Post-9/11 detainee: 'This shouldn't be repeated'
 |
Akil Sachdeva
Story Tools
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
|
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you're interested in.
Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.
|
|
(CNN) -- In the weeks after the attacks on September 11, 2001, hundreds of people were swept up by government agents and detained without charges. On Monday, the Supreme Court let stand a ruling that allowed the government to keep the identities of those detainees secret, as well as the circumstances of their arrests.
Akil Sachdeva was held for four months and is now part of a large class-action lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft, among others, claiming mistreatment. CNN anchor Bill Hemmer spoke Wednesday with Sachdeva, who now resides in Toronto, and with Nancy Chang, attorney for the Center for the Constitutional Rights.
HEMMER: We want to start with Akil in this interview here. Tell me about the mistreatment you claim at Passaic County Jail in New Jersey.
SACHDEVA: I was locked in for a period of four months in that facility and for the first probably 10 days, we were not given anything, not even toothbrushes. And in my small room, there were 43 inmates with one washroom. And, you know, they were just, people, if it was an immigration violation, I was kept with like inmates who have done triple murders and drug charges.
HEMMER: Akil, what the government says is that you violated a voluntary departure order. Is that a fact?
SACHDEVA: No, that's not a fact.
HEMMER: Did they tell you to leave at a certain date and you didn't?
SACHDEVA: No. It never happened to me before.
HEMMER: What do you want from your lawsuit, Akil?
SACHDEVA: Well, I just want the government to recognize the fact that, you know, whatever they did was wrong and it shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen to any other people being detained there for no reason.
HEMMER: Nancy, the Supreme Court issued a ruling. What's the impact on your case given the high court's decision?
CHANG: Well, the case dealt with freedom of information: Are we going to know who these individuals are and who their attorneys are? Our lawsuit goes to the constitutionality of the practices that were put in place after 9/11. In essence, after 9/11, the government imposed a presumption until shown innocent policy; turned the constitution on its head.
What we had was people like Mr. Sachdeva who had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever were picked up in a frenzy after 9/11, largely based on profiling. Their religion, their ethnicity, their brown skin was what was taken into account. If they had an immigration violation or could be accused of one, they were tossed in jail and left there under secretive conditions, which were compounded by the fact that they had trouble getting in contact with attorneys.
HEMMER: What the court's saying, they're agreeing with the White House on this, the administration is saying if you give away certain information, it helps and aids the enemy. What's wrong with that?
CHANG: This information that was sought in this lawsuit is very basic information -- the names of the individuals, their attorneys. This information has been public for the entire history of the United States. Police blotters have always been made public. The power of the government to arrest people is one of its most awesome powers. The press and the people have to know who's in there to curb against abuses. And, in fact, a great deal of abuses did take place, as the Department of Justice's own inspector general has shown in a recent report.
HEMMER: [Akil,] Apparently some of your possessions, I believe it's furniture and two vehicles, have not been returned to you. If you get those possessions back, would you be settled?
SACHDEVA: Well, no. I really need an apology from the government of the United States and yes, I'm looking for my belongings, and more of the fact I need them to understand that whatever they did was wrong and this shouldn't be repeated in the future with any other individual.
HEMMER: Ever been back to the U.S. since then, Akil?
SACHDEVA: No.
HEMMER: Would you like to?
SACHDEVA: I don't think so.
