Bahrain Security Forces Go After Doctors, Nurses

When demonstrations broke out in Bahrian urging political reform, first the government’ s security forces went after protesters.  Then they went after the doctors, nurses and other health professionals who treated the injured protesters.

Now they’re going after the health professionals who are speaking out against the security forces’ actions.

Even to long-time observers of Middle East human rights issues, the attacks on health professionals to prevent them from treating injured patients is surprising, a sign of the extent to which the governments are willing to respond to the Arab Spring by going after even the most fundamental of rights.

SEE THE REST OF THIS POST

Promises Of Freedom Ring Hollow As Syrian Crackdown Continues

By Mahsa Maleki, Syria Country Specialist for Amnesty USA

Tires burn during anti-government protests on the streets of Daraa. © Anwar Amro/AFP/Getty Images

The Syrian government has once again responded to peaceful protests with bullets and armor.  Amnesty International insists that the government halt its attacks and allow its citizens to fulfill their rights under international law to peaceful demonstrations.

The protests in Syria to demand political reform started on March 15, 2011, and scores of people have since been injured or killed.  President Bashar Assad promised that he would reform the political system, but these promises remain hollow as the brutal crackdown on protesters and political critics continues.

The Syrian government has long imposed severe penalties on those demanding for political reform.  Government critics are often detained for prolonged periods, or sentenced to prison terms after unfair trials.  Torture and other ill-treatment is common, often committed with impunity.

The protests in Syria began in the town of Dera’a, where residents had asked, among other political demands, for the release of more than 30 children, many only 10 years old, detained for several weeks after being accused of writing “the people want the fall of the regime” on a wall.

SEE THE REST OF THIS POST

Egypt Must Investigate Security Forces Crimes

Rights defender Musaad Abu Fagr was held in SSI detention for years © Amnesty International

One of the first acts taken by Hosni Mubarak when he became Egyptian president in 1981 was to release numerous political prisoners.  Amnesty International applauded him but called on the new president to rein in Egyptian security forces and to dismantle the system of administrative detention.

Thirty years later, as Mubarak himself faces criminal charges in Egypt, Amnesty International renews its old call to rein in the security forces and to end the crippling extrajudicial legal system that facilitates torture, punishes political activists and ordinary Egyptians alike and has muzzled a once-vibrant civil society for decades.

In a damning report released April 20, Time for Justice: Egypt’s Corrosive System of Detention, Amnesty International calls for an independent inquiry into human rights abuses committed by the much feared State Security Investigations Service (SSI).

This is a moment for fundamental change. It demands immediate concrete steps from the authorities so that those responsible for serious human rights violations are held to account.  Egyptians must see justice done for the human rights abuses of the past.

SEE THE REST OF THIS POST

Try KSM in a Kangaroo Court at GTMO? Fuhgeddaboudit.

 

In this new video, New Yorkers for 9/11 Justice are urging President Obama to do the right thing and prosecute Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and the other four 9/11 suspects in U.S. federal court. Why? The alternative–an unfair kangaroo court at Guantanamo–stinks. Agree? Sign the petition.

Personally, as a New Yorker who could see the Twin Towers from his living room and watched the second tower fall from Canal Street, I have a number of reasons for joining New Yorkers for 9/11 Justice Petition and supporting a federal court trial over a Guantanamo commission:

  • Federal courts are more effective: federal courts have successfully prosecuted over 400 terrorism related cases since 2001. Only five people have been convicted in Guantanamo commissions. Federal courts work.
  • Federal courts are fair: A federal court trial would demonstrate to ourselves and the rest of the world that we are true to our values of justice and due process.  Guantanamo commissions are an embarrassment. They don’t meet international, US or US military standards for fair trials.
  • Federal courts are safe and secure:For the past several weeks, Guantanamo detainee and alleged al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani has been on trial in downtown New York City–without incident, disruption or exorbitant cost.
  • Military commissions are opposed by members of the military: The Guantanamo commissions were not created by the military–they were created by politicians and called “military commissions” to try and give them legitimacy. Even Guantanamo military lawyers have come out against them.
  • We’d all want a fair trial if accused of a crime: It’s easy to trade away other peoples’ rights, but the reality is that all of our rights are tied together. When a government violates the rights of some, it undermines the rights of us all.

And finally, what often gets lost in the chorus of fear mongering is that victims and survivors of 9/11 have the right to justice. They have the right to see, after years of delay, those responsible for 9/11–a crime against humanity–held accountable. A Guantanamo kangaroo court denies this right. Only a fair trial can fulfill the right to justice. Let’s get on with it and try KSM in federal court.

Where do you think KSM should be tried? Let us know in the comments. Bonus points for being civil and avoiding the standard logical fallacies (here’s a useful list). Again, if you support fair trials, sign the petition.

Try KSM in a Kangaroo Court at GTMO? Fuhgeddaboudit.

 

In this new video, New Yorkers for 9/11 Justice are urging President Obama to do the right thing and prosecute Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and the other four 9/11 suspects in U.S. federal court. Why? The alternative–an unfair kangaroo court at Guantanamo–stinks. Agree? Sign the petition.

Personally, as a New Yorker who could see the Twin Towers from his living room and watched the second tower fall from Canal Street, I have a number of reasons for joining New Yorkers for 9/11 Justice Petition and supporting a federal court trial over a Guantanamo commission:

  • Federal courts are more effective: federal courts have successfully prosecuted over 400 terrorism related cases since 2001. Only five people have been convicted in Guantanamo commissions. Federal courts work.
  • Federal courts are fair: A federal court trial would demonstrate to ourselves and the rest of the world that we are true to our values of justice and due process.  Guantanamo commissions are an embarrassment. They don’t meet international, US or US military standards for fair trials.
  • Federal courts are safe and secure:For the past several weeks, Guantanamo detainee and alleged al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani has been on trial in downtown New York City–without incident, disruption or exorbitant cost.
  • Military commissions are opposed by members of the military: The Guantanamo commissions were not created by the military–they were created by politicians and called “military commissions” to try and give them legitimacy. Even Guantanamo military lawyers have come out against them.
  • We’d all want a fair trial if accused of a crime: It’s easy to trade away other peoples’ rights, but the reality is that all of our rights are tied together. When a government violates the rights of some, it undermines the rights of us all.

And finally, what often gets lost in the chorus of fear mongering is that victims and survivors of 9/11 have the right to justice. They have the right to see, after years of delay, those responsible for 9/11–a crime against humanity–held accountable. A Guantanamo kangaroo court denies this right. Only a fair trial can fulfill the right to justice. Let’s get on with it and try KSM in federal court.

Where do you think KSM should be tried? Let us know in the comments. Bonus points for being civil and avoiding the standard logical fallacies (here’s a useful list). Again, if you support fair trials, sign the petition.

USA: We find the defendant NOT guilty. Now lock him up!

Omar Khadr

Omar Khadr

Is this America or the Twilight Zone? According to Amnesty International’s new report, President Obama’s new rules for military commissions at Guantanamo allow for a defendant who is found NOT guilty to be locked up. Potentially forever.

It could happen to Omar Khadr. He will be the first person tried under President Obama’s military commissions, and his pre-trial hearings started this week.  Khadr is a Canadian national who has been held in US custody for nearly 8 years, since he was 15 years old. He has said he was repeatedly tortured in U.S. custody.

His military commission is set up such that it will not meet international standards for fairness. And, even if he is found not guilty after his unfair trial, he can still be held indefinitely.

The new military commissions rule book notes that indefinite detention after acquittal by military commission “may be authorized by statute, such as the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), as informed by the laws of war.” (Rule 1101, page II-139.)

President Obama has already used the AUMF to justify indefinite detention and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has proposed writing that justification into standard American law.  President Obama and Senator Graham worked with Congress last year to set up the current unfair military commissions.

They are using—as did President Bush—the concept of a global war against al Qaeda as justification for violating three pillars of the American justice system:

-If you are accused of a crime, you have the right to either be charged and tried, or be released.

-If you are tried, you have the right to a fair trial.

-If you are found not guilty, you have the right to go free.

Now that two presidents and hundreds of members of Congress from two different parties have responded to the heinous attacks on 9/11 by throwing away due process and fair trials, the conclusion is inescapable:  al Qaeda has destroyed the U.S. justice system.

It’s pretty obvious that self-imposed self destruction by states is one of the hallmark goals of terrorism; how could elected officials ignore—to this day—the American military and intelligence experts who warn them over and over again not to go down this road?

SEE THE REST OF THIS POST

What Goes Around Comes Around

Our ad in the Farragut West Metro Station, Washington DC

Our ad in the Farragut West Metro Station, Washington DC

Last month I had the opportunity to meet with Tamil human rights defenders working to protect the rights of Tamil civilians displaced by the Sri Lankan government’s military campaign against the violent Armed Group known as the Tamil Tigers.

Displaced Tamils are confined to government run camps where conditions are harsh and there is no end to their detention in sight. Tamil and Sri Lankan human rights defenders are operating under great threat from the authorities and Sinhalese nationalist paramilitaries.

Journalists have been killed and activists have disappeared. An unmarked white van has been associated with several disappearances, evoking memories of the dirty wars of Latin America. The atmosphere in Colombo is increasingly one of fear and intimidation.

This is the context in which we learned earlier this month of a visit to Washington DC by the Sri Lankan Attorney General, Mohan Peiris, to meet with his American counterpart Eric Holder. SEE THE REST OF THIS POST

Bad News, Good News

The bad news is that the United States is still among the top executioners in the world.  The good news is that the numbers are down.  According to an Amnesty International report released today, the U.S. remains in league with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iraq as the countries responsible for the most executions in 2008.  But the 37 executions that took place in the U.S. in 2008 was the lowest total since 1994

This is partly due to the moratorium imposed on executions while the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of lethal injection, but it is also due to the steady erosion of support for capital punishment in our courtrooms, our jury rooms, our state legislatures and among the general public.  Death sentences have been declining steadily for several years.  Public support is down 15 to 20 points.  When alternatives are offered, polls show that the public is often evenly divided between supporting the death penalty or preferring sentences like life without parole.  And more and more states are engaging in serious death penalty abolition debates, including in New Mexico, where Governor Bill Richardson signed death penalty repeal into law last week.

This decline of capital punishment is mirrored internationally, where, as of the end of 2008, more than two-thirds of the world’s nations had either ceased practicing capital punishment, or had abolished it altogether.  A UN General Assembly resolution calling for an immediate worldwide moratorium on executions passed in December with 106 yes votes, and only 46 no votes, with 34 abstentions.

In both the U.S. and the world, capital punishment is increasingly a regional phenomenon.  In the U.S. the vast majority of executions take place in the South, with most of those occurring in Texas.  Globally, the vast majority of executions take place in Asia and the Middle East, with most of those occurring in China.

Since 1977, when Amnesty International first adopted the death penalty as a fundamental human rights issue, we have seen a slow but steady decline in its use worldwide; since the turn of the new century we have begun to see a similar decline here in the U.S.  While Amnesty International’s report clearly reveals deeply troubling capital punishment practices in some countries (beheadings in Saudi Arabia, hanging of juvenile offenders in Iran, large numbers of executions after unfair trials in China), the long-term trends are equally apparent, and in favor of abolition.

Iraq: 128 Executions Planned

On Monday, March 9, the Iraqi government announced to Amnesty International that 128 death sentences have been ratified, and that executions would commence soon at the rate of 20 per week.  Exactly who these 128 people are, what crimes they have been condemned for, or how imminent these executions are is not known.  It is also now known how many of these prisoners facing execution might have been transferred to Iraqi authorities from US custody following the Status of Forces Agreement that came into effect at the beginning of this year.

What is known is that Iraqi trials do not always conform to international fair trial standards.

Ironically, a moratorium on executions was in place in Iraq while it was under US occupation, but that came to an end in August of 2004.  It is not known how many executions have taken place since then (at least 65 in 2006, at least 33 in 2007 and at least 34 in 2008).  By any measure, 128 executions, or 20 executions a week, would be a disturbing demonstration of enthusiasm for state killing in a country trying to recover from years of violent upheaval.

Please urge Iraqi authorities to commute these death sentences and reinstate the moratorium on executions.

Money for Nothing

The death penalty costs money – more money than the alternatives – and, as Wonkette notes “basically every state in the union is broke”.  This is why (or at least one of the reasons why) more states than ever before are having serious death penalty repeal debates.  In Kansas, a Republican Senator has filed an abolition bill, telling FoxNews.com: “This will save significant money — money that could be used toward education programs and toward community corrections programs.”  In Colorado, they don’t have enough money to solve cold cases, and a bill to pass along the savings from death penalty abolition to create a cold case unit has passed its first hurdle.  New Hampshire suspended jury trials for an entire month to save money, and they haven’t executed anyone since 1939 – so why do they still have the death penalty?

Of course, the death penalty is a fundamental human rights violation, so even if it were dirt cheap, it would still be wrong and deserving of total abolition.  But it’s not cheap at all … and we can’t afford it.