned 1972–2013), Albert Woodfox (imprisoned 1972–2016)
^Full list: Antonio Guerrero Rodriguez, Fernando González Llort, Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Ramón Labanino Salazar, René González Sehwerert
References
^ abForsythe, David P. (Spring 1976). "Political Prisoners: The Law and Politics of Protection". Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 9 (2). Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. A government may regard a person as a threat to its security and detain him under a law that has nothing to do with security, such as income tax laws, or immigration laws. United States former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst has said: "There is enough play at the joints of our existing criminal law-enough flexibility-so that if we really felt that we had to pick up the leaders of a violent uprising, we could. We could find something to charge them with and we would be able to hold them that way for a while." Hence, many political prisoners are detained under non-security laws. [....] There is an analytical "fuzziness" because reasonable men can honestly differ on the subject. Perhaps the classic example of difficulty is determining whether conscientious objectors are political prisoners under any approach. Also, many legal prosecutions can be viewed as persecution in defense of excessive governmental claims to security, depending upon one's point of view as to the normal extent of human rights. A case in point concerns differing views on the permissibility of joining an opposition political party. Finally, any violation of law may be said to threaten the security of a government if such violation becomes widespread throughout society.
^ abc"United States of America: Human rights violations: a summary of Amnesty International's concerns". Amnesty International. March 1, 1995. Archived(PDF) from the original on February 21, 2023. The right to freedom of thought and expression is well-established in US law. Nevertheless, Amnesty International has worked on behalf of prisoners of conscience in the USA, most recently in 1991–1992 when it campaigned for the release of more than 30 military personnel imprisoned for their conscientious objection to the Gulf War.
^Churchill, Robert Paul (1996). "Conscientious Objection". In Donald K. Wells (ed.). An Encyclopedia of War and Ethics. Greenwood Press. pp. 99–102. ISBN0313291160.
^ ab"USA: War objectors' freedom of conscience must be respected". Amnesty International. August 6, 2009. Archived from the original on February 23, 2023. US law recognizes the right to conscientious objection only on grounds of opposition to all war in any form. Thus, soldiers who object to serving in a particular war currently have no way of legally registering for exemption on this ground. Some have their applications for conscientious objection refused; others, knowing such applications to be futile, go "absent without leave".
^DeRoche, Andrew (2003). Andrew Young: Civil Rights Ambassador. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN0-8420-2956-7. In a July 10 interview with the French paper Le Matin, the am- bassador again offered a very detailed and impressive analysis of African affairs. He discussed an incredible range of conflicts, from the ubiquitous Southern Rhodesian war to the relatively obscure French intervention in Chad. Overall, he was optimistic about the Carter administration's foreign policy. When discussing the Soviet Union and its treatment of dissident Jews, however, he commented, "We still have hundreds of people that I would categorize as political prisoners in our prisons." He was referring mainly to the arrests of civil rights activists like himself in the 1960s and the jailings of people for protesting the Vietnam War. He added that most of these demonstrators attained freedom quickly and that the legal system of the United States was preferable to those of other countries. Nonetheless, his one sentence about "political prisoners" in the midst of a lengthy and overwhelmingly pro-American interview sparked intense controversy in Washington.
^"July 24, 1978 Vol. 124, Part 17 — Bound Edition (House pages)". Congressional Record. July 24, 1978. Archived(PDF) from the original on February 22, 2023. Y: Yes, but judging Scharansky is one thing that is probably an act of defiance and independence on their part but they wm continue to negotiate arms limitationsand there's no tell1ng what's liable to happen. We still have hundreds of people that I would categorize as political prisoners in our prisons. Maybe even thousands, depending on how you categorize them. During the war in Vietnam, whenever there was domestic pressure, most of these young people who went to jail for conscience were political prisoners. Where they had good legal assistance most of the time they got free. Our political system, especially our court system, does have a great deal more flexibility in it, but you still have to fight for it.
^"Amnesty International Annual Report 1974-1975". Amnesty International. 1975. Archived(PDF) from the original on January 11, 2023. Much attention has been given throughout the year to the case of Martin Sostre, sentenced to a possible 40 years' imprisonment in 1968 for the alleged sale of narcotics. The only witness of the alleged sale has since recanted his testimony, and AI believes that Mr Sostre was falsely implicated because of his political activities. He was one of the prisoners featured during Prisoner of Conscience Week in October 1974.
^"Advice to editors: USA: Summary of Amnesty International's concerns". Amnesty International. September 19, 1991. Archived from the original on February 21, 2023. In the USA, some 25 armed forces personnel who have been imprisoned over the past nine months on charges stemming from their refusal on conscientious grounds to participate in military service related to the Gulf War have been taken up by the organization as prisoners of conscience.
^"Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention E/CN.4/2006/7/ADD.1". United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. October 19, 2005. Archived from the original on February 25, 2023. Mr. Peltier was given an opportunity to raise all the complaints listed in the communication before the national appellate courts, which, in well-reasoned decisions, dismissed them. Therefore, the Working Group, noting that it is not mandated to be a substitute for national appellate courts, renders the following opinion: The deprivation of Mr. Leonard Peltier is not arbitrary.Alt URL
^"Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention E/CN.4/2006/7/ADD.1". United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. October 19, 2005. Archived from the original on February 25, 2023. The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Antonio Herreros Rodríguez, Mr. Fernando González Llort, Mr. Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Mr. Ramón Labaniño Salazar and Mr. René González Schweret is arbitrary, being in contravention of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and corresponds to category III of the categories applicable to the examination of the cases submitted to the Working Group.Alt URL
^"Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention E/CN.4/1994/27". United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. December 17, 1993. Archived from the original on February 27, 2023. The detention of Humberto Alvarez Machaín is declared to be arbitrary, being in contravention of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and principle 2 of the Body of Principles adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 43/173, and falling within category I of the principles applicable in the consideration of cases submitted to the Working Group.Alt URL
