WASHINGTON D.C., United States – Former CIA employee Edward Snowden exploded into news headlines Sunday after the Guardian revealed him to be the party responsible for declassifying the NSA program code-named PRISM.  Snowden, who more recently worked as a contractor for the NSA, revealed that the NSA obtained phone meta data from Verizon customers and has “direct access” to the server contents of service providers like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook.

Snowden, 29, worked as a contractor for the NSA for three months before leaking classified materials. (Photo Courtesy of the South China Morning Post and EPA)

Snowden worked at Booz Allen Hamilton where he contracted with the NSA as a system administrator. After three months, Snowden left his position, and, on May 20, traveled to Hong Kong to seek asylum.  It was there that, on June 6, Snowden contacted the Washington Post and the UK-based Guardian to provide details about PRISM as well as general information about US espionage operations.

Since releasing the classified materials, Snowden has remained in Hong Kong to give interviews to a select group of media outlets.  Fox News reported that Snowden chose to travel to Hong Kong because of its “strong tradition of free speech.”  While Hong Kong does have an extradition treaty with the US, it makes exceptions for political asylum seekers.

If Snowden is returned the US, however, he may not face the long prison sentence one might expect.  According to a Reuters article, only nine people have been tried for crimes similar to those of which Snowden is accused (six of which were prosecuted under the Obama administration).  Of the six who have been sentenced, the maximum jail sentence was approximately two years, with two receiving no jail sentences at all. The remaining three still have legal action pending.

In an interview given Wednesday to The South China Morning Post (“SCMP”), Snowden said he would not flee Hong Kong, opting instead to leave his fate to the semi-autonomous city’s justice system.  Snowden went on to state that he believed the NSA to be responsible for 61,000 hacking operations worldwide, including many in China and Hong Kong.

Snowden went on to explain that by using “network backbones – [which are] like huge internet routers,” the NSA was able to access communications between hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack them individually.  According to the SCMP, Snowden said, “‘Last week the American government happily operated in the shadows with no respect for the consent of the governed, but no longer.’”

Since Snowden leaked classified NSA materials, members of Congress have been split into two camps: those angry at Snowden for leaking information, and those angry at the Obama administration for allowing the NSA to conduct such a sweeping surveillance program.

For further information, please see:

ABC News – Edward Snowden Claims NSA Documents Show U.S. Hacks China: Report – 12 June 2013

CBS News – Edward Snowden: “I am not here to hide” – 12 June 2013

Fox News – I’m ‘not a traitor,’ NSA leaker Edward Snowden tells Hong Kong newspaper – 12 June 2013

South China Morning Post – Edward Snowden: US government has been hacking Hong Kong and China for years – 12 June 2013

The Washington Post – Here’s everything we know about PRISM to date – 12 June 2013

Reuters – If past is indicator, ex-NSA contractor may escape long jail term – 10 June 2013

The Guardian - Edward Snowden’s explosive NSA leaks have US in damage control mode - 10 June 2013

Print PDF

WASHINGTON D.C., United States – This week, news came to light that the National Surveillance Agency (NSA) had siphoned personal data from the main computer servers of nine major US internet providers, including Google and YouTube, and collected the phone records of millions of Verizon customers.

It was revealed that the NSA has been tracking Verizon customers’ call records and collecting private data from nine companies. (Photo Courtesy of The Independent)

In an initiative code named PRISM, the FBI and NSA was granted access to “audio, video, photographs, emails, documents and connection logs from Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple company servers.”  It was also reported that many companies did not know that the FBI and NSA had direct access to their servers.  Google, Apple, Yahoo, and Facebook immediately denied that the government had direct access, while Microsoft said that it “did not voluntarily participate in any government data collection,” and only complied with specific requests.

The Guardian first reported that Microsoft was the first of the nine companies to participate in PRISM in December 2007.  It reported that  Yahoo then joined in 2008; Google, Facebook, and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple last year.

It was also revealed earlier this week that the NSA had access to to Verizon customer phone records under a secret court order.  Under this court order, labeled “Top Secret,” Verizon must disclose “all call detail records” of its customers to the NSA, including all local and long-distance calls within the US, and calls made between the US and overseas.  This program and PRISM were initiated in 2007 during George W. Bush’s presidency.

President Obama, defended the surveillance program on Friday, saying that his administration struck “the right balance” between security and privacy, and that US citizens and residents were not being targeted.  President Obama said that both NSA programs were repeatedly authorized by Congress and are subject to continual oversight by both congressional oversight committees and secret intelligence courts.  Claiming to be skeptic about the NSA programs when he was sworn into office, President Obama said that it was necessary to preserve them for the sake of national security.  ”You can’t have 100% security, and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience,” said President Obama.

In a statement made late-night on Thursday, Director of National Intelligence Jams Clapper denounced the leaks, and said that “Americans would suffer.”  ”The unauthorized disclosure of a top secret US court document threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation,” said Clapper.

For further information, please see:

ABC — US Declassifies NSA Program Details After Uproar Over Verizon Phone Records — 7 June 2013

BBC News — Barack Obama Defends US Surveillance Tactics — 7 June 2013

The Independent — Obama Defends Spying Tactics of Prism Programme Mining Private Data from Google, Apple, YouTube, and Facebook — 7 June 2013

Policymic — NSA Phone Records: A Look at the Courts That let the Feds Tap our Phones — 7 June 2013

USA Today — NSA Taps Data from 9 Major Net Firms — 7 June 2013

Engadget — Washington Post: NSA, FBI Tapping Directly into Servers of 9 Leading Internet Companies (Updates) — 6 June 2013

Wall Street Journal — Government is Tracking Verizon Customers’ Records — 6 June 2013

Print PDF

HAVANA, Cuba -  A federal district judge in Washington dismissed a case brought by Alan Gross against the United States government on Tuesday.  Gross, a contractor for the State Department, was detained by Cuban authorities in 2009 for distributing communication devices to Jewish communities in Cuba as part of a democracy building program.

Alan Gross received a fifteen year sentence for his contract work with the State Department. (Photo Courtesy of ABC)

Gross was convicted of using communications technology to undermine the Cuban government in March 2011 and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.  The US government made attempts to negotiate Gross’s release.  However, the Cuban government attempted to tie the release of Cuban spies held in the US into negotiations.  When diplomatic efforts to free Gross failed, Gross’s wife brought suit against the US government and Developer Alternatives, Inc., the private contractor that hired him.

Developer Alternatives has since settled with Gross; however, his legal battle with the US government is far from over.  One of Gross’s attorneys, Scott Gilbert told the Washington Post that Gross “plan[s] to file promptly a notice of appeal”.

Legal experts expressed little surprise that the district court dismissed Gross’s complaint, citing a rule barring lawsuits against the US government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for harms suffered in foreign countries.  Gross argued against the exception, reasoning that the alleged negligence of the State Department took place within the US.  However, the district judge disagreed, noting that Gross’s injury – being imprisoned – took place in Cuba.

While Gross’s legal prospects look grim, his suit has illuminated embarrassing details of the democracy building programs run by the State Department and Developer Alternatives.

In his suit, Gross alleged that he was sent to Cuba on five separate occasions without proper training, protection, or knowledge of relevant Cuban laws.  Gross further claimed that he wrote memos after returning from each trip that expressed concern about the high risk involved in the trips.

Gross asserted in his complaint that the State Department and Developer Alternatives were aware of the growing risk to his safety and ignored the danger.

Gross’s legal battle may have stalled for the moment.  However, as Peter Phillips, founder of the Cuba Research Center, notes, the “bigger battle is trying to get him free.”

For further information, please see:

Washington Post - Lawyers for American imprisoned in Cuba appeal ruling dismissing case against US government – 31 May 2013

ABC – Alan Gross, lawsuit against U.S. dismissed – 29 May 2013

Global Post – American jailed in Cuba loses lawsuit against US – 29 May 2013

The Blog of LegalTimes – Court: American Jailed in Cuba Can’t Sue U.S. Government – 29 May 2013

The New York Times – American Contractor Held in Cuba Loses a Lawsuit – 29 May 2013

Print PDF

GUATEMALA CITY, Guatemala – The trial of former Guatemalan dictator General Efrain Rios Montt took a surprising turn on Monday when the Constitutional Court overturned Montt’s 80-year sentence for genocide. Citing illegal proceedings at the trial level, the Constitutional Court struck all proceedings in the trial subsequent to April 19.

Rios Montt’s time as dictator of Guatemala is believed to be the most violent period of the Guatemalan Civil War. (Photo Courtesy of BBC News)

Trial judges dismissed Rios Montt’s attorney, Francisco Garcia, multiple times throughout the trial for attempting to have the judges recused “for bias”. The Constitutional Court noted that the trial should have been suspended to hear appeals rather than delaying them until after a conviction. Following the Court’s decision, Rios Montt’s attorney told a Washington Post reporter that he would be seeking his client’s freedom on Tuesday.

Rios Montt was on trial for the deaths of 1,771 Ixil Mayans during his 18-month rule as dictator from 1982-83. He originally gained power after a military coup during the 36-year Guatemalan Civil War. Over 100 witnesses came forward to testify at trial about rapes, killing of women and children, and other human rights violations committed by government forces during the period when Rios Montt was in power. The Civil War is estimated to have resulted in more than 200,000 deaths and over a million refugees. However, Rios Montt’s time in power is believed to have been the most violent of the War.

Rios Montt’s conviction marked the first time in history that a head of state was tried and convicted of genocide in a domestic court. His trial was met with heavy opposition from the Foundation Against Terrorism and the Coordinating Committee of Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial and Financial Associations (CACIF). Both groups ran advertisements denouncing both the trial and it supporters. The Foundation also brought hundreds of supporters from the Ixil region, including former military and indigenous people, to protest the trial.

Mario Polancko, director of a Guatemalan human rights group, told CNN that the Constitutional Court’s decision had “served the interests of those in power, and when it is one of the representatives of those in power who is on trial, they will resort to any means.” Polancko added, “I think there has been an abuse in the interpretation of the law.”

The Constitutional Court’s ruling does not signal the end of Rios Montt’s legal battle, however. The Court’s Secretary, Martin Guzman, told the Washington Post that the trial must be rolled back to April 19 to address the numerous appeals. Both sides will now have to return to court to redo the final weeks of the trial.

For more information, please see:

BBC News – Guatemala annuls Rios Montt’s genocide conviction – 21 May 2013

CNN - Guatemala genocide conviction overturned - 21 May 2013

The Washington Post – Guatemala’s top court overturns genocide conviction of former leader Efrain Rios Montt – 21 May 2013

Al Jazeera - Guatemala: Rios Montt genocide trial ends with historic verdict - 15 May 2013

Print PDF

WASHINGTON, United States — The Justice Department acknowledged for the first time this week that U.S. drone strikes have killed four American citizens in the Middle East since 2009.

In a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder (above) to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy on Wednesday, the Obama Administration acknowledged for the first time that U.S. drone strikes have killed four American citizens since 2009. (Photo Courtesy of USA Today)

The admission came Wednesday, the day before President Obama a new approach to the nation’s drone policy, in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down from WWII, as well as during the current conflict, it is clear and logical the United States Citizenship alone does not make such citizens immune from being targeted,” Holder wrote.

During counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaeda and other forces, the United States targeted and killed one American citizen—Anwar al-Awlaki—and acknowledged the deaths of three others as a result of U.S. drone attacks.  Those citizens—Samir Khan, an al-Qaeda propagandist; Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the son of Anwar al-Awlaki; and, Jude Kenan Mohammed—were killed around the same time but “were not specifically targeted.”

The letter described the older al-Awlaki as the planner of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009, and it said he plaid a key role in a failed attempt to bomb cargo planes headed for the United States in 2010.

The letter was a response directed by President Obama to congressional inquiries into the “administration[‘s] use of lethal force against U.S. citizens.”  The White House said it “informed the relevant congressional oversight committees that it had approved the use of lethal force against al-Awlaki in February 2010—well over a year before the operation in question.”

On Thursday, President Obama announced a new approach to drone strikes in the future, tightening the rules of who can be targeted.

“In the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al-Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States,” Obama said at the National Defense University in Washington.

“Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states,” he said.  “This war, like all wars, must end.  That’s what history advises.  That’s what our democracy demands.”

The Administration said, moving forward, the U.S. military would be the lead authority for drone strikes instead of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For further information, please see:

Bloomberg Businessweek — Obama Sees Sunset on Sept. 11 War Powers in Drone Limits — 24 May 2013

CBS News — Attorney General Holder: Drones Killed 4 Americans Since 2009 — 22 May 2013

USA Today — Holder Says Four U.S. Citizens Killed in Drone Strikes — 22 May 2013

Voice of America — US Officially Acknowledges Drone Strike Killings — 22 May 2013

Print PDF

Sami El-haj was working as a cameraman with Al Jazeera when he was captured and consequently detained at Guantanamo. He spent six years at the facility and is now the Manager the of Public Liberties and Human Rights Department at Al-Jazeera Network. 

This article by Mr. El-haj was originally published by theInternational Review of the Red Cross earlier this Spring.

My story of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is not exceptional. It more or less reflects the situation of all those who have languished or are languishing in the depths of Guantanamo or any dark prisons of injustice. However, it is my hope that, by telling this story and by clarifying certain notions and presenting some proposals, I may help to improve the ICRC’s humanitarian services and its relations with detainees.

Photo Courtesy of ICRC.

The history of this time-honoured organization and its role in alleviating the suffering of victims of war, torture, and imprisonment are too well known to require an introduction. As for me, I regard the ICRC as having been born on the day that I came to know it and it came to know me, when I came to accept it – after rejecting it for a long time, because I was unaware of what it did and how, when it presented to me its system of values, which I had previously failed to understand.

Thus, my story began in January 2002, with a blank sheet of paper handed to me by the American investigator at Bagram who requested that I write a letter to my family and specify their address. I distrusted this request because I thought it was part of the investigation. My fellow prisoners and I felt the same distrust for the second time that year during our encounter with the ICRC in Kandahar prison when its delegates asked us to give them an account of how we had been detained and transferred there. The first instance of positive appreciation came shortly before the Eid al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice) when the ICRC presented us with copies of the Holy Qur’an that it had brought to Kandahar prison. It also brought us dishes of mutton from ritually sacrificed sheep, which had a highly positive effect on us. Someone had remembered us during the Eid and compensated us to a certain extent for our privation on that great occasion.

I received the first letter from my family, through the Qatar Red Crescent, in September 2002. It enclosed a photograph of my baby son Muhammad, whom I had left while he was taking his first faltering steps. The feeling was indescribable: a strange mixture of solace and sadness; tears were my first reaction. All my fellow prisoners in the neighbouring cells also broke into tears because they thought that something bad had happened to my family. This continued for more than an hour during which time I was unable to explain the situation or even to read the letter. The mere fact that I had received it, together with that photograph, had a tremendous impact, and not only on me!

Subsequently, there was a regular exchange of letters with my family through the ICRC, and my trust in it, and in its role, increased with the arrival of the first Arab delegate, from the Arab Maghreb, in whom we had even greater confidence when we found that he knew the Qur’an by heart. My reason for mentioning this is to draw attention to the prevalent notion among the detainees that an organization displaying a cross as its emblem must be a crusader organization. The fact that the ICRC delegate was a Muslim who had memorized the Qur’an rectified the misconceptions that we were harbouring concerning the organization with which we had not previously had any dealings in our countries.

He was followed by a succession of Arab delegates, which had a very positive effect on our attitude towards the ICRC insofar as their presence made us feel comfortable and confident since they were fellow Arabs with whom we could communicate more easily. At the very least, we could understand their facial expressions in which we perceived genuine feelings and a sympathy that seemed more authentic to us because of cultural similarities.

Later, the ICRC brought specialists and doctors. The availability of medical care gave us a feeling of relief and this feeling became stronger with the arrival of jurists who answered our questions. The provision of a library was even more welcome since the ICRC supplied more than 10,000 books, ranging from the principal Islamic reference works to the best detective stories. We were able to take advantage of this store of knowledge in order to organize a programme between the sunset and evening prayers. During these evening sessions one of us would read a book and summarize it for the others. We read to those who did not know how to read, and some of them began to master the Arabic language. Even more importantly, reading and exercising our imagination was very helpful in enabling us to preserve our sanity. In this connection, it is noteworthy that a consultant from the prison’s administration – this time of Arabic origin – deprived us of these books by warning the prison administration that it was ‘training theologians’. After that we started receiving Tintin and Milou stories and books bearing offensive titles such as A Donkey from the East!

The ICRC improved its interaction with the detainees by developing the means of communication between them and their families to include the Internet and a telephone line.

In the light of my above-mentioned experiences, I can point out some negative aspects that could have been avoided in the ICRC’s contacts with the detainees:

1. The dispatch of non-Arab delegates created a psychological barrier because of cultural and linguistic differences, resulting in a lack of trust in the ICRC on the part of the detainees.

2. Regarding the ICRC’s emblem, it would obviously be unreasonable to ask the organization to change its emblem in order to build bridges of confidence with the recipients of its humanitarian services. However, it would be extremely helpful if the ICRC could pay attention to this point and endeavour to clarify the issue of the emblem by giving a historical explanation in order to dispel people’s misconceptions, and especially those of people from Islamic backgrounds who might be unaware of the true facts.

In accordance with its confidential approach, the ICRC does not make public its observations from inside Guantanamo. At first sight, the services that the ICRC has succeeded in providing for the detainees seem to merit this heavy price. However, as a former detainee, I would venture to suggest that the ICRC’s silence should be limited and not absolute since there are aspects that could and should be criticized frankly and openly in the media. Clear examples of this are the refusal to allow the detainees at Guantanamo to benefit from the privileges provided for in the Geneva Conventions, including the right to study and receive appropriate medical care. It is paradoxical that we sometimes felt that we were the ones who were protecting the ICRC delegates and not vice versa. Their silence rendered them weak in the eyes of our jailers, while we wanted them to be accorded respect as persons of note.

The ICRC should therefore establish a mechanism for fruitful cooperation with the international media in order to expose all violations of the Geneva Conventions that degrade human dignity. Although we certainly applaud the Red Cross’s success in gaining access to Guantanamo, at a time when leading personalities are loudly advocating for democracy and human rights, it is no longer acceptable to remain silent about Guantanamo’s very existence, let alone what is happening inside its walls.

Print PDF

OTTAWA, Canada — Omar Khadr is appealing his conviction for killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, but Canadian officials say that an overturn will not automatically guarantee his freedom.

Canadian-born Omar Khadr, now 26, plans to appeal his war crimes convictions for the murder of U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer in Afghanistan in 2002. (Photo Courtesy of Sun News)

Khadr, now 26, spent 10 years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay following his arrest in Afghanistan as a 15-year-old in 2002.  In 2010, he confessed to five war crimes before a military tribunal, including the murder of U.S. Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, an army medic, during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

Last September, Khadr was repatriated in Canada to a high-security prison as part of a plea deal that included an eight-year sentence and a waiver of his right to appeal.

But Khadr and his attorneys say that the court that convicted him had no jurisdiction to do so, and they want his terror convictions overturned.

“You can’t make a crime a crime retroactively,” lawyer David Frakt told the Global News.  Frakt, who has represented prominent Guantanamo detainees in the past, believes Khadr has good odds that two of his convictions will be overturned.

But reversing the murder conviction in violation of the law of war might stand no chance.  When Khadr pled guilty, the agreement outlined his killing Sgt. Speer.  To overturn that, Khadr’s attorneys would have to argue that the entire plea deal is invalid, as well as everything that resulted from it.

“It’s all about keeping Omar’s options in a difficult political climate,” Khadr’s Canadian lawyer, Dennis Edney, told the Global News.  “If successful, Omar Khadr will finally be free and able to put to rest our government’s descriptors of him as a ware criminal and a terrorist.  This is a common misconception that needs to be corrected.”

Canadian authorities insist, however, that even if Khadr’s convictions are overturned in the United States, the Parole Board of Canada will decide what ultimately happens to him.

“Omar Khadr is a convicted terrorist,” said Julie Carmichael, an aide to Canadian Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, in a statement emailed to the Globe and Mail.  “He pleaded guilty to the murder of Christopher Speer, an American Army medic.  Decisions related to his future will be made by the Parole Board of Canada.”

Since being transferred to Canada from Guantanamo last fall, Khadr has been held at Millhaven Institution, a maximum-security prison in Bath, Ontario.  He will be eligible for a parole hearing this summer.  At least one Canadian member of parliament is upset by the appeal.

“While this individual attempts to take back his own words and recant his guilty plea, he is simply re-victimizing the family of Sgt. Speer,” Toronto Member of Parliament Roxanne James told the Commons on Monday.

The appeal, which Khadr’s American lawyer, Sam Morrison, said would be filed “as soon as possible,” will be heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“[U]ltimately it can go to the Supreme Court,” legal expert Jeffrey Addicott told Sun News.  Addicott, who has advised the U.S. government on Guantanamo-related cases, is director of the Center for Terrorism Law in San Antonio, Texas.

“[W]e’re talking a period of years before anything will be resolved one way or the other,” he added, saying that Khadr’s appeal is unlikely to succeed.  “In my opinion, this appeal is dead on arrival.  He didn’t have the standing to engage in combat.  Therefore, if you kill another person, it’s murder.”

For further information, please see:

Global News — Omar Khadr May Win Appeal, But No Ticket Out of Prison — 30 April 2013

Sun News — Khadr ‘Re-Victimizing’ Murdered Medic’s Family, Says Tory MP — 29 April 2013

AFP — Canadian-Born Guantanamo Convict Plans Appeal: Report — 28 April 2013

Globe and Mail — Omar Khadr’s Freedom in Ottawa’s Hands Despite U.S. Appeal, Safety Minister Insists — 28 April 2013

Print PDF

WASHINGTON, United States — China blasted the human rights record of the United States this week, blaming the U.S. military for infringing on rights on other countries around the world.

In what many believe to be a retaliatory report released Sunday, China bashed the U.S. human rights record as a “double standard.”

The criticisms, released Sunday in a report in China’s state news agency Xinhua, accused the United States of ignoring human rights abuses and employing a “double standards.”

“The lives and personal security of the United States citizens, who were haunted by serious violent crimes were not duly protected,” the report said.  In particular, it emphasized the alleged degradation of women’s rights as reflected in rising numbers of domestic violence reports in 2012.

Analysts called the critical review of U.S. human rights a retaliation by Beijing to last week’s report by the U.S. State Department on human rights practices in countries around the world for 2012, decrying the Chinese government.  Human rights have long been a contentious topic between the two countries.

“The U.S. has been using the human rights issue as a tool to bash other countries, which will affect the development of the human rights around the world,” said Chang Jian in an interview with People’s Daily Online.  Jian is the executive deputy director of the Center for Human Rights Studies at Nankai University in Tianjin.

The Chinese accuse the U.S. reports as being negative toward other countries’ human rights situations, making them far from objective.

“Religious discrimination is also rapidly on the rise, with an increase in insults and attacks against Muslims,” the Chinese report added about the U.S. record.

The Chinese report also cited U.S. gun violence as an example of human rights violations, calling it a serious threat to the safety of American citizens.  The claims also attacked the U.S. political process.

“American citizens do not enjoy a genuinely equal right to vote,” the report said.  It cited a smaller turnout for last year’s presidential election and a voting rate of 57.5 percent.

China’s authoritarian government maintains tight controls over political activity, as well as religion and free speech, all of which are restrictions that the U.S. government considers to be human rights violations.

The annual U.S. global report on human rights said China recently imposed new requirements for potential government opposition groups to register with the government.  It also accused China of trying to strengthen efforts to silence and intimidate political activists and public interest lawyers.  The goal, the U.S. report said, was to prevent any public outcry of independent opinions.

For further information, please see:

China Daily USA — US ‘Turns a Blind Eye to Human Rights’ — 22 April 2013

Press TV — China Criticizes US Human Rights Record — 22 April 2013

RT — Beijing Slams US ‘Woeful Record of Human Rights’ — 22 April 2013

Yahoo! News — China Criticizes US for Its Human Rights Record — 21 April 2013

Print PDF

HAVANA, Cuba - The prisoners of Guantanamo Bay live in a legal quagmire. Deemed either too dangerous to be freed, or pushed under the rug, hoped to be forgotten by the United States legislature, executive and judicial branches that have kept them there. Due to their status as non-Americans, in a territory not of the United States, they are forbidden from exercising many legal remedies that the United States Constitution upholds, habeas corpus, article 3 courts. Instead they took what they felt was their only available remedy, a hunger strike.

Guantanamo Bay prison camp, also known as GITMO, where hundreds of detainees are being held without cause.(Photo courtesy of NPR)

Over the weekend detainees clashed with the prison guards with makeshift weapons: batons, broomsticks and water bottles crafted together with duct tape. Beyond the mere hopelessness many feel, there have been a number of setbacks for the detained. Revelations that a figure was secretly monitoring and censoring the pretrial hearings of men, and the discovery of a listening device in the client-attorney conference room drove many to begin their three-month hunger strike. After the clashes, detainees were separated and each placed into solitary confinement.

Unwilling to allow the detainees to slowly kill themselves, guards were forced to subdue them, and insert feeding tubes up their noses in order to stave off starvation. One inmate describes the feeling as “painful,” and claimed that “As it was thrust in, it made me feel like throwing up. I wanted to vomit, but I couldn’t. There was agony in my chest, throat and stomach. I had never experienced such pain before. I would not wish this cruel punishment upon anyone.”

The hunger strikes and physical defection are just the latest from the Guantanamo Bay detainees who are seeking international recognition of their plight. Despite an executive order by President Barack Obama, the prison remains open due to funding plights. After Congress passed legislation that effectively eliminated any way for detainees transfer into the sovereign United States the camp remains in limbo, surviving on an ever shrinking pool of funding leading to cuts in resources.

Attorneys for the detained have stated that it is unclear how the hunger strike will eventually end. The strike originally arose out of the detainee’s sense of hopelessness that the administration will ever be closed. But until either another country agrees to take the prisoners, or Congress alters legislation, it is unclear how the detainee’s story will end.

For more information, please see:

Truth-Out – Gitmo Trial Ethics Breaches Called Possible Obama Plan To Close Prison – 15 April 2013

Policy Mic – Guantanamo Hunger Strike: Abused Prisoners Riot At GITMO – 15 April 2013

Wired – It’s Forced Feeding Vs. Scotch-Tape Batons As Gitmo Detainees Continue Hunger Strike – 15 April 2013

The New York Times – Gitmo Is Killing Me - 14 April 2013

Print PDF

NEW YORK, United States – On Tuesday, the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly voted 154 to 3 (with 23 abstentions) to adopt a landmark treaty controlling trade in conventional arms.

The treaty will control trade believed to be worth $70 billion (£46 billion) annually, and according to Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International, “In the next four years, the annual trade in conventional weapons, ammunition and components and parts will exceed $100 billion. But today, states have put human beings and their security first.” (Photo Courtesy of the New York Times)

The treaty, seven years in the making, places prohibitions on exports of conventional weapons in violation of arms embargoes, or which the exporting state assesses could be used for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, organized crimes, or terrorism.  States must also act to prevent conventional weapons from reaching the black market.

Anna Macdonald, head of Oxfam’s campaign on arms control, described the treaty as “for the millions of people whose lives have fallen apart because of armed violence every day, from Guatemala to Kenya, Jamaica, Albania and a whole range of other countries.”

As the first major arms accord since the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the new regulations will cover exports of small arms and light weapons, as well as tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, military jets, attack helicopters, warships, battleships, missiles, and missile launchers.  The same type of international controls will be applied as currently govern nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  The treaty does not place prohibitions on imports, however.

Furthermore, the agreement has no power over the domestic weapons trade in any country.  It will require national regulations controlling the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers, however.

“The world has been waiting a long time for this historic treaty. After long years of campaigning, most states have agreed to adopt a global treaty that can prevent the flow of arms into countries where they will be used to commit atrocities,” said Brian Wood, Head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International, from the UN conference in New York.

Unfortunately, the arms treaty may lack teeth.  While it will be legally binding on those countries that ratify it, the treaty does not provide for an enforcement agency.  This leaves each signatory responsible for self-enforcement through the passage of new laws.  Supporters argue, however, that the stigma of breaking international law will provide a sufficient deterrent to illegal arms trades.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was asked on behalf of nations backing the treaty to put it to a vote in the General Assembly on Tuesday.

Several major arms nations signed the treaty, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany.  Several emerging weapon trading countries also signed such as South Africa and Brazil.  African countries showed particularly strong support, with many of their governments emphasizing that in the long run, the treaty would curb arms sales that had fueled many conflicts on the continent.

Three members of the U.N. voted in opposition: Syria, Iran, and North Korea.  Iran and North Korea are under arms embargoes, while Syria’s government, fighting a two-year civil war, depends upon arms from Russia and Iran.  Syria argued that a draft of the treaty failed to refer to the arming of “non-state terrorist groups”.  Iran claimed the treaty was filled “loopholes” and ignored the “legitimate demand” to prohibit the transfer of arms to those who committed aggression, while North Korea purported it was unbalanced, saying the treaty would allow exporters to deny arms to importers that have a right to legitimate self-defense.

The dissent of the three prevented a consensus last week at a U.N. treaty-drafting conference, which forced a vote by the General Assembly on Tuesday.

“Despite Iran, North Korea and Syria’s deeply cynical attempt to stymie it, the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations have shown resounding support for this lifesaving treaty with human rights protection at its core,” said Brian Wood.

Abstaining were some of the world’s largest exporters: Russia and China.  The former cited concerns about ambiguities, such as how the terms like genocide would be defined.

“Having the abstentions from two major arms exporters lessens the moral weight of the treaty,” said Nic Marsh, a proponent with the Peace Research Institute in Oslo.  However, he noted, “By abstaining they have left their options open.”

The United States and Russia remain the largest suppliers of international arms. (Photo Courtesy of BBC News)

Other abstainers included Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and other countries, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are supplying weapons to Syrian opposition groups.  India, a major arms importer, also abstained, citing concerns tis current trade contracts could be blocked.

In Washington, U.S. President Obama’s administration welcomed the treaty, which Secretary of State John Kerry described as “strong, effective, and implementable.”  He further stated the treaty would “strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade.”

Mexico released a statement on behalf of 98 U.N. members, declaring that “an effective implementation of this treaty will make a real difference for the people of the world.”

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “The world wanted this treaty and would not be thwarted by the few who sought to prevent the introduction of robust, effective and legally-binding controls on the international trade in weapons.”

However, the arms treaty almost did not come into fruition before the U.N.  Last year, treaty discussions fell apart when the United States, followed by Russia and China, backed out, claiming they needed more time to consider the issues.  For the U.S., 2012 was a critical presidential election year, and the Obama administration was under considerable domestic pressure from the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) led gun lobby.

Presently, the N.R.A. has vowed to prevent the ratification of the treaty by the Senate, claiming it will undermine domestic gun-ownership rights.  More than 50 senators have already indicated their opposition.  However, the U.N. asserts that the treaty will have no impact on domestic gun sale legislation.  Furthermore, as a concession to the United States, an earlier draft of the treaty was modified to remove a provision requiring states to record importation of ammunition and to prevent the ammunition from being diverted to other countries.

Countries will decide individually whether or not to sign and ratify the treaty.  It will become internationally effective 90 days after the 50th ratification, which may take two to three years.

“This is not a panacea, it is not going to solve all problems overnight but it is an important step. We have seen time and again that international treaties affect the behavior even of those states who fail to sign up,” Anna Macdonald said.

For further information, please see:

Al Jazeera – UN Adopts Landmark Arms Treaty – 3 April 2013

Amnesty International – UN Puts Human Rights at Heart of Historic Arms Trade Treaty – 2 April 2013

BBC News – UN Passes Historic Arms Trade Treaty by Huge Majority – 28 April 2013

The Guardian – UN Approves First Global Arms Treaty – 2 April 2013

The New York Times – U.N. Treaty Is First Aimed at Regulating Global Arms Sales – 2 April 2013

Returns – U.N. Overwhelmingly Approves Global Arms Trade Treaty – 2 April 2013

The Washington Post – U.N. Approves Global Arms Treaty – 2 April 2013

Print PDF

WASHINGTON, United States — British troops spoke out on Monday about human rights abuses of Iraqi detainees by American forces at a secret US detention facility in Baghdad.

British troops claim they witnessed human rights abuses of Iraqi detainees carried out by American soldiers at a secret US facility in Baghdad. (Photo Courtesy of Al Arabiya)

The whistleblowers, who included soldiers and airmen from the Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps, claimed they witnessed various forms of torture after the US-led invasion in 2003.

“I saw one man having his prosthetic leg being pulled off him, and being beaten about the head with it before he was thrown onto the truck,” one British military officer was quoted as saying in The Guardian.

Other allegations included claims that Americans at Camp Nama—a secret center at Baghdad International Airport—gave Iraqi prisoners electric shocks, brutally beat Iraqi prisoners, and locked them in dog-like kennels.  The prisoners reportedly were routinely hooded before allegedly being subjected to these tortures and were interrogated in sound-proof shipping containers.

“The prisoners were taken into a hangar to be bagged and tagged, a bag put over their heads and their hands plasticuffed behind their backs,” another soldier told The Guardian.  “Everyone’s seen the Abu Ghraib pictures, but I’ve seen it with my own eyes.”

Indeed, these new allegations follow the scandal over abuses at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison, as well as the beating death of civilian Baha Mousa by British forces in 2003.

The Guardian’s investigation highlighted that the joint American-British special forces unit, called Task Force 121, was responsible for detaining Iraqis believed to have information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.  No such weapons were ever discovered in Iraq.

“The methods [of abuse] were so brutal that they drew condemnation not only from a U.S. human rights body, but from a special investigator reporting to the Pentagon,” The Guardian reported.

When confronted about the new allegations, Geoff Hoon, Britain’s defense secretary at the time, said he had no knowledge of the secret US camp or anything that may have transpired there.

“I’ve never heard of the place,” Hoon reportedly said when asked about the involvement of British troops in providing support services to help detain inmates at Camp Nama.

Although there is no indication that British troops helped carry out any of the alleged abuses at the camp, Britain’s Ministry of Defense refused to say whether it was aware of concerns about human rights abuses there.

A California-based investigative organization, called Project Censored, estimates that more than one million Iraqis were killed as a result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country.

For further information, please see:

Al Arabiya — Baghdad’s Camp Nama: Brutal Prison Torture During Iraq War Revealed — 2 April 2013

Kuwait News Agency — Human Rights Abuses at Detention Centre — 2 April 2013

Press TV — UK Troops Reveal Torture at Secret US-Run Prison in Iraq — 2 April 2013

Daily Mail — British Forces ‘Witnessed Electric Shocks, Beatings and Dog Kennel Torture of Iraqi Prisoners in Secret US Prison in Baghdad’ — 1 April 2013

The Guardian — Camp Nama: Baghdad’s Secret Torture Facility — 1 April 2013

Print PDF

WASHINGTON, United States — Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is expected to sign a bill next month that would end the use of the death penalty.

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, a supporter of repealing the death penalty, is expected to sign a bill abolishing capital punishment into law next month after lawmakers passed the bill this week. (Photo Courtesy of the Washington Post)

On Friday, the state’s House of Delegates voted 82-to-56 to repeal capital punishment after the state’s Senate voted 27-to-20 last week for a repeal.  Now the bill only needs O’Malley’s signature, which his aides say should come when the legislature session ends in April.

If signed, the law would take effect on October 1, and all current inmates on death row would have their sentences replaced by life terms without parole.  Maryland would become the eighteenth state in the country to abolish the death penalty, marking an end to the state’s 375-year history of capital punishment.

“With [the] vote to repeal the death penalty in Maryland, the General Assembly is eliminating a policy that is proven not to work,” O’Malley said during a press conference after the legislative approval.  The governor pushed the effort to repeal, making it one of his top goals for this year’s legislative session.

Maryland has used the death penalty only five times since it was reinstated during the 1970s, the last time happening in 2005.  In 2006, Maryland’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that a legislative committee had not properly approved the state’s lethal injection protocols, effectively putting capital punishment on hold.

Supporters of the repeal applauded state lawmakers for eliminating a measure they called costly and counterproductive.  Delegate Heather Mizeur said the decision about who lives or dies, even the worst criminal offenders, is not one anybody should make.

“By willfully taking a human life, the state enacts the worst of human impulses,” she said.

“Maryland’s rejection of the death penalty adds to the national momentum against this cruel and increasing unusual punishment,” said Antonia Ginatta, an advocacy director with the nonprofit Human Rights Watch.

Opponents, however, criticized the legislature and called on O’Malley to not sign the bill.  They said the law would put officers’ safety in jeopardy.  Most significantly, though, opponents said capital punishment was a necessary measure in criminal justice.

“The death penalty is not a deterrent; it is justice,” said Delegate C. T. Wilson, a former prosecutor and U.S. Army veteran.

Even if O’Malley signs the bill into law, the death penalty might not be entirely forgotten yet.  According to the Baltimore Sun, those who support the death penalty could petition it to be on the 2014 ballot, leaving the issue up to voters.  If they succeed, the law would be put on hold pending the results of the election.

State Sen. Thomas Miller, the Senate President, predicted that kind of challenge happening.  Even though no group has publicly supported the idea yet, the Sun reported that recent polls indicate a narrow majority of voters still supports the death penalty.

For further information, please see:

The Baltimore Sun — House Votes to Repeal Death Penalty — 15 March 2013

The Capital Gazette — Maryland General Assembly Votes to Abolish the Death Penalty — 15 March 2013

Human Rights Watch — US: Maryland Expected to Abolish Death Penalty — 15 March 2013

The Washington Post — Md. Assembly Votes to Repeal Death Penalty — 15 March 2013

Print PDF

WASHINGTON, United States — The family of a respected gay African American candidate for Mayor in Clarksdale, Miss., said this week that they view his death as a hate crime.

The family of Marco McMillian, a gay, African American candidate for mayor in a small Mississippi town, wants authorities to investigate his murder as a hate crime. (Photo Courtesy of Clarion Ledger)

The body of Marco McMillian, 33, was beaten, dragged, and burned, a family member said on Monday.  Carter Womack, McMillian’s godfather, said the coroner told relatives that someone dragged McMillian’s body under a fence and left it near the Mississippi River last week.

Coahoma County Coroner Scotty Meredith declined to comment.  But the Associated Press reported that a person with direct knowledge of the investigation confirmed that McMillian had bruises and burns on at least one area of his body.

“We remember Marco as a bold and passionate public servant, whose faith informed every aspect of his life,” McMillian’s campaign said in a statement to the media.

McMillian was reportedly the first openly gay man to become a viable candidate for public office in Mississippi.  The Coahoma County Sheriff’s Department, however, said it would not investigate McMillian’s death as a hate crime, according to spokesperson Will Rooker.

“There’s a lot of people upset about [McMillian’s murder],” said Dennis Thomas, who works at Abe’s Barbeque.  “Why would somebody want to do something like that to somebody of that caliber?  He was a highly respected person in town.”

Investigators have arrested 22-year-old Lawrence Reed of Shelby in McMillian’s death.  Authorities arrested Reed when he crashed McMillian’s SUV into another car near the Coahoma border with Tallahatchie County.  McMillian was not in the car, and his body was ultimately discovered about 30 miles away from the crash, in the woods near the Mississippi-Yazoo levee.

Sources told WPTY, the ABC News affiliate in Memphis, that McMillian was strangled, but authorities would not confirm that.  The family did not address that issue in its public statement.

The news station also reported that Reed’s sister claimed that Reed did not know McMillian was gay.  Instead, she said McMillian may have made sexual advances toward Reed in the car.

“[McMillian] was very concerned about his safety,” Womack said.  “People had tried to talk him out of the race.”

According to his website, McMillian graduated magna cum laude from Jackson State University and earned a master’s degree from St. Mary’s University in philanthropy and development.  He also was a CEO of a nonprofit consulting firm called MWM & Associates.

The Mississippi Bureau of Investigation is helping the sheriff’s department with the investigation.

For further information, please see:

Clarion Ledger — Family: Marco McMillian’s Murder a Hate Crime — 4 March 2013

Huffington Post — Marco McMillian Beaten, Burned, Family of slain Gay Mississippi Mayoral Candidate Says — 3 March 2013

Time — Man Charged in Mississippi Mayoral Candidate’s Death — 1 March 2013

ABC News — 22-Year-Old Charged with Murder Miss. Politician — 28 February 2013

CBS News — Man Charged in Slaying of Miss. Mayoral Candidate — 28 February 2013

Print PDF

WASHINGTON, United States — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit on Tuesday that challenged a federal law giving the government a broader ability to eavesdrop on international communications.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge on Tuesday to a federal wiretapping law that allows the government to eavesdrop on international calls and emails. (Photo Courtesy of RT)

In a 5-to-4 ruling split along ideological lines, the Court shielded a government anti-terrorism program from ever facing a constitutionality challenge, at least according to court observers.

“[The decision] insulates the statute from meaningful judicial review and leaves Americans’ privacy rights to the mercy of the political branches,” said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Jameel Jaffer in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.

The law is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA.  Congress amended FISA in 2008, giving the National Security Agency broader authority to secretly monitor emails and phone calls of any U.S. citizens, so long as they are suspected of communicating with anyone located outside of the United States.  The amended provision was set to expire at the end of last year, but Congress renewed and reauthorized the bill for another five years.

In the now-rejected case, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, journalists, lawyers, and human rights advocates challenged the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that they might be subject to future wiretapping.  But Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court’s majority, held that such fear was too speculative for the case to proceed.  In other words, they could not show that the law harmed them, so they lacked standing to sue.

“They cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of nonimminent harms,” Alito wrote.  The plaintiffs claimed that the reason they had not been harmed yet was because they had taken steps to avoid the surveillance — for example, traveling out of their ways to meet sources and clients in person rather than sending emails or talking on the phone.

Alito reasoned that the plaintiffs had the burden of showing they had standing.  To do that, the Justice wrote, they must point “to specific facts.”  The government had no burden to disprove the plaintiffs’ standing.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the Court’s dissenting opinion.  He agreed with the plaintiffs that, if they had not shown harm already, it was only a matter of time.

“Indeed, it is as likely to take place as are most future events that common-sense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen,” Breyer wrote.

To the dissent, the fact the plaintiffs had to alter their work practices to avoid having confidential calls overheard indicated some harm already.

“In my view, this harm is not ‘speculative,’” Breyer added.

For further information, please see:

Supreme Court of the United States — Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA — 26 February 2013

GlobalPost — Supreme Court Blocks Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuit — 26 February 2013

Los Angeles Times — Supreme Court Rules out Secret Surveillance Lawsuits — 26 February 2013

The New York Times — Justices Turn Back Challenge to Broader U.S. Eavesdropping — 26 February 2013

RT — US Supreme Court Refuses to Let Americans Challenge FISA Eavesdropping Law — 26 February 2013

Print PDF