Ahilan T. Arulanantham is director of immigrant rights and national security for the ACLU/SC.

I spent the morning of my second full day at Guant'namo observing the military commission hearing of Sudanese national Noor Uthman Muhammed. Muhammed was charged in December 2008 with murder in violation of the laws of war, attacking civilians, and providing material support to terrorism, among other acts allegedly committed between the years 1996 to 2002. A casual observer watching the proceeding could easily have mistaken it for a normal criminal trial. The room itself looks like a fine federal courtroom, with a large jury box (although it has only six seats) and a gallery with seating for about 50 people. The counsel tables are large and equipped with computer screens.

At a superficial level, the conduct of the proceedings also gives the appearance of a high-quality criminal court. The lawyers sound persuasive and well-prepared, as the military judge, Navy Capt. Moira Modzelewski, sits on a high bench in her black robe, listening carefully and asking probing questions.

But a few minutes after we've started, it becomes clear that this is not what American justice typically looks like. The hearing starts 30 minutes late, which is hardly unusual, but it appears the delay has arisen because the defendant has voluntarily chosen to be absent. The rules allow for this, and the attorneys submit a stipulation consenting to it. But we are left to wonder whether this is a form of protest, or instead a decision he made to avoid the lengthy and intrusive protocol that the government has created to transport detainees from their detention camp to the hearing a few miles away.

The main substantive issue on the agenda also appears at first glance to be fairly routine. The defense made a motion asking the court to release funds for a psychiatric expert. The parties argue the motion, debating how to apply a fairly standard body of criminal defense law governing the appointment of psychiatric experts.

But things get interesting when it comes time to explain why the defense needs the expert. The defense is not arguing that Muhammed is insane or mentally incompetent; instead they say they need the psychiatric evidence because he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder due to his having been subjected to "unique interrogation methods" and "ill treatment" that resulted in extreme "trauma." As a result, they claim, his "post-capture" statements which the government wants to introduce at trial may not be "reliable" or "voluntary."

If it's not clear yet, the defense appears to be talking about torture. As numerous documents uncovered by the ACLU have revealed over the last several years, the government repeatedly tortured detainees held in U.S. custody - in Afghanistan, Guant'namo and elsewhere - in the years following 2002. Muhammed appears to fit the profile, although it's hard to tell because much of the defense's motion on this issue has been blacked out by military censors. Here's an example from the section describing the facts:

Noor has been in the custody of the United States since March 2002. During his detention in [redacted] and Guant'namo he has been subjected to [redacted]. The exact number of interrogations is unknown to the Defense. The interrogation records, especially from [redacted], are woefully deficient...Noor has spent significant time in Camps 5 and 6, under conditions equivalent to [redacted]...Noor's medical records demonstrate a failure of JTF-GITMO [i.e., the military] to treat his chronic medical problems. JTF refused counsel's requests to speak with Noor's medical providers about his chronic pain and treatment. Consistent with JTF policy, the Government has redacted Noor's medical records to conceal the identity of the providers and has steadfastly refused the Defense requests for access to these individuals.

Although we do not get to see for ourselves which interrogation methods he faced, the military defense lawyers say that the government has 17 statements of his that it wants to introduce at trial. Of course, no criminal defense lawyer whose client is going to trial would ever let a defendant talk to the government 17 times, and, one would think, no rational person would submit to 17 interrogations knowing that the statements could be used against him at trial. But this is not rational, it's Guant'namo. Muhammed did not have a lawyer during these interrogations, and he was not given the choice to stop them.

You might also think that the defense does not need a psychiatrist's report to explain why these statements cannot be admitted at trial. In normal criminal court, if the police interrogate someone and refuse to allow the detainee to stop the interrogation once, even without a lawyer present, then the statements obtained from the coercive interrogation cannot be used at trial. If this happens 17 times, there should be absolutely no question that the statements cannot be used.

But this is not ordinary criminal court. Guant'namo has its own rules, recently enacted to comply with the amended Military Commissions Act of 2009 (PDF) but not ratified until the night before the military commissions reconvened under Obama. Buried in Section 949a(b)(3)(B) is a handy little provision stating that "A statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evidence complies with the provisions of section 948r." Section 948r, in turn, allows the admission at trial of any statement that is "voluntarily given." You could be forgiven for thinking that any statement obtained by coercion isn't "voluntarily given," but under the Guant'namo rules, you would be wrong. Instead, it is up to the military judge to determine whether a statement is "voluntarily given," and the judge can take into account a number of factors, including "the circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities."

It gets better. The defense also says the psychiatric expert's testimony will be relevant to assessing the credibility of statements by other detainees - statements that the government also wants to introduce in this case. At first this confuses me - the statements made during the interrogations of other people are hearsay, so in a normal criminal trial, they would be inadmissible. So why would the defense need to rebut them at trial?

But that basic principle of criminal law is also absent from the Guant'namo rules. Section - take a breath - 949a(b)(3)(D)(ii)(III), is a rule allowing the judge to admit hearsay statements by other detainees if, among other things, the judge determines that "the unique circumstances of military and intelligence operations during hostilities" or the "adverse impacts on military or intelligence operations that would likely result from the production of the witness" justify ignoring the hearsay rule. So the judge may well consider the statements of other detainees obtained using "unique interrogation methods," without allowing the defense a chance to ask those detainees what the soldiers were doing to them when they took the statements.

As the hearing goes on, more and more glimpses into the rules of Guant'namo's netherworld pop up. The military judge makes a passing reference to her ongoing review of documents that are being sent directly from the government to her, without defense counsel seeing them, apparently because they are classified. There appear to be hundreds of these, which she receives in batches of 60'80 documents at a time. While issues involving classified information arise in criminal trials for various reasons, it is fundamental that the government cannot introduce evidence against the defendant without allowing him to see it. But, yet again, that is not how the Guant'namo rules work. Section 949p-6(c) of the Military Commissions Act appears to allow the government to introduce classified evidence against the defendant without letting him see it, as long as the defendant gets a redacted version of the evidence that "is consistent with affording the accused a fair trial."

Shortly afterward the hearing is over, we are left to talk to the reporters - who are just as confused as we are - while the lawyers from both sides scurry off to a closed meeting with the judge. There have been several of these closed meetings in the last few days, which none of us get to see. The escort soldiers are willing to let the reporters talk to us on the sidewalk, but not to let us ride in the same van, although we are going to the same media tent where we can talk to them for as long as we like. This is utterly irrational, but I simply accept it - just another Guant'namo rule.

But in the hours after the hearing, I am more and more troubled as I think about everything that happened. Along with two of the other NGO monitors, I decide to go for a swim to clear my head. We walk down to what seems like the perfect beach - the sand looks lovely, the ocean is bathwater warm, and there's even an iguana strolling by. But as we go in, the sand turns to rock and then to seagrass. I can't wade anymore, so I dive in and open my eyes in the water, straining to see the pretty fish I've been told are here. But the water is murky and opaque, nothing like how it looked from the shore.

Ramona Ripston is Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California.

This Fourth of July -- as Americans head for our nation's highways and airports, to connect with families for barbeques and fireworks -- I'm going to have a hard time focusing on the fun. I'm distracted by thoughts about some U.S. residents who are terrified of traveling.

They're scared because some parts of the federal government, and some state governments, seem determined to make it a crime for minorities to travel in this country. The possibility of being denied access to an airplane seat - or being arrested while driving across state boundaries -- is far too real this year. So real that, in some places in the country, some minorities are caught in a government-enforced travel limbo.

At the Long Beach, CA, airport, a 28 year-old married student, Halime Sat, tried to board a plane to Oakland, CA. She was denied access. Ms. Sat, a resident of Corona, CA, has suddenly been put on the government's no-fly list. She has no criminal record nor affiliation with any outlawed organization anywhere in the world. The only crime committed by this young German citizen, who is married to an American: Flying while Muslim.

Ms. Sat is one of a ten plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union, alleging that thousands of people have been added to the no-fly list and barred from commercial travel, without any opportunity to learn about or refute the basis for their inclusion on the list. Plaintiffs in the case include a disabled U.S. Marine Corps veteran stranded in Egypt and a U.S. Army veteran stuck in Colombia.

Ms. Sat was only trying to fly from one place to another in the state where she is a permanent resident. Denying people such fundamental rights in complete secrecy and without due process is unconstitutional and un-American. They become pariahs, deemed unworthy to fly -- but no one says why.

While Muslim residents like Ms. Sat are being kept off our nation's airlines, Latinos in the Southwest are worried about what might happen to them on the Arizona highways. The ACLU of Southern California is so concerned about what the Arizona police might do this heavy-travel weekend that we -- along with other ACLU affiliates around the country -- have issued a "travel alert" to educate Latinos (but not just Latinos) about the dangers of driving to Arizona.

The ACLU is distributing a cardboard "pocket guide" in Spanish and English, explaining what to do if people are stopped by the police in Arizona. I should say, our guide is for Latinos and those who look as if they might be Latino -- because Arizona's new law gives police broad powers. They are required to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is in the country unlawfully. To avoid arrest, citizens and immigrants will effectively have to carry their "papers" at all times. The law also makes it a state crime for immigrants to willfully fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security and carry registration documents. It further curtails the free speech rights of day laborers and encourages unchecked information sharing between government agencies.

These powers are so broad, they've created a new Arizona-specific crime: Driving while Latino.

At the ACLU, we have created a nationwide campaign around it: What Happens in Arizona Stops in Arizona. There's more information about it on our website.

The United States has always served as a welcoming beacon to immigrant groups. I hope our nation hasn't decided that some immigrant groups are more equal than others -- or more deserving of those civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Freedoms -- and how hard we have fought to earn them -- this is what I'll be thinking about when I watch the 'bombs bursting in air' at my family's Fourth of July celebration.

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit on behalf of 10 U.S. citizens and lawful residents who are prohibited from flying to or from the United States or over U.S. airspace because they are on the government's "No Fly List." None of the individuals in the lawsuit, including a disabled U.S. Marine Corps veteran stranded in Egypt and a U.S. Army veteran stuck in Colombia, have been told why they are on the list or given a chance to clear their names.

"More and more Americans who have done nothing wrong find themselves unable to fly, and in some cases unable to return to the U.S., without any explanation whatsoever from the government," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "A secret list that deprives people of the right to fly and places them into effective exile without any opportunity to object is both un-American and unconstitutional."

The ACLU, along with its affiliates in Oregon, Southern California, Northern California and New Mexico, filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI and the Terrorist Screening Center in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiffs on the case are:

• Halime Sat, a German citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States who lives in California with her U.S.-citizen husband who was barred from flying from Long Beach, California to Oakland to attend a conference and has since had to cancel plane travel to participate in educational programs and her family reunion in Germany;

• Ayman Latif, a U.S. citizen and disabled Marine veteran living in Egypt who has been barred from flying to the United States and, as a result, cannot take a required Veterans' Administration disability evaluation;

• Raymond Earl Knaeble, a U.S. citizen and U.S. Army veteran who is stuck in Santa Marta, Colombia after being denied boarding on a flight to the United States;

• Steven Washburn, a U.S. citizen and U.S. Air Force veteran who was prevented from flying from Europe to the United States or Mexico; he eventually flew to Brazil, from there to Peru, and from there to Mexico, where he was detained and finally escorted across the border by U.S. and Mexican officials;

• Samir Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed, Abdullatif Muthanna, Nagib Ali Ghaleb and Saleh A. Omar, three American citizens and a lawful permanent resident of the United States who were prevented from flying home to the U.S. after visiting family members in Yemen;

• Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye, a U.S. citizen and resident of Portland, Oregon who was prevented from flying to visit his daughter who is in high school in Dubai; and

• Adama Bah, a citizen of Guinea who was granted political asylum in the United States, where she has lived since she was two, who was barred from flying from New York to Chicago for work.

According to the ACLU's legal complaint, thousands of people have been added to the "No Fly List" and barred from commercial air travel without any opportunity to learn about or refute the basis for their inclusion on the list. The result is a vast and growing list of individuals who, on the basis of error or innuendo, have been deemed too dangerous to fly but who are too harmless to arrest.

"Without a reasonable way for people to challenge their inclusion on the list, there's no way to keep innocent people off it," said Nusrat Choudhury, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The government's decision to prevent people from flying without giving them a chance to defend themselves has a huge impact on people's lives – including their ability to perform their jobs, see their families and, in the case of U.S. citizens, to return home to the United States from abroad."

In addition to Wizner and Choudhury, attorneys on the case are Kevin Díaz and cooperating attorney Steven Wilker with the ACLU of Oregon; Ahilan Arulanantham, Jennie Pasquarella and cooperating attorney Reem Salahi with the ACLU of Southern California; Alan Schlosser and Julia Harumi Mass of the ACLU of Northern California; and Laura Ives of the ACLU of New Mexico. The Council on American-Islamic Relations consulted with Raymond Knaeble and directed him to the ACLU.

Image: Halime Sat.