President Obama is due to arrive in Cairo on Thursday to give a hotly anticipated speech to the Muslim world during a five day trip to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Germany and France.
His speech is said to be similar to his previous one in Turkey, in which he will reiterate that the US wishes to foster warm relations with Muslim nations and will not, in his words, “simply impose… values on another country with a different history and a different culture.” He also told the BBC he plans to engage in “tough, direct diplomacy”.
Now is the perfect time to be honest. This is an important moment for the universal value of human rights in the Middle East, and excuses are not acceptable.
Be sure to take a look at Obama’s full BBC interview regarding the trip here.
On Friday, a ghastly execution took place in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, involving the decapitation and subsequent public crucifixion of Ahmed bin ‘Adhaib bin ‘Askar al-Shamlani al-‘Anzi, who was executed on a number of charges, including murder, abduction and homosexual intercourse. This comes right before President Barack Obama’s trip to the Middle East and Europe, set to begin in Saudi Arabia tomorrow. While the main goal of the President’s visit to Riyadh may be to garner King Abdullah’s support for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to discuss regional policy towards Iran, Obama’s trip COULD also be an excellent opportunity for the President to bring attention to Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses, including the country’s frequent executions administered for a large variety of offenses, including many non-violent ones (see the Amnesty International UK report on Obama’s trip to the Middle East).
The vicious nature of Ahmed bin ‘Adhaib bin ‘Askar al-Shamlani al-‘Anzi’s execution showcases the excessive cruelty of capital punishment in Saudi Arabia and also brings up important questions regarding human rights violations related to the detention and mistreatment of prisoners in the Kingdom. President Obama COULD use this recent execution to highlight concerns regarding the brutality of Saudi Arabia’s death penalty, its widespread use and the secretive nature of trial proceedings in that country. He COULD point to the fact that executions in Saudi Arabia are often disproportionately directed towards non-Saudi citizens.
But, given how arbitrary and disproportionate the US death penalty is, the gruesome execution that took place in Saudi Arabia Friday will probably go unmentioned.
President Obama has added Saudi Arabia to the list of countries he will be visiting this June. He reportedly will meet with King Abdullah to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Iran and terrorism. The Arab Peace Initiative, designed by King Abdullah, would grant Palestinians an independent state, settle the issue of Palestinian refugees and create a more peaceful environment between Middle Eastern states. It has also been embraced by the Obama team. The trip reflects a new commitment by the US government to work more closely with Arab countries on issues of peace and power.
Peace in the Middle East is a noble cause for the Obama administration. But as the Dalai Lama has said, “Peace can only last where human rights are respected.”
Saudi Arabia’s death row list is lengthy. Juveniles have been sentenced to death and now executed after unfair trial proceedings. There are also restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, with journalists threatened and censored by religious and political leaders alike.
While Saudi Arabia has made some strides on the human rights front, there is much more work to be done before a regional peace, built on respecting human rights, can stand. President Obama should take this opportunity to build a relationship based on human rights respect.
President Barack Obama is slated to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas today, to discuss what Press Secretary Robert Gibbs calls “ways the United States can strengthen and deepen our partnerships.”
Abbas has already stated that he plans to focus his discussion with Obama on continuous settlement expansion in the West Bank, but has also noted he believes there is a real chance at comprehensive peace in the region.
Amnesty International USA has sent a letter to President Obama asking that he raise some concerns of his own—namely human rights violations by members of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in areas under PA control. Arbitrary detentions, disregard for due process and ill-treatment and torture of detainees in PA detention centers continue to be reported. Additionally, the Al Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Gaza, the armed wing of the Fatah party led by President Abbas, have also been linked to indiscriminate rocket fire into southern Israel which violates the rules of war.
President Obama should raise these concerns as the atmosphere of impunity and continued human rights violations by the PA reflects badly on U.S. personnel and resources assigned to train PA security forces, undermines confidence in rule of law and hinders any progress in peace negotiations.
Amid the global economic crisis, who stole the spotlight? The Big Three car makers? The bigwigs and their bonuses? The big banks that caused all the trouble? That’s where all of the attention has been focused. But what about the little guys, people whose individual stories we won’t hear, but who will be living in poverty, due to the global financial crisis. Well, according to the World Bank, there will be 53 million more of them because of the economic collapse.
This kind of massive deprivation for basic needs – not luxuries like the Palm Beach condos lost in the Madoff scandal – cannot and will not go unanswered.
Some of the repercussions are already occurring: growing repression, racism and violence. The Amnesty International Report 2009: State of the World’s Human Rights, released today, labels these brewing problems the “ticking time bomb” underlying the economic crisis. In Zimbabwe, hundreds of activists protesting economic decline and social conditions were arrested and detained without charge, with police using excessive force to break up protests. Refugees from Zimbabwe in 2008 faced racism and xenophobia in South Africa that led in one instance to 60 deaths and 600 injuries.
While world leaders are focused on attempts to revive the global economy, they are neglecting deadly conflicts that are spawning massive human rights abuses. Amnesty International’s Secretary General Irene Khan said that, “Ignoring one crisis to focus on another is a recipe for aggravating both. Economic recovery will be neither sustainable nor equitable if governments fail to tackle human rights abuses that drive and deepen poverty, or armed conflicts that generate new violations.”
Good point. When John McCain tried to duck the first presidential debate, wasn’t it Candidate Obama who said, “Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time”?
So, President Obama. In addition to running GM, appointing a new Supreme Court justice, winding down two wars, gearing up to advance your domestic agenda and closing Guantanamo legally and fairly (come on, you promised “in concert with our core values” ), can’t you do something to help millions of little guys who need food, water, a roof over their heads and a job?
Yep, the United States is expected to exert leadership on every major world crisis. It’s the responsibility that comes with that label we love: “world’s sole superpower.” And U.S. leadership and respect in the world needs a good makeover. Here’s the perfect opportunity.
President Obama could ensure that the United States plays a leadership role in uniting world leaders to give sufficient attention not just to “trickle down” recovery, but to recovery that helps all people. Recovery that would comprehensively address the problems that lead to and keep people in poverty. That must mean addressing the underlying human rights issues that create and exacerbate human rights violations. His chums in the G20 would be a great place to start.
Come on, Mr. President. Yes You Can!
To read Amnesty International’s new report, please visit thereport.amnesty.org, for facts and figures, images, graphs, audio and video news releases, and regional and country reports.
President Obama again displayed in his speech today on national security that he is an exceptionally gifted and thoughtful politician who cares about the rule of law. Indeed, there is much to admire in his remarks today. So I can’t help wondering why he is being so obtuse about investigating torture.
He says he wants to establish legal mechanisms for dealing with terrorists that will be useful for his successors. “We can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that. . .”, the President said. Sadly, though, this vision of his legacy apparently does not include concrete measures to ensure that torture will never be carried out again by any of his successors, merely the hope that they will follow his example. That is where his refusal to carry out his legal obligation to investigate torture leaves us — merely hoping his successors will be wise.
The President continues to characterize those who press for an investigation as vengeful zealots uninterested in constructive problem-solving: “Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort and our politics on the challenges of the future.” The truth is, however, that many in the human rights movement who are calling for an investigation have worked most of their lives for justice and accountability for human rights crimes in country after country — Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia, and so many others. These are people whose purpose is the opposite of “finger-pointing” for petty partisan aims.
In any event, it is not up to President Obama to decide all by himself how to prevent future abuses in combatting terrorism. We — the public, Congress, and officials in the executive branch — all share in the responsibility for this “mess”, as the President labelled it. We must seek solutions together, and an independent, impartial, nonpartisan commission of inquiry is the logical instrument through which we can begin to make this happen.
The weakness of the President’s argument against an investigation is made all the more stark by its contrast with the cogency of his arguments against torture and for closing Guantanamo. Moreover, his speech today marked yet another flip-flop in the reasons for his opposition. Just a month ago, he expressed his preference that, if there was going to be an investigation, it be conducted by an independent panel, outside the normal Congressional hearing process. He said that he worried about hearings becoming too partisan. Today, however, Mr. Obama said that he was opposed to an independent commission because he believes “our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. . .”
Well, which is it? Is the President now saying that balkanized investigations by Congressional committees controlled by Democrats are actually preferable to a truly independent investigation by experts who have no political agenda? I don’t see the logic in this view. The President prides himself on applying rational, common-sense approaches to problem solving. But rationality and common sense are lacking in his stubborn opposition to an impartial investigation. We need to figure out how to ensure future presidents won’t yield to the same cowardly impulses that defined the Bush administration’s resort to torture. Only a thorough, impartial probe of how it happened can lead to effective remedies for the future.
Today President Obama said the right words about returning to the rule of law and reclaiming America’s moral authority. Now he needs to ensure his actions reflect American values and the rule of law.
The president said that the struggle against terrorism is a struggle rooted in values. In the past eight years, the United States has abandoned deeply held principles and empowered those who seek to harm Americans. The president recognized the perils of sacrificing our values to pragmatism, which is precisely the challenge he faces in closing Guantanamo.
Revising the military commissions is a mistake. It is a system so broken, so discredited, that it cannot be saved by any amount of administrative or legislative duct tape. Americans have put faith in their federal court systems for more than 200 years. All detainees can be tried in these courts and brought to justice. The rule of law must be our guide as the nation seeks to close Guantanamo and reclaim its moral authority.
When the United States wanted to understand how something like September 11th was allowed to happen and how to prevent another occurrence, Americans turned to an independent and bipartisan commission. The country faces similar questions today regarding abuses committed in the name of national security. Americans cannot simply turn the page and pretend that these things never happened. An independent commission must be established to find the answers.
The International Committee of the Red Cross today described the Sri Lankan war zone as “an unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe.” For the third consecutive day, the ICRC has been unable to evacuate seriously wounded or ill patients and deliver desperately needed food, due to ongoing combat in the area. The U.N. reported today that fighting between government forces and the opposition Tamil Tigers was continuing with heavy casualties in the war zone, which is about the size of Central Park in New York. The U.N. has continued its high-level involvement; it was announced that Secretary-General’s chief of staff would be sent to Sri Lanka to try to help resolve the humanitarian situation.
Despite statements by President Obama and the UN Security Council yesterday on the crisis, neither the Sri Lankan government nor the Tigers have agreed to a pause in the fighting in order to allow civilians to leave the war zone safely and to allow aid into the area. Instead, both the Sri Lankan government and the Tigers appeared to welcome the parts of the statements that criticized the other side without agreeing to the commitments being asked of them. The only good news I saw was a statement by the Sri Lankan government that over 3,300 civilians had escaped from the war zone today.
The Sri Lankan government has been engaged in a military offensive to reconquer territory held by the Tigers, which has been fighting for an independent state for the Tamil minority in the north and east of the island. The military has now confined the Tigers to a small pocket of land in northeastern Sri Lanka. Trapped with the Tigers are an estimated 50,000 or more civilians, who are being used by the Tigers as human shields and not allowed to leave the conflict area.
AI has called for an international commission of inquiry to investigate violations of international law by both sides. The British government today supported that call.
We urgently need both the Sri Lankan government and the Tigers to halt the fighting, in order to allow civilians to leave the war zone and aid to get into the area. Both sides should understand that the world is watching and they’ll be held to account for their actions.
While the fighting in Sri Lanka’s war zone reportedly intensified today, we saw a couple of firsts in terms of public statements on the crisis: for the first time, the U.N. Security Council formally met and called on both of the warring parties to allow civilians to leave the conflict area. President Obama also spoke out today on the conflict, for the first time since becoming President. Both statements were very welcome; indeed, Amnesty International just today had called on both the Obama Administration and the Security Council to act to save the civilians trapped in the war zone.
The Sri Lankan government is pursuing its military offensive against the opposition Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who have been seeking an independent state for the Tamil minority in the north and east of the island. The Sri Lankan military has now confined the LTTE to a small pocket of land on the northeast coast, about one square mile in all. Trapped with the LTTE are an estimated 50,000 civilians who are being used by the LTTE as human shields and prevented from leaving the area. Since January, AI estimates that more than 7,000 civilians have been killed and13,000 injured due to the fighting.
But while both of today’s statements are welcome, we need more pressure on both the government and the LTTE. As AI said today, the Security Council must establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate violations of the laws of war committed by both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. Officials on both sides need to understand that they’ll be held personally accountable for the war crimes their forces have been committing. That’s our best hope to save the civilians still trapped in the war zone. The Security Council must act immediately. Thousands of innocent lives are at stake.
100 days have come and gone with all the accompanying media hoopla but it increasingly seems like President Obama’s first 24 hours represented the high water mark of his commitment to rolling back the human rights abuses committed by the Bush administration.
The past week has seen still further blows to campaigners’ hopes that the Obama administration would place traditional American values of accountability and the rule of law at the heart of their response to the ongoing terrorist threat.
Leaks from the Department of Justice suggest that former Bush administration lawyers Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury are unlikely to face significant disciplinary action – let alone criminal charges – for their role in designing the coercive interrogation practices introduced to military and CIA detention facilities around the world in the wake of the September 11th attacks.
These latter day Tom Hagen’s were asked by the White House to cloak the Bush administration’s illegal innovation in a mantle of legitimacy. In doing so, they were not acting in good faith. Rather, like Michael Corleone’s tame lawyer, they were actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to circumvent U.S. law.
I have been baffled by the argument that criminal charges would produce a chilling effect on lawyers asked to provide legal advice to the executive. Is this really such a bad thing? The whole point of having in-house legal counsels is to make sure the government stays within the boundaries of the law. Government lawyers should be cautious.
Should the President decide to abandon a campaign pledge to “reject” the Military Commissions Act, he will be breathing life into a court system with the fewest rights for suspects of any court in the western world. His first instinct was right – we should not bastardize our judicial system to accommodate illegal practices that should have never been countenanced in the first place.
This morning John McCain and Lindsay Graham published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in which they note that 1 in 10 of the individuals released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield. This also means that 9 out of 10 have not.
The detainees in Guantanamo were supposed to be the worst of the worst but it turns out that 9 times out of 10 our intelligence professionals got the wrong man. The Military Commissions will take the assertions of these same professionals at face value and accord them the weight of evidence.
If the Military Commissions are reinstated we can look forward to many more miscarriages of justice. If you think this is a price worth paying for greater security, consider the damage that the cases of the Guilford Four and Birmingham Six did to the reputation of British justice.
The Obama administration is posed to go down a path that will repeat many of the mistakes of the past eight years. This is a time for moral courage not moral compromise. We can do better and we need to make sure that this White House hears that message.
