This posting is part of our Write-a-Thon Cases Series. For more information visit www.amnestyusa.org/writeathon/

Four years ago, Chinese journalist Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison. His crime? Sending an e-mail.

©AI Shi Tao

In April 2004, Shi Tao e-mailed a pro-democracy Web site in the United States about a government regulation ordering the country’s media outlets to down play the upcoming 15th anniversary of the military crackdown on pro-democracy activists in Tiananmen Square.  Authorities arrested him seven months later, charging him with “providing state secrets to foreign entities.”

China has a history of cracking down on freedom of expression through restricting journalism. It has implemented broad censorship of the Internet. Authorities used information provided by the host of Shi Tao’s e-mail account, Yahoo!, to convict him in April 2005.

Amnesty International considers Shi Tao to be a prisoner of conscience, imprisoned solely for his peaceful self-expression.  His family has been continually harassed, and his wife eventually divorced him under immense pressure.  At the beginning of his prison term, Shi Tao was forced to labor under hard conditions in prison that has compromised his health. Although his prison conditions have later improved, he still has six years left in his sentence.  Help us campaign against this injustice during Amnesty International’s Global Write-a-thon from December 5-13, calling on the Chinese authorities to release Shi Tao immediately and urging Yahoo! to stop violating customer privacy.  Call attention to China’s ambiguous prosecution laws, and remind officials that freedom of expression, promised in the Chinese constitution, is an inherent human right.

The death penalty is always inhumane, and the past few days in Texas have brought to light some of its most worrisome aspects.

On Wednesday, The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended that Robert Thompson’s death sentence for his role in a 1996 robbery and shooting be commuted to life imprisonment. The shooter, Sammy Butler, was convicted and received life in prison, which raises serious questions about the arbitrary nature of how the death penalty works in real life. Why wait until the last minute to discuss the disproportionality of sentencing the accomplice to death while the man who pulled the trigger is sentenced to life in prison?

Earlier this week a federal judge in Houston granted a last-minute stay to Gerald Eldridge, allowing 90 days for a review of his mental state and capacity. Executing the mentally ill is extremely problematic, and the time to deal with such a serious issue is not during a prisoner’s last meal. Such jarring, nerve-wracking changes at the last second are traumatic for everyone involved, including the victims’ families.

Also this week, Danielle Simpson requested that his sentence be commuted to life in prison or that he be given a  180-day reprieve to appeal his case. Frustrated with life behind bars, Simpson had previously stated that he did not want to wait around to be executed, and so was considered a “volunteer.” Despite the alarming injustice of denying someone who has given up on appealing a death sentence a chance to reconsider, and despite claims that he suffered from “debilitating mental illness,” his requests were denied and Simpson was executed Wednesday evening. He thus became the 29th “volunteer” Texas has executed (around 6 and a half percent of all Texas executions), and the 134th “volunteer” executed in the US since the resumption of executions in 1977 (representing over 11 % of all executions).

As the week draws to a close, all eyes will be on Texas Governor Rick Perry as he decides the fate of Robert Thompson. Please contact Governor Perry and urge him to follow the advice of Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles by commuting Thompson’s sentence to life in prison.

UPDATE:  Governor Perry rejected the recommendation of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the execution of Robert Thompson was carried out as scheduled.

AIUSA activists in Chicago demand the release of Internally Displaced People in Sri Lanka. November 2009. (c) AI

Across the U.S., from Boston to Chicago to San Francisco, Amnesty International activists are demanding:  “Unlock the camps in Sri Lanka!”

As the 26-year-old war between the Sri Lankan government and the opposition Tamil Tigers ended this past May, about 280,000 Tamil civilians fleeing the fighting were put in overcrowded, military-run camps which they were not allowed to leave.  The Sri Lankan government said that the civilians first had to be screened to determine if any of them were Tiger fighters.  Amnesty International has pointed out that this constitutes arbitrary detention and violates the civilians’ right to freedom of movement.

Although some civilians have been released from the camps, around 150,000 still remain and camp shelters have deteriorated as Sri Lanka has entered the rainy season.

Amnesty’s “Unlock the Camps” campaign calls on the Sri Lankan government to let civilians leave the camps if they wish, to put the camps under civilian (not military) management, and to allow aid agencies full access to the camps.

Earlier this month, AIUSA members gathered in Boston and San Franscisco signed petitions and postcards demanding that the Sri Lankan government “Unlock the Camps!”

Activists in San Francisco sign petitions to urge the Sri Lankan government to release IDPs. November 2009. (c) AI

Today, it was Chicago’s turn.  I joined activists from the AIUSA Chicago office and demonstrated in downtown Chicago.  Despite the rain and wind, we made our voices heard.  One man signing the petition told us that he had just returned from Sri Lanka and didn’t think anyone in the U.S. cared about what was going on there.  We were happy to show him that he was wrong.

Also today, AIUSA sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking  the U.S. government to publicly express concern about the treatment of the displaced civilians.  The campaign was also publicized in a college paper today.

We’ll keep campaigning for the displaced civilians until their rights are restored.  Please join our campaign and add your voice.

Caught between a legal requirement to avoid cruelty, and its desire to kill prisoners, the state of Ohio is struggling to find an acceptable method of execution following the botched, and failed, attempt to put Romell Broom to death on September 15.  As reported in today’s New York Times, the method the state has chosen is injection into the vein of a single, lethal dose of anesthetic.  This seems peculiar, since it was failure to find a suitable vein that led to the botched executions of Joseph Clark and Christopher Newton, as well as the recent Broom fiasco.

In the new Ohio protocol, another alternative, intramuscular injection, is available as a backup.  This method has not been used before, but was given the thumbs up by Massachusetts anesthesiologist Dr. Mark Dershwitz, the one doctor in America who seems willing to help states kill prisoners.  A local Ohio doctor, Jonathan Groner, seems to disagree, suggesting that legal challenges are far from over.  “In the end this is still about killing people.”

It is indeed, and if this protocol proves acceptable to Ohio and federal courts, the lethal injection of Kenneth Biros and others could be back on schedule (the stay of Biros’ December 8 date is only temporary), and Ohio’s one-a-month assembly line of executions could be back in business.

This posting is part of our Write-a-Thon Cases Series. For more information visit www.amnestyusa.org/writeathon/

©AI Le Thi Cong Nhan

Vietnamese human rights lawyers Le Thi Cong Nhan and Nguyen Van Dai were arrested on March 6, 2007 for “conducting propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam” and sentenced to four and five years’ imprisonment respectively for their activism and education efforts. Although the sentences have since each been reduced by one year, the two will be subject to several more years’ house arrest upon their release. Meanwhile, the human rights situation remains grave in Vietnam, which has silenced activists through surveillance, restrictions on movement, arbitrary detention and imprisonment.

©AI Nguyen Van Dai

The two lawyers together spoke through Radio Free Asia and Voice of America to publicize the deficiency of human rights in their country. Nguyen Van Dai has represented some dissidents in court and founded the Committee for Human Rights in Vietnam, which seeks to document abuses. Le Thi Cong Nhan joined this committee and was also the spokeswoman of the Vietnam Progression Party, a pro-democracy group formed in 2006. They have both been supporters of Bloc 8406, an online petition for democracy and freedom in Vietnam.

Article 88 of the Penal Code, under which Le Thi Cong Nhan and Nguyen Van Dai were charged, has been criticized as unconstitutional and in violation of international human rights covenants. The two lawyers are considered prisoners of conscience, as they were arrested only for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression. Activists will campaign for their unconditional release during Amnesty International’s Global Write-a-thon from December 5-13. Send a letter demanding justice for Le Thi Cong Nhan and Nguyen Van Dai, as well as other human rights advocates and peaceful dissidents whose voices have been stifled and basic civil liberties breached by the republic of Vietnam.

Back in 2007, Amnesty International launched a ground breaking website, Eyes on Darfur, which showcased satellite evidence of attacks on villages in Darfur. The images demonstrated the ongoing insecurity in the region and the destruction and violence civilians are confronted with on a daily basis. The site also broke new ground by allowing the world to literally “watch over” 12 villages that were determined to be highly at risk but that had not yet been attacked.

Just a few weeks ago, we updated the satellite images on the Eyes on Darfur site and found that sadly, several of these at-risk villages have been attacked and at least partially destroyed. We were able to document that between January 2008 and March 2009, four of these villages were subject to attacks by Janjawid militias and Sudanese government forces, which destroyed many of the structures in those villages.

These satellite images show that there is still much work to be done to ensure peace and justice for the people of Darfur. In addition to providing greater security and humanitarian assistance for people residing in Darfur and eastern Chad, it is also important to end the culture of impunity in Sudan by ensuring that its president, Omar al Bashir, is arrested and surrendered to the International Criminal Court, which issued a warrant for his arrest back in March.

Tomorrow, the United States will be attending the Assembly of State Parties, the management oversight and legislative body of the ICC, in The Hague as an observer. This is a very positive sign, indicating renewed US interest in international justice and a possible future US ratification of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding document. But US involvement cannot stop here.

Act now to urge the US government to continue supporting the ICC’s important work and to pledge to arrest and surrender Sudanese President al Bashir to the ICC if he were to be found on US soil.

Anyone who does work on, or pays attention to anything going on in Latin America would know that it is the season for meetings and hearings to be held at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in DC.  I had never attended anything at the commission, well, until last week. I had no idea what to expect walking in, I just knew I was there as an AIUSA observer.

The building itself is really big, and nice. Spanish is one of the working languages of the Organization of American States, (OAS) along with English and Portuguese, but it may as well be THE working language. Everything was conducted in Spanish.

One of the hearings I was asked to observe at, was a public hearing including two cases regarding the human rights abuses committed by the Mexican military.  AI has been following these cases closely, and they will most likely both be included in a report that AI will be releasing at the end of November addressing how flawed the military justice system in Mexico is, and how relatively easy it is for military personnel to get away with committing human rights violations.

I also met with the Muñoz Guzmán family; a family who has been fighting for justice in the case of Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán  for over 16 years. They have been working with our Mexico Country Specialist, along with a local AIUSA group, to try and hold those responsible, accountable for Miguel’s “disappearance” over 16 years ago. Stay tuned for more information about this case.

Well, now what can you do? Read about what’s going on in Mexico. Anything to raise people’s awareness of grave human rights situation in the country is good. Talk with your friends. Educate them. The more people that are watching, the easier it is to shine the light on injustice, anywhere.

Take Action right now!

This posting is part of our Write-a-Thon Cases Series. For more information visit www.amnestyusa.org/writeathon/

Mohammed Mohammed Hassan Odaini © Private

Despite having been cleared for release more than four years ago, twenty-six-year-old Mohammed Mohammed Hassan Odaini remains detained in Guántanamo. Odaini was sent to the detention center at the U.S Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba in March 2002 along with fourteen other Yemeni nationals, all of whom were turned over by Pakistani police. In June 2005, U.S. authorities declared Odani suitable for release from Guantánamo. Yemeni authorities are prepared to take him back, however he continues to be detained without reason. He has not been interrogated for nearly two years and the reason for his continued detention is unclear.

Participate in this year’s Amnesty International annual Global Write-a-thon and help free Mohammed Mohammed Hassan Odaini by writing a letter on his behalf to the Commander of the Joint Task Force Guantánamo. Be one of the thousands of individuals asking why Odaini and fellow detainees remain detained despite being cleared for release. By putting pressure on the Commander now, we hope to help release Odaini and fellow Yemenis and enable them to go back to Yemen. Writing a letter could not only help Mr. Odaini but the other detainees currently being unlawfully held in Guantánamo.

By Morgan Brescia, AIUSA Campaign for Individuals at Risk

Why should we care about the human rights of people who themselves don’t appear to respect them?  Statements made this week by a former member of an armed Islamic group suggest that it is the best way to change hearts and minds.

In an interview in the British newspaper the Independent, Maajid Nawaz, discusses his life in a radical Islamic group.  He was imprisoned and tortured in Egypt.  But it was in prison, he told British journalist Johann Hari, where he had his deepest beliefs challenged.

“When his family were finally allowed to see him, they told him he had a new defender. Although they abhorred his political views, Amnesty International said he had a right to free speech and to peacefully express his views, and publicised his case. “I was just amazed,” Maajid told Hari. “We’d always seen Amnesty as the soft power tools of colonialism. So, when Amnesty, despite knowing that we hated them, adopted us, I felt — maybe these democratic values aren’t always hypocritical. Maybe some people take them seriously … it was the beginning of my serious doubts.”

This isn’t a new revelation.  Eight years ago, Egyptian democracy activist Saad Ibrahim, a former Amnesty POC, told of how during his detention in Egypt he met with members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and convinced several to give up militancy for support of democracy.  It may be, Ibrahim told me, perhaps his most important initiative.

It does make a difference as to whether we treat the enemies of human rights with justice.  At a time when America is divided on how to treat the people behind the 9/11 attacks and armed Islamic groups in general, it’s important to show that human rights and democracy is for everyone. It might also just be the best policy we have against armed Islamist groups.

The Obama administration’s decision to refer a further five GTMO detainees, including self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, for trial federal court in New York City is a small but significant victory for the rule of law.

Carrie Lemack, whose mother was killed on board one the planes flown into the World Trade Center, welcomed the transfer telling the BBC:

“At the end of the day my mother and nearly three thousand others were murdered. And they deserve the right to have a trial of their murders and their families, me, my sister, so many other families of 9/11, deserve our day in court to hold to account those who did these terrible offenses.”

Yet this decision has predictably provoked a backlash from right-wing Republicans who can’t seem to help themselves when the opportunity for fear-mongering presents itself. Indeed, the Republican Party is proving to be one of Osama bin Laden’s most consistent boosters.

Rudy Giuliani was one of many Republican politicians to make the pilgrimage to Fox News to denounce the decision.  The former mayor said that bringing KSM to New York would be “repeating the mistake of history” and he accused the Obama administration of adopting a “pre-9/11 approach” to fighting terrorists.

Rather odd since this is the selfsame Giuliani who hailed the conviction of the aspirant 9/11 hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui in federal court in May 2006 by telling reporters: “The greater value is demonstrating what America is like. America won tonight.” Poor Rudy, he seems a bit confused.

Carrie Lemack and Rudy 2006 have a powerful point, one President Obama himself recently underscored in his eulogy to the victims of the Fort Hood shootings:

“We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.”

Being a nation of laws is no small thing. The rule of law is the foundation on which our way of life is built. It commands respect. Without the rule of law the constitution would, as John J. McCloy famously remarked, be just a scrap of paper.

It is the rule of law that has made America what it is and we set it aside at our peril. That is why the transfer of five terrorist suspects to the federal courts is such a good thing.

It also why the referral of five other cases to the reconstituted Military Commissions is such a mistake. Of particular concern is the referral of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri’s case. Al-Nashiri is alleged to have been the leader of the successful plot to bomb the USS Cole in 2000, in which 17 US sailors were killed.

The USS Cole bombing occurred prior to the apparent start of the Global War on Terror or the passage of the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which begs the question of whether or not Military Commissions have any logical jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, the Cole bombing was investigated by the FBI and federal prosecutors making the federal courts a practical venue as well.

The families of the USS Cole victims have been particularly outspoken in their criticism of President Obama’s national security policies and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that in this instance the administration simply decided to sacrifice principle to political expediency.

And that’s the problem. The Military Commissions are political courts. They exist to ensure convictions in cases where there is insufficient evidence to take to a real court. This is not justice and Commission judgments will lack any legitimacy. And once again we will have allowed the unscrupulous fear-mongers among us to undermine American values and hand Al Qaeda another propaganda victory.