Impunity Watch: Special Features

A message to Congress from National Security and Terrorism Experts:

2009-07-08T08:06:55-04:00

Blocking the government from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.

is unnecessary and harmful to our national security.

We do not presume in this statement to address all of the complex issues surrounding the detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay.

However, the undersigned national security and counterterrorism experts agree on the following:

Closing Guantanamo will be a net benefit to our counterterrorism efforts.
This will likely require bringing some terrorists to the U.S.for trial, detention, or, if appropriate, resettlement.
America should not be afraid to bring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.

Transferring some Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.will aid the fight against terrorists.

For millions of people around the world, Guantanamo represents the excesses of post-9/11 policies and reportedly has been a recruitment boon for violent extremists. Closing Guantanamo will eliminate an ongoing source of propaganda for terrorists’ efforts to generate sympathy and recruit supporters.

America has a long history of bringing terrorists to justice in our courts. Some Guantanamo detainees can be prosecuted for crimes in US courts, undermining the terrorists’ myth that they are “holy warriors” and revealing them instead as criminal thugs. De-glamorizing terrorists in this way undermines their recruitment efforts.

Nearly 60 detainees were already cleared for release by the last Administration, some as long as six years ago, but remain in Guantanamoawaiting agreement from any nation to admit them. Countries have indicated an unwillingness to resettle non-threatening detainees if the U.S.blocks any from coming here. Finding ways to resettle some detainees in the U.S. is essential to closing Guantanamo.

Americais capable of holding terrorists securely in U.S.prisons.

As a recent Justice Department fact sheet noted, there are currently 216 inmates in federal prisons for crimes related to international terrorism, including the masterminds of the first World Trade Center bombing, the terrorist who plotted to bring down multiple US airliners, and terrorists who planned to blow up bridges and tunnels in New York. No terrorist has ever escaped from a U.S.prison.

America is strong enough to bring terrorists to justice, detain those who should be detained, and release those who should not be detained.

Congress, trust the strength of our system and steadfastness of the American people.

Signed,

William Banks is the Director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism and the Laura J. & L. Douglas Meredith Professor of Law at Syracuse University College of Law.

M.E. (Spike) Bowman spent 40 years in national security and intelligence, including serving as Senior Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and as Deputy Director of the National Counterintelligence Center.

Frank Cilluffo served as Special Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and is now the Director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. Prior to Mr. Cilluffo’s White House appointment, he spent eight years in senior policy positions with the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Major General Albert C. Harvey chairs the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security and is a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (Ret.). He is a Partner at Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell in Memphis, TN.

Robert Hutchings was Chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council. Currently, he is Diplomat in Residence at Princeton University, where he has also served as Assistant Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Brigadier General David R. Irvine was Deputy Commander for the 96th Regional Readiness Command and spent 18 years on the faculty of the Sixth U.S. Army Intelligence School. He served 4 terms as a Republican legislator in the Utah House of Representatives and is now practicing law in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Michael Jacobson served as Counsel on the 9/11 Commission and Senior Advisor in the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the Department of the Treasury. He is now Senior Fellow, Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Dr. David Kay was the head of the Iraq Survey Group. Prior to that, he served as a weapons inspector in Iraq and as the United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector from 1991 to 1992.

Brigadier General Mark T. Kimmit served as Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs and Deputy Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy. He served for over 30 years as an officer in the United States Army, including as Deputy Director of Strategy and Plans at U.S. Central Command and Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Military Spokesman for Coalition Forces in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Matthew Levitt was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Treasury Department and is now Director of Stein program on counterterrorism and intelligence at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

John MacGaffin held senior positions with the CIA and FBI and has been involved in matters of intelligence collection, law enforcement, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and security for over 40 years. Currently, he is a senior advisor to the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ Transnational Threats Project.

Daniel Marcus was General Counsel of the 9/11 Commission and Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice. He now teaches National Security Law at American University Washington College of Law.

Ronald Anthony Marks served as a senior CIA official and as Intelligence Counsel for U.S.

Senators Bob Dole and Trent Lott. Mr. Marks is currently the Senior Vice President and Director of Washington, D.C. operations for Oxford Analytica

Paul Pillar served as Deputy Chief of the Director of Central Intelligence’s Counterterrorist Center and as National Intelligence Officer for the Near East.

Suzanne E. Spaulding was Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorism, Assistant General Counsel at CIA, Minority Staff Director of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and General Counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. She is now a Principal with Bingham Consulting Group.

Jonathan Winer served as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement and as counsel to Senator John Kerry.

Philip Zelikow served as Counselor of the Department of State, executive director of the 9/11 Commission, on President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and as co-director of Harvard’s Intelligence and Policy Project. He is currently White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

PRESS RELEASE: IHRDC Condemns Iran's Abuse of Human Rights

2009-06-25T03:25:56-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 24, 2009

NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT - The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC) condemns the Iranian regime’s abuse of the human rights of its citizens for merely exercising their fundamental rights to free expression and association.

The Center has investigated and reported on human rights abuses committed by the Iranian government over the course of the last 30 years. These have included reports on the regime’s habit of arresting, torturing and executing Iranian citizens, as well as its brutal suppression of expression. Today, we are watching unfold another chapter of abuse by the regime.

Since the announcement that the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejd won the presidential election on June 12, the Iranian government has brutally quelled any expression of dissent. It has attacked demonstrators for exercising their human right of free expression; while the total numbers are unknown, hundreds have been arrested and killed. Hundreds of people have been arrested in their homes and offices. Countless people have simply disappeared.

The regime has implemented measures effectively shutting and slowing down electronic communications. Websites have been blocked, the Internet has slowed to a crawl, and cell phones work only intermittently. In short, information out of Iran in scattered and not always reliable.

The perpetrators of these abuses of human rights must be held accountable. To that end, the Center is documenting the abuses – in writings, photos, videos and interviews of witnesses. It encourages anyone with such evidence to contact the Center. Evidence may also be sent electronically through the Center’s secure encrypted system that can be found on its website, http://www.iranhrdc.org/.

IHRDC is a nonprofit organization based in New Haven, Connecticut that was founded in 2004 by a group of human rights scholars, activists, and historians. Its staff of human rights lawyers and researchers produce comprehensive and detailed reports on the human rights situation in Iran since the 1979 revolution. The Center’s goal is to encourage an informed dialogue among scholars and the general public in both Iran and abroad. The human rights reports and an archive of documents are available to the public for research and educational purposes on the Center’s website

For further information, please contact:

Renee C. Redman, IHRDC Executive Director, (203) 772-2218 Ext. 215

rredman@iranhrdc.org

New Report from Aegis Trust Details War Crimes Suspects Evading Justice Due to Legal Loopholes

2009-06-17T08:51:30-04:00

On June 16, 2009, the Aegis Trust published a new report, entitled Suspected War Criminals and Genocidaires in the UK: Proposals to Strengthen our Laws. The report describes loopholes in existing UK law that has resulted in war crimes suspects evading justice.

To see the entire report, visit http://www.aegistrust.org/images/PDFs/Suspected%20War%20Criminals%20and%20Genocidaires%20in%20the%20UK.pdf

PRESS RELEASE: Iran's Mistreatment of Women's Rights Activists Must Stop

2009-06-12T11:14:40-04:00

June 12, 2009

USA, New Haven, CT -

Today is Election Day in Iran. But, it is also the anniversary of what the New York Times called the “first public display of dissent by women since the 1979 revolution.” On June 12, 2005, seventeen days before presidential elections, hundreds of women gathered publicly in Tehran chanting and demanding equality under the Islamic Republic’s laws. The protests were quickly broken up amid allegations of clubbing and police detentions.

Today also marks the third year anniversary of Aliyeh Eghdam Doust’s arrest for her participation in a women’s rights protest in Haft-e Tir Square in Tehran. Other women were also arrested during the protest; however she was the first to have her sentence implemented. She was imprisoned in January 2009.

Arrests of women’s rights activists have escalated this year. In March, twelve women’s rights activists were arrested while meeting for a New Years visit of families of political prisoners. On May 7 and 8, two members of the One Million Signature Campaign—a campaign to end discrimination against women in Iran—were arrested after they investigated an honor killing.

Women continue to face legal and political discrimination in Iran. For example, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man in court, and women have unequal divorce and inheritance rights. In the 2005 election, like the one taking place today, Iran’s Council of Guardians rejected all the women who applied for candidacy.

The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC) calls for the release of all women’s rights activists in Iran who have been detained for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, and implores the Iranian government to repeal laws that discriminate against women.

The IHRDC is a nonprofit organization based in New Haven, Connecticut that was founded in 2004 by a group of human rights scholars, activists, and historians. Its staff of human rights lawyers and researchers produce comprehensive and detailed reports on the human rights situation in Iran since the 1979 revolution. The Center’s goal is to encourage an informed dialogue among scholars and the general public in both Iran and abroad. The human rights reports and an archive of documents are available to the public for research and educational purposes at www.iranhrdc.org.

Contact: Renee C. Redman, IHRDC Executive Director, (203) 772-2218 Ext. 215 rredman@iranhrdc.org

At Risk in Sri Lanka's War

2009-04-27T22:19:24-04:00

By James Traub

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

At this moment, at least 60,000 civilians trapped in a tiny strip of land along the northern coast of Sri Lanka are being deployed as human shields by the insurgent force known as the Tamil Tigers -- while artillery shells fired by the Sri Lankan army land indiscriminately among rebels and noncombatants alike. The United Nations asserts that at least 4,500 civilians have been killed since January as the government has sought to decisively end a bloody rebellion that has lasted for a quarter-century. The army is said to be preparing a final assault that, according to U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes, could produce a "bloodbath." Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has spoken of "tens of thousands" of lives at risk. Yet the conflict has barely been reported, and the international community has barely stirred.

The fighting threatens to produce exactly the kind of cataclysm that states vowed to prevent when they adopted "the responsibility to protect" at the 2005 U.N. World Summit. This doctrine stipulates that states have a responsibility to protect peoples within their borders from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. When states are found to be "manifestly failing" to protect citizens from such mass violence, that responsibility shifts to the international community, acting through the United Nations. At the core of this norm is the obligation to act preventively rather than waiting until atrocities have occurred, as has happened too often.

Why, then, the silence? The most important answer is simple: "the war on terror." Government officials have artfully, and relentlessly, appropriated the language of the war on terror to characterize their fight against the rebels, formally known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The group is one of the world's most ruthless insurgencies: The Tigers perfected the technique of suicide bombing long before Islamist jihadists did so (using it in 1991 to kill Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, among many others) and operate almost as a suicide cult. The United States includes the LTTE on its list of foreign terrorist organizations. Any government that failed to aggressively confront such a threat would be guilty of failing to protect its citizens.

When we think of mass atrocities, we think of regimes -- or their proxies -- massacring defenseless citizens, as in Rwanda or Darfur. The situation in Sri Lanka is more complicated, morally and legally: This is a situation of armed conflict in which both parties are acting in ways that pose a grave risk to innocent civilians. The party that is perhaps more culpable -- the rebels -- answers to no one. And the Sri Lankan government has been able to operate with virtual impunity because it is fighting "terrorists." Even Western states that usually condemn violations of international law have given the situation a wide berth.

But states engaged in combat do not have the right to perpetrate atrocities; nor does the cruelty of armed opponents absolve states of their responsibility to protect citizens. And there is no one better equipped than we in the United States to recognize the cynicism behind the language of the war on terror, which allows states to do as they wish in the name of defeating supreme evil. Over the past quarter-century, Sri Lanka has been accused of fighting the Tigers with a policy of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and arbitrary detentions. In the current battle, the army has engaged in intense shelling and aerial bombardment of the combat area and an adjacent "no-fire zone," set aside for civilians.

Colombo is in no mood for lectures. But we cannot accommodate its ambition to crush the LTTE if doing so could lead to massive loss of life among civilians. Quiet diplomacy by U.S. officials and by Ban and others last week persuaded the government to observe a two-day pause in the fighting, but the Tigers refused to let civilians leave, the government continued to prevent humanitarian groups from entering the conflict zone, and the battle resumed with equal or greater ferocity.

There is widespread agreement about what must be done: The LTTE must allow civilians who wish to leave to do so; the government must agree to observe a more extensive cease-fire, guarantee the safety of those civilians and treat them according to international standards governing internally displaced peoples. The Tigers may refuse to release civilians, whom they view as the only thing standing between themselves and annihilation. But the army must not use this as a pretext to resume hostilities: The rebels no longer represent a threat to the state, and most analysts believe that a Gotterdammerung on the beach would spawn a new insurgency.

The time for behind-the-scenes diplomacy has passed. The Security Council must take up the issue -- a move Colombo has fiercely resisted -- and remind both sides that there will be consequences, in the form of prosecutions for crimes against humanity. The council should also demand that the government grant humanitarian groups and the media access to the conflict zone, dispatch a special envoy to the region, and consider imposing sanctions. Ultimately, it must help facilitate a durable political solution to the fighting. In 2005, the United States, along with the rest of the world, accepted the obligation to protect civilians at risk of atrocities. The moment has come to redeem that pledge.

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and director of policy for the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.

This article, which was reprinted with permission, can be found here.

WATCH: 2009 Impunity Watch Annual Symposium, "American Warlord"

2009-04-12T16:07:44-04:00

This years Impunity Watch Symposium is now available for public viewing. This year's topic was the first ever application of the United States torture statute on Chucky Taylor, the son of former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor. The discussion featured Johnny Dwyer of Rolling Stone Magazine, who wrote an article for that magazine about Chucky Taylor, Professor Evan Criddle of the Syracuse University College of Law and Doctor Nancy Snow of the Newhouse School.

The full talk can be seen here.

American University's Washington College of Law Released International Criminal Court Report

2009-04-08T16:03:02-04:00

The War Crimes Research Office at American University's Washington College of Law has just released its sixth International Criminal Court report, entitled Victim Participation at the Case Stage of Proceedings. (title in italics)

To see the full report, visit http://www.wcl.american.edu/warcrimes/icc/documents/WCROReportonVictimParticipationattheCaseStageofProceedingsFebruary2009.pdf?rd=1

Impunity Watch Annual Symposium: 'American Warlord' the Prosecution of Chucky Taylor

2009-03-24T23:05:43-04:00

Impunity Watch is hosting a symposium to discuss the legal and political ramifications of Chucky Taylor's war crimes prosecution. The discussion will feature Johnny Dwyer of Rolling Stone Magazine, who wrote an article for that magazine about Chucky Taylor, Professor Evan Criddle of the Syracuse University College of Law and Doctor Nancy Snow of the Newhouse School. The symposium will be held on April 3rd from 12:00 pm until 2:00 pm at the Syracuse University College of Law in room 201. This event is free and open to the public. We encourage everyone who is able to come and attend.

HRW Reports on Efforts to End Dress Code Arrests

2009-03-12T11:31:52-04:00

Human Rights Watch posted the following story about a Guyana law requiring people to wear gender appropriate clothes on March 5, 2009.

(Georgetown) - Guyana should halt arrests and police abuse of transgender people and repeal a repressive law that criminalizes wearing clothes considered appropriate only for the opposite sex, six human rights organizations said today in a letter to President Bharrat Jagdeo.

The letter was signed by the Caribbean Forum for Liberation of Genders and Sexualities (CARIFLAGS), Global Rights, Guyana Rainbow Foundation (Guybow), Human Rights Watch, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), and the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD). They called on the Guyanese authorities to drop the charges against seven people arrested under the law in February, 2009, and investigate allegations of abuse by the police.

"Police are using archaic laws to violate basic freedoms," said Scott Long director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. "This is a campaign meant to drive people off the streets simply because they dress or act in ways that transgress gender norms."

Between February 6 and 10, police in the Guyanese capital, Georgetown, detained at least eight people, some of them twice, charging seven of them under section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act Chapter 8:02. This criminalizes as a minor offense the "wearing of female attire by man; wearing of male attire by women."

Officers took the detainees to Brickdam police station. The detainees reported to SASOD Guyana, a local human rights organization working for the freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, that police refused to allow them to make a phone call or contact a lawyer, both basic rights under Guyanese law.

Police kept five of the men in solitary confinement until the day of the trial, contending that it was for their safety.

The first arrests took place on February 6, when plainclothes policemen detained three men in downtown Georgetown, near Stabroek Market. On February 7, the police detained five more. In both occasions acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson fined the detainees GY$7,500 (US$36) each. On February 10, the police detained four people; three of whom had been among those arrested on February 6 and 7.

In court, when handing down the sentence, Chief Magistrate Robertson told the detainees they were not women but men and exhorted them to "go to church and give their lives to Christ."

"The enforcement of laws repressing individuals' self-expression is against basic provisions of human rights," said Stefano Fabeni, program director of the LGBTI Initiative at Global Rights. "Police treatment during arrest and detention of the eight men shows serious breaches of Guyana's international human rights obligations."

The Summary Jurisdiction (Offenses) Act provides for adjudication of these cases without a jury. The act dates from colonial times. Other offenses under the same provision include: "exposing for sale cattle in improper part of town (iv); beating [a] mat in [a] public way in town (vii); cleansing cask, etc. in public way (xl); driving cattle without proper assistance (xv), etc."

Police use the law to target people born male who wear what police regard as female clothing. This violates the individual's privacy, freedom of expression, and personal dignity.

"It is outrageous in this day and age that human beings get arrested for cross-gender expression," said Vicky Sawyer, transgender representative for CARIFLAGS. "Transgender issues should be dealt with using international human rights standards, not police abuse."

As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Guyana has agreed to respect the absolute prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment set out in the treaty (Article 7). Article 14 of the same treaty affirms the right to counsel. The treaty also bars interference with the right to privacy (Article 17) and protects freedom of expression (Article 19). Guyana has the obligation to respect and ensure these rights, and to do so in a nondiscriminatory manner, as set forth in Article 2.

Guyana has several laws that criminalize relationships between people of the same sex. Section 351 of the Criminal Law (Offenses) Act punishes committing acts of "gross indecency" with a male person with a two-year prison sentence. Section 352 criminalizes any "attempt to commit unnatural offenses." This includes a 10-year prison sentence for any "male [that] indecently assaults any other male person." Finally Section 353 states that "Everyone who commits buggery, either with a human being or with any other living creature, shall be guilty of felony and be liable to imprisonment for life."

The original article can be found here.

ICC Issues Arrest Warrant Omar Hassan Al-Bashir

2009-03-04T21:29:33-05:00

Today, the International Criminal Court's Pre-Trial Chamber issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al-Bashir. This is the first time that the ICC has issued such a warrant for a sitting head of state. The office of the United Nations Secretary-General and the United Nations Association of the USA have issued statements regarding the decision.

For further information, please see press releases here and here.