You might think that social media are no match for police and petrodollars, but King Abdullah—who’s seen the Internet facilitate democratic uprisings in nearby countries—views Twitter and other platforms as a threat to his power, and with good reason.

Saudi Arabia has more Twitter users per capita than any other country in the world. Between 2011 and 2012, the number of Twitter users in the Kingdom grew by 3,000 percent, with users posting an average of 50 million messages monthly, most of them in Arabic. And not coincidentally, the rise of social media has corresponded with an uptick in pro-human rights activism. Protests are largely organized through Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp, and dissidents use Skype to communicate with foreign human rights organizations and media networks.

It’s no wonder that spokesmen for the Saudi Interior Ministry have said that social media is a tool used by militants to stir social unrest. But the government’s assault on internet users is more than rhetorical. Authorities have detained and intimidated hundreds of online activists and commentators, blocked and filtered sensitive political, religious or pornographic content , and recruited online supporters to campaign against calls for protests, according to a Freedom House Report.  In March, two leading activists were sentenced to 10 years in prison for a variety of offenses including “internet crimes” because they had used Twitter and other sites to criticize the government.

Last year, poet and journalist Hamza Kashgari posted tweets in which he envisioned conversations with Mohammed. Thousands of Saudis, including prominent clerics, called for his death, and after a failed attempt to flee, he was imprisoned for blasphemy. His was the rare case of persecution in Saudi Arabia that attracted international attention, but the spotlight has turned away and he remains behind bars.

Once government officials know who is posting what, they are unrelenting in targeting dissidents. On April 10, prominent women’s activist Iman Al-Qahtan, posted on her Twitter feed that she was closing down her account, writing “Oh dear mother I’ll stop just for you, goodbye!” Although her Twitter handle and account remain active, it is reported that Al-Qahtani has been subject to continuous harassment by members of the security forces. They have threatened her to put her jail and to target her family members if she did not stop her activism.

Last month the government-sponsored Arab News daily published a cover story condemning what it deemed “abusive” tweets. The article reported that Saudi authorities are discussing a plan to link Twitter accounts with their users’ identification numbers. Analysts say such a move may decrease the number of Twitter accounts by up to 60%.

On March 31, the Saudi Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC) instructed Skype, WhatsApp and Viber to comply with local regulations or risk being shut down. This is just one example of the government  violating anti-censorship laws under the guise of monitoring online activity. Last September, CITC announced that, for “national security” reasons, all pre-paid SIM card users must enter a personal identification number when recharging their accounts.

Until recently, Saudi authorities have largely resisted sweeping restrictions on internet freedom for fear of igniting a political backlash, but some of their recent moves—particularly the threat to link Twitter accounts to ID numbers—may be doing just that. A few weeks ago one of Saudi Arabia’s most prominent clerics, Salman al-Awdah, who has 2.4 million followers, Tweeted against this policy, saying it might create a “spark of violence.” Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who owns $300 million worth of Twitter shares, has said that any attempt to block social media platforms is a “losing war.”

It’s widely believed that the Saudi monarchy’s grasp on power is unshakable. This would seem to be the view of the U.S. government, which gives this brutal, authoritarian regime unconditional support. But the increase in Twitter-fueled activism is clearly making the rulers nervous.

Over the past few months, Human Rights First has been working hard to make sure that immigration reform includes much-needed changes to the U.S. asylum system. And after myriad meetings on Capitol Hill, our hard work paid off.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved in a bipartisan vote yesterday an immigration reform bill that includes key provisions to eliminate the wasteful one-year asylum filing deadline. Now, the bill moves to a full Senate vote–marking an important step toward reforming the U.S. asylum system.

For over three decades, we have been matching asylum seekers with pro bono attorneys. We know firsthand the various barriers asylum seekers face when they arrive in the United States. Since becoming law in 1996, the asylum filing deadline has mandated that applicants file for asylum within one year of arrival. The result: thousands of bona fide refugees have been barred from receiving asylum in the United States—many of whom arrive in the country traumatized, without knowledge of the U.S. legal system including the filing deadline.

In the coming weeks, we will continue to press the entire Senate to support these provisions. And we will do the same when the bill moves to the House of Representatives.

Spread this great news to your networks on Facebook and Twitter.

Check out our special immigration reform microsite EndtheDeadline.org for updates on the asylum-related provisions in the bill.

Four years after President Obama signed an executive order to ban torture, we’re still debating whether it saved American lives. Why? Because the most authoritative record of the CIA’s post-9/11 “enhanced interrogation” program remains classified.

News broke recently that the CIA has edited the script for the Academy-Award winning film, Zero Dark Thirty,–raising much needed attention to the CIA’s role in actively shaping the torture debate. Human Rights First’s Raha Wala joins us in the podcast.

The Arab Spring uprisings were largely driven by a tech-empowered citizenry, which used social media to organize and communicate. Well aware of this, Gulf governments are stifling free expression online. There is a growing list of youth activists targeted for “electronic crimes.”

Saudi Arabia is one of the worst offenders. The U.S. State Department’s latest report on human rights in Saudi Arabia stated that “[t]he government charged a number of individuals with crimes related to their exercise of free speech during the year. Specifically, the government charged those using the Internet to express dissent with subversion, blasphemy, and apostasy.” According to Reporters Without Borders, authorities claimed to have blocked approximately 400,000 Websites and lists Saudi Arabia as an “Enemy of the Internet.” The Saudi Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC) claimed Facebook removed materials the CITC deemed offensive, but Twitter ignored all CITC requests.

Meanwhile in Kuwait, criticizing the Amir is illegal, a state security charge carrying up to five years in prison. “The court passed the maximum jail term against Mohammad Eid al-Ajmi for insulting the amir on Twitter,” the director of the Kuwait Society for Human Rights, Mohammad al-Humaidi, said. Ajmi is the third opposition youth activist to be convicted for “insulting the amir” on Twitter. In January 2013, the same court sentenced two Tweeters to two years each in jail on the same charge. They are being persecuted simply for voicing a desire for freedom, justice and human rights.

A move by Bahrain’s government to jail anyone found guilty of insulting the Gulf nation’s King for up to five years is another attempt to crush dissent there. According to state media, Bahrain’s cabinet – chaired by the Prime Minister and the newly appointed deputy Prime Minister, the Crown Prince – recently endorsed an amendment to Article 214 of the Penal Code, increasing the penalty for offending King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifah or the country’s flag and other national symbols.

Freedom of speech was a hallmark demand of popular uprisings throughout the Arab world. Now, government attempts to clamp down on free expression online are only acting to further fuel discontent.

Last year, to commemorate IDAHO, we released a report documenting violence against LGBTI refugees in Uganda and Kenya and their difficulties accessing assistance. In some countries, LGBTI refugees face threats of arrest, detention, and sometimes violence by the police due to laws criminalizing same-sex relations. LGBTI refugees may also face violence from citizens or fellow members of the refugee community.

In December 2011, then Secretary of State Clinton gave a landmark address in Geneva calling on states to protect LGBT persons from violence, discrimination, and other rights violations and affirming U.S. commitment to protecting LGBT people. On the same day, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum directing government agencies to protect the human rights of LGBT persons, including by taking steps to ensure that LGBT refugees have equal access to assistance and protection and that highly vulnerable refugees with urgent protection needs have access to expedited resettlement.

The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration has played a leadership role in efforts to strengthen protection and assistance to LGBTI refugees. Among other initiatives, it has supported the UN Refugee Agency to revise its policies to include guidance for staff on assisting LGBTI refugees, provided support to some NGOs with programs assisting LGBTI refugees, supported research on the protection challenges facing LGBTI refugees in urban areas, and taken steps to address significant sources of delay in the resettlement process and help ensure that expedited cases move more rapidly.

Despite these efforts, LGBTI refugees continue to face high risks of violence and lack access to sufficient mechanisms to protect their safety. For example:

• In Uganda, LGBTI refugees reported high levels of physical violence, including rape, assaults, and attempts to burn them alive, as well as being threatened by police with arrest and detention. Some reported being tortured and gang raped in prison.
• In Kenya, a Somali boy was doused in petrol and nearly set alight by a group of Somali youths. Other LGBTI refugees reported beatings, threats of abductions and one Congolese refugee narrowly escaped death when his Kenyan partner was stoned to death by a mob that spotted the two having sex in a parking lot; and
• LGBTI refugees reported violence at the hands of other refugees in Ghana and South Africa, from criminal or paramilitary groups in Ecuador; and from criminal gangs and other migrants in Mexico.

The State Department can help to mitigate these risks of violence through the following steps:

•  Provide support for safe shelter initiatives that specifically assist or are accessible to LGBTI refugees, including those for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence
• Enable LGBTI refugees facing imminent risks of violence to access support for emergency protection through the Dignity for All program
• Continue efforts to make expedited resettlement more timely in emergency cases and work with key partners to identify LGBTI refugees in need of this protection
• Support the UN Refugee Agency to train staff at Emergency Transit Facilities to address potential safety concerns of LGBTI refugees and other vulnerable individuals
• Raise concerns with host governments about gaps in police protection of LGBTI people, including refugees.

Photo of Thapelo Mukhutle

As South Africa provides leadership on LGBT rights, it needs to take further steps to protect LGBT people from violence. Despite prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people and allowing same-sex couples to marry, LGBT South Africans have been killed, and their survivors face an uphill struggle to access justice.

Last year we reported on Thapelo Makhutle, a young gay man living in Kuruman who was murdered in his home following an altercation at a nightclub over his sexual orientation. Thapelo was mutilated in such a way that it was clear to those that found the body that the killer was making a statement. Despite a quick identification of the murderer and a full confession, the case has been delayed four times. Finally, a year later, Thapelo’s murderer will face justice.   

South Africa has also had a spate of ‘corrective rapes’ of lesbian women. The year before Thapelo’s murder, Noxolo Nogwaza, a South African lesbian and LGBT activist, was found raped and murdered, her body left in a drainage ditch. The perpetrator has yet to be identified.

South Africa has taken an international leadership position on LGBT rights by sponsoring a resolution on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity at the Human Rights Council in June 2011 and co-sponsoring an international conference in Norway last month on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity. At home, there have also been positive signs; precedents have been set in hate crime cases; government officials have spoken out against hate crimes and South Africa has pledged to develop hate crimes policy and legislation to strengthen efforts to hold perpetrators accountable and send a clear message that such crimes will not be tolerated.

Human Rights First welcomes these efforts and urges the South African government to progress in drafting policy and legislation to address hate crimes, document and record suspected hate crimes, speak out regularly against all forms of hate crime, and work with civil society to provide support for victims of hate crimes.

Four years ago, Ana Patricia Centeno, a lesbian and Honduran LGBT activist, was granted asylum in the United States. After years of fear, persecution, and violence she is now living without having to look over her shoulder.

In Honduras—amid a dangerous climate for LGBT people, which has long been documented—she bravely fought for the equal rights of sexual minorities. Members of the LGBT community had been beaten, abducted, murdered with impunity, and fallen victim to ‘corrective rape’. Tragically, as her profile rose as an activist, Ana Patricia became a victim of the latter. She feared for her life.

She fled Honduras and came to New York to seek safety. Through Human Rights First’s Asylum Legal Representation program, we provided Ana Patricia a pro bono attorney that helped her gain asylum in the United States. Her pro bono attorney also worked with her to bring her children to the country. Today, she continues her work fighting for women’s and LGBT rights from her home in New Jersey, knowing that the situation remains dire for those who remain in Honduras.

Activists report that from 1994 to 2009 there were 20 murders of LGBT individuals, and after the 2009 coup d’état they have recorded 89 murders in 44 months. Though Honduras is one of the most dangerous places—likely, the current “murder capital” of the world—the rise in antigay murders is particularly alarming, and can be attributed to the policies, impunity, and political dysfunction of post-2009 Honduras. In 2011, U.S. Peace Corps withdrew its volunteers due to low security, and in 2012 the U.S. Department of State has issued a travel warning to U.S. citizens travelling to Honduras, pointing out that a vast majority of serious crimes are never solved.

Though much criticized for its foreign policy toward Honduras, the U.S. government has helped establish a Special Victims Task Force—consisting of vetted members of the Honduran National Police, the Public Ministry, and U.S. advisors—for looking into high profile violent crime cases, such as the attacks on members of the LGBT community. While there has been some progress in a few cases, impunity is the overwhelming norm.

As we commemorate International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO) on May 17th, the U.S. needs to do more to encourage the Honduran government to speak out against hate crime, train criminal justice officials to monitor and document violent acts, and strengthen trust and outreach with the local LGBT community, so victims will feel safer reporting violence.

But Zero Dark Thirty isn’t the only thing the CIA’s trying to edit.

The Senate Intelligence Committee recently completed a 3-year study of the CIA’s post-9/11 detention and interrogation program. Those who have read the study—including Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the Senate intelligence committee—say it shows that brutal torture was much more widespread and cruel than we thought, and much less effective at gathering actionable intelligence than torture proponents claim.

But reports suggest that the CIA is fighting the committee’s findings tooth and nail, and trying to rewrite the study.

We can’t let that happen.

Urge President Obama to direct his administration to cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committee on its study, and make sure it’s released to the American people.

Until the study is made public, torture proponents will continue to cite secret knowledge to argue that the CIA torture program was safe, lawful, and effective—that it saved lives and led us to criminals like Osama bin Laden.

If made public, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s study could debunk those claims.

As Senator John McCain said, “At a moment when our country is once again debating the efficacy and morality of so-called ‘enhanced interrogation’ practices, this study has the potential to set the record straight once and for all.” I agree.

Urge President Obama to direct his administration to cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committee on its study, and make sure it’s released to the American people.

Last week, Politico reported that legislators have been debating whether to revise the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted in 2001, which gives the president the authority to use force against those people or organizations who attacked the United States on September 11, which the government has interpreted as al Qaeda and the Taliban, and their “associated forces.” Just what “associated forces” means, and who falls into this category, is unclear.

Passed in the days after 9/11, the AUMF remains one of the stated legal justifications for everything from the war in Afghanistan to targeted killings in places like Yemen. But as the war in Afghanistan winds down, and the core al Qaeda group weakens, the AUMF may no longer be useful or applicable.

Some, like the authors of a Hoover Institute paper called “A Statutory Framework for Next-Generation Terrorist Threats,” want a new, expanded AUMF to address threats from groups outside the scope of the 2001 Authorization. They believe that this is the best way to respond to emerging terrorist threats: an open-ended authorization to use military force against any group  the president deems a threat to the United States.

But others, like Steve Vladeck and Jennifer Daskal, disagree. Writing for the legal blog Lawfare, Vladeck and Daskal point out that once the war in Afghanistan ends, the United States will no longer be involved in an armed conflict with the Taliban, core al Qaeda, or their affiliates. “One would think, then,” they write, “that this is hardly a propitious time to begin discussing an expansion of statutory authorities to use military force,” adding, “[W]e fear that the sweeping and preemptive militarization of counterterrorism for which they argue is not just unnecessary on current facts, but also deeply misguided—and likely counterproductive—as a matter of policy and prudence.”

Former Obama staffers are also skeptical about a new AUMF and a never-ending war.

Former Defense Department advisor Rosa Brooks points out that the Obama administration has used the AUMF as the justification for targeted killing of suspected terrorists outside the traditional battlefield, but that an “AUMF 2.0” is a bad idea and “An expanded AUMF is also unnecessary. Even if Congress simply repealed the 2001 AUMF (as the New York Times editorial board urges) instead of revising it, the president already has all the legal authority he needs to keep the nation safe.”

Jeh Johnson, former Defense Department counsel, described a “tipping point,” when “so many of the leaders and operatives of al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, such that al Qaeda as we know it, the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001, has been effectively destroyed.”

And Harold Koh, former State Department counsel, said in a speech at the Oxford Union, “First and most important, our overriding goal should be to end this Forever War, not to engage in a perpetual ‘global war on terror,’ without geographic or temporal limits.”

Even in his inaugural address in 2013, President Obama stated, “A decade of war is now ending … We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.” The president also declined a new AUMF when Congress tried to insert it into the annual national defense spending bill last year, writing that he didn’t need a new AUMF to carry out counterterrorism operations.

Those in government should have a very serious conversation about whether we need the current AUMF, and whether the president should have the power to commit the United States to a never-ending war.

Refugee Council USA, a coalition of faith based and other organizations (including Human Rights First) ,  sent a letter on the amendments to the Senate Judiciary Committee members specifically asking them to oppose Grassley 27 and Grassley 52 as well as other amendments that would impact refugees and asylum seekers. Faith and other community leaders in Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, and Utah also sent letters directly to their Senators in support of the refugee and asylum provisions in the bipartisan bill.    Last week, a diverse group of faith leaders urged U.S. Senators to protect the refugee and asylum provisions in the immigration bill.  On April 26, 2103, over 200 humanitarian, faith-based and refugee-serving organizations from across the United States wrote to the Gang of 8 to welcome and support their inclusion of provisions in the Senate bill that would protect refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons – including a provision that would eliminate the asylum filing deadline.   

Should these amendments prevail, the United States would continue to deny or delay asylum to credible refugees with well-founded fears of political, religious and other persecution (see Human Rights First’s 2010 report on the effects of filing deadline).  These refugees would be denied asylum even if U.S. adjudicators found them credible and even though they pose no risk to the country and have satisfied all security and other screening measures.  They would be denied asylum due to a quixotic bureaucratic inefficiency – a filing deadline that bars many asylum seekers who do not file their papers within one year of arrival in the United States.

Section 3401 of the Senate bill would eliminate the arbitrary deadline on asylum applications, which has caused the United States to deny asylum to many credible refugees with well-founded fears of persecution. In 2011, DHS concluded that the filing deadline should be eliminated because it denies asylum to genuine refugees, expends resources without helping uncover or deter fraud, and makes the process more difficult. This is consistent with findings in Human Rights First’s report, and a comprehensive statistical study by academic experts at Georgetown University Law Center and Temple University’s School of Law. These studies have confirmed that the deadline diverts time and resources that could be more efficiently allocated to assessing the actual merits of cases, and shifted thousands of cases to the increasingly backlogged and delayed immigration court system when they could have been resolved at the Asylum Office level.

Section 3404 of the Senate bill would allow trained DHS-USCIS asylum officers to assess eligibility for asylum for “arriving” asylum seekers who have successfully passed through the “credible fear” screening process, instead of initially referring these cases into the immigration court process.

Asylum officers already conduct these asylum interviews in thousands of other asylum cases each year. Referring asylum cases for adjudication by asylum officers, instead of initially referring them into the adversarial immigration court system, would as the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has noted, ease the burden on the immigration courts. The American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration concluded that a shift to initial asylum office interviews could have a “substantial impact on the immigration courts’ workload” because it would reduce the number of cases that are ultimately adjudicated by the courts. Full asylum interviews would occur after the screening process is completed, and only after security measures have been satisfied.

In addition to  the practical implications of the filing deadline, Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and Human Rights First President and CEO Elisa Massimino have described why the barrier is inconsistent with American ideals:

“When people escape horror and come to the United States in desperate need of freedom and safety, we shouldn’t turn them away because of a bureaucratic technicality.  Yet we do.  And every time we do, we betray our ideals.”

One of Senator Grassley’s amendments seeks to delay the reforms outlined in the Gang of 8 bill until a year after the Director of National Intelligence submits to Congress reports, and sub-reports, on the government’s handling of the Boston Marathon bombing.   The Boston bombing was a tragedy, and the government should certainly take steps to address and prevent another attack.  There is no reason to use the Boston tragedy to derail or delay reforms to strengthen the asylum system.

The few asylum provisions in the immigration bill would not lower in any way the many security measures that have been built into the asylum system. They would, however, strengthen the system, improve its efficiency, and ensure that our asylum system is consistent with American values.

U.S. immigration laws have for many years barred from the United States people who pose a danger to our communities or threaten our national security, even if they would otherwise qualify for refugee protection. Bars to refugee protection also exclude people who have engaged in or supported acts of violence that are inherently wrongful and condemned under U.S. and international law.  The asylum system and U.S. immigration law already include an extensive array of measures that prohibit the granting of asylum and legal residence to anyone who poses a threat to U.S. security or plans to engage in terrorist activity.

Among the many existing measures in place to prevent abuse of the asylum system and protect national security are steps such as:

• mandatory biographical checks in FBI, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security  and other databases;
• mandatory biometric checks using the applicant’s fingerprints and photograph;
• additional biographical screening by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC);
• mandatory supervisory review of all asylum decisions; and
• full-time Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) officers who conduct in-depth vetting on cases with national security concerns, liaising with Joint Terrorism Task Forces and also monitor asylum system for fraud.

An extensive list of the measures in place is available in this backgrounder.  

This country’s commitment to protecting refugees is a core component of our identity.  We should embrace – not run away from – American values, and immigration reform is a logical vehicle to do so.  The asylum and refugee reforms in the bipartisan Senate bill – including elimination of the unnecessary and harmful filing deadline bar – reflect this country’s values and should move forward as critical components of immigration reform legislation.